The way you handle that is to point out that their kind of experience has led us to the mess we are in today. You turn Hillary and McCain's kind of experience into a bug.

By the way, does Hillary think McCain isn't going to use the line against her? He has decades more "experience." The argument isn't just fratricial it is suicidal.

Strictly speaking, everyone has a lifetime of experience, except possibly the not-yet-born.

And this is exactly why everyone is freaking out. Expect more and more of this.

Can we just be done with the Bush/Clinton families? Enough is enough.

I disagree. It's just hardball politics. She's just playing to win. Democrats need to get with the program, and stop yielding to their "Always play very nice" instincts. It's what generates missed opportunities and always makes Democrats speak in a less exciting way than their Republican rivals. Whoever runs against McCain will have to exercise both moderation and shrewdness. Hillary is showing that she's not going to miss opportunities to speak to people in a way that will communicate to the less-politically attuned/informed.

Why does everybody always count Barack's state legislature experience against Hillary's? How, in a race for the Presidency, does that even compare to living and working in the White House on very close terms with the president of the United States and all his advisors for 8 entire years? A state legislature politician is nothing like the chief executive of our entire country.

I think she's saying this to convey the idea that only she is going to be credible opposition to McCain's "experience." That is, her "experience" neutralizes his and the electorate can then go on to consider positions whereas Obama is already behind at that point.

There's nothing disgraceful about it. In the GE she can simply point out that his is a lifetime of experience as a Republican (wants more war, doesn't care about you, etc.), whereas as a Democrat, she would bring change (end the war, cares about you). Simple.

When I heard that line the first time, the phrase "lifetime of experience" also grated on my ear. Who doesn't have a "lifetime" of experience? I do. So does Barack Obama. So does Kevin Drum.

She's done résumé padding before, extolling her many, many years of experience, apparently going back to her college years. Maybe the point is that she's trying to raise her level of experience up to McCain's?

I have to say, I like the contrast between "experience" and "judgment," because Dick Cheney has more epxerience than all of them put together.

It seems to me that Hillary knows she can't win and that because McCain is her buddy, she stands a better chance of pushing her agenda through under his administration and then having some credibility for the next election.

I'm not sure it's a dumb move. Up to now McCain been working the Right, Hillary working the Left and Obama the Middle (moderate Repubs and Inds). It may be her intent to start working the middle now by remarking like this. Many have belittled her delegate gain yesterday but I think her strategy was to "shut the door" on Obama. She did that. There is a whole lot of politics left before this thing is decided, Stay tuned.

The Pop View,

Yeah, but Cheney wouldn't have the power he has but for the inexperience of Bush.

This might be why some Democrats think Hillary is a cult. McCain should not ever be considered experienced enough to become president by any rational American.

The only thing Sen. Clinton should say about McCain is he is more likely to destroy the world than any human being on earth.

Hillary needs to knock this crap off. It's disgraceful.

But look: it's a tough campaign. But that's all it is. Hillary Clinton is not destroying Barack Obama, blacks and young people and old people and the working class and everyone else will eventually rally around whoever wins, the party is still in good shape, Republican members of Congress are quitting in droves, we're raising trainloads of money, and John McCain continues to be a putz. Let's stop the hyperventilating, OK?

Sounds like you're another sore obama loser, Kevin. Take it for what it is: a line that has a measure of truth. Between the msm and most of the blogs, every time you pronounce Hillary dead, she comes back.

If obama can't give and take in the next six months, then maybe HE should step down now. obama (and his fans) needs to grow a pair and quit whining.

So, using Hillary logic, I should vote for McCain cause he has more "life time" experience than any other candidate. At this point, I just might do that and let a 'publican try to clean up the mess Bush/Chenney made. OK Obama in 2012!

It's her Precious, dammit -- no one else can have the nomination.

"How, in a race for the Presidency, does that even compare to living and working in the White House on very close terms with the president of the United States and all his advisors for 8 entire years?"

-Swan

Laura Bush/Nancy Reagan in 2012!

McCain is going to say something like: "I'm a super-old guy who has this amazing POW story, and I was was Senator for 25 years."

Hillary's going to be able to say: "I lived and worked in the White House with the president for eight years, and I was a Senator for a few years."

Barack's going to be able to say: "I was a Senator for a few years, and before that I was a state politician."

???

McCain's experience is going to appeal to many voters in a way that loquacious speeches with flowery phrases won't. Just because you may fall for that stuff doesn't mean a lot of other people aren't like that. When McCain makes the appeal to his experience, Hillary's going to be the one who is going to have the most impressive thing to say back to him, not Barack.

She's just pointing that out, letting people know the reason to vote for her- that's hardly "fratricide," a pretty dirty word, Kevin. There are always criticisms between candidates in a primary. I personally expect my candidates not to behave like limp washcloth losers.

Brojo wrote:

This might be why some Democrats think Hillary is a cult.

Whoa, I've only heard that epithet applied to Obama's campaign.

The two of them are vying to be the most powerful person on the planet. A struggle like that is going to be decorous?

By any measure, John McCain has more experience as a politician and a soldier. Senator Clinton's comment about Senator Obama was correct even if it was impolitic for her to say so.

WHK wrote:

Laura Bush/Nancy Reagan in 2012!

They were dumb bimbos whose only role was to bolster the president's conservative image. Hillary was a smart professional who actually worked on things. The comparison to Hillary you try to make is not there, my friend.

The corrosive nature of Hillary's declaration is only exceeded by its sheer stupidity. It's as though she's saying, "Sen. McCain is a 71 year old white guy, I am a 71 year old white guy."

Why on earth would she play the game with McCain's rules?

Your "Lifetime of Experience" comment shows exactly how wrong you are about the "Stop the Madness" Kevin. If Hillary, as expected, keeps using this "fratricidal" line of criticism, what do you think Barack is likely to do? Maybe use some "fratricidal" attacks right back at her? Which will play out very nicely for McCain when he has options to use on either candidate saying terrible things about each other. The only solution is for a) Barack to not respond in kind (unlikely) or b) have both on the ticket (even more unlikely given the likelihood of the attacks traded back and forth growing in ferocity and number.

