100%

Greg Mitchell's account of Bill Clinton's appearance on Charlie Rose:

Repeatedly dismissive of Obama -- which could come back to haunt the Clinton campaign -- the former president at one point said that voters were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his first term in the U.S. Senate. [...]

[Clinton] also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."

This is pretty aggravating. Hillary Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, before which she'd never held elective office. Barack Obama was elected to Illinois Senate in 1996, and to the United States Senate in 2004. It's true that Obama doesn't have a ton of experience in elective office compared to Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd or Joe Biden, but there's a perfectly reasonable case to be made that he has more experience than Hillary Clinton does.

Meanwhile, this line on the war seems like a pretty pathetic dodge. Nobody's actually suggesting that because many members of congress voted the wrong way on the war we should elect a television commentator instead. Indeed, almost no television commentators were right about the war. By contrast, a lot of politicians were right about the war. Nancy Pelosi was right. Russ Feingold was right. Carl Levin was right. Howard Dean was right. And Barack Obama was right. If Clinton's going to run on her alleged greater experience, surely it's fair to point to the content of that experience and ask whether or not it's all good experience.

Comments

Time to put the Bush/Clinton years behind us.

Their common themes: corruption, arrogance and deception.

Posted by Larry | December 15, 2007 5:19 PM

What's the title of the post mean?

And how Jan 2005 to now could constitute one year of service is beyond me.

Posted by right | December 15, 2007 5:22 PM

Nobody's actually suggesting that because many members of congress voted the wrong way on the war we should elect a television commentator instead.

In all seriousness, I would vote for Jon Stewart.

Posted by Trevor | December 15, 2007 5:22 PM

Although 100% of medical malpractice involving doctors would seem to involve doctors -- by definition -- it is NOT the case that 100% of doctors are guilty of medical malpractice.

Posted by El Cid | December 15, 2007 5:31 PM

Although 100% of medical malpractice involving doctors would seem to involve doctors -- by definition -- it is NOT the case that 100% of doctors are guilty of medical malpractice.

Nor is it a bad idea to find out which of the doctors you're looking at has a history of malpractice before you choose one.

Posted by southpaw | December 15, 2007 5:36 PM

Bill looked seriously pissed off last night. And as the interview wore on, he seemed to get farther and farther off his game. And more pissed. Something is rotten in the state of the Clinton camp.

Posted by Media Glutton | December 15, 2007 5:48 PM

someone's been practicing the logical reasoning section of the LSATs lately . . .

Posted by natty light | December 15, 2007 5:49 PM

HRC was elected to the Senate in 2002, not 2000. She's got a grand total of two Senate years more experience than Obama, and he's got all his time in the Illinois Senate. I'm amazed that the Clinton camp has been able to run on the idea that she has more experience. How many elections has she won, compared to Obama?

Posted by joe p | December 15, 2007 6:09 PM

HRC was elected to the Senate in 2002, not 2000.

Wrong.

Posted by Fact Checker | December 15, 2007 6:17 PM

Uh, I voted for HRC in 2000 and again in 2006. Senators stand for election every six years.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | December 15, 2007 6:23 PM

[Clinton] also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."

Clinton’s comment is also a logical slight-of-hand. Clearly implied by Obama’s comment was the obvious fact that experience by itself is no guarantee of wisdom, as evidenced by the decision of those Very Experienced Politicians to enable Bush to get us into Iraq. Clinton muddies the waters by reading Obama’s comment as a sweeping rejection of experienced politicians. But Obama wasn’t arguing that people should choose someone with experience in a completely different profession—just that people who make smart decisions are better choices than those who do not.

Pardon me if I've belabored the obvious....

Posted by dolphy | December 15, 2007 6:36 PM

"Bill looked seriously pissed off last night. And as the interview wore on, he seemed to get farther and farther off his game. And more pissed. Something is rotten in the state of the Clinton camp."

S'weird. The Clinton camp never bothered to figure out what they were running for other than restoration. At the heart of things, they've have no idea what they're running for, so they are always searching for how to act and what to say.

And yes, the extremity of Bill's continual off-messageness, in particular, has truly been amazing. But it's just a prominent symptom of a far deeper disease.

They had a very nice few weeks after Labor Day when they first really rolled out, but other than that, this is an utterly awful campaign that is busy pissing away every advantage they started out with.

They needed a serious shakeup at some point. All Dem frontrunner campaigns do. Gore had a big fall shakeup. Kerry had a big fall shakeup. And the Clinton campaign never got one. They decided they were all too good to need a shakeup.

They've fallen prey to hubris, and they've set themselves up for an amazing fall. They're going to do their shakeup in January instead of November, and they're likely going to lose because of it.

Posted by Petey | December 15, 2007 6:36 PM

What part of the phrase 'national office' are people having trouble with? We elect senators and governors, that's it. Rudy need not apply. I may vote Obama but remember being a little startled that he floated rumors one year into the Senate, with only some state legislature experience before that. I wish Gore would run, actually, but didn't he first run when he was 35, and get trounced?

Clinton's clearly signaling that his wife's many years of taking arrows and doing policy with him counts as experience without saying so. The fact that he signals it in this roundabout way, because it's poor politics to say it outright, doesn't make it untrue.

As for Obama, I think he could overcome this and be a great president. Too. But first he has to show us he can handle this question. If he does he'll be inoculated against the Republicans. But it's a valid criticism.

