Obama has only been in the Senate two years

Sorry, he started running for prez, and stopped being a senator in a serious sense, after two years.

The Clinton campaign pushed the experience angle, and it culminated in the Kirk Watson whiff with Chris Matthews. It also made an honest appraisal of the legislative records a more public story, which I think may be backfiring for the Clinton campaign: Obama has gotten a few things done, there's a thematic coherence to his work both in subject (ethics/transparency) and method (Coburn, ffs).

This is not to say that Clinton is unaccomplished, far from it, but I think it was a mistake to frame the relative difference in their experience as a legislative matter when her tenure as an elected official has been so brief (and, as you rightly observe, hamstrung). It opens the door to people seriously plowing through LoC records, which is a problem if they end up liking what they see from Obama.

And as a tangential rant: I really wish, when referring to legislation, people would give at least a parenthetical reference to the session and bill number in question. When I tried to look into that pro-Obama copypasta on their comparative records floating around, it was a real pain matching shorthand names for laws and bills up to an actual item in the Congressional record.

Lack of a Senate record is a good thing when you're trying to run someone for President.

This is good post, and makes me think that a serious, thoroughgoing side by side of their senate records is sorely lacking. I would suggest that someone do one, except that I think it's too late. Note that I support Obama, so this doesn't trouble me, but I am struck that, for all her talk of concrete accomplishments, Clinton failed miserably to convey her concrete accomplishments to untutored ears, making her talk sound like, well, talk. It seems to me she has been overmanaged, and would have done better had she actually run on her record, and not just run on the IDEA of running on her record.

Let's not go here. I have a feeling if legislative accomplishment is the criteria to decide our votes we are all going to have to deal with a McCain presidency.

What record should she run on? If she's going to include her time as the president's wife (which she's tried to do by implication without really bringing it up explicitly), then we'd have to talk about the health care debacle, the White House travel office debacle, etc. The simple truth is that she doesn't really have that many accomplishments. That's not to say that I don't like her or that she wouldn't be a good President, but trying to run by bragging about a basically nonexistent track record was a pretty dumb idea.

Talk about defrauding the original mission statement of this influencial blog, Daily Kos is now Daily Obama.

This diary was TOTALLY BIASED and is basically propaganda. She presented facts in such a biased way and that it's getting attention means how much more of poison is being spread.

It reminds me of the Nader supporters skewering Al Gore in the 2000 election. And it scares me because we are again faced with another demagogue war happy kiss-ass like McCain. What Republicans want is to have Obama as a candidate because McCain will beat him, despite what the polls say. Obama caves in when he's not on script and will be another John Kerry wishy-washy candidate against the Republican monster.

Back to Kos's site: Anybody that posts something that is not negative about Hillary is villified, asked to leave, called names, ridiculed, and I'm being nice about it. And they still complain when Obama supporters are called "cultists." It's that narrow "Obama is perfect, Hillary is the Devil" thinking that is shocking to find among progressive sites that bewilders me.

Kos himseld has turned into a snide, bickering, bitchy, rabid Obama-fan with nary an inch of his expected commonsense and normally fair approach. He's stark raving Obama obsessed.

I'm wondering what role does Kos play in the Obama campaign. If Taylor Marsh was a paid Hillary blogger, it leaves me no doubt that Kos is a paid Obama blogger.

Just awful.

Ezra, may I respectfully suggest that you edit the link to say "dkos diary" so as to not confuse with an actual Markos piece? I know you make it clear that it's another diarist, but when TAPPED linked to your piece, they carried the "Kos diary" language. My 2 cents on an otherwise worthwhile entry. Thanks.

Steve,

I completely agree that Clinton's invocation of her time as first lady as one of her qualifications to be president is, to say the least, dubious. The record I refer is the more mundane one in the senate, where, while she didn't necessarily pass earth shattering legislation, she nonetheless sponsored a bunch of legislation, which is noteworthy in itself. You're right that the record isn't markedly better than Obama's , but I still think she could have used the concrete details of it more wisely, rather than hyping her experience over and over while shying away from the facts of her experience (good and bad, of course).

The "serious, thoroughgoing side by side of their senate records" that Alex finds sorely lacking has been heroically compiled by Hilzoy over at Obsidian Wings. Start with her suggestion to Chris Matthews to do some reporting rather than just rely on the statements of the campaigns or attack their surrogates. In the 7th paragraph she links to the lists she compiled of the bills and amendments both candidates sponsored or co-sponsored in the 109th and 110th Congresses and to her summaries where she explains her methodology in detail. Very impressive.

