How is HRC right? Haven't the Democrats, by cowardice, given The Decider everything he wants? Are you saying Sinclair Lewis is right? Given Bush's approval ratings, do you really think people will rally around the Decider and his gang this time? I don't think so.

Kevin, the point is not that someone will have to deal with it, but *how* they plan to deal with it. She has given every indication that she will deal with it by being as Republican as she can - she still believes her support of the Iraq War gives her the "best chance" in such an event. That's what's wrong. Democrats' strategy for this reality should be to fight back and offer clear alternatives. She looks to offer experience at blurring the lines, Clinton style. The Republican way doesn't work. Period. That's what she should be saying.

Keiv:

Actually she is dead wrong UNLESS one takes the attitude she just did.

Yglesias is completely coreect here. You and Hillary are absolutely wrong.

imo of course.

Let's admit it -- a lot of Republicans agree with the idiot who wished for another 9/11.

An attack would be advantageous only in that it would force Democrats and the country as a whole to rally 'round the leader, who at this point happens to still be you-know-who. But he and his party can be counted upon to try and score purely partisan points pretty early - in which case I would HOPE TO GOD the Democratic Party has a full game plan in place to counter that and point out to the American public that this happened on the Leader's watch, that HIS policies may very well have had much to do with this; that it's blowback, and if we want more blowback, keep voting Republican.

If another attack on U.S. soil takes place on Dubya's watch, it will damage the credibility of the Republicans with the American people. After 9/11 Dubya got a pass, but he won't get one if it happens again.

Look, maybe Hillary Clinton shouldn't have said this. Probably she shouldn't have. But let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that she's actually wrong.

"Pretend"? That would suggest that there is an argument that she is, in fact, right that is so compelling that no rational person could disagree with it. Care to present it, or, heck, even just a mildly convincing one? Or are you just talking to people that already agree with you and Hillary on this point?

>>But let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that she's actually wrong.

huh? No matter how bad the GOP fucks up, Americans will rally to their side in an attack? Yeah, how could that be wrong? Just remember three things:

1) "The surge is working."
2) "We are safer now than we were on 9/11."
3) "Democrats are weak on security and will rally to the GOP no matter what happens, so I should be President."

Are Democrats really dumb enough to support the person who said these things? Probably.

Sometimes I think the current, post 9-11 generation of congressional Democrats is akin to a group of dogs who have been beaten so many times, they now cower and run away at the mere eppearance of the stick.

I HRC believes what she said, she has ceded the advantage to the Republicans by internalizing the Republican brainwashing. If this is "dealing with it", then it's dealing with it in the wrong way. If Dems are always reacting in fear, never advancing their own beliefs, they're always going to look weak on the issue in question and just plain weak in general. It's the meta thing, or whatever you call it.

That comment is supremely stupid for this reason:

There isn't anything you can do about it.

Unless of course you're willing to sell the values you believe in to buy the image of being the party with psycho, somewhat-stupid, bigoted revenge tendencies.

The GOP owns the crazy, red-neck idiot brand. When people vote with emotion for revenge, the stupid ones (most Americans) vote for the GOP for this reason.

The Dems are the most likely party to do something about terrorism that is actually effective, but you can't really sell that to an electorate that is out for revenge. Not until the GOP shows that that, yes, they really are the fuck-ups we all knew they were deep down, and yes, strategy and policy thought actually matter.

We are at that point now. In spades. So for Clinton to drop back at this point and say "Hey, the GOP is perceived as tougher on terror than us" is:

A) Pointless
B) Counterproductive
C) Her way of courting any GOP swing voters or Lieberman Dems.

The extent to which Hillary is correct depends in large part on how the Democrats actually react to another terrorist attack. If they just rally 'round the president, then yeah, the GOP would probably get a boost out of it.

But maybe they'll have the stones to say, "For six years this president has been telling us he's the best person to fight terrorism, and that's been his only domestic achievement. Now he's failed miserably at even that." Who could deny the truth of that?

