Matthew Yglesias (February 23, 2008)

Indeed, some aides said they were baffled that a candidate who had been in the United States Senate for only three years and was a state lawmaker in Illinois before that was now outpacing a seasoned figure like Mrs. Clinton.

Sounds like Tim K.

I guess the American people aren't ready for/on day one.

Baffling, indeed.

But please don't count her out, Matt. Remember, she is still going to win. The victory isn't as satisfying if it comes too easy.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 23, 2008 6:15 PM

Well her supporters are already posting diaries on mydd claiming Obama is a gay crack smoker, so my guess is her supporters aren't going to go quietly.

Posted by mad6798j | February 23, 2008 6:22 PM

Matt, PLEASE tell me this guy is whacked: http://hbhblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-will-be-next-president.html

Posted by J. Marti | February 23, 2008 6:22 PM

I'm certainly not writing her off, because history shows she will stop at nothing.

And "experience" - at least Obama won his Senate seat by working in local and state politics. His spouse didn't give it to him.

Posted by Sweating Through Fog | February 23, 2008 6:24 PM

Mark Penn is baffled to the tune of 3 million dollars.

Posted by Garuda | February 23, 2008 6:24 PM

I guess this explains the display of faux outrage on CNN wherein she presents HERSELF as the victim of unfair attacks that not Deomcrat should use against another! A sennse of enntitlement is a wonnderful thing: the "entitled" person can project all of her failings and misbehavior onto her opponenent and give herself a nice sense of beinng pure as the driven snow.

Posted by wonkie | February 23, 2008 6:24 PM

This is !!!EXCELLENT NEWS™!!!! for HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | February 23, 2008 6:27 PM

Is her staff baffled that Joe Biden didn't win the nomination?

Or Chris Dodd.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 23, 2008 6:34 PM

Or Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, who were both more experienced that Hillary Clinton.

And the folks over at MyDD have just about gone insane.

Posted by Mike | February 23, 2008 6:37 PM

i imagine HRC's people are on the same planet--a different one from the rest of us--that she is.

at the debate, after her lame-o Xerox line, and she got the massive boos, SHE KEPT ON WITH IT. that tells me she wasn't even listening to the room, the mood, the people, just like she's been doing since day one.

Posted by rob! | February 23, 2008 6:40 PM

This is just some sick shit. I haven't wanted to trash Hillary so far this campaign, but this gives me the vivid impression that she deserved to lose.

...Mrs. Clinton has avoided giving pep talks to her aides, because a pep talk might suggest that the campaign is heading in an irretrievable direction.

What kind of Rudy Giuliani bullshit is that? And the story, separately, about her campaign not paying bills with local businesses in the wake of her campaign (I believe that the people who receive this money are what's known as "working people") at the same time as they're paying the top campaign staff tens of thousands of dollars a month? That's totally inexcusable, and I don't think it makes me a Hillary hater to say that it has a very negative effect on my personal impression of the candidate and her priorities.

It's something of a wonder that Obama isn't making more of a big deal out of it. (As someone might have put it, the Republicans will probably not be afraid to bring it up.)

Posted by neil | February 23, 2008 6:43 PM

If the last 60 years of US elections prove anything, it's that "change" ALWAYS beats "experience". Incumbents are only knocked off by washington outsiders, and the less-entrenched non-incumbent basically always wins.

The only exception to this rule I can think of is 1988 and I don't think Dukakis played the change card that heavily, IIRC.

Posted by right | February 23, 2008 6:44 PM

Sleazerlly, please remind us again what the heck YOUR experience is.

Fist lady and a bad one at that: no baking cookies (arrogant classless), travelgate, heath care debacle (incompetent), Republican landslide (no leadership), letting Bill play with interns, (corrupt to the core).

Experience shaking down Marc Rich for cash in exchange for a pardon from her husband. Destroying records subject to an investigation, Whitewater corruption, a small investment that magically turns into a fortune, and on and on.

If that’s experience we can count on, then let’s all run the other way and reject this dishonest, arrogant, mean, vindictive, self-pitying, thin skinned, vicious hack. Also, we have to keep Bill out of the White House so he doesn’t attempt to sexually abuse any more interns.

Cigar anyone?

Posted by dirk | February 23, 2008 6:46 PM

And the folks over at MyDD have just about gone insane.

Ever since Chris and Matt started their own site, MyDD has gone to pot.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 23, 2008 6:47 PM

It makes more sense for them to lie that they're baffled than to express doubt about the candidate they work for. Hillary is watching, after all.

Posted by MP | February 23, 2008 6:47 PM

There was this in the article as well, which is revealing:

"As part of that focus, Mrs. Clinton has avoided giving pep talks to her aides, because a pep talk might suggest that the campaign is heading in an irretrievable direction. Instead, as she always has, she talks to her aides on the trail and at headquarters about the tasks at hand, pursuing them in checklist fashion —impressing some with her hardiness, while suggesting a joyless or workmanlike feel to others."

Either she is too tough to admit to adversity, or she's in denail about the position she is in. Either way, she is tone deaf to the emotional need for pep talk.

This is what is so disturbing about the whole HRC campaign and give it is slightly out of joint, deadening feel..It reminds me of the Health Care fiasco during Bill's first term. Some times attending to the general ambience is necessary before you go down the "to do list."

Posted by cliu | February 23, 2008 6:48 PM

This experience thing just baffles me. First of all, if she does get the nomination, how does she pivot off a campaign based on Washington experience when her opponent has been in Congress for a around a quarter century? What do they say if McCain starts running on the same theme? "I thought experience was important before I decided that, in fact, it really isn't all that important after all"?

