An interview from "The Real News" with Jeremy Scahill, author of "Blackwater USA  The Worlds Largest Mercenary Army".  Scahill discusses the Clinton and Obama plans for Iraq. (7 min)  A similar discussion with Scahill on Democracy Now can be found here. (8 min)

I know some here, and elsewhere, would poo-poo the idea that the person who holds the title of "Most Powerful Person in the World" should have some relevant experience before getting that job.  Some of those people would even write emotional articles directed at me to shout down my arguments- I'm flattered guys.  They use rhetoric, irrelevant historical blurbs, logical leaps and emotion to promote something that feels good to them.  I think that approach to politics is extremely dangerous.  Frankly, it's not unlike what the neo-cons have done from the other side.  As progressives, we need to have a better approach. 

Back on topic, when we elect a President, we as a people, need to understand what the President's job really is.  First and foremost, it is to keep the nation safe, both from external threats, and internal.  Anybody who seeks that post, in my humble opinion, should have some credentials.  Simply having a vision that feels good isn't enough.  Vision, as wonderful as that is, won't keep me safe.  Would we hire a police chief in our city who has only been a street cop a few years?  Neither should we hire a President that has little or no experience in issues of national security. 

The tired mantra "experience" thrown around by the Clinton campaign is getting annoying.  How long will her campaign continue to attempt this tactic when already it has every sign that it's working against her.  For those who are still "deliberating" over this non-issue, some points you might want to consider. 

Experience is great but not necessarily "better".  Do you want the "experienced" surgeon or the one who knows what he's doing?  G.W. Bush has SEVEN years "experience", are you reasoning he'd make a better president than Clinton or Obama with that fact ALONE...? 

The fact that Clinton is "still there" after all the political treachery, does not in and of itself PROVE or even have any bearing upon whether Obama can "make it".  She's done it and I credit her for that.  But over-contemplating  Obama's fortitude is allowing the "politics of fear" to override critical observation.  Obama is "THERE" and he has a huge following.  

As far as the Republicans attack during the general election, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume Clinton has just a few thousand pounds more political baggage than Obama and that that will work against her? 

Republican Senators made the Iraq war their own on Wednesday when they refused to pass a bill simply guaranteeing our troops a reasonable respite between repeated tours in Iraq.

We've been calling it Bush's war, but GOP Senators have made certain that their support of Bush's war will be the main issue in Senate races in 2008.

They are very nervous about that prospect, and with good reason. By huge margins, the voters want that war to end and our troops to come home.

Republicans had a chance Wednesday to show they support the troops, as they always claim. Instead, they supported the President.

Now, looking for cover, they have thrown a smoke grendade in the direction of MoveOn, the liberal group that dared to question whether Gen. David Patraeus was fudging the numbers in his report to the Congress last week.

MoveOn's choice of language in its full page NY Times ad, calling him "General Betray Us," set many teeth on edge. I was one who said I wished the attack had not been personal.  I also said that having stars on your shoulders doesn't make you infallible; it just makes you think you are.

But, as Bush and the Republicans like to remind us, this is war. People are dying every day. If it takes ruffling a general's feathers to get some attention, so be it. Service members are dying to protect our right to freely express ourselves, even in unpopular or distasteful ways.

Or is the First Amendment off the list of things they are defending?