Oh, this is nothing.  As things get closer and closer to an Obama nomination, Hillary's statements will veer ever farther off of the reservation of sanity.

Her supporters should be ashamed of this slash-and-burn style campaigning.  It's one thing to contrast yourself to your opponent, but another altogether to suggest that the Republican would be better then him!!

Cheers sir for your honesty on this issue.

It's exactly this kind of "win at any cost" mentality that has made me from a mild Hillary supporter to an ardent Obama supporter.  There's just no place for this kind of party-destructive rhetoric coming from a candidate that has only a long shot at the nomination at best.

Hillary supporters -- you know how you get annoyed when Obama supporters want her to drop out before she damages the Party's chances too much?  THIS is why.

I give you credit for saying that.  Neither candidate is perfect, my guy included, and it is good to call this kind of statement unacceptable.  Thanks.

defend it or justify it.

John McCain's best arguments against her.  She has about an ounce of the experience on national security that he has.

I would add that the first time I heard her say McCain was better prepared to be CIC I thought it might have been an example of her misspeaking.  I think that this makes clear it's part of an intentional strategy.  HRC intends to argue that Obama is not qualified to be CIC at all.  That's an unacceptable argument to make against another Democrat.  

Once obama stops saying she doesn't have the judgement to be president because she voted for the war like Bush and Mccain then I would reconsider my position.

I don't see much difference.

He has been trying to tie her to bush and mccain since the beginning of the campaign , no one raised on eye brow.

Just because it is not working , doesn't mean it should be discounted.

By the way i actually do agree with her , even if it is a little weird.

What experience does she have on national security?  The biggest issues of our time are the problems we have dealing with North Korea, jihadist terrorists, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, and so forth.  

What did she do to help with these problems?  

I cry foul on this.  It's one thing to concede that McCain has experience, something everyone on the planet knows, but it's quite misguided to concede that McCain can serve as commander-in-chief.

I recall that in 1984, Walter Mondale wouldn't even concede the commander-in-chief threshold to a sitting President.  He may have gone down in flames, but he went down fighting, arguing that Reagan was dangerously incompetent and couldn't be trusted to handle national security.  Whatever lesson one might seek to learn from Mondale's defeat, I'm pretty sure it's not "surrender the national security issue to the GOP and hope they leave you alone."

Some people think the best reason to oppose McCain is because of the Supreme Court.  Well, that's important, but personally I feel the best reason to oppose McCain is that I don't want my daughter to end up fighting in his wars.  There is no reason whatsoever to trust John McCain on foreign policy, or to concede that he would be competent as commander-in-chief.

McCain's dangerous neocon agenda is right there for everyone to see.  If you look at the neocons who brought us the Iraq war in the first place - people like Bill Kristol - you'll find that the candidate they supported in the late 1990s wasn't George W. Bush.  It was John McCain.

I can't imagine any excuse for Hillary's remarks.  Heck, she sounded stronger talking about McCain's national security credentials than she did about her own.

Horrible line for Hillary to take.

She should just stick to drawing comparisons between Obama and herself on this issue but it's not like McCain will hear Hillary and say "hey she is right, Obama isn't qualified"

How does tying herself to McCain help her?  I truly do not get it.  She sounds more like Lieberman everyday.

Hillary should surely stay away from comparing herself to McCain. But Hillary is not the only one who has been trashing a fellow Democrat opponent. Obama and all his willful Republican endorsements can be considered a trouble too.

With SusanHu and her numerous poisonous diaries, along with her disciples, this place has turned into a neo-con blog.

I hope you people are happy with that.

I know some may point to DK as a pro-Obama blog, and that has some merit. But at least there is not one diary after another there about Whitewater, Vince Foster, Hsu, Monica and the rest of that garbage.

Meanwhile, you have SusanHu and her NoQuarter brigade of Xenaphobic drones marching in here throwing all kinds of neo-con slime at the front running Democrat for the nomination.

Sad.

So I don't know why anyone here is shocked that Clinton looks like she is running for McCain's VP instead of the Democratic nomination. It's been obvious from awhile now that Clinton, and her supporters, are very much neo-cons and very much favor Rovian tactics.