Posted by bobv | December 15, 2007 6:48 PM

Good work Matthew! And good for Charlie Rose - I think it is so unfair of the Clintons to say they have experience and Obama does not.

Obama certainly has experience just not the kind the Clintons want him to have. I think they may be envious of his experience because not only does he have eleven years elected but he also has hands on experience doing quiet unappreciated work for chicago. The kind of experience not too many people could do.

Obama has the kind of experience that we need -especially now. i trust him with my vote!

100 %

Posted by beth | December 15, 2007 6:58 PM

There are lots and lots and lots of reasons not to support Hillary. I think Edwards is by far the best choice. But to think that Bill and Hillary in the WH don't have certain advantages the others don't is at best naive.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 15, 2007 6:58 PM

Good work Matthew! And good for Charlie Rose - I think it is so unfair of the Clintons to say they have experience and Obama does not.

Obama certainly has experience just not the kind the Clintons want him to have. I think they may be envious of his experience because not only does he have eleven years elected but he also has hands on experience doing quiet unappreciated work for chicago. The kind of experience not too many people could do.

Obama has the kind of experience that we need -especially now. i trust him with my vote!

100 %

Posted by beth | December 15, 2007 6:58 PM

Hillary has undermined too many central arguments for her candidacy: she's a crummy attacker, she's not really more electable than Obama, she's not inevitable, and the implication I've felt that she's somehow earned this, that we owe her the nomination, is something I find repugnant, and that's really enough to make me oppose her in and of herself. I think you can see that not so subtly in her attacks against Obama: she's taking his success personally, far more than, say, John Edwards is.

Obama has some disadvantages, but I don't think voters really care about experience. How do you explain the last four elections, in which the candidate with more experience in government has lost every single time? Granted, in 2004, Bush actually had experience as President and the experience issue was a wash. In any event, unless the Clintons choose to release Bill's papers so that we can see how much influence Hillary had in his White House, I'm not counting that as experience.

Posted by Lev | December 15, 2007 7:06 PM

I think Obama should make the argument that he has the character and life experience to be President. He ought to take that argument into a direction that's better suited to his story. Obama's right to say that HRC's experience didn't stop her from making huge mistakes viz. Iraq and Lieberman-Kyl.

Posted by Lev | December 15, 2007 7:09 PM

What part of the phrase 'national office' are people having trouble with?

The rationale.

We elect senators and governors, that's it.

That is half right. The last senator that was elected president, without having been a veep first, was JFK. He was also the only one elected during the modern primary system (the last one before him? Warren Harding. I had to look it up.)

There is a good reason to wonder what qualifications are necessary for a good president, but I don't think there is an obvious answer. Governors do decently, but the last one didn't turn out so well (and those who think he did well probably don't think his predecessor did).

For the life of me, I don't know that running a small state (like Arkansas) is anywhere close to the appropriate experience, nor is running a big state poorly.

And, we don't seem to actually want to accept senators that are engaged in politics where the rubber meets the road -- the most experienced senators in this race are also the ones at the bottom of the pack, and Kerry had enormous difficulty fighting off his voting record whenever there was nuance (although that was partially a personal failing, it was still an easy target). An actual record seems like an albatross.

So, what instead? How about the person that actually articulates positions you like? It seems as good as anything.

Posted by Brad L | December 15, 2007 7:10 PM

Media Glutton:
Yes, something is rotten in the Clinton camp. It's the smell of fear. Humpty Dumpty has fallen and they can't put it back together. Why do you think the Big Dog is attacking Obama so much? It just goes to show that Bill isn't as smart as everyone thinks. Just as Turdblossom wasn't as smart as everyone thought either.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | December 15, 2007 7:11 PM

1) There's a blind spot in Hillary's supporters that is causing them to be surprised by events.

2) They actually don't get the idea that primary voters would expect some signs of qualification in a nominee. The big money boys backing Hillary don't expect her to be qualified -- the argument that Hillary should have good judgement and experience astonishs them.

That's because if Israeli billionaire Haim Saban thinks Hillary needs to make a decision, he will tell her what that decision should be.

Like maybe she should decide to go and fetch Haim a soft drink, the way Haim boasts that Bill Clinton used to do whenever Haim visited President Clinton in the White House.

3) From the viewpoint of men like Haim Saban and Danny Abraham, the fact that Hillary spent most of the past 20 years being a docile housewife who ate shit with a giant spoon is not a liability -- it's a plus.
She'll do what's she's told. Vote to take out Saddam Hussein , an enemy of Israel. Next year, vote to take out Iran , another enemy of Israel.

4) One can understand Bill Clinton's anger and frustration. Hillary is already whoring for all the right people -- the idea that she should also have to serve the American people seems deeply unfair.

Posted by Don Williams | December 15, 2007 7:47 PM

This experience crap is what has been killing Democrats over past elections. The issue has been put down cleary in this piece:

OBAMA MAKES NO SENSE ?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/15/113440/41/612/422462

Posted by Ike | December 15, 2007 7:49 PM

1) Of course, as I've mentioned before, I think the "Clinton legacy" is gonna show a little tarnish in the next few months. A few things that have been buried are gonna rear their ugly heads.

