If she kissed O'Hanlon on tomorrow's O'Reilly Factor and said "He's my SecDef," how would it hurt?

What are you going to do?

Nothing.

Because if Michael O'Hanlon were an honest man, and he is not, he should not be supporting Hillary Clinton at all.

The larger question, of course, is whether Hilary is really opposed to the Iraq (or Iran) war.

Walter's citation in your first link from the Garaldi article ("Neolibs and Neocons, United and Interchangeable", 8/14/07) is very disturbing:

The two leading Democratic candidates for president are undeniably Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary is regarded as by far the more conservative candidate in that she has carefully triangulated her potential supporters and is unwilling to say that her vote in the Senate in support of the Iraq war was a mistake. She has also positioned herself with the Israel lobby through her pledge to disarm Iran by whatever means necessary and her threat to use nuclear weapons on terrorists. Her foreign policy advisers are a who's who of neoliberal hawks, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who famously believed that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was "worth it." Clinton is also being advised by Richard Holbrooke, who is reported to be close to Paul Wolfowitz. Holbrooke is a possible candidate for secretary of state if Clinton is elected president. Holbrooke has been a supporter of the Iraq war, and he was an architect of the 1999 bombing of Serbia. Strobe Talbott, who advised Bill Clinton and was also involved with the bombing of Serbia, is reported to be another Hillary adviser.

It seems there is reason to be concerned not only about O'Hanlon, but other advisors, and, of course, the candidate herself.

My cousin worked for bob kerrey (sp?) in 1991 in d.c. he used to tell me that clinton didn't care about anything or anyone except clinton.

when the monica came along, it was the first time I really really understood what my cousin was saying.  that perspective allowed me to make sense of all of clinton's actions.

I'd have NO problem with them if they reflected where most of hte tens of millions of working serfs live and breath,

instead they reflect the fascist defined 'middle', 'independent', 'bipartisan'

why do they do that, decade in and decade out?
are they stupid patsy's of the fascists, are they corrupted ...

let them keep their fascist lite sell out advisors.

let them join the fascists and temper them.