"The questions: Is Barack Obama experienced enough, ready to be president? And can Hillary Clinton, because of her experience, bring the country together?"

The answers. NO, and NO.

OBAMA HAS LITTLE EXPERIANCE IN GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, TO ME FAR TO LITTLE TO RUN THE NATION; WHERE AS CLINTON HAS TO MUCH EXPERIANCE WHEELING AND DEALING AND MAKING PACKS WITH THE DEVIL AND I'M JUST AFFRAID SHE MIGHT SELL OUT THE COUNTRY FOR HER OWN AMBITIONS. I DON'T THINK I'M READY FOR EITHER OF THEM

What is Sen. Clinton's experience that all involved are so careful to keep mentioning? In reality, she does not appear much more experienced than Sen. Obama. Clinton is just better at following a carefully scripted campaign and 'appearing' presidential.

Obama appeared confident, and answered the questions well.Comes across as compassionte.Hiliary seemed ill prepared,sound biter,not in very good command of the facts,she is vindictive,Would be a fatal mistake if she becomes the democratic candidate.

Truth be told neither has the experience. America wake-up! Bush + Clinton + Clinton +Bush + Bush + Clinton? Our democratic system is starting to look a little threadbare. Bush 43 was elected because of his last name and Clinton became senator because she was married to a former president. We don't have a long time for a learning curve in 08. Iraq and the fiscal problems that this country currently faces demands that we put aside partisan politics. I wish Gore would announce and immediately choose Richardson as his vice-president and then promise the job of attorney general to Obama and maybe even bring back Powell as Sec. of State. Our financial health/debt is in the hands of others. We need to face the facts that America the beautiful is slowly coming undone.

Beltway Greg

Hillary gives us the experience of working in an administration that failed to deliver a health care plan, lost the Congress to the Republicans, gave us free trade without fair trade, and enabled al Qaeda to grow strong because her husband was, let us say, "distracted."

Hillary apologists will complain that a "vast right wing conspiracy" (later "machine") foiled her husband's administration. And yet she still didn't learn enough from the EXPERIENCE to stay out of bed with those "conspirators" - instead, her EXPERIENCE led her to vote to hand over the keys of our military to a president whose judgement her EXPERIENCE led her to believe she could trust.

EXPERIENCE only matters when it leads to WISDOM. Obama is inexperienced and I said from the start that would be his doom - i.e. he'd screw up along the way. The question is, does he have enough WISDOM to overcome his inexperience.

Why is it that people are against having Clinton as President because her last name is "Clinton?" I understand that political dynasties go against the concept of democracy, but what is the alternative? If Clinton is the best candidate in the race and will lead the country in the best manner, why does it matter that she is a Clinton?

I am actually an Obama fan, but if I had to choose between Clinton and any Republican, Hilary's got my vote. I think people need to stop worrying about Clinton's background, divisiveness, etc., and start worrying about another 4-8 years under a Republican administration.

By the way, ABC's coverage and George Stephanopolous's performance were embarrassing. The debate was half way over before Stephanopolous even asked Rep. Dennis Kucinich a question. And it seems the only reason Stephanopolous asked the question was to give the director at ABC an opportunity to get a shot of Kucinich's wife - a young, pretty redhead who was sittting in the audience.

Later Kucinich delivered the best line in the debate, saying he was "praying to God" that Stephanopolous would call on him (shot of D.K.'s wife). Stephanopolous laughed it off, which really illustrated why the debates, Stephanopolous and the coverage of the debates are a joke.

Obama has little experience in governing but if you don't count Hillary's experience as First Lady (and you shouldn't, she wasn't elected to that position and the meddling she did do came out badly) she doesn't have much more, just a couple more years in the Senate.

Let's not get overly influenced by her campaign
hype suggesting that she practically ran the country along with Bill.

The truly experienced frontline candidates are actually Giuliani and Romney. Non-hypocrites who put experience first should
go with one of them. Or with Richardson or Biden.

Anyway, my guess for the Dems: A Clinton-Richardson ticket. Picks up the black and the Hispanic vote with the possibility of a Hispanic Prez after 8 years. The Republicans must be trembling. Not that they should. A Democratic supermajority means they immediately start fighting among themselves. Just like in Illinois. Jeb Bush could look pretty good after eight years of Democratic infighting.

