[originally posted  as a comment (now slightly expanded) to this diary that talked about how it is better to pressure Supers than to tell HRC to quit]

The real meaning of the JUDAS comment and the HRC big money people threatening Pelosi and the DCCC was simple: intimidate superdelegates. Classic maneuver: "if you come out for Obama in any way, we will bury you!" I don't know if anyone truly groks how far-reaching the Clinton's influence is in the Democratic Party Machinery, but I imagine it would give even the most insulated Super pause.

[continued after the fold]

(AP)  The Wicked Witch was overheard complaining that a Brother had stolen her family’s ruby-teflon breastplate, which had once worked for her husband the Warlock but since she lost it has been causing her spells to bounce back at her.

Eyewitnesses say they saw the Wicked Witch throwing spell after spell to no effect. Unsuccessful spells included Switch-the-Goalpost, Threshold-be-Mine, Bend-Supers-to-My-Will, Look-He’s-Black and Whatever-They-Say-I-Did-They-Did-It-First-and-Worse.

Link

The [edited: sometimes-]respected Factcheck.org website calls HRC's "experience" into question. Though there are other articles out there (such as the Chicago Tribune's) talking about the same thing, Factcheck.org has a rep of being non-partisan and should help to bolster the arguments against false claims of experience, C-in-C thresholds, etc.

Summary

On March 6 Hillary Clinton claimed that, unlike Barack Obama, she and likely Republican nominee John McCain have "cross[ed] the commander-in-chief threshold." In a CNN interview the day before, Clinton had listed five foreign policy accomplishments. We can't determine how much behind-the-scenes work Clinton did while first lady, and she certainly took an active interest in foreign policy when her husband was president. Moreover, her time as first lady plus her longer Senate career do give Clinton more foreign policy experience than Obama. But the public record of her actions shows that many of Clinton's foreign policy claims are exaggerated.

[Summary points after the fold]

Obama Receives Endorsement of Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air Force

Link

Yeah, the flag officers come through! Listen to this:

"Those of us who have served, worn the cloth of our nation, and gone into harm's way know that to be successful we must have the strongest sense of trust in our Commander in Chief. We must be confident that he or she has listened to the best possible advice, that he or she has garnered the best possible information from all possible sources, that he or she has analyzed and weighed all the possible consequences and outcomes, and that he or she has made the decision to exert military force as a last possible resort," said Admiral (Ret.) Robert "William" Williamson (USN). "Of this I am certain: Senator Obama will do all of those things and much more to ensure the safety and freedom of our citizens, our allies, and coalition partners. He has all the great qualities and attributes required to carry out the most difficult duties of the Presidency.

Among those endorsing were [after the fold]:

In this morning's NYT, Brooks argues that while Obama has been successful in staying above the fray by avoiding negativity and cheap-shot campaigning, the "Clinton Rules" will force him to play hardball and that such a strategy change will erode the main message of Obama's campaign.

The Obama campaign is now making a big issue of Hillary Clinton’s tax returns and dropping hints about donations to President Clinton’s library and her secret White House papers. It’s willing to launch an ethics assault. "If Senator Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we’ll join that debate," the Obama strategist David Axelrod told reporters the other day....These attacks are supposed to show that Obama can’t be pushed around. But, of course, what it really suggests is that Obama’s big theory is bankrupt. You can’t really win with the new style of politics. Sooner or later, you have to play by the conventional rules.

The problem with this argument, as I discussed at greater length in my diary yesterday, is that negative criticism does not have to equal dirty, underhanded tricks.

[more after the break]

I have long held that Obama needs to show his ability to push back more strongly in the face of the attacks and negative characterizations against him. This is because a large percentage of voters will not feel confident voting for a candidate that appears too dovish or meek. In order to feel comfortable with a potential president, especially in a "time of war," many voters need to see how a candidate stands up to severe attack, how firm his or her spine is, how much righteous anger he can show – in short, they need to see his "fighting spirit"... Compare Obama to Clinton in this regard (ignoring the content for the moment), and Clinton comes out far ahead. I sense Obama does not really understand this fact about the mass of the US population. The closest I saw him come to pushing back spinefully was in his response to McCain and the "Al Qaeda-in-Iraq" issue following the last debate. I thought he was finally showing some mettle, though it was still muted. So why has he not really shown the same mettle in face of the Clinton attacks?  Why is he holding back?

More after the fold. Please rec if you want the Obama camp to take notice. Thanks.

[Posted originally as a reply to a comment on MyDD today, but as it became more substantial, I thought I would post here]

I am an Obama supporter, but I too am glad to hear your praise of Hillary. I think we can all agree that political discourse tends to paint people with a single-color brush, which obscures the truth that politicians are people, too, with multifaceted talents, motivations, and accomplishments. I have no doubt that Hillary is both a compassionate person and an gifted manager/doer, as you have aptly pointed out in her 9-11 support of early responders. I too think she would bring a level of competence to the White House that would be leagues beyond Bush-Cheney.  However, let’s not confuse her compassionate heart or managerial prowess with the "Ready on Day 1" or "3am Phone Call" arguments, for they are completely different. In the case of the latter, the issues are judgment, character, and leadership style. This is where millions of people are casting their vote for Obama instead, because we see Hillary lacking critical ingredients in these areas. Here's my take on each of these areas: