That is an awesome line.  Can we finally have a President who is truly witty?

"For what it's worth, I think this could be one of those moments, like Hillary's angry response to John Edwards during the recent New Hampshire debate, that the media cynics proclaim a misstep but the folks at home find pretty winning."

I'd say the odds are very high. One thing that is becoming extremely clear this year: the media has a tendency to assume their viewers are a bunch of drooling village idiots.

Thanks for reporting, Noam, a perfect example of the little details that win me over to Obama's side.

Of course, for those who haven't imbibed the Obama kool aid, and have serious and grave concerns about electing a man with virtually no national or foreign policy experience, whose entire Senate career is predicated on the good fortune of first his opponents imploding in Illinois, then giving a captivating and inspirational speech in Boston, bragging about your inability to be a good administrator in the worlds most crucial administrative position isn't necessarily the best way to ease those concerns.

It actually comes across looking pretty damn cocky.

Obama's problem is that he's living in the wrong country. Most european democracies split the functions of Head of State and Head of Government. Listening to Obama and HIllary, you get the very distinct impression that Obama is running for Head of State. Hillary is running for Head of Government. The economy is tanking. The world is hostile. The war is dragging on, and globale climate change is looming. A Head of State might be all nice and inspirational, but until Obama proves he can handle the mundane part of the job, he'll be critically handicapped amongst a huge segment of the electorate.

This is a real talent of Obama's: he takes his opponents' attacks and incorporates them into his stump speech and then mocks them.

It's pretty effective....take the "I will not drop nukes on terrorists" line. People jumped all over him when he said that...but a month later, he started adding it to his stump speech:

"The old Washington rulebook says 'you can't say this, you can't say that'. People jumped all over me when I said I wouldn't use nuclear weapons against individual terrorist leaders. and then, after they thought about it and digested it, they realized that this was just common sense!"

He often weaves his anti-washington message into these responses.

"whose entire Senate career is predicated on the good fortune of first his opponents imploding in Illinois"

I forget...whose entire Senate career is predicated on the good fortune of her favorability rating going from 40% to 70% when her husband had sex with a barely legal intern?

You know why politicians are phony?  Because it works.

Mitt Romney won Michigan with a mouthful of anodyne bullshit.  The press criticizes it, at least when they think the public wants them to, but the results speak for themselves.  We have a political system that, quite frankly, selects for people with the ability to pump out pablum and make it sound believable, and selects against people who say anything even ambiguously negative.

Obama's as gifted as anybody in that regard, but too much honesty will sink anybody.  And when you've just reinforced another candidate's criticism about you out of your own mouth, one doesn't need to be a "media cynic" to call that a misstep.  You'd need to be in a bubble to consider it no big deal.  If he can step out of it again, that's a good sign, because that's what candidates have to do.  But assuming that no criticism can ever stick to the guy because he's so darn likeable is a big mistake.

Take it from John McCain and George W. Bush: positive pablum is a net winner over negative honesty with a majority of voters.  Americans aren't stupid, but they aren't subtle either.

He didn't stop there. Read the whole thing:

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/.../obama-skewers-critics-in-nevada

VC:

Since when is 22 "barely legal?"  

Barely legal to drink, I guess, sort-of...

One way to keep a desk clean is to sweep inconvenient documents, like the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, straight into the trash unread.

governorjohn, and what is your evidence that Saint Hillary will be an effective head of government? Have you read her policies on her own website. For the life of me I can not find her proposal on how to fix Social Security. Hillary can't even handle her own campaign. She is such a train wreck I will vote for McCain over her. And if we went by resume, then Richardson or Biden would have won. Hillary has the charisma of Biden coupled with the experience of Obama and we should vote for her?

And have you ever read a transcript of Hillary speaking? She talks like a 15 year old with you knows and likes thrown in everywhere.

Well, that 70% approval rating, could that have possibly been fueled by her going through one of the most humiliating episodes in American political history and performing with nothing less than poise and grace throughout the entire ordeal? The same woman who had to run an actual race in New York, and has since done such a fantastic job that her share of the vote incresaed from 56 percent in 2000 to 67 percent in 2006? The same woman who has been through the toughest era in modern American politics and has consistently always come back stronger?