You're right. It's not a fair comparison, not least because it omits almost ALL of Obama's legislation. He was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 and has more than TEN years of legislation to his credit. You may claim that Illinois and Chicago are the minor leagues, but I say minor league, major league, it's still one game. And make no mistake, he's got game. He doesn't waste time like the DLC playing defense. He introduced more than 800 aggressive, straight-up liberal bills--including more than 200 reforming health care--and drove a startling number of them past hordes of lobbyists and special interests straight to the hoop. Boom. Even Republicans were wowed. Don't believe me? Here's a primer:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

So when pundits insist that this funny new black guy is some kind of johnny-come-lately they're really saying more about themselves--and their inability to take off their beltway blinders--than about him. He's the frickin' Michael Jordan of progressive legislation, with the stats to prove it. Post-inauguration you doubters will be pleasantly surprised. And schooled.

I'd apologize for the easy and theoretically racist basketball analogies but I'm writing this from Obama's home court, the South Side, where he's been winning, and making my--and everyone's--life better, for more than two decades.

Speaking of sane--your quibble about Clinton's bill pulling funding for the Iraq war is straight from Penn's playbook. No legislator spoke out against the war like Obama. But once the troops were, alas, committed and on the ground, Obama voted to provide them with better armor and equipment.

You're a smart guy, Ezra, and you can wonk better than this. Put down the cookbooks and spend some time researching Obama's record.

I completely agree that Clinton's invocation of her time as first lady as one of her qualifications to be president is, to say the least, dubious.

As a woman of a certain age, as they say, this pisses me right off. First Lady is given very little credit because it is a volunteer job and for 200+ years it has been held exclusively by women. There have been varying styles for First Ladies from the traditional Republican Stepford wife Laura Bush to the drive of Eleanor Roosevelt. Yet regardless of the level of committment to the job or the breadth that each woman brings to it, it is a job and it takes a high level of competence to pull it off. What people hate most about Hillary Clinton was when she tried to change our perception of First Lady. When she tried to make it into an office that has a purpose greater than the superficial redesigning of the plates and window treatments. Maybe it was a quixotic attempt because obviously the 1990s was unwilling to accept what the 1940s could, that the First Lady could be an volunteer job which uplifted and enlightened people. Under fire for daring to try to be more than the decorative sidekick to the President she was castigated and investigated and derided and she withstood while continuing to impact the perception that it is somehow improper to be strong, intelligent and opinionated.
And I take, as a sign of her success, the fact that troglodytes still don't get it but others do.

Well, you can't have it both ways. I already mentioned two of her most prominent "accomplishments" as First Lady. You really want her to run on those? Really?

Yes, she was a lot more than a decorative sidekick. But no, it's not necessarily clear that on balance she did a good job with the substantive things within her purview. Be careful what you wish for.

So when pundits insist that this funny new black guy

Yeah, that's just what everyone was saying.

1. No one could have gotten a healthcare bill passed at that time, it was surprising that she managed to get it as far as she did. The level of antipathy that Americans have to universal healthcare is only now declining as it becomes more and more apparent that the lack of it is hindering the economy and is one of the factors forcing companies to outsource. The fact that the insurance companies are pushing to get universal health insurance instead of universal health care is a sign that conglomerates get it. Something has to change and they want it to swing in their favor.

2. Travelgate was a fairly standard bureaucratic muck-up that was blown up way past its merits by the fact that it was a convenient area to attack the First Lady and by extension, the President. The fact that it wasn't resolved in the HR office is more of a scandal than anything that she did to make it into one. It was a distraction forced on the White House by a Republican House feeling its oats.

The reality was that due to the level of secrecy that is inherent in the offices of the White House. Those who wanted to attack Bill chose to go after Hillary as the easier target since the office of the First Lady was a part of the standard civil service and not the more secure White House.
Since it was a fairly blatant political move, you would think that people would have figured that out by now.

1. No one could have gotten a healthcare bill passed at that time, it was surprising that she managed to get it as far as she did. The level of antipathy that Americans have to universal healthcare is only now declining as it becomes more and more apparent that the lack of it is hindering the economy and is one of the factors forcing companies to outsource. The fact that the insurance companies are pushing to get universal health insurance instead of universal health care is a sign that conglomerates get it. Something has to change and they want it to swing in their favor.

2. Travelgate was a fairly standard bureaucratic muck-up that was blown up way past its merits by the fact that it was a convenient area to attack the First Lady and by extension, the President. The fact that it wasn't resolved in the HR office is more of a scandal than anything that she did to make it into one. It was a distraction forced on the White House by a Republican House feeling its oats.

The reality was that due to the level of secrecy that is inherent in the offices of the White House. Those who wanted to attack Bill chose to go after Hillary as the easier target since the office of the First Lady was a part of the standard civil service and not the more secure White House.
Since it was a fairly blatant political move, you would think that people would have figured that out by now.

