HRC is such a master politician with all of her experience that she has created an ad that hurts BHO and herself!

Ummm Hillary, McCain has more "experience" than you so if that is the reason you give to be POTUS then you might want that reason to be a unique strength to be used to your advanatge if you earn the nomination.

Can any of the Hillary supproters here explain how HRC has more experience than McCain?

The suspicion has long been there that Hillary is concerned only about Hillary and doesn't give a crap about the Democratic party (why would she, she's still a Goldwater Girl at hear?).  That was certainly my limited experience with her as a local Democratic leader in NYS (in sharp contrast to Schumer who was always willing to lend a hand to local party efforts).

Now we know for sure.  She is a wrecker.

Uh, guys, she doesn't intend to lose.  So, if she "damages" Obama, it ain't going to matter to her.  Losing is simply not a Clinton option.  Far as Hillary's concerned, if she's dead, it doesn't matter what happens afterwards.

How does Obama not have a "lifetime of experience"?

greg, like most Obama Kool-Aid drinkers, you forget that Hillary thought about joining the Marine Corps in the early 1970s. (True!) And had she joined the Marines as a JAG officer, there's every chance she would have had to investigate alleged atrocities and drug conspiracies among American forces in Vietnam, where she might actually have come under enemy fire or even been captured and held as a POW.

That's a lot of potential experience Hillary has that matches up well with McCain's record. If you weren't so high on the Obama laughing gas, you'd recognize Hillary's extensive theoretical and potential experience.

If she can't win in '08, she doesn't want Obama to either. For one thing, I think she's bitter about the fact that he claimed he wouldn't run this cycle and made nice with her in the Senate, and then came in anyway to rain on her parade. And for another, she's gotta know that if he wins the presidency, she never will; she could never possibly win in 2016, she'd be almost as old as McCain is now, and the Dems are not a seniority party, and presumably there'll be new Obama administration people running against her. Her only hope is A: to win the nomination this go round, or B: for Obama to lose to McCain so she can try in '12.

Of course, none of this would matter if she really felt Obama would be great for the country and McCain would be disastrous... but either she doesn't feel that way, or she doesn't care. I actually suspect the former, though YMMV.

BHL- it is a little known fact about Obama, but he was involvedin a Phineas Gage-style accident 6 years ago and anything he experienced before that was lost in an explosion of steel and synapse.  So he has, at most, an 1/8th lifetime of experience.    

I apologize for my sticky key board that keeps dropping letters and my poor eyesight that fails to notice what with the tiny print in this box.

She has become, if she was not before, beyond redemption.

This whole thing kind of reminds me of the Tortoise and the Hare.  Obama rolls up a long list of methodical victories and then Hillary sprints forward and tries to snatch out a win.  Obama, undettered, keeps moving along.

Let's hope his shell is tough enough to withstand these vicious and unprincipled attacks.

And another thing:  if all he's got is a speech in 2002, on what possible basis could she even suggest that he's fit to be her VP, as she's now apparently doing on the morning shows?  Sound judgment, that.  

Beyond redemption.

More dishonest Clinton-bashing from Obama fans.  Clinton did not pooh-pooh H.W. Bush's criticism because experience wasn't important but because Clinton indeed had experience, as a multi-term governor, experience, by the way, which Bush lacked.

Orr/Fallows betray the same "I'm high-level and you're not" snobbery that cost Bush the election, the snobbery of Democratic left-wing élites, who have likewise lost elections, and who now flock to Obama.

The Clintons destroyed the Dem Party in the 90s; they've proven it's all about them before.  Why are we surprised?  Isn't this just the next installment of triangulation?

At the end of the day, if Hillary didn't know what was going on under the oval office desk, then she wasn't really involved.

Obama needs to go after her claim of experience. I think he's starting.

At least President McCain will face larger Democratic majorities in House and Senate.

So it seems that the results from yesterday's primaries prove yet again that going negative works.  How does the Obama campaign respond not only to the effectiveness of Clinton's attacks against him, but also her ability to manipulate the press?  She clearly bested the press with her cries of foul re. favorable treatment of Obama.  Is there a "nuclear option" for Obama?

Excuse me, Sen. Clinton's statement is true, factual and a no-brainer to this Democrat. Sen. Obama has so little experience that, if he should be the Democratic nominee, huge numbers of Democrats will vote for Sen. McCain.

wait, so obama pointing out that hillary can't beat mccain because of her general election weaknesses (too divisive, character issues, etc.) that's fair game and an important contrast.  Hillary pointing out Obama's general election weakness is spoiling and destroying the party.  Just like Obama's going negative on Hillary (since January '07) is "politics of hope" while Hillary going negative is "politics of personal destruction."  All's fair in everything but attacking Obama.

holly, so you're saying you'd have voted for Ford over Carter, Nixon over Kennedy, Hoover over FDR, and Douglas over Lincoln? And if you believe McCain's greater "experience" makes him the superior candidate to Obama, how on earth can you possibly justify voting for Hillary over McCain?

In terms of actual public service, Obama in point of fact has more "experience" than Hillary. But never mind, she keeps saying the words "thirty-five years," so she must actually have been prime minister of the United States since 1973 and we've just never noticed.

I'm a consistent Hillary defender (if not supporter), but I agree that this statement crosses a line by contrasting Obama to McCain unfavorably.  On the other hand, to assume that its part of some devious long range plan to run in '12 is typical anti-Hillary paranoia.  I think the point she's making is that Democrats should consider Obama's supposed experience vulnarability in light of the fact that he'll be running against McCain.  