Now let's review Obama. His first run was an ill-advised challenge to Congressman Bobby Rush in Chicago where he got served 2-1. Then, in 2004, the Democratic frontrunner for the Senate seat was knocked out of the race by very damning divorce records surfacing, which cleared the way for Obama without him having to fire a shot. Then the same thing happened to the Republican candidate in the general, and Obama ended up coasting to election against Alan Keyes.

The man has not been through the fire. He has never taken a punch and come back. He has never been through a major Washington battle (and for all his gather-round-the-campfire-and-sing-kumbaya rhetoric, the Republicans are not going to unconditionally surender simply because he wins).

Without a doubt, not a single person beyond Illinois would have any idea who Obama is, let alone consider supporting him for President, if he had come down with a head cold in Boston and had to cancel his speech. I was in the audience then. I was moved. But in the four years since that July, I have seen absolutely nothing that convinces me that he has anything more to offer than a good speech.

And that is no way to run a country. Let alone a campaign.

bcbaird, hey, Adultery is illegal so in that sense she was not even barely legal.

What everyone is missing is what Obama's response will affect the old lady on the streetcorner vote. It really comes off like he's patronizing to old ladies at streetcorners. Plus there's the generational/racial issue of the fear old ladies might feel when, standing on streetcorners, a young black man approaches them, grabs their arm, and starts pulling them into the street. I'm thinking this has to be seen as a huge gaffe for Obama: late-deciding old ladies on streetcorners should break for Hillary big-time now.

You're being flip, Rhubarbs, but not as flip as you think.  Take a look at your average poll worker on election day.  There's a demographic with guaranteed turnout!

Oh, come on, gubnerjohn.   Anyone who thinks all Obama has to offer is a speech has not been paying attention, or only paying attention is the most biased and blinded way.  The man is super-sharp on policy, knows his stuff, etc.   And the paper thing was just a line.  You really think he is going to misplace a key document or something, and there are no back-ups?   Oh, hell, I just had bin Laden's surrender papers right here!  And now I lost them.  THE COUNTRY IS DOOMED!!!!

Rhetoric is all Obama has to offer. It's his first, last and only line of defence. I have listened to him many times, first in Boston, then in San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles and San Diego. He offers very few policy proposals. His lobbyist reforms were a flop (standing lunch versus sitdown lunch? Please.). His healthcare proposal lacks the audacity of either a single payer program or a workable private-based plan (he's simply wrong on the universal mandate. In states with universal mandates for car insurance, compliance is 98 percent). 15 million people would be left uninsured by his healthcare plan simply because he lacks the boldness to go for single payer and, failing that, to ask Americans to shoulder some of the burden.

This is what happens when your entire campaign strategy relies on hope. John Edwards put it best over a year ago: "talking about hope is waiting until tomorrow." But, absent a record of accomplishment, it's about the only thing Obama has to offer the American people.

Since when is adultery illegal?  Now maybe if Huck become President, what with outlawing divorce and all...

Rhubarbs: funny!

Agreed, Governor, NEITHER of them is qualified to be President.  Not head of government or head of state.  But we vote on 2 levels - for a political program for the next 4 years and for a person to put that program into place.  Hence, likeability matters.  On that score, she loses badly, and will to McCain, too.

I did get a good laugh, though - HRC came through the Monica mess with poise and grace?  You mean like when she blamed it all on the VRWC?  Yeah, no doubt they were the ones giving Bill the cigar.

Her vote % went up in NY because they ran a nobody against her.  She's blue senator in a blue state.

She'll get credit for 8 years in the WH when she takes some blame for the Clinton years (beyond the health care debacle which, BTW, never even came to a vote in the DEM Congress).  Not just credit for, well, whatever good you think Bill accomplished.  Marc Rich, anyone?  Ande that's just the start.  The sense of entitlement of these people is simply jaw-dropping.

gobnerjohn, yeah and Hillary is originally from New York which is why she went back to her roots at one of the more Democratic states in the country going against the Repubican powerhouse Ricky something or other, followed by the equally powerhouse candidate I don't remember in 2006. But yeah, her husband cheated on her so she should be President. She has 7 years in the Senate as her only true government experience (unless if being married to a President makes you qualified, in that case I will have the wife of my doctor prescribe medicine). Obama, on the other hand has many years in the Illinois Senate where he was quite successful. Obama is his own person, self made. Hillary is not. Hillary has her name and gender and a nostalgia for the 90's but not much else.

What is her plan for Social Security? If you can tell me what it is I will vote for her.

governorjohn:

Rick Lazio and her 2006 opponent, "???? Mc????" are not tough competition.

governorjohn,

I like how you dismiss Obama's win in Illinois without more than a cursory glance at the facts. Yes, Blair Hull, who was leading in the Democratic Primary polls, did destruct when it was found out he may have beat his wife. But that isn't the end of the story. Also in that race was Dan Hynes, the Illinois State Comptroller and initial favorite to win the nomination who had been twice been elected statewide and was son of a very successful Illinois politician. Obama in the end received over 50% of the vote in a seven person primary. No small feat, that.  

After the primary, Obama would eventually face Alan Keyes after Jack Ryan's campaign imploded when his wife's allegations from their divorce came out. But Obama was leading Ryan by 20 points in the polls before the allegations came out. And this was all before Obama gave his speech in Boston. There is absolutely no reason to think Obama wouldn't have cleaned up against Ryan either.

Oh, and Obama beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

Speaking of Hillary, it's not like Rick Lazio was a fearsome candidate either. And who did she beat with her 67% in 2006 (a much better year for Democrats than 2004 when Obama won 70% in Illinois versus Kerry taking 55%), John Spencer? Great win.  

"Rhetoric is all Obama has to offer"

Yes. And political rheteoric is pretty much all there is in politics. As president, you make speeches every day and you rally public support behind your proposals...frankly, this is an undervalued skill for Presidents. All of the greatest presidents moved public opinion in their direction because they were amazing orators.

Hillary Clinton is a technocrat and (on a good day) a below average speaker. She belongs in the Senate, not the White House.

governor, you are wrong about mandates. It is a political nonstarter. Besides people are not cars. Drive without car insurance and your car will be impounded. walk around without health insurance and what, they will impound us? I can choose not to drive, I don't really want to choose not to live because I can't afford the premiums to be sent to an insurance company who will deny me care the first chance it gets.

Mandates are a dumb idea politically as well and the Republicans will kill us with it. And how do you propose enforcing the mandate? Garnish poor young peoples wages? Great, that will win support.

And what is her plan for Social Security? I wait eternally in vain for a Hillary supporter to answer this question. In case you don't know, Obama wants to lift the cap after 200k. Hillary calls this a middle class tax hike. For a rich person like her, 200k is chump change I know.

Obama had 8 years as a state legislator before being elected to the national level and granted I'm young I'm only 21 and wasn't paying much attention during the Clinton administration but Did Hillary do anything aside from screwing up universal health care and bitching about the media and right wing conspiracies because I haven't heard anybody say something she accomplished during those years just that because she was there she has experiance?

That is a serious question by the way, did she do anything?

hey butchie, you must be loving watching hillary use scorched earth tactics against other Dems. If she can't win she is going to make sure no other Dem will so Bill will remain the last Dem president of my lifetime.

I have my doubts about Obama, I would have loved him as the VP for Gore or some other more experienced Dem but he is the best left standing, and with the exception of McCain better than the Republican lot. Even you gotta shudder at Romney.

That is a serious question by the way, did she do anything?

No.

Well, even though I missed her tenure as first lady by about 37 years, I seem to recall from the history books that Eleanor Roosevelt was somewhat active in her husband's administration. In fact, I don't believe anyone questioned her credentials when Harry Truman appointed her United Nations Ambassador.  

And it truly saddens me to see that Obama's supporters are so adept at absorbing and internalizing Republican talking points. Bill Kristol wrote a memo to Bob Dole telling him that if the Republican minority in Congress allowed Clinton to pass healthcare reform of any variety, it would doom the Republicans to permanent minority status. And what happened? The Republicans responded by killing healthcare reform. This is established fact. Doesn't matter how adroitly (or not) she handled the reform efforts, they would have been killed in the Senate by a determined Republican minority.

