Who can explain Obama? No experience, no direction, no sense of how to move anyone except to make speeches. Good rhetorician, bad candidate and a worse president. In his three short years as Senator, most of his time has been spent running for president. The committee he chairs has never even met according to my information. He certainly has no accomplishments to claim, just pretty words. Sort of like a snake oil salesman.

Posted by: Tom | Jan 29, 2008 11:22:29 AM

Well, he'd make a lot better president than Brand Clinton who'll say anything to get back into power.
Everything about them is FAKE. Their marriage, their views. I care about gay rights? OK DOMA, anyone?

I wonder how first lady Bill will occupy his time? Cruising interns?

Posted by: BJ Murphy | Jan 29, 2008 11:26:16 AM

Dear David,
No offense to you is intended from the following comments. I have very much enjoyed your site these months. Nevertheless,the reference made by Caroline Kennedy to the influence her children had on her coming around to endorsing Obama made me think of a troubling episode in her uncle's past where he was somewhat less than caring and forthright about someone else's child. That individual would be Mary Jo Kopechne, the only child of Joseph and Gwen Kopechne. Teddy Kennedy may have become "the lion of the Senate" and a great raconteur, but his actions which caused the death of the young woman and his part in the attempt to wash the whole thing have left him with, in my opinion, a black eye. He has never lost the stigma of this tragedy. The Kennedy endorsement of more value and worth is that of RFK Jr. Here's a real lion : of the environment. As to the Obama v. Clinton battle, these are awfully troubling times brought on by Bush and I am starting to think that, despite the oodles of charisma and oratorical skills of Obama, the country may need the ruthlessness, experience and survivor skill of Clinton. Maybe even two Clintons. (That veep will really only have to attend funerals) Just thinking. All the best.

Posted by: Brian | Jan 29, 2008 6:51:58 PM

Kennedy's endoresement will hurt Obama in the general election if he becomes the nominee. The Republicans will just say he is an extreme liberal like Sen. Kennedy.
In the long run, Kennedy's endorsement of Obama may help Hillary get elected.

Posted by: bob | Jan 29, 2008 7:19:53 PM

The committee referred to by my good friend Tom in the first post is the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe.

At the same time, I'm trying to recall Bill Clinton's foreign affairs experience at the time of his initial candidacy.

Posted by: Joel | Jan 30, 2008 6:46:00 PM

I can understand that a Governor, like Clinton, may have only had international experience in the trade area but for a Senator to have pushed for the chairmanship and then to have done nothing with it is very telling I think. And not in a positive way.

Posted by: tom | Jan 31, 2008 9:46:28 AM

I appreciate what Tom is saying, I really do (esp. as an old Hill veteran who handled Foreign Affs. on the House side, and values committees). At the same time, I simply wish that all Democrats-whatever their opinion of either Obama or Clinton may be-acknowledge the underlying shifts that are represented in Obama's advances. Slamming him gets us nowhere, as the verdict on Billary's attacks should demonstrate. Even if you are one of the people who think Obama's simply a man upon whom a shift is being projected, that shift matters. Rasmussen this morning has Obama within three points of Clinton in CA. Committee hearings notwithstanding, respect and attention and action should be focused on the emerging shift in the landscape. The Rasmussen numbers:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_democratic_presidential_primary

Posted by: Joel | Jan 31, 2008 10:46:42 AM