Hillary Says She Believes In "War On Terror" Phrase Because She's Senator From New York
Hillary took a fair amount of heat the last time she answered a question about foreign policy by mentioning that she is a "Senator from New York," thus implying that she'd had a more direct experience of 9/11 than others.
It passed virtually unnoticed, but Hillary again said something very similar at last night's debate:
BLITZER: All right.Senator Clinton, do you agree with Senator Edwards that this war on terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker; at least the way it's been described?
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D) NEW YORK: No, I do not. I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda.
The last time Hillary went down this rhetorical road, it was unclear what exactly she was saying because the reporting on her comment was so atrocious. But this example was much more clear cut.
Hillary very clearly suggested that she disagrees with Edwards' rejection of the "war on terror" phrase because she had a direct experience of 9/11 as Senator from New York.
Here's why this sort of thing gets people hot and bothered. It seems designed to imply that Edwards doesn't grasp the import of terrorism itself -- in other words, that he doesn't take terrorism in general as seriously as she does. In this sense it carries echoes of the bogus Dems-don't-grasp-the-terror-threat talking point used so frequently by wingers and by the GOP to slime Hillary herself and Dems in general.
What's more, this reply doesn't appear to have anything to do with what Edwards is actually arguing. Not only is Edwards saying that terrorism is real and to be taken seriously, he's also making a substantive argument -- whether you agree with it or not -- about how it should be dealt with. He's arguing that the "war on terror" formulation helps terrorism in general and weakens the U.S.'s ability to counter it adequately.
We have no problem believing that Hillary actually does believe in the "war on terror" frame. But we'd genuinely like to hear her explain why she believes this, rather than implying she has a better gut-level grasp of the import of terrorism than other Dems do.
Update: In fairness to Hillary, it's worth pointing out that Edwards' rejection of the "war on terror" phrase is fairly recent and that he repeatedly used it himself until deciding it should be discarded.
Surely you jest.
The claim that Hillary understands terrorism better than the others because she is a senator from New York is odious to this New Yorker.
Unlike the case with the tragedy in New Orleans, the country responded as one to the horrors of the Twin Towers bombing. The aftermath isn't so pretty but Hillary's claim should sicken rather than inspire.
As with the war on terror, it is all just rhetorical flourish. Hillary is turning out to be very good at that.
Best, Terry
June 4, 2007 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
terry, I was kind of being tongue in cheek...though at the same time I'm genuinely not sure that she doesn't believe in it....
June 4, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It not possible that she dosn't understand what Wolf is asking, and what Edwards is claiming, is it?
Her remarks sound prepared, rather than spontanteous.
Therefore, one must conclude that she is deliberately embracing Bush's "War On Terror" frame. Why? Probably in order to attempt to overcome her percieved weakness on foreign policy as a Democrat and and as a woman -- in order to have as *macho* a foreign policy as Mussolini-wannabe Giuliani.
But she can't say that that's why she is accepting the Neocon rhetorical frame of the "War on Terror", and she also can't say that we are in a "Clash of Civilizations" against those Evil Muslims (leave that kind of *overt* racism to the Republicans), and so she is substituting a "what about the children" kind of pandering to voters' base instincts (fear, anxiety) rather than acknowledge Edwards' substantive point. This type of sophistry has worked very well with stupid and lazy voters for the Republican party for decades now, and it appears that Hillary is going to pick it up.
This is what Hillary is: a candidate for Democrats who are afraid to admit that they are Democrats, who think that Democrats cannot win. John Kerry II.
June 4, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize for not acknowledging the obvious sarcasm.
It is frustrating to see a very potent talking point for Democrats delivered by Edwards turned into a pumpkin by the Wicked Witch of the East. :-)
I don't know if Edwards could have said it better. It reminds of some powerful points delivered by Richardson on the immigration bill that were seemingly ignored because of his inept delivery.
Again, I have vastly underrated Hillary's abilities as a debater but I think not her shallowness.
All JMO.
Best, Terry
June 4, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, I do think it is fair for her to cite something that has dominated her job for most of her time as a senator. if for no other reason than because she and chuck have had to spend so much time fighting to get the money NYC was promised when we responded as one but then that oneness went away. regardless of those who find fault with everything she does, should have done and is plotting to do . . . she has been an effective advocate for New York, much of which has revolved around post 9/11 everything. Gawd, even hillary has to, inadvertently, do something right once in a while, but from most of the posters on this site, we'd never know it.
June 4, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have vastly underrated Hillary's abilities" -- Maybe because we haven't seen this side of Hillary for seven years? -- So, my next question - Is Why 'only' now? when we needed her opposition, her outrage with the illegal wiretaps, gitmo, the patriot act and Alito?
"her shallowness" - no question imo.
June 4, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally get steamed and the last part of Hillary's statement (that you did NOT bold)
...who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda.
