I agree with you that the math based on the current progression does not favor Hillary at all. However, shit can happen. Obama could implode from a variety of unforseen, implausable reasons; Hillary could backstab him and bleed him out (legal in realpolitik space); the superdelegates could for whatever reason decide it's in their own best interests (and maybe in the best interests of democrats) to vote for Hillary.

I also think that Hillary is starting to figure stuff out and grow as a candidate. I know a lot of Hillary advocates like to think she sprung from the head of Zeus ready on day one, but this is her first national campaign. If she can continue to travel around the country on somebody else's dime and solidify her national reputation, why not? Worked for Huckabee.

Also, 4/15, when she says she'll release them, is prior to the next real primary

What's with you guys? Voters in Wyoming, Mississippi, and of course American Samoa don't count?

I'm interesting in quantifying Hillary's time as First Lady. I don't see asking such information as an attack, particularly since she hasn't already framed it for me. I think there's a wide variation in the activities of historical First Ladies, just like the variation in what vice presidents have done. Did she really do work equivalent to someone like the secretary of defense, or the secretary of state, or was it more ambassadorial like dining with the King of Sweden? All important work, but all very different. If she's the one to go up against McCain you can bet she'll be forced to fill in the blanks. Better to go on offense here then defense.

Hey doc5467,

Thanks for the reply. I am trying to engage in conversation, not spam. Bummer about that Adlai letter; I was looking forward to it. Hate when they close the threads like that, Maybe you can sneak in an OT post. It probably won't be noticed. Sometimes I compose posts in another texteditor so that my browser doesn't eat them when Salon hangs. I do think history is rhyming in a sort of way, back then we had HUAC and the red terror, now it's muslims. Trying to turn into an armchair historian here. LBJ was real piece of work, I'm not sure if Hillary would want to be considered an re-incarnation of him, But we're so 5 minutes ago with our sense of history. Yes, LBJ did get things done. And Texas oil owned a big piece of his ass.

As far as the tax thing goes, here's what I think/predict: 1) There's nothing really there there. 2) It shows Bill making big bucks (well not really big bucks in the grand scheme of things; semi-big bucks) which will be salaciously told by the media. It might alienate a few of Hillary's core under $50K/year voters when they find out that Bill can make more in one speech in the UAE then they can make in 9 years (pre tax of course). Doesn't really bother me. I kinda feel sorry for Bill. Helluva thing being an ex-president; an ex most powerful man in the world. I think George Carlin had the joke about Nixon walking down the beach in San Clemente with his metal detector looking for coins.

Finally, I agree there's a ton of crap in the First Lady records that is probably useless to you and me and of value only to future historians. That's why I want her to filter out the major bits, as mentioned in my prior post. I think one of her major problems in this campaign is lack of initiative in framing the issues. She could've framed NAFTA a lot better upfront: We passed it, 10 years went by, It's working in some places, not others; as Senator I'm fixing it in NY; as president, I'll fix it everywhere.

The difference between 1992 and now is that it is her campaign, not Bills. I'm assuming that she's in the drivers seat now as opposed to then and gets to make the final call. Many people can sit upfront, but only one can drive. Big Leadership difference to me. People are voting/not voting for her, not Bill.

Looking at some of the other posts, I'd thought I would try this from another angle.

Hillary has told me she has lot's of Foreign Policy (FP) experience and is ready to be Commmander In Chief (CinC) on day one. So I think it is natural for a rational voter to determine the basis for those claims. I also think the burden of deciphering her career should be on Hillary, not on me. She should just sell me the juicy bits and leave behind the dross.

As I have admitted in other posts, I think the last presidential candidate ready to be CinC on day one was Eisenhower. He knew and understood the generals, military politics and the application and use of force. Just as important, if not more so, he understood it's limitations, a big advantage over our current crop of chickenhawks. He'd actually done it near the highest level, and he was good at it. In post-modern parlance, "The dude commanded f'cking armies!. One could argue that Bush 41 was ready day one and McCain might come close, but that's another post.

So that's my benchmark on ready to be CinC. When I think of recent candidates with a lot of FP experience, I think of Dodd, Biden or even Richardson.

So I think it entirely fair to ask if Hillary is basing her FP and CinC experience entirely on her Senate career, or if she is also tossing in bits of experience when she was First Lady. She has given me the impression that it is the latter.

I think that's entirely possible that value was acquired, but she has to do more than just say, "I learned tons of stuff when I was First Lady"