The point I got from the article and which you don't point out is that Hillary is playing the same terrorist games as the GOP. There might be another terrorist attack, so Hillary is saying vote for me because I am the most able to handle a terror attack. Hillary is trying to use the same scare tactics that the repugs have been using on the american people and it disgust me that a democrat would do the same thing.

I think that Hillary is right that the GOP will get a boost from a terrorist attack, especially if Rudy is the GOP nominee. After all, the people might be split on whom to trust, but the GOP would rally and make ads saying that "see, leaving Iraq is causing terrorist attacks" and so on... This could be the October Surprise.

As for fear mongering, I don't see any here, she is just laying out the truth.

"So is Hillary's assumption — that a new terror attack after years of Republican rule would in fact help the GOP — actually correct?"

What Hillary said:
"But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again"

Hillary said "certain things" Benjy Sarlin typed in "new terror attack." I realize that is a talking point the 'liberal' - whacko - sphere is using today to attack a dem nom for president but I don't understand why the site that says it isn't just a blog would do that. So Benjy Sarlin copied and pasted incorrect talking points on the site that isn't just a blog. This is the site Marshall says does pretty good work. Maybe but you wouldn't know that by this post.

Will Terror Alert Level Show Its True Colors?

A Cornell sociologist says he has found scientific evidence that, whenever the government issues a terrorism alert, President Bush's approval ratings go up, even on domestic issues, such as his handling of the economy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28037-2004Oct12.html

Oh but the gop would never just raise the terror level for political reasons:

Ridge reveals clashes on alerts

The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm

Have we been invaded by space aliens? Is that how this happens? Is that why TPM which isn't just a blog doesn't know what happened in the recent past? So many question...

Hillary: trust me for my re-activeness to scary scenarios.....and let me remind you of how important it is to use a 'strong' image in the aftermath of those scary possibilities. {In the event of another terrorist attack, I would immediately retaliate]

Obama: trust me for my pro-activeness to scary scenarios, and let me remind you of how important it is to use good judgment in lessening those scary possibilities. { In the event of another terrorist attack, I would assure the thoroughness of the domestic response, and assure the thoroughness of actionable intelligence]

[self-deleted post]

Or she could be just preempting a fear campaign by the Republicans and whittling away at the myth that Republicans are the goto foreign policy/security party. I didn't see a lot of fear mongering during the Bill Clinton presidency, although maybe Hillary will dump Bill and go the Thatcher route after she is elected. I suspect that a lot of people here would like to think that.

Call me Strawman. ;-)

The Bin Laden tape may have helped Bush -- it's difficult to tell since the polls showed the race neck and neck to the very end either way -- but 2004 was also a very different time. Right after the election, people (OK, Karl Rove mostly) were promoting pet theories about an entire era of GOP dominance emerging. Since then the GOP brand has been so tarnished that it makes one wonder if a Bin Laden tape the day before the 2008 election wouldn't serve to remind Americans that the President has failed to capture him after seven long years. After all there have been high profile terror attacks in the world the last few years -- the London bombings (and attempted bombings), for example -- as well as new tapes from Al Qaeda leaders, but I don't recall Bush or the GOP getting any bounce from them.

DonnaG, I agree. In fact, as Josh says on the front page, Hillary's chickenlittlehysteria is a loser mentality.  If we really stop and think about it she had this same time of 'fearthebadguys' mentality when she was attacking Barack for saying he would talk to leaders of the other countries she was characterizing as 'evil'

If Hillary was the best candidate, she would provide a plan. Only Barack is telling the nation that strong presidents and strong nations lead with their best and are unafraid to attack problems with viable solutions.

Hillary offers us nothing but fear and more fearmongering. Why in the world otherwise would she believe that an attack would benefit the GOP and not Democrats?  Is it because she knows full well she would not have a clue about what to do, because there would not be any polls to tell her the 'best' course of action.  We as a nation would have to rely on an individual who simply cannot think and reason with good judgment.  Hillary would simply go on the attack, a whirlingdervishattackingmachine' without a plan or strategy but she would be 'attacking ferociously'.

Spare us please, we need leadership not chickenlittle fearmongerers in the WH.

They are probably Republicans who would rather meet Clinton than Obama in the general.

Let's face it....Dems have an unfair reputation of "being on the sides of the terrorists".
How did they get this reputation?
Basically, the dems in their hatred of all things BUSH, have been going after him on anything/ any level since he became president...and thus we have the dem party going after Bush for "spying on Terrorists"-

Seems the dems have let good principles have get in the way of good politics

Post election analysis from 2004 shows that the Bin Laden tape, released just prior to voting, helped Bush and hurt Kerry.