And let's see, eight years as a member of the Illinois State Senate? Seriously? Sitting at a desk in the Illinois statehouse is somehow more indicative of preparedness than living in the White House, seeing the pressures and complexities of the job of President in a way that--literally--no other person in the country can appreciate?

Oh, and let's not forget. During her time as First Lady, she was involved in the Northern Ireland peace process, advising the President with regards to Kosovo (Wes Clark has said that Hillary's support was essential to getting BC to go to war--which was also confirmed by the Blair Years by Alastair Campbell), and delivering a major rebuke to the Chinese government at the UN Conference on Women's Rights in 1995. That's what most people generally call foreign policy experience. Unless, of course, they are supporting a candidate for whom experience is an issue that is best not talked about.

GovernorJohn dismisses Obama's Senatorial race, but he might be interested to know that Hillary's first run was even less challenging. She faced an unknown Republican candidate whose campaign was declared dead by the local press when he dared to cross the stage during a debate. Then she spent the rest of the fall not facing a single tough question, going only on Rosie O'Donnell and Jay Leno. It was a shallow campaign with little substance and lots of photo ops.

As for Obama "only offering rhetoric," the facts plainly undercut this. His legislative record stands up well to Hillary's and he's demonstrated better judgment to boot. (See: Iraq.) His health care proposal is more realistic and his willingness to forge working partnerships on an array of issues with Republicans is admirable. And necessary.

Sorry, guvnor, but those who cling to Hillary as the future of the Democratic party do so at their own peril.

But she learned what it was like to live at the White House!  That counts for something, right?  Obama will be like, "dude, where is the bathroom?" and he'll go looking for it and then- bam!- the first 100 Days are lost.

Sorry, I think they are both qualified to be President, in a way.  Hillary will never win, and even if she does I don't want the nnext 4 years being more Clintonian psycho-drama.  I am so tired of it.  

Rick Lazio was a teleginic young candidate who had outside groups spending upwards of 60 million dollars attacking HRC in 2000. And he was the substitute candidate after Rudy Giuiliani (you may have heard of him, he's been in the papers a few times since he left the Mayor's office) was running against her for almost a year, and the race was very close.

She had to fight her way to that win (given the fact that Gore carried New York by 25 points to her 12, she clearly had a much tougher time in New York, a blue state that has an unnerving habit of voting for Republican Senators and Governors all the time--see D'Amato, Rockefellor, Pataki, et al). So, in her first term, she won over many people who were skeptical enough of her to cross party lines and vote against her in 2000, which is why the Republicans couldn't field a decent candidate against her in 2006.

Let's also not forget the moment that clinched the election for her--not when Lazio tried to bully her into signing his campaign pledge, but rather when Tim Russert asked her if she owed the country an apology for the Vast RIghtwing Conspiracy (which turns out, there actually was by the way). She is held to a higher standard than any other person in policits, and there is no possible way to dispute that. The fact that she's around and kicking after all these years proves how tough, how determined and how smart she is.

"and his willingness to forge working partnerships on an array of issues with Republicans is admirable. And necessary." Clearly you have not heard the praise Hillary has received from people like Sam Brownback, Lindsay Graham and Trent Lott.

Bottom line? Hillary supporters have a vast resevoir of polciy areas where they can legitimately claim Hillary has been instrumental in (SCHIP being one example of her legacy as First Lady). The only thing Obama supporters can draw on is conjecture. It's all theorhetical, in a disturbingly Howard Dean-esque way.

If Obama had somehow been governor of Texas for six years, would that somehow make him better qualified for the post?

Seriously.  Some of the people who raise objections to Obama's experience would certainly be apt to look back in the history books.  How would we judge some of our greats if they were running for office today?

Washington?  A simple farmer and failed lieutenant colonel in the French and Indian war.  Almost no foreign policy experience not involving exchanges of gunfire.  Has never been elected to office.  Obviously, the man doesn't have the experience necessary to be president.

Lincoln?  Pfft.  Sure he talks nice, but what about his experience?  Defeated in his first run for the Illinois General Assembly.  Four terms in the Illinois House, but his national political experience?  One term as congressman for Illinois' 7th District.  Foreign policy?  Please!