Sorry about the double post. I hate Ezra's capture device.

Hawise,

You're right that HRC's attempt to reinterpret the office of first lady drew a lot of resentment. I fear that this is because people want to believe, when they elect a leader, that they're electing that leader, and not that leader's spouse as well. If we start electing couples, rather than individuals, then the campaign process will become infinitely more complicated.

I like and admire Hillary Clinton, and am struggling to understand how her campaign failed so badly to convey her good points. One thing we can point to, I think, is precisely this confused message about whether we were voting for her or for a couple. Note that, in pointing to the nineties, she was pretty vague, and actually did NOT use the term first lady very often (it would have been better if she had). Instead, she seemed to blur her record with that of the Clinton presidency more generally. Personally, I think her unwillingness to be precise about her experience--she could have said "I learned a lot as first lady," but refused to talk like that--hurt her, because it made people think that if she didn't distinguish herself from Bill, there was no reason, in the future, for Bill to distinguish himself from her. And that makes many voters uncomfortable. I might add, as a last point, that the discomfort has nothing to do with whether the spouse is a woman or a man.

To read the comments above, one would think that it was a Clinton supporter who had written the diary that Ezra describes. I am firmly agnostic at this point about the Democratic primary. My focus is on beating McCain. BUT-- the comments as usual when Obama or his supporters are being critiqued is striking it is attempts at deflection.

The unasailable point seems to be that a supporter wrote a diary that wasn't about objectivity. That this less than objective diary has been tauted incorrectly as piece that will illuminate the reader about a side by side comparison of the candidates. Rather than respond to that- we are 19 comments into what these things are really about- not helpful information, but shilling.

This is all par for the course. It's one of the chief reasons I remain pessimistic about American democracy. Not because people are biased- afterall, I believe supporting Obama could be the best choice over Clinton or vice versa for various reasons.They both carry with them their strengths and weaknesses.

I want either to beat the crap out of McCain. But because at its core this diary, which I felt was biased when I read it, represents a kind of anti reasoning masqerading as reason.

Ie, his supporters have no basis other than emotions, but then proceed like a good faith based voter to make up reasons. In 2004, Bush voters just knew he supported import of drugs despite facts to the contrary.

There are plenty of good reasons to support Obama- why do you feel the need to make shit up to justify your support?

No one could have gotten a healthcare bill passed at that time, it was surprising that she managed to get it as far as she did.

This is such a gross misrepresentation of the actual health-care debate that took place in this country from 91-94 that it borders on pure propaganda. Ezra linked to a helpful time-line two days ago. Why don't you check it out before unfairly skewering the woman.

That's the way I saw it at the time, the way I see it now, and the way a lot of Democrats who haven't drunk the Clinton koolaid saw and still see it. For example, I remember Brad DeLong (who served in the Clinton administration) citing his negative view of this episode, some months ago, as giving him pause about Hillary's executive abilities.

I find it interesting that Ezra goes after the diary at dKos rather than the posts by Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings, which certainly have received more attention. Straw burning here.

"The fact that the insurance companies are pushing to get universal health insurance instead of universal health care is a sign that conglomerates get it. Something has to change and they want it to swing in their favor."

Right. And HRC wants to deliver it to them, in the form of a mandate to purchase private insurance without first reducing costs, while *calling* it "universal healthcare."

So, unless you have a big pile of cash you're looking to invest (and are unscrupulous), you'd best indeed be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, she learned a lot of things while Bill's First Lady, like, it "all depends on what the definition of 'is' is" and winning elections by throwing unrepresented, voiceless populations under the bus is perfectly fine.

I will note, in addition, that it has been my observation that many women seeking power feel perfectly fine being unscrupulous, while rationalizing it away in the name of gender justice (or, their's, anyway).

But, that's not what you're doing for HRC, is it? Don't bother to respond. I can see already that you will.

I expect politicians to be unscrupulous. And to give some kind of high-minded rationalization for it (after all, they're expected to do so). Surely you don't think Obama is a paragon of modesty and virtue? People who really are that, don't run for president.

By the way I don't particularly have it in for Hillary, only for bogus claims about her supposedly vast experience. Actually, I'd be perfectly fine if she won the nomination, as long as she does it fair and square based on the will of the primary and caucus voters. Compared to the feckless likes of John Kerry, she'd be an absolute gem as our candidate. And I think she'd trounce McCain, who's already starting to unravel before our eyes.

How did a discussion of a diary about comparison of records which claimed Obama had superior experience (read the diary) become one of how Clinton doesn't have all that much experience?

Because that's the bottom line- the whole issue is silly. Experience is the strong suit of neither.

Since the value of any particular experience is subjective and the value is defined by external factors, it is inevitable that it will be argued.

