Hillary Clinton for sure has some unique experience that none of the other candidates can bring to the table BUT it's a far sight short of being 'the face of foreign policy'.  How so many people can be falling for that bullshit is amazing.  How she can keep blathering about it with a straight face is even more amazing.

She hasn't had some level of experience that supports a run based on that purported experience.  She - like Obama - has to be able to point to specific examples of her sound foreign policy judgment and be very specific about how she would handle some current situations.  I have to be honest:  her AUMF and K-L votes, combined with her using the Pakistan/Al Queda intervention question as an opportunity to score disingenuous political points rather than to actually discuss how she would handle this kind of situation do not combine to give me a lot of comfort.  I think a lot of people feel she should win because she has this "experience," and it will hurt her to the extent that that bubble is burst.

That's far more than Biden or Dodd. Don't tell me you don't believe her.

I don't like her, but I think she is qualified to be president. However, this co-president notion they're trying to sell is absurd and I'm glad someone has taken on the debunking of it.  Obama is on level field with her on experience and if you want a real foreign policy expert, vote for Biden or Richardson.

Or wait for my diary on Edwards having the right right kind of experience. :-)

Especially when after all this claimed experience not only as the "second president" but as a senator who voted for war not once a, after it was seen as gross manipulation, but twice. Experience is only a valid plus if one has learned from it. She has shown no indication she has learned anything from her experience in the Senate and the inverse is true in the WH.

She pushed a health plan in 1993. She experienced a determined opposition. Instead of recalibrating and going at it again. She gave up entirely and then went on to accept a fair sum of money from the people that financed the opposition of a plan that is apparent to anyone who has to pay for health insurance and isn't rich is something we needed to start the debate on 14 years ago - as she did- and finish it with a plan- not give up - as she did.

One could write off 1993 as inexperience. But try to explain the next 14 years to me. Where has she learned from her experience to the benefit of constituents not to her or husbands benefit?

The NYT did a fair to middling job and I hope it helps the other candidates completely obliterate any vestiges of the inevitability of her nomination. Let her run on her own record like the other candidates did.

Presidential Politics should never be a family business. If we allow it to be , we've learned nothing from our collective experience. Then we deserve everything we aren't going to get.