Ask her if Hillary raised her. Or was it Helen Dickey?

Not sure I buy the bit about being wary of putting a President in the driver's seat who needs to get up to speed to do what's best. How long do you expect it to take to get up to speed? 3 months? 6 months? or 4 years? If it's more likely to be the shorter periods surely a 3+ year term of a President you really want to lead is better then a 4 year term of someone you believe is okay.

If experience is what you value, and the clarity of vision, then there's pretty much only one contender: Ron Paul. But he doesn't come with all the frilly pageantry of a Clinton or an Obama.

I seriously cannot understand why everyone believes Hillary Clinton when she says she can be ready on day one. She failed miserably at trying to pass health care reform on her first time in the White House. And, since she alienated pretty much every Republican in Congress trying to force her plan down their throat, there's not much chance she will be able to win them over in a short time...if, ever. Remember, too, Bush had started his 2nd term with all the confidence of 4 years experience as President, then proceeded to make things even worse than he had in the 1st 4 years.

I think we need a President who can concentrate on the multitude of problems this country faces, not one who is going to be distracted by her husband's activities being exploited in the tabloids. There's no possible way Bill will be able to be discreet enough to escape them for 4 entire years.

This country has had 15 years of seeing its Presidents - Clinton and Bush - being held up to ridicule by the rest of the world. We need people in the White House that we can be proud of. Our country deserves better than to constantly have to be putting up with scandals and litigation. And, as a woman - a feminist - I would prefer the first female President have more worthy accomplishments than skating to power on her husbands coattails.

Rebecca just took the words out of my (and, my wife's) mouth. Mrs. Clinton has as much White House experience (quoting Dick Morris) as "the pastry chef". Breathing the air of power doesn't produce the standing or the experience in the world necessary to lead it.

Our country could use a period of unity born of true public service by a President. She, like her husband and Bush, have and will do nothing to pull that off! They are, quite simply, not leaders...just politicians seeking the good life and all that means to them. Sadly, they really know no other way.

And, I am finding some difficultly in identifying the unifier from among all the candidates. Join me now in the singing of "God Bless America"...because it may be all we have going for us!

I don't see why being married to a Governor and a President equals political experience.

The experience argument falls short in my book.

Would Barbara Bush make the same claims???

If her last name wasn't Clinton would she even be in the race???

Since when did this become a political blog? Keep to the blog's intent please....

I agree with Rebecca. Hillary's "experience" as first lady does not amount to anything significant. After her horrible failure at universal health care with a plan that was both long-winded and hard to understand, she really wasn't that active in Bill's presidency. Especially after the Monica affair, they weren't even talking for a long time, let alone Hill advising Bill on anything meaningful. Hillary just spins away trying to create some meaningful experience because she really has none. She just uses her husband's resume to get ahead.

After seeing Clinton and her sidekick in action, I have to agree with the sentiment, "All politicians lie, but the Clintons do it with such ease it's disturbing."

Rebecca
The experience of failing to accomplish the hugh task of procuring universal health care more than 10 years ago is exactly why she will be more apt to pull it off in 2009. Now almost any thinking American wants it , and this time around there won't be many Republicans left to alienate!

Please don't compare Senator Clinton's level of confidence with George Bush. He couldn't spell his name correctly without Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

I take offense at your assessment of former President Clinton's ability to be discreet. I for one have been faithful to my wife for 23 years, and I'm certain he too will keep his eye on the ball.

To Rebecca,

you can not be a feminist and write "And, as a woman - a feminist - I would prefer the first female President have more worthy accomplishments than skating to power on her husbands coattails."

Wow this post could not be more wrong when talking about leadership vs judgement. I think you may need to take history over again. Mistakes were made during the Cuban Missile Crisis because certain members of the Joint Chiefs were frantically suggesting that President Kennedy take immediate action, when they did not have his support matters were taken into their own hands examples are testing of short and long range ballistic missiles during the crisis and the leaking of the presidents idea on removing bases in Turkey. It was not completely on Kennedy's shoulders and near the end when the president finally took control the crisis was averted. Sen Clinton has not only mad bad judgements on Iraq and Iran. She has not been straighforward in her reason's for justifying her blunder. If you want someone who is unwilling to admit their mistakes (BUSH) then waste your vote and support a neo-con in sheeps clothing.

