For all the academics that have aligned with Obama, there just seems to be a denial-based blind spot about figuring out the problem that Team Clinton has solved in some fashion and at cost of the support of the highly educated people that have sided with Obama.

What problem has Clinton solved?

Her solution is to adopt a campaign of “fear” (scary 3 a.m. ads) that McCain just borrowed to make his own. What did that solve? It seems to me, she just created more of a problem for herself and the Democrats by accepting the right-wing framing of the “national security” issue.

Which problem is solved by adopting the neo-con framing and rhetoric on this issue? (Weak vs. strong)

Can she really be more “manly” than John McCain? No, you can’t beat them at their “macho” game where the one who calls for the most wars wins.

The way to do it is go after the “judgment” of going to war, which is exactly what Obama has been doing.

What poor “judgment” has Obama made that disqualifies him to be president? Clinton supporters don’t have a good answer for that, so they’ve adopted the neo-con “tough-guy shtick.

It was poor “judgment” for Bush to start an unnecessary war. That’s a sentiment that the majority of the public agrees with.

Obama doesn’t have to pick up a chainsaw. If being “tough” and acting macho is what Americans want, then why is Bush at only 19% approval?

The answer: he’s shown poor judgment.

He's basically just a girl -- weak and scared and afraid of fighting -- and therefore not really fit to be Commander-in-Chief.

I’m sorry to say that this theme is not coming just from the Glenn Reynolds contingent of warmongers, but it looks like Team Hillary is adopting it too. And, not only is Obama a sissy, they say, so are his supporters. As one of them put it:

“Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling.”

So, there you have it – even Hillary is more of a manly man than Obama.

And his supporters are a bunch of wussies too.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hillary-stafer-says-states-that-voted.html

Judge Hoffman's "deprecatory and often antagonistic attitude toward the defense."

If you want to hear his voice and that “attitude” it is now available for the first time here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=37759288

(An interview with the director of the new animated movie “Chicago 10”)

And yes, “government powers” were abused.

But it takes total self-delusion to advocate the former while self-lovingly convincing yourself that you're a beacon of the latter.

This is a bit off-topic and relates more to your previous post, but speaking of self-delusion: the nuttiest faction of Greater Wingnuttia is now attempting to link Obama to FARC because his name was found on a computer saying that he’d be the candidate most likely to become president – that’s his link to the terrorists.

In her typical hyperbolic and dishonest style, Pamela-the-Insane writes:

FARC COMPUTERS NAME BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

Terrorists across the globe want their man to win. Obama is the choice of America's worst enemies

Much of the world thinks Obama will be the next president, but only the most self-deluded would try to make that opinion a link to terrorists.

For those needing a bit of comic relief today, links to this laughable lunacy can be found here:

http://www.memeorandum.com/080305/p64#a080305p64

The Chicago Tribune has an “analysis” today that, in effect, praises her for using this Rezko innuendo smear campaign against Obama – because it worked.

Her campaign invoked Obama's association with an otherwise little-known developer named Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a man also in possession of his own grip-and-grin photo with then-First Lady Hillary and President Bill Clinton.

This is how the press treats this – as how the game is played – and that’s “dirty.”

Is this really something that the Clinton campaign should be praised for?

http://tinyurl.com/2jxrmh

The Chicago Tribune had a long article the other day about this case, and I scoured it for how it would affect Obama. I couldn't find any "there" there and, unlike the Governor who it does appear to involve, I didn't see anything that Obama had to worry about.

Still, doubts persisted, and I thought I must be missing something. There must be something more to this I thought. The Clinton campaign wanted me to think so, Drudge and the right-wing noise machine were convinced that this would destroy him, but how? I just couldn't see it.

Now, thanks to Glenn, we see how it will destroy him - those doubts, the innuendo that implies that this is a really serious (even deadly) skeleton in Obama's closet.

Rove has destroyed several political careers with nothing but "those doubts" - he didn't need any actual wrong doing for "the doubts" to work. And they have.

Thus, the Obama campaign needs to do more than claim lack of wrong doing - they have to destroy those doubts. He has to turn it back on his accusers, and somehow, make their irresponsible use of innuendo the issue. It won't be easy, since he has two campaigns and the "liberal" media feeding this "non-scandal."