Secondly, I think a lot of general election voters will find some of her experience claims a bit dubious. I realize that being the spouse of a politician will give you a lot of knowledge about the internal workings of government that a normal Jo Blow off the street wouldn't have. I get that. I also realize working on all of those campaigns with Bill over the years was very valuable experience. To me, though, the fact is that she was an actual elected official until she won her Senate seat. So unless she claims ownership to being the first real example of Dick Cheney's magical 4th branch of the United States government (something the campaign seems to be implying but is smart enough not to go down the slippery slope by being open about it), I don't see how it holds up very well.

Posted by Benniefly2 | February 23, 2008 6:51 PM

Benniefly2:
It doesn't hold up at all. She has 8 years of Senate experience. Big deal. How long have Biden and Dodd been there? Hell, Feingold has been there longer than her. Besides, it is hard to claim you are ready on day one when Obama is out organizing you. He seems a lot more prepared and organized than she does.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 23, 2008 6:58 PM

Look, I want Hillary to lose as bad as anybody, but being First Lady for 8 years has to be considered meaningful preparatory experience for assuming the job oneself. The persons in the world who know as close to exactly what it's like to be POTUS as anybody else are their spouses. And they do influence their husbands, advise them. Certainly a commanding, confident personality such as Hillary's would have been quite intimately involved in the experiences and decisions of Bill. With the exception of actually being in the situation room and having intelligence clearance, I imagine she has a FAR clearer idea of what being president is about than anyone else running.

And again, I'm praying she loses.

Posted by Bill | February 23, 2008 7:09 PM

Hillary is not a "seasoned figure"

ok.

She won two elections which were given to her.

Rick Lazio and the mayor of Yonkers.

Let's not kid ourselves, we should've expected this from her. She's never had a real opponent in an election.

She is no Bill. So let's stop with this BS about her being "vetted and tested"

what a crock of shit . . .

I hope she cries hard after Texas and Ohio . . .

My "35 years of experience". Hmmm you're 60 now, you graduated law school at 25, so what you're really saying is that you're older.

She's lucky that she's a US senator from a very important state. She should stick with that.

Posted by nattyb | February 23, 2008 7:10 PM

genuinely "baffled" by experience not proving to be a winning issue

Of course, that's not what baffled them. What baffled them is that a guy nobody'd ever heard of three years before the campaign started is beating a well-liked candidate who's been a prominent figure in the party for 15 years. It's right there in the text, Matt.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 23, 2008 7:11 PM

Hillary is not a "seasoned figure"

ok.

She won two elections which were given to her.

Rick Lazio and the mayor of Yonkers.

Let's not kid ourselves, we should've expected this from her. She's never had a real opponent in an election.

She is no Bill. So let's stop with this BS about her being "vetted and tested"

what a crock of shit . . .

I hope she cries hard after Texas and Ohio . . .

My "35 years of experience". Hmmm you're 60 now, you graduated law school at 25, so what you're really saying is that you're older.

She's lucky that she's a US senator from a very important state. She should stick with that.

Posted by nattyb | February 23, 2008 7:11 PM

The Carville quote was what got me:

“A lot of her friends are just feeling, ‘How could this be happening to her?’ ” said James Carville, a friend of the Clintons and a former strategist to Mr. Clinton. “It’s just hard to understand."

The hubris behind this sentiment is mind blowing. She is running to be the most powerful person in the world. Many great Americans have launched unsuccessful presidential campaigns. Hillary is not being thrown out on the street - she will still be a multimillionaire celebrity US Senator and party leader. The Bill Clinton line she used to end the debate was exactly right - the hits candidates take in elections are nothing compared to what people go through around the world every day.

Despite being a huge Obama fan and not so much a fan of the Senator from New York, I will feel bad for her if or when she loses the nomination. She put up with a lot, worked hard, had high hopes, and this can't be easy for her. Surely she is a sympathetic figure.

But a little perspective is in order!

Posted by rr18 | February 23, 2008 7:13 PM

Hillary tried to fudge both ends. Yes, I am a transformative leader finally poised to do the great changes I want done...Yes, I was the Co-Governor and Co-President of some 18 years of business as usual - ready from Day 1 to be an Executive because I slept (at least once) with one.

She was not a natural politician. Her voice grates, she has a tin ear with crowds and sensing their mood, and thinks she is owed power because she works hard and believes she knows best and passionately what is best to be imposed on other Americans on a range of issues.
Bill Clinton actually wanted to have her take over Arkansas while he left to run for President and had to bear all those lonely towns and hot female staffers without her comforting presence...then Bill got the polls on what Arkansas voters would do with Hillary if they had a choice (have her shut up, move out of the Mansion, bake cookies).

some aides said they were baffled that a candidate who had been in the United States Senate for only three years and was a state lawmaker in Illinois before that was now outpacing a seasoned figure like Mrs. Clinton.

If they were baffled, why did they ensure reporters would nut be able to look at her records from her Arkansas or White House days to see what paper trail she left on any policy. We do know that the woman "ready from Day 1" to lead the military, assess US intelligence and act on it, and run foreign policy never attended a meeting or read a memo that required a security clearance - because Hillary never obtained a security clearance.

Barack Obama will be the least experiened person ever to be President in terms of executive experience if he is elected. No military, corporate, or executive leadership spots in government. But in terms of government experience in a non-executive level, voting to spend money and pass laws he likes - young Barack has more experience than Hillary.

Posted by chris ford | February 23, 2008 7:13 PM

Don't overlook this little gem from Patti Solis Doyle:

"[Hillary Clinton] has gone through so much, where someone like me would hide under the covers. But she gets up. She works. She tries"

Unlike Solis Doyle, who apparently--and by her own admission--neither works nor tries. Exactly the person I would want in charge of a presidential campaign.

My God, I hope Obama wins the nomination so we don't have to watch this team thrown to the Republicans like so much chum to sharks.

Posted by Marc | February 23, 2008 7:18 PM

Barack Obama will be the least experiened person ever to be President in terms of executive experience if he is elected.