I agree with Dr Goulston's assessment of possible Nov'08 presidential prospects: Well put. As an independent-minded (registered republican in my youth, and ever-more dem-leaning as an adult), I have come to the same conclusion Dr Goulston did (this weekend, in fact, oddly enough). I wanted to add comments regarding the topic, Hillary vs. Barack Obama. I am Mr Obama's age (my husband and I are also both attorneys, and very active in the raising of our two sons). While Mr Obama has inspirational ideas and a very common sense straightforward, pragmatic style to characterizing and approaching problems, I would love to see him remain in the Senate *at least* another term (heaven knows, that body of our government needs such minds!). He has time for another go at the presidency.

As I 'age' (watching colleagues' and friends' children grow into young adults), I realize how very difficult it is to raise, poised, bright, energetic, well-balanced children (even for those of us way-out of any 'public eye'). Raising well-balanced children to adulthood, while working and staying active in one's community, is one of the toughest thing a human can do. This, the Clintons have done, all while maintaining the thriving, balanced political infrastructure. Every time I look at the b/w NYTimes photo on my law office wall of those brave women preparing for the 1920 Dem Convention (first time women had been invited), I am reminded that my own grandmother was unable to vote when she turned 18 (born in the US in 1900). I've come to realize how important it has been for our democracy--i.e., the Republic our forefathers left for us to nurture--that women have become an active part of the political process. Mrs Clinton comes into the'08 race with very-broad, extensive political experience and such a solid base. We need someone like that to lead the Executive Branch. So, I'm going to do what I can to help Hillary win.

RE: spouses's coattails, as a wife (as well as an attorney) of someone quite famous and infamous, I suspect there are things Mrs Clinton is very proud about her husband and some (or many, who knows?) issues with which they likely heartily disagree. Such is the nature of any couple/partnership.

Regarding the tabloids, point well made: No doubt they are a problem. Unfortunately, none in public office(or in the public-eye, for that matter), nor any one closely-related to someone in public office/eye, will escape being exploited in the tabloids as long as tabloids sell. It matters not whether any of the stuff is true, or if of any value. It's quite sad in a modern-educated society that there is *any* readership for tabloid garbage. My guess is Mrs Clinton is quite well aware of this.

Welcome to '08!

>> ...in a few moments of looking into Chelsea’s earnest eyes, it became clear to me...

>> ...its not wise to leave so much to chance...

Follow this link if you have left any concern for your immortal soul: http://2decide.com/table.htm

Next, review your statements as quoted above, until you understand why it is immoral to promote a politician for anything other than his/her voting record.

Choosing a looter democrat as the solution to a looter republican is as absurd as judging a candidate's viability based on a look in the eyes of her daughter.

ST, you are wise.

I absolutely agree with the author regarding Hillary Clinton's experience and capability to be president on DAY 1!! She has had 35 years of experience working to help women, children and families. She was in the passenger's seat in the White House - the closest anybody can get to the president himself! And after 7 years in the Senate, and a member of the Armed Services Committee, she has a lot of foreign policy experience!

After 8 years of Bush, the LAST thing we need is a naive, inexperienced, egotistical person as president!

I also thought of voting for Obama but stepped back a bit to take a better look at the situation
and realized that the Obama wave brings you in
but then the substance and experience is nowhere
near Hillary. We need to be careful about romantisizing this Obama thing and get real.
Going to a Hillary event was very exciting but it
was also full of facts and clear ideas about what
her plan was for our future. Going to an event with Hillary I could see and feel the passion
and love she has for her work. We need Hillary
big time. These are the most troubled times.
Lets elect Hillary she has earned it and its time
for a womans touch in the White House.
There is so much at stake don't take a chance
with a seedling. Pick the tree thats absorbed
lots of light, grown deep roots to weather the
storms ahead. Hillary will be a fine President
she and her husband have weathered all the storms
the republics sent their way.

