Isn't the problem with the Clintons that they can't see the big picture? Hasn't it always been that? It's always about surviving, about staying alive, about surmounting obstacles (that they created). This line of attack about Obama "not being ready to be commander-in-chief" is sorta ridiculous, and Steve brings the relevant quote by Bill--“That’s politics”--and he's right.
Still, winning over Obama on this issue means not that hawkish national security might become the big issue in the election, but that it will. I'm not anxious to watch John and Hill out-hawk each other, and it shows that, for all her braggadocio about experience, Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to understand anything about contemporary politics. You can't beat the Republicans at their own game at national security. They made it, they know the rules, and they make the rules. The rules are loaded. Witness how Obama's perfectly reasonable comment on taking action against al-Qaeda without Pakistan's permission rapidly became a point of right-wing hysteria for a while, despite this being the same right wing that wants us to invade Darfur, stay in Iraq for a few millennia and bomb the hell out of Iran just for good measure. It is, in short, a group largely populated by insane paranoiacs who are trying to build some sort of new utopia of American Empire. Never mind that an opposition to the idea of utopia used to be a key conservative principle.
Hillary can't win at this game, and it's a game that we Democrats ought to cash out of while we can. Sure, plotting a new course forward might fail big time, but I sense that most people would be receptive to new ideas at this point. If Hillary is either naive or arrogant enough to believe that she can win this contest--well, that's a disqualifying factor for her nomination, in my opinion.
