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.
To begin with, Sargent on Wolfson...
Howard Wolfson ... said that the possibility of Obama as veep is not something that she is "prepared to rule out at this point," adding: "At the same time we continued to believe that Senator Obama has not passed the key commander-in-chief test at least at this point."
A bit later in the call, Wolfson was pressed on this question, and said:
"Senator Clinton will not choose any candidate who has not at the time of choosing passed the national security threshold. But we have a long way to go until Denver, and it's not something she's prepared to rule out at this point."
It's not a great argument, and it's full of holes. But as a devil's advocate, here's how I think it's supposed to work:
- McCain is the opponent, and he'll run on experience and national security.
- To counter that, we need a Democrat who can run on experience and national security.
3a. Polls show that the public still has questions about Obama's ability to command.
3a1. Presumably because he's less experienced, or perhaps because he's the liberal/antiwar candidate.
3b. Polls show that the public has fewer questions about Hillary's ability to command.
3b1. Presumably because she's more experienced, or perhaps because she's a hawkish pragmatist.
3c. Polls show that the public has fewer questions about McCain's ability to command.
3c1. Presumably because he's more experienced, has a military background, introduced the idea of The Surge, etc..
- Until the public has overcome its uncertainty about Obama, he won't have passed the "commander-in-chief test," which gauges how comfortable people are with the idea of each candidate as c-i-c. It's about perception, not actuality or underlying ability.
4a. If Obama is the nominee without having passed the "c-i-c test," he'll face McCain, a candidate who has passed it, in an election that'll be all about that fundamental contrast. So his candidacy will be a non-starter, he'll never have a chance to address other issues, and he'll lose.
4b. If Hillary is the nominee, she'll have passed the "c-i-c test," so she can face McCain, fight him to a draw on that topic, and get to engage him on other issues. So she'll tie on c-i-c, beat him on everything else, and she'll win.
- If Obama wins over the public, and they become comfortable with the idea of him as c-i-c, then he'll have passed the "c-i-c test," and none of the problems in 4a will even crop up.
- At that point, he'll be a solid candidate as President or VP to stack up against McCain.
Moreover, the c-i-c test is supposed to be a basis for why Clinton would be a better critic of McCain than Obama would, because her stance is Very Serious (to borrow a phrase from Atrios about the Ken Pollacks and Michael O'Hanlons and Tom Friedmans of the world), whereas Obama's inexperience and antiwar stance will make him seem Unserious.
So the "Commander-in-Chief Test" is not meant to flatter McCain, and is not blatantly hypocritical or incoherent.
But, I hasten to add, that still doesn't make it a winning argument.
Because although Clinton may think she's passed the c-i-c test, it's not a first-past-the-post thing. What worries me in particular is that she can still fail her own test, retroactively, if her actual level of experience is shown to be less than advertised.
(NOTE: If anyone wants to discuss this, I would appreciate it if it didn't immediately become a flamewar about Hilareez Eevul Taktix. I'd rather engage with whether this reading of what the c-i-c test is actually explains anything about Clinton and Wolfson's use of the phrase.)
(UPDATE: I should've noted this recommended diary by slinkerwink about the Commander-in-Chief Test and Obama's pushback.)