Now, what is the issue that she is most likely to be attacked once she gets nominated? National Seucirty! They will question and hound her with campaigns asking if they are willing to put the country in the hands of a woman? Can she be strong on terror?
This is the reason she is thinking ahead how to tackle them when she gets confronted or rather bombarded with these accusations.

I mean can anyother democrat use “Islamic terrorists”?? Well – she used it day before yesterday. There you go! That is Hillary for you! She needs to prepare to fight the Republicans.

Being an independent voter – even I don’t trust Democrats on National Security – but I trust Hillary. So, I don’t vote for the party I vote for the person.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/whats_in_a_name.php

“Are the national front-runners in the race for president – Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani – “coasting on high name ID?” That’s the question that Gallup’s Lydia Saad attempts to answer in a must-read analysis based on data from three Gallup polls conducted in July and August. Saad’s answer appears to be yes for Giuliani, but no for Clinton. That is, Giuliani’s front runner status does appear to depend, at least for now, on relatively high name recognition, while Clinton leads even among voters who can rate her two best known rivals. Though before assuming that the Democratic race is over, however, we need to consider what “name recognition” really means.”

and
Results from other polls, particularly the recent up-tick in Clinton’s national totals, support the conclusion that Clinton’s lead depends on more than mere name ID. Even Obama’s pollsters apparently concede the point, as reported by Ryan Lizza’s in his recent GQ cover story:

When [Obama's pollsters] compared the percentage of Democrats who said they strongly approved of Obama with the percentage who said they would vote for him, they found that the latter number was significantly lower than the former. Inside the campaign, aides dubbed this “the Gap.” It was a sobering, hard number that quantified the difference between vague enthusiasm and actual votes. For Hillary Clinton, the gap is much smaller. The majority of voters who strongly approve of her also say they will vote for her.

In fact, Hillary was collecting about two-thirds of Democrats who liked her, while Obama was collecting less than half. The numbers suggested that the calculus for Hillary voters was much simpler: Democrats who liked her knew all they needed to know about her. But for Obama voters, there were questions. Was he tough enough? Did he have enough experience? Could he actually win in the general election?

The findings: 94% are familiar enough with Clinton to rate her, 85% with Edwards and 84% with Obama.

This could be good news for Clinton, who has managed to keep her wide national lead despite other candidates becoming better known.

So much for the O-Bomb-A crowd and their attributing Clinton’s lead in all the polls to greater name recognition.

I know four of them are Hillary supporters.

I’m not 100% sure about the other eight.

Three are moderate Republicans. Two have mentioned that they may vote Dem this time.

Two are independents — one is undecided and the other one likes Romney our former Governor.

The remaining three are Dems — 2 appears to support Obama and 1 supports Richardson.

I have the impression that all of them are already operating on the notion that Hillary would be the Dem nominee.

I’d like to see that graf from the WaPo article get more play on the blogosphere, but fat chance of that happening, lol.