A right wing pundit had a good observation about Hillary the other day. She's afraid to appear on Jon Stewart. Think about that. Think about what an old fogey that makes her even compared to McCain.

This sort of reminds me of the nutty articles you saw in both the 2000 or 2004 elections where the loose, humorous, "authentic" Bush was contrasted with the programmed, robotic, too-serious, inauthentic Gore or Kerry.  The press gave Bush a lot of slack because he was so "likeable".  We all know how that turned out.

Now I realize you can't discount all these factors completely, but this is supposed to be a blog that values a more elevated discussion.  So instead of focusing on horse-race issues, how about a discussion about who would actually make a better president. 

One of the things that has been interesting to me during the Bush presidency is that while I didn't vote for Bush and I didn't agree with the vast majority of what he wanted to do, I did expect him to be minimally competent.  I thought the chances were good that if he had to manage a situation, he could do it. I didn't buy the idea that he had failed at everthing.  Most accounts of his tenure as owner of the Texas Rangers and as Governor of Texas were complimentary of his management skills. Perhaps I also bought the arguments that he was surrounded by experienced people with good track records.  Perhaps I placed too much faith in the fact that he had an MBA (confession: so am I). 

Best I can tell, Hillary Clinton's one big management challenge was the 1993 Health Care commission, which was a miserable failure.  Obama I don't think has ever held an executive position.  Neither has Edwards or Kerry.

Would it be too much to ask that this be considered as important as who can come off as more insouciant?

I don't think "what the fuck" is the appropriate phrasing for Obama. WTF implies confusion. Like the expression Bush has on his face when someone asks him a follow-up question. (Lucky for him, that hardly happens.)

I think you mean, for Obama, more like "I don't give a f*ck." Or, maybe, "f*ckin' a, man."

(You opened this can, MJ....) :-)

But, yes, Obama appears to be much less measured, much more off-the-cuff. HRC, on the other hand, is hardly a charismatic speaker.

If HRC has a less measured side to her, it's time to bring it.

Re: The Daily Show, it doesn't surprise me. She thinks videogames are icky, too. She definitely is not looking to target the younger voter market. She has hired Peter Daou, so maybe he can help her in terms of blogs (I'm not saying they are younger voters, in fact, they're not. It's just another audience she also hasn't reached), but I don't see younger voters flocking to HRC.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

To CSC:
You may be right. I am using the definition of WHAT THE FUCK that appears in the latest edition of the Urban Dictionary. See below.

Roughly translates to, "I tire of considering this decision and will go ahead and do what I was thinking of doing originally." Synonymous with fuck it.

I mean it in the sense Ferris Bueller used it. Not coincidentally Ferris is a fellow Chicagoan and contemporary of Obama.

The famous guru, Bueller, being fictional, you mean Broderick?

Obama will kill'em if he does the Daily S. (or has he already?) 

Hillary is ... constantly is evaluating 'the effect' of what she is saying will have rather than speaking from her heart.

She's like Gore in 2000. Expected to run, indeed, expected to WIN. Nowhere to go but down. It's paralyzing.

'Obama I don't think has ever held an executive position. Neither has Edwards or Kerr'

Executives of publicly held companies make business decisions and to the extent that they gamble they do so with other people’s money. John Edwards, as head of his law firm, made business decisions which required gambling his own money. Trying a case against a big corporation is very expensive. J. Edwards ran his business very well.

If you read his book, “Four Trials”, and believe the facts he gives you will believe that he should have won those cases and that justice would not have been served had he lost them.

If you think he might have twisted the story to look good, realize that there are thousands of pages of sworn testimony given in public and attacked by very good lawyers who could not show that his facts did not support his case. These trial records, as well as every aspect of his life, have no doubt been scrutinized by operatives for the Republican Party who were searching for anything to make him look bad as he stood for VP in the last election. He has already passed an extremely tough test of electability, he has run against the smear machine and still looks good.

Obama may be genuine; I hope so and right now think he probably is. I am convinced that John Edwards comes very close to genuinely being the person he tries to project. He did come from a modest background and his parents, despite not being any kind of elite were solid citizens that anybody could be proud of as parents. Edwards and his wife are solid citizens and have been good and devoted parents.

Both J. and his wife went to college with the foremost intention of getting an education, not just a degree. They both did, and their subsequent life shows that they were able to apply their education to being successful in life. They weren’t merely reasonably bright; they learned to use their intelligence productively. They have certainly had gut feelings in their lives but they have handled them with an admirable mixture of compassion and good sense as well as courage supported by love.

John Edwards has shown that he is capable of making consistently intelligent decisions in a situation where the competition was tough and the stakes high.

