This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

the only person it harms in the general is Obama.

Because he is weak on national security.

Oh come on.  

If you cared in away about the future of the race, (or indeed, the future of the country), you'd start asking the Clinton campaign to at least join Obama in piling on when McCain flubs on his national security credentials.

Those of us with loved ones stationed in Iraq are concerned about the on-going plan of the Clinton campaign to glorify the McCain/Bush credibility on national defense at the expense of the democratic chances in November.

It is all about the horse race for many who have no loved ones at stake in Iraq right now.
Please look at the larger picture and what a continuation of the WAR party in power.

No, it is not worth it. At least not to my wife,my daughter and I as we wait anxiously for my son to return homw intact in March of 09. He and his unit have been stop-lossed already and have had their stint in the army extended from Sept of 07 to now june of 09 already. With McCain/Bush in the White House..they may get stop-lossed again. 4 years has already turned into almost 6 years for his unit. Not the deal they signed up for.

This type of rhetoric is incredibly troubling.  It's one thing to say that Clinton arguably has more national security experience than Obama.  It's another thing entirely to say that a fellow Democrat (and likely nominee) doesn't stack up to the Republican nominee.

With this, and previous comments, Hillary is giving Republicans ammunition to use against either Democratic candidate this November.

Clinton probably is laying low so that McCain remains focused on Obama.  That way, she and McCain can attack Obama simultaneously.  Of course, this is yet another short-term strategy that may backfire in the general election, if voters believe that McCain is the most experienced and most qualified candidate to be president.

Why - because big Bill has already collected $$$$$ - up to 1/2 a BILLION DOLLARS - for Favors.

His life is on the line if they don't get the Presidency and he can't deliver.

This is another example of why I went from 55/45 Bo/Hrc to 90/10 Bo/Hrc.

It's one thing to claim Hillary is better than Barak, and it's another to build up McSame at the same time.

The first I may disagree with, but the second really pisses me off.

Are the Clintons Democrats or not?  If they are, they better start acting like one.

To an extent, I think the answer is yes, even if it is indirectly.  I think, and this is just my opinion, that there is lockstep and a gang mentality occurring on issues of foreign policy for Democrats, and to that extent, I am worried.  To the extent that a strong Democratic foreign policy hasn't been in place for decades, even in the Clinton era, I am worried.  For the lack of dialogue amongst the bulk of our party, I am worried.  The foundation for creating a strong Democratic foreign policy is in place at this time if we take advantage of it.

I don't know.  I find this is the right mix and time for strong policies to be developed, and sold, to the country, and yet, I am worried that we are reverting to our own patterns.  As much as we preach about the future, we too often are focused on what is in the now, which is inherent for all people.  I worry that the failure to take advantage of such an opportunity, an opportunity to leave a policy imprint on the future, is one that we might rue, even if we end up winning the election this year.

By no means am I saying that they are right in making such comments.  In many respects, tis a game at the very end.  Obama has gamed many aspects of the process, as have the Clintons.  Politics is what it is, and the ability for people to change politics is far less than politics to change people due to, well, human nature.

But to the extent that it forces us to talk, even in such limited formats as this blog, as kos, as other places, the foundations of true policy, rather than reactionary policy, might be something that's developed, and to that extent, I say, yes, it is worth it.

one of the many reason of clinton camp doing grave harm not only to Obama but the democrats in general. Her overriding ambition doesn't care what the cost is and why I have little faith in her working for the betterment of the american people

Did anyone here actually SEE or READ her amazing policy speech on on Iraq on Monday?  I doubt it, so here it is:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15742/cli ntons_speech_on_iraq_march_2008.html

You know what's scary about this post. It's that the partisans on both side took that as a chance to talk about Clinton v. Obama. They really won't get it until we wake up in Jan 2009 with Pres. McCain. This isn't about Clinton or Obama.

Always good to see a little bit of sanity show up on the MyDD front page from time to time.

It doesn't send out a very good message when the Dem candidates, who are in the midst of a battle, can't even temporarily unite to remind voters that McCain hasn't a clue.  It's important to still reinforce this to the public.  McCain made a huge gaffe yesterday, it should've been automatic that both candidates call him on it, since he claim to fame is national security.  It was beyond embarrassing to see Lieberman feed him correctional lines.