Link? Citation? Reference? 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

"what did she mean"

If TPM had a rating that'd be nice. This was a big persons post. 13yr and up.

"Terror Alert Level"

That's what the link to terror alerts raise bush rating was about. And also the link to ridge saying alerts were politically motivated.

"Also, "liberal-wacko-sphere"? What's your problem?"

My problem is morons that attack a dem nom for president with crap. The same type of crap that put a repub in the white house. Twice.

Wow.  Talk about non sequiturs.   In any event, Sarlin isn't jumping to wild conclusions.  Clinton was pretty clear: "... if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again..." If you don't think she's referring to a terrorist attack, perhaps you can offer a plausible alternative.

Thanks for pointing this out. The problem that the anti-Hillary people are having is that they assume that Americans act rationally in these situations. Well they don't. Eighty-percent of Americans supported the war. Hillary is in this to win. You rarely win by appealing to rationality. Hillary is rational, she just understands what is operational in this situation. She is a strategist and she is positioning herself to beat the Repugs at their own game.

all she's doing is reinforcing traditional right-wing talking points. for some reason, she can't formulate a proper criticism of Bush and his many, many grave national security errors. at this point in US history, the population is not going to have that knee-jerk 'support the Republicans' reaction. the bed-wetters have way, way overplayed their hands with all of the "terror terror terror!!!" crap of the past 6 years, and Clinton is a complete fool for not noticing that times have changed.

Wow.  Talk about non sequiturs.   In any event, Sarlin isn't jumping to wild conclusions.  Clinton was pretty clear: "... if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again..." If you don't think she's referring to a terrorist attack, perhaps you can offer a plausible alternative.

I think that Hillary is right that the GOP will get a boost from a terrorist attack

Why? In all seriousness, I don't understand this logic. Even if they have ads that say what you said, the problem is the GOP has already failed the terrorism test. 

People don't trust Republicans to keep the country safe -- why would another attack make people change their mind?

Meanwhile, we're not leaving Iraq, and, if we did, it is not going to be the Democrats alone that force the issue. Either Bush, miracle of miracles, decides to change course, or enough Republicans vote next time it comes up with Democrats.

Or something completely out of our control happening in Iraq, which leads even today's non-believers into thinking we need to leave.

It just doesn't make sense to me, today, knowing where public opinion is, why people would run back to the GOP on this issue. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Hmm...looks like I struck a nerve.

I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE for TPM to check the IPs, but I can tell you right now how many match mine. ONE.

Like I said, look at the linguistics of the "hadenough" posts. They just don't match at all.

Bush lost the country with Katrina. No one besides the 30% dead-ender fundamentalist idiots who actually believe he's the second coming will ever turn to Bush for solutions ever again, about anything important. Yeah America has been largely asleep for the past decade plus, but this is one issue with as close to universal agreement as possible.

"She is not the Dem nominee yet"

Correction "possible Dem nominee"

"The post didn't say that raising terror alerts for political reasons wouldn't happen."

No it said new attack. Something Hillary didn't say. Could she mean new attack? Everything does not happen in a vacuum. Not being in a vacuum the fake terror alerts that raised gop ratings came to mind. History and science shows a terror alert is good for the gop. So she 'could mean' sure, in my vacuumless space recent history came to mind.

no, she is actually re-affirming her view of their 'manliness' (and implicitly, the stupidity and cowardice of the general populace) and giving credence to the idea that the country still trusts the Cons more than the Dems on terrorism issues, which is no longer statistically true. Josh M. is right, this is the mentality of a loser. now, we've known Hillary is playing that game all along, but this is really a gross example. this is your "naive and inexperienced" right here!!! how a prominent Dem can have failed to have learned this lesson by now in their career, I do not understand.

of course, Dems would be in an even better position right now had there not been "Dems" like Hillary puffing Bush up this whole time, agreeing with his insane, psychotic rhetoric, and demonizing fellow Dems who had the correct judgment to oppose the war!

Hillary is so wrong for the Dems in so many ways, I hope very much that either JE or BO is able to knock her off the top of the heap.

I think you missed my interpretation, I read it as she she thinks she can best deal with GOP shenanigans or spinning of attack. I don't read the "I'm the best Dem to keep you safe" at all.

"So, we're all reading something into Clinton's statement that's not really there?"

"we're all"

That would be you all. And it just doesn't get dumber than yglesias. All the money wasted on his education. And Marshall has been a big disappointment lately.

"spinning this in Clinton's favor? Need to call bullshit on that one."

