Experience Gap

I've been waiting for the moment when one of the many former Clinton administration national security officials now working for Barack Obama would come out and call Hillary Clinton a liar for exaggerating her level of experience with these issues. Greg Craig who used to direct the State Department's Policy Planning staff comes close in a new memo:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

The memo goes on to debunk some specific assertions she's made about Northern Ireland, Macedonia, etc., but the general point is clear enough. It's not a slam on Clinton to observe that she, like Barack Obama and most presidential contenders, doesn't have much foreign policy experience. But she's been running around the country talking as if she was Madeleine Albright rather than a former First Lady.

Comments

Hillabee = Nixon in pantsuits.

Posted by Traven | March 11, 2008 9:51 AM

If the media gives this enough attention, I think it could be the beginning of the end for the Clinton campaign. Sen. Clinton simply has no other argument for why voters should prefer her that stands up to careful scrutiny. What I liked about the memo is that, for most of it, it was all facts and no harsh judgment calls, so it does not come off bitter, in keeping with Obama's theme of "a new kind of politics." He can show with this that he is able to do big damage to his opponents without sinking to their level, which is exactly what all the pundits have been arguing he cannot do, why he cannot win the general election.

Posted by R. Vangala | March 11, 2008 9:56 AM

The question is, why the hell didn't the Obama come out with this a week ago? This should have been the immediate response, while this week they should have been the time they rolled out commercials of Hillary and Sinbad, calling for a joint ticket...

Posted by Andrew | March 11, 2008 10:00 AM

Matt didn't link to the full memo; here it is:

http://thepage.time.com/obama-foreign-policy-memo/

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 10:03 AM

1) I don't see questioning Hillary's foreign policy qualifications as even being a political attack. The voters have a right to know the truth re Hillary's past experience -- or lack of it. They also have a right to know if Hillary's lying to them on this subject.
2) This memo , however, accomplishs nothing. Obama needs to put out some TV ads with this info here in Pennsylvania.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 10:03 AM

This is simply another in the long line of personal and unacceptable attacks perpetrated by the Obama campaign against Senator Clinton. Hillary's the only candidate who's been fully vetted and tested vis-a-vis her dealings with the right wing during the 90's. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:08 AM

Congratulations Tim K! You have achieved a post that is in every respect identical to its parody version! It's a sort of troll Nirvana!

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 10:11 AM

I am a staunch, staunch Obama supporter, and as such, I welcome this memo. I do worry, however, that it walks a fine line between pointing out evident discrepancies between Clinton's claims and her actual record, and disparaging the office of first lady. It's crucial that Obama's camp avoid even the faintest appearance of sexism, and I'm afraid that some of the language in the memo (references to her USO appearance with Sinbad and Cheryl Crow, for example) could be misinterpreted as a subtle dig.

Posted by alex | March 11, 2008 10:11 AM

Where was this memo last year? This should have come out the first week of the campaign the very first time Clinton trumpeted her 35 years of experience. I do think though that by the convention Clinton may have developed enough foreign policy experience to cross the threshold... to be vice president (although I hope she isn't offered it).

Posted by Ron | March 11, 2008 10:12 AM

Hillary Clinton '08

Bill Clinton: Client 08

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:13 AM

Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about experience, then it should be your own experience. That's, I think, a very simple proposition.

Posted by Daniel Munz | March 11, 2008 10:13 AM

Let's not dwell on the fact that this memo came to the party late and just be happy it showed up at all.

Also, what Warren Terra said.

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 10:14 AM

southpaw, I love that episode of West Wing!

"You've been...faking it?"

Posted by Daniel Munz | March 11, 2008 10:16 AM

Good to frame Clinton's main high-profile role as a high-profile failure.

Posted by phil | March 11, 2008 10:17 AM

Oh, how dearly I wish Madeline Albright had not been born in Prague.

Posted by Persia | March 11, 2008 10:18 AM

2) This memo , however, accomplishs nothing. Obama needs to put out some TV ads with this info here in Pennsylvania.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 10:03 AM

Exactly, and it's a big challenge to distill this into an ad that brings home the point loud and clear. Might even have to enter "3a.m." territory.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 11, 2008 10:20 AM

Where's idiotic to explain the significance of this news?

Posted by Josh E. | March 11, 2008 10:22 AM

It there is anything sexist, I would have thought it was the whole concept of "an office of the first lady". What kind of office is that? No other OECD democracy has anything like it. Being a political spouse shouldn't be a full-time job. Howard Dean's wife tried to say that and got crucified. Now that was sexism.

Posted by Pithlord | March 11, 2008 10:23 AM

this memo is good, but it needs to take the next step and point out that McCain also doesn't pass some mythical "experience benchmark." For all the "experience" he has, he's absolutely dead-on wrong.

WE all know this, but the Dems, from both campaigns, have to continue pointing this out again and again and again. Hopefully it'll be center=stage in the main campaign.

This, along with "straight talking", are supposedly McCain's strengths. Both of them are really really easy to shoot down and deconstruct.

The last thing dems should be doing -- hint hint Hillary -- is reinforcing those claims of strength.

Posted by U.G. | March 11, 2008 10:27 AM

LOL! "Personal and unacceptable attacks?" says one of the esteemed posters here. This memo lists facts. There's nothing personal about it. Personal would be pointing out, as Bill Maher did last Friday on his show, that Hillary's claim to the worst crisis she faced in her life was finding out about Monica Lewinsky mess. And her response in that crisis, according to her, was to "scream and yell at him" and that she could "barely breathe." Hmm. There's so much fodder for going personal with Hillary & Co. that the Hillary-supports do not really want to go there and rehash it.

Posted by SMN | March 11, 2008 10:28 AM

Hillary herself said that the campaign is a job interview where the candidates put their resumes before the American people. And when you lie on your resume? You don't get the job. Obama needs to run an ad in Pa. with the conference call where her advisers were asked to name a single foreign crisis she'd been through. That long pause is devastating.

Posted by NHCt | March 11, 2008 10:31 AM

Wow, the full memo is quite extraordinary and a powerful rebuttal of everything she has claimed along these lines. But will the media pay it any heed at all? Obama should start calling out the media nearly as loudly as she did (but with his characteristic grace and calm).

The media ignored Ferraro's virulently racist comments yesterday. They are just as likely to ignore this memo.

Posted by TA | March 11, 2008 10:31 AM

On foreign policy experience scale of 0-10, HRC is a 4 and Obama is a 1. No way around that.

The memo makes some excellent points about why Hillary is only a 4. Use those, but calling her a "liar" is questionable charge and unnecessary mud slinging. It will ultimately draw further attention to Obama's complete lack of foreign policy experience - even compared to Hillary. Also it will take Obama right down into the gutter.

Better angle is to explain how he will manage foreign policy.

Posted by Undecided | March 11, 2008 10:37 AM

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance.

Now that's a well-crafted takedown.

Posted by Glenn | March 11, 2008 10:39 AM

On foreign policy experience scale of 0-10, HRC is a 4

Undecided: I'd love to hear more about how you arrived at Hillary being a '4'. Thanks.

Personally I see her as a 1, 2 at best. Drinking tea in foreign lands and touring quaint villages doesn't count.

Posted by Aaron Rodgers | March 11, 2008 10:41 AM

I am a staunch, staunch Obama supporter, and as such, I welcome this memo. I do worry, however, that it walks a fine line between pointing out evident discrepancies between Clinton's claims and her actual record, and disparaging the office of first lady.

There IS no "Office of First Lady". That's the point. It's nothing more than a traditional appellation for the President's wife.

Now, if her husband actually had employed her in his foreign policy apparatus- as he clearly did in his domestic policy apparatus- that would be a different story. What the memo is pointing out is that he didn't.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 11, 2008 10:43 AM

On foreign policy experience scale of 0-10, HRC is a 4 and Obama is a 1.

No, Obama is a 4 and HRC is a 1. That sure was easy. What political discourse needs is more numerical scales.

Posted by text | March 11, 2008 10:44 AM

Warren Terra:

That's because it was a parody version. There are losers on this blog who take the time to write comments on my behalf. It's pretty pathetic.

Clearly what Craig is saying in that memo isn't an "unacceptable personal attack."

Although, since he works for Obama now, he has a vested interest in recalling a certain version of events. He's hardly a credible source in this instance.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:45 AM

I do worry, however, that it walks a fine line between pointing out evident discrepancies between Clinton's claims and her actual record, and disparaging the office of first lady.

There is an "office" of first lady?

This memo , however, accomplishes nothing. Obama needs to put out some TV ads with this info here in Pennsylvania.

It's not true that it accomplishes nothing. Matt is posting it. Others in media are reading it, and will then go on to do their own reporting on the theme. You can't do an expensive ad buy for every message you are trying to get out. Most of a politician's message gets out by suggesting lines of investigation and angles to the media, and inducing them to do the work for you. If we get a series of media reports this week on Clinton's lack of real foreign policy experience from her days in the White House - and we have already begun to see them - the memo will have done its work.