Except for a little-known placeholder named Abraham Lincoln. But otherwise, I take your point.

Posted by Marc | February 23, 2008 7:21 PM

What was Chester A. Arthur's executive experience?

[That's not a serious question, and I would actually prefer not to know the answer; just indicating the absurdity of C. Ford's claim.]

It seems to me that one mistake a lot of people have made is to assume that Hillary Clinton's campaign would be roughly as effective as Bill Clinton's campaigns. It doesn't appear to be, and I would suggest that tells us something about the difference between Bill and Hillary. I don't see that she has the same political or leadership skills that he has.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 23, 2008 7:28 PM

"[Hillary Clinton] has gone through so much, where someone like me would hide under the covers. But she gets up. She works. She tries"

You know, Doyle is young and probably doesn't have the academic and professional background that would have allowed her to learn one of life's most important life lessons-- sometimes your best isn't good enough, you can try and still fail, and hard work doesn't always produce rewards commensurate with how hard you worked. In fact, success in politics is one of those many fields where hard work does not automatically pay off.

From what is being described ("she talks to her aides on the trail and at headquarters about the tasks at hand, pursuing them in checklist fashion —impressing some with her hardiness"), Hillary would have made an extremely successful, extremely rich corporate lawyer or surgeon. I know that the personality attributes I might share with Hillary are precisely the ones that would make me a poor national politician or salesman (though some politicians manage to find a niche as a hard-worker with strong command of the details). That's why I chose a different career. The problem seems to be that Doyle has not learned these lessons and Hillary, who is almost twice Doyle's age doesn't seem to have learned them, either.

Posted by Tyro | February 23, 2008 7:28 PM

Well, these people work for Clinton, so, yes, a grass-roots movement that rejects cynicism, triangulation, and embraces change is going to be a little bit baffling.

Posted by David B. | February 23, 2008 7:32 PM

Wow, apparently this terrible campaign is not of Hillary's doing: And to a person, these aides and advisers praised Mrs. Clinton and said that she had been a better candidate than her campaign strategy and operation reflected.

Hillary cannot fail, she can only be failed.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 23, 2008 7:33 PM

"though some politicians manage to find a niche as a hard-worker with strong command of the details"

Yep. They're called U.S. Senators.

Posted by Yossarian | February 23, 2008 7:34 PM

The problem seems to be that Doyle has not learned these lessons and Hillary, who is almost twice Doyle's age doesn't seem to have learned them, either.

Um... Doyle was born in 1965. Hillary might be older than her, but she's not *that* old.

Posted by jbryan | February 23, 2008 7:40 PM

Um... Doyle was born in 1965.

For some reason I thought Doyle was in her 30s. My mistake.

Posted by Tyro | February 23, 2008 7:45 PM

Bill - "Look, I want Hillary to lose as bad as anybody, but being First Lady for 8 years has to be considered meaningful preparatory experience for assuming the job oneself."

Yeah, Bill, just like the spouse of Head of Surgery, who was herself a nurse once, has to be considered seasoned for assuming the job herself

Bill - The persons in the world who know as close to exactly what it's like to be POTUS as anybody else are their spouses.

That is the argument once made for royalty, nepotism and dynastic succession. That spouses and young princelings and princesses of executives know better than junior executives from outside the family or in analogous executive positions elsewhere - how best to lead a military, a company, a specialized executive function or branch of government.
The argument for nepotic succession largely ended in the aftermath of WWI and the purge of hereditary idiots from government and corporations.

Bill - And they do influence their husbands, advise them. Certainly a commanding, confident personality such as Hillary's would have been quite intimately involved in the experiences and decisions of Bill.

Yet the Clintons refused to show reporters the paper trail of what areas Hillary's "pillow talk" exerted such influence over her husbands decisions. With other White House wives, we do know that they sometimes influnced staffing choices, when a trip was good by horoscope ("Mommy" to "Ronnie" advice), and who should sit next to who at dinners.

Bill - With the exception of actually being in the situation room and having intelligence clearance, I imagine she has a FAR clearer idea of what being president is about than anyone else running.

Your logic takes you back to the theory that the wife of a 4-Star Admiral or Head Surgeon knows what it takes to run a Naval Fleet or run the work of 28 surgeons at a hospital than any 3-Star Admiral or junior surgeon.
In the case of President, the people that know what it is like to be President are actually other executives that do the same job on a state level from CiC to overall leadership of dozens of executive departments to making difficult decisions on imperfect information...and besides governors, certain military, legislative leaders, and private industry types whose jobs mirror the complexity of the highest Executive position.

Proximity does not mean osmosis of executive ability and judgement into the Presidents daily dressing groom, his usual Secret Service detail hovering on the outskirts of all big decisions, the AF One crew, the senior policy wonks, the 1st spouse, the Amy Carter types or Ford brothers hanging out in the White House.

At best, it is a little adder-on, like Dubya saying his Dad gave him missions and he watched his Dad closely so he would know more about how to be a good President...or someone looking for a fat 6-figure sum in corporate law saying that he served other High Bosses in Gov't well, so he will serve his new Law Firm Owners well and might make a great Boss himself one day - because he once served as the VP's driver, fundraiser, policy memo wonk...

Bill -And again, I'm praying she loses.

She will, because in the end as 1st Lady, she is just another West Wing courtier and Inside Advisor, not an experienced executive in her own right with the political talent to make it on her own. We don't elect such staffers as Presidential successors.

Posted by chris ford | February 23, 2008 7:49 PM

I am not a Hillary fan, but the conclusion of your post is lame. It is a very different thing to say "experience matters" than to say "the more experience the better." One simply does not imply the other. "I want a surgeon who has performed this operation before a few times" doesn't invite the riposte "Then you must prefer this 80-year-old surgeon who has done it more than anyone in the world." I will vote for Obama, but it is indisputable that he will when elected have less government experience than any president in modern times that I can think of. Except Eisenhower -- kind of a special case.

