The naked truth behind Hillary Clinton's commander in chief test

Monday Howard Wolfson, the supreme spokesman for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, issued a pronouncement by telephone conference call: "We do not believe," he said, "that Sen. Obama has passed that key commander in chief test."

This point was apparently made to disqualify Barack Obama from the No. 2 vice president job that he says he would never want and Hillary Clinton herself brought up last week and has talked about several times along with her husband but now they've decided the Illinois senator hasn't passed the commander in chief test that he's never taken and no one knows what it is anyway.

Which got us to thinking. What do you suppose a commander in chief test looks like? What do you have to know how to do to become commander in chief? And how, by the way, do we know whether Sen. Clinton has passed or even taken the commander in chief test?

Her campaign has not released Clinton's commander in chief test, which....

fits because she hasn't released her recent years' income taxes either or the vast volume of documents from her first lady days that she says constitute so many of those 35 years of valuable experience that qualify her to be commander in chief.

So the entire world is left to guess what exactly is on Hillary Clinton's commander in chief test. Which may be what her campaign wants. Because, in point of fact, if you think about it, Obama and John McCain are actually a tad bit closer to being the commander in chief since Obama leads in popular votes, states and Democratic delegates and McCain has already locked up the Republican nomination, unless Ron Paul really turns it on here in the next few weeks.

You can leave your own ideas in the Comments section below about what should be on a commander in chief test.

We'll just offer a few opening thoughts. First of all, shouldn't a commander in chief test be administered by an independent person, say, someone with the voters' interests in mind, not someone who's seeking the job of commander in chief herself and would know the answers to her own commander in chief questions?

Second, from what we've noticed about commanders in chief, there's a whole lot of things they don't have to know. For instance, they don't have to cook anymore. They don't even have to know how to open a door. There's guys and gals in nice suits with really compact machine guns under their jackets to do that.

They do have to know how to wave from a large airplane's door, both coming and going. And they've got to climb those metal steps with the eyes of the world looking for the slightest slip.

Shaking hands should be a really important part of a commander in chief test. But that's basically what modern campaigns have come down to, so after two solid years of shaking hands on the campaign trail by the time a commander in chief takes the commander in chief oath -- oh, that's another thing they need to know: how to repeat the oath after the chief justice says it first phrase by phrase -- any candidate should be in pretty good shape for the hand-shaking question.

The only tough part is at those foreign summits where you have to shake hands for, like, two solid minutes and make it look sincere for the photographers the whole time because you know they'll use the photo of that one insincere nano-second.

A commander in chief needs to know how to answer the phone when it rings, whatever the hour. And a commander in chief should know how to say, "Get me ___," whether the next word is pizza or Rumsfeld.

A commander in chief needs to know how to sign legislation with 12 members of Congress pushing and shoving for camera position behind him/her. Also a little tricky is understanding Harry Reid without a translator and knowing how to sign your name one time while using 12 pens to do it and handing them out to the eager members of Congress who will disagree with you as soon as they get outside to the cameras.

The Pentagon provides all the maps you'll need for invading other countries. And the little toy tanks and guns to mark the troop locations. You do need to bring a lot of hangers for all the championship team jerseys with your name on them.

Sadly, you do have to visit Pennsylvania and Michigan sometimes and pretend to like them. But, on the other hand, whatever you say, everyone nearby will agree with you. No more wondering if they're sincere.

Oh, and the dog. You need one of those to run across the lawn and greet you at the helicopter. But you never have to go out again and stroll with an ice cream cone or sit in a sidewalk cafe free of gawking crowds. No more of that stopping by Olive Garden on the spur of the moment and waiting for a table with that goofy flashing pager. What a relief, eh?

Your colonoscopy report will be shared with the entire world automatically. And your tax records. Your friends from second-grade will become local celebrities for making up stories about you for local TV crews. You'll never have to use a bathroom again without someone first checking all the stalls and then standing outside yours.

And at night you can look out the White House windows at those poor people passing by in their own cars with the tops down and the CDs playing. They're laughing and maybe singing because no one in the world would like to kill them. And they're going somewhere, or nowhere, just for fun.

And you'll know that, having invested years of your life campaigning and passing the commander in chief test, you'll never ever have to do that again for the rest of your natural life.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Robert S. Hoover]

Good article.

