I've asked this question several times in response to posts and so far no one has answered this very simple question: What is Clinton's experience. We seem to hear about it all the time, but what is it?

As far as I see it, there are several red flags when you look at Clinton's public life.

1. Health Care reform in '93. This is self-explanatory. She set back this cause by close to 2 decades because of her my-way-or-the-highway style. Has she changed since then? Doesn't seem that way judging by the way her campaign behaves.

2. Her Iraq vote. Sorry, but it was a terrible idea then and it was obvious. Almost half the Democratic senators voted against it. Why didn't she? That's pretty poor judgment in my book. Her recent needless saber rattling towards Iran suggests she hasn't learned a darn thing.

3. From 2001-2006 she was one of the preeminent faces of the Democratic party. Why did we never hear her forcefully standing up to GWB and the Republicans? This country was in dire need of fierce opposition to the ruling party. She was MIA. She only started to raise any opposition to GWB after the '06 elections when it became politically safe and convenient to do so. This doesn't seem like good leadership to me.

Can someone please give me some reason why I should ignore these 3 facts and support Clinton over Obama? If all you have is the "experience" argument, then tell me what experience she has that would recommend her?

Please, if someone tells me I swear I'll stop asking this question, but until I hear an answer that doesn't include "She's Bill Clinton's wife" I'm not buying it.

The same goes for Obama...neither democratic candidate has any credible experience that would justify ANYONE voting them into the most powerful position in America. Hilary's experience leans heavily on the fact that she was 'First Lady'. SO what? That just means she can give advice to the next first lady in office. And Barrack? He doesn't even vote when he sits in Congress. Sure, he casts a ballot - but for 'present'? What is that? To me, the man has too much hot air, alot of speech writers attempting to make him sound like another JFK or MLK, Jr...but the man himself has ABSOLUTELY NO OPINION of his own. We DO NOT NEED nor WANT another man in office that has to rely heavily on others opinions (can you say Bush and Cheney?) I'm not thrilled about McCain either, but at least the guy is his own man and has an opinion. He's not just a puppet being directed from the sidelines.

'If all you have is the "experience" argument, then tell me what experience she has that would recommend her?'

from what i've seen, she can write a damn fine crooked land deal contract.

besides, you're a democrat and since when did you affirmative action loving lib dems start giving a shit about experience anyway?

Ok, these responses notwithstanding, does anyone want to make a go at the question? Or should I assume it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, Obama is inexperienced, but I'm willing to take a shot with someone who just might be able to transform the political life in this country over someone like Clinton who is guaranteed to bring with her so much baggage that we're condemned to 4 more years of of partisan crap.

If Clinton's experience is so great that it overcomes her negatives, then let me know.

The Clintons always talk a good game. They've come to think that Bill's eight years gives them priority over all others. He kept his base because all lhe did was hand out to them and required nothing in return. That's politics. Hillary is trying to do the same thing. But unlike Bill, her past is to heavy to carry and people have finally wised up. When you speak with a forked tongue, the mouth finally becomes split. She has about as much experience to be president as she has in questioning General Petraeus as to the progress the military is making in Iraq. What does she know about the military? About as much as she knows about being president. John Dickerson hit on the head when he said she should look at her progress toward the presidency as much as she questioned the general on his progress. He should have used her on words and told her, that her progress in Congress is "a willing suspension of disbelief." But because she is a Congresslady, that makes her an expert on military matters.