John Edwards charisma, when I saw him campaign in Iowa, made me look closer. When I did look, I put him at the top of my list and so far he is still there.

Edwards/Obama is the ticket to hope for. It would provide a rare chance to vote FOR someone who has a good chance of winning and would most likely, of the likely candidates, do a good job.

The use of one of George Carlin's infamous "seven dirty words"?  GHaines is gonna be shocked I tell ya...shocked!!!  I guess he better stay the fuck off of this thread, lol.

I don't know what HRC can do.  Her husband was a genuine as it gets...she, as most politicos are, isn't.  She needs to stop trying to sound so "measured" and speak with the passion of conviction.  And I don't know if that is possible from a politician who has spent as much time in DC as she has.  Obama on the other hand is new enough to DC that he still sounds fresh and genuine.  I am not expecting it to but I hope that he doesn't change in the next couple years...

The highest art is to appear completely spontaneous while applying supreme skill.

I'll chip in that when he appeared on the humorous NPR quiz show, "Wait, wait, don't tell me," he was right on top of the repartee, topping the excellent Peter Sagal. Sagal teased him about the apperance where Obama dissed 8th grade "graduation", saying "I'll have you know, sir, my 8th grade graduation was the high point of my life." Obama came back instantly with "I'm just trying to keep kids from following your career path." (Audience roars.)

That ISN'T what she said or why she answered the way in which she did. One of the hosts of the show, asked her if being a mother was an advantage, and her answer was that NO ONE HAS EVER DONE IT BEFORE SO NO ONE KNOWS. Now how is that calculated and cunning enough to remind people that Obama is a man? Jesus!

You know, after eight years of teenager-in-chief, promising that Mom will fix things might not be such a bad strategy.

Bev, get a grip. It wasn't a criticism. Calm down. It is, in fact, a valid point for those of us who believe it's time we had a woman President.
Shirley Chisholm once said it was harder to be taken seriously as a woman than as an African-American.
If Hillary was making that point in a subtle way, fine.

And how was a response to a question, in which her answer was "I don't know" any kind of subtle slap at Obama? She didn't say that, she didn't imply it, and in fact her one comment about Obama was that along with other democrats seeking the office, he was a good person. Instead, you are so married to the Washington script that you hear what you think she said, not what she said. She answered questions with ease, was empathetic and positive and acted with dignity. When did it become a bad thing that people in public office, think about what they're going to say and measure how they are going to say it? Not everything you think is grist for the public mill and every thought doesn't have to expressed immediately. In fact, what we need is MORE thoughtfulness in comments, not less. We already have an idiot in the White House who is prone to popping off, and it doesn't seem to be working.

Why should I "get a grip" when you are making up bullshit as you go along? Why should you be exempt from being called on that?

I don't think that Hillary Clinton is responsible for the content on that show. I don't watch the show, so I don't know if she appeared before or after anything. If Hillary Clinton appeared on the show, it may be because of the high ratings and its appeal to viewers. I have no doubt that Obama appeared on MNF for the same reasons. I'm glad that they both did well, it can only help the democratic party.

What I object to is Rosenberg's unfair criticism that buys into the rightwing's view of Clinton, that she's a humourless, stilted, policy wonk who doesn't or can't appeal to Americans and that is not true.
She consistently outpolls every other candidate, she always polls in the top ten most admired American women and she's won two elections by a landslide. Now how is she not appealing to voters? I'd say the evidence points in the opposite direction.

Oh, she's not a humourless, stilted policy wonk, she's an opportunist who puts her own personal agenda ahead of any other (with the possible exception of her daughter). She can be for health care today, the village tommorrow, the war next week, or maybe moms next month. What'll she be for next year? Hillary. Hillary yesterday, today, and tommorrow. There is only one issue for Hillary - what's good for Hillary.

This type of anger is righteous, and a long time coming. You can't expect a man, especially a washington pundit to understand.

Peace, Bev. :)

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Compare Edwards record to Obama's as a junior senator. don't think anyone that has needs to look further.

I like Obama. But this hype is making me sick. Push the guy that doesn't have a prayer of getting elected to throw the Dems in disarray, and they're biting at it. Hook, line, and sinker.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Remember this: They are all politicians. Even McCain. Some of you seem to be upset that our next president will be a politician.

If you are looking for a candidate who is NOT a politician, you are going to be played for a fool.

Yep, the Breck girl. Power hungry. IOW, exactly what the right wing Rovian machine tells you he is.

Look a little closer.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I'm not angry, I'm disgusted with this kind of lazy, backhanded reporting. Sen. Clinton didn't insult Sen. Obama, in fact she said something quite nice about him.