This is probably the funniest news of the day:
And then, Obama went out of his way to belittle Clinton’s experience as first lady.
“I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it,” Obama said, and added, referring to his relationship with his wife, Michelle, “There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues,” Obama said. “On the other hand, I don’t think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States Senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I’ve done.”
With this line of attack, Obama is openly calling Clinton out on one of the basic arguments of her candidacy and her career — that her experience at Bill Clinton’s side in the White House and before, make her the most qualified person in the race.
He’s right of course — the last thing that Hillary Clinton earned or achieved on her own merit (without riding the significant coattails of her husband) was when she graduated from Yale Law School in 1973.
What’s funny — other than Obama pointing out the obvious about Hillary’s “job” as First Lady — is the irony of Sen. Obama touting himself as the “experienced” candidate.
If living in Indonesia for a few years as a child makes you a foreign policy expert deserving of the White House, then surly sharing a bed with Bill (allegedly) during his presidency is equally relevant.
Obama — who has been a Senator since January 3, 2005 — trying to convince people that he’s more experienced then Hillary — who has served as the junior Senator from NY since January 3, 2001?
Well, that’s almost as funny as Al Gore leaving his mega mansion in Tennessee, flying in his private jet plane (over his zinc strip mining operation) all over the country — just to ask the rest of us to “sacrifice” (and invest in his carbon offsets investment company).
h/t to Drudge
He’s right of course — the last thing that Hillary Clinton earned or achieved on her own merit (without riding the significant coattails of her husband) was when she graduated from Yale Law School in 1973.
I don’t suppose you cast a protest vote against George Bush in either 2000 or 2004 in protest of his lifelong dependence on family connections.
still seeing red over that seven year old case of bds, huh? take some medicine and move on please!
shared a bed with Bill (allegedly)
good one, Robbie
still seeing red over that seven year old case of bds, huh? take some medicine and move on please!
Ok- you got to use the phrase Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Now do you want to address the point?
i did account for bush’s experience or lack there of but he was still the better candidate. “the point” is, it’s been a done deal for more than half a decade and you still struggle with it!
Finally, caught on tape.
Democrats are zombies.
Adam, is this so difficult for you? I don’t bring up George Bush because of an ‘obsession’ with him- in just 14 months we’ll never hear another word from the guy.
I bring up George Bush because Robbie is apparently using a criteria to judge who is capable of being President in 2008 that he did not use in 2000 and 2004. That’s not my derangement- it’s his double standard.
In any case, it’s helpful to remember that 75% of America suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome- it’s nothing to be ashamed of. At this point it’s more interesting to ask why you’d defend a man whose unpopularity has exceeded Nixon’s and rivals Herbert Hoover’s.
Oh good grief.
President Bush, besides being Governor of Texas, actually was involved in businesses in which he had to meet payroll and make daily decisions.
Hillary’s list of accomplishments are her attempt to highjack one seventh of our national economy with her commie health plan, and ride her husbands popularity in a liberal state to take a Senate seat.
While President Bush’s approval ratings are low, it’s a real stretch to think that so many Americans have BDS, that’s reserved for deranged liberals, not for those who are tired of him or feel he didn’t carry the banner of conservatism while in office.
While W may not have had much foreign policy experience, at least he never gave Arafat’s wife a big smack and then try to wooh the Jewish vote, and he didn’t attend a madrasa in Indonesia. He also didn’t have a long time aid with questionable beliefs.
And the business of lesbianism need not be brought into the discussion at all. That is not the main thing. That this “deeply conservative” Muslim is her constant companion and aide is enough for alarms to go off. That is more than enough.
The issue will, of course, not be raised by any of her Democratic rivals. That would be to admit that there is a problem with Islam, and they can’t do that.
Comparing Shrillary, Hussein, or the Silky Pony in any way to George Bush the candidate is an absurd attempt at equivocation.
Wow. You read some f-ed up blogs.
It’s hilarious to given lessons about political comity from someone whose handle is “No2Liberals”
I bring up George Bush because Robbie is apparently using a criteria to judge who is capable of being President in 2008 that he did not use in 2000 and 2004. That’s not my derangement- it’s his double standard.
Preston — in all fairness, I’m not the one bringing it up. Barack Obama is. I’m just commenting (and agreeing) with the remarks from the junior Senator from Illinois…
Actually, if you look at what I quoted from you I was not addressing the experience question but the nepotism question:
He’s right of course — the last thing that Hillary Clinton earned or achieved on her own merit (without riding the significant coattails of her husband) was when she graduated from Yale Law School in 1973.
This, to my knowledge, is not Senator Obama’s line of attack on Senator Clinton although I think any fair reading of George W. Bush’s employment and political careers would suggest he has benefited greatly from his last name.
My point was that you are holding Senator Clinton’s family advantages against her when you apparently did not use the same criteria in evaluating George W. Bush.
did your bds stop you from making that point about say roosevelt, kennedy, or adams?
I doubt that Robbie voted for John Quincy Adams so that wouldn’t have been a very persuasive point.
LOL!
You don’t think much of my reading material, I take it, Preston.
I can only imagine what your reading list looks like, most likely along the lines of Michael Moron’s.
I notice you didn’t comment on the substance.
As for my nic, I chose it for the effect of inflaming nonsensical liberals by it’s very appearance. Yep, it works.
Eight Years of Liberal Hatred.
Good piece, and I actually read Berkowitz’s last week.
“persuasive”? you never are.
as for the your “75% of America suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome” bullshit, how about a source? keep telling yourself that your twisted obsession “isn’t anything to be ashamed of” right up until the secret service shows up.
i think it’s most interesting to ask why someone who must have been tormented by others his whole life, wants to discuss popularity.
Adam-
I understand why a Republican might not want the name George Bush to come up in a discussion of the effectiveness of conservative ideas but the man is the President of the United States- do you really consider it deranged to even mention his existence?
“do you really consider it deranged to even mention his existence?”
continually? yes!
Well, I guess the next 14 months will be difficult for you. Sorry- maybe political blogs just aren’t your thing afterall.
…or perhaps not yours, after all you didn’t dispute the frequancy of your mindless antibush babel. that could be a good thing too , admitting you have a problem, even if only indirectly, is the first step to fixing it!