This is going to be bad.

blacks and young people and old people and the working class and everyone else will eventually rally around whoever wins ...

Wrong. As a young black person, I'm sitting it out if Clinton wins. And watch for many, many more people like me to do the same thing.

This seems like the perfect opening for Obama: He is now running against Clinton/McCain. If Clinton wants to ally herself with McCain, then she can ride that anchor to the bottom of the sea.

Yeah, I read this as an appeal to independents, and a shot at Obama's "I was against the war" position.

I didn't like Obama's praising of Reagan and calling the Republicans the "party of ideas over the last 15 years" either. But mostly because I think of Bill Clinton as the one guy that kept the 90's from being completely unbearable.

But that's just hardball politics. Quit whining about "unfair" and win.

Bush said Kerry was from "Taxachussets". Why didn't Kerry stand up and say how proud he was to be from Massachusetts, where the divorce rate is half that of Texas? Or something. I'm sick of the whiny, passive Democratic candidate.

This is THE issue I'm concerned with Obama over. She may not always win, or do what I personally want, but she will stay in the fight, and give as good as she takes.

It is crap, thank you, Kevin. The statement itself was a load of crap (only she and McCain have lifetimes? Obama has a speech? WTF?) But her unctuous and contemptuous delivery was the killer, though. Really masterfully dastardly. Iron fist in a blood-stained velvet glove, and the fabric is fraying badly.

It was this and her Machiavellian reply to Steve Kroft, on 60 Minutes (which nearly everyone has been soft-pedaling), that turned my stomach in the final days of the campaign. The inflection and insinuation about Obama's declared faith as a Christian.

So. She maligns and wins?

Being the unconjugal wife of a president discredits the experience of being on close terms with the president angle.

That would be pretty dumb, Shine. Why voluntarily silence your voice in the matter?

"...during those two terms in the White House, Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti or Rwanda. And during one of President Bill Clinton's major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal dragged on."

Empty rhetoric.

Laura Bush/Nancy Reagan in 2012!

Sorry Swan, that makes sense to me.

Nancy fixed the nation's drug problem?
Hillary fixed health care?
Laura fixed our illiteracy problem?!

Plus we can have Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Unkown?Reagan&Bush!

Laura Bush/Nancy Reagan in 2012

Here's where it's all heading.

• Mr. and Mrs. Clinton will be ecstatic. He gets a third term, she gets her Precious.
  
• The Party regulars will have had their positions cemented for another election cycle.
  
• Tom Vilsack becomes head of the DNC. Jobs for the boys!
  
• Former DNC head Howard Dean becomes a poli-sci prof at UVM, or return to medical practice.
  
• DLC'ers' job security is ensured.
  
• And the Democratic world will continue to revolve around the same 1000-2000 people who actually count.

But at the end of the day, that’s what really matters, isn’t it?

If we get another 6-8 swing-states-only campaign, lose narrowly again, and lose a boatload of down-ticket races in the process, thereby eroding the only firewall, and not a strong one to begin with — Congress — between the Republic and the final victory of the Lizard People, that's just too damned bad.

The only upside I can find is that finally all those "Gore lost a race any idiot could have won" and "Kerry lost a race any idiot could have won" blog comments will be swept away once and for all.

Because I've got things growing in my crisper drawer that could win the White House this cycle, and the Democrats won't.

Sorry, Kevin. Hillary's right.

that epithet applied to Obama

It is a subliminal message.

If White House experience is the key benchmark for voters, why not GWHBush or Carter for president? Both of them have four real years of Presidential experience. In addition GHWB held the VP seat for eight years as well as being CIA head, and Carter was Career Navy. They're still eligible since the 22nd Amendment hasn't cut in for them yet.

Then again, nothing prepares anyone for being President. As others have pointed out some of the worst US Presidents in history were career pols with long and wide experience of public office, some of the best had little or no public office time before they were elected. It's a crapshoot.

It's 3:00 AM, the phone rings. and a smart & charmismatic Negro is threatening to take the nomination away from you. Who do you call?

We know who HRC called. Bill "I suggest the politics of fear" Kristol.

I've been pretty comfortable with both Democratic candidates, but one thing after another has been turning me off Hillary. I expect her to campaign hard and to attack Obama, but she's demonstrating an amoral strain of ruthlessness, which is beginning to convince me that those who don't like her may have detected something that escaped me: Could she be so personally ambitious that she has no loyalty to her party or a cause beyond becoming president? I'm thinking she is. I had no other explanation when I was watching 60 Minutes last Sunday. This exchange took place, on whether Obama is a crypto Muslim:

Kroft : “You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?�
Clinton: “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.�
Kroft : “You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,�
Clinton: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.� [emphasis mine]

"I take him on the basis of what he says" and "As far as I know"? She knows Obama is not a Muslim, not because he says so, and not as far as she knows, but because there's simply no evidence that he is and the insinuation is inane. What sort of person would add these qualifiers, so that on one hand she's rejecting the rumors and on the other hand allows for the possibility of the rumors being true? I dare say, as much as I don't like McCain, I can't imagine him being this nakedly devious. Only Karl Rove comes to mind as someone who's capable of this sort of dirty, disgusting politics. And please don't tell me that this shows that she's capable of standing up to the inevitable Republican dirty tricks. I'd like someone who can diffuse the Republican attack machine, not emulate it.
____________________________________________

She is using the line every lamebrain parent has used to no avail since the year dot! It has a subtext of whining despair in it.

I have said this before, but the problem with going negative is that it drags your own positives down. Hillary has to maintain high positives among the Democratic base. If she doesn't she has no chance in the general because she already has permanently high negatives among Republicans and independents. I wonder if she isn't trying to commit political suicide. What do they call the kind of victory she is likely to attain, Pyric?