Clinton's strong week leading into the Ohio and Texas primaries was not created by a commercial that said "the media are giving me the shaft." It was created by media briefings, stump speeches and memos that asserted the media was giving her the shaft. These assertions were then picked up and amplified 1000-fold when the media took the bait.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 11, 2008 10:47 AM

He's hardly a credible source in this instance.

Who would be a "credible source", Tim? Lord Trimble, perhaps?

Posted by Tim J | March 11, 2008 10:49 AM

I suppose everyone has already seen this, but I love it.

"Saying that Hillary Clinton has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle."

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/3/8/163524/8172/24#c24

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 11, 2008 10:55 AM

Isn't it true, in a literal sense, that she does have more experience than Obama?

I'm not talking about, or justifying even, any sort of mythical CIC test.

Rather, being in the Senate longer, and being a more-political-than-most First Lady for 8 years while Obama was a Community Organizer in Chicago is in fact more experience, perhaps significantly so.

Posted by Andruw | March 11, 2008 10:57 AM

Just to add, after reading many of the comments to this post, many here are clearly being very misogynistic in their comments.

Many insist on totally discounting the experience that comes with politically supporting a person for 26 years, while having one's own legal career and non-profit work. I'm sure many women (particularly of previous generations)would be surprised to learn that experience garnered in steadfast and loyal support of their spouses does not count as experience at all. It doesn't matter Hillary Clinton orchestrated Bill Clinton's 1982 comeback to the governor's mansion along with Dick Morris, or that she led Arkansas task force on educational standards, or chaired the Legal Services Corporation, or that she was a de facto chief strategist through much of his career and key staffer in the White House. None of that matters, we are told, because she was married to Bill. It's all really *his* experience.

This is like the difference between paid and unpaid work. If a man goes to work in a factory 9-5, 5 days a week, that's called work and he's paid for it. If a woman raises three kids at home, does all the house work, plans all the activities, does all the cooking, that's not work and it's worth zero.

This is just the political corollary to that injustice.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:59 AM

Well, Tim K certainly settles my above concerns and may I take this chance to denounce any attempt to make fools of commenters by sticking words in their mouths; it's not like we commenters need the help, after all.

But, to address words I hope really were written by the Tim K, I guess it's true that a source now employed by Obama has an incentive to remember events in a way unflattering to Sen. Clinton. Still, it seems equally true - and perhaps more to the point - that no-one not affiliated with the Clinton campaign remembers her having any role. The examples she points to range from the laughable (a goodwill trip with Sinbad the day after the borders opened was a major diplomatic mission to open the borders) to the tragic (she claims that she wanted intervention in Rwanda, but the Clinton administration was not merely staying out but was actively blocking the UN from even accurately describing the events there).

What Hillary clinton's alleged roles in these events have in common is that they're not documented. No relevant documents have been released. As First Lady, Hillary Clinton had no security clearances, had no national security staff, didn't attend the briefings, and had no apparent relevant responsibilities. She, and Bill, and her fans, didn't mention her involvement with any of these events until late 2007 at the earliest, and they weren't in either Clinton autobiography. The reason people are mocking these claims is that they do not pass the laugh test.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:00 AM

His line should be: "Look, we aren't going to win against McCain by comparing resumes with him, and especially not if our resumes aren't entirely based in the facts. We are going to win by offering a clean break from the disastrous Bush-McCain foreign policy of the last 7 years. I can do that. She cannot."

Also, just as she has claimed that his foreign policy experience is just a speech, he should say that hers is just a commercial.

Posted by pjs | March 11, 2008 11:03 AM

Warren:

What I find particularly amusing about this is that no matter how much Obama can denigrate Clinton's experience on foreign policy, no matter how many holes his aides poke in her claims, she still has more experience than he does. In fact, he has zero foreign policy experience. Even in a supporting role, even as an observer, even as a spouse. Zero. His one and only claim to foreign policy experience in a position on the Foreign Relations Committee for one year in which time he has been so busy running for president that he hasn't even done his job and discharged his responsibilities appropriately.

Obama's campaign claims living in foreign countries as a young child is his foreign policy experience. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and makes any of Clinton's claims pale in comparison.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 11:05 AM

Re Tim K's comment "I'm sure many women (particularly of previous generations)would be surprised to learn that experience garnered in steadfast and loyal support of their spouses does not count as experience at all."
-----------------
Oh, BULLSHIT!! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT!

How many wives of brain surgeons would claim that they themselves are qualified to crack open skulls??

How many wives of Military officers would claim that they themselves are also qualified to lead men into combat?

BILL CLINTON owes Hillary a great deal for her past support. WE THE PEOPLE owe her nothing.

Hillary's sense of entitlement -- her delusions of grandeur -- and her willingness to lie to the voters are big negatives. As is her willingness to suck up to the factions behind our disasterous war in Iraq.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 11:06 AM

Andruw: I see no evidence that Clinton has achieved more in her eight years as a Senator than has Obama in his four.

The claims of experience from being First Lady are more problematic. Certainly Sen. Clinton is closely involved and well acquainted with the complete policy staff of the last Democratic White House, and that's not insignificant. But the claims she often make regarding her experience as First Lady sound a lot more like saying she was a co-president; and none of her claims seem to be documented.

Why must we take her claims of "experience" on faith? Why aren't there compelling tales to tell of what she's experienced, and what she learned? Because the main thing I can see is that she's experienced total ideological partisan dirty war, and she's learned to apply it herself.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:07 AM

I have a crucial question about experience:

Does Chelsea get double credit for being the daughter of the president and the daughter of the first lady? Does she have 16 years of experience? 56 years (28x2)? 58 years - counting her time as first embryo? Was she ready on day minus 270? Inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by dialectic08 | March 11, 2008 11:10 AM

"How many wives of brain surgeons would claim that they themselves are qualified to crack open skulls??"

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 11:06 AM

Dunno about this one, Don. My sense is that this is solid Monsters Inc. experience, and that Hillary has a legitimate claim here. I think we have to be objective, and not dismiss this claim as being fabricated. After all, it's not like claiming to have brought peace to Northern Ireland by receiving a teapot. It can't hurt to be gracious and concede that Hillary has her skull-cracking chops.

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 11:17 AM

Don Williams:

Congratulations for another crazed, sexist, foaming-at-the-mouth, irrational anti-Clinton diatribe.

dialetric08:

That's a farce, not a crucial question.

Warren:

Out of curiosity, have you read Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary Clinton?

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 11:18 AM

Why lookie here, Tim K actually can identify humor! And what exactly is different in Chelsea's claim as First Daughter to Hillary's claim as First Lady/Mom? Hell, I bet Chelsea went on foreign trips with Sinbad too. The only difference is that she hasn't tried to steal the credit for work done by others. You might as well credit Chelsea with her 56 years - it makes as much or little sense as crediting Mom with 35.

Posted by maraschion | March 11, 2008 11:21 AM

In other words, Tim, you can't answer his questions, so you had to resort to namecalling. Here they are again in case you want to have another go, and indeed I'll make it easier to avoid red herrings by reversing the genders for you: How many husbands of brain surgeons would claim that they themselves are qualified to crack open skulls? How many husbands of military officers would claim that they themselves are also qualified to lead men into combat?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 11, 2008 11:23 AM

That's dialectic08 to you, Timmy! And would you like to answer the question? Or is it impossible for you to explain why, using the new CLINTON EXPERIENCE CALCULUS former junior president Chelsea should not claim to be as experienced as Mom?

Posted by dialectic08 | March 11, 2008 11:25 AM

If Obama does turn this into a series of negative TV ads (IMHO that would be unwise, but if), I think the theme should be:

"Where does she get off?"

As in . . .
(Open on a train chugging down the tracks)
Hillary claimed she brought peace to Northern Ireland, but the man who won a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace to Northern Ireland disagrees . . .

(starts getting slower)
Hillary claims she opened a border in Macedonia, but it was opened before she even got there . . .

(brakes squealing, steam hissing)
Hillary is running for the Democratic nomination by praising Republicans and attacking Democrats on national security. . .

(a station appears, the train slows to a halt)
It's time to start asking . . . Where does Hillary get off?

(fade out)

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 11:25 AM

No, I didn't read either 2007 Hillary Clinton Biography. As I recall, when they came out they were widely panned as being anti-Clinton hit jobs and containing remarkably little that was both new and substantiated.

Are you going to suggest that Bernstein's book has interesting stories about important experiences by Hillary Clinton? Because if it does, I guess that'd be a start, although it would rather boggle my mind that no-one has thought to do much with the stories over the last year.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:26 AM

Re Morzer's comment "It can't hurt to be gracious and concede that Hillary has her skull-cracking chops."
---------
I thought she just drilled a small hole in the back and sucked out the medulla oblongata/pineal gland??

