I'm going to have to agree with Grump on this one. She doesn't have any experience, even when compared to Obama (and when compared to McCain -- this election will come down to experience vs. change).
You can count her First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady experience of, what, 18-20 total years -- but that's the equivalent of thinking that Queen Elizabeth is a policy expert. Being First Lady does not make you qualifed to be President. While she was being a figurehead for the Clinton Administration, Obama was organizing in Chicago...now that may be "small" but as a fellow organizer, at least it is actual hands-on work.
I've personally talked to thousands of people as an organizer, so when she "dismisses" that experience, she is pretty much crapping on how Democrats run campaigns. We do grassroots work, and there are thousands of us who are the equivalent of the foot soldiers of politics.
Maybe he is sexist, but the thing is this: The only people I hear crying the "sexist" charge are other women who are supporting Clinton for no other reason than she's a woman -- which is shallow, sexist, and downright insulting.
In total, she has 2 years more elected experience in the Senate than Obama...and when you include his work in the Statehouse of Illinois, he has more experience total.
As far as debating goes, Democrats have debated 18 times already. We know their positions. We know their personalities. She just wants more free face time, and she thinks she can hurt him in a televised debate. There is no actual substantive reason for them to debate more....the last 3-4 times they've debated have been uber-repetitive anyway (if you've watched any of the others). If you haven't watched the others, then you aren't going to make an informed decision by just watching one debate anyway.
The Dark Horse
www.projectdarkhorse.org