McCain is not qualified to be commander in chief.  He's fully behind the Iraq Occupation, no matter the cost.  100 years anyone?

Hillary Clinton should be pointing out McCain's complete lack of national security qualifications, not praising them.  Anyone who is STILL behind the Iraq War has not passed the "threshold".

Lest she forget, even if she beats Obama she still has to run against McCain in November.

Todd, this is such garbage. You're really missing the bigger picture. Obama has no experience to be anything, let alone president, leader of the free world, and CIC. None. Hillary has loads of experience, as does McSame. Hillary's point is that the Dem nominee is going to have to go toe to toe against McCain who will mainly campaign on the economy and national security. Obama wouldn't stand a chance. She would. And win.

Where is the evidence that experience is a valuable commodity in politics?  We've got thousands of 'experienced' people in Washington, and the majority of them are fuck-ups.  

Dick Cheney has a fabulous resume and 'experience' up the wazoo.  How did that work out for us?

This is a really stupid thing for Hillary to say. Both of them should be talking about McCain's reputation for explosiveness and instability.

Obama's problem is that when he tries to minimize Hillary's experience, he ends up saying, she is as unqualified as I am. Which essentially is what Rice said.

Maybe she wants to be McCain's VP.

I can interpret this unfortunate statement pretty easily.  What she is saying is this:  Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton's debate will not be in the area of national security or foreign policy (except of course for Iraq I assume).  A GE matchup between those two will be all about domestic policy issues.  Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama's debate will be about the whole enchilada of foreign and domestic policy, since Sen. Obama is too inexperienced and naive about global affairs.

Simple, really, but she just doesn't speak very well off the cuff, does she?

Clinton is playing the perception game heading to Pennsylvania and I find the move smart.

Even ignoring the hateful attack on a member of her own Party...what in the world is she doing conceding the "fit to be CiC" angle of attack for versus McCain?

If she does win the nomination, she's got NO leverage on him there now.  All he has to do is quote this back to her to make her look completely ridiculous.

Sure, spot him the things that everyone knows and aren't contentious, like his courageous military service (as Obama has done).  But "fit to be CiC"?  Just a horrible, horrible move, regardless of whether you support Obama or Clinton.

She needs to stop talking about McCain as if he is her contemporary.  On this I will agree.  I hardly think she is endorsing McCain though.  I do think she probably respects him on some level.

It's better than Obama's top foreign affairs advisor saying that neither Barack nor Hillary have the necessary experience.

Hillary is telling Obama "speak for yourself".

I'm beginning to wish that service in the military was a requisite for running for CIC.  I think the two Democratic candidates need to focus on the issues of national security and not on experience, because no one, no one, is going to trump McCain's personal experience of courage in service to his country.  The point is, that has nothing to do with making the right decisions for our long-term welfare, and while I can see Clinton giving McCain a personal pat on the back for his life's experience, it is totally beyond the pale to credit him with the ability to make a better decision or respond better to a crisis (than Obama) as she is implying he would do.

I have never understood why so many Democrats I know say they will never vote for Hillary in the general election.

With B.S. statements like this, I am beginning to understand.

You have my respect. And I would feel the same if the roles were reversed and Obama was using like verbiage.

I'm thinking that the next news cycle will not be about Ohio and Texas...

Clinton: "Desperate to be President on Day 1--no matter what"

There is no chance for a unity ticket. The only one that has pushed that idea into the media is the one candidate who would benefit from the public believing there is a chance it could happen. Namely, Hillary.

It's absolutely hilarious that Hillary is pushing the one argument on which even if she defeats Obama, would ensure that she loses the general election.  

Clinton is obviously making the point that she doesn't think Obama has the credentials to be Commander in Chief, and asking voters to consider if they do. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, I personally share that view.

What I think is scary is that she seems to imply that she thinks John Bomb Bomb Iran McCain has crossed that threshold.

She needs to be more careful acknowledging anything except that McCain would be an absolute scary disaster for this nation. One thing I think we can all agree on is that we don't want John McCain getting any 3am phonecalls.

