Reply #29: The interesting thing here may be that it could test Hillary

[karynnj]

If she really is being put int the position of point person on National security, it is as much a risk as an opportunity for her. Right now, she is being touted by the media and party as the obvious front runner. While it's a given that she is very intelligent, she has rarely been placed under the scrutiny that her husband was or that all the 2004 primary candidates (who had a real chance) were.

I agree with you, that she doesn't convey the gravitas and credibility on national security that any of those men you mentioned. She didn't exactly shine on the port security issue. She has been relatively silent on Iraq - All of the five you mention have communicated their view on what needs to be done (I don't think Hart has a plan, but he pretty much endorsed Kerry's in an email and has commented on the problems.) Bill Clinton declaring her strong on defense doesn't make it so. It's interesting that the official plan pulls so much from Kerry's positions - which makes Clinton's comments that Kerry was too weak on security rather curious. (I think Kerry could win a debate with Clinton on national security - but it would be closer than with Hillary.)

If Hillary does this really well, it will re-enforce what is considered inevitable. If she is not good, she will be replaced by someone else to make these points - Almost all of this is Kerry's 2004 plan - so he's had losts of practice. Clark was a good surrogate on the national security issues in 2004, so he could do this as well. If Hillary can't do at least a credible job on this, there may be some second guessing on whether she is the best candidate.