I'm not sure that deciding to vote for a candidate on the basis of his / her "earnest eyes" is really the best way to choose. This is akin to voters choosing George W. Bush because they believe in the myth that he is one of them (i.e. someone they can have a beer with).

I am utterly unconvinced about the experience issue. What experience will Hillary bring to the table? She is also a JUNIOR Senator, with not much more experience than Obama. Are we counting her time as First Lady of Arkansas and of the US here? I'm really not sure that we can do that. Bottom line is that in order to "hit the ground running" so to speak, a future president will need to surround himself / herself with experienced and talented people who have been there and done that. Both Obama and Hillary are wont to do so (though I wonder how much Hillary will actually listen to her advisers...). The difference is the METHOD that each uses to try to accomplish their agenda - there is no doubt that Clinton will be a far more divisive figure than Obama. Look at some of her recent comments about her DEMOCRATIC opponent.

I get frustrated with folks who say that Obama is short on substance - STUMP SPEECHES are NO way to evaluate policies of respective candidates. That Obama is more "inspirational" in his speeches is purely a stylistic decision, and I believe his campaign realizes the need to inject more policy ideas into these speeches. To make a fair comparison, check out policy speeches on youtube, or policy documents on each candidate's website.

I have friends who are planning to vote for Hillary purely on the basis that it will put Bill back in the White House. This is completely wrongheaded. What makes us think that Hillary will go with whatever Bill suggests? She is certainly her own woman, and there is no way we can tell how strong their relationship is.

With regards to Hillary's "crying" incident, I do believe it was genuine, but call me cynical when I disagree with Mark on the motivation behind the tears. I agree with Maureen Dowd of the NY Times when she says:

"There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing."

Finally, with regards to having a Clinton-Obama ticket. No way. There is already too much bad blood between them (just look at body language during the debate). And the Clintons are not helping things, as is their style. By the time the dust settles, if neither candidate will likely choose the other as their VP.

You, Mr. Goulston, are why the Republicans will win in '08. They're chomping at the bit to rip into her, and they'll bury Hillary easier than they did Kerry. They've been itching for this fight for years, and people like you want to give it to them. Unbelievable.

Actually, firebrand, the Republicans and their corporate media mouthpieces, are chomping at the bit for an Obama nomination. It should be clear to anyone paying attention that Obama has been their Golden Boy. Why do you think that is--because they want to see him as President? Try again. They want to see him nominated because frankly, he represents a snack for the G.O.P. machine. Nothing the Clinton's have said have anything to do with race. But you watch what happens if Obama is nominated. Then the MSM and the reichwing will do everything in their power to evoke notions of white racial superiority while promulgating feared stereotypes of black men. Further, his credentials are thinner than his build--which is to say, VERY SLIM to non-existent. He's a box lunch waiting to be eaten.

Also, allow me to add that this phrase "establishment candidate" or "Corporate Democrat" is, as applied to Clinton, just a pile of unsubstantiated rhetoric. Those who hurl these supposedly damning epithets rarely if ever back them up. As a matter of fact, Hillary Clinton's voting record is more progressive than Obama's, as observed by numerous progressive organizations:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011131.php

But I don't want to confuse any 'faith-based' fanatics with the facts.

Rebecca,

If you think Hillary skated to power on Bill's coattails, then you have no idea what you are talking about. Hillary's career took off before Bill's did. Hillary was asked to be on the panel drawing up charges against Richard Nixon - not Bill. And that came about because of the work she had done in Texas. Next, she was invited to be on the board of the Children's Defense Fund becausee of the work SHE did in law school. Lastly, Carter appointed her (not Bill) to the board of the Legal Services. That was her resume when she married Bill, and it was more impressive than anything he had at the time. It's so weird how Clinton haters are determined to ignore her actual history. Once she married him, she continued to work on projects that are clearly rooted in the work she did on her own.