Here's another Clinton supporter who is very unhappy with a few of the things she's said lately. I didn't think the "3 a.m" ad was over the line at all. It was an effective way to say that she'd be a better CIC than Obama. But implying that McCain would also be better is inexcusable. I was mad as hell at Barack for using the Republican's "Harry and Louise" health care plan attack ad against Hillary, and I'm very disappointed to see Hillary also giving aid and comfort to the enemy in this way.  

What she is trying to do is to get under Obama's skin, and get him to respond something along the lines of: "Oh yeah, I have to crossed the Commander In Chief Threshold." I suspect he will take the bait.

Dear oh dear, must we Democrats be so fragile that we must cover our eyes and ears and can't accept the truth. Essentially what Clinton said is the plain bald truth. By American standards a man who has spent half is life in the navy, commanded a navy vessel, racked up time as prisoner of war, survived, and has dealt with military issues on various Senate committees, is going to be perceived as having met the CIC threshold. I know, its horrible, but it is the truth nevertheless. How Obama and Clinton respectively choose to deal with this is their challenge. Whining and sputtering in outrage is not going to make this issue go away, it lurks inconveniently at the back of people's minds. The Clintons have always been utter realists, there's no "hope" or "change" in national security. Deal with it. Stop whining, start framing a response. Why on earth do we have to be such terminal hand wringers in this party. Obama needs to toughen up, he is being "Breck Girly-fied" by the day, with this ceaseless complaining. You're only encouraging him to defer the work he needs to do to find his Frosties The Tiger inner growl. The secret is the CIC threshold is not even so much a specific qualification as perception of strength,toughness and steely resolve, which Obama's much celebrated passive cool demeanor does not  do much to communicate. Frankly Obama should be grateful for Clinton's heads-up rehearsal. In anycase, I thought Susan Rice's idiotic comments were 10 times more damaging than anything Clinton said.

This is one of the main reasons I do not support Clinton. She will do ANYTHING to win, even if it means giving her support to McCain over a fellow Democrat on who would be qualified as a commander in chief.

Sigh...

I am sooo beginning to think we are going to lose this election so bad.

With Clinton and Obama throwing everything at each other and this going on forever....the eventual nominee will be so fucking damaged with the GOP having lines such as this to use in ads that there is no way we are going to win.

There are ways to do "responsible" analysis of people's statements. Your diary, unfortunately, just isn't one of them.

Sen. Clinton was clearly talking about the fact that John McCain had "crossed the commander-in-chief threshold" for his party, the Republican Party.

Here's what she said:

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold..."

[...]

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you." - Bill Clinton

Thanks, Todd.  You're right.  This is going to get ugly, I'm afraid.

any hrc supporter willing to back up the statement comparing obama to ken starr??

is this one okay as well?!

has barbara bush crossed that threshold?

The media has christened McCain a certified military HERO its a reality and it will be played nonstop from now until November. A vast majority of Americans are fine with McCain as "Commander In Chief" of the US Armed Forces. We need a candidate who can match his gravitas and sorry its not Obama. Hillary at least knows her stuff, is respected by the commanding generals, has been on the Armed Services committee, has represented this country in over 80 nations, and yes she lived in the White House for 8 years and had an office in the West Wing. She was no Barbara or Laura Bush. She was very active in policy issues throughout the Clinton presidency so yes she has EXPERIENCE that goes far and beyond being a state senator who hardly showed up to vote and was a "community organizer".

The "on the job training" argument resonates with real voters who don't wear blinders and who want to elect the best PRESIDENT not just the best Democratic nominee

That's the subtext of the "Ready on Day One" argument -- that Hillary is quicker to go to war, because Obama is a sissy.

I think of it as a "Brother Soulja" attack -- going after a strong Dem constituency (those opposed to the war) with a right-wing frame, in such a way to immunize the attacker against his/her own perceived weaknesses.

I think it's a curious primary attack. My state has voted, so I can't cause any real damage to Clinton for going this route. But perhaps the other states will.