Depends on the meaning of spin. If you think spin means facts then sure I'm spinning. Me, I'd call putting words in someone's mouth spin.

right, and people like 'teardownthiswall' who actually believe that narrative in the first place, or at least seem to. even the Repug talking heads on TV who spout this garbage, don't actually believe that Dems sympathize with terrorists, they just know they can create a pavlovian response in the dumber segments of the population. and for some reason, Hillary sees a need to play right into this mentality...

The whole premise of this is flawed.

Who says people will actually believe Republicans are the go-to people if we were attacked? On what merits do he Republicans have any credibility on fighting terrorism? The last time I checked we were taken into an unnecessary war and the people who devised the attacks of September the 11th of 2001 are still at large.

This just gives credibility to the notion that Republicans are effective at taking it to the actual terrorists.

I don't think Hillary is fear mongering. She is just doing the work for the Republicans on projecting this meme.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Maybe she should have said that Republicans would try to use a terrorist attack to their advantage.

Her saying that they would flat out have an advantage after such an event just buys into the notion that Republicans are effective at fighting terrorism.

I just don't think they have that credibility as a result of the Iraq debacle.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but I need to point out that the evidence in question is The New York Post. While nothing blunts the speculation or interpretation that HRC just grabbed a page from Karl Rove's playbook, The Post provides no context for the remark--and didn't have a reporter present.

The Boston Globe ran the same story, which it too grabbed from the AP, but with more context. I doubt the better treatment will satisfy either side, but it's worth questioning content coming from tabloids like The Post.

/c

In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.

How about rather than exploiting the American people, politicians take the care to present their positions in ways Americans can understand.

Didn't Gore and Kerry do this?

That would be you all.

Seems to me like it's everyone but you.

Anyway, you haven't addressed the obvious point: Clinton said "terrorism," yet you say, or at least strongly imply, that she's not talking about terrorism.

But, OK, Matt Yglesias is dumb. Sure.

Can you please tell us, because, with bated breath...we're all waiting, exactly what you thought Clinton was saying, and how she was misrepresented? 

Hillary isn't running against GWB

Uh...yeah she is. Or didn't you notice her picking fights with Bush left and right? Slamming Bush in her first political ad? Picking fights with Cheney's boys at the DoD. etc etc.

She's definitely running against Bush, especially in the primary. Its the classic primary campaign, as a matter of fact.

From the Post article:

that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

It is clear that she is talking about the political advantage the Republicans would have. Based on past experience, she is correct in assuming that the Republicans may have an immediate advantage. She will have to persuade voters that her leadership in the next administration will be the best way forward. Currently, she has positioned herself in this space the most strongly of all candidates. Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd will have to persuade otherwise.

My take on this is rather simple. Her argument makes 2 assumptions

1-A terrorist attack or "scare" would help the GOP
2-She is best able to handle the resultant fear-mongering

She doesn't argue for either assumption. Indeed, her argument is her assumptions. Which is pretty weak. However, neither assumption holds true.

Indeed, I'd say the fact that she suggests (1) says to me that (2) must be false. That is, her whole statement is internally inconsistent, IMO. Why?

Because I believe that the candidates best able to handle the GOP fear-mongering would be a candidate who explicitly rejects (1).

The very fact that she thinks a terrorist scare will help the GOP says to me she's not equipped to handle it. As Marshall rightly pointed out, that's a loser mentality. It only helps the GOP if you let it help the GOP. She's conceding defeat in the debate before its even happened, and then saying, "well, I won't lose as bad as the rest of 'em will"

Er...no. That's not what we need. We don't need a candidate who says they're the best at stemming the bleeding. We need the candidate who says "I won't let that cut me" (not to mention a candidate who'd put the policy before the politics...something we already know is not true of Hillary, given her answer in the first debate about her reaction to a terrorist attack)

It just doesn't make sense to me, today, knowing where public opinion is, why people would run back to the GOP on this issue.

I agree that if people thought about it, they wouldn't run back to the GOP. But I also thought in 2000 and 2004 that if people thought about what Bush was actually doing as President, they wouldn't vote for him, either.

What I am beginning to conclude is that Hillary is afraid of actually being a leader...

This is utter nonsense.

Anyone who hasn't pondered the political effects of another attack on this country is an idiot.

Personally, I think bin Laden and company may well want to give Bush a send-off before the next election.

What would the effect be? In the short run, a boost for Bush and the Republicans as the country rallies around the flag. Once the dust settles, all the arguments that the Republicans are better suited to fight terrorists would go out the window. The whole country would wonder "What has this administration accomplished to make this country safer?" I believe there would be a furious backlash against the Republicans.