So the Clinton staffers have a point, even though I don't agree with it, and it doesn't point to Joe Biden.

Posted by imho | February 23, 2008 8:15 PM

"Hillary cannot fail, she can only be failed.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 23, 2008 7:33 PM"

Much like the National Review on conservatism.

When you help to invent the permanent campaign and then you show you can't campaign, that just points to incompetence.

Posted by Reality Man | February 23, 2008 8:17 PM

Yikes, I guess there was pent up rage among MY commenters, this thread is ugly.

It's almost like HRC took every opening in the last debate to attack Obama...oh no, she was gracious.

Or that he refused to put out bullshit flyers attacking her on universal health care.....oh no he did.

On point:

"Patrick Healy's article.."

For those of us not interested in political porn, we avoid Patrick Healy.

Posted by Andruw | February 23, 2008 8:18 PM

You mean Hillary's staff can't remember all the way back to 2000, when a 5 year governor of Texas beat congressman, Senator, vice-President Gore?

Posted by MarvyT | February 23, 2008 8:21 PM

I will vote for Obama, but it is indisputable that he will when elected have less government experience than any president in modern times that I can think of.

That is disputable because it isn't true.

Posted by jbryan | February 23, 2008 8:22 PM

"I am not a Hillary fan, but the conclusion of your post is lame. It is a very different thing to say "experience matters" than to say "the more experience the better." One simply does not imply the other. "I want a surgeon who has performed this operation before a few times" doesn't invite the riposte "Then you must prefer this 80-year-old surgeon who has done it more than anyone in the world." I will vote for Obama, but it is indisputable that he will when elected have less government experience than any president in modern times that I can think of. Except Eisenhower -- kind of a special case."

To a point you're right. However, this is a primary campaign and that has been her theme. It didn't make sense when she was up against Dodd, Biden and Richardson and it doesn't make much sense now, considering she has less elected experience and only 2 years more experience in the Senate (which consisted of caving into Republican demands). It just points to the fact that her campaign lacked any type of animating logic, which suggests she doesn't know why she is running herself.

Posted by Reality Man | February 23, 2008 8:25 PM

There is one quote in that article which is even more disturbing:

“She has a real military discipline that, now that times are tough, has really kicked into gear,” said Judith Hope, a friend and informal adviser to Mrs. Clinton, and a former chairwoman of the New York State Democratic Party. “When she’s on the road and someone has a negative news story, she says, ‘I don’t want to hear it; I don’t need to hear it.’ I think she wants to protect herself from that and stay focused.

So... her way of facing bad news is "LALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU"? Awesome.

First, it explains a lot about how her campaign fared out. Second... is that the type of character you want in the White House again?

Posted by Nihil Credo | February 23, 2008 8:46 PM

Reality Man: "It just points to the fact that her campaign lacked any type of animating logic, which suggests she doesn't know why she is running herself."

I think this is partly correct, except it underestimates that she entered into this with a larger/easy target (Clinton term III).

Which was pretty appealling to most of the nation until they discovered Sen. Obama.

Posted by Andruw | February 23, 2008 8:48 PM

I love the excerpt about how they overestimated Bill's influence. I love it because you know Hillary thought that Bill was the Ringer, the Superman on speed dial in case anything went south.

I guess Bill wasn't so popular after all, eh? I think Bill got a slap in the face with this election,too, don't you think? Like maybe he will be the comma between Gulf War I and II in the history books?

What's so odd to me is that Hillary, so uber disciplined as to avoid a pep talk (!) that is obviously needed (how could a Dem not get the need for one of those when married to Mr. I feel your pain?) would then have Bill go out in public (!!!) and tell the whole damn world that Hillary is out if she doesn't win Tx or OH?

I personally don't believe she'll withdraw if she loses BOTH of them. She's got the website up, she's going for the regular delegates, I say.

How could Bill make such a move like that? It doesn't make any sense to me... What is he a loose cannon from some 80s action flick? Is he Martin Riggs now that Mel is yanked out of movies for being a racist? (Scratching my head...)

Posted by whippet | February 23, 2008 9:00 PM

To be fair, the exact quote is "a seasoned figure," not explicitly "more experienced." they're surprised that she failed because she's a known quantity on the political stage, not just because of her arguably superior resume.

Posted by Mark | February 23, 2008 9:06 PM

MY's point is fine, but this thread misses the point. Yes, by now people should understand that experience, especially put in the context of Hillary's level and kind of experience, is a problematic pitch this cycle.

However. What else was she supposed to run on? People talk as if she could be the change candidate just by saying she is. If she had been talking about change from day one of the campaign these same people would be snickering about how lame it is.
--"But they're pros, they only hang out with each other."
--"Then we must go pro!"

"Seasoned" may imply experience to some people. She is older than Obama and has been in public service/ politics/ first ladyhood longer. It could also mean that many Democrats have been waiting for years to vote for Hillary in a presidential election. She's been talked about as a pres candidate before any of us heard about Obama. So yes, it is surprising that Obama is beating one of the most seasoned names and most popular people in the Democratic party. Almost no one thought Dodd or Biden would make a good president 8 years ago. Being skeptical of HRC's "35 years" claims is one thing; totally denying that many Democrats have thought for a while she'd be a great president is another.