(Thank you, Robert. I enjoyed writing it.)

[Tannim]

Commander-in-Chief test:
1. Read and memorized the Art of War.
2. Served, preferably in combat.
3. Never sold out his comrades in arms.
4. Even-tempered.
5. Mentally comeptent.
6. Understands that war is the last option, not the first.
7. Smarter than the average houseplant.
8. No hole in the back for a hand, and no strings coming down from above.
9. Understands the links between economic policy and foreign policy.
10. Has the respect of the military.

The grades:

Obama: Incomplete. 5 right, 4 wrong, 1 unknown
Clinton: Fails. 4 right, 5 wrong, 2 unknown.
Bush: Fails. 1 right, 9 wrong.
McCain: Fails. 1 right, 9 wrong.
Paul: Aces. 10 right.

Of the above list, which are annointed by the MSM as the frontrunners? Which is the incumbent?

The exercises are left to the reader.

[Figgins]

1. Have some personal knowledge of what it means to send young people into harm's way. Clinton, no; Obama, no; McCain, yes.
2. Have emotional stability in a crisis. Clinton, no - remember the tears in NH; Obama, who knows?; McCain, maybe - at least he's faced life threatening danger.
3. Give no BS answers to tough questions, and don't flip-flop. Clinton, no; Obama, no; McCain, maybe - at least you get a straight answer.

[sam]

Robert S. Hoover (frist comment) got all beautiful!

[Alan]

Brilliant, thank you.

I cannot inderstand why rank and file Americans allow absolute tossers, like the Clintons to bamboozle, con and bully them.

Being naive is one thing. Being stupid is a totally different kettle of fish and criminal to boot!

The Clintons are for themselves and, no one else! Power, power and the mis use of power solely for their convenience.

I do apologise. I really should be neutral, after all I am English!

Unfortunately, the wrong person being Commander in Chief in the Oval Office, doth not just affect myself and the rest of my country detrementally, in the case of the Clintons but, wider picture, the whole world.

Time to face up America. Prove you are the biggest and the best!!:)

Instead of fighting wars all over the world. Start putting money back into your own economy.

Farmers, ranchers mid west. Manufacturing in Ohio and the northern industrial states.

I am not a pacifist, ex British RN, done my time here and there. Just think of all the finance that could be released/invested in an American universal health/care package if you were not tied up in Iraq.

Of course that be a pipe dream. No way Jose, that American vested interest will ever allow that!!:):)

We be Billionaires, now we have to find a way to be Trillionaires!::)

Again thank you. An excellent, erudite commentary.

Alan

[Jay Johnson]

Great article. I loved it ! If George W. could pass the "commander-in-chief" test, everyone with a heartbeat is qualified. Hillary made a massive blunder regarding her vote to support the invasion of Iraq. She probably just saw the way the wind was blowing (as she always does) and went with the crowd. The fact that it could be a disaster never occurred to her. Bush was controlled by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove. President Hillary will be controlled by polls. She has no moral compass whatsoever. She's too hawkish when Americans are war-weary.

[Shami]

What about the test of unity, test of leadership, test of motivating people or test of winning hearts and minds of people? One cannot be a commander unless he/she can command people. Obama is a far better commander by bringing people together behind him.

[David]

At the very least, the Commander in Chief should be able to read at an 8th grade level.

Obama: pass
Clinton: pass
McCain: pass
Bush: FAIL

Maybe we need a No Commander In Chief Left Behind program.

[Steve Campbell]

Tannim, it appears to me that from your list, and the voting public on more than one occasion the results speak for themselves, and that perhaps your analysis of the questions in your test for candidates and the incumbent that you are in fact wrong, I guess that means you definitely fail the test !

[Noah]

Commander-in-Chief test:

1. Had tea with the wives of world leaders.
2. Redecorated the White house.
3. Voted for the Iraq war.

Clinton 3 / 3.
McCain 1 / 3.
Obama 0 / 3.

[sams]

Clintons campaigning stragedy seems to be based on discredditing Obama instead of telling the people what it is she can offer. It seems like this whole Clinton vs. Obama thing is to divide the mass population tired of Republicans and the Iraq war. Divide the people so McCain comes out on top.

[cherrycola]

I'm suspecting that one part of the test is timed, and requires the candidate to change from pajamas to full office attire before the person calling on the Red Phone hangs up.

