I find it offensive that Clinton keeps denigrating Obama's experience, then comes up with this. I would be far less likely to vote for him if he shared a ticket with her. And if Clinton took top spot on a ticket, I think Obama would end up being the most invisible vice president ever - the girl doesn't play well with others!

I don't necessarily think she was trying to "hoodwink" voters. I think she knows that if she somehow pulls it off and get the nomination, she will need Obama to get elected in a general election, as he would bring an enthusiastic base with him. Also, I think she's pretty sure she's not going to get the nomination and would like Obama to consider her as a vice-presidential candidate. I don't think he will, though. I think she needs him more than he needs her.

Honestly, I personally will be voting for McCain, but I still love analyzing the whole Democratic race. It's interesting for me (and most, if not all of the other Republicans I know) because most Republicans believe McCain has a better chance against Clinton, but at the same time, most of us would rather see Obama as president than Clinton. So, most Republicans I know aren't really rooting for one candidate over the other.

That's what I've been saying all along. Maybe it is the Clinton camp that has their heads in the clouds.

I agree Lilkimbo! Well said!

I am with Lilkimbo as well!

is anyone else sick of the presidential race yet? god, let's just hold the elections tomorrow and be done with it.

is anyone else sick of the presidential race yet? god, let's just hold the elections tomorrow and be done with it.

a "democracy" is a pain in the butt lol. someties just having two candidates to vote for is so much easier

It really makes you question her logic when she implies that he wouldn't be ready to be president, but that is a qualification that is needed by the vice president!

I am so tired of her lying, just flat out lying. In the beginning, I actually liked her. The big drama of the Clinton years happened when I was in my teens, so I didn't really understand if they were "good" politicians...I just knew a whole lot about their bedroom. At the begining of the election, I decided to re-learn the Clintons and focus on policy. In the begining of my research, she didn't sound too bad! However, since I have seen her and her campaign say things that are so untruthful and out of line, I would never, ever vote for her. She is just more of Cheney and Rove.

"I think Obama would end up being the most invisible vice president ever - the girl doesn't play well with others!"

SO right. She definitely needs him to rake in the voters. She's just a user...another example of her riding someone else's coattails. First her husband's(where she gained all her wondrous EXPERIENCE) and now trying to get her hooks into Obama. Nice try, Hil.

i'm going to be voting for hilary in the election if she gets the nomination, but unfortuantely, not for obama. he just doesn't have the experience. and reading this article, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=1&..., certainly reinforced what i thought of him. all talk, all glitz, but nothing under the surface. if it comes down to obama and mccain i'm going with mccain. at least mccain has experience, and even if i don't agree with everything mccain says, it still don't think obama has enough experience or gumption to be president.

but regardless, i am SO sick of all this campaigning. let's vote already!

Me as well, Jillness. I was a teen when Bill Clinton left office, so there wasn't a lot I really knew about his two turns, but when Bush Jr. took office it seemed like a fairy tale comparatively. But things aren't always how we remember them, though I will give the Clinton campaign credit for doing their best at setting the record straight. I too had soft support for Clinton all (and Obama, I was undecided) the way up to early January, but now I would never vote for her.

And don't even get me started on The New York Times!!!! In this campaign season they have been all over the map, with poor excuses of journalism! Both their attack on McCain's alleged affair, and a complete disregard for the actual news, doing everything to campaign for their ill timed and premature endorsement of Senator Clinton. I will never subscribe their newspaper again. From now on I'll stick the Economist. And no, they haven't endorsed Barack Obama, or any candidate for that matter, but at least their pieces aren't ressemblent of High School debate teams rhetoric.

I don't mean to be mad. It's just one of those days. But I really can't stand the NYT anymore. Just thinking about it makes me mad.

ktownpolarbear, how can you trust that type of information, when the Clintons have been spreading lies about Obama this whole time?

First of all, he passed a bill he co-authored on Nuclear Non-proliferation. That is pretty huge, but that NY Time article fails to mention that. He has accomplished many things, and simple reasearch will show you that. That article is weak on facts, and long on gossip. Like many NYTimes articles!

Hillary's campaign has outright lied about who Obama has as his chief forign policy advisor, incorrectly quoted him (while saying "He said"), among many other things. I just don't see how anyone could put faith in her. She never had security clearance, she won't even produce that papers that could show if she had any hand in her husband's presidency. She is running a campaign based on assumptions, not facts.

I read that article yesterday, it was pretty weak. They tried to say unfavorable things about Obama but came up quite short. I don't even know what to call it, if it was a critique...I sure couldn't tell.

ANOTHER THING...I am SO SICK of hearing the word 'experience'. 'Hillary has more experience than Obama', 'Obama lacks experience', 'McCain has more experience than both Hillary and Obama'...the list goes on. Either expand your vocab skills or back up your claims. Jeez.

