she has a transparently meaningless claim to 35 years of experience

This sounds odd. I haven’t been following recent candidate speeches. Should I, to understand this bit?

This is probably a good explanation of what I mean. I’m referring specifically to the fact that she spent fifteen of those years as a corporate lawyer and eight of those years as First Lady, an unelected position.

My assertion: she is not meaningfully advantaged over Obama when it comes to relevant experience, and I’m pleased that this talking point in the debate seems to be ever-so-slowly dying.

Also, those concerned about bipartisanship should really look at the Senate elections, since that’s where Democrats have been giving away the farm over the last year (which is the fault of neither Senators Clinton or Obama). We’re going to keep it regardless of who wins at the top of the ticket, but the margin really matters. Right now, Joe Lieberman has us by the [rather unjustifiably vulgar expression]. We lose the majority at that piece of crap’s whim. Right now, we are very likely to pick up three seats: Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado. But, Mary Landrieu’s got real trouble in LA, so that’s only a net pickup of two. Al Franken has finally pushed above Norm Coleman in Minnesota, but that state’s going to be close through the end. So maybe that’s three. Realistically, we have a chance in Oregon, where Smith is under 50, and after that things become tough. Are we going to beat Susan Collins in Maine, this time? Do we win the open seat in Nebraska? Does the corruption finally get to Ted Stevens?

There’re two points here. First, Obama’s got much longer coattails. He brings new people to the polls in red states and he brings independents who would otherwise go to McCain or sit out. Look at the polling by states here: McCain loses to Obama but beats Clinton, even in Minnesota and Virginia. Now, I don’t think those will be the numbers in November, but we need those two states to go blue with a big margin so that Franken and Warner can win. If Obama’s got the nomination, he brings MN, CO, and VA to the nigh-unbeatable category. (NH is probably already there; VA may already be.) But I think he opens up fronts in ME and NE that weren’t there before, especially given the record turn-outs those states experienced in their caucuses. Oregon probably gets a boost, too, though I’m less familiar with the challenger there, and suddenly you can’t rule out Alaska, what with Obama’s genuine ethics reform history and that state’s quirkiness. So, plus 5-7 is big news, getting us a hell of a lot closer to 60 than the two gimmes we’ve got in VA and NH that would come with Clinton anyway.

Second, even with a worst-case scenario net gain of two or even one in the Senate, that’s going to alter the meaning of bipartisanship significantly from what we’ve been used to over the last 14 years. We’re going to be in a much better position than we have been in a while, finally being able to say good riddance to Lieberman, and negotiating from a position of relative strength if we control all three branches. Now, I have no illusions—McConnell will continue to filibuster everything he can get his hands on. But without the veto threat, his position becomes weaker. And then you really just have to call his bluff: let him talk everything to a standstill. With the White House, we can frame that pretty well for the obstructionism that it is, especially if we choose to stand on things that the majority of the country agrees on (like getting out of Iraq within a year). This redefinition of bipartisanship doesn’t explicitly cut in Obama’s favor: the same situation would face Clinton, too. But, it does mean that we won’t have to give away the farm like we have over the last 14 years on major things, so Obama’s talk about bipartisanship isn’t nearly as dangerous as some people fear.

hb: is there good reason to suspect that those independents and moderate republicans lured over by obama would vote for democrats in congressional races, though?

Sure, that’s always a concern, since ticket-splitters do exist. But I think that the desire for change (often mocked, nonetheless genuine) will keep most of those “new” voters on the Democratic line for the down-ticket races. Certainly that will be a factor in the races with Republican incumbents—OR, NH, MN, AK, and ME—and I think it will hold true in the open races as well. Plus, with Obama running strong in those states and across the country, there’ll be plenty of opportunity to tie him and the Senate candidates together.

Bush has an approval rating of 19 percent. There are a lot of people out there who can’t stand the direction of the country. When you bring those people out, you help all those who clearly define themselves as opposing Bush; having a D next to one’s name helps with that a lot.

(Incidentally, scratch what I said about NE. I think that’s probably out of reach at the moment.)

Thanks for the link, Nate.