Hilary is a polaized person, she can fight Republicans, but she can not win their hearts & minds. Her persidency will tainted with Republican menia, same as Bill Clinton. Clintons are haunted & hated with Monica Lewinsky. I do not think people have forgotten about that yet!

Experience or competence?
When some people talk about sen. clinton 's experience and relate it to the capacity to be the best president , I 'm surprise and think that those people don't know the organization of our executive branch of the government.Our president works with the cabinet and only the competence of their members can enable the GoP to make a good stratragyand decision.
Sen.Obama proves this quality by having the campaign directors who can have the contribution of the most Americans in very few period of time. That what we should seek for our president:to be able to have in his cabinet people who can think and resolve the problem by modern methods not by using the same method for all problem all time.
Sen. clinton is supported only by the upper class members of our country and all her experience is the fruit of her husband's recognition. Her campaign directors can't deal with the quick moving of our society.
When sen. obama would like talk with the foreign countries considered as our foes , he proves once again the courage and knowledge of war stategy privileges of only great people because every war finishes by meeting of the protagonists. Soon or later whomever becomes our president , he/she will negociate the peace before the end of the war against terrorism.
good luck Sen. obama

By the way, ABC's coverage and George Stephanopolous's performance were embarrassing. The debate was half way over before Stephanopolous even asked Rep. Dennis Kucinich a question. And it seems the only reason Stephanopolous asked the question was to give the director at ABC an opportunity to get a shot of Kucinich's wife - a young, pretty redhead who was sittting in the audience.

Later Kucinich delivered the best line in the debate, saying he was "praying to God" that Stephanopolous would call on him (shot of D.K.'s wife). Stephanopolous laughed it off, which really illustrated why the debates, Stephanopolous and the coverage of the debates are a joke.

Fair's fair. What does 'experience' have to do with running America. When had it mattered how much exposure one had to foreign affairs to become America's commander in chief.
A look at previous great will reveal that wisdom, good judgment and foresight often sets great presidents apart from bad.

While Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Edwards may have more experience at being politicians, Obama continues to demonstrate real wisdom, good judgment and foresight.

The chattering crowd in Washington continues to hail Hillary, but the GOP are waiting in the wing.

None of the dems running are any good for a country that believes in capitalism,but if I had to choose one....
Scrap the bottom and vote for Rodham.

Paulo

I'm getting so tired of the phrase: "Hilary has high negatives. Yeah, but if you switch it around she has a %76 approval rating after all the Republican attacks, that is firm.

The rest of the Democratic party hasn't been tasted against the Republican attack machine and with all the mistakes Obama has made, he is going to be easy to beat.

Let me put it this way, we'll lose Florida, Texas, the south, Utah, Pennsylvania,..pretty much most of the States.

I don't even think he'll win New York, a state that has suffered by terroist actions.