Hillary might find that having "Bill Clinton Administration" on your resume -- is not something you want to emphasize, even in a vague, incoherent way. Unfortunately, she doesn't have anything else.

Posted by Don Williams | December 15, 2007 7:52 PM

Who's the last non-incumbent Democrat who won on the "I'm really experienced in national politics ticket"?

Someone before FDR, right?

Posted by southpaw | December 15, 2007 7:57 PM

Back in November of last year (it may have been earlier, but it was in November when I posted on Obama for the first time), when the "Draft Obama" movement was in full swing but he hadn't announced, Obama was already fielding the "experience" question. He already had the best rejoinder, even then: The real issue is not experience but judgment, that George W. Bush's cabinet is full of "experience" and look where that got us.

I've always pulled for Obama, but I wanted to see if Hillary could win me over--for a time, I bought into the narrative of inevitability, and so I figured that if she was going to be the nominee I didn't want to have to hold my nose as I voted for her. But she's never won me over, and in large measure she hasn't precisely on the issue of experience. The more you examine what she bases her claim on, the more it rests not on her being a senator but on her being a former First Lady--which counts for something, granted, but she's been awfully circumspect in speaking to just what that something is.

Anyway. Not that I'm a political genius, but I stopped worrying about the "experience" meme, where Obama's concerned, a long time ago.

Posted by John B. | December 15, 2007 8:18 PM

"Who's the last non-incumbent Democrat who won on the "I'm really experienced in national politics ticket"? Someone before FDR, right?

If you're talking about "won" in terms of the nomination, quite a few. Kerry, Gore, Mondale, and Humphrey all won with that rationale, to go back just 40 years...

This was the Team Clinton's nomination to lose, and they're doing exactly that.

-----

w00t. Edwards makes the Newsweek cover with a flattering pic and story.

Posted by Petey | December 15, 2007 8:21 PM

If you're talking about "won" in terms of the nomination, quite a few. Kerry, Gore, Mondale, and Humphrey all won with that rationale, to go back just 40 years...

This was the Team Clinton's nomination to lose, and they're doing exactly that.

Right, I was saying who won the whole shebang. But I won't dispute that Clinton's blowing it.

Congrats on the Newsweek cover; very timely. I'd bet he gets the Register endorsement too.

Posted by southpaw | December 15, 2007 8:54 PM

You've gotta feel at least a little bit of Bill's pain, knowing down deep inside that that upstart kid is twice as smart as his wife, and a better person, too.

Posted by Henderstock | December 15, 2007 8:59 PM

Thanks, Matt for another remarkably sane post. People forget that the love of Bill Clinton is almost entirely a byproduct of the (righteous) hatred of those who tried to bring him down over the Monica scandal. The day before the Monica story broke, Bill was busy plotting with Dick Morris on ways to revive his own popularity at the expense of Democrats in Congress through triangulation and adopting the more popular parts of the Republican agenda, from the Defense of Marriage Act to a crime bill that cut back on habeas corpus, to a regressive immigration bill.

So the progressive's love of Clinton is ultimately rather thin, because it is not based on identiification with his strengths as much as it is rejection of his enemies' weaknesses.

Remember: though the reaction to Monica-gate was ridiculous, he did not merely betray Hillary but those who voted for him because they wanted a President with credibility who could move the progressive agenda a decent amount. By straying in the way he did, he was forced to spend his last couple of years playing defense. What a loss! Let's not have too much nostalgia for that guy.

Posted by RaymondA | December 15, 2007 9:00 PM

Let me recast what I said this way: Bush is so bad that the country is ready _right now_ for whatever is his opposite, which creates an opening _right now _ for a woman or a black man to run. If we could read Obama's mind, I'll bet he himself wished he had more on his nationwide/statewide resume than one year, and understands that it's a weakness, both for running and also for governing later.

But what choice did he have? Right now is when the country is ready to consider a non white man. So it's all about how he handles the issue, not whether it's germane.

Posted by bobv | December 15, 2007 9:03 PM

Whoops.

Register went for Clinton (and McCain).

Posted by southpaw | December 15, 2007 9:20 PM

What Bill said on Charlie Rose is right on target:
Obama is un-tested: so many are willing to grade him on a curve. Everyone rushes into defend obama because he isn't even yet able to defend himself. He is a babe in the woods and a deer in the headlights. No wonder the register declines to endorse him: they say he particularly lacks experience.
Marc Ambinder's article in the Atlantic last month made very clear that Obama was planning a run almost from the minute he finished speaking at the convention, since the minute he beat the pathetic Alan Keyes (!)for his senate seat.
The funniest thing is that the obama bloggers are now coordinated: lets see how many times we see the new coordinated message "I trust him with my vote" as a couple obama bloggers above want us to see as spontaneous (the "i'm spartacus" hollywood kind of spontaneous.
Has he done a thing in congress? Has he voted against funding a war he is not for?
Bill's point was that as soon as he started to run that is what he has done.
Three weeks ago, he made these george bush-like speeches that he didn't need to be president, that he was famous from his books, that he didn't need to be famous by running, that he didn't grow up wanting that setting up the idea that the moment of now demanded he run so the clinton campaign called his bluff/lie/posturing by pointing out Obama has been eyes on the prize even in kindergarten. So yes the clinton campaign paid a price for this accurate but snarky truthcheck BUT Obama stopped telling that lie and stopped peddling that phony posture.
The news media (which I love even with all their faults) failed to connect the dots but the Clinton's silenced that very provocative approach by Obama.
This appearance by Bill also will stop Obama as it plays so successfully on Obama's quoting bill the other day and the snarky question in the debate the other day about how all obama's advisors did time with the Clintons, especially his main advisor/svengali Axelrod who quit in a snit and huff about a single issue: gays in the military.
Obama can't skate into the whitehouse: obama's cheerleaders are silly to imagine that he can get there without a tough campaign from all sides.

