Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Perhaps a *very* useful stick for Obama to use
If the following is true: "[Hillary] did not have a security clearance," then Obama (and the press) should beat her with it until she cries uncle. Without a clearance, there is no legal way she could've participated in the kinds of things she implies in the 3 AM phone call ad (national security deliberations, briefings).
If true and she persists in claiming to have greater experience than Obama by virtue of being a former First Lady, then by virtue of holding herself out as a potential Commander-in-Chief, she should have to disclose who illegally disclosed classified information to her so those people can a) be fired and b) have their clearances revoked, at the least.
In my mind, the only way this shouldn't end the Hillary campaign (which viz a viz Obama rests on a claim of greater national security experience) is if the claim that she had no clearance turns out to be false.
|
If true and she persists in claiming to have greater experience than Obama by virtue of being a former First Lady, then by virtue of holding herself out as a potential Commander-in-Chief, she should have to disclose who illegally disclosed classified information to her so those people can a) be fired and b) have their clearances revoked, at the least.
In my mind, the only way this shouldn't end the Hillary campaign (which viz a viz Obama rests on a claim of greater national security experience) is if the claim that she had no clearance turns out to be false.
|