Good for Obama! I am so sick of Hillary now it's not funny.

There was a link on gmail today for a website called Republican Racer (http://republicanracer.com). They sell "Anyone but Hillary" shirts. They are obviously intended for Republicans, but I think some of the Obama supporters out there would enjoy them more than most Republicans!

Everyone keeps saying he has no experience. I wonder if you wanted a position in your company and everyone said you had no experience would you still have the balls to go after what you want. Obama, honestly believes he can make a difference and that is heart. I would rather have someone that works hard, has the heart, and is willing to learn than to have someone that is underhanded, lies, and have experience. What is experience if you do not carry it out. He** Bush had experience and look where that got us in the 8 years he was in office.

I think she shot herself in the foot when she said the whole no experience thing. She alienated herself from being his VP. Now she prob wont have a job in the future, at least none that I can think of?

I agree wholeheartedly, bellaressa.

I think Obama has his eyes on the prize and he wouldn't have conceded to be VP, even if he lost the Democratic nom and Hillary wasn't the nominee. Hillary has a bully personality though so there is no way in hell he'd want to be affiliated with her if she becomes President(which she won't).

Actually, Hillary's term as a NY Senator isn't up until 2012, so it looks like she'll be in the Senate at least until then. I doubt she'll have much trouble getting re-elected in 2012, though. So she'll be around for a while.

I agree with ktownpolarbear but because of a different article: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/why-mccain-would-vote-for-obama.... I'm not totally sure if I'll vote for Obama if he gets the nom. I can't stand McCain, but I might go with Nader.

Anyhow, I love Hillary, but I do think she's scared and wants to throw that idea into Obama's head to make her the VP on his ticket. Also, I think that a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket would be the stupidest ticket at this time. That way, you ensure that both sexists and racists will vote against you. Sadly, I don't think our country is ready for it.

To indielove, McCain has been in Congress since 1981. Hillary was married to a governor starting in 1979. She took a large part in policy matters in the White House, and she's been in the Senate for over a term. Barack wasn't in Illinois Senate until 1994. I think it is pretty clear that McCain has the most experience followed by Clinton with Obama in last.

Finally, it is clear the messaging against Barack (by McCain) would be "I am a war veteran maverick with bipartisan support running against someone with no experience in the real issues." Against Hillary (by McCain), it would be, what? (I really think it would be, "She's the evil Hillary Clinton. Her last name is Clinton. Do you really want another Clinton in the White House?") If there is a better message out there you think McCain will use against Hillary, let me know b/c quite frankly, I think Obama has a worse chance with that messaging.

Actually, Mandy, I think the whole "bipartisan support" angle would work better for McCain against Clinton than it would against Obama.

In terms of folks knowing Barack has no experience and still wanting him, why?

I would choose an experienced heart surgeon over a new one.

I would choose an experienced pilot over a new one.

Heck, I would choose an experienced wedding planner over a new one.

Frankly, there is a fine line between having heart and being crazy. (I have no experience and am not even 35 but would LOVE to be President. It doesn't mean I should run.)

obama's statements really really pissed me off. first of all, nobody offered him the vice president slot. all clinton said was that she hasn't ruled out the possiblity of a joint ticket. and that was in response to the PUBLIC asking for what they call the "dream ticket". ridiculing the very idea of being vice president is a slap in the face to the united states, and screaaaams of a giant ego. not to mention that above all, if you are an active democrat, you should want your party to win no matter what. so if a clinton obama ticket could win the white house, then thats what you should be going for. how can obama be the "uniter" that he claims to be, when he won't even considered a united ticket! is this his way of practicing a "different" kind of politics? by acting like an egotistical petulant child?!

the race is very very close, and the delegate spread is very very close. if hillary takes the nomination, which i hope she does (look, we all know what she is, but at least she does have experience. and seriously, if you were in HR and had to hire a CEO to head up a dying company, would you even consider hiring a kid with one or two years experience, or would you choose somebody with 35 years of experience and a ton of connections in the business world?! well, thats exactly what we are doing for this election, hiring our CEO.) anyway, if she does take the nomination, these statements may be remembered as obama committing politcal suicide.

i am thoroughly disgusted.

lilkimbo, why? When you look at the facts, all the liberal organizations like Barack FAR more than they like Hillary. He is pretty much the most reliable liberal vote in the Senate.

(Also, in my last comment, I didn't mean to imply that Barack was crazy for running. I'm just saying that he should realize that experience DOES matter.)

I say that not because of liberal organizations, but because of the voters and how Clinton is perceived among voters, which is as being a strict partisan.

oh and i completely agree that if obama is the democratic candidate that mccain will WIPE the floor with him. there is no way he could possibly win a general election. especially not against mccain.