…. her Machiavellian reply to Steve Kroft, on 60 Minutes (which nearly everyone has been soft-pedaling), that turned my stomach in the final days of the campaign…. paxr55 at 2:01 PM Aris on March 5, 2008 at 2:11 PM

KROFT: "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --
KROFT: -- or implying, right?
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Obama supporters, like Republicans, love to distort, truncate quotes, and take statements out of context.

Is there any construction plausibly applied to those comments except 'Vote for me. Vote for Sen. McCain if you must. But under no circumstances vote for him!'

That would be pretty dumb, Shine. Why voluntarily silence your voice in the matter?

That's the prevailing attitude of the Democratic establishment, "what other choice do black folk have?" F' that. I am so sick of that attitude. If white Christian people can threaten to do so for force Republicans to start pandering, then why not black folk.

Besides, exactly how is a McCain admin going to substantially be worse for black folk than a Hillary admin? She's already thrown us under the bus in order to get support for Latinos and poor, dumb hillbillies in Ohio.

With Clinton who know who she'll throw under the bus in order to get her health care plan passed. A war with Iran? Latinos? At least with McCain there will be no surprises.

Besdies, I've grown up hearing how wonderful Clinton has been for black folk but no one has shown me any concrete examples. So I'd like to start getting them. Anyone?

Mike you are right on the transcript, but in the tape the "as far as I know" makes your teeth rattle. She could have said "No, of course not" and left it at that. That would have been emphatic. It is all the rest that gives rise to the impression that she was engaged in a very clever smear.

Clinton has become Samson, pulling down the temple on everyone. If she can't win, then everyone dies. The Democrats are fucked in November.

Kevin, some wise person just wrote "Hillary Clinton is not destroying Barack Obama." No, but she is trying her best with crap like this.

Although maybe a bit risky, perhaps there is some way for Obama to take this clip and use it: "Hillary's and McCain's idea of experience -- the experience of being wrong, over and over, on the most important issues of our day . . . the wrong experience on Iraq . . . the wrong experience on health care . . . the wrong experience to be president."

Now for those of you who object -- Hillary might have good ideas on health care, but her experience is abysmal.

Well, it's better than admitting that you have no experience at all. Obama even goes on to say that McCain has the most experience.

CNN: Well let me ask you, what specific experience do you have in handling a crisis that would make you the better person to field that 3 a.m. phone call?
Obama: Well, and that's the point, nobody does, because nobody's been in that situation unless they've been President. The question then becomes who's got the kind of judgment on these critical issues that shows some evidence that you can in fact understand how the world is operating and when we have to deal with issues in a military way, and on question like Iraq, on questions like Pakistan and Iran, I think that the judgment I've shown over the last several, several years has been superior to both Senator Clinton's and to Senator McCain's. And if longevity is the measure by which we determine who's got the best experience to answer that phone call, then John McCain wins because he's been there the longest.

Obama supporters, like Republicans, love to distort, truncate quotes, and take statements out of context

As I noted above, I watched the 60 Minutes interview, and it is still available online at the CBS site. I suggest that anyone who wants to comment about it should watch it first. Then they can try and explain the qualifiers, "I take him on the basis of what he says" and "As far as I know," as merely figures of speech.

While I preferred Obama all along, I used to think that Democrats has two very good choices this election year, and I would have been happy with either of them winning the nomination. But comments like these on 60 Minutes and comments about McCain being more qualified than her Democratic rival, have really turned me off Hillary. And now you can add the comments of Hillary supporters like Mike who will attack fellow Democrats because they don't like the way Hillary is attacking a fellow Democrat. Hillary is evidently rubbing off on her followers...

____________________________________________

She is emphasizing McCain's experience because (1) he has a lifetime of experience; (2) it will take a lifetime of experience to combat that perceived asset; (3) it emphasizes McCain's age, which will be his major liability in Nov; (4) it emphasizes Obama's lack of experience, which is his major liability.

Obama does not have any credibility on the national or international scene. It is a fact, not an opinion. Objecting to Clinton's use of that fact in her own campaign is like expecting her to box with one hand tied behind her back. Your idea that she should cut it out is just silly.

When you start writing columns because you object to criticism of your candidate, you aren't worth reading any more. Maybe I'll be back after the election.

The message here is simple: this is the comparison Obama is going to get in the general election. If he can't overcome it now, in the primary, get ready for a loss in November. Now that the Repugs are getting nasty on Obama, Dems are starting to become concerned that our favorite sunny optimistic team player isn't going to be tough enough to win. Hillary is simply starting to highlight what is already obvious to many Dem voters. If Obama can knock back Hillary, then we'll start to believe that he can handle McCain.

And as to the 'experience' issue: don't even begin to go there. Like it or not, any spouse of a powerful, successful man feels she has participated in his success, and has in large part, enabled it. Hilary has spent most of her adult as an activist wife of a senior public official, ending with 8 years as First Lady, followed by a Senate career. The attempts to denigrate this lifetime in the public eye sound and are lame.

Progressives seem to be willing to throw our last (and by all measures highly successful) Democratic president under the bus (case in point: successful effort by Obama campaign to paint Clintons as racists). But when Hillary fights back, all of a sudden, it's out of bounds and divisive.

Obama supporters, make note, and Hillary supporters, be mindful: when you look at the math, and note the upcoming primaries, it is evidently apparent that Hillary Clinton needs Barack Obama, not the other way around. Remember that, and realize where the advantage lies. The rug is being held by Barack Obama, not the other way around.

Why do you think she alluded to a shared ticket? :)

Perry: When you start writing columns because you object to criticism of your candidate, you aren't worth reading any more. Maybe I'll be back after the election.

Just make sure you take Mike and MaryLou with you. Be seeing ya!

David Axelrod: "There is no reason she cannot realease her 2006 returns. Talk about change you can Xerox. You can Xerox your tax returns," he said.

Heh.