Hillary can do this in six rings, but I bet it would take McCain at least eleven rings because of his wartime injuries. Not sure how Obama would fare.

[Wendy Brown]

Can Howard Wolfson please share with the rest of the us what exactly the Commander-In-Chief test?

Just curious what was George W. Bush score?

[Oregon4Obama]

Holy Mother Of God...Hillary Supporters, please listen, you have to be wondering who is this person whose corner you've been in.....First she wants Obama as VP, Bill wants Obama as VP and they talk about it for days and NOW, he hasnt passed the test.....Look past her potential to be the first women prez and find she wont represent what the first women president should look or act like.....you have to see that she is trying ANYTHING to win this.....she is behind by over 100 delegates. unless she wins all the remaining states by over 20% she will never catch Obama, she needs to step down gracefully and support the democratic party....right now Obama is in the best position, by support and polls, to beat McCain......If you are really a Hillary Supporter, you would recommend she step down and go with the one in front, Barack Obama.....the republican party is loving that the dems are divided, we need Hillarys Support, but only with her stepping down and getting behind the new hope....Obama 08

[karma geddon]

Commander in Chief should be an insomniac who lifts up the phone before it scares the sleeping children.

[Adevrx]

Good article. In a nutshell - to be a good public servant, NOT a self-servant. To listen, to rationally evaluate, to make clear-headed decisions and to inspire, motivate and bring people along as opposed to forcing one's will and mandates on them. It would appear that Mr. Obama clearly is better equipped than Ms. Clinton to pass my test. He has been, and continues to be, a public servant.

[Steve]

Hello, Everyone:

The "Commander in Chief" test is a fun and funny idea and great fodder for talking, but it ignores the reality of how we select Presidents. I'd argue that we've been doing the CiC test quite well every four years. It's called, "the election." As part of their voting decision, we all decide which candidate is "best" on a wide variety of dimensions.

Why do people think that there is or should be some set of external, objective criteria for picking leaders? I think our election process is just about the best system for picking leaders any one has developed in the course of recorded human civilization.

But, if I had to play the game, I'd suggest things more technical like knowing the current defense budget, capabilities of various weapons systems, general military history, etc.

[Steve Campbell]

Having the balls to stand up for what you believe and not be bullied by the idiots around you...

Bush: Pass
McCain: Pass
Clinton: Fail
Obama: Pass

Fighting a war that NEEDS to be fought and finished properly without knee-jerk reactions...

Bush: Pass
McCain: Pass
Clinton: Fail
Obama: Fail

Straight talking, do what you say you will do...

Bush: Pass
McCain: Fail
Clinton: Fail
Obama: Fail

Doing what no-one else has the balls to do...

Bush: Pass
McCain: Pass
Clinton: Fail
Obama: Fail

[Doc Owen]

It seems to me that the ability to INSPIRE would be the best test for a Commander in Chief. If Roosevelt had lacked that ability in the 30s and 40s where would we be now?

As for experience, if not for the inexperienced John Kennedy during the Cuban Missle Crisis, would we even be here to have a discussion on the topic?

I feel America needs a HERO at this point in history-not a HELLCAT.

[A. Grant]

1. Unite the country. I can think of two candidates (republican and democrat that can't even unite their party)

2. Stately.
(throwing cheap shots isn't very stately)

3. Not letting emotion overcome right decisions
(everyone was enraged about 9/11... but everyone knows you don't make decisions that'll affect the world when you aren't thinking straight and when you're furious)

4. Maybe not running out of money while campaigning. Replenishing a campaign becuase they have mismanaged money isn't very CEOish.
(which candidate left, to date, has been the only one to run a successful campaign in this regard?)

[Marcia]

Even temperament, even when provoked
Ability to assemble a team that can work together
Loyalty to the country and its citizens above loyalty to a particular class or industry or clique
High intelligence and fast learning curve
Health and stamina

I'm not going to do scores, but I believe Obama wins on all.

[JR]

Commander in Chief test:

1. Be able to kill all bad guys using other people's kids and equipment that costs more than five average families will make in their life.

2. A competent liar who can say the "truth" in a way that transcends over 300 million degrees of ignorance (give or take).

3. Someone who can eat the flesh of enemy babies and still come home and kiss their own children and tell them not to fight or cuss at school.