Man, was that an amazing "Oh SNAP" or what? Not sure that Obama's comment was the best to make, but he does make a good point: Hillary is still in second place.

I agree with those of you who are disappointed in the NYT's political coverage during this race. It's been all over the place, with too much punditry and too few facts. Like the story about Obama's drug use — that was a non-story. Or the story about McCain's "maybe" affair. There's no meat to those stories. Sigh.

mandy_frost -- you really think that obama has a consistent record?! because from the articles i have read said (which could of course be slanted, though he is the media darling) he is constantly choosing to vote "yay or nay" - so basically he hasn't taken a stand and actually voted for anything while he was in the senate.

that is one of the major issues that i have with him, if you are going to be president then its more than just words. its more than just telling people what they want to hear and giving them hope -- its action. i don't feel like in his short experience as senator we have seen him take a stand or any action on ANYTHING. what kind of leader is that?!

And for what it's worth, I think some of Maureen Dowd's criticisms of Hillary have been unfair. It's an op-ed, but still... criticize people's policies or their decisions, not their personalities.

I don't think that anyone who claims that Obama has "no experience" has actually looked up his political history. His entire adult life has been devoted to being an active politican and serving his fellow citizens on the local, state, and national levels. It's also widely believed that he has accomplished more in his short time in the Senate than she has. She authored about 20 bills in her 6 years, while Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096...in less than a year. I'd rather not elect someone with experience pandering to special interest groups and lobbists. I'll go with the candidate that has experience GETTING THINGS DONE.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Sorry but I do not believe that the more 'EXPERIENCE' you have as a SENATOR makes you a better candidate for PRESIDENT. That just means that all THREE SENATORS are on a level-playing friend, at least as far as I am concerned. If you just plop your ass down in Senate seat and merely vote on this bill and that bill, what kind if 'experience' is that? Unless you've done other things outside of your Senate job that has actually made a difference, then you have a VALID right to bring up your experience and no one can negate that. Come on, people...bring me the facts. Let me know what Hillary and McCain have done outside their jobs as Senators.

"I'll go with the candidate that has experience GETTING THINGS DONE.:)"

I'm with you, juju!

htiduj- Clinton would need the Obama supporters that she has alienated to win against McCain, and it's my guess that it will not come easy.

And no, I wouldn't hire her if I was a CEO. Maybe if I was the head of the Mafia in Sicily there would be a position or two available, but not in a civilized working environment. Lying, manipulating facts and yelling will not get you any job. Somehow her supporters think it will get her the Presidency. I for one will switch my vote for McCain if she gets the nomination, and I am as blue as anyone. If she gets it he will get not only my vote he will get many Obama supporters votes, and independents too. Nader is hoping for Clinton too. McCain is going to look saintly next to Senator Clinton. And it will turn far uglier with her on the ticket.

John McCain served in the Navy for 27 years (or 23, depending on whether you count his time at the Naval Academy). I'd say that's something he's done besides being a Senator.

Honestly, I'm not saying that Obama doesn't have relevant experience, because I believe he does, but it irks me when people say McCain doesn't have experience. And McCain has not just plopped down in a Senate seat. He has sponsored and authored a lot of legislation.

It is rare that I find someone, even a staunch Democrat, who actually questions McCain's experience.

And, this is totally out of curiosity, because I don't know, how many of the bills that Obama authored/sponsored made it to vote/passed? A lot of times, Senators and members of Congress sponsor bills that they know have no chance of actually passing, just to get their view out there.

And honestly, I do think having more experience as a Senator makes you a better candidate for president. Unfortunately, Washington is a town where knowing how to play the political game and having the appropriate connections matters. Even if Obama is elected, that won't change overnight.

Yep, bella, what a great "OH SNAP!"

It absolutely is a choice, and for many of us who support Obama, an Obama/Clinton "dream ticket" would be the furthest thing from our "dream."

Sorry I've not more to say right now, at work and a bit frazzled, but I'm sure I'll be back later with more

McCain's hardly untouchable. I'm old enough to remember very clearly all the times he's run for president since the 90s, always positioning himself in a different way. He's been the independent republican, the liberal republican, now, he's mr. tough guy republican. It wouldn't be that hard for any Democrat to paint McCain as worn out and not terribly effective. Against Obama's vitality, McCain would have to come up with something better than 100 years of war in Iraq.
As far as Hillary's experience goes, I've got a cousin who studied nursing in the 60s; she married a doctor and four of their kids became doctors. I'll ask her medical questions, but I wouldn't let her operate or prescribe treatment.

"And honestly, I do think having more experience as a Senator makes you a better candidate for president. Unfortunately, Washington is a town where knowing how to play the political game and having the appropriate connections matters. Even if Obama is elected, that won't change overnight."

I agree, lil.

juju, I haven't looked up a number of bills introduced. I will look at that as well as the QUALITY of the bills. You could introduce a bill a day, but they will probably turn out crap.