I'm sure McCain is going to make the same argument whether or not Hillary ever made the argument. Republicans are perfectly capable of coming up with attacks such as these, and much worse, on their own. Does the fact Hillary made the argument then somehow add to its validity when used by McCain? That seems mysterious to me and looked at from the point of view of argumentation theory is highly suspect.

The only possible reason Hillary might want to avoid this kind of argument is that it will needlessly piss off Obama supporters (I'm sure Obama could care less)

Everyone who's defending this line of attack on Obama as a clean shot: The key sentence in Fallows' piece is the one about lauding McCain's experience while attacking Obama's. Clinton can go after Obama on this score if she wants, but she needn't & shouldn't build up the opposition party candidate in the process!

Ultimately it's an electability argument: McCain's biography is his selling point (plus his biggest weakness is he's really old) so he's going to try to make 'experience' an issue. Clinton's argument is that (1) she can match McCain on that score, or at least defuse the issue, and then (2) beat McCain on other grounds. So far, all she's done is make the first part of that argument. (And not very persuasively, imho, since she relies so heavily on vague inferences about her role when she was in the White House - she needs to explain much more clearly what her role was, exactly. Show us that McCain won't be able to puncture her whole argument on 'experience' with ease. For example, i read on a blog this morning that she never had a security clearance. I can't credit that as true, and don't bring it up to spread the rumor, but that's just the kind of data point that McCain could drop on her in a debate at a key moment & completely unravel her narrative on experience. Until i have a better sense of whether land mines like that exist, count me unconvinced.)

It's the second part of the argument that she really needs to make: tell us what the other grounds are on which you'll win - SHOW US HOW NOMINEE CLINTON WOULD BEAT MCCAIN! If she wants to win in some fashion other than pulling down Obama & the party as a whole, she needs to turn the guns on McCain - don't just tell us you're less vulnerable on this one dimension than Obama would be; don't just tell us you're more electable than Obama. Convince us that you're more electable than McCain, show us how you'll beat him.

I think that may be Obama's best course right now: don't just punch back against Clinton (although he'll probably have to do some of that just to forestall the media narrative about 'whether he's tough enough' or whatever). He should put it very starkly: given the broad popularity of both condidates & the similarity of most of their policy positions, at this point the Dem nominee should be whoever makes the strongest, most convincing case against McCain. From here on out, that's the right basis on which Democrats should make their choice. So instead of ripping each other apart and giving McCain breathing space to shore up his base & gear up for the fall, Obama should propose that he & Clinton agree to gang up on him. Overthe next few weeks, they should each field-test the case they want to make against him, give us all a preview of what we could expect from them as the nominee, and then we'll choose the one we think will make the strongest candidate in the general. E.g. Clinton can make her case on experience, but she'll have to finish the thought: 'not only am i more than experienced enough to do the job, i've got a better, more relevant type of experience than McCain.' Obama can make the case that judgement trumps experience, and then he'll have to follow up on that, showing that his judgement is better than McCain's using examples x, y and z. We get the decide whose argument is the most persuasive, we've got brickbats flying at McCain from two directions, and neither prospective nominee is tearing down the other in the process. (It's also laying the groundwork for seems increasingly likely anyway, a ticket which includes both of them.)

If Clinton takes him up on it, the tenor & focus of the race moves back to ground on which he's more comfortable and, frankly, more effective than Clinton. If she doesn't take him up on it, the story shifts to whether she's being irresponsible, e.g. 'is there anything the Clintons won't do to win'.

At last! an admission from a Hillary supporter:

"And as to the 'experience' issue: don't even begin to go there. Like it or not, any spouse of a powerful, successful man feels she has participated in his success, and has in large part, enabled it. Hilary has spent most of her adult as an activist wife of a senior public official, ending with 8 years as First Lady, followed by a Senate career. The attempts to denigrate this lifetime in the public eye sound and are lame."

HILLARY'S EXPERIENCE: SHE IS THE WIFE OF A SUCCESSFUL MAN!

Thanks, Mary Lou, I could not have said it better.

Mike,

How nice to see you again in comments. I'll take up the merits of your comments in a bit, but first am I right to recall that you and I have tangled before over this name-calling business, with shill? Yes, I'm an Obama supporter. But as I understand it, a shill is an accomplice, usually compensated in some fashion, of a gambler or hawker or swindler--unsavory occupations, to be sure. Worse, the shill acts as an enthusiastic customer in an underhanded effort to entice or encourage the unwitting.

I don't see any Obama shills here. Partisans, to be sure. But very few shills. You, for example, are not a shill.

As for Clinton's Machiavellian reply to Steve Kroft, I stand by my observation that Clinton's answer to Kroft was a shiv, delivered with uncommon skill in a most un-Christian manner.

But you're free to disagree with me--without, by the way, provoking me into calling you names.

Christ, Kevin, you sound like Donna Brazile.

Hillary Clinton is proving to be a fighter who will stand up for herself, and won't graciously bow to the pre-ordained wishes of the good and decent gentry of the Duchy of Columbia and their well-groomed attendants, and go meekly into the dark night.

Well, now, just pardon me all to Hell and back for pointing this out, but only around 100 delegates separate sen. Clinton from Sen. Obama. It’s March. The convention is in August. Each candidate has approximately half the delegates they need for the nomination.

And yet the pressure is mounting on Hillary to drop out. Are you people fuckin' nuts, or what?

Perhaps if you look at the demographic breakdown from last night, you'd note that Sen. Obama has clearly not closed the deal with the ranking pluralities of our party's base; i.e., Hispanic-Americans and blue collar, rank-and-file, working-class white Americans. That's a big problem, and short-circuiting the primary process is not going to solve that.

A coalition of political elites, African-Americans and white Americans who earn over $100K is not simply not enough to win a general election. And we Democrats will prove ourselves a bunch of damned fools, if we're going to rely upon some crackpot notion that Republican voters will somehow miraculously come to their collective senses, and cross over in droves to vote for Mr. Sunshine Happytalk.