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 11:26 AM

I heard an interview with a Hilary supporter from Mississippi yesterday that gave me some insight into how the "experience" argument goes, at least with one segment of the electorate. The woman interviewed said: "C'mon we all know that Hilary was pretty much President for eight years already." I really think that sentiment is behind a lot of her support from downscale white women. They are married to shitty-ass husbands, who require them to both support the family financially and do the bulk of the domestic labor, and kind of see something similar going on in Hilary's marriage to her shitty-ass husband.

Posted by pjs | March 11, 2008 11:27 AM

Southpaw, brilliant ad, but why call it negative? Isn't it all.. *gasp*.. perfectly true? Or is "true" the new "negative" in Clintonland?

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 11:28 AM

Greg Craig is an outstanding name, by the way.

Posted by Mitch Rich | March 11, 2008 11:31 AM

I thought she just drilled a small hole in the back and sucked out the medulla oblongata/pineal gland??

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 11:26 AM

Don, I wish you'd stop using these Karl Rove ad monstrum attacks. Allow the poor woman some credibility in her monstrous role. Let her crack skulls - it might make her feel better. Think of all the low information voters who need someone to identify with. Please, be nice....

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 11:33 AM

Southpaw, brilliant ad, but why call it negative? Isn't it all.. *gasp*.. perfectly true? Or is "true" the new "negative" in Clintonland?

Negative in the sense that it argues against, rather than for, a candidate. But point taken, it is all true.

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 11:33 AM

Your all a buch of loosers!

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 11:37 AM

Tim K, could you parse "your" "buch" and "loosers" for us? I don't speak Clinton.

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 11:39 AM

Any foreign policy attacks are going to get turned on Obama in the general election. He should downplay experience and emphasize judgement.

How about saying "GW Bush has as much foreign policy experience as anyone but nobody believes he should get a third term"?

Why do Obama cultists always think he should jump into counterproductive and unwinnable pissing matches? That's what Mark Penn is hoping for.

Obama has NO foreign policy background. He can't win any election on that basis.

Posted by Undecided | March 11, 2008 11:40 AM

Great. We get a bunch of folks trying to live up to the worst stereotypes of Clinton-haters (with all this 'ooh! does the eat brains o just crack skulls?' talk), and then it's capped off with an illiterate and unfunny attempt to spoof Tim K for the second time in the same thread. At least the first Tim K spoof was cleverly written.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:41 AM

Undecided, follow me closely here:

Obama argues his case on the basis of judgment

Clinton argues her case on the basis of experience

Now, do you understand the difference between these two cases, or shall we start working through what long words mean for you?

Posted by adamselznick | March 11, 2008 11:42 AM

Warren Terra:

Yes I just finished reading Bernstein's book. It's neither a hit-job nor a puff piece. It's Hillary Clinton: warts and all. It's full of stories and accounts of her role right through Bill's congressional run, campaigns for governor, during his time as governor, his White House run, and her role during his presidency. After reading that I know how ridiculous it is to claim that she has no relevant experience. I think it would be a lot more fair to point out that she has often shown poor political instincts and made plenty of errors. That's a fair criticism and there's evidence for that.

Personally, I prefer public figures who have make mistakes and learned from them. Rather than public figures who haven't been around long enough or put in positions of responsibility in which to make mistakes.

Hillary chaired the Legal Services Corporation, was field director for the Carter campaign in Indiana, chaired Arkansas educational standards task force, led Arkansas efforts in rural health care, led Clinton's health care task force in the White House, and those were just official roles. And one of those she failed at. What has Barack Obama ever led? I can think of one thing .. the Harvard Law Review. That's all I can think of. And she already has that countered by being on the Watergate investigation staff.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 11:42 AM

Tim K, it is an immense comfort to know that she only failed on the biggest issue she tackled. With that reassurance, I am sure we can all sleep a little easier in our beds.

Posted by maraschion | March 11, 2008 11:45 AM

If observing what happens inside the White House WRT foreign policy counts as experience, then yeah, HRC has experience. But by nearly any other objective measure, she doesn't have any more FP experience than Obama.

It seems to me that in this discussion "experience" is just a proxy for judgment. Judgment - good judgment - has very little to do with experience. Experience may improve one's judgment, but it can't make one's judgment good.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 11, 2008 11:46 AM

How Hillary Nuked Nixon

Carl Limbacher
October 1, 1998

"This is the most fun we've had since Watergate." -- Washington Post managing editor Ben Bradlee, during the Iran-Contra investigation.
OYSTER BAY, N.Y. -- On July 12, Charles McCarry's New York Times op-ed piece was titled, "Bill Clinton's John Dean?" It was a rumination on the similarities between Linda Tripp and the White House counsel who turned on Richard Nixon, thereby setting Watergate's wheels in motion.

As intriguing as the comparison was, the real eye-opener of McCarry's piece came toward the end, when he quoted Henry Ruth, Leon Jaworski's Watergate deputy prosecutor. McCarry recalled Ruth's memo, sent to Jaworski just 10 days after supposed "smoking gun" evidence forced Nixon into ignoble early retirement, which cited 10 areas of Watergate then under criminal investigation.

Ruth informed Jaworski: "None of these matters at the moment rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable criminal violation by Mr. Nixon."

McCarry followed the Ruth quote with his own observation that the ultimate historical irony here was that Richard Nixon, whom historians have told us for 24 years had been caught dead to rights, may not have needed a pardon after all.

What about the June 23, 1972, "smoking gun" tape where Nixon ordered the CIA to block the FBI's Watergate investigation? Or where Nixon discussed the possibility of paying hush money to the Watergate burglars? Or the so-called enemies list kept by the Nixon White House on reporters hostile to the administration? Apparently, prosecutor Ruth couldn't find any evidence regarding these transgressions that he thought would stand up in court.

The tapes, however, sounded damning enough. And even Nixon, who at first thought those recordings would be exculpatory, realized after he reviewed them that his goose was cooked – politically, if not legally. In July 1974, as the House Judiciary Committee was reviewing the tapes and earmarking Nixon's supposed crimes, two young staffers were assigned by the committee's chief counsel, Jerome Zeifman, to research the protocols for impeachment. John Labovitz and another young lawyer, just 26 years old with the ink barely dry on her Yale law degree, began the arduous task of poring over constitutional archives. Labovitz's partner was Hillary Diane Rodham.

And research done by Labovitz and Rodham became the roadmap for three articles of impeachment reported out of the House Judiciary Committee that promptly destroyed any remaining congressional support for Nixon. Before the full House vote on the articles of impeachment, three senior Republican senators apprised Nixon of the handwriting on the wall. The Nixon presidency ended on Aug. 8, 1974.

The House Judiciary Committee’s former chief counsel, Jerome Zeifman, waited 22 years to unleash his bombshell, which would reveal that the deck was stacked against Nixon by none other than the wife of the man who now faces a similar fate. It was Hillary Clinton who rigged the proceedings against the 37th president, as Zeifman revealed in a little-noticed passage of his 1996 book, "Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot."

Zeifman quoted his own 1974 diary, which reports that just four days after Nixon resigned "John Labovitz came to my office and apologized for having participated to some extent to conceal from me the work that was being done. Some months ago, he and Hillary lied intentionally to me and told me there were no drafts of proposed rules of procedure for the [Nixon] impeachment inquiry."

The New York Daily News noticed this earthquake confession, and sought Zeifman's elaboration on the historic subterfuge perpetrated by our current first lady. The Daily News reported:

If the United States was going to topple its own president, rules were important, Zeifman told us Friday. "Suppose we were going to have the World Series next week and suddenly one of the team managers says, 'We want to change the rules to two strikes and you're out.'"

That's basically what [Hillary] Clinton and Labovitz did, Zeifman claims. In other words, they drew up new impeachment protocols to replace those in existence since Jefferson's day -- and then denied it. Congress -- and the country -- would have been completely polarized if it had seemed Nixon was being railroaded out of office with new rules, Zeifman said. (New York Daily News – Feb.12, 1996)

Nixon was likely guilty of the Watergate cover-up. But Ruth's memo to Jaworski shows there really wasn’t any "smoking gun" evidence of it.

And that's likely why Hillary Diane Rodham, who regarded Nixon as "evil," according to Clinton biographer David Maraniss, had to discard impeachment rules in place for two centuries in order to nail her quarry.

Now that America faces its second impeachment crisis in as many generations, it's worth remembering how the rules were bent by partisans committed to destroying a presidency -- when the target was Richard Nixon. And how the media looked the other way when it happened.

