Andy McCarthy has some interesting thoughts on demands that Maliki be replaced:

...shouldn't Senator Clinton have a higher standard to meet in explaining why Maliki is unacceptable? This is the same former First Lady who actively encouraged her husband's embrace of Yasser Arafat — a poisonously corrupt master terrorist the Clintons cultivated as a statesman, repeatedly hosted at the White House, and got a second intifada for their troubles. Plus, we now know that, through all that time, the government knew Arafat had ordered the cold-blooded murder of American diplomats in Sudan in 1973.

Shouldn't Sen. Clinton have to explain on what basis Arafat was acceptable but Maliki isn't?

Yes, and in a sane world, she would. But her highness doesn't get tough questions, at least not from the MSMers moderating debates. It would be a good point for a Republican candidate in the general election, though, assuming that she gets the nomination.