You're absolutely right. She didn't say "terrorist attack". She said "certain things" and then followed up with "respect to terrorism"...I don't think you can dance your way out of the fact that the obvious implication with respect to "certain things" is a terrorist attack.

Anyone who hasn't pondered the political effects of another attack on this country is an idiot.

Who, exactly, are you addressing here?

There's a difference between "pondering" the political effects of another terrorist attack and positing what those effects would be, re-enforcing Republican frames on the issue, and then attempting to exploit it for political points.

See the difference?

Look: I can play that demagoguery game too!

"Anyone who can't see those differences is an idiot."

Wow, doesn't that make my post sooo much more credible now?

Followed by "particularly with respect to terrorism" and, at least as importantly, immediately preceded by "It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?'"

What "horrible prospect" other than a terror attack might she be what if'ing about, ferchristsake? A sudden mysterious outbreak of covert unauthorized posie planting? (Not but what mysterious unauthorized posie plaintings wouldn't cause half the people in the country to press the hysteria button and call in the cops, the feds and the nearest hazmat unit.)

Damn, the exact same people who, two days ago, were insisting that Michelle Obama expressing her understanding of the need to balance campaigning with family just had to be a coded attack on Her Hillariness are now insisting that Hillary didn't actually mean what she plainly did.

Maybe if, just once, just frikkin once, the woman would say what she actually frikkin means instead of "running a perfect campaign" and "being careful to avoid saying anything she could be attacked for later," we wouldn't be having this ridiculous debate.

Oh well. Suffice it to say that only Hillary has the Strength and Experience to deal with "certain things" with respect to terrorism, but we should not necessarily telegraph our intentions to foreign leaders by explicitly stating what "things" we mean, horrible though the prospect of those things occuring may (or may not) be, or by explaining what we mean by "deal."

"Anyway, you haven't addressed the obvious point: Clinton said "terrorism," yet you say, or at least strongly imply, that she's not talking about terrorism."

Ya gotta track back up. My orginal comment had "Terror Alert Level" right in it. Hillay said:

"But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism"

I posted 2 links to articles. One "Terror Alert Level" in the title and says every time the bush raised the terror alert level his ratings went up. I would call that addressing terrorism. The second link was to tom ridge. Regarding the bush admin raising the terror level for no real reason. I would call that dealing with terrorism.

Benjy Sarlin says "So is Hillary's assumption — that a new terror attack" and "the worst came to pass." Two things Hillary didn't say. Two very specific things that were not in the Hillary quote.

Hillary:

"'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism"

First thing that came to my mind was the fake terror alerts repub used to boost their ratings. Could she mean "the worst came to pass" and a "new terror attack" that Sarlin says she means. Why not? Historically the gop have used fake terror alerts to boost their ratings. But she could mean those 2 specific things Sarlin came up with then attributed to Hillary. Not the first thing to my mind. Could she mean fake terror alerts that would boost the repubs ratings? Without making things up and without putting words in her mouth I'd say historically yes. I haven't talked to Hillary myself so the exact meaning as far as I know could be anything.

Maybe if, just once, just frikkin once, the woman would say what she actually frikkin means instead of "running a perfect campaign" and "being careful to avoid saying anything she could be attacked for later," we wouldn't be having this ridiculous debate.

Which reminds me: can we finally put to rest this whole ridiculous notion of her disciplined, gaffe-free campaign?

-Lobbyist are real people! (but I don't listen to em!)

-We shouldn't talk in public about major points of foreign policy

-I advise the President to take nukes off the table in certain narrow situations, but I think its irresponsible for any Presidential candidate to take nukes off the table in certain narrow situations.

And now this. I may write a blog post about this.

Its ridiculous that while this is going on, I'm reading articles praising her campaigns apparent inability to misstep. Huh?

Too bad she didn't frame it that way with these comments.

Technically if you reboot your modem, router or PC/Mac and use dynamic IP addressing (very common), you'd have more than one IP address over time.

Not to put too fine a point on it.

Can we all just behave; and I mean "all."

/c

In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.

Yeah, this:

You must deal with reality. 50% of Americans have an IQ of 100 or less...

is priceless.

How about that other 50% of AMericans that (simply because of the way standard IQ tests are normed) have IQs greater than 100? People make the assumption that elections turn out the way they do because the American public is stupid in some way. Don't blame a crappy campaign with no real message, it's the voters' fault!