Posted by christmaspast | March 11, 2008 11:49 AM

The reason people are mocking these claims is that they do not pass the laugh test.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:00 AM

Is this Warren Terra really the same as the pompous git who wrote:

Great. We get a bunch of folks trying to live up to the worst stereotypes of Clinton-haters (with all this 'ooh! does the eat brains o just crack skulls?' talk), and then it's capped off with an illiterate and unfunny attempt to spoof Tim K for the second time in the same thread. At least the first Tim K spoof was cleverly written.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:41 AM

Judging by the low literacy of the second post, I'd suggest not.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:54 AM

Well, Obama let a voter registration drive in Chicago that's credited with signing up 100,000 voters and helping to transform the politics of the city. He led in the Illinois Legislature to achieve important reforms in the criminal justics system and in legislative ethics, and in the Senate in ethics reform again. His roles as a community organizer were far more significant and strenuous as Hillary Clinton's efforts in the Carter campaign in Indiana (did Carter win Indiana?). And there's rather a difference between getting an appointment to the Watergate staff and being elected by your peers to the leadership of the Harvard Law Review. And Clinton was head of the Legal Services Corporation for what, one year?

More to the point, I'm not really interested in hearing that Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to a bunch of state boards and commissions. I want to hear what those boards and commissions achieved, and in particular about how difficult it was and how her leadership changed things.

And I want to hear about what Clinton learned. Because she seems to portray this role of inflexibility, apparently because not to do so might imply weakness, but inflexibility can also mean brittleness. Hillary Clinton has never seemed to honestly examine her vote on the AUMF, she makes risible claims that her position on NAFTA are unchanged since it was her husband's singular achievement, she claims to have been a leader on SCHIP when contemporaneous accounts say that she was at best a late convert. Almost every time, with the notable exception of 1994 health care reform, rather than telling us what she learned from her errors she tells us that she was right all along. Even though the record doesn't support this.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:57 AM

I wrote somewhat about this in an entry on my new blog the other day:

http://thedramatist.blogspot.com/2008/03/for-sake-of-argument-i-am-going-to-take.html

Posted by Dramatist | March 11, 2008 11:58 AM

This new craig memo came out of chicago. He says anything hillary might have done was meaningless because it suits his alliance with obama to say that. He leaves out every conversation Bill and Hillary ever had, every dinner, every international trip together or apart.
The fantasy that there isn't an office of first lady is negated by the idea that her office is in the west wing during Clinton admin.
The fantasy that she isn't better prepared is negated by Albright's endorsement and statements.
The trip to china for UN women's convention was political fraught and is a spell binding section of her autobiography. Can you tell me about Obama's trip to china? his international experience? Everyone of those 80 trips were accompanied by and helped by state department.
You guys are lying to yourselves when you pretend they had no import.
Half the party votes for her understanding the distinction.
Is it tricky to talk about since the bobby kennedy rules? Yes.
Was she intimately involved every day for 8 years? yes. Why lie about what you know is true?

Posted by Michael C. | March 11, 2008 11:59 AM

As to Ferraro, she's been saying that line for a while. If you have 45 minutes to kill and steel nerves, I strongly recommend checking out her appearance (as well as Pat Schroeder) on Tom Ashbrook's show: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080226_a_main.asp

Towards the end, a militant tone is used when considering an Obama candidacy. Basically, that he'll have a LOT of work to do to win back the women's vote. As a humble single secretary, months away from her 50th birthday, I was pretty stunned - almost ashamed to be the same gender. This whole idea that Obama needs to wait in line because Hillary and women are OWED - well, I simply find it ridiculous.

Question for Ferraro: If Obama is the candidate, and the GOP had put up a woman instead of McCain (i.e., Condi), would Ferraro support the GOP candidate for the White House?

Posted by Judy | March 11, 2008 12:02 PM

Well, I guess I've been personally insulted, but I have no idea by whom and little idea for what. I had a couple of typographical errors in the second post quoted, certainly. mea culpa.

For the record, I wrote both pieces of quoted text. Would my assailant (and spoofer) care to explain their problems with me?

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 12:03 PM

Re Michael C's comment "He leaves out every conversation Bill and Hillary ever had, every dinner, every international trip together or apart
...Was she intimately involved every day for 8 years? yes. Why lie about what you know is true?"
-----------
A true example of a Hillary partisan drinking the Kool Aid.

Two words to dissolve this Norman Rockwell bullshit:

Monica Lewinsky.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 12:03 PM

Undecided beat me to it. Judgment is what counts, and experience is a poor proxy for it. The Dubya comment is perfect!

Oh, and it just so happens that Hillary has already displayed poor judgment by voting for the Iraq War. What a shame.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 11, 2008 12:03 PM

I find it amazing that Clinton, despite being the equivalent of an NFL team at 6-7 with only one game remaining aginst a non-playoff team, has managed to shift the debate.

It's about judgment and courage. Obama has it; Clinton doesn't. Susan Rice is right -- the first time either of them have to face the unexpected call will be something neither is really "ready" for, but both of them will probably handle it fine. But the *content* of that call will be based on any number of decisions that are made before hand. Clinton's decisions -- during the day and at night -- will be a function of the War Party Consensus and political calculations, in some combination. These are failed foreign policy goals and methods.

Obama not only was right consitenty, but he's right not by blind luck but because he thinks things through and has the courage of his convictions. He doesn't take troops out of Afghanistan to go into an unnecessary war that strengthened the hands of Iran and Al Qaeda. As a result, it's more likely that his "3 a.m. call" is a General saying "Mr. President . . . we got him!"

I'll be interesting to see when Chafee's book comes out. He basically says that the Senate Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, were more afraid of voting against a successful war than voting for a disaster. In other words, their political careers were more important than the country. I thought that at the time, and it's a reason why anyone who voted for the war shouldn't be President. Sure, those who recanted can stay in the Senate because a lot of them are on balance good public servants. But Clinton didn't even do that.

I also saw Obama's 2002 speech in person, and thought, if this guy doesn't get to national office, ain't no justice. All the experience Clinton can have, she'd still not hold a candle to Obama. That still makes her better than any republican, but why not nominate the best?

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 12:04 PM

Warren:

Well the Arkansas Educational Standards Commission increased sales taxes to pay for improvements, introduced teacher competency testing, reduced class sizes and reformed the curriculum to emphasize math, science and modern languages. As with all major reforms there is no consensus on the long-term results. The percentage of Arkansas high school graduates that went on to college increased from 38%-50% in 4 years. She made enemies of the teachers unions for introducing competency testing, which was the core element that made the tax increase politically acceptable.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:05 PM

Hillary's foreign policy experience: She gave a speech. Now, if you want to claim everything she's done in her life as experience towards being president, you must count Obama's years as a community organizer, as a civil rights attorney, as a state senator, and as a US Senator. To do otherwise, is ridiculous and racist. (Not necessarily that last part. It's just any time anyone criticizes Hillary, they're suddenly sexist.) Hillary's been around the block, but if she wants to base her argument on experience, McCain will destroy her. At the moment, the only message I'm getting from her side is that it's her turn, so get out of the way. That's not even a 50+1 strategy. That's a blowout loss in November.

Posted by NHCt | March 11, 2008 12:05 PM

Obama argues his case on the basis of judgment

That's the only strategy he has. Try to argue his judgment based on a speech in 2002.

However we have an entire thread where Kool Aid Kids are trying to make a case that Obama's experience is comparable. Dumb. McCain will smack him around mercilessly on experience.

Posted by Undecided | March 11, 2008 12:09 PM

Why use the handle "Undecided," Undecided?

I mean, I really am left handed . . .

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 12:14 PM

Re Undecided's comment " McCain will smack him [Obama] around mercilessly on experience."
-----------
Yes. Since McCain lived through the Great Depression, McCain can argue that he is better qualified to deal with the Second Great Depression being brought on by the fiscal irresponsibility of George W Bush and the Republican Congresses.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 12:15 PM

On a foreign policy experience scale of 1-10 where 1 is Bill Clinton in 1992 and 10 is George H.W. Bush in 1992, I'd say Obama is about a 3 and Clinton a 3.5.

To review, Obama studied international relations at Columbia and serves on the Foreign Relations, Veterans' Affairs, and Homeland Security committees in the Senate. Clinton had some ceremonial duties as First Lady and serves on the Armed Services committee. As far as resume lines are concerned, I'd say that is about a wash. But I gave Clinton the extra 1/2 point because she has been in the Senate four years longer.

Generally, I gave them both scores under 5 because there are lots of things they haven't done, such as serving in the military, being an Ambassador to a major country and the U.N., heading up the CIA, being Vice-President, and being President (amazingly all things on Bush's full 10 point resume in 1992), and also due to their relatively short service in the Senate (I would give Biden, for example, a higher score). But as in fact 1992 demonstrates, even in the 3-3.5 range they are ahead of many former Presidents.

Posted by DTM | March 11, 2008 12:15 PM

Undecided, could we gently remind you that the earth is not flat? You seem a little out of sync with reality.