All the crazed Clinton supporters on this website, most of whom once supported the Democratic party and progressive values, had better stop and think real hard right now whether they want to elect the Joe Lieberman/John McCain-loving/John Breaux/DLC-leader candidate here in this primary over the progressive one who wants to actually move this country in a different direction.

When are you guys going to open your eyes?

McCain has already proven himself unfit to be commander in chief by his support for the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history. He is also either dishonest or an idiot, in order to maintain an unending occupation of Iraq and attack Iran will require raising taxes and a draft to raise an army to replenish the exhausted forces and broken equipment there now. If he was straight with the American people about the costs of his policy would guarantee him a crushing loss. So instead it will be more empty tough guy rhetoric.

Hillary is still stuck in the past. She acts like the Republicans are in the majority, Bush has a 90% approval rating and the only way to get credibility on national security is to act like a Republican. That's why she voted for the war and that's why the pathetic spectacle of her thinking it gives her credibility to align herself with McCain on the issue of security. She has just ceded the national security issue completely to McCain.

andrew.. the answer is never

they are bashing a true progressive candidate and overlooking these horrible attacks (ken starr, mccain better than obama)

it is truly unreal. this is a man who stood up against this insane war when 66 plus % of the country was for it
this is a man who was voted the most "liberal" senator in the u.s.
who has put forward a great renewable energy platform, who went to work for peanuts to help the poor in chicago when he could have gone straight to a top law firm.
i could go on but i won't

people like rossa above believe it is ok to essentially say mccain is more electable than obama is.
wow, what is going on??

andrew.. the answer is never

they are bashing a true progressive candidate and overlooking these horrible attacks (ken starr, mccain better than obama)

it is truly unreal. this is a man who stood up against this insane war when 66 plus % of the country was for it
this is a man who was voted the most "liberal" senator in the u.s.
who has put forward a great renewable energy platform, who went to work for peanuts to help the poor in chicago when he could have gone straight to a top law firm.
i could go on but i won't

people like rossa above believe it is ok to essentially say mccain is more electable than obama is.
wow, what is going on??

Things like this are why she won't even get offered the VP slot.

Almost nothing gets my anger up like the implication that only those in the military understand national security. War-fighting, military doctrine, and the forces themselves constitute but one part of national security.  Like every previous hegemon in decline, the US elite cling every more tightly to their only remaining lever of power, our economic, diplomatic and soft power having evaporated.  Responsible integration into the world community is beyond the pale for these folks.

McCain has an explosive disposition, he holds grudges and enjoys exacting revenge.  Remember the international uproar when Reagan commented the bombing would begin in five minutes?  We have in Mr. 100 years the call to "bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran".  That is simply the height of irresponsibility as such "slips of the tongue" can start wars or prevent their earlier conclusion.  In a world seriously off the rails the very last thing we should want in a commander in chief is an elderly man with a short temper and a belief in the unchallenged holiness of US military policy.

If the job of the commander in chief is to keep the people safe, as opposed to merely using the military, McCain has demonstrated through his character, his policies, his statements, his associates, his background, that he is not qualified to be commander in chief.  Warrior in chief, maybe, but not commander in chief.

As a strong supporter of Senator Clinton on the grounds of domestic policy, I find this gift to McCain unforgivable.  I hear those upthread claiming Clinton is just stating what the majority of Americans believe.  But that is precisely the problem:

McCain's image must be tarnished and Clinton just shined it

I am equally angry that so many progressives embrace the view that a person crosses this threshold implicitly or explicitly only by supporting US geo-strategic doctrine, i.e. "I'm willing to kill the swarthy hordes if it will shore up my political support".  Cruise missiles into vaccine factories.

I fully realize that I am in the minority, and I will spare you my explanations why Americans have such blood lust, but my view is that the entire thrust of US national security policy since WWII is a crock, a very dangerous crock, and 9-11 has sent that framework spinning out of control.  From this vantage point, crossing the "commander in chief threshold" is tantamount to demanding candidates express their willingness, even eagerness, to embrace US imperialism and possible war crimes under international law.