I don't think she's fearmongering here. I think she is akwardly saying that if there is an attack, the GOPers will pounce and try to claim the political capital that results from the fallout, and that Dems are going to have to be ready to stick it to them when they try it, OR be prepared to move in to politically benefit themselves.

I think she is correct; if the Dems don't try to grab advantage, then we all know the GOPers will do it all day long, no matter how incompetent and dangerous they've proven themselves to be.

I'll let that comparison speak for itself:

Good gov't reform opposed by leaders in both parties and non-proliferation, from a junior Senator

vs

adoption legislation from a First Lady.

This is less about fear mongering and more about failing to move out of the paradigm of "Republican Good, Democrat Bad". Her point has some validity due to our lazy media who may too happily reiterate the story lines of the 90s. However, you can't put aside that Republicans were in control of the Government for most of the time after 9/11 and the President is still a Republican so any attack on the US would be a blatant example of their failure.

What Hillary Clinton needs to do is to start stressing that point, that an attack would show the failure of the GOP's ability to safe-guard the US. By retelling the GOP talking points and reinforcing the media's misguided narrative of GOP strength she's inadvertently playing their game and I'd expect much more from a Democratic Presidential candidate.

Yep.

BTW, to those saying, "Hillary is just dealing with reality"

More americans trust Dems on terrorism

Before we Democrats get into a huff, we would do well to remember that history supports Clinton's premise.

From the BBC:

US Democratic Senator John Kerry says a video message from Osama Bin Laden sealed his defeat in a presidential race dominated by the 9/11 attacks.

He said the impact of Bin Laden's message was evident by the dent in his ratings that followed its appearance.

"We were rising in the polls up until the last day when the tape appeared. We flat-lined the day the tape appeared and went down on Monday."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4222647.stm

Love it or hate it, Democrats indulge their short-term memory at their own risk!

mopper8 isn't on point and is irrelevant.

That was long ago. It was a different world. And Kerry sucked. So does Hillary. A terrorist attack on America wouldn't hurt a self-confident, competent Democratic candidate at all. Hillary's triangulating again.

Gore definitely won - that's been established and kerry almost certainly won. Of course, maybe you're one of those Democrats who cannot acknowledge that the right has stolen the last two elections. Anyone who cannot admit that isn't even remotely prepared to take the Republicans on. We had two candidates who didn't deal with it. Hillary has said directly and unequivocally that she thinks Gore won. That's who I want for the nominee - someone who will fight the memes you advocate here.

Talk about losing - anyone who cannot acknowledge the past two election's vote theft, is not someone prepared to deal with the GOP.

This is inane; you are positing that by the time of the general election campaign, Bush will have begun pulling troops out of Iraq and that Rudy will blame that for a terrorist attack? First, there's no sign that Bush will be pulling troops out, and second if Rudy is the Repub nominee, what makes you think he won't blame the Democrats, regardless of whom they nominate.

Might want to add this

Ah...the ad hominem attack, the last refuge of the defeated.

Amusing that someone who fancies him/herself "Political Logic" would resort to the basest of logical fallacies.

Let me rephrase:

mopper8 is not not speaking to the point I made and what he says is not relevant.

This statement by Hillary is incredibly revealing of her overall outlook. First, as Josh has pointed out, it is defeatist and defensive. She takes it as a given that the Republicans will get a boost in the event of a debacle like another terrorist attack. In fact, the downside of the Bush/Cheney last refuge argument -- the argument that says, "hey, there's not been an attack on the homeland in six years, so we must be doing everything right" -- is that if there is such an attack, the public can and should rub those remarks in the Repubs' face.

Second, she shifts all the responsibility away from herself, "no matter how dangerous they have made the world," conveniently forgetting that she authorized Bush to make the world more dangerous by invading Iraq.

Third, she is not saying she is the Democrat most capable of confronting a terrorist attack. She is saying she is the Democrat most capable of reducing the number of political points Republicans might score in the event of an attack. I know some people are tired of hearing Obama saying that he's tired of "who's up, who's down politics," but Hillary just keeps reinforcing her image as someone who is focused on the political calculations involved in serious issues rather than on the substance of the issues themselves.

Matt's statement...is his own subjective characterization and does not reflect her thinking. She doesn't see the Republicans as being ultimately successful.

I have to disagree.

Hillary:

will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again

That's pretty clear. I don't know how to interpret that as anything other than saying, well, it will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again. Basically, Hillary's problem isn't that she was vague and multiple meanings could be read into her statement. Her problem is that she was abundantly clear.

Or she could be just preempting a fear campaign by the Republicans and whittling away at the myth that Republicans are the goto foreign policy/security party.

