Why is a Democrat letting the Repukes set the agenda for the GE? In her

[pdxmom]

comments yesterday about Obama not "passing the threshold", Clinton said, "I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election."

The American people have made it overwhelmingly clear that they want the economy to be front and center in this election. That is what is important to them and that is what will actually be what can win us this election. Why is Clinton conceding the focus of the GE? The Dems need to take hold of the GE "front and center" issue right now and pound that home. McCain can't compete there, and it's ridiculous for Clinton, in her attempt to bury Obama, to cede the agenda to the Repukes before that race even starts.

[northernsoul]

1. That's a damn good question.

Now be prepared to be called a cultist misogynonist for asking it.

[pdxmom]

7. Maybe so, but after I got past the McCain endorsement and looked

at the entire quote, I just scratched my head. Why the hell would anyone concede the agenda like that? The American people have been very, very clear and McCain has already basically said that he doesn't have a clue about the economy. He's predicted no recession and still claims that we have a strong economy. He's flip flopped on Bush's tax cuts. It's a winning agenda for us to put front and center. Why bow to the Repuke agenda at this point?

[rurallib]

16. Exactly -

[Avalux]

2. The American people want Change. They will get more of the same with McCain or Clinton.

When she aligns herself with McCain, she's telling us she will continue the status quo in Washington and essentially continue Bush's policies.

[Warren Stupidity]

We always do this. We love to lose.

Even if we win, we try our best to let our opponents pick the field, choose the refs, and call the shots. On the plus side, we completely lack party discipline and have almost not allies in the media.

[rurallib]

3. This is what pisses me off the most

'national security' is playing into the repukes hands. The media will portray Johnny Mac as a 'war hero' and beat up on the Dems. Meanwhile real issues like the economy, healthcare, education etc are lost again.

[pdxmom]

12. Exactly. While I can somewhat understand the attacks on Obama, even

though I think she's been slimey about it, don't throw the entire Democratic GE agenda under the bus. That's just freakin' crazy.

[tularetom]

4. It's simple

1. She knows she won't be nominated.
2. If she trashes Obama enough he will lose the General Election to McCain
3. She knows McCain will not seek a second term so she cruises to the nomination and is elected president in 2012.

She does not give a rats ass about the Democratic party or the voters.

[Kittycat]

5. Because she knows she can't win, so she'll sabotage it all for a chance in 2012

[TwilightGardener]

6. Because Hillary is a strategic idiot.

[Upton]

8. She doesn't care about the party

she only cares about herself. Hasn't that been made clear?

[hedgehog]

9. Bingo! Someone told her that she was perceived as weak on national defense,

so she'd been so busy shoring up her credentials there she hasn't noticed that the American people are ready to change focus.

[The Stranger]

10. Hillary has lost me completely. Utterly and completely.

It amazes me seeing people bare fangs, hiss and drool when they hear the name Ralph Nader, but he ran for another fucking party -- this is a Democrat playing GOP dirty pool and destroying the party from within.

[City Lights]

11. I've often wondered the same thing.

I see only two options - she's either not as bright as she's been billed, or she's purposely focusing on what she perceives to be Obama's weakness against McCain. Neither scenario bodes well for her.

Curious to read what others think on this.

[pdxmom]

14. I'm wondering if she's shooting for the soundbites and doesn't really

fathom what else is coming out of her mouth. I admit, I was so focused on the endorsement of McCain that I missed the point about "front and center" at first. When that hit me, I realized that she was looking for the Obama hit, and all the other words were just a reason for her to throw out that soundbite.

[Strelnikov_]

13. And how, exactly, does Clinton have more national security experience than Obama?

If you give the people the choice between a Republican and a Republican, . . .

[pdxmom]

15. Exactly. It's a losing argument all the way around. So why cede the

entire GE agenda in a losing argument? It's a dumb move and an incredibly irresponsible use of words.

[Arkansas Granny]

17. This election will not be based on just one issue.

It's pretty much a given that McCain will highlight national security and the Democratic candidate will have to have good arguments as to why they are the better choice on that issue. I don't believe that is the same as conceding the focus of the GE.

There are many other issues that will will figure heavily in this election such as the economy, immigration, health care and education just to name a few. The Democratic candidate can keep these issues front and center and make McCain come up with answers on these issues.

[Voice for Peace]

18. k&R nt