And Anonymous, since both Democratic candidates' health plans are essentially the same except for the mandates and a few odd squiggles neither is really universal healthcare. The lowering of costs is dependant on raising the number of subscribers while reducing bureaucratic duplication. Neither plan can start that until it is implemented, if you insist that it cannot be implemented without that then it will never be implemented. It really is time for Americans to bite the lemon on healthcare and get the grimace over with already.

The last two posts are exercises in circular logic covered up nicely with a lot of other junk.

Thank you, we take pride in our work ;)

Why should you be different than any other Bush like voter? Sophistry, circular logic, faith based analysis, etc, etc. A fool should have as much pride as everyone else I guess.

I am glad akaison (and a few other longtime posters around the leftoblogs) drank no candidate's brand of kool-aid this primary season. While I appreciate the enthusiasm and work many partisans are doing on behalf of their candidate, the quality of analysis/discussion around the blogs has been overwhelmed by the cheerleading, spinning, obsfuscating etc..

Right on Skeptic. The venom being spewed around the lefty sites is rather sickening. I thought we were supposed to above all that. RedState, move over!

At this point I would just welcome a Democratic majority in both Houses, a Democratic President is just icing. Neither candidate will be able to do much on their agenda, too much else needs fixing first (budget deficits anyone?). I reserve judgement on whose experience counts more until I see their cabinet nominees and V.P. choice. I just dispute that volunteer or negative experiences are not valid in the equation.

Last one was me, I really hate Ezra's captcha.

Hawise

And again the red herrings. Look this diary by Ezra is about a very specific point. It's clear many of you are blind to your own behaviors so you veer off into shit that really has nothing to do with the topic. That's what skeptic means by obfuscation. None of what has been written here refutes the point that the evidence being relied upon is light and certainly doesn't prove what Obama's support claim it proves. None of which means Obama won't make a fine President. It does however mean you don't get to make up facts as you go. Some of you have deep problems with understanding this. That's the part I am lashing out at because we just went through 8 years of supporters who couldn't handle reality.

akaison- the whole legislative issue is a red herring. No one is running for Senate here, you have three senators running for the administrative head of the government and the Head of State/CoC. This is why governors generally win out over senators as they can prove some administrative chops and diplomatic chops.
On their legislative records, both have similar tacks on limiting the President's ability to go into Iran- his aims at the need to pass it through Congress for approval of action, hers towards approval of funds. All the other legislation just shows that he is stronger on tech and modern security issues, she is stronger on hearth and home issues. Neither covers a full range, each has a specialty. This also reflects their original target voters, he went for the youth and higher income crowd who would be more influenced by his issues and she to the lower income and closer to retirement crowd who are more influenced by hers. He has so far done a better job implying that he could manage hearth and home than she has to appealing to the younger, independant voter.
He has run a better candidacy on the ground and has shown a better grasp of the emotional undercurrents of the country. She has had difficulties managing her team and connecting to hearts over minds. He seems to be better at putting a staff together which is a good sign.
Senators don't write their own bills, their staffs do or they sign onto other Senator's work to get things passed. Obama's record shows that a lot of senators have been grooming him for prominence in the Democratic party, another good sign for a man so new to Washington.
What his record does not show is any awareness of how the Office of President functions or his grasp of diplomatic nuance, his legislative records is what he has to show, so that is what his supporters extol.

Clinton has done a very poor job of underlining those aspects of his record or lack thereof but then again it has been a remarkably polite campaign.

How sad to be embedded. The kind of diary and other pro Obama sham type writing that poses to be journalism is truly pathetic. Yet, thousands read, form opinions, on pure data dumps without any analysis or critical thinking.

But Stellaa, to be fair, the author of the dkos diary is not a journalist, "embedded" or otherwise. She's just a "grassroots mom," who took the trouble to find out some stuff and blogged about it.

She apparently wrote up what she found through her partisan glasses, so no, it's not a structural, objective analysis. But then, it's a blog entry, a diary entry. It never "posed to be journalism".

Thanks to the blogosphere, everyone can now share their own takes and experiences - which is often interesting. But that doesnt mean that everyone suddenly has the skills of a journalist. So that's something to keep in mind when reading such bloggers/diarists, but you can hardly hold it against them..

I'm leaning Obama just now, here in the suddenly interesting state of Pennsylvania, but I think the legislative comparison is very strange. Clinton's Senate pages include a link to legislation she has sponsored, cosponsored, etc

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/senate/legislation/

which amounts to some pretty lengthy lists.

Is there something wrong with this list as a representation of Clinton's Senate term?

links of london Charms series perpetuates the reputation of modern design and classic luxury jewelry.

I promise, your loved one can wear links of london Charms with pride