Posted by Michael | December 15, 2007 9:31 PM

He had earlier pointed out that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his first term in the U.S. Senate.

Of course, most people believed that Hillary's original reason for entering the Senate (in a state she wasn't a resident of) was to give her "experience" to run for president.

It was a pretty big campaign issue at the time.

Posted by Jinchi | December 15, 2007 9:49 PM

And wasn't Clinton himself criticized for being a man of little experience in 1992?

Posted by Jinchi | December 15, 2007 9:54 PM

Compare and contrast Bill clinton recently on Charlie Rose and " an hour with Barack Obama" on Charlie Rose....... The choice is clear.

Vote Obama!

A return to civility......

Posted by beth | December 15, 2007 9:57 PM

I liked Clinton, and I think that he made a good fight to run the government well in a very hostile environment. His vision of "well" was at times questionable, but I am not sure if someone could do it better, considering.

But now Mr. Clinton is not a figher but someone who remembers the glory days when he was. As a politician, he could turn on a dime, as an ex-politician he is defensive about his record and past positions, and apparently, too weary of his live to exude as much charm as during the aforementioned glory days.

My biggest problem with the influence of Mr. Clinton is that he is an excellant incrementalist, and in several areas we need radical changes. To list three -- national defence/security, health care, global warming. We need someone with a minimum of experience (but with enough inteligence not to bumble as a result). And because the necessary radicalism is too much for the public at large, we need a cypher.

That said, isn't Mrs. Clinton as good a cypher as Obama? What if her right wing detractors are right, and left wing detractors are wrong?

Plus, Obama was caught, in flagranti delicto, spouting common wisdom. Reminding us that a cypher does not need to be a good cypher.

The last hope is that we will elect an inteligent technocratic opportunist, trying to do the right thing while yielding to pressure, AND that the progressives will learn how to mount that pressure. So if Edwards adopted his concern for downtrotten rather recently, good, if Mrs. Clinton adopted better foreign policy stands quite recently, good, etc.

Posted by piotr | December 15, 2007 10:02 PM

"Three weeks ago, he made these george bush-like speeches that he didn't need to be president, that he was famous from his books, that he didn't need to be famous by running, that he didn't grow up wanting that setting up the idea that the moment of now demanded he run so the clinton campaign called his bluff/lie/posturing by pointing out Obama has been eyes on the prize even in kindergarten. So yes the clinton campaign paid a price for this accurate but snarky truthcheck"

Michael....Mark Penn is that you, dude? Gee, I thought that was all a joke that no one could POSSIBLY take seriously. Everyone who hates the establishment scum DINOs like Al Frum should rejoice that their anointed candidate is going down in flames. I don't know if the candidate will be Edwards or Obama, but I hope to God it is not Clinton.

Posted by Snap Dat | December 15, 2007 10:07 PM

"a perfectly reasonable case to be made that he has more experience than Hillary Clinton does.
"
>>>
I like Obama, but seriously, 8 years in a state senate? I mean, sure, I suppose it is experience, but how much does that really count? Compared to federal-level issues and process, those years add up to about a month.

Posted by Dean Moriarty | December 15, 2007 10:12 PM

Might help you if you sctually watched the segment.

Mitchell's report is simply ridiculous.

So is this post.

Sully is straying into this blog.

Embarrassing really.

Posted by Armando | December 15, 2007 10:18 PM

Give Clinton his due, he supports his wife for president (That's better than Bob Dole did). I won't fault him for fighting for her side. I'm sure Hillary's mother supports her too.

So does anybody doubt that if Hillary's main opponent in the primary were Chris Dodd Bill would be making the exact opposite case?

Hillary Clinton isn't a particularly experienced candidate. None of the major contenders are. If people were looking for experience we'd be discussing Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and McCain not Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Romney and Giuliani.

Posted by Jinchi | December 15, 2007 10:35 PM

Re Jinchi's comment "If people were looking for experience we'd be discussing Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and McCain not "
------------
Actually, if we were looking for experience, we would ONLY be discussing Richardson among the Democratic side.

Because what counts is EXECUTIVE experience. Making decisions under pressure where you, and you alone, are solely responsible for those decisions. Only Richardson has that experience. Both as Secretary of Energy and as Governor of New Mexico. On the Republican side, Rudi Giuliani and Rommney have it to a lesser degree.

People who have worked in legislatures never do that -- the essence of Congress is taking credit for things that turn out well (even if you did nothing to bring that about ) and blaming the other guys/ducking responsibility for the clusterfucks.

If you ever talk with a Member of Congress , he'll tell you that he would like to do the right thing but he just can't convince the other 549 assholes on Capitol Hill to go along.

Posted by Don Williams | December 15, 2007 10:56 PM

I hate to say it here but I agree with Bill Clinton on this one. It is the argument I have been making against Obama to my friends for some time. We are talking here about the Presidency of the US, and I simply don't think Obama has that heft.

I get lambasted each time I say this but I really believe Obama would have been laughed off the presidential stage has he been White with the exact same resume.
For those among you who are BhTV aficionados, watch the last diavlog between John McWhorter and Glenn Loury and listen to John's Cornell adventure.

I am afraid we could be getting into somthing similar with Obama, although I personally have a very soft spot for him.

Posted by ezD | December 15, 2007 11:10 PM

Folks, Bill is the guy who was running for President from his teens -- hence his famous letter when he was 21 to that General or colonel agonizing over his "political viability" if he did not serve in Viet Nam. The Clinton/Penn narrative on Obama makes zero sense. Wanted to be Pres since grade school, but then becomes a pothead? Then a community organizer? It makes zero sense. Bill is engaged in classic projection.

Gawd would I love to see Obama beat both of these Clintons!!! They are awful, just awful.

Posted by RaymondA | December 15, 2007 11:14 PM

You know what, I think I posted too soon, out of a bit of anger.

The reality is that having in the back of one's mind that one might want to be President is not troubling -- IF you want to do it on your own terms without compromising your most important principles. What many fear about Hillary is that she cast that Iraq vote because she wanted to be President not because it was the right thing to do.

The Clinton people get tied up in knots about Obama's Iraq opposition and his ambition. If you talk to them only about the "ambition" question they say Obama has had the same burning ambition for years as Hillary. If you talk to them only about his Iraq opposition, they say, "Well he was just a state senator in a blue state. It was risk free."

They can't have it both ways. If Obama secretly wanted to be President in 2002 (and I think he certainly thought it was a possibility) then the Iraq opposition was exceptionally courageous--especially for a guy with his name and with the obvious slurs he'd face.

Posted by RaymondA | December 15, 2007 11:24 PM

ezD: "I get lambasted each time I say this but I really believe Obama would have been laughed off the presidential stage has he been White with the exact same resume."

John Edwards is white and he has flatly less experience than Obama does and his political resume is grossly inferior to Obama's. Yet back in 2003 Edwards was very nearly the democratic nominee and actually was the vice presidential nominee. So there doesn't appear to be any basis for your belief.

Dean Moriarty: "I like Obama, but seriously, 8 years in a state senate? I mean, sure, I suppose it is experience, but how much does that really count? Compared to federal-level issues and process, those years add up to about a month."

I think it's a mistake to discount experience working at the state level. Illinois is a big state, and Obama proved there that he was able to work together with different people to pass important progressive legislation. Interestingly, if you watch the Charlie Rose segment, Bill Clinton explicitly framed the issue this way: it wasn't about years served, it was about actually having a record of helping people and making a positive difference in people's lives. That was the kind of important experience needed in the next president, according to Bill Clinton. This frame is very interesting to me because Obama probably has a more impressive list of achievements at helping people than Hillary Clinton does. Of course to hear Bill tell it Obama apparently has never done anything in his life. But does anyone else think that Clinton would be supporting Obama if he didn't happen to be married to Hillary? Obama's campaign has far greater similarities to Bill's own run in 1992 than it does to Hillary's campaign now.

Posted by Korha | December 15, 2007 11:49 PM

RaymondA makes a good point. The fact is that anybody who runs for president has a pretty damn high opinion of himself - ambition is a part of the job description.

I have no problem with ambitious candidates. The question of leadership is - will you sacrifice everything you believe in to obtain your goal, or will you find a way to convince the majority to see the world with your eyes. Romney is a glaring example of the first type of candidate. Ron Paul falls at the other extreme.

Hillary... well, I don't quite know where she's at because she refuses to say whether her original vote was a mistake, or whether she thinks George Bush simply screwed up a perfect little war.

Posted by Jinchi | December 15, 2007 11:59 PM

As a New Yorker, my vote counts for little, except perhaps in the primaries: I don't think Hillary should be president and I don't like the people who are supporting her.

The fact is that Hillary has not done a good job representing the people of NY. We New Yorkers passionately opposed the war and we opposed Lieberman. Hillary supported these two phenomena thus displaying contempt for of her constituents. Maybe Bill would have done the same, but she's the one with the title and the responsibility right now.

Her husband, on the other hand, has represented the USA well worldwide over the years. I would gladly see him as Secretary of State in someone else's administration.

Posted by Harold | December 16, 2007 12:39 AM

Obama has enough experience to know that there's a real world out there inhabited by real people. Knowing that, really knowing it, is 90% of what's needed, as far as I'm concerned. The rest is smarts, information, and the ability to decide -- to let go of the dice -- at the right time, whether it comes out right or not.

Posted by SqueakyRat | December 16, 2007 12:48 AM

Armando, if you have a problem with Matt's post, why not tell us where he went wrong? Or do you prefer to just be obnoxious?

Posted by mad6798j | December 16, 2007 12:54 AM

Lincoln exemplifies the rebuttal to Clinton's argument.

Posted by JC | December 16, 2007 12:54 AM

One has to actually watch and listen to Bill Clinton’s performance on the Rose show to grasp what a truly pathetic figure Clinton has become.

It is striking that the reference point for his defense of his wife always comes down to examples drawn from his own experience as president. So, it is clear that what is at stake for him in this campaign is the egotistical fear that his own reputation and legacy will be seriously tarnished and undermined if Hillary is defeated by this supposed upstart coming from nowhere.

(One can literally see the anxious fear in his reddening face and trembling voice and nervous fiddling with his hands as he is forced to deal with the Obama phenom).

The irony of all this paranoia is that by inserting himself so forcefully into the campaign now as Hillary’s attack dog, he is essentially inviting the blowback of renewed attention on his own failures as president and, of course, the return to digging up the scandals of the Clintons' history going back to their time in Arkansas.

Yes, (Hillary is correct)watch for the “fun” times ahead in the next few months.

Posted by Justin X | December 16, 2007 1:23 AM

Illinois is a big state, and Obama proved there that he was able to work together with different people to pass important progressive legislation.

Illinois is a cutthroat place where people die over patronage. That's not an exageration, Mike Madigan is probably more feared than mafia bosses. He managed to negotiate between the Harold Washington camp left after his death and the horrid Illinois establishment machine and come out of it without enemies. That's something akin to Pershev Musharev coming out on top of the ISI. He's not a nice guy, he's got a good smile, but he knows where the bodies are buried and he got what he wanted in Illinois.

I don't think he's the messiah, he needs to know he doesn't have unconditional support, but he's not naive in the slightest. Hillary is a babe in the woods compared to him.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 16, 2007 2:17 AM

To identify the problems with the medical malpractice analogy, it pays to look at Senator Clinton’s two biggest potential mistakes.

First, there is her leading the Clinton health care task force in 1993. And second, there is her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Senator Clinton makes much of her learning the lessons of her health care efforts - “I have the scars to prove it” and so forth.

But she has not repudiated her Iraq vote - nor has she cast herself as having learned important lessons from it as a mistake. Her vote on the Iran Revolutionary Guard, if anything, proved she hasn’t learned from the neoconservative debacle in Iraq. If these are both instances of “a doctor committing medical malpractice,” Senator Clinton has not vowed to cease both kinds of malpractice. That’s what’s missing from President Clinton’s clever arguments on Charlie Rose. More here.

And did anyone else notice how he tried to paint Obama as self-centered by reference to Hillary as "other-focused"?

Posted by Mike | December 16, 2007 4:54 AM

Right, before 2000 HRC had not been elected to a single public office. Unless you consider Mr. and Mrs. Clinton as a double act for the price of one, which they seem to be today with Mr. Clinton seeking his third term with his wife as front woman.

Even more startling: before 2000 Mrs. Clinton had only very recently become a resident of New York State. Who arranged the senatorial candidacy for her? Oh I would so like to hear that story. I find it unseemly that Mr. Clinton goes around touting his wife. They do the same in Argentina these days.

Posted by Quentin | December 16, 2007 7:17 AM

When Obama was on Charlie Rose in late 2002, he brought up the difficulty of keeping the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds (by name) from killing each other once we were running the place as part of the reason he opposed the war and noted the lack of a national discussion of this issue. Clinton was one of the most high-profile people in the Senate at the time and is a Democrat from a solidly blue state that wouldn't lose her seat for voting against the war. She had access to a lot more intel and info than Obama did at the time. Did the words "Sunnis," "Shi'ites" or "Kurds" ever pass her lips at this time? Considering that one of these potential nominees actually understood the dynamics of local politics in another society where we were about to start dropping bombs and the other didn't, who should we trust more?

Posted by Reality Man | December 16, 2007 8:18 AM

piotr: But now Mr. Clinton is not a figher but someone who remembers the glory days when he was. As a politician, he could turn on a dime, as an ex-politician he is defensive about his record and past positions, and apparently, too weary of his live to exude as much charm as during the aforementioned glory days.

Yes. He's also Hillary Clinton's husband, which makes me wonder if he's not simply offering objective analysis when he discusses the Presidential race. Hmmm?

Posted by Barbar | December 16, 2007 8:25 AM

I could understand the whole Clinton line if she had accomplished one single fucking thing in her time in the Senate after being a senator from a large state and being the wife of her party's most popular president of the last 50 years. Instead, she backed the Iraq War, a sort anti-flag burning amendment, calling the Iranian military terrorists and trying to censor violent video games. What accomplishments in her life as a liberal does she have for the cause of liberalism besides promoting herself? At least when Obama was in the Illinois Senate, he was able to get things like make sure that interrogations and confessions by police had to be video-taped and in the Senate has been active on issues like loose nukes in the former USSR. Clinton is a big part of the reason we don't have universal healthcare. She is a pseudo-feminist who has put the cause of feminism and having a woman run for the presidency independent of her husband back at least a decade. If a real liberal woman was running who has actual accomplishments to run on (such as Boxer or Pelosi), I would consider voting for her in the primary, but Hillary is just good enough to have been the best candidate among the pack of losers in 2004. I guess her accomplishment is pissing off conservatives and making them go crazy while accomplishing nothing for liberals.

Posted by Reality Man | December 16, 2007 8:26 AM

Re Don Williams on Bill Richardson

One should also mention that Richardson was UN Ambassador and spent several years in the US House of Representatives representing New Mexico. If this election were based solely on experience, he would win in a walk.

Re Don Williams

I certainly hope that if Ms. Clinton gets into the White House, she will ignore Haim Sabens' advice to force Israel to negotiate with Hamas and Syria.