Posted by Colatina | February 23, 2008 9:09 PM

Obama, by the time he becomes president, will have had 12 years of government experience - 8 years as a state senator in Illinois, 4 years as a U.S. Senator

of modern presidents, experience levels were the following (those with clearly more experience than Obama bolded)

1) George W. Bush was governor of Texas for six years. Texas is a state where the governor is basically powerless.
2) Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas for twelve years.
3) George H. W. Bush obviously had a lot of experience. He was in the House for four years, UN Ambassador for two years, ambassador to China for two years, CIA Director for a year, and Vice President for eight years
4) Ronald Reagan was Governor of California for eight years
5) Jimmy Carter was a state senator in Georgia for four years, and then governor for another four years.
6) Gerald Ford (never elected, obviously) had been a member of the House for 24 years, and vice president for a year.
7) Richard Nixon was a congressman for four years, a senator for two, and vice president for eight years.
8) Lyndon Johnson was a congressman for twelve years, a senator for twelve years, and vice president for three years.
9) John F. Kennedy was a congressman for six years and a senator for eight.
10) Dwight D. Eisenhower, as noted, had never held elective office, nor been a cabinet member, or what not (he had, obviously, held important quasi-political jobs, though)
11) Harry S. Truman was a judge for several years, a senator for ten years, and vice president for a couple of months.
12) Franklin Roosevelt was a state senator for two years, assistant secretary of the navy for seven years, and governor of New York for four years.
13) Herbert Hoover had held various non-governmental positions of importance, and served seven years as Secretary of Commerce. He'd never held elective office.
14) Calvin Coolidge held various minor local offices, was a Massachusetts state representative and state senator for several years, mayor of Northampton for a while, and lieutenant governor (3 years) and then governor (2 years) of Massachusetts, plus three years as vice president.
15) Warren G. Harding was an Ohio state senator for four years, lieutenant governor for two years, and U.S. Senator for 6 years.
16) Woodrow Wilson, after a long career in academia, was governor of New Jersey for two years.
17) William Howard Taft was U.S. Solicitor General, a federal judge, governor of the Philippines, and a Secretary of War. The only office he was ever elected to was that of President in 1908.
18) Theodore Roosevelt had held various appointed positions, including assistant secretary of the navy, and was briefly Governor of New York and vice president.
19) William McKinley was a congressman for fourteen years, and governor of Ohio for four.

Obviously, it's arguable about how much importance we should give to state legislature service as opposed to other kinds of service, but that's the point - it's arguable. I would say that Obama does not compare that unfavorably to Dubya, to Reagan, to Carter, to Truman, to Coolidge, or to Harding, in terms of experience.

Posted by John | February 23, 2008 9:13 PM

She is older than Obama and has been in public service/ politics/ first ladyhood longer.

Being married to a politician does not mean you've been in public service or politics longer, no matter how much Mary Bono and Hillary Clinton may wish it to be so. I repeat: being willing to tolerate marriage to Bill Clinton is not public service.

Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, talented woman with a lot of great strengths and an obvious dedication to policy; that being said, the experience angle she's been running on is a total crock because most reasonable people recognize that being First Lady is, no matter much you witness things, equivalent to actual public service or served political experience.

Laura Bush is not qualified to be the President of the United States. Nancy Reagan is not qualified to be the President of the United States. Maybe if these women go out and acquire some experience of their own they can become qualified for that sort of service (though I'm skeptical in Laura's case, as she's always struck me as a dim bulb... but then, there are no requisite skill levels for serving as First Lady as it is not an elected position). Hillary did. She got elected to the Senate. That gives (or should give) her a record to run on.

But the idea that she served eight years as co-president and we should elect her on that basis is flatly offensive to reason. Even moreso when she then turns around and protests when people link her to elements of Bill's presidency that she now finds inconvenient to her higher ambitions.

Posted by jbryan | February 23, 2008 9:16 PM

Almost no one thought Dodd or Biden would make a good president 8 years ago.

Huh? Both have been discussed for years as potential presidential candidates.

Posted by John | February 23, 2008 9:20 PM

Reality Man: actually, Eisenhower had decades of experience in government. That's where the military is, right? And for general officers, especially at the level Eisenhower was, it's massively political, too.

The modern President with the least prior executive experience would actually be JFK. A few years as a junior naval officer. Then the Senate. Granted, that's more than either Clinton or Obama have had. But still very little for running a huge organization.

Posted by wj | February 23, 2008 9:24 PM

Barack Obama will be the least experiened person ever to be President in terms of executive experience if he is elected.
Except for a little-known placeholder named Abraham Lincoln. But otherwise, I take your point.
Posted by Marc

Lincoln was a businessman. A successful one.
He was the only President to have ever had invention patents.
Lincoln was a militia commander. Then a veteran of scout patrols in the Blackhawk War.
He then served as a excutive legal advisor to businesses that were his real bread and butter - railroad, telegraph, river shipping and the other high tech startups of his era. Lincoln's role was creating with his partners, a number of laws and compromises that the transporation executives could agree on that ordered and rationalized commerce between various cartage methods and signals -in the Western half of the USA.
Then became a Founder and national leader of a new Party, being the kingmaker behind Fremont in 1856 before he was selected in 1860.

Obama looks pretty thin compared to Lincoln, pre-1860.

*******************
What was Chester A. Arthur's executive experience?
[That's not a serious question, and I would actually prefer not to know the answer; just indicating the absurdity of C. Ford's claim.]
Posted by mrsaturdaypants

Sorry Cochise, but you don't land a cheap shot then get to duck away saying your claim that Obama is far more qualified than Arthur, thus proving the absurdity of saying Obama is underqualified is valid - simply because you don't care to debate your idiot Lefty claim.

Chester Arthur was NY militia commander in legal corps, then Leader of the Engineering Corps in the 1850s. In the Civil War, Arthur became the executive in charge of 1/3rd of the Civil War supplies to the Union, as Quartermaster General, with Brigader General rank.

He did well enough that he is credited as one of the top 10 or so key execs who did a superb job overwhelming the South.

After the War, Arthur was a key legal exec running the post-war economy. Then he became the Collector of Port Revenue, which was at the time the person most in control of Federal revenue with thousands working under him. He collected 2/3rds of nationwide Customs tariffs, which in pre-income tax days was just under half of the money the fed Gov't took in. Doing, by all accounts, a superb executive job.

