From the link below which I found interesting

Mr Obama may have a better record on Iraq than Mrs Clinton, but on almost every other issue of importance to the American public she is clearly ahead. Moreover, she is a Clinton - and can hope to reassure voters with the record of successful centrist economic policies when she was First Lady in the White House. Mr Obama, by contrast, is on record as being the most consistently "liberal" (in the American sense) member of the Senate, with arguably the most left-wing economic and foreign policy platform since George McGovern was beaten by Richard Nixon, despite the revulsion against the Vietnam War.

Finally there is the matter of maturity and experience. This is Mr McCain's biggest gift to the Clinton campaign. An Obama-McCain contest would be seen as a match of inexperience against old age. Mr Obama hopes to win this competition by invoking the spirit of John F. Kennedy. What he forgets, however, is that Kennedy was swept to power on the crest of the baby boom, when the largest group of voters was in its twenties. Today these boomers are in their sixties or seventies - and will not take kindly to the charge that Mr McCain is too old to be president. Given the high propensity to vote among the elderly, this election will not be decided by a baby boom but by a senility surge.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment /columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article3492 457.ece

That win at all costs mentality is exactly what made me go from leaning possibly Obama, to Hard and fast Clinton.

I WILL NEVER support any DEM that uses almost exactly a Republican attack ad against another DEM.

But if Obama and Inc. want to play corporate hardball, well then the gloves are off and we all know that Hillary can not only take a huge sucker punch, but can not only duck and weave with the best, but deliver Heavyweight style toe-to-toe body shots all day long.  If Obama wants that, then he's seriously out-classed.  He's better trying that on a State Senator or councilman in his weight class.

She's said it several times now.

You agree with her that John "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and stay in Iraq for 100 years" McCain is more qualified that Senator Obama to be CIC?  

Interesting perspective for a Democrat.

Yeah... But he's not saying that he and john mccain and bush are great...  he's saying they all sucked.

He's not lifting up a Rethug over a dem.  He's saying a dem went along with the Rethugs which was a poor decision.

Oh, and I would add that Obama's argument is that he has superior judgment.  He's never argued that she's not qualified to be CIC.  In point of fact, he's stated on multiple times that Senator Clinton would constitute a huge upgrade over the current administration.  

You're entitled to agree with her, Lori, but there are some things a candidate just shouldn't say even if you think they're true.

It would be one thing to simply question Obama's national security credentials.  This is politics, it's okay to throw a punch.  But to concede that "gee, of course John McCain can be commander-in-chief"?  There's no excuse for that from a Democrat.

You might believe that but she obviously doesn't and i don't either.

She is comfortable going into the general election and discussing National security and foreign policy with Mccain.

It all comes down to insecurities over his lack of a record and experience to run on.

She is going to play up her advantages on national security .

She has crossed the threshold with Voters and Mccain as also crossed it .

Thats the reality and thats what i agree with it.

Obama seems to be struggling on that front.

His reaction to the 3 am ad , is the type of reaction that usually cost democrats  and would do nothing to enhance his national security / cic credentials, when you go around screaming fear mongering to a simple ad . I don't want to go into the general election with that type of mentality.

National security is not the sole territory of the republicans.

I am surprised you think she has the same level of experience as Obama.

You miss the entire point (not surprisingly).

It's okay to hit a fellow democrat AND the Republican at the same time.

Just don't hit the democrat and AGREE with the republican.

He said he has better judgement, he also said either one of them would be better than McCain in the same debate. This is more along the lines of him saying "The American people need a president they can trust, and that's why this should be an election between me and John McCain, Hillary frankly doesn't meet the honesty threshold."

I don't agree that Obama hitting her on her Iraq war vote is the same as what she just said.  Obama drew a legitimate contrast between Clinton and himself.  But she actually talked up McCain over Obama, which crosses the line in my view.

I'll still vote for Clinton if she's the nominee.  But I lost a lot of my respect for her over this.  As also over her "I take his word for it" (that he's not muslim) nonsense.

Pathetic.

"I don't see much difference."

Here's the difference:

Obama says people oughtn't vote for Clinton, because Clinton is just like McCain in foreign policy.
Clinton says people oughtn't vote for Obama, because Clinton is just like McCain in foreign policy.