Posted by SLC | December 16, 2007 8:52 AM

It's easy to give speeches against all kinds of things when you're a State Senator from a safe district.

You'll notice that, now, Sen. Obama does NOT pledge to bring all the troops home by the end of his term.

Posted by John Petty | December 16, 2007 9:19 AM

"It's easy to give speeches against all kinds of things when you're a State Senator from a safe district.

You'll notice that, now, Sen. Obama does NOT pledge to bring all the troops home by the end of his term.

Posted by John Petty | December 16, 2007 9:19 AM"

It's easy to give speeches against all kinds of things when you're a Senator from a safe state.

You'll notice that, now, Sen. Clinton does NOT pledge to bring all the troops home by the end of her term.

Posted by Ummm | December 16, 2007 9:44 AM

It's easy to give speeches against all kinds of things when you're a State Senator from a safe district.

Well, only if you disregard the "he was always aiming for the presidency" narrative. That was a high-profile issue with a significant chance of backfire -- many, many Dems were afraid to be seen on the anti-war side.

I also think this ignores the "traitors and cowards" rhetoric that was floating around then -- it took both stones and insight for a politician to stand up to it. The idea that the position entailed no political risk seems wrong, but even if you think it was easier to express a position, it wasn't any easier to be right, and he was.

Posted by Brad L | December 16, 2007 9:44 AM

Hey Matt,

I've always enjoyed reading your blog, and I think you normally have great things to say. But you should be careful, because the Anti-Hillary sentiment you've been riding hard lately is threatening to push you into the Daily Kos camp. A blog I can't even read anymore.

Posted by Katie L | December 16, 2007 10:58 AM

bobv - What part of the phrase 'national office' are people having trouble with? We elect senators and governors, that's it.

Not true. We have only elected two Presidents straight from the Senate in our history. 15 have served, but most as coming from being Generals, high-ranking officers below general, governors or VPs to supplement just being a Senator. (The two who did were Harding and JFK).

We have elected 12 Generals, 5 Colonels , 2 LT Colonels, and 7 junior officers of high distinction in combat (James Monroe, Gerald Ford, Bush Sr, McKinley, JFK, etc.) to President. In addition, Herbert Hoover was given effective logistical control of US military units in WWI. post WWI humanitarian work that saved millions in Europe - equivalent to a commanding general. Only 11 US Presidents never served, including Hoover.

22 Presidents were former governors.
14 Vice Presidents became President.
25 Presidents had executive command experience in the military, 26 if Hoover is added.

1 Senator who was neither a VP, governor, or military commander ever became President - Harding.

bobv - Rudy need not apply.

Certain large city mayors have a harder job than many generals, governors, CEOs do. Certainly harder than being a Senator only. Mayors are now thought of, thanks to past good ones who became governors then President - justly - as another talent pool for high office.

bobv - I may vote Obama but remember being a little startled that he floated rumors one year into the Senate, with only some state legislature experience before that.

Obama has zero executive experience in any field. Military, private business, government. He happens to talk good and have african ancestry. No white person with his limited credentials and solver tongue would be able to run for President without being laughed at as unqualified.
Obama compares himself to Lincoln, but Lincoln was a Commander (O-3) in the Blackhawk War, was a major attorney syncronizing railroad interests and exploding industrial growth in the Great Lakes region with State interests. Lincoln was also one of the creators and key leaders of the new Republican Party Lincoln had helped form from the Whigs and Free Soil Democrats. He was obscure and an outsider to the Powers in charge on the East Coast, but was one of the lead notables in his region.

I wish Gore would run, actually, but didn't he first run when he was 35, and get trounced?

No, that was about when he was a Congressman after not getting degrees in law or divinity school. He became a Senator at 36 and thought like most Senators do that he was "Just Like JFK"
and worthy. He ran at 41 but was spanked out after winning a handful of Southern states as a pro-gun anti-gay Baptist, but getting creamed in other States.
He didn't run in 1992, electing to work on his environmental book. Bill Clinton picked him as VP, Clinton people said later, mainly because Gore was one of the few Democrats to show he was trustworthy on National Security by voting to go to war with Iraq in 1991.
Nogistalia has a lot of people hoping Noble Algore would run again, and majorities WISHING he had been elected in 2000 considering how badly Bush has screwed up things (even many of us Republicans). But, the truth is, the Presidency was his, and Gore screwed it up by running a horrifically bad campaign, botched his debates, and managed to lose Tennessee and Arkansas which would have elected him regardless of Florida if he hadn't run as an ACLU-loving East Coast Elitist.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 16, 2007 11:17 AM

Actually, if Gore had won New Hampshire, which he probably would have done if asshole Ralph Nader had not been in the race, he would have won the election and Florida would not even have been an issue.

Posted by SLC | December 16, 2007 11:23 AM

Watch out, here comes Chris the-degenerate-racist Fraud being a degenerate racist. Chris Fraud, could you be more of a sickening racist slime slug?

Posted by Jennifer | December 16, 2007 11:31 AM

Wow, a real Jennifer appearance, with the same exact lingo as always, just following another Chris Ford, Steve Sailer, or Robert Powell post. I'll be durned.