When General Arthur ran, he ran as one of America's foremost military and civilian executive leaders.

He never spoke as prettily as Obama did, if contemporary accounts of his plodding speeches are right, though....

************

Posted by chris ford | February 23, 2008 9:26 PM

because history shows she will stop at nothing.

I'm not a fan of Clinton's yet I completely disagree with this characterization.

She fights back and is toughened by her fights with the Right. But she's lost fights, too. She's apologized for mistakes (except the biggest one) and has shown grace in defeat.

People who think she's fought 'dirty' against Obama are apparently unfamiliar with politics. Her negative attacks have been ineffective for the most part but they've been relatively mild and not particularly personal.

A few proxies hit below the belt and I don't think she pre-approved them. She can be manipulative, shrewd and staged, but she's hit Obama with kid gloves compared to what the right's just warming up to do.

She will prove a useful ally to Obama should he be the next president. And I think it's a strength that she doesn't surrender.

If you think history shows you that she stops at nothing, in the way you implied, I'd love to see examples.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | February 23, 2008 9:27 PM

Among the highly experienced Presidents, more than a few were proven disasters. Some on ethics, some on domestic policy, some on foreign policy. Consider the veteran policymaker LBJ in Vietnam. Or Nixon on ethics.

On the other hand, some inexperienced in foreign policy did okay, like Clinton. Or Carter in his precedent-setting Camp David accords.

The fact is that talented Presidents are good at assembling a good team to guide them where they have gaps in knowledge or experience. And Obama's attracted a solid team.

The experience claim is sometimes valid, but it's really not a great predictor of a President's performance.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | February 23, 2008 9:45 PM

Obama was a community organizer from 1983-1988 and 1991-1993. It's not the same thing as, say, sitting on the board at Wal-Mart, but it's 7+ years of leading and motivating people.

Posted by dbt | February 23, 2008 9:49 PM

this race is killing the party. if it goes on much longer, half of democratic voters are likely to bitterly resent the nominee.

Posted by speechwriter | February 23, 2008 9:52 PM

"I think this is partly correct, except it underestimates that she entered into this with a larger/easy target (Clinton term III).

Which was pretty appealling to most of the nation until they discovered Sen. Obama.

Posted by Andruw | February 23, 2008 8:48 PM"

True. I was initially backing her when it looked like it was going to be her against a bunch of Bayh types on this logic and the affirmative action reason to have a female president, which is also why I wanted her to run in 2004. However, that to a certain extent isn't that compelling a reason to vote for someone and I knew it at the time. I was hoping Feingold was serious about his flirtation with running and I think he would have done better than people were saying at the time (being popular among the base, being rather liberal, being a likeable Midwestern guy, the novelty of the first Jewish president, especially one not named Joe Lieberman), but sadly that did not come to pass.

Posted by Reality Man | February 23, 2008 10:01 PM

From the comparison with Biden and Dodd, clearly
the bafflement is not really about experience.
So what is it about ? In a word, money. The
Clinton fundraising machine is a behemoth. And
that was the whole basis of Hillary's strategy:
to raise a big enough warchest to a) deter other
potential candidates and b) get grudging support
from Dems who want to win the WH and believe that
money is the key.

Unfortunately for them, they've run up against
a candidate who has built an even better
fundraising operation, and also appears to have
much more upside as President. And on top of
all that, Obama has built a kick-ass ground
operation - either because he knows grass-roots
organizing really well himself, or because he's
hired excellent people - it doesn't really
matter which.

But of course they can't quite come out and say
this openly, because it amounts to an admission
that Hillary's whole candidacy was an attempt to
buy the WH rather than earn it.

HRC is intelligent and hardworking, but so are
lots of other Dems. The "inevitability" argument
was all about money, not talent or experience.
It deserved to fail.

Posted by Richard Cownie | February 23, 2008 10:07 PM

Count me in with the crowd that's sick of hearing the 'never count a Clinton out' meme. She'll win some goodwill if she pulls her punches the rest of the way and loses TX and OH with grace.

What baffles me is not that experience failed to motivate voters, but that John McCain would take up the same slogan. What's he thinkin'?

Posted by Just Karl | February 23, 2008 11:06 PM

Chris Ford, now you're just being ridiculous. Abraham Lincoln had no executive experience whatsoever prior to being elected President. Being a (great) lawyer is not executive experience. Being the captain of a small militia company is not executive experience.

It's true that Lincoln had many other non-executive accomplishments. So does Obama. I think it's pretty obvious that Obama has more relevant political experience for the Presidency than Lincoln did, but I guess you could argue about that. But if you want to talk about purely executive experience, Obama has more than Lincoln simply by virtue of the fact that he's run a multimililon-dollar presidential campaign.

Posted by Korha | February 23, 2008 11:16 PM

A new low in the blogosphere has been reached: debating the relative pre-presidential election experience of Chet Arthur and Barack Obama.
_

Am I the only one that detects the article's author making kind of a leap here? The article seemed like a whole lot of nothing.

"In interviews with 15 aides and advisers to Mrs. Clinton, not a single one expressed any regrets that they were not working for Mr. Obama."

Oh come ON. Who would ever tell a reporter "gee I wish I was with the Obama campaign" at this stage? What good could that possibly do? This is a campaign still in full swing, as they were after the Iowa loss when most of the punditocracy was calling the whole shebang for him. That means the 'aides and advisors' are in full-on robo-partisan mode where everything their candidate does and says is golden, and everything about the opponent is negative. People are getting worked up about journalistic table scraps.

...baffled that a candidate who had been in the United States Senate for only three years ... was now outpacing a seasoned figure like Mrs. Clinton.