It is laughable for the HillBillery and her few proponents, which entail almost entirely the left-wing amongst Democrat partisans or power-hungry and still slavering hangers-on from the previous Clinton administration of unremitting mendacity and corruption, to keep trumpeting her supposed experience when that aspect of her career of coat-tailing her husband (as with Feinstein, Pelosi or a Huffiington, where one can also add the respective husband's, but not the pre-nuptial distaff's, money and standing to the mix) is far, far more limited than anyone else seeking the nomination. Factually, Obama has more experience than his fellow statesman, Abraham Lincoln, did when he won election in November, 1860. There are only two "professional" things that HillBillery can term remotely experiential: an (1) extremely ill-advised national health care plan unveiled early in her husband's administration, which even fellow Democrats then in the majority did not support, and (2) running the White House sub-basement operation of "Nuts and Sluts," which slandered more than a half-dozen women who bravely and at great personal risk inconveniently brought Bill’s rapes of them to public attention (recall: nolo contendere to lying to a federal grand jury and the first impeached president in our history). And Bill is not popular in the vaster countryside, away from handpicked crowds or those comprised of the more than 170 he pardoned his last 24-hours in office for retirement monies. Amazingly then, no one has asked the rational question of the HillBillery: What experience? Outline it for me, please, along a timeline or otherwise! But please don't forget about her own tumultuous affair with the mysteriously demised Vince Foster, as well as her subsequent indicted lies to a grand jury about just how Foster's personal documents ended up in the White House library, with only hers and Foster's fingerprints, when such had gone missing for more than two years. As well, I do not believe that abusing the inordinate power of one's truth-challenged, felonious spouse to run stealth political campaigns behind the scenes is a positive attribute or some sort of real experience that goes front-and-square on her resume. Lucky for us all, this wholly unqualified and stunningly inexperienced person could not be elected (if she is nominated, which is doubtful, despite the fanfare), but presuming the Republicans nominate a reasonably good candidate, given her extremely high negatives and the unspoken fact that the vast majority (60-65%) of men would never and could not be persuaded to vote for her, no matter whom the opposing candidate may be. Historically and sadly, too, the polity votes against and not for political candidates. Clinton is, fortuantely, both toast and fodder. If the Democrats want a winner in the 2008 presidential race, they need to start looking appropriately askance at the HillBillery and with at least some degree of needed critical thinking, and start to earnestly seek a candidate who can actually win. While I would not be voting for Obama (I prefer Biden (though admittedly he won't be the candidate, either), he would be much more acceptable nationally, as he is that better and not already besotted candidate, and can provide the Democrats a reasonable chance. Even though the Democrats now have the sense of momentum at their collective backs and the usual cheering and abedding media on their side as well, if a HillBillery is nominated, the party will be becalmed immediately at stasis, and any other candidate that the Republicans nominate will virtually skate to victory. That is not wild prognostication on my part; it is instead an immutable certainty.

In response to Brian Miller: We are against Hillary. Her ego is the only thing that drives her. She doesn't really want the Presidency, she just wants to prove she can break the glass ceiling and then say "the hell with you all" She will lie, cheat, steal and kill for the sake of winning, we do not need an EGOTISTICAL polarizing (politician) running our country! She has purchased the press, purchased the polls, and will purchase the Democratic convention just to satisfy her greedy ego. Fortunately, her dispicable mouth and lies will get the best of her.

The problem for Hillary is not just that she energizes Republicans against her. She also turns off a lot of Dems and Indies who, like myself, may have liked Bill while he was President, but don't want another Clinton int he White House.

The Tribune keeps mentioning Hillary's "experience." She has NO experience in management or ever held an executive position: None, Nada, Negatory. She has never had to draft a budget, meet a private business payroll, do a multl-year business operational plan, or drafted a foreign policy plan of action.
She was a LAWYER, for heaven's sake. The average McDonald's manager has more executive experience that she does. The Tribune seems to have bought into the Clinton campaign's false propaganda. The media saying she has experience does not make it so.

Helena (John D.),

Rudy Guiliani put the 9-1-1 call center in the Trade Center towers when he knew they had already been attacked. Then Rudy never remedied the radio communication problem between the police and firefighters.

For Rudy to get credit for 9-1-1 (why?) is like the captain of the Titanic ignoring icebergs and then getting credit for helping pull bodies out of the water.

Then the knucklehead has the audacity to claim he spent as much or more time at the towers after the attack as the firefighters is the most audacious bald face lie I've ever heard.

I think there is a difference between moving the country in a "successful direction" and "bringing it together". It is and always has been impossible for anyone to make everyone think the same and bring this highly diverse country "together" outside of a temporary war situation. If you think about it, this is a good thing. Moving the country in a more Successful direction is possible however and I think it is obvious to anyone remotely open minded that for example the previous Clinton administration was much more successful than the current Bush administration in bringing a peaceful prosperous safe world where America didn't pour all it's money down a black hole called Iraq. I would vote for a Clinton administration again, please no more surprises this time by relative newbies who are in over their heads like the current top three republican and most of the democratic candidates.

So far none of the Democratic candidates impress me. They all seem to spout the same message and none of them answer the questions, they just try to twist the questions to highlight why they are better.

All it is is a party platform. They are not interested in representing the views of the American people, but the platform of the Democratic part. The Republicans are no better. Even thought they want to distance themselves from Bush, they still answer the call to arms to support his policies.

This country cannot function because poltics have become nothing but party platfroms and one-upmanship sponsored by lobbies and big business.

Doogie, Helena is Helena. John D is John D. Hmmm, Helena posted at 12:23, which is Eastern time, meaning 11:23 central time (the Swamp is handled by LIBune's Washington bureau). I was at church at that time and did not get home til after 1:30 central time. Sometimes, Doug, you are nothing but John E. lite.