Posted by El Cid | December 16, 2007 11:36 AM

Brad said: I also think this ignores the "traitors and cowards" rhetoric that was floating around then -- it took both stones and insight for a politician to stand up to it. The idea that the position entailed no political risk seems wrong, but even if you think it was easier to express a position, it wasn't any easier to be right, and he was.

I disagree. The "safe position" for a Democratic candidate in Democratic primaries is the anti-war one.

Posted by John Petty | December 16, 2007 12:36 PM

I disagree. The "safe position" for a Democratic candidate in Democratic primaries is the anti-war one.

No, Brad has this one right. Tom Daschle, Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland bet their seats on the pro-war ticket. They gambled wrong - but the perception among Democrats in Congress was you only voted against the war if you were in an extremely safe district, or if you were suicidal.

John Edwards admitted as much in his apology.

Posted by Jinchi | December 16, 2007 2:14 PM

I said "in the Democratic primaries." Most of them are falling all over themselves telling us how anti-war they are. If that's not where the Democratic base is, they wouldn't be there either.

For the record, I like Sen. Obama very much, and think he's a fine Senator, but his appeals to bipartisanship don't work for me.

Republicans won't have any interest in being bipartisan until they get beat. (The southern Republicans have never tasted defeat. In their lifetimes, it's been only victories. Defeat humbles.)

Until then, airy appeals to bipartisanship and working together only mean that we do it the GOP way. I don't want to work with them. I want to beat them.

Posted by John Petty | December 16, 2007 3:58 PM

They're running scared. When Charlie would yuck at the slightest Bill twitch - Bill would relent with only a half-second quarter-smile. He was on a mission. A hapless one, but one nonetheless. The truth is Hillary's a piss-poor candidate in every respect.

As Muhammed Ali once said of Wilt Chamberlin (when hucksters were trying to sell the public on a bout): "He can't talk. He can't walk. And, he's ugly."

Posted by Trevor | December 16, 2007 4:02 PM

Gore ran as a centrist, not as an ACLU-loving east coaster. He even repudiated Clinton, going after what he and his clueless advisers thought was the "morality" vote.

Their appeasemtn of the right wing probably drove many voters into the arms of Nader. The choice of the smarmy, religious Cheney-loving as vice-presidential candidate didn't help. Neither did the contempt and loathing of the mainstream media, who even then were apparently itching to go to war and try out the military industrial complex's new toys.

Posted by Harold | December 16, 2007 5:39 PM

"Certain large city mayors have a harder job than many generals, governors, CEOs do. Certainly harder than being a Senator only. Mayors are now thought of, thanks to past good ones who became governors then President - justly - as another talent pool for high office."

How do this make Giuliani a good candidate for President? Giuliani's overall record as mayor of New York is inferior compared to his peers, like Mayor Daley of Chicago or even Richard Riordan in Los Angeles. Yet, nobody would like that either of them should be President.

Giuliani is only a candidate because he did a better job of projecting a tough-guy image against Al Qaeda on 9/11 than Bush did at the time. He certainly has no foreign policy experience to draw upon, and his actual decisions relating to terrorism during his time as Mayor of NYC throw his judgement in great doubt. Remember, NYC's emergency command center had been placed by Giuliani in the World Trade Center, AFTER it had been the subject of a terrorist attack in 1993. We've already had a President good at talking tough, but who makes bad decisions in carrying out foreign policy decisions relating to national security issues. We don't need another Dubya, especially one with the personality of Dick Cheney to boot.

Posted by eltoro | December 16, 2007 7:13 PM

"Yet, nobody would like that either of them should be President."

That should read, "Yet, nobody would think that either of them (Daley or Riordan) should be President."

Posted by eltoro | December 16, 2007 7:16 PM

I said "in the Democratic primaries."

The primaries only get you to the table (and I think you're confusing the 2008 presidential primaries with the 2004 Senatorial race). When Obama was speaking against the war, it was considered a career killing move for most Democrats. And he didn't have the benefit of incumbency.

Looking at the recent capitulations to George Bush over the last year it's pretty obvious that Democrats are still running scared of the "anti-war" = "anti-American" brand. Democrats in Congress don't see the anti-war position as a winner, even when polling has 70% of the country on their side.

Posted by Jinchi | December 17, 2007 12:00 AM

[T]here's a perfectly reasonable case to be made that [Obama] has more experience than Hillary Clinton does.

As pro-Obama arguments go, this one strikes me as entirely unpersuasive. It is certainly reasonable to argue that Clinton's experience is outweighed by other factors, or that her long record contains more negatives than positives. But the notion that she lacks relevant experience when compared with any other candidate in the race (and particularly when compared with Obama) depends on ignoring the obvious.

It is not exactly a secret that HRC was, for better or worse, an intimate political and policy advisor to, and personal envoy for, a two-term president -- the most successful Democratic president, politically speaking, since FDR. She followed that up with two successful New York Senate campaigns, in the second of which she garnered about 2/3 of the statewide vote and won 58 of 62 counties. She has been in the national political spotlight (which is above all a media spotlight) more-or-less continuously for a decade and a half.

Eight years in the Illinois state legislature followed by half a Senate term is not nothing, but neither is it remotely in the same league. Obama might make a better candidate and president than HRC (though, personally, I have my doubts). But if he does it will be depite his relative lack of experience, not because of it.

Posted by Amileoj | December 17, 2007 4:10 AM