This quote stinks of an out-of-context conclusion, woven together from impressions and several different quotes....a writer squeezing 4 sentences out of several pages of interview notes. Sure, one person said "I'm baffled at why people can't see HRC in a more positive light", one person said "I am surprised she's not doing better against Obama" and one person said "He really doesn't have that much experience when you think about it...."

And then all those fragments got conflated into this supposed group-wide sentiment that BO is a rank amateur without the slightest 'right' to be the nominee, and it sends the Matt Yglesiases of the world (and his hangers-on, including me) into a parsing tizzy.

As David B. pointed out - (paraphrasing) - of course they seem a little baffled. They're losing. It's kind of a tautology to say that the losing side of a serious campaign is surprised they're losing / have lost.

Posted by ssdagg | February 23, 2008 11:27 PM

George Foreman and all the ring slobs were *baffled that Ali knocked him out. I've baffled a few people in my streetfightin' days. All it takes in a fight to *baffle someone is to:

1. Be smarter
2. Be tougher than you look
3. Be more prepared
4. Be aware of your opponent's vulnerabilities
5. Be the better fighter

Obama had all five. He's the champ. Hillary's the chump.

Posted by Trevor | February 23, 2008 11:41 PM

When General Arthur ran, he ran as one of America's foremost military and civilian executive leaders.

You're kidding, right? Chester Arthur was a Stalwart hack who was picked as Garfield's running mate in order to satisfy Roscoe Conkling and his buddies who'd hoped Grant would be nominated again. Arthur seems to have been a personally honest collector of the Port of New York, but he also overstaffed the place with patronage hires. The man was never considered a prominent leader, and in 1880 he was considered a bit dubious, having been ousted from the Port by Rutherford Hayes, who was on a reforming kick.

Has our discuss really reached the point where conservative hacks have to pad the resume of obscure late 19th century presidents?

Chris, can you give us a ridiculously laudatory biography of Benjamin Harrison?

Posted by John | February 23, 2008 11:42 PM

Given the considerable likelihood of Professor Obama freeing the slaves (all of whom can best be described today as living in Tibet, Burma, and red states [although they don't know they're slaves...they will: *soon*] and none of whom live in the Arab world), liberating the workers (as in [obviously] regular dailykos readers who earn 85k a year and have to look at the Chimperor's face on TV every night after work [we used to like teachers and school bureaucrats too but then they voted for the Clinton lady]) and resurrecting the Caspian tiger from the dead (who you'll note went extinct in Soviet Central Asia in all probability from American Cold War policy)

Posted by Linus | February 23, 2008 11:55 PM

Boy, tough crowd. After reading that Healy piece I felt pretty sympathetic to Hillary. It can't be easy going through the motions after such a devastating month.

Also, I do think Hillary's better than her campaign, but she allowed herself to be overly stage managed. Remember the New Hampshire debate when Hillary threw that dart about how Senator Obama should have a debate with himself. Clearly her campaign fed her that line, and it sounded so bad and contrived. The Xerox quip was similar. In the interim she never managed to adapt to the changing dynamics of the race or make a compelling case for her candidacy on the merits. She just resroted to negativity and kept making the same old mistakes. Hey Hillary! Slamming Obama doesn't work!

Still, I feel bad for her.

Posted by Lucy | February 23, 2008 11:56 PM

Apologies for my ongoing typos.

resorted

Posted by Lucy | February 24, 2008 12:02 AM

Don't be harshing on Chester Arthur. Kalustyan's is a damn fine south Asian import store, located in his childhood home.

Posted by phil | February 24, 2008 12:02 AM

"And to a person, these aides and advisers praised Mrs. Clinton and said that she had been a better candidate than her campaign strategy and operation reflected."

Or in English, they're all aware that they screwed up a slam-dunk campaign for her, but won't admit it as long as they can think of a better way of phrasing it.

At least they're not actually blaming her. I suppose that's something.

Posted by Splitting Image | February 24, 2008 12:13 AM

Didn't Lincoln have only one term in the House of Representatives prior to being elected President? And he wasn't serving in the House at the time.

Posted by FS | February 24, 2008 12:21 AM

Umm... Joe Klein's conscience...

Perhaps you should read my post again, or maybe for the first time all the way through... Or if you don't wish to be bothered, I can summarize it by saying that I also don't think that the experience argument holds much water.

As an aside, I can't decide if it is encouraging or not to find so many Chester Arthur 'scholars' posting. I am leaning toward that it is a good thing, but it does seem rather odd.

Posted by Benniefly2 | February 24, 2008 12:28 AM

Sorry about that. I just reread it again and you are right. You were pretty straight forward about it too. I guess I am getting too jumpy reading too many of the comments here(or it might be over at McMegan's) that don't seem to know what they are talking about. They seem to have gotten a case of Teh Stoopids.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 24, 2008 12:45 AM

Isn't there a pretty obvious connection between the Healy story and the "Shame on you, Barack Obama"-nonsense of earlier today? Namely, that HRC had to do something to prevent the Healy story from being the main topic of conversation on all the Sunday news programs/roundtables.

It seems HRC's precious "moment" really backfired, in that the perceived valedictory tone seemed to precipitate two high-profile stories about how the Clinton campaign is preparing to throw in the towel.

Now it seems obvious that an exit strategy is being planned, but we can be damn sure HRC doesn't want to go out like this - via anonymous defections quoted in the Sunday papers. No, if she wants to vie for the Senate Majority leadership, she'll need to preserve the image of a fighter.

It may be all that she can preserve, at this point.

Posted by Davmul | February 24, 2008 1:06 AM

As Robert DeNiro recently pointed out in a speech supporting Obama: if experience was the most important criterion, then the obvious choice for president would be none other than Dick Cheney.

Posted by Geaghan | February 24, 2008 1:43 AM

That bafflement is the flip side of the twin entitlements that were always the basis of her campaign. The first entitlement is the Clinton name - how could real Democrats not want a Clinton (any Clinton) back in the White House after these 8 long years? The second entitlement is feminism - how could Democratic women not rally around the first plausible female major party presidential candidate since... forever?