4. A solid dancer.

5. Someone who has read the Prince and realizes most lives are expendable (so long as you don't know them personally).

6. Puts cable television in every household and knows in their heart that being poor is worse than being dead (unless it's somebody else's welfare baby - at which point dead must be preferable).

7. Can jump rope for an hour straight without missing a skip.

8. Has never done anything questionable in their life that can't be covered up or explained by vague forgetfullness.

9. Simple enough to quantify the world into two separate classes: Jesus's children (good) and machine gun fodder (bad) - actual behavior is irrelevant.

10. Can blow a Hubba-Bubba bubble big enough to protect America from Death and find ways to blame any breeches on those who have things we want.

[George]

Clinton's Commander in Chief test is easy:

True or False:
1) I am Barack Obama

If you answered true to the first question, you failed.

We should believe Hillary on this, I mean it's not like everyone attached to the Kosovo and Northern Ireland diplomatic situations have no memory of Hillary actually being involved in anything even remotely like she's claiming.

[John Q Public]

If there's a Commander in Chief test, why do we have to have all this political campaigning? What a waste of money, time and energy. Bring on the CinC test! No Candidate left behind!

They should just sit all the potential presidents in a room for 3 days in uncomfortable chairs and administer the CinC exam, highest score wins.

It seems to me, that it's fair after all. Each candidate should be able to pass the minimum requirements testing for CinC before even thinking of running. You can't graduate High School in many states without passing a basic proficiency exam. What's the exam for what was the most powerful position in the world? I'd like to see no CinC left behind, but they need to post their test scores.

[Tara]

I think the question of who is qualified should be left up to the writers at Saturday Night Live. They appear to know more about who is ready to pick up the phone than anyone else. They keep on writing skits about it. Live this one where Obama wins and call Hillary for advice.

http://centerline.tv/2008/03/11/another-saturday-night-live-sketch-on-hillary-and-obama-at-3-am/

[Marshall]

Commander in Chief Test:

1. Understand American history, since, of course, if you aren't aware of history, you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
2. Thorough understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as why these documents are essential to maintaining a healthy democracy.
3. Stand by your principles regardless of poll data. Also be willing to modify your stance on the issues based on factual data and not pretend as though you had that position on the issue all along.
4. The ability to listen to a variety of opinions on issues, and avoid "yes-men" (or women).
5. See our country as it is....America populated by Americans and not allow an "us versus them" attitude to demean and belittle the national discourse.
6. Don't assume that the American people are stupid!

Obama - 6 of 6
Clinton - 1 of 6
McCain - 5 of 6
G.W.Bush - 0 of 6 (worst president ever...)

Cheers!

[Jen]

Listen:

Our Country is changing into a global empire. Our corporations are moving out of the country, our boarders are open to allow free flow of cheaper goods, and allowing military mobility between Canada and US. In effect, we are becoming dependent more and more on our Government with every presidential term.

Cheap imports with inflated prices to conform to our declining dollar..Gas prices soaring, National debt is almost impossible to comprehend. Tainted foods from China and other poluted counties of the world. Our farmers are paid welfare unable to compete with the global market prices.
Do you believe these changes are good? I don't, and many people who are jobless and homeless sure don't either!

We had our chance to repeal the trade deals and loss of our countries sovereignty and a chance to elect one candidate who still believes in the foundations of this country and in the constitution. We failed this country not getting our best hope nominated! RON PAUL.

The republican platform use to be, Small government, low taxes and since the platform was small government, there was no room in the budget for war. .McCain may call himself a Republican, but what he is, is a NeoCon..Just like what we have in the white house right now. The republican platform does not work with a neocon agenda. Changes and adjustments have become more like the democrat platform without allowing a safety net helping the American poor and middle class people a softer blow with the transitions into the New American Century (PNAC)..
We really have no choice but to elect a democrat socialist. We are going to need the welfare that Republicans reject as more and more jobs leave our country for cheaper labor. Corporations who do stay in the US hire people who accept lower pay. Corporations take advantage of the NAFTA affected masses from Mexico and take advantage of non violent criminals for cents on the hour. (Read more about that below).

