is simple. They've known her name longer than they've known the name of any other candidate. From there to "experience" is not a large cognitive leap.

What I don't understand is why Edwards and Obama are letting her get away with it. They prefer to concede the point and then contrast themselves as wiser "outsiders". There's a logic to that, but surely it would be even better to tear to pieces the very foundation on which Clinton's candidacy rests (apart from "I'm female").

Well said. I would add, that many people have not reseached the issue. They are believing her at face value. Maybe the tv news media will pick up this point also; so far her experience exaggeration has only been covered by print.

Maybe they're just waiting to strike at the last possible moment. Do it right before Super Tuesday to be effective with the short attention span voters too.

Noah's article is spot on. But to the question of why Obama in particular isn't dealing with it--her experience in national policy is chiefly behind the scenes, unverifiable and second hand-- but he can't really brand it as such without devaluing feminine experience. She is having it both ways. Fortunately the press is starting to call this act what it is-- 'the Clintons'; maybe people will wise up.

This hydra is probably the reason that we don't have Al Gore running, unfortunately.