[Rumor] Obama Internals Have Him Leading In Ohio Above MoE

Name one single HRC foreign policy accomplishment beyond getting endorsements, Susan.

Here, allow me to help you:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/pregnant_pause.html

Her role in the Northern Ireland Peace Process

Her challenge to China on women's rights, IN China at the UN conference in 1995

Her 1998 stand on Palestinian statehood 

Her role in the US policy shift towards Africa, as described by Joe Wilson here:

During my tenure as Senior Director for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, I had the responsibility for helping to plan and execute President Clinton's historic trip to that continent. It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa. I spent eleven days with President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton traveling to six countries and meeting with leaders from many more. She was a full participant in all of our activities and a key adviser--and for good reason. Hillary had previously traveled to Africa, leading a prominent U.S. delegation to several countries. On her return she was instrumental in persuading the president that he should invest that most precious of presidential assets--time--in his own trip.

 btw, what are Obama's foreign policy accomplishments?

Northern Ireland: George Mitchell is on the record as saying she had no direct involvement

The China speech: It's a speech. "Just words" remember? It was a nice gesture but that's hardly the caliber of CinC, phone call at 3am material

Palestinian statehood: She was functioning as a surrogate for her husband. That's nice, and what she said was admirable, but again how does this make her a CinC, especially when this is a thing most Democrats were echoing?

Africa: Ok, great, another Bill Clinton coattail.

These are fine things, but how exactly is performing a 'me too', making a speech, and following Bill's lead considered overwhelmingly substantial? Obama's record is thin too, but most incoming President's are. That's not unusual.

Now I know you're a troll, Susan.  Yes, let's come in with a MyDD blog post.  They're about as objective about Clinton as DKos is about Obama.  I don't give a damned about her experience.  She and many of her Democratic colleagues are on the wrong side of history.

She didn't read the NIE and voted to give Bush a blank check.  And even when you take that in "context" that makes her politically naive.  The only thing HRC has had an interest in since leaving the White House has been getting back to the White House, apparently by any means necessary.

I've read it already. That's what you have been mining most of today.

I'm not impressed.

The entire construction of the 3am scenario is utterly puerile to begin with. It's so uplifting to see Hillary reduced to some kind of 24esque framing of national security -- as though terrorists are like burgulars and Hillary is America's ADT. That's not how government or national security works.

I was busy tending to my elderly mother most of today. I posted a couple of things here early this morning, and just got back around 3 o'clock. Sorry, I have a life.

The 3 am scenario isn't about terrorists. Most of our international incidents are not terrorist incidents, and believe it or not, most of the world isn't in our time zone. 

This is becoming rather petty.

I recognized several things from that mydd diary that you have posted to here today. I don't know the times. I just know it has been over the "course of the day" as a short-hand for "sometime today".

The 3am scenario could be a lot of things, but it's natural to view it in the light (referring to terrorists) given the commercials construction and the way the debate has been framed thus far. International incidents typically just don't play out like that in practice. Only something unexpected and precipitous (like a terrorist bombing) does.

I'm well aware the world doesn't run on our clock. That's not the point. It's a piece of propaganda. An international incident could occur at any one of the 24 hours. So why choose 3am? Because as propaganda the boogey-man in the middle of the night is much more effective at appealing to base instincts. I thought you said you were interested in studying the messages of campaigns and their attendant psychology?

It's a stupid commercial and deserves the derision it receives.

then I don't know why it's got so many people blowing a gasket.

I guess any further discussion with you at this late date is pointless, because your mind is made up, as is mine now, and you're dodging my questions.

Peace.  See you in the general.

Democrats reject it for the same reason they have rejected similarly framed arguments and ads from the Bush administration. If you have a point to make, make it. Why the need to appeal to base instincts if your candidate is so wonderful?

Here, since we are in a copy/paste mood. Don't take my word for it, listen to Bill Clinton's position.

I don't think I've dodged any of your questions, but I know you have left off from plenty of mine. And, yes, my mind is definitely made up and has been for months.