<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Quote For The Day&nbsp;II]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>&quot;She hasn&#8217;t accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law. She isn’t Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that,&quot; &#8211; <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=1&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin">Joan Di Cola</a>, a Boston lawyer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal this week, cited by MoDo in a must-read column this morning. </p>
<p>I love this classic Dowd summary of Clinton&#8217;s &quot;experience&quot; in foreign policy:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>She went on some first lady jaunts and made a good speech at a U.N. women’s conference in Beijing. But she was certainly not, as her top Iowa supporter, former governor Tom Vilsack claimed yesterday on MSNBC, “the face of the administration in foreign affairs.”</p>
<p>She was a top adviser who had a Nixonian bent for secrecy and a knack for hard-core politicking. But if running a great war room qualified you for president, Carville and Stephanopoulos would be leading the pack.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Finally, I hope, voters will get to see past the flim-flam being thrown in their faces by the Clinton machine.</p>
]]></html></oembed>