I think the fact that the Obama-Clinton “feud” is still in the news a week later is more because of the media’s preference for Hillary, rather than the idea that Obama’s comments were a big mistake. The NY Times and NBC in particular have been active in their support of Hillary a the presumed Democratic candidate. Obama’s comments were measured and well thought out. He did not guarantee the meeting with those leaders, but said he would consider it. Of course a million other things would have to be worked out first, Obama isn’t just going to invite them all over for a beer and let them have their way with the U.S. The Hillary campaign decided to make an issue out of a non-issue, and the media followed their lead like the lapdogs they usually are. Just another reason to vote for Obama- the media have cowered under the Bush administration, scared to write the tough stories, and are apparently willing to do the same with a presumed Hillary administration. How about some fairness in reporting?

Obama is actually gaining ground, especially in South Carolina and New Hampshire, as two polls suggest this week, and his recently announced plan for the war on terror will only push him further forward. Not to mention his consistent lead in fund raising, something Hillary still can’t figure out. Obama is not losing ground, and it’s annoying to have that sort of idea pass for “news.”

Your absolutely right, but it doesn’t matter–she’s the media’s candidate. And to a public grossly incapable of making informed independent decisions, they are the true ‘decider’.

You imply that Obama’s attributes are essentially aesthetic, whereas Clinton’s are more substantive and consequential. You refer to John Dickerson’s piece in Slate to back that up. “Given the proper qualities, temperament, and political savvy, the right candidate could overcome any prejudices based on gender and race. As recent events have shown, the voters are focusing on that one attribute that can be identified and quantified: experience.” Actually, Gender and Race may matter a lot. Hilary Clinton’s lead in many polls is exclusively among women. For example, if you look at the University of New Hampshire’s survey in their state, Obama and Clinton run about even among men. As for race, historically Democratic nominations come down to beer-track candidates vs. wine track candidates. Obama is a wine track candidate, however as Chuck Todd noted on Meet the Press, Obama’s race may enable him to succeed where other “candidates of the elites” have failed.
Secondly, you talk about the public as preferring Clinton. The data seems to indicate it’s Democrats who prefer her. Obama does as well if not better in head-to-head’s among Clinton. As for experience, it’s not readily apparent the public particularly values it. In three of the six times since 1960 in which the White House has changed parties, the less experienced candidate won(1976, 1992, 2000). The other three were roughly draws (1960, 1968, and 1980). There hasn’t been a single time since the 50s where the more experienced candidate lead to changes in party controls of the Presidency. That makes the idea that voters judge on one attribute that can be identified and quantified rather dubious. Secondly, experience is a very poor proxy for actual performance in the White House. There is no clear relationship between level of experience and level of success in the White House. You can see Ross Baker’s USA Today op-ed on this point. We’ve had incredibly experienced Presidents fare exceedingly poorly: Richard Nixon and James Buchanan. The “great” Presidents are not nearly the most impressive in their pre-White House CV’s. Abraham Lincoln’s experience was quite minimal. FDR and George Washington’s experiences were much more modest than those of other Presidents. In short, neither in the electoral nor historical record does experience have a stellar track record.

Dawn- no worries, glad to have the agreement! 🙂

Obama’s comment was not a gaffe. His stance is similar to that of Eisenhower in the 50s. I wonder why any comment Obama makes with which an author disagrees is immediately put down to “inexperience.” The same charge is being made in regard to his statement on sending troops to Pakistan.
Well, to answer my own question, it’s because that’s all his opponents have to use against him. As Steve points out, Obama actually has more experience than most of the candidates, and certainly more than the reporters and commentators.

I disagree with your comment about his experience. He has just as much experience as Edwards and Clinton. I am providing an article from MSNBC commenting on Experience. Hillary does not have more political experience than Obama. The article brings up a good point. Bill is the one that actually have experience not Hillary. If you are a CEO does that mean your wife qualifies your your job? The answer is NO.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010704/site/newsweek/
Both Clinton and Obama have called on foreign-policy heavyweights to educate them on the issues and help shape their approach to world affairs. But neither candidate would bring much in the way of hands-on foreign-policy experience to the Oval Office. Their efforts to promote their credentials can seem strained. Clinton’s aides point to her extensive travel to more than 80 countries as First Lady and her 1995 speech at a U.N. conference on women in Beijing. “She helped represent the United States abroad throughout the ’90s,” says Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director. “Obviously, that’s an important qualification. She went to China and gave a very famous and important address when she declared that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights. That electrified the world.” But these sanitized, ceremonial trips abroad are hardly preparation for the middle-of-the-night call from the Situation Room. After all, Laura Bush has also traveled extensively as First Lady, taking in 68 countries either with her husband or on her own. No one is saying she has the experience to be commander in chief.