There may not be anything "so bad" about her...he may just be a horndog.

And she may just understand that.

Nunna my bizness, at any rate.

QUOTE: why not just simply say that she's ok with his letchery and be done with it?

At the end of the day, the only thing that I think either of them should have had to say about it was, "OK...everyone who was up there taking our vows with us, feel free to chime in.  Everyone who wasn't...it doesn't concern you."

Totally agree, Todd. 

I'm with Todd once again. (This could be a record!) What goes on between a husband and a wife is their business, not anyone elses.

I'm an Obama man as well, but you can't honestly believe Hillary would just continue Bush Administration policy...can you?  That her administration would be indecipherable from the one that came before?

***********

SER: I can't speak for the original poster, but I'm inclined to agree on the fact that the partisan rancor would continue. I don't think that Obama is going to create a love fest necessarily with Republicans, but I'd rather not start with someone who is clearly reviled by Republicans.

For instance, if there was a managerial position in my team open, I'd actually probably choose the person with less experience but with less baggage. The candidate with lots of experience but with a history of rancorous, non-constructive battles with other departments would not inspire me.

Clinton often uses terms like "fighting" Republicans and so forth. That implies to me that she *hasn't* learned from the failure of health-care, which was less about brokering consensus and more about attacking those who disagreed.

I had my issues with President Clinton but he was very good about seeking consensus. I fear a Hillary Clinton administration would give us all of the negatives of the Clinton years and none of the positives.

I wish we could get John McCain from 2000 in the White House, and a Democrat-controlled (as in veto-proof) Congress.  Maybe then we could hammer out some substantial advances.

Back to reality - Obama: Too new to be obviously corrupt.  Would look good on a T-shirt, n'est-ce pas?

I'm an Obama man as well, but you can't honestly believe Hillary would just continue Bush Administration policy...can you?  That her administration would be indecipherable from the one that came before?

------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------

I think it'd be too darn close policy-wise, and way too close Unitary Executive-wise.  That's the ONE thing I loved about Ron Paul: he would have put baby back in the corner.

"She had it, so why shouldn't it count?"

----

Ok, so let's say it technically counts...still, it was through somewhat suspect means, since she was never elected by anyone to have that experience. Maybe she should have an (*) placed whenever she makes a comment about it.

**********

SER: Yes, I think that's my problem with stating that being someone's spouse qualifies as experience. My girlfriend is a lawyer. I don't think you want me defending you in court.

You choose your spouse for many reasons -- arguably ones that are very different from why you'd hire someone. You also don't *fire* your spouse for the reasons you fire an employee.

It's really amusing in some ways. Back in 92, when Hillary Clinton was attacked by Republicans, the response was, "Why are you attacking the candidate's wife?" And yet, in reality, that might have been fair game, since she is now running on her "co-presidency" experience.

OK, so she's met world leaders -- she's met them as the First Lady. Does that really count?

And her claimed experience is never questioned. Why isn't Obama or the media going after her more aggressively on *why* her first pass at health care failed?

It's stunning that she's really allowed to run as basically the vice president from a former administration without having to take any real heat for it.