This is indeed the answer. It is a preemptive strike. If, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack between now and election day, what's the best way to preempt the Repubs than to state what they would almost certianly state: Elect Rudy because he's been there, done that. However, if you state what they would say, then when they say it, you go on the offensive by saying: "I told you so! They're using this awful tragedy for political gains!"

Those who see fear-mongering in this had better try harder to make the case because I just do not see it? That HRC said that she'd be the best person qualified to deal with another attack is totally predictable. What would she say? I would hide in a classroom and read 'My Pet Goat" or whatever to toddlers? Of course she'd say that she would be the best person qualified to deal with, just as would any other candidate.

Where is the fear-mongering? Inquiring minds wanna know...

(contributed from overseas: Lyon, France)

It is a preemptive strike. If, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack between now and election day, what's the best way to preempt the Repubs than to state what they would almost certianly state: Elect Rudy because he's been there, done that. However, if you state what they would say, then when they say it, you go on the offensive by saying: "I told you so! They're using this awful tragedy for political gains!"

Except that's not what she said. Indeed, that's precisely the problem here: she could've done that, but she didn't. As I said in another post (and on the carpetbagger report)

Hillary could have said that Republicans would try to exploit such a tragedy to their advantage.

Instead, she said it automatically gives them an advantage.

The first statement is an accurate representation of reality, and the foundation for a push-back against GOP fear-mongering.

The second statement is a concession that the Republican frame of the issue is accurate.

Except that's not what she said. Indeed, that's precisely the problem here: she could've done that, but she didn't. As I said in another post (and on the carpetbagger report)

A distinction without a difference...

Uh, no, its actually a very relevant difference.

One says: "this is what they'll say"

The other says: "what they'll say is correct"

Hillary chose the latter, when the former is what she needed to say.

You might have a point, except that they have not yet said it. So, you make it seem like a fait accompli, so that you would justified in predicting what they might say...follow me?

The truth of the matter is that the Pubs would claim that they would be better equipped to deal with another attack, and people might just believe them. So, in that sense, it would an advantageous calamity for them.

"More like a smoking gun than just a nerve. It looks like hadenough basically confessed to being a multi-headed troll."

Damn! You caught me. What gave it away? The part where I typed in "Yes please do." Is that what gave me away? If you didn't exist you couldn’t be made up.

"But here we have her actually creating and promoting hypotheticals."

It's not a hypothetical:

Hillary:
"But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it"

What has happened in the recent past:

Will Terror Alert Level Show Its True Colors?

A Cornell sociologist says he has found scientific evidence that, whenever the government issues a terrorism alert, President Bush's approval ratings go up, even on domestic issues, such as his handling of the economy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28037- 2004Oct12.html

ridge says no reason to raise alerts:

Ridge reveals clashes on alerts

The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge- alerts_x.htm

So that's what happens.

There are a gazillion good ideas floating around out there, but most of them don't become law. Pushing a good idea through Congress is what a leader does in the legislature.

It isn't the presence of the hypothitical that bothers me per se, it is the absence of proactive analysis and communication of the problem (which is Bushco and to a lesser extent politics-as-usual). Hillary is doing what any front-runner would do, siezing the advantage. Great for the candidate, maybe, but not so helpful for a country in serious trouble nor for a Constitution lying on its deathbed.

The trouble is that we traded in our leaders for candidates far too early.

Speaking of good shots, gotta love this:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/hes_got_game.php

Actually, without clarification, I don't think that is fair either.

Ah, yes, a third party. Like the one that brought us Bush. What a resounding success that was!

jconorflynn, I spent days [not a quick looky] with the Thomas site trying to find the meat on the declarative bones coming from the Clinton fans.

I'll set aside for now the disgusting fact that the Clinton website actually declaratively hypes her Senate work in a way that gives credit to Clinton for the work of others.

Successful leadership is more than writing legislation. Successful leadership gets the job done, i.e., shepherds that legislation into law. In the 6+ years of Hillary's senate career, she has succeeded 17 times in getting her bills into law.

The majority, eleven [11] of those bills were fluff bills which re-named buildings, or provided recognition to specific individuals.

One [1] designated a section of Puerto Rico as National Forest Land,

One [1] tweaked the terms of the Safe Drinking Water entity for the NYC watershed,

Three [3] related to situations post 9/11 [assure timely payments to dead/injured public safety officers; extend unemployment benefits to persons affected by 9/11; create enviro teams to investigate in cases of catastrophic building collapse],

and lastly one [1] which amends the Public Health Act to provide assistance to family caregivers. This last one is the only one which I would consider to offer benefit across the nation.

