OH MY GOD!

“I don’t think people are picking between the two of them.”

. This is exactly why I would not vote these beasts.... I'd stay home instead of voting for her

Wayne, exactly. That Clinton arrogance combined with their disingenuity has lost my support permanently a long time ago. Biden is far more genuine in character and experience. My support is locked into Biden.

I guess she'll be spending most of Day One getting On-The-Job training huh?

Rick "we'll take the country forward without you" Roberts, where do you think she is going to take the country exactly? Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, is a union buster. She has more corporate lobbyists in tow than ANY other candidate, Democrat or Republican. She's corporate bought, and if she wins the election she'll be corporate paid for.

Hey, even Rupert Murdoch supports her. Mostly because her husband Bill (who like Hillary has pulled the wool over a lot of Democrat eyes) gave him the telecom deregulation he couldn't get passed under Bush I.

Clinton supporters, please wake up and look at her record, forget your fuzzy dreams of how much "better" things were when Bill was president. For that matter, look at Bill's record while you're at it.

Edwards/Dodd '08

HILLARY WILL BE A GOOD ENVOY TO PAKISTAN. SO SHE COULD LEARN ON THE JOB.

In a world where experience and expertise mattered, Joe Biden would be leading this Democratic pack, along with Dodd and Kucinich. Only in the Toon Town of American politics would the third-LEAST experienced candidate be out there touting her "experience" as the reason to vote for her.

Truth is, the MSM just isn't interested AT ALL in anybody but the Obama-Hillary matchup. That's where the drama is, and the ethnic angle, and the gender angle--and the ensuing drama in the general election with whatever older white guy is nominated by the Republicans. It's absolutely astounding that Edwards has managed to hang around the lead while having his oxygen cut to about 10%.

I mean, come on: If the nomination were really about experience, we'd be talking about Biden, Dodd, and also Kucinich and Richardson. If it were specifically about foreign policy cred, nobody could touch Biden. If it were about "change," you really think we'd be talking about Obama over Kucinich? Who's proposing the most radical changes? If it were "change," Kucinich and Edwards would be leading.

All of which tells you that this "experience versus change" thing is just so much horsesh$%. It's simple: The media are obsessed with Obama-Hillary, and that's what we're getting. Like Ike Turner said (allegedly), "B$%ch, eat the cake!"

Pick Pick Pick Pick!!! Sounds like the candidates and those are the sidelines like to "bicker" about everything the candidates stand for instead pressing them on the key issues that need moving the nation forward...like the Military Draw Down in Iraq, Health Coverage for millions of citizens, Re-establishing and Gaining US confidence in the world, Rebuilding our cities and the ever existing illegal extrants crossing our borders. Let's not be deceived by the "smoke and mirrors" that cloud the major issues which need resolution in the next for years.

oh my god, Hillary left the light on in the room. She is to blame for the energy crises and obviously doesn't know anything about renewable energy. She will need on-the-job training and if elected President will be terrible.

I wish all of you had this much scrutiny in your daily lives. Where Clinton's been able to withstand this and thrive, you all would be misanthropic nutcases by now.

The real problem are Hillary's spin doctors. I don't think anyone who is remotely sane knows that all the foreign policy claims she makes are valid. She's obviously just trying to pitch herself.

But for Wolfson to try and put her on the same playing field experience-wise in regards to foreign policy as Biden is absurd. What, because they're friends, they imbue each other with vast foreign policy experience? I thought only "psychic friends" could do that.

Even if Biden didn't win the nomination, he'd be a bonafide candidate for Secretary of State. I doubt anyone would ever consider Hillary Clinton as one of their top choices for that role.

“And I don’t think anybody questions that Sen. Clinton has a vast and deep knowledge about foreign policy.”
uhhh yea we do!
GO JOE!!!!

This is just pure unmitigated arrogance that has no example. Hilary Clinton was speaking in terms of American Presidential Constitutional Democracy where a person puts himself or herself up for nomination and it the person wins, he or she will be sworn-in as president. But Westminster Parliamentary Constitutional Democracy is the party that field candidates to run for parliamentary office and the party that wins majority parliamentarians will choose their leader as prime minister.

If Hilary Clinton really understands the difference between foreign policy and goodwill ambassador, she will never claim that by being the First Lady she gained experience in foreign policy. Foreign policy is not international frequent flier and visiting many foreign countries does not rise to the level of experience in foreign policy. What policy has Hilary Clinton ever authored or co-authored as First Lady for crying out loud. How can delivering speech on women’s affairs in China rise to the level of foreign policy? This is a First Lady that did not have Security Clearance to attend national security meetings or received daily intelligence briefings. Hilary learned foreign policy through osmosis of pillow-talk for being married to a President. It is pathetic and shameful that Hilary Clinton is not proud and honest enough to run on her substantive achievements but to resort into making bogus claims that cannot be readily verified.

