I'm happy if it's any of these three, compared to the current occupant. Clinton, Obama and McCain are each far more qualified to orchestrate foreign diplomacy and will do it at a level so high it would make GWB's head spin. So on the face of it I see this as a non-issue.

What is an issue is that our next president might be elected based on this fear angle, when we all know that a list of domestic issues ought to trump terrorism at every turn.

So, while I don't mind if McCain takes the call that tells him the port of San Pedro has been hit with a dirty bomb, I do mind that up until that call he has been working to keep GWB's taxes permanent and thereafter has been rallying to get whako judges placed about the country.

That's what will suck.

IT will be taken care of before the convention. Until then, McCain is a placeholder and a token for the nutjobs in the party. Business men are not that stupid and McCain will be bad for business.

So goes the Empire.

Even polling done by Clintons own people showed it had very little impact on voters. I live in Texas and I think her slight lead in Texas had more to do with winning the Latino vote and over a week of negative campaigning against Obama combined with a press overcorrection of their coverage. (C'mon he won the last 11 contests, of course he is going to get more positive press.)

She managed to tear him down, but I don't think she made people more confident in her own abilities. Besides now she opened herself up to a new line of attack -- what is her experience in foreign conflicts? Which leads to more questions of why exactly do her years of being first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. count towards her "35 years of experience." What are some examples of when she fought and won for the American people?

Senator Clinton may have won the Texas primary (not the caucus), but she still faces numerous obstacles, and the red phone ad will not win this for her.

...and that's just what we're doing here. Ms. Clinton brought this one on with her ridiculous "Red Phone" ad, a blatant play to the fear factor among security-worshipping Americans. It was smart, but it was very, very wrong.

Ms. Clinton has no foreign policy experience other than her hanging out with Bill during eight years of relative calm in the world (although Kosovo comes to mind as a bad example of something to which she may have been exposed). Obama has lived in second-world countries and traveled extensively. The latter he shares with Ms. Clinton. We all know how good Ms. Clinton's judgement and vision were were invading Iraq is concerned. We also know how Obama felt about it, and what McCain did about it.

John McCain has been more involved in the day-to-day tracking of world affairs, but he has been where he's been largely because that's where he functions best, not in the West Wing bedroom with one twitching hand on that phone. McCain has also had actual military experience, which can be argued to be a liability, since veterans of actual wars are necessarily rather myopic, since their experience is largely based on the premise that one false move could be one's last. Fighting mano a mano is not something that can reasonably be compared with managing a Big Picture situation, regardless of what time the phone rings.

Hillary Clinton has made a lot of oblique references to her superior "experience" in this area of expertise, but the truth is she has no more than Obama, and both Democrats are more likely to be more objective in dealing with a crisis, be it international or domestic.

So which one has the temperament best suited to making decisions without sitting and reading "My Pet Goat" for 20 minutes? Look at the personalities, because that is what we're voting for. It's not specific experience, it is vision, stability and intelligence; Which candidate is the quickest study?

I think the answer is pretty plain: McCain, who I respect a great deal, is far too tightly-wound to be considered anything but a liability in the White House in times of crisis (and the new President will be inheriting crises). Hillary Clinton is rather unpredictable, and prone to change personalities depending upon what advantage she can gain. This isn't entirely a bad thing, but stability and objectivity still carry the day, at least for me, so I continue to stand behind Barack Obama as the best choice, owing to his unflappability, clearheadedness and ability to think on his feet. Some fairly seasoned military leaders seem to agree.

I wish people would stop saying that. It was a lame opportunity to show Hillary Clinton dressed up in glasses. If people were dumb enough to take her glasses into account when they voted, I guess we other Americans just have to live with it. That's what being part of a representative democracy entails.

What I have been wondering about this ad, though, is this. I wonder how much of the perception of Hillary as strong and capable comes from her partnership with a former president. Has anyone thought about how it might affect that perception if Bill, say, had a fatal heart attack before she took office? I do not want that to happen, of course. But the point is to do a bit of a thought experiment; do you still trust her to answer the phone if Bill isn't also in the room? Since I'm not a Hillary supporter, I can't presume to know the answer, but I'm curious what Hillary's supporters have to say. (Well, no. I'm curious what really happens in their minds during that thought experiment, but I don't really care to hear their answers unless they're going to offer them politely.)

Personally, I think Obama or Hillary Clinton would do just fine if that 3 a.m. call ever came. And I happen to think that an Obama presidency would make it less likely that such a call would come, since he has agreed to good-will talks with leaders whom we have traditionally given the cold shoulder. Other people obviously think differently, and I don't have a problem with that at all. The ad was not an attack.

As for the article itself, I think it is fascinating that some military leaders are supporting Democratic candidates because of McCain's infamous temper. While McCain certainly appears to be Teflon-coated on the lobbyist issue, I think he is being very careful to smile and chuckle a LOT, so he will not to have a Dean "scream" moment during this campaign. I wonder if we can stir the hornets' nest somehow....