On the website HillaryClinton.com, there is a blog run by Peter Daou, the man formerly behind the Daou Report blog aggregator on Salon.com who is now heading up Hillary's online effort.
Unfortunately, it appears that this should be labeled an Echo Chamber rather than a blog. It saddens me that they have no interest in an actual discussion of the issues of the day.
Today, Mr. Daou put up a post essentially justifying Senator Clinton's comments about the "lifetime of experience" and the "commander-in-chief threshold" achieved by her and Senator McCain. Essentially, well - I won't try to paraphrase, I'll just give you the meat of his argument:
The hand-wringing on this is excessive. What Hillary is saying is that with Sen. McCain as the nominee, national security is the terrain that Republicans will play on. We saw it in 2004 and we'll see it again in 2008. Democrats know that. Winning in November means defeating John McCain and it is not only legitimate but essential for Hillary to make the case that she is the Democrat who can stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain on national security.
blogHillary
In response to this, I put up two comments. The first was in response to a poster, and set forth the position that acceding to the GOP framing on National Security was not strategically wise, and that falling into the argument over experience with national security / military issues and time in government places Senator Clinton at a disadvantage to Senator McCain. The second was a comment to Mr. Daou's post, which generally stated that winning in November requires, first and foremost, getting more of your voters out to the polls than the other guy, and that insulting the intelligence of persons who should be your natural allies (by suggesting that millions of them are stupid for wanting to put an incapable neophyte in the White House) would not help accomplish this goal.
I put those up a couple of hours back. They have apparently been moderated out of existence. Numerous cheerleading comments made since I respectfully raised questions about the argument have been posted, but mine have disappeared into thin air. It would appear, unfortunately, that they brook no dissent.