HelenJohnde,

thank you.

John D.,

Let me spell it out for you. We're not friends and this isn't moot court.

The Bush Administration holier than thou tough guy chickenhawk crap (of which you apparently hold in high esteem) have gotten a lot of people killed for no good reason. Cheney got it right back in '94 when he said Iraq would be a quagmire and what are you going to replace Saddam with?

Saddam was never anything remotely close to being a threat to this country.

So here's the deal tough guy: You can call me Doogie, Defeatocrat, Cut-n-runner or any other pejorative crap you care to throw my way but the bottom line remains you and your ilk don't have a clue as to how to fix what you broke and none of you are about to join up and go fight yourselves.

If Obama get the democratic nomination I will vote for him otherwise I will sit the next election out. Will never ever vote for Clinton or any of the others that are running.

I love it, anytime anyone mentions the name "Clinton" on here the Republicans start barking.
The GOP robots have been trained like Pavlov's dog.
bark...bark..ruff..ruff...MEOW!

Doogie, clearly you have gone off the deep end today. Here are some facts for you to digest:
A majority of those in the military are Republican and come from Republican families. A majority of those in the military come from the so-called "red" states. So, it seems to me a majority of Republicans are protecting and fightng for this country, which means that they are even protecting the worst mankind has to offer: The Loony Left.

Obama IS the best choice we have...He has his warts like all humans, but who has the gretest potential to get stuff done through collaboration? What democand has the widest demographic appeal? Besides Kucinivich, who expressed the forsight-- against the tide of majority opinion--the Iraq Invasion was a dumb move? And provided a list of outcomes, all of which has proven to be spot-on. Some of you suggest Obama has made mistakes...Says who? The competition. You think they're going to pat him on the back...He's in the two spot and is generating more cash than the US mint. And the polls are misleading. Skewed. Barring illness or an assasination, like a thoroughbred in the backstretch, Barack will pull up and overtake CHillary to the dem primary. From there it'll be over but the neocon kickin & screaming...Some may even commit suicide versus living under an Obama administration. I can hardly wait...

[quote]
Helena posted at 12:23, which is Eastern time, meaning 11:23 central time (the Swamp is handled by LIBune's Washington bureau). I was at church at that time and did not get home til after 1:30 central time.

Posted by: John D | August 19, 2007 3:27 PM
[/quote]

There's an old saying in the newspaper business; maybe you've heard of it? "If your mother says "she loves you", check it out!"

Believability is not your strong point.

Oh BC, I have more believability in my pinky toe than you have in your entire body. I also have something you don't: intelligence.

Since the Loony Lefties love their alternative caption game so much, here is a thought game. What is Hillary thinking?

"Get out of my face you inexperienced little man. No one is getting in my way from becoming president again. Hmmm, will the public buy another Vince Foster-style suicide?"

I don't understand Obama, much as I may like him, claiming relevance to experience of Cheney & Rummy for his position. It was the inexperience of Bush that led him to choose such people and Obama could do the same!

Mr. Clinton's Lieutenants weren't that bad and Hillary has that experience to fall back on.

Let's see... the women's movement...Hillary's pivotal event...when women stopped riding their husbands' coattails and stepped out on their own...

I'm sorry, what experience?

A majority of those in the military come from the so-called "red" states. So, it seems to me a majority of Republicans are protecting and fightng for this country, which means that they are even protecting the worst mankind has to offer: The Loony Left.

Posted by: John D | August 19, 2007 6:53 PM

John D you are a mental defective!

OBAMA HAS MORE, NOT LESS, EXPERIENCE THAN CLINTON.
Obama has been a state or federal legislator or senator for 10 years. Mrs. Clinton has done that for less than 8. Unless she was telepathically connected to her husband's brain, her experience as "wife of" clearly doesn't count. So is everybody else plain WRONG on the experience issue? Hmmm.. did "everybody" at one time think cigarettes were swell?

Here is a helpful
link...

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/2007/08/27/the-resume-of-hillary-clinton/

Clinton and Obama's Platforms are very identical. both support many of the Bush administrations policies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt0iTWQxykQ

This video shows the similarities