Credit where it's due.

I have my reservations about Hillary Clinton as a Democratic Presidential nominee and I haven't been reluctant to point them out. There's no denying, though, that she's one of the Party's sharper tactical minds, with a fine understanding of campaign planning and organizations. She's absolutely right, for instance, in this response to a question about the likelihood of Senator Obama beating her in the Q2 fundraising race.

"Well, I'm afraid you might [be over-emphasizing fundraising numbers]. Because the real challenge is whether you have a strategy you're pursuing and the resources to implement your strategy. When I ran in 2000, I was outraised and outspent by nearly 2-to-1 by both of my opponents. It never bothered me for a moment because my concern was making sure that I had the resources -- which I did -- to run my campaign as I expected it to run."

A campaign doesn't need the most money, but it does need enough. The question is how much is enough, which is where planning and organization come in. I don't know if, in the end, Clinton will be able to raise the most money in a field which, not so long ago, it was believed she would overwhelm with the fruits of the legendary Clinton Rolodex. I'm pretty sure, though, that if she doesn't get the nomination, it won't be for lack of cash.

She's right about this, too...

"It is complicated and dangerous to withdraw troops."

Of course, it's complicated and dangerous to deploy troops, and perhaps most complicated and dangerous of all to leave a residual force in a theater of operations where there was never a sufficient force to secure the ground. Hillary's plan may be the most dangerous and least productive of all.

Yep, I have my reservations…