Why are Hillary's advisers creating new "tests" her husband never would have passed when he was first elected, especially if his successes after being elected have proven that the test was invalid in the first place?

John McCain voted for the Iraq war and wants to keep us there for a hundred years more. That's experience I do NOT want. Clinton has given McCain unneccessary credence when none was due. I can see the campaign commercial by John McCain with Hillary saying "John McCain has passed the commander-in-chief test." Hell McCain will use it regardless of who's the Democratic nominee.

Let's keep on passing out more ammunition to people who want to fire back at us. It's the smart political move.

Thank you for keeping it civil and based on evidence and good reasoning.  This is the kind of debate we need.

One can argue about the value of that experience (was she a participant, or simply a dutiful wife at Bill's side) or the predictive value of her particular brand of experience (as history shows, prior experience or the lack of it is not predictive of success in every instance), but it is something she has that Barak Obama does not.

I would say that there have been instances in the modern presidency where experience arguably did prove predictive of a successful stint as CiC, Richard Nixon and DDE being the examples that come to mind.

So, I would say the experience argument is a legitimate argument for Clinton to pursue. Where she goes wrong is arguing that McCain is better for the job than Obama. That is simply not true.

John McCain is a true hero for what he endured as a POW in Vietnam. His stated positions on the major foreign policy issues of our time are not only flat-out wrong, but downright dangerous.

I thought it was ok to argue that as a matter of electability, Obama would be susceptible to an experience argument from McCain in the general, but when Clinton suggested there might actually be some merit to the argument, she went too far. It looks like the campaign might have realized it and have dialed it back a few notches the past couple of days -- at least, I hope so.

But it is certainly legitimate for her to argue that her experience is unique and a reason to vote for her, just as it is legitimate for Obama to argue that his 2002 stance on the war is evidence that he is better qualified for the job. Put it out there, argue about it, and let the voters decide what matters to them.

But either of them is preferential to McCain any which way you look at it, and I sincerely wish both candidates would make that consistently clear.

Lincoln's election all but sparked the war in the first place, and his inability to select genuine leadership for Union command probably dragged out the war 2 years longer than it should have run. He went through 5 or 6 commanders in the 3 years before settling on Grant.

Lincoln was a great man, a great orator, and had great ideas. But if you look at the history of the way the Union conducted the first few years of the war, Lincoln's abilities as CiC were suspect, at best.

Two words: Richard Nixon.

'Nuff said.

You may not agree with the course he followed in many areas (and I certainly don't), but it wasn't one of incompetence.

For example, the policy of Detente and his opening to China were both quite forward thinking and bold initiatives.

First, due to the social mores of the US Army officer corps was vastly southern in make-up...southerners considered the military an honorable career, and southern graduates of West Point stayed in uniform longer.  Northern grads often viewed the Point and Annapolis as the source of a great and free education, but left the service as soon as their commitment was up.

The cream of the officer corp went south, and Lincoln had to make due with what he had until he could identify talent.

Next came political pressures.  Initial army units were often volunteer units, so between sponsoring "officers" and elected officials who joined up he also had to work around the the political generals.

Who would have thought on April 12, 1861 that some of the best general federal generals in the war were a suspected alcoholic who was no longer in the service (Grant), a hot head west point alum who was leading a military prep school in Louisana who needed his brother's political pull to get an officer billet (Sherman), a classics professor (Chamberlain), and a Virginian who was considered suspect because he was a southerner (G.H. Thomas)?  

Those are the beginning positions that the major Federal military war leadership at the beginning of the war.  It would require an omniscience that passes human understanding and an absolute dictatorial political control free from political reprecussion to think that Lincoln could have (a) recognized the talent herein sooner than he did and (b) been able to promote them faster than he did without suffering significant political damage.

A perfect CiC?  No...
Worst Ever?  Hardly

Also, if I remember correctly, Grant only became known as a possible leader of the union after his Western campaign brought him notice.

Military experience means something but guarantees little.  Eisenhower, a five-star general, constantly fought with his senior military staff over Cold War strategy issues.
During the Vietnam War, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all avoided, rejected, or marginalized advice from their top military staffs.  George W. effectively turned his Commander-in-Chief duties over to Cheney and Rumsfeld in the Iraq tragedy.

The better test is proven sound judgment over many areas including solid analytical ability, selection of talented advisers, and effective planning for contingencies.
A bright high-school sophomore could very well qualify.

No.

