A speck of sanity on MyDD

..among a sea of stupefying idiocy

My - I am pleasantly surprised - I guess Singer has always been sane. He's kinda making the argument that a lot of us have been making all around here for a while.

Does anyone think that the mainstream media will pick up on this in a big way anytime soon?

Don't Concede Issues of National Security to McCain
by Jonathan Singer, Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:36:19 PM EST

I've said this before in the context of clean government and ethics reform, but the Democrats simply must not concede the issue of national security to John McCain. First of all, it's fairly clear that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be better stewards of America's foreign policy and national security than McCain, who wants to leave American forces mired down in Iraq for a century and who continues to use hawkish language that could get us involved in an outright conflict with Iran. Secondly, and more important in the short run, giving McCain a pass on national security makes it a whole lot harder to beat him in a general election.

With this all in mind, compare these two messages coming out of the Clinton and Obama campaigns just one day after McCain all but admitted he has no idea what's going on in Iraq. First, here's Reuters:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama belittled Republican John McCain on Wednesday for misidentifying Iraqi extremists, saying he fails to understand the war has emboldened U.S. enemies.

First Read:

Bill Clinton told voters in Northeastern Pennsylvania today that his wife is the only Democratic candidate "who can stack up against Sen. McCain on the national security issues," and that a victory in this state could pave the way to her winning the nomination.
Notice how one campaign goes directly after McCain and the other goes and directly backs up McCain on the issue of national security at the very time when McCain's credentials on national security are being called into question. Remind me again which campaign is supposed to be the one that understands how to run an extended hardened effort against the GOP?

Don't think for a second that the comments from the Clinton campaign -- from the former President and the candidate herself -- suggesting that McCain is strong on national security, conceding the issue to him, aren't going to hamper Democratic efforts up and down the ballot come November. It's at times like these that you really have to ask, is it really worth it?

To reinforce my comment about the idiocy, here is the first comment

GOD DAMN AMERICA! (1.00 / 2)

Obama and Wright already have.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:39:09 PM EST

And here is another very logical comment - sometimes even freepers have better logic

Re: Don't Concede Issues of National Security to M (none / 0)

the only person it harms in the general is Obama.

Because he is weak on national security.

by zane on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:39:57 PM EST

It's a short dairy on original matter, but it can provoke some discussion I think

•  Singer seems to be pretty sane

  He rebuked Jerome on Obama's speech yesterday.  

  by smash artist on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:57:32 PM PDT

•  They all must have jobs lined up in the...

  ...Clinton administration. No other way to explain their constant concern trolling over Obama.

  by Hesiod on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM PDT

•  Bill Clinton is fibbing...

  its his credentials as a former President not HIllary's.

  by pd1969 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:58:25 PM PDT

  •  And his credentials suck as much

    as McCain's.  Not sure who was the better killer in Iraq, Clinton or GWB, but hundreds of thousands of innocent people died because of these two monsters.

    by Marie on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:09:34 PM PDT

    •  Monsters.....?

      Hook, line and sinker.

      by Fabian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:12:15 PM PDT

•  Singer seems like...

  a still, calm voice in the whirlwind over there.  Does he post at Kos as well?

  by mayan on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM PDT

•  Zanes comment is still stupid

  because it misses the point that suggesting mccain is strong on national security helps no one. even if you think your candidate is strong there is only advantage to make mccain look week. in fact if your strong their it helps you to make mccain look weak.

  by Liberal Youth on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:03:34 PM PDT

•  Two Reasons Hillary Can't Easily Criticize McCain

  1. She has already conceded that McCain meets the "threshold" (whatever that means) for being Commander in Chief while arguing that Obama does not. So McCain can attack Hillary and/or Obama as unfit CICs whereas she in particular can't respond in kind. Her "threshold argument" is yet another example of her saying whatever it takes to win for today, regardless of the larger consequences to her party.

  Please note: She can fairly criticize Obama's experience, but she shouldn't do so by elevating the Republican nominee over her own party's potential nominee.

  2. She voted for the war. So she can't criticize the decision to go into Iraq b/c she'll be labeled a flip flopper. This only leaves the nuanced argument of how  she'd do things "differently" in Iraq than McCain. That didn't work for Kerry, and it won't work for Hillary.

  by ZizzerZazzerZuzz on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:12:42 PM PDT