As for scandals, any Dem who is elected will face the Republicans constantly demanding investigation. Hillary has already faced them down and triumphed. Just think what the Republicans will do with someone as dirty as Obama. Clinton had already been cleared by Republican prosecutors on Whitewater when he was running for president. Obama, however, has never answered questions on it and no one knows why mob affiliate Rezko was willing to spend $675k of his own money so thata Obama's wife could have the house of her dreams. Weird. Dirty.

You're no feminist. If you were, you would know that Hillary is entitled to the resume she has accquired and the fact of her marriage is irrelevant to that. You're one of those old timey women who believe anything a woman does once married is the province of the husband. Feminists believe that what a woman accomplishes, she's entitled to credit for. You would take credit away from Clinton based solely on her marriage. How utterly 19th century of you.

That Senator Clinton is selling the "I have experience in teh White House" so very hard concerns me. The truth is (and I would hope that President Clinton had explained this to her) - I don't believe anything can prepare you for being in that chair.

Having been a commissioned officer in the Navy for many years, I've gone through the "being under instruction" to sitting in the big chair a few times, and nothing *ever* prepares you for executive decision making. It's like saying sitting in the passenger seat for eight years prepares you for driving.

Choose a candidate based on their politics, their positions, their proposals. Twelve months after the election the "how much experience" thing's going to be a wash and it's all going to be about how the move forward repairing this country.

Billary teared up because she knew she was about to lose to Obama in New Hampshire. I would tear up to if I knew my chances of returning to the White House were about to go down the tubes. Billary keeps showing us her true colors. I hope everybody's paying attention. Also, please let people close to JFK decide what he might think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReDCmk2c2g8

Try that on for size!

Briefly, I disagree and what I am looking for is someone to UNIFY the various parties. I see no one able to do that other than Obama. As to his experience, etc. he can "hire" or acquire that through this appointees.

I really believe that she is the right man for the job..., she will hit the floor running, our country needs her right now! Even those opposing her, know that she is the right one for the job! Our Country, under Bush is in dire need for her at this time. She is ready, that is why I will back her with everything that I have! Please join me in restoring our country...we need her now!

I have to be honest, if I wanted political discourse I'd venture over to CNN.com or NPR, or even the BBC for an international perspective.

If Fast Company is determined to throw their hat in the ring, they could have at least tied it to long standing items of interest. The re-branding of Hillary Clinton would have made for far more interesting reading.

Is anyone else tired of seeing Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton for 24 years in the White House? I am sure this country can find someone from a different family to work there. Obama brings a spirit and inspiration that we have not seen for a long time, and has the experience and intelligence to back it up.

Since when did this become a political blog !... Nice try... but it ain't buying my vote.

what, you looked into Chelsea's eyes and made a decision? Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

Nobody's perfect, certainly not politicians running for office, psychiatrists who write columns like this (as in me), or respondents like all of you. How about the next bunch of posts offering solutions vs. pointing out problems. I'm all ears.

Nobody's perfect, certainly not politicians running for office, psychiatrists who write columns like this (as in me), or respondents like all of you. How about the next bunch of posts offering solutions vs. pointing out problems. I'm all ears.

I find it ironic that so many Obama supporters, claiming to be hungry for change and ready for a new kind of bipartisan politics, are spouting off such hateful speech. Hate is no way to bring the country together. Really, take a good look at yourselves. You sound like Bush supporters.

what about RON PAUL? how come no one is talking about him or even considering his views seriously?
Just because we've been brought up as a country to think that certain things are not possible doesn't mean they are.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Thanks so much for your post. I was passing around my copy of Susan Estrich's The Case For Hillary Clinton all last year. Not only would Hillary be able to hit the ground running, but I think it is exciting to have that automatic paradigm shift that will come with a woman as the leader of the free world. I'm a little more left leaning than HRC, I'd love that dream Clinton-Obama ticket, but I'm 110% confident that she will have the people of this country in mind with every step she takes. Not just her donors and dedicated base. The larger middle-class.

