I've said this all along. She does NOT get experiential credit for being the First Lady of the USA & Arkansas.

“Her rhetoric is not glitzy. It is clear and true.”
AKA, I wish she was better at giving speeches

And though we all wish she hadn’t voted to authorize force in Iraq, I even trust her reasoning, as her speech to the senate detailed her belief that President Bush would use the solidarity of that vote to achieve a diplomatic solution together with our allies and use force only as a last resort.
AKA, she was either naive then, wrong then, or lying now.

He has not paid his dues.
Huh? I wonder if she thought the same thing about Bill in 1992. Years of kissing up to Washington lobbyists and other power-brokers is not the kind of experience I want in a President.

Rather, that legitimacy should come from eight more years in the senate to mature his vision with some practical Washington know-how.
Hillary's candidacy would be laughable if she had not been the first lady. Maybe we should do this whole thing over and pick someone like Dodd or Biden if we're looking for experience and paid dues.

He hasn’t yet opened his heart.
Is this an example of being clear and true rhetorically?

I don’t trust him. I don’t trust that he has yet developed the moral integrity to wield the power of the presidency.
I'm looking for Clinton's moral integrity…

While I agree that the tone of the Joanne Blasko article was civil, her arguments were not persuasive at all.

She says that Hillary has paid her dues but Obama hasn't. How? Her 8 years of Federal experience equates to paying her dues while Obama's 4 years of Federal experience and 9 years of state legislative experience? Really?

She also apparently believes that Hillary will be stronger on reproductive issue. However they both receive almost identical marks from Planned Parenthood and NARAL. So why does she think this? Because Hillary is a woman?

She is certainly entitled to her own views and opinions and she can vote for whomever she wants for whatever reason she wants. But her reasoning wasn't compelling in any way.

Virtually every virtue she lists for Clinton can be listed for Obama as well, despite her arguments against doing so. One of the key items is that she listed Clinton's senate work as first-rate — and yet provided no evidence how it is so. There's no major piece of Clinton legislation that I'm aware of listed on the Clinton campaign web site, and this is the major way she's supposed to have federal level experience that Obama lacks. Oh, her career in the Senate is respectable; it's just not particularly astounding. No one can stand up and say, “can you imagine the Senate without Clinton?”

After that, her federal experience amounts to being in the White House. This does give her some experience with knowing the executive levers of power, which is a slight benefit (and a nice argument for incumbents for life). Otherwise, the White House experience could provide her with knowledge of politics, and yet, with Obama pulling ahead, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, of who knows politics.

When you leave the experience argument, Blasko's argument mostly reduces to not liking Obama's character and rhetoric. That's fine, but the case she builds is hardly overwhelming.

In the end, I think I will drop the guessing games about integrity and virtue since I know neither candidate and focus on policy. If Clinton's policies that I have not yet evaluated are substantially better than Obama's she could win my vote yet. Otherwise, Blasko and I will just have to make our own guesses about who to trust.

The woman is, what, 8 years old?