The Clinton Temptation

Hilzoy has a must-read post. Money quote:

Many Democrats, myself included, believe that the Clintons were subjected to an unprecedented campaign of vilification during the 1990s. We are angry about this. Since I share this anger, it should go without saying that I find it completely comprehensible. But I don’t think that it would be a good idea for us to nominate a candidate who brings it out in us, especially not in an election that truly has the potential to reshape the political landscape.

Most obviously, when Hillary Clinton is attacked, it makes a lot of us angry all over again. And it seems to me that a lot of Democrats don’t just get angry in whatever way the current attack warrants. We have a lot of leftover anger from the 1990s, and it tends to spill out. I don’t think this is particularly useful if we want to win.

Clinton’s Phony Experience Argument

Tim Noah gets it:

Clinton’s claim to superior experience isn’t merely dishonest. It’s also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn’t be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That’s especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we’ll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn’t find a new theme soon, she won’t just be cutting Obama’s throat. She’ll also be cutting her own.