I was going to mention her lifelong work for women's rights, but that has been covered, so I will mention her work with the U.S Armed Forces. I went to her web site for the exact wording:
"She is the first New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.... Hillary passed legislation to track the health status of our troops so that conditions like Gulf War Syndrome would no longer be misdiagnosed. She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves."
Exactly right. He is not getting the votes of moderates and independents by standing firm for progressive principles. He gives up on universal health care before the battle is even joined. How much more will he negotiate away trying to stay popular with Republicans?
It's not about looking tough. It's about knowing what you are talking about when the brass tries to tell you they can't be out of Iraq in 18 months. The president has to be credible on military issues, and one of the ways you do that is to study them for at least 15 years as Clinton has. Of course she is not as experienced as John McCain - few people in politics are - but she cannot be labelled a lightweight either.
She comes a lot closer than Obama does to neutralizing McCain on his main advantage, and, once again, that is knowledge, not toughness.
Good point. Clinton's management style has always been rather secretive, even from her own people, as this story bears out.
But to set the record straight, in that debate Clinton was not responding to Obama's comment about losing papers, but rather to the question that was asked about his interview in the Wall Street Journal (I think it was the WSJ anyway - may have been another paper or magazine) where he said that he does not have a hands-on management style. He prefers to hire good people, set the tone, and be the inspirational leader rather than a hands-on manager. Looks like he has done a great job of that in this campaign. Whether it is good to be that hands-off in running the country is another matter.
I hate these comparisons of turnout in primaries in deep red states. People in the deep red states are going to vote for the Republican no matter who he is - that's why they don't care that much about the primary.
It is really a mistake to be putting so much stock in those turnout numbers.
The sub-question is whether he can win states that Hillary cannot. Hillary could also win at least two that you mention. Colorado has been trending blue for years. It was on the brink in 2004, when I lived there. Any Dem will take it this year, especially if the religious right is not enthusastic about McCain. And Hillary did just as good in Missouri as Obama last week. Also, she has a better shot at New Mexico, Florida, and maybe Ohio (We'll see about that Mar. 4).
I thought Maureen Dowd was the Republican's Maureen Dowd!
Unfortunately there is just no way to answer the electability question until the election. It doesn't matter who the Repugs say they want or don't want. We certainly can't base our choice on trying to read their minds.
Whenever I start down that path I pull back and ask myself which Dem I think will be the best president. The answer I get is always Hillary Clinton.
If Obama is the nominee, the Clinton camp is doing Obama a favor by taking on MSNBC now. MSNBC is already gearing up its St. John McCain - War Hero love-fest for the fall. MSNBC was more instrumental in taking down Gore and Kerry than Fox was - people expect Fox to be biased - when they hear crap on MSNBC they assume it is based on fact.
Obama supporters who think it is OK for the press to help them take down Clinton have to realize that their guy is next.