Anyhow, I work for a group in DC that has lobbyists. I have yet to see anyone pander to our interests. Also, lots of our issues are VERY specific to the constituency of people we represent (As due to my specific trade association dealing a lot with both business and health care policies, we work a great deal with both parties.), and we have FOUR lobbyists because there is no way one person can know ALL about each issue. Lobbyists mostly do a job of educating. Think of it this way. If there weren't lobbyists, your taxes would be a TON higher (like 50 or more percent) because instead of each House Member and Senator having one to three folks dealing with health care alone, they'd have to have at LEAST 20. The main job a lobbyist does is educate. I don't want to vote for someone who doesn't ever talk to a lobbyist because what I've realized is that it is literally impossible to know all there is to know about every single issue on which there is a bill. It is impossible for your staff to research and properly understand every single word of a bill without outside help.

That being said, I would want to vote for someone who talks to both Exxon as well as PETA. I would want to vote for someone who talks to both unions and anti-union groups. I would want enemy groups within their office so that they get the message of what is going on and hear it fairly. (In my group's case, we have no solid enemies, just ones who fight for a piece of funding, as is the case with most groups I know of. After all, money only goes so far, and if you, say, give it to Diabetes Research, you can't give it to Epilepsy Research.)

Ooh, I posted prematurely.

But I think both McCain and Obama has voted according to beliefs and values, and not to gain inches to the White House like senator Clinton.

indielove, Hillary took on numerous policies when her husband was in the White House. Also, it's who you know and what you know. In terms of who, Hillary had the opportunity to meet a lot of foreign leaders and forge a positive relationship with them when Bill was in office. (Unfortunately, Bush has destroyed many of these, and we need them back as soon as possible.) As far as what, Hillary won't be running around the White House on the first day trying to figure out where the bathroom is or what she's got to do to get a sandwich, a meeting with the Ways & Means chair, or with the head of China. We need to fix our country as fast as possible on day one. I think she can do that better.

It's like the kids with the connections getting the jobs. They get them because they have the connections. That's part of why I want Hillary to get this job. She has the connections already.

To balance of whatever crap the Times are currently putting out, this is what Jack Cafferty form CNN had on his blog today:

It's called chutzpah, and Hillary Clinton has it to spare. The woman who is behind Barack Obama in states won, pledged delegates and popular vote is suggesting she might consider putting Barack Obama on the Democratic ticket with her as her vice presidential candidate.

Since her wins in Texas and Ohio, Hillary Clinton has twice referenced the idea. And over the weekend, Bill Clinton chimed in saying that the pair would make "an almost unstoppable force." It's all very interesting since the odds are quite good Clinton will not be the nominee and Obama will.

In today's New York Daily News, columnist Michael Goodwin writes: "It's a dream team all right, as in dream on. It's a fantasy because, in the Clintons' pitch, naturally, she is on top of the ticket and Obama is her No. 2. That's rich of her, considering that Obama leads in both the delegate race and the popular vote. Forget those pesky voters – Hillary has declared herself the winner!"

"Hillary won't be running around the White House on the first day trying to figure out where the bathroom is or what she's got to do to get a sandwich, a meeting with the Ways & Means chair, or with the head of China."

I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree with this characterization or with these kinds of things as being important enough to overcome all the lies and corruption she has spread both before and during this campaign. I don't think that her time as First Lady qualifies her at all for this office.

However, we'll just have to agree to disagree

Listen, if they want a sandwich they'll pick up the phone(it could be red if it makes it easier to visualize) and ask the chef to make it for them. And an assistant will bring it up for them. It ain't brain surgery to figure out how to eat in Washington.

I have to disagree, Mandy. I believe that Obama would be far better at foreign relations than Hillary. He is personable and seems to favor the input of others. I can't say I can see her doing the same...she's definitely not personable. She always presents herself as a person who is tenacious and it's true, but it will probably not work for her benefit in every situation she's presented with.

Yep, indie

Her "tenacity" might also be known as "thinks she doesn't need to listen to others, accept their input, or compromise to get things done, because she wants to have things 100% her way or the highway." Not the best route to healthy foreign relations.

tresjolie!!!

I can't believe the 'bathroom' argument, I literally laughed out loud.

http://thomas.loc.gov/
You can enter the name of the senator, and then do a quick search.
It does not include bills that were co-sponsored.

Somone had asked about whether Obama just sponsored fluff bills. I'm crazy busy at work, and obviously the whole list is too long to post, but here is a sampling of bills sponsored by Obama that have *passed* in the Senate.

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan. Senate amendment agreed to 9/6/2007.

To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting. Amendment SA 3073 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty. Senate amendment agreed to 8/2/2007.

To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers. Senate amendment agreed to 3/23/2007.