McCain is a neocon with republican notions that doesn't work in our day and age..Besides that, He doesn't even seem to know his own mind, or pandered to the people, changing his message several times since he's been out and about among the American People campaigning..He'll forget about us when it's all over..to the neocons it's all about the focus over seas..Money not terror..War on Terror is another neocon notion and progressives agree with it, it’s real, but deceitful practices with neocon fear mongering ways..Truth will come out about that, soon!
Search or Google: Economic Hit .

Here is the article about non violent prisoners workers being exploited:

***Global Research reports that Human rights organizations are condemning a new form of exploitation in the US—the 2 million mostly Black and Hispanic prisoners working for Fortune 500 companies for a pittance. Global Research says companies investing in the prison industry don't have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance or vacations. If prison employees refuse to work for 25 cents an hour, they are locked up in isolation cells. According to California Prison Focus, the US has locked up more people than any other country. The U.S. has 25% of the world's prison population. Ten years ago there were five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000 inmates. Now there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. The Progressive Labor Party accuses the prison industry of being "an imitation of Nazi Germany with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps."
1. *** A new report has found that ninety-seven percent of 125,000 federal inmates have been convicted of non-violent crimes. It is believed that more than half of the 623,000 inmates in municipal or county jails are innocent
http://www.innworldreport.net/archives/fromthestudio/index.html

[Tannim]

Steve Campbell,

Or perhaps the voting public is generally reduced to MSM's daily edited Sound Bite Theater and is cozily insulated from the realities of bad foreign piolicy and needless wars (except at the gas pump and checkout line) and in general are just stupid. Considering that 1 in 5 people still think the Sun revolves around the Earth and now 1 in 4 teenage girls have an STD, while consuming toxic junk food and other poisons, then complaining about the lack of good health care when it's their own damned fault for getting sick in the first place, that makes more sense to think people are generally smart. People are just generally stupid and lazy, and their voting reflects that.

BTW, both Eisenhower and Washington score 10/10 as well...

[Penny k]

Posted by: Figgins | March 11, 2008 at 08:29 AM
Who Wrote:
1. Have some personal knowledge of what it means to send young people into harm's way. Clinton, no; Obama, no; McCain, yes.
2. Have emotional stability in a crisis. Clinton, no - remember the tears in NH; Obama, who knows?; McCain, maybe - at least he's faced life threatening danger.
3. Give no BS answers to tough questions, and don't flip-flop. Clinton, no; Obama, no; McCain, maybe - at least you get a straight answer.

1-Have Some personal Knowledge about sending someone into war? Why on Earth did McCain so fervently support this war, and why then is he saying he is willing to wage it for a hundred years if need be? Granted being a veteran should be a definate plus. But judgement seems to trump service.
2-Emotional stability in a crisis? John McCain sings "Bomb Bomb Iran" on stage at a rally in the midst of his candidacy for president? Snaps bitterly at reporters on a regular basis? has a reputation for being short tempered?
3-Giving no BS answers for tough questions and no flip-flopping? McCain's flip flopping his his greatest liability at this point. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, then voted for them when conservatives crucified him. He catagorically denounced water-boarding as a form of torture then flopped and supported it. When John was confronted with his assesment of Iraq in which he stated you could "Walk freely through the streets" He then was forced to flop and recant that assertion. McCains ideology is what makes him a poor commander in cheif choice. Now onto the meat of McCains supposed CIC arguement...his POW status. Now i LOVE John for his service but sorry how does being a POW qualify you to be a better president? It simply makes him admirable, not more qualified, especially in light of his flip-flop on the use of torture.

[Tannim]

BTW, Steve Campbell, I score 8.5/10 on my test (read but not memorized Art of War, so that's half-credit, and I lose a point for not serving even though I work with military folks every day as a civilian contractor.)

[Alex Marin]

Wow! I actually liked Obama the better when he was the good boy longing for hope and unity. He's just become the same thing his followers criticize. Not only a member of his campaign called Sen. Clinton a "monster", but his campaign has recently released sexist remarks such as "laundry" and "kitchen-sink" about Sen. Clinton. How come than after a well organized and wealthy campaign he failed in TX, OH, RD? Hillary Clinton has proved several times that she thrives when tested under pressure. She's the best canddiate for President!

[Frolomo]

Is stealing stuff from the White House once you finish your term a requirement to be comander in chief? If it is, then HRC is very well qualified.