Unfortunately for feminists, the Clinton entitlement took precedence, and it set the stage for failure (this time around) on the second, feminist point.

I do not subscribe to any "-ism", am not a woman, and am not a partisan Democrat. But I would humbly recommend that the next woman posited by the Democratic Party establishment as the potential first female President not carry the presumptuous mantle of partisan dynastic succession.

Posted by T.K. | February 24, 2008 1:54 AM

She tries to keep the mood upbeat on the campaign plane, such as recently joking about how Ohio is so diverse that it sometimes feels like five different states.

HRC must be real humurous for that to be the best joke she's made in the last few days. I'm sure the mood on the plane swung to upbeat right then and there. Maybe Obama will plagiarise the line?

Posted by otto | February 24, 2008 4:12 AM

Has our discuss really reached the point where conservative hacks have to pad the resume of obscure late 19th century presidents?
Chris, can you give us a ridiculously laudatory biography of Benjamin Harrison?
Posted by John

Well, we ARE talking about Obama, and since he lacks the experience of anyone in the 20th Century, Obama backers are saying he had more executive experience than certain 19th Century Presidents like Lincoln and Arthur. Which is easily debunked by people looking at Arthur being a distinguished General in multiple roles plus executive in charge of the Federal Gov't single largest revenue source at the time, and by Lincoln being a militia commander and a top executive for the rail companies. Lincoln had his own private rail car when travelling since 1849, and was one of the highest paid execs, as well as lawyers, west of Pittsburgh.

A ridiculously lauditory biography of Benjamin Harrison? Just the standard Civil war histories of Harrison as one of the heroes. He was "Little Ben", who led the cannon fortification assault at Rescala and was promoted to battlefield Brigader General for that and his heroism at Peach Tree Creek by General Hooker, followed by an 1865 permanent General commission and commendation from President Lincoln for his heroism and his exceptional command and organizational abilities.

Then he was a Senator and a national Republican Party Leader.

Sort of just like Barack, except fot the executive part. Barack, who was also in the Senate - and served at least a year before running for President on his soaring speeches..

Posted by chris ford | February 24, 2008 6:19 AM

Chester Arthur has a posse!

Posted by joejoejoe | February 24, 2008 6:33 AM

Again, though, what is the point of ranking Presidents' executive experience? The list of 20th-century Presidents above shows that relative experience or lack thereof has little if any correlation with history's assessment of that President's abilities. I think President of the United States is one of those jobs that nothing can truly prepare you for. In a certain sense, the lengthy and taxing campaign season is the training and job interview process for candidates. It's during the campaign that a candidate has to show the endurance to continuously run his staff, respond to changing situations, make decisions, and communicate with the voters. Kind of like a preview of being President, although the consequences of making mistakes only affect your candidacy, not the country or the world.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 24, 2008 7:03 AM

With regard to presidential qualifications, there are two qualities which in my view rank above experience: mind and mindset. Obama has both a brilliant mind and a rational, moral, common sense mindset. As a C-Span junkie observing him in Senate hearings, I have seen his careful reasoning, thoughtful questions, and wise judgment. When one adds this to his ability to inspire and lead people, he is what the country desperately needs precisely at this time. After all, he's running to be captain of the Titanic. I'm glad he didn't wait until it's too late.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | February 24, 2008 8:21 AM

Unfortunately for feminists, the Clinton entitlement took precedence, and it set the stage for failure (this time around) on the second, feminist point.

She also undermined her second, feminist point by both trying to trade on the Clinton name and by bringing Bill out as an attack dog. It not only made her look bad, IMO, it made her look weak.

Posted by Persia | February 24, 2008 9:18 AM

"Now it seems obvious that an exit strategy is being planned, but we can be damn sure HRC doesn't want to go out like this - via anonymous defections quoted in the Sunday papers. No, if she wants to vie for the Senate Majority leadership, she'll need to preserve the image of a fighter."

To her credit, at least someone in Washington has one.

Posted by Reality Man | February 24, 2008 1:38 PM

Seems to me that members of the senate have a REALLY tough time getting elected as president. N'est pas?

Posted by theexog | February 24, 2008 5:00 PM

I am so sick of this "ready on day one" line repeated at every opportunity by HRC. If she was so ready to lead "on day one" why has she ran what should have been a virtual gimme nomination into the ground? Why is she now losing to a senate newbie named Barack Obama?

She can't even run a campaign that should have been easier than running a lemonade stand in the Sahara.

How on earth is she going to run our post-W-disaster country?

Posted by Kerry | February 26, 2008 11:44 AM

I’m a feminist, 10 years younger than Hillary.

I’ve never seen Hillary’s run for President as a feminist triumph. If she should win, what would that say to America’s little girls? You can grow up to be president, just find and marry a man who can be president first.

Hillary’s own experience, as a senator from New York, is not appreciably more than Obama’s experience as an Illinois state senator plus U.S. senator. As a feminist, I’m not inclined to consider Bill’s work and achievements as belonging to Hillary. I’ve been turned off by Hillary’s talk of ’35 years of experience’ – when most of that experience is being first lady of Arkansas and the U.S.

The one project she led as first lady, universal health care, was an enormous and damaging failure. Her ‘plan’ was not even brought up for a vote in the Democratic Congress! But it did end any serious discussion of universal health care for the rest of the Clinton presidency.

Senator Barbara Boxer running and winning would be a GRAND feminist triumph. She has won big elections and held office on her own, not by riding her husband’s coattails. I’d be over the moon with pride and joy if it happened.

Hillary? Not so much. Though, if she is the nominee, I will most certainly vote for her in November.

Posted by Terraprieta | February 26, 2008 6:09 PM

Baffled?

Comments (82)

Search