So, after looking at her record, I would say that it offers nothing to persuasively argue leadership.

It is very troubling that Hillary, who refuses so often to engage hypotheticals, turns a hypothetical terrorist attack into the need to attack Republicans. She is in this campaign for revenge and it's getting kind of obsessive.

If we are attacked by terrorists, the posture of a real leader would be to try to unite the nation not divide it for personal political gain. Once again, Hillary is showing her Bush-Rove thinking. Her mantra of "Let's get the evil Republicans, I know how to do it," is getting very old.

...also saying that Hillary thinks it's almost too horrible to contemplate what might happen if...the Republicans raise us to alert level Orange. OH NOES!!1!

I invite you to puruse the THOMAS database to better familiarize yourself with Senator Clinton's legislative record.

How many bills has Clinton AUTHORED that have become law? Senators always "introduce" "sponsor" "co-sponsor" all kinds of legislation so they can point to it and blame their colleagues because it went no where. The Congressional Record is also full of speeches about legislation that other Senators never heard, because they were never made, just "read" into the record. All Hillary's long list of bills says is she knows how to play the Senate game, as does her campaign fund full of corporate special-interest support. 

Like serious man. Like wow. We aren't talking about woodchucks chucking wood if they could. The hypothesis has been tested. We already know what happens.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Good Gravy! Good thing I have time to waste.

This debate is so odd. If we are attacked again not only will we obliterate some foreign nation but we will long for the liberal days of the Patriot Act. I would not even be suprised is those who are not seen as strong enough end up joining enemy combantants in the expanded Guantanomo. I don't know which country people think we are living in but the one I live in has gone after presumed domestic enemies with enormous ferocity, for example the Palmer Raids, the internment of the Japanese, and McCarthyism.

Hillary stated a simple and obvious fact. It might put the lie to the Bush rationale to being in Iraq but this Country is not going to rally around the Party of Kucinich and the advocates on the blogs of immediate withdrawal.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

This negates Hillary being a fear monger how? Bottom line, I'd rather have a candidate that is vocal about challenging the GOP on using terrorism as a political ploy than one who is capitulating to it and claiming they can "manage" that same line better. The entire narrative is bankrupt, as is her accepting it.

and Jerry were going to win

Which one? Garcia? Or the ice cream guy?

(Couldn't resist...) :-) 

There's definitely a bar that a Democrat needs clear with the public in terms of appearing trustworthy on national security. And for some reason that bar is probably still is, in all honesty, set a little lower for Republican candidates, notwithstanding their party's dismal record on all things national security of late. Could be because Democrats tend to regard war as the profane and dirty word that it is, whereas Republican love it when their candidates start tossing around a lot of military-sounding tough-guy talk, shooting off their mouths about putting fencing off our borders with barbed wire, that kind of thing. That's red meat to Republican audiences.

I do think that there are two or three people, maybe four running on the Democratic side that could potentially clear that bar though. Clinton is certainly one. It probably even works to her advantage in this case that a lot of people seem to think she's some kind of dragon lady. Biden too, by virtue of seeming so very knowledgeable and at ease with the subject. Barack Obama has that calm, seemingly unshakable demeanor and there's something about him that many people want to trust. Maybe Richardson. I'd have to see his game face. The rest may come across as too nice.

Doh! I didn't realize that. That was a freebee. I meant Kerry of course.

Oh, where to start, jconorflynn. First, I appreciate your involvement and obvious commitment to studying the candidates.

My earlier response to your first post was to the assumption you made by simply listing numbers of Hillary's sponsorship or cosponsorship as though that record was proof of 'leadership'.
You even concluded, "Its unfair to assert with a question that she has not been a leader in the senate."

So first of all, I disagree with the notion that volume of sponsorship necessarily equals leadership. I went on to list Clinton's actual record of 'successful' Senate work, defined as getting her introduced legislation into law. That 'success' record is quite thin, especially if you think about those eleven 'fluff' bills, which comprise the majority of her total of seventeen.

So, in response to my posting her actual Senate successes [or lack thereof] and concluding that I did not find 'leadership' there, you then respond by changing the subject and by casting a wider 'experience' net beyond the very matter you yourself raised of her Senate years, and to which I responded.

That is fine if you want to cast that wider net, but what is not fine is to then say, in response to my post: "but the idea that you must tear her up, denigrate or ignore her past, in order to support another candidate, is foolish". I reject this smear you just put around my study and my listing of facts, if you are in fact asserting that such 'denigrates, ignores or tears her up'.