[nm]

hey, everybody, just wanted to let you know i took the commander-in-chief test this morning at my local high school. i passed!!! now it's on to the lsat!

[IT TEch]

Interesting article, however it is pretty narrow minded.
It shows out a lot of the writer's personal view instead of a fair one. I do feel our media is very corrupted somtimes.

It is a fact: there are quite a lot guys out there who really cannot stand a woman to be as the commander in chief no matter what test they designed. No matter how you use your words, it shows through from deep down your mind. It is a pity for human race.

[Penny k]

Kudos to JR's list. Great stuff. I would also add "Ability to covertly funnel public money into private coorperations that ultimatly benefits personal acquaintances, through no bid contracts"

[Debi]

You made me laugh with that nonsense that we have a Commander In Chief test every 4 years called the election. Then it made me want to cry. If the last two elections are any indication, with hanging chads and all the other garbage that went on, Bush never won a thing. Bush hasn't made an independent choice or an intelligent move since he took office and as far as I know, he was never REALLY elected. We haven't had a real commendar in chief for almost 8 years. I'm not sure there is anyone in government who remembers what the test is and I'm not sure the American public cares enough, truly, to even try to come up with something.

[Matha Davidson]

SIGH BIG BIG SIGH....Clintons are doing and saying anything to get to the Whitehouse. Every citizen in every country with a TV or computer since the 90's didn't expect anything else, so why should the American people? Are you soooo blind!! THE most corrupt couple in American history!! Why on Gods green earth do you keep electing them? What has Clinton, as senator, done FOR New York? With ALL that experience she keeps talking about, must have been something HUGE. Her senate record must be something astounding. Why don't you look it up?What a joke. The US will be the soap opera the rest of the world tunes into if the Clintons get back the Whitehouse. The world will watch, sigh, shake it's head and wonder why they didn't learn the first time around.

[Wayne Loy in South Carolina]

Men with a handfull of boxcutters brought on 911. Now a man wants to be commander in cheif and will not respect, honor, or salute the flag of the United States. He will not say the pledge to the flag of the United States of America that thousands have given thier life for. He is a disgrace to the men and women that died at Pearl Harbor and around the world for that flag. Please America WAKE UP!

[Dan]

Pushed the wrong button, 6 times, that's the most ridiculous things a politicion could have done. It's Obama who is bamboozling and hoodwinking American.

[alee21]

I have to say that the newly unfurled response tactic from Obama’s camp will not be the winning strategy. Get past all the rhetoric from either camp, all the surrogates' shooting their mouths off and focus on the matters at hand. Do not take for granted what is offered up by the press, op-ed columnists, the so-called experts, do your own homework.

Get past your bias and go over the policy issues. You may not like Sen. Clinton but you will conclude that she is the best candidate for the Presidency.

[Emily]

How hard is it for a newspaper in america - any newspaper - to just report the facts, not opinions?

I know this is part of a blog but I'm so tired of newspaper's across america campaigning for one canidate over another. Attention Editors: REPORT THE NEWS!!!

Information about all three canidates should be straight-forward, honest and left to the READER to create an opinion.

(As you point out correctly, this isn't a newspaper. So you can direct that question elsewhere. It's a blog. If you read one item about your candidate, you might think we're biased against or in the tank for him/her. The only solution is to come back here again and again and become a loyal Ticket reader so you can see we are over time an equal opportunity offender. We're open 24/7. Thanks for reading and taking the time to leave a comment.)

[American]

Dear England,

Yes yes we are being bamboozled. Last time we were bamboozled we stood up against King George.

Why don't you stand up against your king rather than take up my valuable preaching to me about how we are all dumb sods.? Go get something that looks like Democracy and then we'll talk.

[Subhash Durlabhji]

How about the following?

Know history thoroughly.

Abhor war. Embrace non-violence in thought, word and deed.

Know the Constitution, but even more, be committed to the spirit of the document.

Abandon ego. Transcend self.

I think these are the necessary and sufficient qualifications for a commander-in-chief. The first three I think can be judged adequately by a careful examination of the candidate's record of word and deed. The last is tricky, humility unfortunately is mistaken easily for cowardice or lack of patriotism.

My judgment: Obama meets the tests best but still falls short of the ideal. The other two fail at many points. We are all excited about having such terrific candidates, the reality is even Obama falls short of the need of the hour. But he has the best learning curve of the three....

