Can we just call her Hillary Clieberman? It will be easier and no one will be disillusioned as to who she is or what she represents.

And one of my favorite comments from Obama on this arugment:

Susan Rice, a foreign policy advisor to Obama, mocked Clinton for her claim of having made a corkscrew landing into Bosnia under the threat of sniper fire, when, as Rice pointed out, she made the trip with Chelsea, Sheryl Crow and Sinbad.

"In fact, it was a meet-and-greet and concert with the troops," said Rice. "So it's hard to understand exactly what she is referring to when she says she has unparalleled crisis management experience."

I look forward to the Sinbad endorsement!

Greg:

Did anyone ask her what her CIC credentials were?

This strategy is very troubling. It smells like an attempt at sabotage.

I have two theories: (1) she wants to sink Obama's chances in the Fall so that she can run against McCain in 2012; and/or (2) she wants to ratchet up the pressure for Obama to put her on the ticket.

It is possible she is trying to persuade superdelegates, but I doubt she thinks they will go for her.

As an argument for HRC, it seems likely to backfire. She has no foreign policy experience. In that respect, HRC and Obama are both green.

Strikes me that Clinton is angling to be McCain's running mate. She is certainly not any longer running as a Democrat.

I've been one of the people around here suggesting that some of the Obama people cool their jets when attacking Clinton, but I'm ready to say now that I just won't be able to vote for her if she's nominated. She has indeed crossed a line, though it hasn't got anything to do with being ready to assume the mantle of commander-in-chief.

It's not just "an awfully risky gamble," it's stupid. In terms of traditional commander-in-chief credentials, McCain has them both beat. Why on earth would you highlight that?

Not to mention I just wish Clinton would stop poisoning the damn well. I'd prefer her to just actually take her ball and go home if she's going to pull crap like that.

This just underscores something that I think has gotten lost in all of this: Clinton is a terrible politician/campaigner.

The definition of a traitor is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Most certainly this statement will give McCain aid in his battle against Obama as well as herself since he has better security credentials than she does and I am absolutely sure his sense of comfort about the general election has been raised knowing Hillary is attempting to take out Obama as well as herself.

For shame Hillary Clinton! You have truly crossed a threshold.

If it comes down to a contest between Hillary versus John McCain, in November, then it will be a choice of voting for one Rovian Republican versus another. A Case of Rove V. Rove, if you will pardon the pun.

In that case I will opt for the one that does not hide the fact that he is a Republican. At least he is not two faced liked Hillary. Since there will be no Democrat in the contest, then I will vote for the lesser of two Republican evils, and vote for McCain.

interesting strategy, this: claim over and over and over again (and have the press repeat over and over and over again) that you've got "experience"--35 years; Commander in Chief--and people come to believe you

but it really is a crock ...

repulsiveness IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Hillary strategy v. 1.0. Raise enormous amount of money, cozy up to Dem hierarchy, actively seek to generate press buzz stressing my inevitability and generally create the impression that voters might as well vote for me because I'm going to win anyway . . .

Then she got outraised, lost Iowa but came back in N.H., so, they came up with . . .

Hillary strategy v. 1.5 Win big in Nevada, stay close in S.C. by getting endorsements from name African American and then playing for votes of whites who were assumed to be racist, spend vast amount of money in the half dozen Super Tuesday states that matter, blow off the rest, and wrap the whole thing up that day . . .

Then she tied Nevada, got crushed in S.C. tied on Superduper Tuesday, lost eleven straight that she hadn't even bothered to prepare for, so they came up with . . .

Hillary strategy v. 3.0Win Ohio and Texas by crushing margins that brings her pledged delegate totals within 20 or 20, enabling her to convince the superdelegates to let her steal it "for the good of the party."

Then the party leaders said "nyet" to the steal and she pissed many of them off with her campaign's dispicable conduct in S.C., her little secondary scheme to pull in Michigan and Florida's non-delegates failed, and her planned for big wins in Texas and Ohio failed to close the delegate gap, so, finally, here we are at . . .