This I take issue with. It's the Republican/Neo-Con slight-of-hand that ignores the real motivations behind terrorism and does it's own foisting of rationale. It's either because they "hate our freedom" or they "hate our way of life" or in this case they are holding their way of life up over ours. Missing of course is the irony that part of the fuel in the terrorist fire is that it is WE who foist OUR way of life on people and that is one of the things that pisses them the hell off...
June 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's fair for her to cite her work for NYC recovery. But that wasn't the question. Her response to the odious "war on terror" meme was simply a way to evade an important and substantive issue with a blatant emotional sidetrack.
Once in a while I still get hopeful that there will be real political discussion on real political/social issues. Then we get cheap pr junk like this designed to kill everything of substance in any debate. I have to wonder how much longer our remnants of democracy can survive when politics is, at every opportunity, brought down to the level of a bad soap opera.
June 4, 2007 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technical note to Greg: The numbers up for the PPP Ia-pres poll are wrong. TPM has got Hillary and Edwards tied at 31%, when it should be Hillary and Obama tied at 17%. Not sure where to post this, since there aren't comments on the poll section (that I know of, at least). Sorry for the non-post...
June 4, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same sort of demagoguery that Giuliani is using to bolster his campaign. I expect it from the Republicans, but I expect better from a Democrat.
And what do people make of Clinton’s claim that Bush and his WOT has made us safer? The way I see it, creating a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq has made us less, not more, safe (and keep in mind Bush has always claimed Iraq is the “central front in the war on terror”).
And given that the high profile anti-terrorism “success stories” we have seen coming from the law enforcement side seem to be little more that entrapment of the mental feeble, coupled with the fact that we have further radicalized millions of Muslims living in the Middle East I don’t feel particularly more safe. So why does HRC think Bush has made us safer?
June 4, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
many thanks...we'll fix
June 4, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was pretty annoyed with Hillary for that answer too; but I have to say Edwards did a lousy job of explaining his point. The back-and-forth with Blitzer really did make it sound like he was pooh-poohing any terrorism threat, rather than the eminently valid and important point of his original statement. He had some great moments last night, as did most of them; but I wish they'd all get much, much better at this.
June 4, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was unfortunate that Hillary did not acknowledge both that Bush has used the "war on terror" to justify too many heinous and stupid policies. Additionally, the war is against Muslim zealots not the tactic of terrorism. However, with a such a short time to answer such a question I presume she did not want to appear to dismiss the dangers by those who did blow up the World Trade Center or those who plotted, however early, to blow up JFK.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 4, 2007 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This moment in the debate was a real test of Edwards ability to carry the ball as the Democratic nominee for President of the USA. The key to breaking through is to have detailed questions and knowledge about international affairs and foreign policy so you can show that the phrase 'war on terror' is empty. He just didn't do it. He should have talked about specifics about leading by example and how there is a struggle within Islam between violence and tolorance and we need to support the tolerant and marginalise the violent and that invading every country in the larger ME to put a pro US government in place is not the way to go. He didn't present the smarter National Security policy that the next president of the United States must persue. Now it was a missed opportunity for Clinton too. She could have backed the WOT while going on to talk specifics and show where the GOP has fallen down over and over again.
This is going to become more and more important as we go forward towards Nov 08 and sooner or later the Democrats need a speach that addresses this conflict without falling into the war on everything all the time that the GOP embraces.
Steve Clemons can you help the good guys communicate the sane foreign policy of the next president of the USA?
June 4, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I very very strongly dislike Hillary's self-serving use of being "from" New York to say that she implicitly understands how to deal with terrorism better than anyone else. Its really fake, presumptuous and arrogant. I understand if she is speaking that way in the name of her constituents, but if she is, which is the only possible decent interpretation of remarks which are in my opinion, not at all decent, then she should take a much closer look at what that constituency believes. Here in NYC, the place which actually got attacked, hello Hillary!, we HATE George W. Fucking Bush, and his god damned "war on terror" which is absolutely, as described by Edwards, a 'bumper sticker slogan'. That is entirely true and exactly right. Hillary getting all strident and self-righteous because she had spent a few weeks total in New York or whatever is some seriously fake ass bullshit. I mean, does she really think that geographic proximity to the attacks confers proportional "knowledge" about the "threat we face"? If so, then I should be President and not her, because I was closer, nya nya nya.
It is also simply insane, INSANE, for Hillary to try and say that we are all safer now because of Bush's war against Iraq. How fucking STUPID does she think we are? How stupid are we? How full of herself is she? Arrrggggg!!!!
June 4, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
also, Wolf (cough cough) Blitzer is an idiot.
thanks, that's all.
June 4, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh gosh, Northern Observer, even if you think "bumper sticker" sloganeering isn't plain enough, it seems odd you think Hillary should have explained it when she was attacking the proposition.
It was obvious that Edwards' description of the phony War on Terror raised hackles even from Obama who is at least lukewarm in support of an odious policy. The time constraints of a debate do not easily admit of a full explanation of an idea, especially in the face of a hostile questioner and opponents.
Best, Terry
June 4, 2007 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink