The latest phony salvo in the Hillary camp's claims about experience comes from Bill, who described Obama as less experienced than he was in 1992:
Former President Bill Clinton said he was far more experienced when he made his successful 1992 White House run than Senator Barack Obama is today.
"There is a difference," Clinton said in an interview with Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt" that will air this weekend. "I was the senior governor in America. I had been head of any number of national organizations that were related to the major issue of the day, which is how to restore America's economic strength."
But as I've pointed out many times, Obama and Hillary are equally inexperienced. Clinton's criticism applies just as forcefully to her.
Here's former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich making a similar point:
[I]t strikes me as unfair to claim that Obama lacks relevant experience for the presidency. When he ran in 1992, Bill Clinton had been the governor of a small, rural southern state; as such, he had only limited experience with national issues and no foreign policy experience to speak of. Incidentally, at this point in the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton has served as an elected official in the U.S. Senate for not quite eight years, and before that a First Lady in the White House. Obama has so far held elective office for almost twelve years, at both levels of government – first as an Illinois state senator and then as a U.S. Senator. Before that he was a community organizer among Chicago’s poor, and then a civil rights lawyer – two experiences that in my view are critically relevant to anyone seeking to become president of all Americans.
Comments