Warren Terra, I think you might be confusing some fairly amusing banter with genuine Hillary hatred. I suspect your spoofer was reacting to your rather precious comments about the skull-cracking. Surely you don't think they took it too seriously?

Posted by zilifant | March 11, 2008 12:17 PM

On a scale of 1 to 10, I give arbitrary and unaccountable scales whose methodology cannot fairly be examined: a fluffy bunny.

I mean, have we learned /nothing/ from O'Hanlon and from Spinal Tap: if you're could to make up an absurd and useless scale, at least have it go to Eleven!

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 12:20 PM

These 1-10 scales are somewhat reminiscent of angels on a pinhead style theological exercises - just less empirical.

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 12:23 PM

Oh, and in light of McCain's military service and long tenure on the Senate's Armed Services committee, I will give him about a 5.5. I can't justify going much higher, however, largely because he lacks any relevant high-level executive branch experience (he has never been an Ambassador, never head of a relevant agency or Department, and obviously never Vice-President or President).

Posted by DTM | March 11, 2008 12:25 PM

I've seen enough of those commenters that I do not believe they suffer from Clinton Hatred, and I probably should have made that clear.

But - while I can see how it was somewhat funny to go on a tangent from the experience-as-wife-of-a-brain-surgeon meme off into realms of skull cracking, especially with the idiomatic meanings of skull cracking and knocking heads together to get things done, those comments struck me as being similar to genuinely awful allegations some other people mindlessly make against Clinton.

Still, I should have made it clear that I could, in context, see the difference.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 12:26 PM

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=18626

From folks who were actually there

And more:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/10/235744/616

Posted by Columbia | March 11, 2008 12:26 PM

"Obama studied international relations at Columbia"

Are you serious?

Warren:

It's definitely not all Clinton hatred, but a lot of it is.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:29 PM

"Obama studied international relations at Columbia"

Are you serious?

Warren:

It's definitely not all Clinton hatred, but a lot of it is.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:29 PM

Let us never forget that Clinton did actually receive a teapot in Northern Ireland. If that ain't foreign policy experience, I don't know what is!

Posted by Tim L | March 11, 2008 12:31 PM

Columbia:

George Mitchell called Clinton's role in NI "supportive and helpful" and called her descriptions of her role "accurate."

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:33 PM

Just a slight discrepancy between being a major player and being "supportive and helpful" - no? Or is Tom Brady just a supportive and helpful component of the Patriots?

Posted by yazzel | March 11, 2008 12:35 PM

I believe Hillary is now an accomplished second-base man and has won several world series titles after years of experience with the Yankees.

Posted by kolenka | March 11, 2008 12:39 PM

Well, HRC is a little teapot . . .

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 12:42 PM

Short and stout...
There's her handle..
There's her spouse....

Posted by Tim L | March 11, 2008 12:45 PM

Short and stout...
There's her handle..
There's her spouse....

Posted by Tim L | March 11, 2008 12:45 PM

George Mitchell called Clinton's role in NI "supportive and helpful" and called her descriptions of her role "accurate."

Quite friendly compared to, "a wee bit silly", huh?

George was playing nice.

Posted by Tim J | March 11, 2008 12:47 PM

spin spin spin spin spin

The Obamabots are like hot wheels.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:50 PM

spin spin spin spin spin

The Obamabots are like hot wheels.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:50 PM

Personally, I find hot wheels more attractive than cold turkey. But feel free to indulge in your own perverse pleasures, Brother Tim K.

Posted by Tim M | March 11, 2008 12:54 PM

TimK,

It's not that Hillary isn't experienced. She's been in the spotlight, we all know her. We know she's "done stuff." What rubs ppl the wrong way is how she uses this "experience" canard as a cudgel, to beat down Obama, as if it axiomatic that her "experience" is superior to his, and we're all idiots if we don't recognize the brilliance and wisdom contained within her "35 years" of experience.

The real questions for me are: 1.how do you earn those experiences and 2. what have you learned from your experiences.

For her to present her presence at Bill Clinton foreign policy successes, as tantamount to "serious foreign policy experience" and the vaunted "hard work" that she is trying to sell, then she's pretty much trying to have it both ways, and we on the blogs are right to criticize her. If she's so experienced, why did she essentially have W.'s position on the war, talk about parroting the most inexperienced. They both said diplomacy must run it's course and war as a last resort.

Just give it up Tim K. You're right, Senator Mitchell said her role was helpful. Which is pretty broad. And, the Nobel Prize winner Lord David Trimble said it was "silly" for Hillary to claim that she was a central figure in the negotiations. Doesn't that concern YOU. That she's appropriating her time as "the scenery and optics" on a big peace agreement, as "real negotiating." And evidence of her foreign policy bona-fides. Now, if she said, that b/c of her awareness/cogency of these issues, or her "bearing witness" to history allows her to understand issues better. Than yah, that argument is supported by evidence. But to present, all these blatant exaggerations as evidence of her superior fitness for foreign policy analysis and evidence of her clearly superior experience is pretty much a hollow argument.

Posted by nattyb | March 11, 2008 1:00 PM

Cold turkey? as in quitting smoking? huh?

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 1:00 PM

Cold turkey? as in quitting smoking? huh?

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 1:00 PM

No, as in Hillary Clinton. You ought to know a turkey when you see one.

Posted by Tim M | March 11, 2008 1:03 PM

nattyb:

I think it's fair for Obama supporters to take issue with the Clinton campaign criticizing Obama for his lack of experience while pointing to her "35 years." I would also point out that Clinton supporters are equally irritated when the Obama campaign criticizes Clinton's Iraq vote and says he has superior judgment because he made a speech at an anti-war rally.

I think Clinton had to be proactive in emphasizing exactly what her role (often behind the scenes) was as First Lady and how that added to her long experience. And let's be clear that she has done a lot more in her career than simply be First Lady.

Why? Well we're seeing exactly why. There were always going to be people who would try to imply that Hillary Clinton was *merely* First Lady and that doesn't qualify her to president, ignoring the rest of her professional accomplishments.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 1:06 PM

"I'm sure many women (particularly of previous generations)would be surprised to learn that experience garnered in steadfast and loyal support of their spouses does not count as experience at all."

My husband does not get to go into my workplace and claim my degree and experience, so why is the reverse true? Perhaps that's one of the reason older women are still standing tall for HRC and younger women are not; more younger women have their own accomplishments, and are more likely to chafe at being defined by their spouses.

Posted by Persia | March 11, 2008 1:11 PM

McCain will smack him around mercilessly on experience.

He'll certainly try to. Obama's experience is somewhat brief and it is what it is. You'll never hear him deny that, make crap up, heavily embellish, or pretend, unlike the Monster. Of course, my brother, Tim K, will pipe up and insist that Senator Obama does that too; just like Hillary. A couple of examples would be helpful, bro. Thanks.

Posted by Tim J | March 11, 2008 1:18 PM

I think it's fair for Obama supporters to take issue with the Clinton campaign criticizing Obama for his lack of experience while pointing to her "35 years." I would also point out that Clinton supporters are equally irritated when the Obama campaign criticizes Clinton's Iraq vote and says he has superior judgment because he made a speech at an anti-war rally.

One of these things is not like the other...

Obama had the courage of his convictions back when the "decent left" was trashing (as it still has the balls to do to this day!)anybody who didn't go along with the war hysteria. AND he made the right call. Hillary had... at best poor judgment (and not enough sense to even read the NIE)and at worst unprincipled political calculation. Whichever it was, many people have since paid for it with their lives.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 11, 2008 1:21 PM

It really is about judgment. If foreign policy experience were decisive, the most attractive candidates would be Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Somehow, I don't see any Clinton voters pulling the lever for either of those two.

What was Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience in 1992? What was Ronald Reagan's in 1980? For that matter, what was George W. Bush's in 2000? I mention Bush because there are likely going to be independents who voted for Bush in 2000, but who won't vote for Obama in 2008 because of his "inexperience." Unless their rationale is that they learned from their mistakes, it will be inconsistent.

With respect to claims that Obama has "ZERO" foreign policy experience, doesn't Lugar-Obama, and the work that went into it, count for something? Doesn't his time on the Foreign Relations Committee, even if he has missed some meetings while on the campaign trail, count for something? You know, Clinton has been out on the campaign trail, too, missing just as many committee meetings and votes as Obama.

Posted by Brian | March 11, 2008 1:25 PM

As R. Vangala says right up at the top, if this story gets wide play, Hillary's cred begins to unwind and she can no longer claim her phantom "experience."

Of course, the media has been so "tough" on Hillary that it's probably on the front page of every main stream newspaper this morning. Right?

Posted by Howard B. | March 11, 2008 1:26 PM

I would also like to point out that it is a bit spurious to equate Obama's 2002 speech with Clinton's 1995 address in China. Obama's speech received little to no attention at the time it was given (ie when the debate was actually occuring) and had no impact on the final result. Not to mention it was given in one of the most antiwar areas of the country.

