Michale....

akadjian and Michale -

I too have been waiting for some media type to ask Hillary "35 years of WHAT?" and get her to back this claim up by going over her resume. Haven't seen it yet...

If it's Obama v. McCain, this will truly be a battle for the middle of the road -- who can entice enough UDVs or crossovers into voting for them.

OK, Michale, I got a big laugh out of that Obi'ama comment. That was funny!

-CW

As CW can attest to, I have been saying this since Sep 2005 when I started out on HuffPo..

It is the UDVs (Undecided Voters) of this country who wield all the power when it comes to elections. Those voters who are never quite sure who they will vote for until they dimple that chad or make a chad pregnant (FL voter... Can ya tell?? :D)

I am leaning towards Obama, but I want to see what Defense team he picks..

One interesting thing... Chelsea spent the Monday before SDTT ( (c}Chris Weigant ) calling up SuperDelegates and telling them that they are not voting for the Clintons, but rather are voting for "my mother".. Yet, just last week, wasn't Bill saying that when you vote for Hillary, you are getting "two Clintons for the price of one"???

Michale.....

I couldn't agree with you more Michale. There's been a big discussion going on on the Obama mailing list around here about Hillary/Bill, their tactics, and should we support them if they win.

Consensus has been to forget this for the time being and focus on helping Barack. I think this is a good thing.

But while I don't agree with the media villification of Hillary, it does seem to me that Barack is the more inspiring candidate who is drawing people into the Democratic party.

I think you're asking the right question, how is her experience going to "equal a change"? I think it would equal a change, but a mild change. I think this because of how I've seen her compromise in the past for political reasons. Take her Iraq vote for example. Or her more recent Iran vote.

Both candidates have similar visions for the country. Or at least they say they do. But I see Barack as more likely to inspire and build the vision than Clinton. Partly, because Hillary will be handcuffed by her past. She will not be able to accomplish much effectively because she is going to have to compromise too much to get anything done. Barack starts from a clean slate. And he's shown he can win over independents and Republicans.

Judging from the e-mails flying around and several discussions I've had, our group will have trouble voting for Hillary. Many have said they'd rather vote for McCain. I think this ties into the strategy the Republicans have finally settled on: select someone who seems moderate to pull in the independents and fence-sitters, count on the religious right to vote Republican regardless.

With Hillary as the candidate, I think they can execute on this strategy though she has surprised me before.

Thanks for the laugh about the Obi-ama, Michale.
- Dave

Sidenote: It's interesting to me that the people who seem to have the most power in the election are the people who are willing to change parties. Republicans have decided to merely pander to the religious right once again because they feel they can always win their vote by playing up their hate of the left. Similarly, Democrats seem to count on the minority vote and left-wing vote. It's the independents and party switchers who seem to have the most power. Of course, this may not be true once the primaries are over.

Which kind of brings me back to my point I made earlier.. How is Hillary's "experience" as First Lady going to equal a "change"???

If anything, it seems that, with Bill as "co-president", it can't be anything BUT same ol same ol.

A Clinton presidency will be twice the hassles and scandals and half the (dubious) benefits...

That is why many MANY Dems will "hold their nose" (c)Chris Weigant (:D) and vote GOP...

Which is why I have been saying for many MANY moons that a Clinton in the General Election will equal a GOP in the presidency for another 4 years at least.

If the Dems really want the White House this year, then Obama is their only hope..

"Help me, Obi'ama. You're my only hope." :D

Michale.....

One of the things that I think is most interesting lately about the Democratic campaign is that Hillary has branded herself as "experienced" and has worked to brand her opponent as the opposite. And the public seems to be buying this.

I don't know if she is or not, but her 8 years in the Senate seems like it's less or similar to Obama's 11 years of government experience (given 8 years were in the Illinois legislature).

What is even more frustrating than this, however, is that this claim seems like it could be fairly easily researched by the media. All they would have to do is go back through both of their careers and compile a side by side experience chart. Perhaps I have gotten a bit off topic here, but your remarks on Hillary's experience in the Senate Armed Services committee were news to me. So now I'm kind of curious. Who really is more experienced?

It seems like it might even sell papers by explaining something the public would like to know. I could see the teaser now: Who's More Experienced?

Ok. I'm done ranting. Temperature dropping. Head cooling :). If I can find the time, maybe I'll take a stab. Any thoughts on where to begin?

Best
Dave

I think a Ron Paul Libertarian campaign would be a lot more fun!

Seriously, though, I don't expect either Bloomberg (for all his noise) or Gore to jump in at this point. Nader has been making noises about it, though....

-CW

But I think CW hit it on the head when he used the phrase a "hold your nose and vote" election.

I think that a good portion of Dems would rather see ANYONE in the White House other than Hillary. Even a Republican...

Hay CW.....

Hope I am not spoiling a future commentary, but how do you view a Bloomberg or Gore campaign in light of the thinning out of the Dems and the GOP???

Michale.....

...Stan