FDR?  Spoiled brat.  Barely two terms as a NY state senator.  Cush job as assistant secretary of the navy.  One term as governor of New York.  National experience?  One failed bid as the vice presidential nominee.  Plus, the guy's a cripple!

Now you want to talk experience?  I've got the ideal candidate.  Former navy man.  Two terms in Congress, followed by a successful bid for the US Senate.  Served two terms as veep under a very well liked president.  Defeated once in a presidential bid, but the experience has hardened him and he'll be quite a fighter.

Okay this one is so laughable that we'll take it seriatum...

If Obama had somehow been governor of Texas for six years, would that somehow make him better qualified for the post? (Hmmm...using George Bush's experience as an argument for Obama. Does this even count as push-back?_

"Washington?  A simple farmer and failed lieutenant colonel in the French and Indian war." (Let's not forget member of the Continental Congress, Commander in Chief for eight years of war and effective collaborator with the French, Spanish and Dutch forces sent to assist us in the war. I think that covers military, government and foreign policy situations. Maybe that's just me.)

"Lincoln?  Pfft.  Sure he talks nice, but what about his experience?  Defeated in his first run for the Illinois General Assembly.  Four terms in the Illinois House, but his national political experience?  One term as congressman for Illinois' 7th District."  (Democrats fatally divided between Northern and Southern candidates. When one of the two parties split, it generally makes it a lot easier for the other party to win...)

"FDR?  Spoiled brat.  Barely two terms as a NY state senator.  Cush job as assistant secretary of the navy.  One term as governor of New York."  Assistant Secretary for the Navy during a World War. Successful Governor during the early years of the Great Depression. Some people might call that a trial-by-fire).

"Now you want to talk experience?  I've got the ideal candidate.  Former navy man.  Two terms in Congress, followed by a successful bid for the US Senate.  Served two terms as veep under a very well liked president.  Defeated once in a presidential bid, but the experience has hardened him and he'll be quite a fighter." Let's not forget that he was defeated by Kennedy, a war hero with 14 years service in Congress, and in turn defeated the sitting Vice President who also happened to be a former Senator and Mayor. Nixon was certainly experienced, but so were his opponents. It's a flawed analogy.

This governerorjohn is not going to flip, guys. I'm so tired of making the case that Obama's not an empty suit and has actually done a lot in the time he's been in office - and it's the accomplishments-to-time ratio we should be looking at, or at LEAST the amount and weight of the accomplishments, and not simply the amount of time, regardless of whether you're limiting it to time in office. Which Hillary certainly is not.

Where was I? Ok, I do like VA pointing out that rhetoric is the stuff of the job. I've got a link somewhere... wait... Yeah!

xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/.../obama-praises-bill-clinton-and-buries.html

Blackie, far be it from me to object when the other party is tearing itself up.  As you know, I'm for McCain, and will so vote in the FL primary coming up.  Don't know enough about the Mittster to make a final judgment quite yet.  I assume he has now settled on his final positions on issues. :-)

Sadly, what I see in GovernorJohn's posts is a significant failure of imagination and hope. I know this is terribly difficult for Hillary supporters to get, but the point of this election is to seize a once-in-a-generational opportunity to remake the political landscape, not restore the cherished Clinton dynasty. It's nice that you all have fond memories of those storied 1990s, but it's really time to let go and move on to something bigger and better.

If "more experience" is your rationale for nominating Hillary, then go ahead. It's a very weak claim, to be sure, but if that's what you need to tell yourself to do it, be my guest. But I suggest you watch very closely the kind of campaign she's run, especially since Obama started to surge in the polls, because that will tell you far more about the kind of government she'd operate. Just as it did with W.

Govjohn, you miss the point entirely.  Yes, all the presidents I mentioned (save Lincoln) were extremely well qualified to be president.  All of them (save Nixon), were competent.

No doubt about it, Obama has the experience to be president.  Does he have as much experience as we'd like?  No.  But I would rather judge the man based on his intellect, character and policy - not to mention his performance thus far in the campaign.

Sure, Hillary has more "experience."  But a lot of it is dubious (experience by marriage), and she's definitely got a lot of flaws that work against her.  I certainly won't feel comfortable voting for her if she wins the election.

