Hillary keeps taking credit for the good things that happened during the Clinton years. If she's so experienced, then where was she during Rwanda? Where was she in Somali? where was she on Iraq? And if this is about experience, then I should vote for McCain because he has more experienced.

Since its true it is a fair answer. It is also a different perspective (Judgement) and I can respect that. Having said that he cannot continue to say that his speech against the war qualifies him to be President. I was also against the war. Micheal Moore probably gave no shortage of speeches against the war. His "Judgement" position needs to be about more.

Between a strong candidate who can actually beat McCain while talking security issues (Hillary) and a weaker candidate who can't (Obama). Sorry, but he really screwed up on this. This just shows why he couldn't seal the deal last night... We're still looking for a strong nominee who can win.

no he can't, is his campaign message.  What a wonderful commercial he just made for the Republicans in the fall.

The national security argument seems to be Obama's achilles heel along with the inexperience. His response to the 3 a.m. ad was very weak.

He's giving McCain a roadmap to win the WH with his statements. All McCain has to do is keep arguing national security and he wins if Obama is the nominee.

I seem to remember yesterday that it was the END OF THE WORLD when Hillary questioned Obama's experience on national security.

This much I know: whether you think Hillary's attacks on national security issues are fair or unfair, reality is that if Obama can't even deflect a rather mild ad ("something's happening in the world") from Hillary Frickin' Clinton in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, he would have no chance amongst the general electorate when the Republicans go full-bore "elect Obama and the terrorists will kill us all."

My opinion is that Obama came across far better when he was directly taking on the premises of the 3am ad ("I have the judgment to handle a crisis") than when his surrogates were whining about the terrible, terrible fearmongering.  Be that as it may, he needs to figure out how to handle the issue or the Democratic Party can't afford to nominate him.

Actually he said "none of us" have been in that situation.

I didn't think it was a particularly effective answer, but it wasn't quite as bad as the misquoting in the diary (because it also implied that McCain hadn't been in that situation).

Of course, the flip side is that while Hillary may not have answered that call, she was lying in bed with the person who answered it for 8 years and presumably they talked about what was going, so she did learn a lot from being there.

Wow!  that Obama comment will make a great ad for McCain.
As well as Obama's "Harry and Louise" ad and attack on universal health care.

Obama's scorched earth tactics against Dem values and the base are a big negative for me.  He's attacked and mocked UHC, trial lawyers, called unions "special interests" - all in an effort to knock out Dem opponents and attract Repubs and Indys who MAY not vote for him in Nov.

Are you freakin' kidding me?!!?  Link? Please God, let there be a link.

It will be short and sweet.  And devastating.

Words do count!

imperative for the superdelegates to NOT endorse prematurely.

"Neither of us do?"

If this quote is accurate (I have to see the YouTube to believe, in this day and age), then that's just about the stupidest thing he could say.

He says he's not ... and then turns around and says that the other plausible Democratic candidate isn't either.

Our wunderkind bridge-builder is forgetting that you can't obliterate one side of the chasm and then expect to build the bridge.

The least effective positioning that we've been hearing last night and this morning from the Obama campaign is the "MATH" arguement.

"It's the MATH, no way she can win."

First, it is not true. With MI and FL back in the mix, there are plenty of delegates left.

Second, it looks weak and desperate, like the kid who tries to take the ball and go home after the 3rd quarter.

OOOPS  lol

I can't wait to hear the WORM(What Obama Really Meant) to explain this latest manifestation of his hot air campaign.

The Audacity of Hype

please post the clip because I have to see it with my own eyes to believe a major candidate could be that dumb.  

My understanding is Clinton's "3AM" ad took a pounding from the infotainment news and while the rank and file voters thought it over the top the message was still embedded.  Personally I thought his response ad stank of desperate reactiveness, like he was just hit in a big nerve.  

I just saw the video.  This diary is incorrect.  It is here, find the video entitled Obama unfazed by results.  Start at 3:36:

Q: Well let me ask you, what specific experience do you have in handling a crisis that would make you the better person to field that 3 a.m. phone call?