[robinia]

Initially, I thought the sub-title read, "The truth about a naked Hillary's commander in chief test." I said, "That a boy, Bill ! She's finally acting like a real woman, huh?"

Then, it was clear that it was just another boring article about a wannabee important person.

[Hinnis]

I am one of the 25% of Hillary's supporters (according to Pew research) who could never vote for Obama. I have researched his background, and he definitely does not represent the "new" kind of politics which he implies is one of his strong points. Just a few examples: The way he obtained his first elective office by forcing his mentor and friend, Alice Palmer, off the ballot; his connections to Rezko and his unwillingness to provide full disclosure; his deception regarding the recent contacts between his chief economic advisor and the Canadian embassy; and now his changing stories about how he will get us out of Iraq. I also feel that he has been deceptive in the debates and in his characterization of himself and Hillary Clinton. He has also misled the country regarding his alleged "continual opposition" to the Iraq war as a method of countering Hillary's greater level of experience, and when Bill Clinton pointed this out, the Obama campaign played the race card and falsely accused him of calling Obama (or his candidacy) a "fairy tale." I am also concerned about his unbridled ambition which led to his failure to have even one hearing in 14 months regarding Afghanistan or Pakistan on the committee which he chairs, because he was too busy campaigning. At such a critical juncture, I believe we need someone with the experience to tackle the many problems which this country is now facing. To me, his lack of experience coupled with the vagueness with which he sets forth his positions, makes him an unknown quantity with respect to his suitability for the Presidency. In addition, until just recently, he has receive a free pass from the press, and has not had to field the kinds of attacks that the Democratic nominee will most certainly face in the general election. Regarding Hillary's ability to govern, as opposed to Obama, who has only held national elective office for approximately 3 years (much of which has been consumed by his quest for the presidency), Hillary has been in the Senate since 2001. Senators on both sides of the aisle have grown to respect her ability to reach across the aisle to get things done. In the debates, I believe she showed a much more mature and intelligent command of all of the issues presented to her. And, I do believe that it is counterintuitive to think that someone as intelligent as Hillary who was a witness to history every day for 8 years in the White House, would not have learned valuable lessons from both the successes and failures of the Clinton administration, which will help her integrate into the job of President much more quickly.

[robinia]

P.S.

Furthermore, my blimey counterpart from England, regarding your "stop fighting wars all over the world" comment, I don't like America's foreign policy's practices the past couple of decades either. However, you as a Brit conveniently picks and chooses which wars to criticize. Lets go back about 90 years. World War I and World War II to be exact. If you know anything about History, then you would know the U.S. policy during those eras were that of nuetrality. Do you regret America's intervention to these two wars? Your bloody behind would be speaking German right now. How dare you! Your own England's historical legacy "conquered" nations despite their being unwilling to be thwarted by the crown, yet you have the AUDACITY to comment on OUR affairs? Shame on you ! ! ! Every administration has a potential to be remembered to reflect a Chamberlain or a Churchill for crying out loud. Why don't you study the biggest blunder of the 20th century when your great Prime Minister Chamberlain's appeasment prompted him to falsely claim "Peace in our time." Did the English people then, believe him?

[SimpleRep]

To my fellow AMERICAN blogger, you know when the French or British have something to say about our poltical rituals and policies, then have the nerve to justifiably observe and state that "America stop fighting wars all over the world", it's always good to remind THEM that they designed the originall blueprint. What America has become over the last 70 years, was what they were for centuries before that.

Alan/England...this presidential election is an "American-thing" and you would NOT be able to understand. Your comments maybe agreed upon or not by my fellow Americans, but it is most definitely not appreciated and necessary. Thank you.

[Robert]

First test of a Commander in Chief, to bloody realise that they are not the Commander in Chief, they are just the head of a government administration, at the command of the people and the congress. They are their to administer the government based upon the will of the people, and specifically have had all their autocratic powers circumscribed by what should be a far more active congress. Any idiot who stands up there and expects to be able to order the rest of the population about, absolutely should not be there in the first place.

[Nimrod]

According to the Clintons,
1-You MUST have been a first lady.
2-You MUST be able to cry in public when confronted with tough moments (The NH way).
3-You must be able to tell lies and get away with it.
4-Do not have to care about your decisions (The Iraqi War).
Sorry Americans.

