Her Point: She argues Obama ought not lead as the elected Chief Executive of the United States because he has no federal executive branch experience as she does.

Contradiction: She helped herself to executive duties as first lady although she was not elected to any executive post. Her experience was obtained by dynastic relationship -- the spouse of the elected official. At the time, she had not even been a Senator as Obama has. She assumed that she was qualified as she assumes Obama is not now.

This ambitious emphasis comes too little, too late.
 
It is not the morale of a few selected top brass interviewed by the NY Times that matters on the ground.

If the extraordinary facts in this story are true, does the American electorate think that another Clinton White House is really the best morale choice for the military?

Add to that the fact that as late as last October, Hillary Clinton became the darling of the Defense Industrial Complex, something Dwight Eisenhower sternly warned would happen to corrupt democracy's defense. It has become an enduring pressure behind unnecessary wars as testing grounds for the shiny, expensive weaponry mill. As such it is a conflict of interest in sending troops and swearing the oath.

In addition, the Clinton Doctrine is related to Neocon doctrine of military internvention. Pick your interventionalist doctrine, it is an ideology of sending other peoples' young into body ripping combat for suspect visions instead of basic national defense. Did Hillary Clinton support the Clinton Doctrine? Yes or no?

When did you last see a paycheck for the information age work you did with your brain by blogging out some good point, adding a little free investigative fact finding to the public awareness, or running a thorough, original analysis?

The blogosphere is pretty good about quoting and inter-linking. But media companies seem to have fallen prey to the elite partisanship favoritism that keeps the voices on staff that ownership wants to hear. Oh, they'll hire a flashpoint provocatuer from the other side, but only to drive up blood-pressure ratings and readings.

Journalism programs tend to be political channeling devices to left or right news outfits. Meanwhile the Net eats market share and these companies bring their old system there, too. With some notable exceptions we're seeing the same partisan product every year, offering cheap, trained labor and withholding resources from indepth, intellectually elevating journalism.

Many of the Clinton donors whose contributions were refunded last month were alleged to have been strong-armed by Hsu, or reimbursed by Hsu for the checks they wrote, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department.

At first I'd posted something about Norman Hsu's pipeline of $800,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign for the Senate to show the Clinton campaign's hypocrisy in firing away at Obama even though his campaign sent the money to charity.

Someone said it was old news. Is it? How much did Hillary or any member of her campaign staff know about Hsu's strongarm tactics?

It stretches credibility that the Clinton campaign, receiving so many donations from people with a common investment, and from Hsu himself, would not have investigated more. Did they have a duty to investigate more?

The media can go film an old, unused building and make associative propaganda between its disrepair and the political candidate whose donor was responsible for its condition, but can they go back and obtain footage of Mr. Hsu doing the strong arming? Can they get phone records from Hsu and match numbers with then-Clinton campaign numbers? Can they do their due diligence before considering Hsu moot?

And what about the timing of the get-tough-on-Obama "campaign." Was that ethical? Was it self-serving, to try to tip delegates Ms. Clinton's way so that the context would go on and provide more ratings, more content and more grist?

Is Ms. Clinton going to get away with the tactics she's used on Obama against John McCain? Tears and complaints won't win the Commander in Chief spot against McCain. It is that simple. And what will Ms. Clinton have to offer in contrast to McCain on the Iraq invasion question? With 4 billion a month poured into the desert while the US economy hits the skids, the sense of the American people is that sanity has left those who got them into such a thing.

Looks like at least one columnist figured out the media imbalance harping on Mr. Rezko and ignoring Mr. Hsu. All because of late night comedy TV? Vain and shallow.

Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu: Didn't the story end at Hillary's return of the $800,000 in donations that Mr. Hsu pressured out of defrauded investors? The Obama campaigns have given Rezko-related donations to charity.

Update on Norman Hsu: he's claiming indigence and relying on a publicly funded, court-appointed lawyer to defend him against charges that he violated FECA, plus mail and wire fraud laws. He jumped and chugged out to Colorado and tried to commit suicide during this election cycle. Wow. Why so many suicide attempts and successes surrounding these partisan pens?

And who all attended the Dem fundraiser at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple years ago? Anyone there receive cash to benefit the Clintons? Did Hillary have any part in that fundraising event? When she knew about it, what did Hillary do about the Hsi Lai Temple improprieties? She was a health-care finance go-to as a First Lady, so did her duties end there? What about lending her ethical conscience? Isn't that also a duty?