All you need to do to understand what I am talking about is read LBJ's tortured reflections during Vietnam while his Great Society crashed on the rocks of his unwillingness to appear "soft" and "weak" (in his vernacular, that he would be viewed as one who squats to pee).

Clinton, McCain, Bush, and most of the rest reflect exactly this same fear.  It may win elections, but our great grandkids, if there are any, will curse us for our suicidal commitment to reflexive militarism.  If we care about our future we must take steps to change course, not validate the current course.

I find it particularly troubling as the feminist son of a feminist single mom that so many who support Senator Clinton in the name of feminism and ending misogyny seem elated or unperturbed by her (seeming) embrace of the ultimate totem of patriarchy:

"Look at me and my big gun and my big dick and if any of you people around the world so much as look at me wrong way, I will blow you and your family away.  'Cause I am tough".

Senator Clinton, you should be ashamed.

...

OK, I have calmed down now.  My meta-view is that the US global posture has roots in the structural characteristics of our society and until those structures are changed, foreign policy is unlikely to change much, except in degree. To best understand these roots, I think the remarkably far sighted plans for the post-war order and reflected quite openly in the declassified planning record (PPS23, NSC-68, the X telegram,etc.) This is the "foreign policy consensus" that most in both parties share (where are you Rep. Dellums when we need you?).  It is the view revealed for all to read, and forget apparently, in The Pentagon Papers.

I do not buy for a second that Obama will be any different.  Thus, I support Clinton because of differences in their approaches at home.

But please do not aid our political opponents and do not engage in the mindless chest-thumping.

So if you aggressively support and talk about the greatness of an illegal war, war crimes, occupation and 1 million dead Iraqis and 4,000 dead U.S. soldiers -- that means you have "CinC" experience ?

Hillary is saying that is "CinC" experience?

Starting illegal, disastrous wars is a sign of experience.

She's a dangerous idiot.

To Hillary, the war is just a set piece for her campaign and all the dead people are extras.

Singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

is the sign of a seasoned national security expert.

McCain is Captain Queeg. He's crazy as a glue sniffer.

Remember, "It's perfectly safe to walk the markets of Baghdad."

The guy's a fruit loop.

He was tortured and he votes to allow human torture.

When does he come out for slavery ?

This woman thought she'd crossed the "threshold of Commander in Chief" by sleeping with one and sitting next to a few military guys. She'd preferred John McBomb over her fellow Democrat? I've had enough of this filthy b*tch. It's time to slab the b*tch silly. She's been at it long enough. Her aides can't name one crisis that she's dealt with on the national level that would qualify her for her assertion of strength on national security. All they could say is some military dudes endorsed her. Watching her despicable face on Keith Olberman's today got my blood boiled. Obama's gotta hit the b*tch hard. What an idiot! She thinks she'll beat John McBomb by praising him on national security? What a stupid b*tch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

. . .another faux occasion for outrage from Obama suppoters. Pass the chips. . . .

Her comment has earned her the nomination of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

Clearly Hillary is correct on this. Don't any of you know that you meet the CIC threshold between the 3rd and 7th year of being a Senator? Everything just clicks at about 4.5 years.

This even explains HRC's Iraq vote - she didn't meet the CIC threshold, she was still confused about the big scary world we're in (same position BO is in now), full of terrorists with AK47s training diligently on monkey bars, therefore she made the mistake of voting for the Iraq war.

Glad I could clear this up for y'all.

HRC'08!!!!!!!

Todd,

Clinton has been saying this line for more than a week now and you still support her.  Shame on you.  This is the reason Obama supporters don't like Clinton: She will do or say anything to get elected.  She wants it both ways: Obama can be her VP but he is not qualified to be President because he doesn't meet her "commander in chief threshold."  For these reasons, I will not support Clinton for President if she is the nominee.

I'm glad to see a Clinton partisan deal with Hillary's execrable campaigning for McCain.

Talkleft has gotten so single-mindedly pro-Clinton that things like this go unmentioned, I'm glad to see the pro-Clinton people on Mydd have more integrity.

This "McCain has the experience" theme has to be dropped by Hillary. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Clinton's chief strategist (Penn) is the boss of McCain's chief strategist (Charles Black). THAT conflict of interest is of Cheneyesque proportions.

I predict this episode in the campaign is going to rate its own glowing chapter in Jerome's next book, "Triangulating the Gate", co-written with Marshall Whittmann.

We all know that the mathematical situation is bleak for Clinton.  And though Obama supporters were hoping to wrap things up on 03/04, I think many of us were ambivalent about Hillary continuing on with her campaign - SO LONG - as her candidacy was good for the long term health of the Democratic Party.  After all, a robust, competitive campaign that focused on issues important to Democrats would electrify the base for the GE while educating and thereby creating a new generation of Democratic voters.  "Go, Hillary", right?

Well after her last two "McCain lovefests", that's all over.  Hillary has officially jumped the shark.

It's now clear that the interests of the Democratic Party take a back seat to her own personal ambition.  Her new strategy is what I would call the "Win - Or Take Him Down With Me" strategy.  Or maybe the "All Or 2012" strategy.  

How else can you explain a Democratic presidential candidate using her campaign NOT to promote herself and criticize her Democratic opponent - but for all intents and purposes ENDORSING THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE OVER HER DEMOCRATIC OPPONENT!!!  

Maybe Mark Penn has hypnotized or drugged her, and is using her to ensure that his other client who's running for president can win.  I mean, the future of his profits depend on not having BOTH of his clients go down in flames, right?  That MUST BE it.  Who knows?  

But please, somebody, anybody - get the hook!  Somebody, anybody - pull the plug!  She's killing us out there!  

SuperDelegates - ARE YOU LISTENING????

True Democrats - ARE YOU LISTENING????

I'm 36. So pretty much my whole adult life I've watched DLC Democrats cede foreign policy and national security to Republicans. In their secret hearts, perhaps they truly believe the GOP is better at it, or maybe they consider any attempt to challenge the CW hopeless. There's no functional difference. Like Clinton here, their consistent approach is to try to neutralize the issue by saying "me too!"; to roll over and pray that they'll be rewarded with a belly scratch. Invariably they get a rolled-up newspaper to the nose. The only difference is that most dogs eventually smarten up.

I admire Obama for at least having the guts, like Howard Dean before him, to reject the whole rotten premise. After all, it's a ridiculous, offensive premise. Yet Clinton, over the last week (and really, stretching back years), has in effect wholeheartedly embraced it. Call it a campaign tactic, but it springs from the same source that voted for the Iraq resolution. Whether it's a calculation or sincere hawkish Democrat belief, as I said, there's no functional difference.

Much of Clinton's campaign rhetoric centers around mismanagement, and "working hard" to fix things--but it's not merely that our foreign policy and national security have been managed ineptly, and merely need a productive worker to roll up her sleeves and make the machines hum again. Clinton may well be the best qualified to move the levers of government--but too many of those levers have been perverted, some beyond recognition, and what I want in a candidate is, at bare minimum, someone who recognizes that. I'm sick of watching my party's standard-bearers play defense in this arena. I'm sick of being represented by people who desperately pass as tough, as defined by the other side. It's pathetic.

For years I've been inspired by the "fighting Democrat" ethos of the leading progressive blogs. Prior to the primaries, it was my belief that most of us around here shared that ideal. But I've seen too-many self-described "hardcore Dems" claim they'll never, under any circumstances vote for the other Dem in the race. And now we have to watch Clinton throw a fellow Dem under the bus, circling the wagons with the other Establishment, military/industrial complex candidate. It's disheartening to say the least.

"I'd say she means that McCain has crossed this "commander in chief threshold" in the minds of the electorate and I imagine that's probably true."
---

Good Job, Todd. So supporting an illegal and disastrous war and occupation is  a feature, not a bug?

Why not just endorse Bush for Term 3 ?

He's got plenty of "CinC" experience.

Please stop it.

It's really incumbent on the Party elders to step in.  Gore, Edwards, Richardson, Feinstein - it's time to climb off the fence.  Clinton ended the nomination contest today.  Obama is the Democratic Party standard bearer, and Clinton is the new Lieberman.

