Yeep.

I'm kind of with Skippy and Steveaudio here: Although I admire the hell out of Joe Wilson, he's clearly gone way, way overboard with "Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country".

I'm kind of confused as to what sort of ground the Clinton defenders are supposed to stand on now. On the one hand, Obama's people are kind of mean online, and there's been some crypto-sexist remarks from them. (Most of the truly bad stuff is from the Republicans.)

On the other hand, apparently if Obama becomes president, AMERICA DIES BY FIRE.

Er, yeah. There are ways to make the case that the junior senator from New York (somehow) has a lifetime of experience in foreign policy that makes her the better choice, and that (somehow) Obama won't get the knowledge he need from choosing good advisors, like every other head of state has in the history of ever. (Ripping on Rezko and Wright doesn't count. That was ridiculous.)

But "vote for us or die?" I thought that was Cheney's game. And I figured you weren't a big fan of the sort of hands he plays.

Edit: Come to think of it, I really, really don't get this line of attack. If Hillary loses, McCain will use these attacks on Obama himself; if they work, the Clinton's supporters (like Wilson) will be blamed.

If Hillary wins, though, then she'll have cemented that it's about "experience". But let's be honest: McCain absolutely crushes her on that front. I don't think it matters, because I think the first job of a president is to choose the experts, not be the expert, but it seems really self-defeating to me.

Then again, if (as I suggested) this isn't really about Clinton and Obama in the first place, but about who controls the levers of the Democratic party...