Opps did not see the link....my error

It will not harm Obama.

He will be able to say he defeated Clinton and that National Security was at issue in the Democratic nomination process.

Obama is fighting a two front war against two opponents who are obviously allied. It should be evident to all that a vote for Clinton is a vote for a continuation of everything that has happened in the past seven years.

This is an important diary. And I should add that if you all are interested in Hillary winning the primary OR the GE, you may want to pay a little attention to this undercurrent.

It began at 3am and continues today. Hillary has been consistently endorsing McCain over Obama.

Passion, koolaid, etc. will allow bloggers to say many things about their respective candidates, but the superdelegates are watching with an entirely different perspective.

Most would agree that the supers are an important part of HRC's nomination...and they are watching this (Hillary/McCain vs. Obama) closely.

Just saying.

see reality... I think personally Hillary should stick to the Economy issue, she does well there... but N.S is also important in the fall.

Terribly short sighted comments on Clinton's part.  Unfortunately, not the first.  There was that whole "commander-in-chief threshold" nonsense.  Bad for Dems across the board IMO.

"We live in dangerous times where both precipitous action and inexperience can be dangerous.  Sen. McCain wants to stay in Iraq and extend the war to Iran.  Sen. Obama, while better, lacks the experience to best lead this country at this time".

I assume in Sept-Nov she will want to argue she is better than McCain on national security.  I suggest she starts now, if only so he can't throw back in her face these glowing comments from the primary.

Jonathan: Where have you been the last few weeks as this place has sunk into the reactionary swamp? Your last few diaries have been so well reasoned and thought out that I hardly believe I am reading mydd right now. Thanks for lending some sanity to this place now that jerome seems to have completely lost his ability to think independently.

While I am troubled by the angle Clinton has taken on this issue, the fact is that it is her least bad argument on national security in the primary.  She can't attack McCain without exposing that her differences with McCain are in degree, not in kind.

It's one of the main reasons I don't support her campaign, and it is her Achilles heal with respect to McCain.

You Obama supporters are ate up.  Get a grip.  Obama has no foreign policy.  None.  He gives speeches, but has he done anything?  I mean anything at all?  NO.  Hillary has already presented a well thought out plan, but Obama has only his pretend position which his adviser said he wouldn't even honor, so you forgot the is still the primary.  Contrary to your repeated often claim that this race is over and Obama is the winner, he has not yet won, and it may be possible that he does not.  I know the threats, but still he has not yet won, so until a winner is actually chosen instead of this constant claim that he has already won when clearly there are still votes to be cast, its ridiculous.  Obama needs to concentrate on the contest before him before he looks to the following one, because that is a sure fire way to not get to the next one.

Bill Clinton knows that this contest, the primary is not yet over.  Clinton is trying to win the primary.  for all those who haven't drank the Obama coolaid, there is a war on.  No one without some foreign policy gravitas will ever win the WH.  now you can scream all you want to about how Clinton is damaging Obama but really that sounds like children squabbling.  This fall the person that has some ability to stand up to these militery and foreign policy issues is the one that will go to the WH.  

Right now, Obama has nothing in his bag of tricks but this stuff.  Clinton has every right to point out that Obama IS ill equipped to face anyone on the foreign policy front.  The very fact that Obama says he will sit down with dictators without preconditions, is a killer for the national election.  His insistence that America has committed the biggest foreign policy blunder is not a seller for the general election.  Who wants a president that says that America was wrong.  that position could open America up to the international court for charges if the president of the United States were to claim that the US was wrong.  We cannot have someone who blames America first.  It will not sell.  

Clinton is trying to prevent the democratic party from going down the tubes this fall.  If Obama succeeds in taking this nomination, the democrats haven't got a prayer on the foreign policy front.  They just don't. America will never elect such a man with these positions.  You live in lala land if you think that.  Children are always so full of idealism, and there are always those who deplore war and want it ended.  Well if you really want the war ended then you should be supporting Senator Clinton because she has the most detailed and doable plan to actually succeed in getting our beloved troops home.  

