Much has been written about the Clinton "Commander-in-Chief Test," including, most recently, the new statement by Howard Wolfson discussed on TPM Election Central.
I'm writing not to defend the now-notorious C-i-C test, but to explain what I think is behind it, and how it might actually be coherent even as it does all the bad things it does (reinforcing an opinion that hawkishness is strength, national security is a Republican strong suit, McCain is a tough opponent, and so forth).
IMHO, the Clinton campaign's point makes more sense if you read the "key commander-in-chief test" as the demonstration of the ability to convince the public that you can be commander-in-chief, rather than the demonstration of the actual ability to be commander-in-chief.
Read More