Obama is arguing that Obama's better than both Clinton and McCain. That's what you'd expect from any nominee.
Clinton is arguing that both Clinton and McCain are better than Obama. That's not what you'd expect from a Democrat leader.

Obama's statements attack her for being too similar to the Republican candidate. Clinton statements attack him for being too different than the Republican candidate.

They both agree that Clinton and McCain have the same sort of judgement on foreign affairs, except Clinton wants to present McCain's judgement as a good thing and Obama's as a bad thing.

This attitude is explained by one thing: Clinton knows that she won't get the nomination this year -- her current policy is simply to covertly support McCain so that he wins the general election, so that she has another chance to get the nomination at 2012. But if Obama wins the General Election, she doesn't have such a chance at the presidency again, she'll be too old at 2016.

Obama has more national security experience than Bill Clinton in 1992.

Puts her previous remarks, which you were more forgiving of, into context, doesn't it?  

Heck, she sounded stronger talking about McCain's national security credentials than she did about her own.

It almost sounds like she's stumping for him.

And just a couple years after Mondale lost, Reagan was supposedly surprised to learn that people in his administration were selling weapons to the Iranians to fund rightwing terrorists in Nicaragua.

Mondale was right, Reagan was incompetent.

Ceding national security to Republicans has NEVER been a good idea.  How does Clinton think she's going to beat McCain if she's constantly praising his ability to be commander-in-chief?

If W can pass that "threshold", anyone can.

yeah but why help him with it?

Hillary is entitled to trash Obama just so long as she acknowledges that McCain would be far worse. The fact that she makes a point of endorsing McCain while calling Obama unfit is beyond the pale.

The strategy is obvious. Make Obama damaged goods, make him unelectable and if that does not convince the super delegates that they have no choice but to pick her she can hope that it will help McCain to beat him so she can come back in 4 years. Sharp elbows and tough and even negative campaigning is one thing supporting the Republican candidate is another.

Not a great deal of difference between her and Lieberman. He only endorsed McCain out of spite, for Democrats in general and for Bill Clinton in particular. Nothing galls a smarmy prick like Lieberman like having to ask for help from someone he thinks he's better than.

If you think that Obama has stayed "mostly positive", then you have not been paying close enough attention.

Hu?  First. She should compare herself to him...  But to say she's better not the same.

Second. It's "fellow <bold>Democratic</bold> opponent".

Third.  What do you mean by "willful Republican endorsements"?  Do you mean Lincoln Chaffee?

Republican endorsements?  Like Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, the MODERATE Republican who was the only member of the GOP in the Senate to vote AGAINST the Iraq war?

That crowd is cutting and pasting from the right wing site Sweetness & Light.  But, they ignore all the new S&L attacks on HRC, this manipulation gives the false impression that there are no HRC attacks.

And, the HRC team is planting lies about BHO that the feed the right wing nuts.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/

Hopefully some of the more reasonable HRC supporters will reject these tactics, by supporting BHO.

I am one of her supporters.

It is just such talk (of Rovian tactics) that has firmed up my support for Clinton. It seems to me that Obama's skin is mighty thin. If he thinks that Clinton has been harsh with him, he doesn't stand a chance in a general election with the REAL Rove and the REAL Swift-boaters unloading on him.

Don't get me wrong, I like most of what Obama has to say. But seriously, as Commander in Chief, a President has to assert authority over some pretty macho hombres.

Commander in Chief? This guy better toughen up.

What is this loads of national security experience she has?

What foreign expertise does she have?  What treaties, or back door negotiations has she led?

/Will wait for your response

Yeah, an Arkansas governor has loads of experience, too.  We should never elect anyone like that.

theres NO excuse for weakening another democrat against the republican.

when Obama attacks her, he always makes it clear she would be vastly superior to McCain.

Plus, she is wrong. anyone remotely still behind this war in iraq is not anywhere near qualified to be CIC.

Well if there both so great maybe we should print you up a bumper sticker with both their names on it. Its like she realizes she and McCain have a common enemy, Obama, and its sad she is willing to join forces with him to bring him down. She has decided if i cant get it, id rather McCain have it, and its sad and points to the kind of person she is.

Hit you with a Troll.

"Obama has no experience to be anything?"

Next.