Obama is not going to ever be president with the policies he has articulated so far.  It is really no wonder that his foreign policy is so far left its left the whole middle of this  country out and it will never sell to most Americans.  Yes, American want out of Iraq, but with honor, not with saying that we were wrong, oops, so sorry, we were wrong to have destroyed your country, lets just leave.  

How can Obama justify being the president with this kind of approach?  Now he says he wants to unite the country, but with his foreign policy advisers being those same internationalists like Zeburisky(sp) who was associated with Carter.  These guys believe in the big D-democratic ideal of internationality, with the idea that America is the international glue and the world's economic and military watch dog, they want more international interventions, they expect more in terms of American obligations in Africa and the middle east, they want America to forge pacts with others in an attempt at global world government.

 They are internationalists in the biggest way.  These far left advisers have every intention of getting America involved big time in these policies world wide.  this has always been their goal.  They want to strengthen the U.N. and tie America into these global commitments.  Now I am for negotiations, yes, but I much prefer a more middle course, somewhere between the extremism on the right and extremism on the left.  

how about you post the whole speech by Bill Clinton to give it context instead of clipping out one sentence?

From NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli
BETHLEHEM, PA -- Bill Clinton told voters in Northeastern Pennsylvania today that his wife is the only Democratic candidate "who can stack up against Sen. McCain on the national security issues," and that a victory in this state could pave the way to her winning the nomination.

Also, on the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, he also faced off with a heckler who claimed he had "gutted" the military as president.

Clinton was actually talking about an area where he said his wife is more conservative than President Bush -- the budget -- and he cited his own policies in his Administration. "It is true that when I was president we had four surpluses in a row for the first time in 70 years," he said.

At that point, a man in the back of the room began shouting out at the former president, saying he "gutted the military" in office, and "showed disgust for the military. The crowd quickly drowned him out with boos, as Clinton offered a tongue-in-cheek rejoinder.

"Yeah, I gutted the military," he said. "That's why two former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff are for Hillary. That's why 34 generals and admirals are for Hillary." Turning serious, he continued: "In every respect, military readiness was greater when I left office than it is today. The Republicans gutted the military."

And before returning to fiscal issues, he offered a clue that he's seen this kind of feedback before from a crowd. "You know, whenever you find somebody screaming it's normally because they don't have the facts on their side," he said.

Clinton did tout his wife's readiness to be commander-in-chief, and said she has "credibility" when she calls for removing troops "because of the enormous support she has in the military." He said currently, the United States is "not doing them any favors" in Iraq by promising an unending commitment.

"If we do what Senator McCain says, and tell them we're prepared to stay 100 years, than 99 years from now our great-great-grandchildren will be reading newspaper stories about how we sure wish the Iraqis would figure out how to split that oil money," he said. "No one wants Iraq to fail. But the United States has done more than what we hired on to do, and it is time to bring our people home. That's her position."

Clinton also said that Hillary "asks me to talk about" ensuring that when troops do return, the country lives up to the "staggering future of responsibility to our veterans." "She will never stand by and let us make the hideous mistake we made after Vietnam, and confuse an unpopular war with our moral obligation to the people who serve," he said. "If you want somebody that will take care of America's veterans, she's the best bet for you as president of the United States."

As he started a tour of cities in Northeastern Pennsylvania, Clinton laid out the stakes in the race, saying Pennsylvania will be key in turning things in Hillary's favor. "The bottom line is this -- if you will give her a big victory here, she will roll through these last states. She will have more popular votes. She will be the nominee of the Democratic Party, and she will get elected president of the United States," he said.

Ending his speech, he also touted her electability again. "She's the only one who can stack up against Sen. McCain on the national security issues, and clearly show why the Republican economics will not work and we don't need four more years of it," he said. "And if you look at, I think among the states that President Bush carried twice, I believe she will carry Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Ohio. That's more than enough to win... I'm just telling you, she can win this race and we don't want to go to all the trouble and have all these people coming into this democratic process, all this excitement, and everything, and not win. We have got to win in November."