comment #1

Dave says ...

I don't know if it blows it to pieces, Jeff. All Hillary has to do is nuance it to the (admittedly not as hard-hitting) variation, "I'm more ready than Obama will be on Day One, but give him time under me, and he'll be ready someday."

Now, if Hillary died on Day One. . . well, she certainly wouldn't care who's POTUS then, now would she?

Anyway. . . it's all a silly argument anyway, because NEITHER Clinton or Obama are ready to be President on Day One. Hell, I don't think *McCain* is ready, but judging by any criteria, he's far more experienced than these two.

Obama can't afford to get sucked into an experience debate, because he'll lose it. Not necessarily against Hillary, but if he concedes that experience matters, he'll hurt himself dreadfully in the fall.

comment #2

Spicer says ...

Think this is exactly the right way for Obama to deal with Hillary going negative on him. He is simply responding to her words and responding very well to them. He doesn't have to lower himself to the Clintons' level in order to go after them.

comment #3

Spicer says ...

Think this is exactly the right way for Obama to deal with Hillary going negative on him. He is simply responding to her words and responding very well to them. He doesn't have to lower himself to the Clintons' level in order to go after them.

It's really kind of astonishing how horribly run her campaign is. It seems very much like Bush Sr. in 92. Bush Sr never seemed to really take Bill Clinton as a serious opponent.

comment #4

thevisceral says ...

I'd respect Obama more if he knew that "criterion" was the singular of "criteria."

comment #5

gansibele says ...

"Point # 2 is that Senator Bill Clinton, back in 1992"

Fix this quote, Jeff. Obama corrected himself.

comment #6

Wrecktum says ...

All I know is that that chick in the Barack You Like a Hurricane t-shirt is hot. She's kinda like a much hotter version of a 1996-era Monica Lewinsky.

comment #7

cobhome says ...

I would say the comment on her administrative style - if taken seriously by voters - is a serious problem for her - clearly - one of Bush's failures has been his management style - and we obviously do not need another bad manager

on the experience issue - no one is prepared day one to assume to responsibilities of the presidency - you have to look at already demonstrated skills and personlity - what sort of negotitator is the candidate - what kind of manager is the candidate - how does the candidate handle themselves under pressure - I would say Hillary does not score well in these categories - her disastrous management of the attempt at health care reform during her hubby's presidency is very telling - and the ignorance about world affairs she has displayed several times during this race also was discouraging to see - one of the thngs that has impressed me about Obama and which I see as an indication of his ability to get something done in the White House is how well his campaign has been managed - how effective his campaign organization has been - plus the man has been very cool under the pressure of a very intense primary campaign -

comment #8

Mr. Muckle says ...

Coming off a preznit who was not ready on day one, is not ready seven years later today, and wouldn't be ready if he lived to be 100, it's a rather strange line of attack from Hillary, considering the long line of protoplasmic lumps who've occupied the office. A female cousin of mine thinks it's woman's turn now, because men have had their chance to screw things up in the White House. Thinking on that, I believe Hillary already had her eight-year opportunity to screw things up, and did not miss it. Her present campaign is stripping away any false glow that remains from that remembered administration, and echoes of its chaos and disarray are coming back. Camelot it was not (or maybe it was, if you remember the plot of that story).

comment #9

Jay T. says ...

I think Clinton saying he'd be a good VP while in second place will go down in history as the official unraveling of Hillary's campaign. Obama's response is so obvious to anyone paying attention, I can't believe she would set herself up for it. It comes off as arrogant and out of touch, which typically marks the end of a candidate.

comment #10

Josh Massey says ...

I think Obama needs to learn where the cameras are, and not to worry so much about the 20 people sitting behind him.

comment #11

le corbeau says ...

It's a brilliant move on her part to seem reasonable and make him seem smaller. Fighting back was good, but what he really needs to do is reenergize his campaign and shut her out of the conversation with a great VP pick now. Start running like he's the ticket and she's the last fly buzzing around his head. I don't know who that brilliant choice is-- a white governor who's smart would be a good choice, let the two of them look like the energetic young guys' team like Clinton and Gore did next to Bush I.

comment #12

mutinyco says ...

She completely played him on this. There is no legitimate response. Made him look like a tool.

It's not the front-runner's job to "respond" to the second-place runner. He should be dictating the terms and the narrative. Instead, she is.

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

http://www.bushflash.com/jpg/Destonio_Resko.jpg

comment #14

Edward says ...

Good idea Mgmax for Obama to pick a running mate, but do we need a white male? Maybe a Native American, Asian American or Hipanic American? I'm sure there are plenty of worthy "non-white" candidates. Maybe there's a woman of color for him to choose?

comment #15

Jay T. says ...

"Maybe there's a woman of color for him to choose."

I'm sorry, but if Obama wants to win the general election, I think that's a horrible idea. There is still a hell of a lot of underlying (and overt) racism in this country, so to overcome it you need to take smart, calculated baby steps, not a long shot that fails.

I agree that a white governor, fairly young but with plenty of experience, would probably be the best choice from a campaign perspective.

comment #16

le corbeau says ...

Actually, I wouldn't say there are lots of any of those categories. Look at the nation's governors, Democratic ones in particular-- lotta white males. So if you want a governor, you're pretty much looking at white males.

As far as the "need" for a white male, no, we don't need one in the sense of, there's some quality a white male brings to the table that a half-white male doesn't have, but the Democratic party might need one if it wants to win a white vote whose feelings toward Obama could easily shift if they see an all-"minority" ticket versus a half and half one (actually, 3/4 white in that case, but...). And I wouldn't say that feeling would be entirely illegitimate either, since there are racially divided issues such as affirmative action which it is entirely reasonable to want to see your group have representation on. Maybe someday we'll get past such racial politics, but we're not there yet.