How about a 527 using video clips of her against Obama in the gen election, saying his own party doesn't think he is qualified.

Point is (which you seem to have missed) this isn't about our psychological feelings about the relative merits of the three candidates, it's about how her comments can be used to influence swing voters.

But, after setting up that staw man, I have to say your application of logic was impeccable. Next time go for some symbolic logic....that would be totally radical.

Who do you believe is better qualified to be Commander In Chief, McCain or Clinton?

You lost me at "Commander in Chief."

That is to say, this is framing the debate in GOP and specifically McCainian terms.

When you accept their frame, you lose.

HRC said, by way of preface, that now that McCain was the nominee, this election would be about "national security."

Bullshit. GOP frame.

No, what this election needs to be about, respecting foreign matters, is 1) ending the war in Iraq, 2) keeping America safe, and 3) restoring our standing, our respect in the world and our alliances.

That's not HRC's theme. Her little Rasputin Mark Penn is whispering in her ear that she needs to be a hawk, a la Thatcher. And she's bought it hook, line and sinker.

Feh.

Billy Glad,

Your argument here makes no sense.

And the conditionals you're using are really, really weird.

If you believe McCain is more qualified, and you believe Obama is more qualified than McCain, she hasn't done any harm.

What bearing do my beliefs have on whether HRC has done harm? Am I to believe that, somehow, some way, my believing certain things will magically prevent her statement from having its presumptive effect? If only things were so easy!

Bottom line: the unmistakable suggestion is that McCain is more qualified for the office than is Obama. And no amount of slipshod reasoning will change that, I'm afraid.

Obfuscatory crap. It doesn't matter how this impacts people who already have formed their opinions, as you imply. She's trying to convince undecided voters that Obama doesn't belong on the same stage as her and McCain. She said so. She practically endorsed McCain over Obama. She's beneath contempt.

I believe that if qualifications to be CIC was the most important criteria we would be nominating someone like Wesley Clark. He has relevant experience.

McCain only very slightly more qualified than Clinton and Obama because he was actually in the military. But that's like saying since I have owned a cat for years, I'm more qualified to be a lion tamer than someone who has never owned a cat.

I believe that Obama is better all around. But my beliefs aren't the ones that are going to be impacted by the general election McCain ad that will surely come from Hillary's statements. If they were, I'd say no harm done. But no such luck.

I don't think the logic is that hard:

1. Clinton proposes (but does not define) a criterion for the presidency that trumps the party platform, since it puts her last remaining primary opponent on the other side of "the threshold" from herself and the Republican nominee

2. The evidence we have from the Clinton campaign rhetoric to date is that this criterion is her "experience"

3. Since this criterion trumps party platform, and Clinton is less "experienced" than McCain in CiC matters, it's a de facto blow to the Democratic party

If your confusion on the issue is sincere, it's because you're thinking that "endorses McCain" leads to "hurts Obama against McCain," and thus to "hurts party." The progression is simply that this argument frames both remaining Democratic candidates as an inferior choice to McCain, and thus inevitably hurts the party.

What Obama would do in the general against is irrelevant, since he doesn't define his candidacy in terms of CiC experience. What Clinton will do in the general after defining herself as a lesser version of McCain is less clear.

"child army" is a vicious, disgusting, racist reference to the marauding gangs of machete wielding African boys who butchered innocent women and children

Well, silly me. The image the phrase "children's army" brought to mind for me was that of the medieval Children's Crusade. Never thought of Africa at all. And after considering it, I think my impression better fits what Billy Glad probably had in mind: a band of starry-eyed youths convinced that they are on a mission from God and that their innocence and purity can save the world where their sinful elders have failed. Unfortunately for them, God apparently didn't stick around, and innocence and youth proved no match for treachery.

You really just refuse to see her for her true motives. Unbelievable.

Bob Johnson said that, when Hillary was out gaining her vaunted experience, Obama was doing "something in the neighborhood" -- code for doing drugs and for dealing them.

In fact, at the time in question, Obama was a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, and Hillary was a corporate lawyer at Rose.

Johnson went so far over the line with these reemarks that he was eventually made to apologize, but he said it. He is typical of the pack of scorched-earth idiots HRC has surrounded herself with. Penn, Wolfson, Dershowitz, not to mention the warmongers O'Hanlon and Pollock.

The people she chooses reflect her judgment. Her judgment reflects what she has learned, or hasn't, from her experience. As Aldous Huxley said, experience is not what happens to you, experience is what you do with what happens to you.

Gosh, it sure is lucky we had an experienced fella in the White House like President Nixon during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and not some inexperienced young guy.

Oh, wait.