Thisin that

An interesting post by Devilstower on Kos. The difference between the Bush getting there because of his father and Hillary getting where she is because of her husband:

This is an comparison that's unfair in the extreme. George W. Bush loafed through life and depended on his name and family connections to get him out of trouble. Most importantly, G. H. W. Bush owes not one moment of his career to the help of his son.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton was on her own a capable, high-powered lawyer with nearly unlimited potential. She chose to partner herself with her husband, and worked with him to raise his profile and possibilities. Would those "she wouldn't be senator" folks be as comfortable if this was turned on its head: Bill Clinton would never have been president without a wife named Hillary. Would someone else have been so competent and supportive in fighting back against the scandals that plagued Bill's career long before he reached the White House? Would someone else have made the connections, raised the money, and been as effective in forging the coalitions that brought Bill up the political ladder?

Hillary Clinton is not a guileless bystander who has stood by and enjoyed the windfall of her husband's good name. Like her or hate her, she has forged her own identity working as his partner. He said it. She said it. We all saw it.

Senator Kennedy on Meet the Press talking about her run.


Senator Clinton interviewed by Katie Couric. I'm glad to see her talking about health care and to see she's talking about what she's learned.