If they don't, then Obama will win the nomination but be very weakened for November.  It's not enough to wait for the convention.  The time is now.  And any super delegate sticking with Clinton after today really ought to switch parties now.

Hillary should probably have to undergo drug testing enforced by the DNC after her comment regarding McCain passing the commander-in-chief test.  Is she kidding me?  So let's say Obama, who is leading in delegates, wins the nomination.  Does Hillary endorse McCain or Obama?  I mean she would probably want to vote for the one that passes her "commander-in-chief test."

candidacy in the first place.

Readers may remember me as one of the staunchest anti Hillary for President MYDDers here at one point. As the campaign progressed, I found myself actually defending her on a couple of occasions and wondering to myself why I was so opposed to her at one point even if it was the iraq war vote. Sure, I still criticised her more than praised her.

But with this latest statement, it all comes back to me. It is true a lot of the electorate is probably inclined to believe McCain is strong on National security. BUt then again a lot of people thought Hillary would win the nomination in a breeze and McCain had little chance of winning the nomination. Isn't the point of a good DEmocratic campaing supposed to debunk those false notions? WHy is she contributing tot that crap? Hillaryites went bonkers over Obama's Reagan reference. Yet, I have seen some of the same people actually express the same type of opinions about McCain before Hillary opened her mouth on this topic.

I challenge you to raise your expectations.  Whate exactly would it take to make you NOT vote for her?  Is there a line out there that she can cross or is it pretty much that is it come heck or high water?  She had me once but lost me right before South Carolina.  If I don't respect a person, they won't get my vote.  And no behavior she has exhibited since then (one fleeting exception being at the debate in Austin), has made me waiver.    

Let us think through the implications of the Commander in Chief threshold comment.  To my good friends who support Clinton, consider the following.

If Clinton is right, that only she and McCain have passed that threshold, then you will not be supporting Obama if he is the nominee because he is not qualified.  Is that right?

If Clinton is wrong, then it raises serious doubts about her fitness to be our nominee.  Is that right?

I sure would like to know how supporters of Clinton resolve this dilemma.

Clinton is being strategically practical and forward looking to the general election campaign.

It would hardly be advantageous to her to try to beat McCain head-on over his military experience or by calling him a horse's backside.

Lots and lots of people will give servicemen the benefit of the doubt based on the perceived "sacrifice" to country and that's what his campaign will stand on -- demand. Call it ignorance or patriotism, it is what it is. You will sound like a shrew or cad to call out Brian William's for swooning over McCain's crushed shoulder.

There has been virtually no challenge at all over the morality of the volunteer military's lack of refusal to obey the orders of the war criminal in chief. Yet I believe there is no small amount of complicity in these crimes of war -- IOW, it's not just Bush & Cheney's responsibilty.

I can say that because I'm essentially a nobody, maybe not without some personal repercussions from, say, a 3rd cousin - a decorated hero of WWII; but a Democratic presidential candidate hoping to win over the center cannot, even if she believed it.

Sigh, having a draft would clarify these issues.

It's easy to sit back and natter on about illegal wars when one doesn't have more skin in the game, i.e. family or loved ones or self drafted to basically belong to an efficient killing machine poised for aggression, rather than some down-home citizen's defense brigade. Bit I digress....

She and the Democrats cannot attack McCain in that way, just by calling him out on all the other topics make him spin and sputter. She can respect his service while still basically framing him as an old coot with his head up Bush's where-it-don't-shine military adventure capitalism.

Can we imagine Obama claiming McCain's no military leader, without hearing conservatives laughing all the way to the bank?

I can just see the Republican attack machine's ads if either Clinton or Obama were to challenge M's military experience. It would make the swift boat ads seem like a romp in the park, IMO.

As far as her slam to Obama [Slamobama?], she's trying to win this contest she's in now against him. It's not as though she popped him a snarky shot out of the blue while she was having her hair done or buying donuts. She was sitting at a table surrounded by retired military brass.

