A TPM reader DF made this interesting point.  If Hillary claims that being first lady gave her executive branch experience on national security, then so can Laura Bush.  
And if you follow that logic, Laura Bush's proximity to power during her 8 years as first lady makes her eminently more qualified than Hillary to answer that phone at 3am.   
Laura was there during  9/11 and has been there for 8 years of fighting terrorists, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the threat of a nuclear-empowered Iran.

While I think Barack should address false allegations, I think it would go a long way if he pointed out what Hillary said 5 months ago at the Nevada Democratic Debate, when SHE was the one ahead.

Hillary is very intelligent and she's been a decent Senator. She's been an admirable advocate of children's health issues. 
But even her most loyal supporters have to confess that she's claiming her husband's experience as her own.
And by suggesting Obama might be her VP, she's using Obama's credibility to sell herself as President.  
My question is this:
When you take away Bill and Obama, what's left of Hillary?  
Who is she if she can't stand on her own?

) He smoked weed. Therefore, he's a cocaine dealer!

2) He's Muslim! That Somalian picture proves it!!

3) Okay, he's not a Muslim. As far as I know.
4) Barack "HUSSEIN" Obama.

5) He attended a Madrassa probably!

6) He doesn't wear a flag pin!

7) He didn't say pledge of allegiance!
8) No hand on heart for national anthem?!!!
9) Michelle said she's proud of her country now!

10) His speeches are only words said magnificently!

11) All he does is inspire people!

12) "Just words?" He stole that from the person that gave it to him!!

12) He knows Tony Rezko. Therefore, he is Tony Rezko!!

13) He only denounced Louis Farrakhan!

14) On sub-committee for European Affairs and hasn't held a meeting about Afghanistan!!

15) Clinton campaign talked to Canada about NAFTA but Obama got all the credit!!

16) He asked Hillary to disclose her tax statement!

17) He hasn't gotten lots of bad news coverage!

18) The phone rings at 3am. Enough said.

Clinton's national co-chair received donations from RezkoThree of the co-defendants at Rezko trial contributed to Clintons and campaign supporters.  Obama didn't receive any donations from Rezko.

http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/2/3501879.html

Clintons got money from Rezko co-defendants by margieburns on Sat 02 Feb 2008 01:26 PM EST 

Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago’s “Operation Board Games.” 

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.

Rezko’s trial is scheduled to begin March 3. The legal cases comprise several indictments of Chicago political and business figures on multiple counts of fraud, extortion and kickbacks. Rezko’s co-defendants include Chicago businessman Stuart Levine; construction executive and Chicago Medical School trustee Jacob Kiferbaum, who is cooperating with the investigation, and Bear Stearns executive P. Nicholas Hurtgen; and attorneys Joseph Cari and Steven Loren, doing business for the Teachers’ Retirement System. Mr. Loren has not been a significant donor.

All the major donors were obviously cruising for receptive politicians, whom they found. Setting aside any presumption of guilt, there was clearly more than enough money as well as blame to go around. Neither party has a monopoly on the big donations in Chicago in spite of its dominant Democratic machine. A quick search on Mitt Romney, for example, in Illinois turns up a result list that cuts off at 1000 donors—and that’s IF you limit the search to individual contributions over $2300. 

Only public financing of elections, backed up by laws that have teeth in them, will ameliorate this condition. 

Meanwhile—That Rezko donated over the years like a political junkie, and may have been one, has already been written about by Buzzflash. Rezko himself gave mostly to Dems, with the largest amts going to central committees, other donations to national figures incl GWBush ($4000), and frequent contributions over the years to IL politicians incl Rod Blagojevich, Luis Gutierrez, and former senators Carol Moseley-Braun and Peter Fitzgerald as well as the donations to Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton pointed out.

Predictably, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that the national co-chair of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigo, also got Rezko donations.

(Link to the rest of the story.)

There is a pattern emerging regarding Clinton campaign tactics:  NAFTA/CANADA and REZKO implicate the Clintons, not Obama.  
So the Clintons flip  their involvement in these two scandals and blame Obama.  

How did this story, published at the beginning of February get overlooked?

Last summer, everyone in the democratic party, including Hillary, agreed that they wouldn't participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries. 
So what does Hillary do?  Participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries.  Not only that, she declares victory and demands that she get all the delegates from those states. And let's not forget Nevada.  The predominantly hispanic Nevada Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama, to the dismay of the Clintons, who had been courting them for their endorsement.  
So what do the Clintons do just two days later?
Support a lawsuit to block the 60,000 member-union from holding their scheduled caucus.  

Before the Democratic party can stand up to the Republicans, they have to stand up to the Clintons.  

Barack Obama is the underdog in this race even when he's winning.  Because he's running against old power that dates back well before the Clinton era.  And the collective force of this political behemoth is spinning harder than it ever has in the past.  In fact, it is the past.  And Americans will likely succumb to it.  If they do, they couldn't have picked a worst time in our entire history to cave in.    
Change comes with uncertainty.  
Those most uncomfortable with change will push the latter.  
Not only now, but for the next 8 years.  

As we've already observed, the 2008 presidential election will be centered around national security and there are certain assertions that John McCain is making that require additional scrutiny.  
One of them is "the surge is working".  This is the most important one to challenge because it is the basis for continued U.S. military presence in Iraq.  What's more, it sets a dangerous precedent, as it is being used to justify pre-emptive war.  
There have been several contradictions regarding the success of this surge.  But the Republicans are good at marketing only the statistics that favor their position.  
Here's a link to a Washington Post article that demonstrates how the Department of Defense cherry-picks its statistics:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html
If anyone has any other info/links that can demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the surge, please post it in comments.  
The Democratic party will need to push this debate.