Edmonsky

Hilary learned foreign policy through osmosis of pillow-talk for being married to a President, seems logical.

I thought Bhutto was returning to Pakistan to run against Musharaf also but I'm not running for President. Evidently none of presidential candidates (including Biden) caught it either because it was not reported until 3 days later by a conservative newspaper.

Hilliary's People In Congress Knows That She Has Foreign Policy Experience,They Also Know Joe Biden Has Foreign Policy Experience.That's Why Her Peers Endorsements Exceed Over 75 Supporters From Congress,And It Has Already Been Established That She Is The Best Candidate With The Best Experience Of All The Candidates,What About That You Morons Don't Understand,Should We Take Your Word For Senator Clinton Not Having Foreign Policy Experience,Are Should We Take The People Who Has Worked For And With Her For 8 Years In The Whitehouse,And 7 Years In The Senate.For All You Biden Fans The Reason He's Not High Up In The Polls As Hilliary, Is Because He Has No Smarts,No Intelligence,Niether Does Dodd,And We Know Mr Obama Doesn't Have Anything But His Rhetoric,& Lies.This Is Biddens Second Time Around For President,Do You Ever Wonder Why He All Of A Sudden Pulled Out Of The Presidential Race,In 2004,Because He And The People He Employs Has No Common Sense,No Smarts,No Intelligence,Foreign Policy Is All He Knows,Just Like Obama,He's A Snake In Sheep Clothing,BTW It's Not Hilliary's Fault That Bidens Campaign People Run One Of The Sorriest Campaign In This Race,So Now We Should Give Him A Pass Because Mrs Clinton Has Run In My Opinion The Best Campaign Out Of Both Candidates.Oh Yeah Even If Mrs Clinton Said What You Private Investigators Insinuate She Said,,Is That All You Have,It Shows How Silly And Weak You People Who Support Obama,You Are A Bunch Of Thugs.This Race Isn't About What Were Said About Mr Musharaff,Has No Bearing Whatsoever,And None Of Them Are Perfect,To Include Senator Clinton.

The Clinton campaign's use of the word "vast" in reference to her foreign policy experience is a red flag (and ludicrous as well). "Vast" might apply to Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the experienced woman she portrays herself to be. Why people think making breakfast for Bill means she knows anything more than how he likes his eggs is just naive. She didn't even know what was going on under her nose at home with Bill and his MANY women "friends". So let's get real and find a true candidate... Like Biden or Dodd. D.

Just goes to show we need Biden now more than ever. Our national security is at stake, and so is the physical security of our children; the retirement security of our parents; the economic and health security of our families. Joe Biden will get us out of Iraq without leaving chaos behind. He'll fix health care now (by covering children and catastrophic) on the road to universal coverage. And perhaps most importantly, he'll end Bush’s assault on civil liberties. Caucus-goers have a unique opportunity and responsibility to help select a Democratic nominee capable of: beating Republicans in November; then leading this country through the difficult but promising decade ahead. He has my vote.

Wolfson,

We DO QUESTION Sen. Clinton's depth of knowledge and experience in foreign policy.

First we find out that she never held a security clearance during the 1990s when Bill was in the White House. The fact that Sen. Clinton didn't have a security clearance makes it very clear that she didn't have a foreign policy role beyond those duties relegated to a first lady.

And now we find out that Sen. Clinton doesn't have an understanding of Pakastani politics. Sen. Clinton very clearly referred to Pervez Musharraf as a "candidate." No matter which way you try to spin it, her words were recorded for playback.

So, we have to conclude that Sen. Clinton does not have any of the foreign policy experience she has been trying to convince us.

It appears that Senator Clinton may have more experience than Edwards and Obama, but NOT more than Senators Biden or Dodd, or Governor Richardson.

She got Iraq Wrong, and wants to go even further in the wrong direction by keeping a large number of troops on bases there.

She Got Iran wrong. REALLY wrong.

She go Lebanon wrong.

She flip flopped on Pakistan, first chiding Obama for suggesting that we should consider going after bin Laden in that countrys tribal region, then, after her vilification's and war mongering opportunities blew away like the dust they were made of after the inter-agency intelligence report correctly cast Iran as a non Nuclear nation that has not attacked another county for about 250 years, turning around and saying that Pakistan is the greatest threat we face today. Certainly, it will make for less exciting AIPAC speeches for her, because she used to really whip up the bloodlust
at those meetings when she could blather on about keeping "Noting off the table" when considering war agaisnt Iran, including Nuclear War.

Too bad for her, SO good for the rest of us normal people in the US and for Iran.

She sure as hell is not going to send her daughter to fight and die in the wars she would like to start.