A: Well, and that's the point, nobody does, because nobody's been in that situation unless they've been President. The question then becomes who's got the kind of judgment on these critical issues that shows some evidence that you can in fact understand how the world is operating and when we have to deal with issues in a military way, and on question like Iraq, on questions like Pakistan and Iran, I think that the judgment I've shown over the last several, several years has been superior to both Senator Clinton's and to Senator McCain's.  And if longevity is the measure by which we determine who's got the best experience to answer that phone call, then John McCain wins because he's been there the longest.

Q: She ...

A: But that's not the criteria. The question is who's got the best judgment, and I think that my record looks pretty good compared to theirs.

Hillary was asked the same question.  Look for the video entitled Making a Comeback, at 3:53:

Q:  Can you tell us what specific experience in handling a crisis that you can point to that would make you better equipped to handle that White House phone at 3 a.m.?

A:  Well, of coures, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience.  Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002.  You know, I was involved for fifteen years in, you know, foreign policy and security policy.  you know, I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.  I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safey from Kosovo.  I've been standing up against the Chinese Government over women's and standing up for human rights in many different places.  I served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I was the only Senator, of either party, asked to be on an important task force put together by the Pentagon under this Administration to figure out what to do with our military going forward.  I have so much exerience.  I have experience traveling to more than 80 countries representing the United States, sitting down with Presidents and Prime Ministers and Kings, having the chance to represent our coutnry in some very dificult situations.  I'm offering a lifetime of experience and I think that's a sharp contrast to my opponent's offer.

I just saw the video and he was horrible. He will lose this arguement, badly. She has been in the whitehouse when those calls come in and has been there as a soundng board and confidant of the president making those decisions. I don't even think McCain would question that.

Obama has nothing but to keep going back to his speech in 2002. People are going to get tired of hearing, "I told you so." He needs to come up with more than that.

He looked like the rookie he is in that video.

All OH & TX dems have done is help John McCain.  Hillary Clinton will never be president. It going to either be President Obama or President McCain.  All OH & TX did is make it more likely to be the latter.  dummies

Speaking of dummies: simply reiterating Senator Obama's middle name (even in CAPITAL LETTERS), like a freakin' retard, isn't going to defeat him, and isn't even relevant to this debate. Get over it.

As an Obama supporter, I hope Clinton keeps pushing the "experience" line in an election that is obviously about "change."  Hillary was miles ahead in TX and OH and still ended up gaining only about a dozen delegates.  

It's still an uphill climb for Hillary.  The only way she can win is to destroy the party.

(deep scary voice) When Barack Obama was asked if he had the experience to answer the White House phone in a time of crises he answered:

(roll video) Well, and that's the point, nobody does

(voice again) Hillary Clinton does. Hillary Clinton was involved for fifteen years inforeign policy and security policy. Hillary Clinton helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland. Hillary Clinton negotiated open borders to fleeing refugees from Kosovo. Hillary Clinton stood up against the Chinese Government over women's rights and human rights. She served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and was the only Senator, of either party, asked to work with the Pentagon to plan the future of our military. Hillary Clinton has met with Presidents and Prime Ministers and Kings. Hillary Clinton, a lifetime of experience.

LOL! Good job, Barry. Not the smoothest answer ever. Way to take Hillary down with you, though!

It's not going to be about what I think or what anyone hear thinks about their qualification, the Iraq Resolution, who's responsible for what and who's can or cannot vote for who.

It's going to come down to what the majority of the American people think.  And the vast majority of the American people supported the Iraq war in 2002, think it was conducted badly, blame Bush and Cheney for it and want us out in the safest fastest way possible.

Regardless of the personal feelings of Kossacks and ardent "she voted for war" Obama supporters, that tack is not going to gain an ounce of traction with voters who have more pressing concerns like who is the best equipped person to get us out.

Obama's "I was right once five years ago" line has lost all it's steam with the general electorate as people focus in on what needs to happen now.  They righfully blame Bush for the conduct of the war and getting us into it in the first place, not the senators who stood behind him when he had a 70% approval rating and the entire country was snookered.  

Oh, wow.  Clinton was wrong about Bush in 2002.  She has an assload of company.