Much has been written about the Clinton "Commander-in-Chief Test," including, most recently, the new statement by Howard Wolfson discussed on TPM Election Central.

I'm writing not to defend the now-notorious C-i-C test, but to explain what I think is behind it, and how it might actually be coherent even as it does all the bad things it does (reinforcing an opinion that hawkishness is strength, national security is a Republican strong suit, McCain is a tough opponent, and so forth).

IMHO, the Clinton campaign's point makes more sense if you read the "key commander-in-chief test" as the demonstration of the ability to convince the public that you can be commander-in-chief, rather than the demonstration of the actual ability to be commander-in-chief.

The idea that the superdelegates exist to "ratify the will of the Democratic primary electorate," expressed most recently by Kos's front page piece, is misguided.  For better or for worse, they have a different function.

(As others have said, by this logic, MA's John Kerry, Kennedy, and Patrick would be bound to support Hillary; WA's Cantwell and Murray would be bound to support Obama; and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.)

As I see it, even though the party bylaws link them to state delegations, the superdelegates are kind of like at-large representatives.  Here's why.

It seems to me that maybe I'm missing something.  

Across the Internets I've been seeing pieces about Bill Clinton on the campaign trail.  One prominent recommended diary says that he's "hurting the Democratic party."  An email to Josh Marshall refers to "the venom Bill Clinton has been unleashing on his wife's behalf."  The Guardian characterizes a "scorched-earth campaign."

But what's at the base of these claims?

No, seriously, I'm asking!

A friend from Illinois was the first who got me excited about the idea of Obama.  I liked Obama's 2004 convention speech and had high hopes.  

But as his campaign has progressed, and as I've listened to more of his words, I've been put off by his frequent theme of bridging or transcending the partisan divide.  Yes, it was part of the famous 2004 address too, but that was a certain kind of occasion.  I didn't realize then that it was such a key part of his personal political vision.