Experience. Exactly WHAT has Hillary Been ELECTED to before?

[matcom]

<snip>

It might seem surprising that Clinton has turned out to be something other than a brilliant campaigner. But consider her record. Back in 1999, she entered the New York Senate race in the manner of Marie Antoinette entering France -- to be ultimately crowned queen. When Clinton announced an interest in running, every other potential Democratic candidate -- Andrew Cuomo, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, even Al Sharpton -- took it as an order to vanish. The strongest of these, Rep. Nita Lowey, graciously stepped aside, as if Clinton was the real McCoy and a six-term member of Congress was an undeserving interloper.

Back then, I wrote that there was "something wacky" about what was happening. Clinton, you might recall, was hardly a New Yorker. No matter. She had never won an election in her adult life. No matter. She was virtually inexperienced on her own. No matter. She was first and foremost the wife of Bill, and for party leaders and hypocritical feminists -- Lowey was a woman, too, for crying out loud -- she just had to be The One.

With the Democratic senatorial nomination in hand, Clinton was set to go up against Rudy Giuliani. This would have been the great matchup between two suits inflated with little but name recognition, but it never came to pass. Giuliani withdrew on account of prostate cancer, and Clinton wound up facing . . . can you remember? It was Rick Lazio. Even so, Clinton did not win really big -- 55.3 percent of the vote. Not a landslide.

Six years later, Clinton ran for reelection. Once again, she had no Democratic opponent, and in the general, she faced a Republican named John Spencer. He was little known before the election, hardly known during it and so forgotten afterward that I expect a segment of the show "Lost" to be devoted to him. Clinton won in a landslide, 67 percent of the vote. But just two years earlier, Sen. Charles Schumer (D) had gotten 71 percent of the vote -- and no one ever mentions him as a presidential candidate. In many ways Clinton is a remarkable woman, but she is not proving to be a remarkable politician.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502422.html

:popcorn:

[Jersey Devil]

1. Rudy withdrew of the stories he was boinking his galpal in Gracie Mansion

not because of cancer.

[rinsd]

2. That and poll numbers showing him losing to Hillary.

[Jersey Devil]

7. Yes, certainly that too - She was a good candidate, saw her in person

in Nyack, NY where she was hosting a rally at the town meeting hall where my niece was scheduled to have a Christening party for her baby the same day. Hillary's rally delayed the party and she apologized profusely to my niece, took pictures with my niece and the baby and seemed to be a terrific person from what I could see.

I support Obama for president but I would have no qualms voting for Hillary if she got the nomination.

[meow mix]

3. heheh

reality sucks
}(

[rinsd]

4. self delete because I need to chill

[saracat]

5. And Obama didn't have an opponent either! Alan Keyes was

flown in to Illinois so the GOP would have a candidate.Keyes is a joke.It was like running against a soap dish.Gimme a break" and as for the vast legislative experience of the state senate? Please.Hillary was deeply involved with two extremely successful presidential bids as well as successful campaigns for attorney general and Governor of !Arkansas. Who do you think ran Bill's campaigns? She also worked on many other federal level campaigns as both a college and law student.She was part of the ground crew for McGovern.Attempting to minimize Hillary's experience does not make Obama look better.

[Windy]

9. He had an opponent in Nancy Skinner on the dem side. She is no slouch.

He beat her.. and it didn't get ugly!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. President of Wellesley College's Young Republicans

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/

edit to add: But she's better than that now.

[dsc]

8. Gee a slimy, poorly researched column from Cohen, why am I not surprised

First, when Clinton announced, she was behind Guiliani and when he dropped out she was about even with Lazio (who it should be noted, raised about the same amount as money as she did). She won by 10 points. Bad campaigns do that all the time (no wait, they don't). Only one of the potential Democrats he mentioned had held elective office at all. As to Schumer he ran against Howard Mills III, who was hated by his conservative base, raised no money, and was an Assembly member pretty much unknown outside his district, which he lost BTW. Funny he either didn't know, forgot to mention, or for some other reason left out these facts. Quele Suprise!

[Samantha]

10. The bottom line is this

When Clinton won her first Senate seat term, it was her first elective office. She gained a second term, and is now serving that. She's been a Senator about 6 years. That is the extent of her elective office experience.

I do not understand why the Obama campaign has allowed her to run on this inflated resume without contradicting her claim of 35 years of experience. For 15 years of that, she was a partner in the Rose Law Firm. For 8 years, she served as First Lady. That First Lady term was "Exposure" not "Experience." She implies she was Bill Clinton's co-president. Writings by Davis Mariness have substantiated the fact Bill Clinton made Al Gore an offer of a co-presidency in 1992 in order to persuade Gore to run with him (Bill). Bill Clinton gave Gore total control over 8 spheres of interest. Whenever Hillary makes her implied claims of a co-presidency, the question must be asked, "What was Al Gore doing during these 8 years?" I believe he was living up to that agreement, and Hillary was serving as First Lady.

[Big Blue Marble]

11. The most interesting part of the article:

Big-money Democrats have been on the phone of late, and their conversations have been on how to get Clinton out of the race. Some of these Democrats were tepid Clinton backers to begin with, wishing to go with the presumed winner or responding to the soft extortion of Bill Clinton and his allies. But others were sincerely committed and now fear that the Clintons, she and he, will not know how to lose -- and will take the Democratic Party down with them.

Politics can be ugly, not to mention sad. Broken dreams are strewn across the American landscape. Fred Thompson resigned from "Law & Order." Chris Dodd moved his family from Connecticut to Iowa just for the caucuses. Mitt Romney blew through a fortune. John Edwards campaigned through personal pain. The difference between a presidential candidate and a fool in love is only a matter of Secret Service protection.

For Hillary Clinton, a loss has to be particularly tough. The presidency is not just the ultimate honor for her. It is, as others have suggested, a justification for all she has put up with.

My cards are already on the table. I don't think that Clinton can win the nomination, but even if she does, I don't think she will win the general election. That would become apparent as she starts to campaign in states that have yet to see her. The harder she works, the worse she does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502422.html

That about sums it for me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. Richard Cohen is a 2 faced slimy weasel.

Next week he'll be raising the scary specter of Obama's "Muslim ties".

[matcom]

13. hate the message

:rofl:

[no name no slogan]

14. I heard she was elected hall monitor in second grade

right about the time Obama was writing his essay on why he wanted to be president

[RonaldK]

15. what did Eisenhower have?

i think government experience DOES make a difference, elected or not. Eight years first lady IS experience because she can observe unobstructed UP close the process. Its learning government. Think about it. Who would you vote for? Some school teacher, or Michelle Obama for a Democratic primary house seat.