I don't think there's any job out there that prepares you to be the leader of the free world.  The responsibilities of the office are too broad and all-encompassing.  What job are you going to fulfill anywhere that requires you to be an economist AND a military strategist AND a diplomat AND a legislative whip AND a ceremonial head of state AND....  But that's not to say experience doesn't matter.  Lowell has a great argument, but let's not push it so far as to say that any moron could do it, so we might as well elect any moron.  Believe it or not, it's a harder job than it looks.

Also, some people's leadership abilities only shine under certain circumstances. When we look back at them they seem great, but we don't realize that in different contexts, they would be horrible.

Grant is the classic example. Great as a general, but lousy as a president. Or look at Churchill. He was not even a leader after his initial period in parliament. It was the context of the war that made him use his war-leadership skills to shine.

So what is it?

Funny thing about your list.  It also has some of the names we connect with the great speeched ever given by a Presidents.  We connect them with an ability to invigorate, motivate, and excite a generation.  We don't think of them as policy wonks (with the exception of Wilson, maybe).  We think of the Gettysburg Address.  We think of Wilson's 14 Points speech and the formation of the League of Nations (bringing together a world in turmoil, not just a nation).  We think of FDR's fireside chats that comforted a nation and gave us faith that our leadership was on the right path.  We think of JFK's Camelot and the sense of new heights for America.  We have labelled Reagan the "Great Communicator."  Bill Clinton clearly had motivational appeal.  Well, I think I see a pattern.

So, which of the three candidates remaining passes that CiC test?

1) America, indeed the World, is desperate for a change of tone, style, and direction. We have three candidates for President of whom two are clearly Old Establishment and one of whom is somewhat outside that box. That one has rhetorical skills to invigorate diverse populations, plus the experience and political skills to marshall that enthusiasm necessary to keep plugging away at change. Leadership? Compare the juggernaut campaign organization of Obama versus the internal disarray and sniping of the Clinton campaign. Leadership requires a combination of vision---- and vision implemented.

2) Democrats: Slash and burn the Republicans, not each other. If you cannot win within the family because you are better for the job for which you are interviewing, for heaven's sake stop trying to win by destroying your Democratic opponent, and thereby giving endless ammunition to the Republicans for the general election.  "Winning is the only thing," and that end justifies ruining your family (the Democratic Party)? This sounds very much like Rove. Please pay attention: the rest of us are heartily fed up with exactly such political extremism.  

That's the American system. Hillary may think she possesses some combination of traits that make her more qualified to be the commander-in-chief, but she is wrong to imply that everyone else that has voted for Barack has chosen to vote for someone not qualified to be President. This arrogance on her and her campaign's part is the single most negative attribute of the entire campaign and will, in the end, be her eventual downfall (it was this arrogance that caused her to decide that only a few large states matter in the end, allowing Barack and his campaign to outflank her tactically).

The composition of Barack's foreign policy team and his views on foreign policy (see especially Iraq and Pakistan) form the largest substantive difference between the two parties in this campaign. Hillary's staff is full of the establishment 'thinkers' and 'strategists' that cheer-led for this war with gusto. Holding her accountable for her vote in 2002 would also hold them accountable for their lack of humility, wisdom, diligence, and foresight in this Iraq debacle -- that is why they are fighting back with such determination. This to me was always the biggest single reason to support Barack's candidacy -- it's the one chance we have of really turning the page to a different type of foreign policy, a chance to upend the establishment.

Those in power never give it up easily.  

On foreign policy alone, some 200 experts are providing the Obama campaign with assistance of some sort, arranged into 20 subgroups. On the domestic front, more than 500 policy experts are contributing ideas, campaign aides said. Veterans of previous election campaigns say the scale of the policy operation resembles the full-blown effort candidates typically undertake for a general election campaign rather than the more stripped-down versions common for the primary season.

Senior advisers include heavy hitters from the administration of President Bill Clinton, husband of Obama's primary rival.

Anthony Lake, Clinton's original national security adviser, is helping coordinate foreign policy. So is Susan Rice, a Clinton assistant secretary of state and protege of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Eric Holder, a former deputy attorney general, is among those providing expertise on legal policy.

"These are not outsiders trying to tear down the temple," said Philip Zelikow, a former senior Bush administration foreign policy official and executive director of the Sept. 11 commission.

"If you guess that he's surrounded himself with people who are highly ideological, left-wing or dovish, you would guess wrong," added Zelikow, now a history professor at the University of Virginia. "These folks cannot easily be typecast by ideology."

Free-market economic team

Key economic advisers include a few Washington veterans such as Michael Froman, a Citigroup executive and former chief of staff to then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the Cabinet member most closely identified with the Clinton administration's pro-free trade, business-friendly policies.