Clinton went to China to criticize the Chinese for their policies on women's rights. It received worldwide press AT THE TIME and was a major debate starter both here and abroad. There is a reason she is so popular with women around the world.

Now I know that women's rights are seen by some as "soft issues" but if you are talking speaking truth to power, she did it with the biggest bullhorn imaginable. And she took the praise AND the heat for it.

(I would also add that I would not say that women's rights are a "soft issue" - they are a paramount issue that speaks directly to the level of freedom and democracy in any given country. Just that some would dismiss her work on behalf of women because it's not all macho. Just as some dismiss health care and education vis a vis defense policy.)

Posted by Columbia | March 11, 2008 1:27 PM

Don't be so quick to assume that McCain's "experience" would be decisive in a general election against Obama. Recent history suggests otherwise: George W. Bush, with no federal government or foreign policy experience, beat two-term sitting vice president Al Gore; Bill Clinton, with no federal government or foreign policy experience, beat sitting president George H.W. Bush; Ronald Reagan, with no federal government or foreign policy experience, beat sitting president Jimmy Carter; Carter, with no federal government or foreign policy experience, beat sitting president Gerald Ford.

Posted by Brian | March 11, 2008 1:32 PM

TimK,

I was wondering if you could expand upon something you said,

"I would also point out that Clinton supporters are equally irritated when the Obama campaign criticizes Clinton's Iraq vote and says he has superior judgment because he made a speech at an anti-war rally."

Because when you say "speech," you're really dismissing all substance of that speech. Because that mere "speech" does convey his "judgment" on issues.

To wit, "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

I'm sorry Tim K, but his one paragraph right there, conveys the judgment I want from a president.

But you do make good points. She should emphasize what specifically she has done. That is something I would like to hear, instead of some slap-dash, of course I've done this and that.

But I think your final point says it all,

"There were always going to be people who would try to imply that Hillary Clinton was *merely* First Lady and that doesn't qualify her to president, ignoring the rest of her professional accomplishments"

The problem is Hillary is trying to have it both ways. She chose to link her political career inexplicably with Bill's. That she cannot bi-furcate her ceremonial role of First Lady, with the "supposed" heavy lifting she did in private, that we cannot see, is just something, I'm not willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on. What are the "rest" of her professional accomplishments, and how many of those accomplishments were made without the assistance or recommendation of her husband? I'm open to hearing, but, I must say, sitting on boards just doesn't cut it. And yes, community organizer on the south side of chicago is just the type of hard work and heavy lifting i like to have from a president.

Posted by nattyb | March 11, 2008 1:36 PM

Clinton Playbook, Rule No.1: PERCEPTION TRUMPS REALITY. For the uninitiated, this is perhaps the most essential precept to living a double-life. Case in point, one Mr. Eliot Spitzer, governor of the State of New York. By day, Mr. Spitzer rooted out criminal activities. And, was paid handsomely for it. By night, Mr. Spitzer himself indulged in those selfsame activities. For which he paid handsomely. It doesn't help that just about every photo of Eliot Spitzer, includes a certain New York Senator. I shouldn't be surprised by all the cross-pollination between Hillary Clinton and the governor. Perhaps not surprisingly, Rule No.1. may be the only argument for Hillary’s vast experience. Although one thing's for certain, neither New York politician likes to have his or her bubble burst: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 11, 2008 1:37 PM

"I would also point out that Clinton supporters are equally irritated when the Obama campaign criticizes Clinton's Iraq vote and says he has superior judgment because he made a speech at an anti-war rally." Rightly b/c you have to deal with the uncomfortable fact that your candidate abandoned the opportunity to be a leader on this issue so it fell to an Illinois state senate?

The overarching theme is that Clinton will say anything to win. Boosting her resume is only part of it. nattyb's right -- she can claim to have done a lot, but what she does is use it to denigrate her opponent and what she doesn't do is link it to any coherent theory as to how she'll be President. Obama's emphasized transparency and the importance of bringing people together. That's a theory you can agree with or disagree with on its merits. Clinton promises us her virtue, and it's hard to sustain when she undermines her own legitimate record by trying to take other peoples'.

I'd be more impressed with Clinton as an exemplar of womens' rights if she (a) weren't a product of nepotism, and (b) that nepotism didn't prominently involve welfare reform, which validated years of right wing attacks on unmarried mothers.

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 1:40 PM

Tim K,

Of course I am serious.

Obviously, whatever specifics he learned at Columbia would now be dated. But that particular resume line is important because it shows he has been thinking serious about foreign affairs for a long time, since long before he entered politics.

Indeed, that is why it is not all that surprising that Obama not only made the right call on Iraq in 2002, but did so for sound reasons which he articulated at the time. Similarly, it is why it is not surprising he was able to enter the Senate and immediately do important work on issues such as non-proliferation.

Again, I'm not trying to overstate this: I just gave him a 3 on a scale of 10 after all. But I think knowing he studied international relations in college does help explain why this State Senator from Illinois had well-reasoned positions on foreign policy, and indeed a specific foreign policy agenda, from the very beginning of his entrance into the national spotlight.

Posted by DTM | March 11, 2008 1:43 PM

The Iraq War vote was complicated. George Bush didn't need to use the authority that way, but he did and that was predictable.

I think most of us can agree Clinton voted for that resolution for cynical and political reasons. It would have passed easily with or without her vote. I would compare it politically to Clinton's signing of the Defense of Marriage Act. It was a bad law, it's probably unconstitutional, it was legislative gay-bashing. Sometimes in politics one has to make a decision to compromise in order to maintain credibility and influence. All of the major presidential contenders voted the same way on that vote: John Kerry, John Edwards, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephart. I believed at the time the vote was a mistake, and I still believe that. Does that mean I think John Kerry, John Edwards, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephart disqualified themselves from being president? No.

Fight or live to fight? That was the question those senators faced. It's clear in hindsight what the correct vote was, but it was a lot more complex at the time.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 1:43 PM

because it shows he has been thinking serious about foreign affairs for a long time, since long before he entered politics.

I wonder what George W Bush was thinking about before he entered politics?

Posted by Johnson | March 11, 2008 1:48 PM

Obama's anti-war speech is the equivalent of a guy at a bar saying he should manage the Yankees because he wouldn't have walked Many to pitch to Ortiz right after Big Papi hits a two run homer. It is easy to be right when you have no responsibility or accountability. How has he voted since he has been in the Senate?

The real issue is not limited to foreign policy but overall experience. Obama is a 2 or 3 at best. Now maybe in today's world having no track record is better than having one that can be questioned. That could be why this election will the first in which a sitting Senator will be elected President since Kennedy. However you feel about him, Obama has the thinnest resume of any major party candidate in history.

Posted by phg | March 11, 2008 1:52 PM

Tim K,

The objection is that she bought into the notion then and still buys into the notion now that overthrowing a country's government is an appropriate response to an incipient weapons program. The argument is on the terms set by the warmongers, and, as a result, she'll never beat McCain at it. Obama says, let's have a clean break from that. It's not "words," it's "ideas." Obama's make the most sense, where you can follow them from premise to conclusion. Hillary's claims about "experience" are, by contrast, a substitute for an argument. (BTW, I think she didn't read the intelligence not because she's lazy, which we know she isn't, but because she wanted to be able to say the Bush administration deceived her. Hardly recommends her.)

Anyway, why are we even debating this? The race is over. She lost. If she wants to keep this up, the ultimate consequence is that she'll lose whatever goodwill and reputation she has. As someone who will never forgive her for her continued support of her Iraq vote or her politics of fear rhetoric (dating back to 1991), I am not displeased.

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 1:54 PM

Re Tim K's comment "Fight or live to fight? That was the question those senators faced. It's clear in hindsight what the correct vote was, but it was a lot more complex at the time. "
----------------
Except that roughly 4000 US soldiers -- sons, fathers, husbands, are dead. It's one thing to spend lives in defense of the country -- it's something else to throw lives away in defense of a political career.

Of course, Hillary is just as cavalier about the loss of those lives as is Tim K --which is why Hillary should not be President.

Hillary was one of only 100 Senators. She could easily have joined with Senator Bob Gramm in pointing out the major flaws in the White House's case for war. But Hillary didn't want to offend some of the billionaire financiers who were pushing the war for the sake of Israel. Even though it was her DUTY to halt the rush to war if it was not in defense of the USA.

Tim K notes that John Kerry, John Edwards, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephart voted for that war. None of those men have been -- or are ever going to be -- elected President.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 1:59 PM

nattyb:

I dismiss the substance of the speech because there wasn't really anything unique about what he was saying. I thought the same at the time, and I don't think I have proven myself to have the judgment to be president. Noam Chomsky made the same judgment. A lot of people can be right some of the time. Obama was right that time.

I'm really sorry but I can't constantly repeat Hillary's experience over and over. I recommended Carl Bernstein's book.

David B:

Hillary argued for Bill to veto welfare reform for a third time.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 1:59 PM

Finally Tim K, a hillary supporter who will speak the truth, "I think most of us can agree Clinton voted for that resolution for cynical and political reasons."

The only problem is that she was wrong. Very wrong. Furthermore, she wasn't up for reelection until 2006. So she must've sincerely believed that the war would be a good thing in 4 years time.

But your acknowledgment of the "political issue" and dismissal of it are quite revealing as well.

when you say, "All of the major presidential contenders voted the same way on that vote: John Kerry, John Edwards, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephart. I believed at the time the vote was a mistake, and I still believe that. Does that mean I think John Kerry, John Edwards, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephart disqualified themselves from being president?"

So, all these dems voted the wrong way, for political and cynical reasons, as you say, because, as you say, they wanted to run for president. And in voting the wrong way, these dems with presidential aspirations cosigned our nation to an unending war, illegal, expensive war, that dominates all aspects of our foreign policy.

I'm sorry Tim K, but I weigh certain judgments more depending on their importance and costs involved. This was the biggest test and Hillary failed (along with Daschle, Gephardt, Kerry etc).

And you can throw that decision up on the wall, and say well Yah, but X/Y/Z cancel out and yadda yadda. Hmmmm, no. This was the red phone moment and you can run on "judgment" when you fucked up on the biggest judgment call of our generation. You can run on "experience", but you must articulate what that experience is and how you've learned from it. How stupid does she take the american people for.

Posted by nattyb | March 11, 2008 2:05 PM

David B:

Thanks for making that clear because there was really a lot of doubt about your lack of displeasure.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 2:07 PM

nattyb:

Barack Obama was a state senator in a safe Chicago seat when he made the speech opposing the war. That's a profoundly different situation than Clinton, Kerry and the rest found themselves in. Since he came to the Senate and began voting under the same circumstances as Clinton, he has voted exactly like her. That's revealing. It doesn't tell me that he isn't political or calculating. I think it's very naive to think you know how he would have voted in 2002 had he been in the senate.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 2:13 PM

Right. I forgot that Hillary was only responsible for the good parts of the Clinton adminsitration and the 93 health care debacle. Did she dissent publicly at the time? I'm guessing no. This is why her "experience" adds up to consistent lack of political will.

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 2:14 PM

By the way, why has Hillary refused to release her tax returns for the past several years?

What is she ashamed of?? That we will find out what she did to get that $5 Million?

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 2:16 PM

David:

I can basically sum up your argument this way: Everything Hillary Clinton has ever done was wrong or meaningless or had no value, or was because of Bill, or everything wrong Bill did was because of her.

Okay, I get your point. And I disagree.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 2:18 PM

Don - if you want to see how Clinton made her money, just look up her financial disclosure forms that she's filed every year she's been in the Senate. Jebus, this isn't rocket science, it's publicly available information and the Obama people know that (just as they know she'll release her taxes around April 15th, otherwise known as the "filing deadline").

Posted by Columbia | March 11, 2008 2:23 PM

"Thanks for making that clear because there was really a lot of doubt about your lack of displeasure."

Transparency.

Also, Obama was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in a state where large portions of it are basically the South. I was there when he made the speech, and it was every bit as good as advertised. It was the speech that would have been nice if a national Dem leader like Clinton made, but she thinks the Republicans are always stronger on national security.

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 2:24 PM

That's not the argument at all. I've said that her record is decent. Bill did some good stuff, as well, and if HRC articulates a cogent theory as to how her role in his administration translates into a vision for the Presidency, that would be well and good. The issue is when she tries to make her record something it isn't as a way to denigrate the near-certain Democratic Party nominee.

It would also be nice to do away with Clintonism/triangulation writ large as a general philosophy. This has nothing to do with anyone's experience and everything to do with the way the two candidates think of politics and governance, transparency and accountability, and the U.S. role in the world.

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 2:31 PM

Tim K,

Point well taken. He was a state senator at the time and didn't actually have to vote, which I concede is a different situation. As for your following points. I believe your conclusion rests upon straw man arguments which I will attempt to debunk (instead of just throwing assertions around without evidence).

I will bring up a couple points that undercut your conclusion

1. There was no "special evidence" that the US Senate was privy to. as the lone republican who voted against the war, lincoln chafee said about the Senate Dems who voted for the war,"They had no conviction or evidence of their own. They were just parroting the administration’s nonsense". http://www.projo.com/news/content/LInc_Chafee_01-27-08_PD8NPTK_v102.182ab97.html

So if you're suggesting, by being in the Senate, they had access to different intelligence or flawed intelligence, then that argument would be specious, as there was NO credible intelligence that they relied upon.

2. Since joining the Senate he has voted much like Senator Clinton on the war. How is that revealing? revealing of what? How weak the dems have been for the past 4-6 years? The red phone moment was in 2002. All these votes are about rotating the deck chairs on the titanic.

3. True Barack Obama was a state senator from a safe seat. SO WHAT?!?!? He was running for US senate for Illinois at the time. The question is his judgment. They have nothing to do with each other. Noam Chomsky, myself, you Tim K, we all demonstrated better judgment on the Iraq war issue, and on that matter, the people who were right deserve credit where credit is due.

As for your assertion that it is somehow naive of me to think that Senator Obama would've voted otherwise if he were in the Senate. Could you provide some sort of evidence for this assertion?

just saying, yah well he was a state senator from a safe district, doesn't somehow change the underlying judgment and wisdom of his public position. Nor make it more or less likely he would've voted otherwise had he been in the Senate. Let's not forget, about 15 Dems did vote aainst the war too. I guess they weren't running for president (maybe russ feingold)

Posted by nattyb | March 11, 2008 2:32 PM

nattyb:

1. My point wasn't that Senators had secret evidence, it is that they were under a lot more political scrutiny. Their votes were on the record. Obama could have taken any position he wanted on Iraq and he never would have had to put it on the official record and defend it.

2. It's revealing that Barack Obama hasn't demonstrated any more genuine political courage than Hillary Clinton. Clinton has, for example, shown more willingness to be bipartisan than Obama has (I'd be happy to provide examples). Obama promised to vote to cut off funding for the war but changed his mind when he came to the senate. Obama was for single-payer health care before he came to the senate, now he has changed his mind and doesn't even favor universal coverage. Obama's frequent use of 'present' votes shows he wanted to avoided tying himself to controversial positions as much as possible in order to further his own ambition.

3. I might have voted for the Iraq war resolution if I were in Clinton's shoes. I really can't say how I would have voted for sure. If I were an old warhorse like Ted Kennedy with washed up national ambitions, then I would have voted no. He had nothing to lose. The people who had a lot to lose voted yea.

It's always naive to believe things with no evidence. There's no evidence Obama would have voted differently from Clinton before he came to the senate because he has voted with Clinton ever since he has been in the senate.

Underlying judgment and wisdom are a lot easier to provide when you have nothing to lose.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 2:43 PM

Tim K,

I personally think it is fine for Obama to note that overall, his position on the Iraq War in 2002 was not the most popular position. But more importantly, he articulated exactly why he opposed the war, and in doing so demonstrated his insight and judgment.

Anyway, the fundamental mistake Clinton keeps making is that doing unprincipled things is no way to retain credibility and influence. So, let us suppose she did secretly oppose the war from the beginning (I am not sure--I am somewhat persuaded she is pretty hawkish). Suppose she had in fact opposed the war in public as well. As it turns out, she would have had no problems winning re-election in 2006, Obama probably would not even have run for the Presidency in 2008, and in any event she would probably have won the nomination.

Oops.

Posted by DTM | March 11, 2008 2:49 PM

DTM:

Yeah, oops. It was a mistake. You guys have an easy job criticizing Clinton for three main reasons 1) She has been involved in political and social causes and movements at the state and national levels for over 30 years. There's a long record available to scrutinize. 2) She has taken on powerful, entrenched interests and political opponents and has made enemies along the way. 3) She, along with Bill, are among the most closely scrutinized people in American history. That is no exaggeration. What other couple had $60,000,000 in public money spent investigating all their past business dealings and personal relationships, all their past acquaintances ? That doesn't even count the private investigative efforts of the Arkansas Project, which also spent millions trying to dig up as much dirt on them as possible. That doesn't even count the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the mainstream media.

I promise you if $60,000,000 were spent investigating Barack Obama's past we would find a lot of bone-headed mistakes, shady characters and other mysterious dealings.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 2:58 PM

Tim K,

I like how we're getting specific now. I feel as if I have a better understanding of what you're getting at, instead of two ppl shouting over each other. though, you're dangerously close to parroting HRC talking points without context, so as I'm unable to evaluate the substance of your points i.e. the present votes, without more information

1. "Obama could have taken any position he wanted on Iraq and he never would have had to put it on the official record and defend it."
- AHHH BUT HE DID TAKE AN OFFICIAL POSITION DIDN'T HE. He didn't have to take any position, but he did.

2. I'll concede this point for the most part. Your assertions of "more bipartisanship" then Barack is pretty broad. I don't dispute you have examples. But the gang of 14, and triangulation BS are not things I care about so much. And these arguments on health care policy, and/or "present" votes are not important to me. I'm not voting based on the intricacies of their health care plans, which are 95% alike. Whether you call it universal, or affordable for everyone, is a point I don't care to argue. And as for the "present" votes in Il. without context of knowing how common of a practice this was, i don't really care. his supports in the state senate say it was common, his opponents say otherwise, this point is so far removed from anything I care about in determining who to elect for president, that I simply don't give it much weight.

3. "I might have voted for the Iraq war resolution if I were in Clinton's shoes"
- well I don't think you'd have my vote. you said you thought the war was a terrible idea at the time and you could've possibly voted for it in her shoes? The wisdom of whether to invade iraq aught not be conditioned on your personal status (senator, state senator, GI, joe schmoo). This is something objective.

But I think this is where the disconnect between your reasoning and my reasoning lies:

you said, "Obama could have taken any position he wanted on Iraq and he never would have had to put it on the official record and defend it." And "It's always naive to believe things with no evidence."

I believe we have our evidence. He gave a speech, and it is in the "official record". It is possible to be too cynical and over analyze things you know. Sometimes, it really is that straight-forward and simple. Furthermore, the burden is on you, the person alleging that it is naive to believe his public position would not likely change if had been an elected US Senator. I have evidence. Perhaps the strongest evidence possible. His spoken words to the effect when he did not have to take any position at all. you can chip away and say, "well what were the costs involved, he was only in the state senate." But you're being disingenuous. B/C he had a position. And that's all I can rely upon when evaluating an individual for president.

I have the evidence. You do not.

Posted by nattyb | March 11, 2008 3:01 PM

nattyb:

Claiming to have evidence is not the same as having evidence, and asserting I don't have evidence doesn't negate what I have to say.

1. Taking a position on a nation issue from a state legislature is not significant. No one cared, no one was paying attention.

2. Hillary Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker and staunch opponent of the Clintons, on health care early in her first term. She worked with Lindsay Graham on health care for national guard and reserve members, who was House impeachment manager against her husband. She worked with Bill Frist. That's bipartisanship.

3. Knowing how it turned out I definitely wouldn't have voted for it. Hindsight is 20/20 though.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 3:12 PM

Tim K,

are you just fucking with me, or you really don't get what I'm saying?

1. Taking a position on a nation issue from a state legislature is not significant. No one cared, no one was paying attention.
-whether anyone cared or paid attention is irrelevant. He's still a politician, and by taking a position he exposes himself to possibly being wrong. furthermore, we're addressing the substance of his position. The validity of his position is not determined by whether anyone hears it or not. Whether he took his position, literally "in the state legislature", as a member of congress, or outside at a rally, or at a think tank. The forum so long as it's public, does not matter.

2. this point is not important, b/c for all of hillary's bonafide bipartisan points are offset by the fact that about 40% of Americans and 80% of self-identified republican's can't stand her either. do I have to say Obama-Lugar, that happens to be a bipartisan bill related to Nat'l Security experience, which is the whole purpose of this thread.

3. Knowing how it turned out I definitely wouldn't have voted for it. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
- Well I hope so. I thought you had said that you thought it was an awful idea at the time.

But isn't that the point, those who didn't need the 20/20 hindsight judgment aught to be praised, and if anything, they're entitled to the benefit of the doubt on those issues,

signing off,

NB

Posted by nattyb | March 11, 2008 3:22 PM

Tim K,

And yet for all that scrutiny and opposition, I think it would have been pretty easy for Clinton to become President, if she had made very different decisions about how to obtain that goal.

For example, she could have decided to run for a lower-level office in Illinois in 2000, then perhaps even taken the Senate seat now occupied by Obama in 2004. By doing so, she could have established herself as more of a self-made politician, rather than someone dependent on Bill--and probably become better at politics along the way.

She could also have avoided the sorts of political positioning and repositioning you are struggling to defend, and instead stuck with positions and an agenda based on her core principles. Even if as a result she ended up seeming more "liberal" and less hawkish, I believe she would also have ended up actually better positioned to appeal to independents and disaffected Republicans, and certainly Democrats.

Finally, she could have campaigned based on this principled agenda as well as her own more positive attributes, as opposed to her "experience" (which is code for another co-presidency), process issues, and negative assessments of her rivals. Again, this approach would have served her better among not only independents and disaffected Republicans, but it also would have avoided alienating so many Democrats.

However, she didn't make any of those choices. She instead chose to follow a path that made her dependent on Bill, that reinforced the negative images independents and Republicans had of her, and that ultimately alienated many Democrats as well. And that is why that path isn't going to lead to the nomination.

So, in the end she really only has one person to blame, which would be the person who made all of these poor strategic decisions. Namely, herself.

Posted by DTM | March 11, 2008 4:16 PM

Re Columbia's comment "Don - if you want to see how Clinton made her money, just look up her financial disclosure forms that she's filed every year she's been in the Senate. Jebus, this isn't rocket science, it's publicly available information and the Obama people know that (just as they know she'll release her taxes around April 15th, otherwise known as the "filing deadline")."
--------------
This is bullshit. The Financial Disclosure forms are vague and worthless. That is why Candidates are asked to release their tax returns --so voters can tell where the money came from. The New York Times explains why:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Hillary+tax+returns&st=nyt&oref=slogin

There is no reason why Hillary could not have had an aide Xerox and release her tax returns for 2001 -2006. That should have been done over 8 months ago.

Instead , she has refused to do so -- and keeps dragging her feet, playing out the clock. which suggests Hillary has something major to hide from the Democrats she is asking to make her President.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 5:36 PM

Tim K, there are consequences for actions like backing an unjust and violent war. One of them should be that you don't get to hedge your way into being president because of it. If she had voted the other way, she would probably have this nomination locked up by now. She didn't. That's her own damn fault.

I've talked to an Irish Nobel Peace Prize winner about Northern Ireland. I'm in Beijing right now and have denounced China's human rights record while being here. I've even met Bill Clinton. Do I pass the Commander-in-Chief test?

Posted by Reality Man | March 11, 2008 6:08 PM

Under Clinton, Arkansas went from 49th in education to 48th. I guess we can credit that one-rank bump to Hillary personally raising the sales tax. This looks to me a bit like Giuliani taking all of the credit for crime dropping in New York.

Posted by Reality Man | March 11, 2008 6:11 PM

For a lengthier (but consistent) analysis of the "experience" of Senators Obama, Clinton (and McCain), too lengthy to reproduce here, see
"Hillary's Lack of Qualifications," March 8, 2008,
http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com

Posted by Nicholas Johnson | March 11, 2008 7:03 PM

PHG:However you feel about him, Obama has the thinnest resume of any major party candidate in history

This remark is either prefaced on the assumption that Barasck Obama cannot be qualified to be President as a black man or because the writer is woefully ignorant of history - worse, RECENT history!

Which is it?

Posted by Face The Music | March 11, 2008 9:18 PM

Tim K, she's the one running on her foreign policy experience. It's not our fault that turns out to be little more than going around singing with Sinbad. Nobody made her run on that. She chose that. She could have chosen to run on a handful of commissions Bill appointed her to, but she knew that would be laughable, so she didn't. She's running on nothing.

Posted by Reality Man | March 12, 2008 1:49 AM

Also, I would also prefer to have a president who has the experience of living abroad, even as a child, over one who hasn't. You may laugh, but it does open up your eyes and affect your judgment in good ways. In some ways, being younger is better because you are more open to figuring out new ways in which the world works.

Posted by Reality Man | March 12, 2008 1:52 AM

Clinton is "experienced" all right - experienced at walking into incredibly stupid situations - like having her "personal assistant" be an Israeli Mossad "swallow" agent.

You'd have to be utterly brain dead - or utterly corrupt - to get in that position - much like stupid Bill and his "blue dress" or some of the other ridiculously corrupt operations the Clintons have pulled without even a hint of trying to cover it up - such as the Marc Rich pardon.

Somebody here recently called them "hicks from Arkansas" who only got where they are due to support from the AIPAC crowd. I'd say that's about right.

And Bill Clinton is supposed to be a "Rhodes Scholar"? I guess that's gone down in value over the years.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 12, 2008 5:57 AM

Face the music:

I don't take being called a racist lightly, and don't think anything I have posted had any racial connotations. Please enlighten me by naming the major party candidate for President who had a resume which approaches Obama's lack of achievement. And if you say GWB you would be wrong and prove my point at the same time.

Posted by phg | March 12, 2008 5:33 PM