I'd like to see more discussions about how Obama and Clinton differ in substantive ways, including policy and strategy

I agree with this statement. I have found it difficult to get enough specifics from Hillary's campaign to be able to do that. "Strong and experienced" doesn't do it. And the negative meme coming from her camp of dismissing Obama as 'naive and inexperienced' gives me added pause about her judgment.

Uh, no, its actually a very relevant difference.

One says: "this is what they'll say"

The other says: "what they'll say is correct"

Hillary chose the latter, when the former is what she needed to say.

You might have a point, except that they have not yet said it. So, you make it seem like a fait accompli, so that you would be justified in predicting what they might say...follow me?

The truth of the matter is that the Pubs would claim that they would be better equipped to deal with another attack, and people might just believe them. So, in that sense, it would be an advantageous calamity for them. You know this, so do I. Remember the "red alerts" under Ridge?

Hillary is wrong on this one. She has bought into the Repubican framing of the issue. However, the correct framing, if we were attacked again, would be that this Administration was asleep at the wheel on 9/11 and after all their snooping and spying on American citizens, they have permitted another attack upon our nation. I hardly see how that would benefit the Repubicans.

You're on the right track, but take it a step further by removing the "ifs" and "woulds". Bushco has done plenty wrong and we don't need another terrorist attack to prove it. The effects are obvious all around us. Bush, Cheney, et al, are the political equivalent of Jeffrey Dahmer. They consume their victims.

Democrats should be prosecuting Bushco in the court of public opinion, on multiple counts of malfeasance and, yes, criminal behavior.

The Republicans, a minority in Congress led by a President and Vice President with abysmal approval ratings, continue to frame all the issues, not just this one. Democrats are like barnacles on the hull of the Republican ship of state, occasionally slowing things down a bit, but in the final anaysis just along for the ride.

Post election analysis from 2004 shows that the Bin Laden tape, released just prior to voting, helped Bush and hurt Kerry.

Oh please.  My post election analysis is that Kerry was a dull, uninspiring candidate who lacked any galvanizing vision.  He is a decorated Vietnam verteran who allowed Bush-Rove to turn his record against him.  The lesson for Democrats out of Kerry's failure to defeat Bush is:  Nominate someone whose passion,  vision and ideas will make voters want to vote for them 

I am a big doubter that Hillary can rally a large majority of the nation to her candidancy simply by calling for more battles with the evil Republicans.

 own subjective characterization and does not reflect her thinking. She doesn't see the Republicans as being ultimately successful

Yes, it does reflect Hillary's thinking.  Why else would she assert that it would be an advantage for the GOP , if she herself had not bought into the GOP frame of them being strongest when it comes to national security?

Not only has Hillary bought into that framework, she also is politically shrewd enough to recognize that there is a base of voters who believe this and she wants their vote.  She wants all those voters who believe the fearmongering to vote for her and she understands that to get their vote she must tap into them by fearmongering herself.

Hillary sees fearmongering as a viable tactic the GOP has used and she is simply willing to capitalize on it at the expense of the Democratic party. Why build a new vision of the future when you can simply get people who are fearful to vote for you as the GOP has shown?

Hillary lacks leadership so she panders for votes whereever there is already a base of voters. All she does is find the poll tested message to tap into those voters and then she panders.

It will be a sad day if Hillary wins the nomination as she will set this country back further than the 90s as she is willing to govern with fear tactics if it achieves her political ambition of being President.

For someone who has read through all the THOMAS data, I find it odd that your would use Senator Clinton's campaign website as the basis for research. That's like checking out Philip Morris to research the link between lung disease and smoking.

Even if you do not have lexis-nexis, many papers like WaPo and NYT ($-for now) have available archives that report pre-1992.

/c

In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.

I guess you could call it fearmongering. Its on a slightly different level though. Instead of "elect me or the terorist will get you" its more in the vein of "nominate me or the Republicans will win".

I think what's she's saying is that if there were another attack, it would energize the Right and make Moderates more vulnerable to Right-wing fear-mongering. In other words, as a Centrist, (and therefore the most conservative) Democrat she'd in a better position with the electorate than more Liberal Democratic candidates would be.

Its really just a rehash of the same old argument the DLC has been making for the last 15 years or so. Set aside the terrorism angle, they've consistently claimed that they're more acceptable to the American Public as a whole.

The problem with that position is that the Republicans have used these people to leverage the country farther and farther to the right. The public is ready for more than "At least we're not Far Right nutcases" Democrats to run the government.

And anyway, if what she said is true, wouldn't that would mean that a terrorist attack would benefit Hillary as well?

-Dave Adams-