I'm sorry that some people's notion of political propriety has been offended, but this contest must continue for the long-term good of the Democratic Party, and if a few feathers get ruffled along the way, so be it. If Barack Obama is to be a successful nominee, he must be forged in a trial by fire. He and our party will both be the better for it, believe me.

However, if he's the type of candidate who's going to fold up under pressure like a cheap aluminum beach chair, well, then I think most sane and thinking Democrats would agree that it's for the best that we should learn that now, and not in October or November, like we did in '04.

Nuf ced. Aloha.

Hillary gave McCain a video endorsement he can use against Obama OR her in the general election.

It smacks more of desperation than thoughtful strategy. Next you expect to see a kitchen sink come flying at Obama from the direction of the Hillary camp. Or whatever she can snatch up in her panic.

Kinda the way Obama needs to knock off the "Clinton is too divisive" Republican talking point he's been spouting since the first debate.

And while I wouldn't drag McCain into the mix, Clinton has every right to point out that five years ago, Obama was a freakin' state senator. Most of us at gunpoint, couldn't NAME our state senators; that's how much of an impact they have on our lives (I know the name of ours only because he's a right-wing bozo who sends us mailings every 15 minutes.)

And Hillary is only pointing out what McCain will be able to say about himself -- a claim she is solely equipped to counter.

Obama does not have any credibility on the national or international scene. It is a fact, not an opinion

He's a one-term senator, more or less. She's a one-term senator, more or less.

Yet one has credibility, and one does not, on the national and international scene.

I'm confused.

That's because both the Shrillmeister and McBush believe the only experience that counts is being able to endorse every war ever conceived.

Now it's a duet, "Bomb, bomb, Iran".

P.S. How's that Flag Burning Amendment coming along, oh great progressive one?

Davis, you missed Mary Lou's comment: all of Bill Clinton's presidential experience has been magically downloaded into Hillary's brain. It's now HER experience too!! I just don't know why she doesn't trumpet that in all of her ads!

Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky have more experience than Hillary.

Like it or not Clinton supporters a vote for Hillary is a vote for Rush Limbaugh!

Thanks, Barbara. I'm going to the Department of Ed in the summer and getting endorsements added to my teaching certificate in both of my wife's majors.

Should make the principal happy to have someone who can cover a schedule across department lines, and it won't cost me a dime in tuition.

"ex-liberal" wrote: By any measure, John McCain has more experience as a politician and a soldier. Senator Clinton's comment about Senator Obama was correct even if it was impolitic for her to say so.

Unfortunately for McCain (and "ex-liberal"), McCain also has a lot more experience at being a Republican, which means he's pretty much a non-starter as far as the electorate is concerned.

Davis X. Machina: "Yet one has credibility, and one does not, on the national and international scene."

Given the recent dust-up in Kenya over what one tribal faction interpreted as Sen. Obama's endorsement of its political rivals in a domestic electoral dispute, and the argument on the floor of Canada's House of Commons over the Obama campaign's rhetoric on NAFTA, I'd be inclined to agree with that statement.

But then again, it's not like those are fatal errors, or that it's something that can't be overcome with a little more experience and season- D'oh!! ...

Since president Clinton's wife thinks being the wife of a president gives her the experience needed to become president herself, then Sen. Obama ought to only refer to her as Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton.

h/t to James Wolcott for linking Barry Crimmins, "Kitchen Sinkhole."

Given a choice between a freshened start and 'experience' that includes corporate lawyering, Wal-Mart board-sitting and vital supervision at several Christmas tree lighting ceremonies, Buckeyes and Texans chose the latter. "Yes she will" won over "Yes we can." Had Clinton lost Texas and Ohio, she'd have sent out her operatives to tell us that they don't matter. But they do. They always count in this country and when they are counted, the national average is usually lowered.

While Hillary's husband was president, entire towns were destroyed in Ohio by union-busting corporations (in particular AK Steel). The Clinton Administration did nothing but ring in each New Year walking the beaches of a resort with the jackbooted captains of industry. But Ohio union households went out and voted for her last night. That's pitiful.

So she won last night and did it in classic American fashion. She played on the chumps' fears and it worked.

She bullied the media and it rolled over. Can you imagine doing negative stories about a campaign simply because it lost eleven straight caucuses and primaries by double digits?

The campaign is far from over and we can now see just what Obama is made of. He is at a disadvantage because in a fair circumstance, he'd call out Hillary Clinton and question her ethics. Unfortunately he's in the USA, a country where not long ago, black men were lynched for looking at white women, let alone challenging their virtue and authority.

Now Crimmins is a satirist and has a lot of fun with the targets of his wit. See especially his takedown of McCain in the linked piece. This is just a bit:

McCain's oratory is inane. Last night he had sheer terror in his eyes when was reading his speech off the teleprompter. At times it sped up and he sped up. You could almost hear the guffaws from the control room. He turned his head but his eyes stayed fixed on the scrolling text.

That the remarks were prepared was the only thing that made them noteworthy because it made you realize, "Holy shit, he planned this blather!"

Friends, we must respectfully discuss our bloodlust.

His speeches sound like a bad local car dealer ad. He calls us all "friends" again and again. And then he asks his "friends" to help him bring glory to our nation with "victory" in a total blunder of a war.

I thought it was the Obama people who were supposed to be the cult? It's the Clinton folks in this thread who are leaving little angry drops of saliva all the way through it.

Donald, you've got to be kidding using those examples. Funny enough, one could claim that Obama ultimately helped with the Kenya case.
What has the NAFTA story got to do with hsi credibility on international scene? If I recall from the latest CBC report and other news stories coming out of Canada, the Canadian govt. is the one looking bad in the fiasco. There is even a reliable indication that they are looking for ways to mend fences with Obama.

paxr55: "But you're free to disagree with me -- without, by the way, provoking me into calling you names."

Oh, sure, that's what you always say -- but then, just like clockwork whenever we have a few drinks, people are soon shouting, a chair is thrown, women scream, children cry, the police are called, someone's hauled off in handcuffs, I have to make bail ...

That was sweet, Donald. I like you witty.