Hillary strategy v. 4.0. Give up on the win this year but take it to the convention with the most brutal, divisive, ugly campaign possible and damage Obama to the point that McCain beats him. Praise McCain obliquely to give him a hand in the win. McCain has basically promised to only serve one term and, anyway, just look at him. In 2012 the party will have forgiven and forgotten all the crap she pulled this year, be forced to turn to her and, at last, give her her just due. The important thing is that she must be president. Must. She's owed, dammit.

And hey, why not? It worked for Reagan in '76.

Fawning groupies, reserve the hillis45.org domain name now, while it is still available!

It's even broader than an endorsement of McCain. It's an endorsement of Bush's neo-con foreign policy. I've never particularly cared one way or the other about Obama himself but to me his "change" offered a chance to change that direction. I believe she really endorses the Bush direction. She's never made any meaningful change of course away from it. She's so mired in conventional foreign policy thinking that I don't for one minute believe she will do anything measurably different than the Bush administration. Can you imagine Billary reversing the "unitary executive"?

I'm terrified at 3 am all right. I have nightmares about the end of our democracy and its replacement by militaristic oligarchy.

When will we be rid of this rat-bastard quisling? Had enough? I have. I am sick of making excuses for Clinton and her husband. They no longer deserve the respect or support of the rank and file.

Clearly, I understand the need for Clinton to campaign against Obama, no one argues against that. But at this point she's just being a complete bitch. And no, that is not a sexist comment. If Obama was campaigning in the manner Clinton is I would be the first to call him a complete dick. But he's not...

Good! Hillary needs to prove to everyone that she belongs on a unity ticket as the VP. She is well on her way to doing exactly that.

And, GD it, Obama, get off your a$$ and start proving yourself. Get in FRONT of the Rezko mess and don't be dragged around by the nose by the nosy media. What is up with that? And fire your GD ad agency and your GD Latino outreach head--they failed to deliver a memorable ad like Hillary's 3AM and they failed to get the Latino vote in Texas (I gave them California as a test case, but they failed yet again in Texas).

Obama, you need to step up to the plate on all of this crap. And, BTW, step up to a blow-out in Pennsylvania. No holds barred. Find out what females and older voters want and see if you can deliver that gd message if it doesn't violate something you hold near and dear.

I'm tired and cranky. I'm tired of donating money, time, phone calls and all of the rest of the crap and having you deliver delegates instead of what I really want--a gd KNOCKOUT PUNCH to Hillary. When, exactly, are you planning on delivering that?

If she's going to make the experience argument, then McCain will win. She slept with Bill Clinton while he was commander-in-chief, but McCain actually served his country. And, last I checked, he has his name on a lot more legislation than she does. Where's the big, important Clinton-Republican legislation? What has she done in her time in the Senate except triangulate so that she could run for president?

Keep it up Hillary. If you get the nomination, you could force me to hold my nose and vote for a Republican for president for the first time in my life.

"And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,”

And she's demonstrated this... how exactly?

“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..."

So HRC plans to let McCain set the agenda for the general election and play to his strengths? In Hill World it will be all fear all the time, even if it means her own rear gets kicked in the GE.

This is a good and fair comparison. Too bad for Obama that he comes up short in this comparison. Even his own staff clearly admitted this earlier today on MSNBC.

I'm an independent, lifelong Democrat, and occasional Republican. For me, my vote is for Clinton, then McCain. Obama is simply not competitive. For me now, I want to help and I suggest you all do the same to help Clinton win. I'll rest easy knowing that if she loses and its McCain and Obama, then fine, McCain is our next president. It doesn't matter what today's polls suggest, with or without my or your support or opposition, Obama will lose in the general election should he make this far. And, before some of the Obama Cult goes off the deep end, I mean this on experience, readiness, and all, and NOT on race or other factors that have absolutely no place in the election.

Now, how about a good discussion on how to help Clinton win?

w exactly has Hillary crossed the Commander in Chief "threshold"? There are but 2 "explanations" that I can think of . . .

(1) That she is taking credit for her husband's experience or, to state in somewhat differently, acknowledging that her campaign is about the reelection of Bill as (co-)President.

(2) The more hawkish you are, the more prepared you are to be Commander in Chief. Those who have proven themselves to be less eager or quick to send the troops into active conflict must, apparently, be too weak to lead them.