I really wish people would stop talking about how Hillary Clinton can't work with Republicans. She has been an outstanding Senator in NY State, in large measure because she has worked hard on behalf of her constituents and has not tried to win headlines. No, if you’re not from New York you may not know the many issues she’s championed and victories she’s won, but just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. She has been effective and handily won reelection – not by being divisive but by winning over her Republican colleagues. This isn't PR folks, this is the truth. There are many anecdotes of Republican congressional leaders initially saying they wouldn't work with her and predicting that she'd be nothing but a show boater, but eventually being won over by her, including the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham. It is simply a cheap canard that Hillary is divisive and can't work with others. If you hate Hillary, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind, but please stop with the personal invective, vitriol and falsehoods about her personality, her ability to work across the aisle and her experience, which by the way is considerably more than just 8 years of being a first lady. Her commitment to children’s health care and education is above reproach; just ask her lifelong friend Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund.

"I also know first hand how much experience has helped me develop judgment in my professional and personal life and that there is no substitute for it."

Thank you, that is how I see it. I look at my own life--difficult people, difficult negotiations--where I learned and grew more effective. Then I look at the candidates. Mainly, experience helps in handling networks of talented, ambitious, ruthless or difficult people with complex agendas.

I know Hillary won't say this, but Bill would not have become President without her. He left office with skyrocket approval ratings because she took down the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.'

As much as I respect Al Gore, he came up short against the Radical Right. Hillary has proven she can handle the toughest, dirtiest, most cunning, aggressive and ambitious people in the world.

Obama admits he's not qualified to be our Chief Operating Officer. So who would be C.O.O. in an Obama administration? Who would run the government? How do I know Obama could handle those people? Can Obama handle people as smart, sneaky and aggressive as Newt Gingrich or Dick Cheney? Would Obama just be a figurehead of a shadow government?

Have voters forgotten Dick Cheney was Defense Secretary in Desert Storm? Cheney performed competently--some would say brilliantly--under the first President Bush, and disastrously under the novice W., who couldn't handle his executive team.

"Is anyone else tired of seeing Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton for 24 years in the White House?"

As noted above, George W. Bush bears no resemblance to his father's Presidency. W. Bush is a Bush in name only. If W. Bush had continued his father's policies, we wouldn't be in Iraq now. We're electing a President, not doing a crossword puzzle.

And I'm tired of seeing men in the White House. We've had 43 straight of those.

Hey,

Everyone can be sweet when they want something. Just can't believe you felt compelled to vote for Hillary because her daughter said, "I hope you vote for my mom". Well hey, I'm sweet, I hope you vote for Obama ... please!

Dear Firebrand...

No one knows better how to survive right wing attacks than a Clinton. They cant bury her. She knows their game and they are scared.

I don't want someone in the whitehouse that can get so weary when it really counts. Those radicals and extremists don't care for tears and compassion. You can't cry when the going gets tough when your representing an entire country. I think this is more of a legacy thing for Hil. I think Bill wants redeem himself and his family name. I also think they are pushing the female issue so baby Chelsea can be the face of our nation some day. I'm not buying into the big names and their secrets anymore. I don't want a President who just wants to have her name in history. I don't want a president who wants to make a future in this country for their child and not mine. I don't want a presidnet who can't handle dealing with so much at once. Who will break down under all the pressure and cry. Mainly because this presidents first 2 year is going to be the most strenuous of His/Her term. She is just so so good at running a campaign. Plus she gets all that money from lobbyist. We should not give anyone else another opportunity to screw us. Let her and Bill take their personal agendas and goals elsewhere....

Just once could canidates can be judged by their record. Hillary has took more bashing because of gender, her husband and so on. Obama talks about the ninties as if it was a bad thing, yet he doesn't talk about the past seven plus years. In the 90's our economy was good, the deficit was not bad. We had good social programs and our children were not being left behind educationally.
We had credability among other countries. Look at us now. I am a proud American, who has lived over seas. and was treated with much respect. I would not want to live over seas now. Maybe now we should consider a canidate that stands for values, who won't run away from anything,because of any shame, one who has emotions, one I know will honor our veterans who have died or served to keep the plans of our fore fathers alive. I want a canidate who will take the oath on a bible and swear alligance to the flag under one god, no matter what ones' belief may be. I want a canidate who can show emotion and strength, I belief Hillary has all those qualities,