GOD: "Donald, you've got to be kidding using those examples."

No, I'm not. And if you want to believe otherwise and misinterpret the facts of the matter as an excuse to make yourself feel better, then the only one you're kidding is yourself.

I understand. Obama was nothing but an obscure state senator from Mexinois when he gave a speech, and the lib media then blew him up as the next Great Black Hope.

paxr55: "That was sweet, Donald. I like you witty."

Thank you. But will you still love me tomorrow?

It was Mexinois long before it became part of the American Bund.

Luther: "I understand. Obama was nothing but an obscure state senator from Mexinois when he gave a speech, and the lib media then blew him up as the next Great Black Hope."

Damn, dude, that really fuckin' reeks.

Now, why don't you go home, before Mike I grab you from behind, and paxr55 and Lucy start taking turns kicking you in the balls?

Donald, with all due respect:

1. What experience does Hillary Clinton have in foreign policy or even domestic policy?

2. And isn't it quite possibly the case that a successful president isn't so much the result of his or her experience as it is attributable to temperament and judgment that is not easy to predict in advance?

It seems to me that HRC is probably not destined to be a good president if the second point is true. I would have predicted that GWB would not have been a good president either, but Gore might have been.

I certainly wouldn't reduce the issue of temperament or judgement to who I'd rather have a beer with, but the concept that some kind of overarching experience is what it takes to be a successful president strikes me on several levels as being a bit of smokescreen: First, because Hillary has no more specific experience than Obama, and second because hitting the experience key is usually just a dodge for the fact that her temperament does not measure up to Obama's. And her judgment? Based on Iraq alone, I would say that Hillary has demonstrated quite a bit more political expediency than judgment and courage as a politician.

If she can't get the Dem nomination, maybe she'll flip sides and run as McCain's Veep. Think of ALL that experience! (What would Ann Coulter do then?) As I understand it, Ms. Undermine Our Man gained somewhere between 4 and 9 delegates last night--not nearly enough to be talking so tough.

In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence?

The whole line is inexplicable. Each candidate clearly has "a lifetime of experience" (which is true, pretty much by definition, of everybody), and of the three, only McCain's "lifetime of experience" is pretty much all in government service. OTOH, both Clinton and Obama have a lifetime of experience that includes community and government experience over its whole scope, just less of it directly on the public payroll than McCain.

There is no rational explanation for the statement that does not involve the intent to deceive either about the nature of Hillary's experience or that of Obama's (or both), even before examining its relation to partisan politics, where it stops just short (if at all) of saying that if Hillary doesn't win the nomination, McCain should be the next President of the United States.

"Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002"

Disgraceful? Not really. That's still creampuffery compared to what the GOP will do.

I'll really warm up to Obama if he shows he can tear down this whole "life experience" meme within about two weeks of intelligent messaging. Because it is utter horseshit regardless of which candidate is saying they have the "experience."

Obviously McCain has the "most" life experience because he's the oldest. Duh. He's also been a prisoner of war, which, for better or worse, will earn him far more point than being First Lady for 8 years. Don't think he won't relish the chance to make that comparison if Hillary is the Dem nominee.

"I respect Ms. Clinton. As First Lady she conducted herself with compusure and poise, and represented our country well on her many humanitarian tours of other countries. I also think that as junior senator from New York, she has made important contributions and had the privilege turn learn from great mentors like I did so many years ago."

How does she counter that?

All Barack has to say is "if experience means approaching tomorrow's challenges with yesterday's wrong answers and a few gray hairs, then I'm very happy to be inexperienced. Some people learn from each life experience, others just repeat the same experience over and over again. I think Americans are ready for a fundamentally different experience when it comes to Washington."

OK, it's a bit iffy, but the electorate seems to be more focused on the economy than on national security, and they are quite literally tired of the politics of fear and loathing. Tired enough for the DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! schtick not to work? Probably not, but Jesus Maria, could we have one fucking election that wasn't about imaginary monsters under the bed and focused on the very real issues that threaten to accelerate our empire's collapse?

I already know the answer to that.

I'll vote to keep McCain from remaking the supreme court. I predict I will not be at all enthused about the actual candidate.

Clinton/Obama is probably the best possible outcome for the Dems at this point, but both Clinton and Obama are tenacious fighters, and I'm afraid so much manure will be slung with their record fund raising dollars that that ticket will not be emotionally possible.

Remember, each day that this continues, the emotional investment is greater for the partisans in each camp -- an partisans are what provide the energy and organization. We are not rational creatures, refusing to vote when your candidate loses is a classic example of "sunk cost error," but who the hell changes their behavior in the middle of a private pity party because the "enemy" asks them to be rational?

Those who believe that Hillary Clinton has no experience because she was married to Bill Clinton need to visit her official webpage and read her accomplishments, both as senator and before that. She has as great a claim to community activism as Obama and a greater claim to accomplishment in the Senate. She has met and talked with world leaders whose names Obama can only pronounce. She was privy to policy level deliberations and decisions at the presidential level (albeit pillow talk) because Bill Clinton considered her his most trusted advisor. If she were permitted to receive pay for that position (by law) we wouldn't be having this debate about her role during that administration. She scares the heck out of Republicans which is why they have gone after her personally, not just Bill. (Note that no one has bothered to attack Barbara or Laura Bush.)

The arguments about her lack of experience were all raised during her senate race. Now that she has served as Senator, the idea that she might have been unqualified for that position is ludicrous. She has earned the credibility she is accorded in that role. She is smart, she knows the issues to the level of wonkishness, and she has ideas. Someone cannot be those things without experience of the kind she has been legimitimately claiming.

The remarks trivializing her to the level of housewife are not just parisan, but are sexist because they imply that no wife is ever anything but an appendage of her husband, and if young and pretty, nothing but a trophy reflecting his success. Any woman should know that is garbage. Men who express this thought are most likely campaigning, not seriously discussing issues here.