[Kathleen]

To be true to yourself and not stand by a man who would publicly humiliate you, unless you stay with him for the sole purpose of future power.
To be honest enough to release your tax returns in a timely fashion so people can make informed decision for themselves.
Not use footman/woman to personally attack the opposition and then act like Opps, really wish they hadn't said that when you know you planned it that way.
To give a hoot what the people want over your own twisted agenda.
To respect the voters enough not to steal votes you do not deserve. (Florida, Michigan)
At least these things for starters.

[Kathleen]

To SimpleRep,
One of the nice things about the internet is its ability to be global. Alan/England please do not listen to this blogger. I, like most intelligent bloggers want to hear the views of the entire world and often look to the BBC to get another take on a story of global interest. Enlightenment is a good thing. Do not let some Republican tell you otherwise. They are good for that. Telling the rest of us what we can say or do. What they think is right and wrong and why the rest of us should blindly follow. Keep speaking your mind, whether I agree or not, is unimportant. Global conversations help everyone understand what the people think. Not just what the politicians want us to believe.

[James Miller]

Hillary voiced her opposition to President Bush's pardoning of Mr. Libby, but she failed to voice her opposition to her husband as he handed out 140 Presidential Pardons on their last days in the White House. Is this the first-hand experience she garnered while she was in the White House?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy

This list of Pardons include individuals charged with cocaine possession, cocaine distribution, bank fraud, medicaid fraud, tax evasion, wire fraud, tax evasion, securities fraud, armed robbery, etc etc..

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

According to Wikipedia, "In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction (the couple were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business transactions in certain states). First Lady Hillary Clinton's youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf.[11] In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.[12]"

How can we forget the substantial donations to the Clinton Library and Hillary's senate Campaign by fugitive Mark Rich, who was pardoned by the Clintons.

Susan McDougal was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal.

Roger Clinton, Bill's half-brother was pardoned on drug charges.

The clemency of the FALN extremists. A political motivation to assist his wife's senate bid?

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=ODA1MDMx

Does the Pardon process work or is it shamefully abused? What are Obama's thoughts on this topic?

[dave]

anyone honest, intelligent, and courageous enough to resist the temptation of selling out to a seemingly overwhelmingly powerful, corrupt global lobby of banking and military industry and dominant intimidating corporate elites; with true respect and love for humanity and individual freedom and dignity; with the backbone to make informed, scrupulous, analytically mature decisions based on incorruptible principles they are always prepared to share, to protect and defend in the best interest of the people that entrusted them with their job, is fit for that task - as well as for their day job in the white house they are prepared to do with absolute dedication, transparency, sense of responsibility and accountability; proficiency in competent team work, efficient delegating, an open mind, informed yet swift and independent decision making, a sure sense for priorities, an all but complete lack of cynicism, twisted fanatism, heroic fantasies, false pride and pathological greed, can only be additional recommendations.
to even come up with immature ideas like that of this hypothetical test, is a sure demonstration of the lack of exactly those qualities required. but contrary to corporate media suggestion, and to the overall media blackout, ron paul is still in the race.

[SimpleRep]

KATHLEEN,

What makes you think I'm a Republican? Is it a possible that you thought my user name stood for Simple Republican oppose to Simple Representative? If I were a chauvenist I would simply state that you are a typical woman, but I'm not, so I won't.... however, your double sworded assumptions amuses me...GO OBAMA!

[Gorefan]

Senator Clinton likens her campaign as an application for a job. She wants the voters to hire her.

Now, we learn that she has embellished her resume with meetings that never took place and citing a role in peace negotiations where she wasn't a participant (along with other descripancies).

In the last several years, a couple of college football coaches had to resign because they also falsified their resumes.

Should a candidate for President of the United States be held to a higher standard then a college football coach?

(I don't mean to diminish the importance of integrity in college football coachs, only highlight the need for it in the presidency).

Gore/Obama '08

[Military Mom]

Good article! Quite Humorous! I am a Republican with sons scattered abroad including Iraq. I make a habit of reading and watching and making an INFORMED decision on elections. Idiot response about Obama not being patriotic...FOOL...do some research. For me and my family...either Obama or McCain...NEVER Clinton. How stupid to even consider having them back in the White House.