Also, the idea that Obama doesn't have enough "experience" is an old theme - I don't think this particular statement gives it any more weight as a McCain attack on Obama than it already had.  

If she is experienced because she was co-president, she's had her 8 years as president.  22nd Amendment.  If she was not president, then her experience is no different than the thousands of other people who knew or advised Bill Clinton and had a belief as to what policies he should follow.  The experience of having to make the ultimate decision is valuable.  She doesn't have that experience.

I gotta say I think that the vast majority of Democrats are far too unaware of any such nonsense like this that Hillary spouts, and if they do here it don't understand its ramifications. The only area it does hurt her is with hardcore Obama supporters, half of whom will vote for her while holding their noses, and much of the other half will stay home, but I think she will try to remedy it by offering Obama the VP slot. (provided she somehow does wrest the nomination from him). Of course, if she does go too low and bloody with him Obama will tell her to stuff it (behind closed doors).

I gotta admit about 99% of the reason I hate Hillary is because I pay attention to what is going on. Hillary relying on the essential stupidity of Democrats is not such a bad idea.

blackton, don't forget those of us who will vote for McCain if she wins the nomination. Why stay home? And I don't think it's paranoid to think that she would prefer McCain to beat Obama if she can't. Then she can say "you all should have voted for meeeeeeee!" If Obama gets to be president, we'll have a ton more of those, ugh, speeches, and he'll eclipse the Clinton reign. That's the last thing she wants.

No Dems defect from Hillary to McCain.  Lots of Dems defect from Obama to McCain.  It's that simple.  GOP defections from McCain to HIllary or Obama?  Some may not vote, but they won't cross.

By the way, I saw an headline a while back on Drudge, saying that McCain vs Hillary will be the most civil campaign in history.  

And speaking of Drudge, the current headline says, "Clinton Hints At Sharing Ticket With Obama," then, under a picture of the two together,  "...but who's on top?"

I bet that one gets play in the late-nights.

jm_rice, you are right on target.  Reagan democrats (whio sallied forth yestaerday) have far more in common with McCain than they do with Obama, and will cross over to vote for JM in a heartbeat.  The Repubs will ultimately all line up for McCain as well---it's inevitable that the Democratic platform will be hard left, and that alone will be enough to make conservatives show up, hold their noses, and vote for JM.  

But Hillary just might be able to keep a grip on those Reagan Democrats, and that demographic just might swing the election in November.  

Incidentally, it was the Big Dog himself, Bill Clinton, who made the comment you saw on Drudge.  

Rice and rocdoc,

The best that can be said for your thesis is that you are making it up as you go along.  How exactly you know the temper of the electorate better than the polls that are contrary is anyone's guess.  If you look at the way McCain and Hillary match up, his strengths trump the strengths she claims and he has more demonstrated appeal, thus far, with independents.  Your thesis is just air.

jm_rice and dirocdoc, you may be right about Reagan democrats going to Obama, especially if this race goes to the convention floor. But with Hillary she will  at least lose this Kennedy democrat.

The experience argument works from an inferred, indirect association of Hillary with Bill, resulting about half the perceived years she claims, the remainder padding. She might insist that her executive abilities were demonstrated first in childhood, but that would of course strike most folks as ridiculous.

It's her very years "in the White House" that give me pause (along with her strident pugnaciousness, which doesn't take much to incite). She is not an instinctive politician like Bill, or Obama for that manner, but a kind of super policy wonk. She's very smart and articulate in her way, but flat on her feet, as her campaign - it must be *hers* musn't it? - has shown her to be. In spite of the years of so-called hands on, I think she would be incapable of maneuvering around Republicans in Congress as Bill did. Under pressure she'd stand and fight for her ideas, just as she says, and it would be gridlock city as usual. Even foreign policy could be so affected. Or, the opposite would happen, she would simply not know what to do and fall flat as she did with Hillarycare I. I don't think she's learned much about being an effective politician or a statesperson in all these years. Her experience, much as Obama's, has been focused on advancing herself.

I know its not scientific, but I have yet to hear a Hillary supporter say they'd vote for McCain if Obama won . . . while I constantly hear Obama supporters say they'll stay home if Hillary wins.  On the other hand, I know a lot of people who usually vote republican who've told me they'd consider voting for either Hillary or Obama.  Then again, I haven't spoken to any of them about it since McCain took the nomination . . .  

The spite of Hillary supporters is not going to win her the nomination.  If she behaves with dignity, I would grudgingly vote for her.  If she manages to seat MI and FL and gets the nomination that way (not likely in my opinion), I will, for the second time in my life, vote for a Republican and Hillary Clinton be damned.

Rhubarbs, that's funny as hell. HRC indeed has extensive theoretical experience. She has actual experience as well, such as actually living IN the White House.

Interestingly, Barry Obama's political experience is identical to Abe Lincoln's when he ran for POTUS: eight years in the Illinois legislature followed by two in the US senate. I don't think anyone could argue that Lincoln was too inexperienced for the job or that he wasn't up to making the hard decisions.

Everyone has 'a lifetime of experience'. So what? Part of Hillary Clinton's vaunted experience is her outrageous vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq -- AFTER NOT READING the NIE. I cannot let go of that. To me, that is the most revealing thing about Hillary. She is not apologetic because she knows that in her mind she made no mistake, did what she had fully intended to do all along, which is why she did not need to read the NIE.

I'm voting FOR whichever Democrat wins the nomination and AGAINST whatever Republican heads the GOP ticket.

This is your country:

(strong, protective and morally principled; with prosperity for all; respected far and wide)

This is your country on Republicans:

(morally unprincipled bully, increasing poverty, shrinking middle class, hated everywhere)

Any questions?