Hey, Shine: Ways Hillary will be substantially different from McCain for black voters:
1. She would work hard to obtain health care for ALL Americans. McCain would do the opposite.
2. She would keep the Supreme Court from going further to the right, and is very likely to give a black liberal -- especially a black liberal woman, I would think -- a shot at a Supreme Court seat. McCain will do the opposite to shore up his right-wing base.
3. A Katrina-style disaster is extremely unlikely from her: Consider the swift responses to natural disasters and racial sensitivity that characterized Bill Clinton's administration.
4. She is favorably disposed to liberal and minority judicial appointments, which tends to favor black candidates. McCain isn't.
5. She is a commited civil-rights Democrat. McCain isn't.
6. She will have nearly unanimous support from black leaders. McCain will get a smattering of black wingnuts.
7. She will owe you something if elected. McCain won't owe you a damn thing.
8. She is more of a foreign-policy dove than McCain, and therefore fewer brothers in uniform will die on her watch. Ask a mother of a black soldier whether that's worth considering.
9. Bill Clinton's record on civil rights issues was solid on numerous fronts. Hillary has never given cause to assume she'd be less so.
10. For the record, I'm not in Hillary's camp. I'm an Obama guy. That doesn't alter any of the above facts.

Bubba recently promised if we'd give Hill the nomination, she and McVain would have a love-in for a campaign because they're so similar. And I believed him. Casn no one rid us of this vexing woman?

Nobody is calling Hillary an appendage of Bill except insofar as she herself (or her supporters on her behalf) is claiming experience that is his and not hers. She never states this forthrightly -- she lets it hang in the air, without detailing what she means. She has experience as a lawyer, a board member of Wal-Mart, various children's policy type organizations (e.g., Marian Edelman's group) and yes, as a senator. So she's a one-term senator. So is Obama. That doesn't give her an overwhelming edge in experience. It's not wrong or sexist to point this out.

The point, since some people seem to be missing it, is that it's one thing for Clinton to argue what she perceives as her strengths against Obama. It's quite another for her to go out and start pimping what she perceives as McCain's advantages over Obama.

You want to blow your own horn about why you should be President? Go right ahead. I'm listening. You want to criticize Obama? That's what campaigns are all about. You want to go out of your way to talk up the advantages you see in the Republican candidate over your Democratic colleague? Switch your voter registration card.

And, yeah, I said pimping.

Hillary is just trying to blunt the clear edge McCain has in experience by bringing him down to her level of experience. It's a useful strategy for the general election. And there's just no denying that Obama has far less. She was just speaking the truth.

She is smart, she knows the issues to the level of wonkishness, and she has ideas. Someone cannot be those things without experience of the kind she has been legimitimately claiming.

Someone can't be smart and wonkish without genuine experience in the area of wonkery?

I'm calling bullshit on that one. This blog gives one all the evidence one needs to refute that.

Hillary is smart. Hillary is her own woman.

But...

There are many more "experienced" senators by any reasonable measure (see McCain, John). There are more "experienced" women in politics by any reasonable measure (see Boxer, Barbara, or Granholm, Jennifer). Any objections raised at these examples would have nothing to do with experience, but rather what they learned from their experience -- i.e. their judgment and wisdom.

I think some of Clinton's supporters confuse media exposure or name recognition with experience. Obama's supporters make the exact same error. Clinton would not even be in the running if she weren't formally a first lady. That's not a sexist statement -- it's the cold hard reality of the value of name recognition.

Quick - name the current Wal-mart board members or the head of any major non-profit (say Red Cross).

Quick - name the current first lady.

Which was easier?

Obama's claim to experience is even flimsier than Hillary's, but is experience, i.e. years in the trenches, really what matters? It's worked so well Dick Cheney.

"A state legislature politician is nothing like the chief executive of our entire country."

Neither, of course, is a First Lady, and I really wish that Clinton and her supporters would stop pretending otherwise.

"Hillary is just trying to blunt the clear edge McCain has in experience by bringing him down to her level of experience. It's a useful strategy for the general election."

Um ... no. It says that "years of experience" really matter, in which case McCain has a clear edge. Moreover, McCain is already jumping on this campaign strategy and will be all over it, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination. Helping him with that strategy, particularly in light of the fact that so much of Hillary's so-called "experience" is as a First Lady, something that Republicans are sure to point out, is stupid.

pimp

Ooooo. I perked up hearing that piquant verb. Pimp. Pimping. Pimped. As in "Hillary pimping for McCain," as junebug suggests.

I also like, now that we're going down this path, the whole idea of Hillary as Enabler. Enabler of Bill. Of Bush. Of McCain.

And, of course, change it up with the whole pimp meme.

These are a start, anyway. Surrogates mount!

"She was privy to policy level deliberations and decisions at the presidential level (albeit pillow talk) because Bill Clinton considered her his most trusted advisor."

You have no way of knowing just how involved she was, nor what role she played. Since she did not have a security clearance, there were a whole raft of issues, including damn near all of the international issues, where she could not even have been briefed, much less consulted. As noted in an IHT article:

She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti, or Rwanda. And during one of President Bill Clinton's major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal dragged on.

To the best of my knowledge, there is not one shred of verifiable evidence that Hillary Clinton's experience in the White House even remotely resembled that of a president. She had even less experience than did any of Bill's cabinet members. More than that, we have no idea what policies Hillary Clinton supported or what advice she gave. Since the very essence of this campaign is judgment, how on earth can we know how good her judgment was when we don't know anything about that judgment?

"If she were permitted to receive pay for that position (by law) we wouldn't be having this debate about her role during that administration."

Garbage. See above.

"She scares the heck out of Republicans which is why they have gone after her personally, not just Bill. (Note that no one has bothered to attack Barbara or Laura Bush.)"

Sheesh... Note, for example, the difference between the role that Laura Bush played in her husband's presidency and the role that Hillary Clinton played in the first year of the Clinton presidency. Notice anything? And notice how Hillary largely withdrew after that fiasco?

"Now that she has served as Senator, the idea that she might have been unqualified for that position is ludicrous."