Bcbaird, no need to concede that Hillary has more "experience." She simply does not, and nearly all of the "experience" she claims was a failure to some degree or another. Being married to the president does not make one "experienced" or "qualified" -- or are Hillary supporters saying they would also vote for Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan?

In Clinton's first two years in office, he delegated real policy and White House management responsibilities to Hillary. Her work very nearly doomed Clinton's presidency. At every turn, she took easy wins and turned them into embarrassing losses -- the travel office firings, botched cabinet nominations, gays in the military, health care -- until by the fall of 1994 she was basically stripped of any further substantive role in the work of the White House. She didn't have security clearance, she didn't attend the important meetings, by some accounts she didn't even interact with Bill all that often, and her foreign travel really was of the hold-babies-for-the-cameras, Princess Di variety.

In the end, Bill Clinton had a reasonably successful presidency only because he stopped giving Hillary real work to do. I think a lot of people forget just how precarious the Clinton presidency was by the time Hillary's seat at the grown-ups table was taken away; if you remember what a one-term failure Dubya looked like to most Americans in August 2001, that was Clinton by August 1994.

Sadly, what I see in BHLnyc's post is a risible excess of messianism and faith.  S/he truly seems to believe that the rich and powerful interests in this country and its capital will be helpless before the "people-power" of Saint Barack and his True Believers, and that they will be perfectly willing to go along with progressive policies that stand to cost them significant amounts of wealth and influence as long as we're not "disagreeable" about advancing them.

This election is about fixing real American problems, not about closing the door on Clintonism or ushering in a thousand years of idealistic rah-rah in the populace, however much the liberal blogosphere cherishes those goals.  When last comes to last, the middle-Americans who will decide this election couldn't care less if the next president "changes the tone" in Washington.  They want their jobs protected, their health care paid for, and their sons and daughters out of Iraq.  And they're smart enough to realize that Obama's promise to "remake the political landscape" is TANGENTIAL AT BEST to those aims.

To my mind, the worst sin of the Obama crowd is not that they want to root for the man who fills them with hope.  Their worst sin is their arrogant, sanctimonious and unthinking denigration of a fine public servant like Hillary Clinton because she has the nerve to be a politician instead of a messiah; and their corresponding denigration of her supporters, many of whom view government as a civic organ to handle specific tasks, not a transformational force for spiritual fulfillment.

You are not better people than we are just because your heart goes pitter-pat when a young, attractive man stands up and promises he can bring down the forces of Old and Evil if you will just elect him president.  And we don't have a "failure of imagination and hope" when we point out that, like the old psychiatry joke goes, Washington has to *want* to change.  And since by all accounts it doesn't, we'd do well to elect somebody who knows how to take it as they find it.

austin, please. Relax. I have real doubts about Obama but have far more regarding Hillary. She has negative ratings of 47% in the country now, imagine what they will be after the Republicans launch a full scale attack on her. My number one criteria is who can be elected?

Being that I think we are in for a shitstorm the next couple of years I am starting to favor McCain since he will be a one termer, with a Dem congress, and the Republicans will be creamed in 2012. But if I want to vote for hope then I choose Obama. I think he can come in with more of a resevoir of goodwill with the American people that Hillary doesn't have. Now you can bitch about it all you want, but you can be right and lose the election or swallow your pride and vote for someone who is more politically palatable with a greater range of the electorate. Obama has consistently won the independents, Hillary only has the base. Again, you gotta win and she can't.

I think the dismissive, cynical attitude of the Hillaryites here is a perfect reflection of her campaign. There's really nothing more I could possibly add that could make the point better.

What BHLnyc said. They'll kind of seem reasonable, talking about issues and whatnot, then suddenly, when about to lose on the merits, they lash out with stinging contempt of us for letting ourselves hope for something better. And they praise her for her devious, underhanded, corrupt ways. It's a feature not a bug! Go Nixon!

HIT 'EM WITH HUMOR.... Barack Obama campaigned earlier in Raleigh, North Carolina, principally relying on the closing-statement speech he unveiled in Ohio on Monday. Today, however, he added a new paragraph. "[B]ecause he knows his economic theories don