Isn't it enough she thought well of him to support his senatorial candidacy - does she have to validate his CINC creds for him, too? That's his job. If he's not ready for this part of the campaign, he should be -- September and October and November will be here soon enough. Also, I see a direct comparison to his Reagan compliments -- so maybe she gave him a little tweek in kind.

Now if I thought Obama or any other "new left" or progressive or "new new left" or new dem or liberal is able to become president by claiming to turn to the world GWB has made more dangerous, with more rather than fewer enemies, and with open arms to apologetically ask for forgiveness, able to treat all comers with equanimity, then I guess you haven't read the news today, oh boy, on the latest from Susan Rice, Samantha Power or this.

My 3 A.M. Commander in Chief Ad would go something like this:

Its 3 A.M. in the morning when the phone rings.  And rings.  Hillary answers.  Its Senator Rockerfeller.  

Rockerfeller:  Hillary, were you asleep?

Clinton:  Why yes of course, its 3 A.M. in the morning, why wouldn't I be asleep?

Rockerfeller: I thought you might still be reading the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.  After all, we vote in the morning.  So I assume we have you down as a "no" on the authorization to go to war?

Clinton:  I think I will be voting yes.  After all, I am a Democrat AND a woman who is planning on running for President some day, I need to appear tough.  You know how those Republicans get when we Democrats oppose them on matters affecting national security. I don't care if what they are doing half the time is unconstitutional, the electorate doesn't seem to notice so why should I make waves?  I am NOT going to subject myself to anymore of their ridicule and taunting.

Rockerfeller:  But what about the NIE?  How could you possibly vote yes after reading that?  

Clinton:  Oh, I didn't bother reading THAT.  I know my strategy to become the next POTUS and a "no" vote will most definetely not fit in with the persona I anticipate projecting in my future political aspirations.

Rockerfeller: I really wish you would reconsider.  There is information in that report that casts substantial doubt about the President's claims regarding WMD.

Clinton:  Oh Jay, stop being such a worry wort!  What would be the worse thing that could happen?  Sure, it might cost a trillion dollars, it might cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, result in permanent mental and physical disablities in several thousand more, result in thousands of children losing a parent not to mention the toll on countless tens of thousands of Iraqis, and it could even damage our reputation abroad for decades to come, but I need to look tough for my upcoming campaign.

Rockerfeller:  Hillary, I beg of you, please just read the report before you vote!

Clinton:  No Jay, I've thought it all through.  It makes absolutely no political sense for me to vote no.  Its just a silly little war.  It will be over before you know it.

Rockerfeller:  Well, I won't bother you anymore tonight.  You sound firm in your convictions but I wish you would examine the evidence that is right in front of you and not make this vote all about appearance and political ambition.  If you are wrong it could cost you.

Clinton:  Goodnight Jay. (click).  Hey Bill, were you awake for that?  Bill?  Bill?? Bill, where are you?  You better not be......!! I swear, if you end up embarassing me again......

The End!!

a word about all the personal attacks from Obama, Edwards and all the Republicans towards Clinton. Now, when she sticks up for herself and fires back, Obama supporters get their panties in a bunch.

The red phone ad was taken out of the playbook on Mondale, who used the same ad against Gary Hart in 1984. Bringing about a more equitable society and national security are BOTH issues Democrats need to address if they want to win the presidency.

I don't understand the "Commander in Chief" threshold argument/spin.  Didn't they make the same argument against Bill CLinton in 1992 and he turned out to be a great Preisent with Sound Judgment on Foreign Policy, despite "lacking foreign policy experience"?

As for "experience", don't we currently have  President/"Commander in Chief" with 7 years of experience, going on 8, and his Threshold (judgment) is far less despite having yers of experience, far more than in years than Bill Clinton's was in 1992 and Obama's currently has. I would think everyone on this page would rather have 1992 Bill Cliton or Obama 2008 than 2008, 2007, 2006, or 2005 Bush? Right?

Who is the best Commander in Chief?

Why do people think that Obama is not qualified while they also consider McCain to be significantly more experienced.

How will the President handle terrorism and extremists?

Listen to this audio debate about this issue.

http://www.hotconflict.com/blog/2008/03/ presidential-el.html