You are right that a large number of his team were from the Clinton years -- that is indisputable. The point I was trying to make is that those that are with Obama tend to be those that expressed skepticism or outright hostility to the idea of invading Iraq in 2002, while those that are with Clinton tended to be hawkish in 2002. This is an important distinction and argument to be had, so I'll try and drill it down the next few days in down time from work and provide some links that back this PoV up.

There is a bipartisan, hawkish, conservative foreign policy elite, and in order to be taken seriously by the political elite you have to have many of these people on your staffs. It's not fair to call Hillary or her team neo-cons (in any way), but they are definitely on the hawkish side of the spectrum. Moreover, I find her policy pronouncements wrt Pakistan very troubling. If we are ever going to get back to a sane foreign policy, we need to be able to advocate targeting the actual al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan while finding a way to resist our imperial impulse that gets us into so much hot water in the Middle East.

To be fair to Hillary, I'll also say that the backing of someone like General Clark speaks positively in her favor (IMO) in terms of a skeptic of Iraq invasion that is backing her. These things aren't black/white either way.

Anyway, that's a fuller explanation. You tend to come down on Hillary's side now because you like her overall policies better than Barack's side (I'm not trying to place words in your mouth, that's my impression), and I come down on Barack's becuase I believe his foreign policy instincts and the instincts of those surrounding him are much better for our country than those of Team Clinton. But again I'll try and back these contentions up in the next few days.

[I do agree with you that his economic advisors tend to be on the conservative side of the Democratic spectrum.]

But both she and Obama have now pledged to begin drawing down the troops.  I do wish she would just admit it was a mistake to vote Bush the authorization.

And I wish both camps had more progressive and more populist economic advisers.  You think any of these guys ever heard of the great work the Economic Policy Institute does?

Anyway, I was simply disputing the notion that there was a complete and radical difference between the two.  There's not.  But the subtle differences do exist and are real, legitimate grounds for reasoned debate.

Politico:

"I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama. I think that either way is impossible," she said.

I know he is generally marked down because of 'corruption' in his Cabinet, but I'm pretty sure he himself was not part of these shenanigans.

I look at him as a tragic figure who tried to do the right thing in a country that was determined to allow bigotry and hatred continue to rule the day. It took nearly a 100 years to get from his Presidency to the Civil Rights era, so I think he's unfairly maligned for his attempts to do right by freedmen and blacks in general.

Grant's legacy has been marred by charges of anti-Semitism. The most frequently cited example is the infamous General Order No. 11, issued by Grant's headquarters in Oxford, Mississippi, on December 17, 1862, during the early Vicksburg Campaign. The order stated in part: "The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department (comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky)."

The order was rescinded by President Lincoln on January 3, 1863 and issued on January 7, 1863.[22] Grant maintained that he was unaware that a staff officer issued it in his name. Grant's father Jesse Grant was involved; General James H. Wilson later explained, "There was a mean nasty streak in old Jesse Grant. He was close and greedy. He came down into Tennessee with a Jew trader that he wanted his son to help, and with whom he was going to share the profits. Grant refused to issue a permit and sent the Jew flying, prohibiting Jews from entering the line." Grant, Wilson felt, could not strike back directly at the "lot of relatives who were always trying to use him" and perhaps struck instead at what he maliciously saw as their counterpart - opportunistic traders who were Jewish.[23] It has been largely considered as being outside the normal inclinations and character of Grant, but individuals such as Bertram Korn have suggested that the order was part of a consistent pattern. "This was not the first discriminatory order [Grant] had signed [...] he was firmly convinced of the Jews' guilt and was eager to use any means of ridding himself of them."[24]

The issue of anti-Semitism was raised during the 1868 presidential campaign, and Grant consulted with several Jewish community leaders, all of whom said they were convinced that Order 11 was an anomaly, and he was not an anti-Semite. He maintained good relations with the community throughout his administration, on both political and social levels.

I think what Lincoln and FDR proved, more than anything, is that you have to be methodically engaged in every aspect of war and peace to be successful (we'll never know about Lincoln and peace, because he never had the chance).

These models of aloof delegation all turn out to lead to very bad Presidencies, it seems.

[Although my impression is Washington was somewhat like this. Still, when Hamilton, Jefferson, and Jay are your delegates, well, I guess the story turns out differently.]

However, I think it is somewhat unfair in that the Civil War had to happen. The conflict was built into our Constitution -- it was a fundamental disagreement about what our national human rights doctrine would encompass. The twin constitutional issues of slavery and secession had to be dealt with, and war was the only way to solve the impasse.