Nice strawman. Few, if any, are arguing that she is "unqualified." We're just arguing that she is no more qualified than is Obama and that her claims of "experience" are largely unverifiable or spurious.

"She is smart, she knows the issues to the level of wonkishness, and she has ideas. Someone cannot be those things without experience of the kind she has been legimitimately claiming."

And that's even dumber. I have all of these attributes, as do literally dozens of my friends and hundreds more I've met online. None of us have "experience".

albeit pillow talk

There was no pillow talk between Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton and her president husband.

So why isn't Hillary Clinton putting pillow talk on her resume?

Because it's not a serious qualification. I second some of the above comments -- I don't think Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president, I just don't think she's any more qualified than Obama, and the claims made for her great experience are usually nebulous and non-specific for that reason.

Donald from Hawaii on March 5, 2008 at 3:03 PM:

Hillary Clinton is proving to be a fighter who will stand up for herself...

Thanks for the campaign ad, Don.

..only around 100 delegates separate Sen. Clinton from Sen. Obama.

And to close that gap, Clinton has to win each of the remaining contests by a 60-40 margin.

Are you people fuckin' nuts, or what?

We're all mad, here. That includes you as well, Don.

..you'd note that Sen. Obama has clearly not closed the deal with the ranking pluralities of our party's base.

Neither has Clinton.

That's a big problem, and short-circuiting the primary process is not going to solve that.

I don't recall Obama's campaign as the one trying to bypass party rules and seat Michigan and Florida, or counting those states as 'wins'.

A coalition of political elites, African-Americans and white Americans who earn over $100K is not simply not enough to win a general election.

As if that's been the only people voting for Obama, Don.

..going to rely upon some crackpot notion that Republican voters will somehow miraculously come to their collective senses, and cross over in droves to vote for Mr. Sunshine Happytalk.

"Sunshine Happytalk"? Usually your comments are much more sober, with less hyperventilating. What about this Dem primary season is causing you (and others like you) to go off the deep end?

...few feathers get ruffled along the way, so be it.

The ends justify the means. What a Republican sentiment, Don.

It's hard to claim that you are the good guy when you're not acting like one.

If Barack Obama is to be a successful nominee, he must be forged in a trial by fire.

It's a campaign season of Biblical proportions! What's next? Secret loyalty oaths?

He and our party will both be the better for it, believe me.

No, I don't believe you.

However, if he's the type of candidate who's going to fold up under pressure like a cheap aluminum beach chair..

Terrific...The democratic system of government reduced to one-upmanship and catfighting.

Haven't you had enough of that?

Nuf ced. Aloha.

Ditto. I'll be glad when this primary season is over, and people return to their normal levels of comment insanity.

Some of the points made here about Sen. Clinton's claims of vast experience are points that her opponents in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination have been reluctant to make. This is because they are aware that most Democratic primary voters think well of the last Democratic President, and are aware also that criticism of her role in his administration could be taken as criticism of him.

Sen. McCain will not have that problem this fall.

1)Obama should have no problem defending the quality of his experience or judgement. If Obama is incapable of turning HRC's comment around and using it to his advantage, then he doesn't have the political skills to win the White House.

2)I agree that HRC's comment is poor; it seems to bolster a Republican at the expense of a Democrat. I'd have more sympathy for the Kevin's hysteria over her comments if he had been similarly troubled by Obama's reference to the GOP as the "party of ideas," or his references to the "excesses of the 60's and 70's" (classic GOP code phrases for dealing with the Clintons) or his statement that HRC could not count on getting all of his supporters if she won the nomination, etc. Both candidates and their surrogates have been less than positive at times.

3)Obama could have won this race by now if he had merely run strongly as a progressive (no nonsense about Social Security, no talk of putting Lugar or Hagel in his cabinet, making FISA a campaign issue). He chose the course of trying to position himself to the right of HRC on a number of issues. That decision has cost him.

Obama needs to understand that he has the power to lead; he has to use it. He needs to finish the campaign.

Had enough yet? Quoting Fallows quoting Gerson:

In making his point Spinney quoted a Washington Post column by Michael Gerson on "Hillary's Unappealing Path," written just after the Potomac primaries. It said:

"Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates and appeals, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules."

Hillary was a smart professional who actually worked on things.

Yeah, there was that smashing success of a health care reform plan. That went well.

It's not that far a leap to make from realizing that Hillary's campaign tactics are disgraceful to realizing that she, the person, is disgraceful.

Even if she knocked it off she would still be the person she is. And she's really not that great a person. In fact, she's often quite disgraceful.

I'm a smart professional who works on things. I would venture that 90% of the commenters are also smart professionals who work on things. I wish I could parley that into real influence!

"Sorry, Kevin. Hillary's right"

Yep, by her logic I should have voted for George H W Bush in 1992.

It seems funny that right after Kevin posts a comment chastizing those for freaking out over the prospect of a battle between Hillary/Obama, he freaks out over an insignificant little comment by Hillary.

this is disgraceful. far too lieberman-esque for a former first lady.

it's uncool b/c it's disloyal to the party. it's unbelievably stupid b/c what happens if hillary can't pull off the nomination, obama faces mccain in november, and the country's heard 3 months of how mccain is better qualified to be president than clinton's fellow democrat?

this gets at the core of what bothers me most about the clinton candidacy. she's trying to force dem primary voters into a zero-sum game: that a good outcome for the country is either her or mccain. not that she's better positioned than obama to beat mccain in the general, but that she'd rather mccain than any other democrat. ultimately her argument is about legitimacy (mccain) than electability (hers).

Near as I can tell, this bit of idiocy means:
"Choose me first because of my 'lifetime of experience'. If you don't choose me, you should choose Sen. Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran because of his 'lifetime of experience'".

My conclusion is that this candidate should not be let anywhere near the Whitehouse again.

For those of you spinning this nonsense as "hardball politics", please take my conclusion as exactly the same. When you stoop to bullshit, you are no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt.