People give the "Clinton Machine" way too much credit. Is this really the best they can do? Obama is going to have fun with this one. It's like they're just throwing him a fastball down the middle of the plate.

On the subject of new narratives, here's one: Clinton Machine = Washed Up.

This looks to be one more reason not to vote for Clinton.

Please. When you're in kindergarten you are aware of about four jobs. So when you are asked what you want to be you say (1) President, (2) Firefighter, (3) Astronaut, or (4) glue taster.

Also, I've never heard of a kindergartner who writes essays. What kind of head-start program do they have in Indonesia, anyway?  

And seriously, a Clinton is accusing someone of being overly ambitious? Next up: Hillary accuses Queen Elizabeth of being a bit cold; Bill accuses JFK of being promiscuous; Chelsea accuses Amy Carter of being a goody two-shoes.

Here I am defending Hillary again.  

Who brought up the completely irrelevant issue of how long somebody's been planning to run for president?  

Who claimed he hasn't "been planning to run for president for any number of years"?

Do you really believe that?  Not that it matters in the slightest.

I'll concede that the response would have been more effective without the references to third grade and kindergarten - which make it absurd - but its not like the "Clintonistas" were out interviewing his old teachers.  These all come from recent newspaper articles.

I hear that it was in kindergarten when Obama started eating his vegetables...

Adam -- The Obama campaign actually responded to this hilarious "challenge" by speculating that Clinton would next take Obama to task for his second-grade essay on why he wanted to be an astronaut.

The longer I'm exposed to Hillary's campaign for president, the more I begin to think that maybe conservatives have been right about her all along. Petty little episodes like this are now coming almost daily. Either the Clinton campaign has just made up lies about Obama's early childhood schoolwork, in which case Hillary is a dangerous liar, or they've actually investigated a fellow citizen's grade-school records, in which case Hillary is a dangerous proto-tyrant. And in either event, releasing it in a "gotcha!" public statement is the kind of thing that would lead reasonable people to say of any male candidate, "What a dick."

Also, it's worth noting that accessing and publicizing school records like this would be a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 if the school in question were in the United States. So, does Hillary have any similar grade-school oppo research on her other candidates' schooling, or on Obama's U.S. education, and if so, can she please be indicted before the Iowa caucuses?

Rhubarbs: the references are right there in the statement.  THey come from newspaper articles.

This thing is hopefully very minor, but can I point out to everyone that it begins with Obama making a jab at Hillary that clearly is meant to play into the whole Hillary-is-too-ambitious storyline?  Does anyone think its bad for a presidential candidate to be ambitious?  Does anyone think Obama's not ambitious?  

Like Jason , I thought the Clintonites were really reaching by throwing Barack Obama's kindergarten

so obama attacks Hillary for a "20 year plan for the Presidency" based on a scurillous (and disproven) charge in Von Natta's book.  Obama claims that he wasn't planning on running for president, but decided to save us all from old politics (part of his campaign meme about what a great, transforming figure he is).  Hillary responds by illustrating a number of occasions in which Obama has said he wanted to be president for years (and tounge-in-cheek mentions the kindergarten thing, which was dumb, and low, but I think meant jokingly) and it's reason enough to turn on the evil bitch.  The hypocrisy of the media, blogs, and Obama/Edwards supporters are amazing--when their candidates bring up a vile character attack, it's a true exposure of the evil Hillary.  When Hillary responds, she's an evil bitch who's lying.

Spechs:

That's because Hillary has this unquantifiable evilness that brings out the worst in all of us. It's one of the reasons why I hate her. LOL!

newdex, I see your rational arguments, but I come away from this like most people, with a lower opinion of Hillary.  I don't know if teh Obama campaign baited the hook on purpose, but she didn't need to swallow it so readily.  The better response would have been "yeah, I'm ambitious, you have to be to be president."  Look how well the opposite strategy (unambitious slacker) is working for Fred Thompson.

Newdex, I can see how it would seem unfair, and can only say that the difference between the candidates' ambitions is that Clinton appears to feel it's owed to her, and Obama doesn't. Also, I doubt that his presidential "plans" were uninterrupted from kindergarden through the present, and to cite that kindergarden assignment as evidence of how long he was planning his campaign is just crazy. Crazy is not what I want in a president, or  a Democratic nominee, for that matter.

Adamvaught: hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

And can we also keep in mind that it was Barack who with apparent seriousness touted his grade school time in Indonesia as his strongest foreign policy credential? But is citing (further) to kindergarten silly? Well of course, and likely tongue in cheek as others note.

But there may be an overarching purpose as well; namely, beginning to debunk the hooey that Obama is some kind of transcendental, uber-politician/statesman who will change forever the way the game is played if only Americans are smart enough to receive hs gift. Obama adroitly punctured Hillary The Inevitable; she's returning the favor by showing that no, maybe he's not St. Barack The Pure.  

Good......let's see where it goes because you think this is tough stuff? What do you think the Republicans have in store for him (or any of them)? Just wait. It sure ain't gonna be a fight about  lead articles in the Harvard Law Review.  

By New Republic standards, Obama has to be an expert on public education.  After all, he never attended a public school, has never sent children to a public school, and has never taught at a public school.  That has to make him expert.  On the other hand, the 3 1/2 million teachers who are in the classroom every day, can't possibly know anything about education, mostly because they do it every day, and they do so for often insufficient remuneration, which also makes them stupid and self-seeking, not to mention union members.

Obama's support for vouchers and other  conservative "alternatives" to public schooling suggests that he also hasn't read the research  on those alternatives.  It is uniformly bleak.  But what with so much money wasted on other governmental programs, why not waste a bit more in backing educational programs that don't work?

As to testing and evaluation in the schools. . .  John Edwards was right.  You don't fatten hogs by weighing them.  But of course, Senator Obama  wouldn't know about that,.

Last and not least, the view that public education is a disaster area, a view steadily propounded by and necessary to Conservatives in order to "reform" public education, it just isn't shared by the vast majority of parents of children in public school whose satisfaction with their schools is measured on an annual basis.

Obama may be charming, but I would like to find a policy issue on which he differs from Clinton, and on which he is right, and I don't mean Far Right.  So far, that hasn't happened.  Pie-in-the-sky is insufficient preparation to deal effectively with some of the problems likely to face our next president, whoever he or she is.

Alex Levy