Kevin: She's wrong, and it's a symptom of the weakness of the Democrats, and of Sensible Liberals in general (picture the bearded guy in the Tom Tomorrow cartoons) that so many moderate Dems think otherwise. It's a loser psychology, and it's because you think this way that it's so easy for the Republicans to manipulate you (collective "you" here, referring to anyone who wavers and quakes in the face of the Republican spin machine).

If something bad happens between now and the election, there are two possibilities: it's because of a failure on the part of George Bush, or it was completely unavoidable. There is no third possibility of it being the Democrats' fault, and there is no reason to believe that it helps make the case for continued Republican rule.

Of course the MSM will spin it that way. That's WHY she was wrong to say it. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Every chuckle head commenter will reach for this quote if and when we get attacked, and it will just make it harder to refute.

She could have made the point that she is best equipped to deal with it by, well...DEALING with it.

As in:

"We are less safe because George Bush let bin Laden off the hook so he could invade Iraq. God forbid it should take another 9/11 for this administration to do what it promised it would do 6 years ago: get Osama bin Laden."

The mess in Iraq may be so bad by early 2009 Republicans are better off with a Democratic Presidency. No one is capable of the miracles needing worked over there considering the hash Bush has made of it. However, the Right desperately wants and needs to hold onto (and regain) the reins of power. So desperately in fact staging a "terrorist" attack close to the '08 elections must be considered a possibility. After all Hillary is correct it likely would stampede a jittery herd of voters into pulling Republican levers. Democrats are going to get hammered hard for the next year for an alleged inability to be trusted protecting the nation from a terrorist attack. A September '08 incident involving some sort of cataclysmic destruction would play nicely for the Right at the polls. They just need to figure out what to pull off that leaves an impression without civilian deaths being involved (can't have a murder rap muck up things if exposed later). Tricky yes, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

The best predictor of the future is the past. On 9/11, despite the fact that the attack occurred on Bush's watch and despite the dismal response, people looked to Bush and the Republicans for safety and that continued through the 2004 election. Clinton is right about what would happen if there were another terrorist attack.

Perceiving the need to address such a fear-based voter response is a first step toward countering it. I would bet on Clinton's political instincts ahead of those of the posters here. Further, based on their numbers, I don't see much evidence the other Dem candidates know how to appeal to voters even during favorable times for Dems, so how would they be better equipped to attract voters during another panic?

Of course Clinton is wrong on this.

Everyone gave Bush a pass on 9/11 because the conventional wisdom was that "no one could have forseen this."

Six years later, in the middle of a war that we were fighting so we "wouldn't have to fight them here" there is no way that anyone but the most rabid Republican wing-nuts is going to give Georgie boy another pass for a terrorist attack on U.S. soil

Before we Democrats get ourselves into a huff over this, lets remember that History proves Clinton correct here.

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!

*

HRC is not correct.

This is just another example of her buying into and redistributing GOP memes.

She needs to stop it. She'll never be able to reframe the issues until she stops accepting the GOP frame.

Btw, how about HRC's other recent foreign policy gaffe calling for the ouster of Maliki?

I'd like to hear where all the people who bashed Obama have to say about that.

Oh for god's sake. How many times do we have to keep repeating this: The opposition party (sadly, that's the Dems) can easily inoculate itself against this by pointing out repeatedly and regularly that we are in more danger because of the cronyism, corruption, and treasonously selfish powergrabbing of this administration. They have created the conditions of our profound insecurity.

Of course, in the absence of effective opposing voices, whatever happens benefits the rightists!

The best predictor of the future is the past.

Wrong. That's only true in the absence of any other information. The best predictor of tomorrow's weather is today's, unless we actually have a weather model and better data.

You want to ignore everything we know about this administration and just say everything will follow exactly as it did after 9/11. It may, but only because the Democrats often act as a pathetically inept excuse for an opposition party. In effect, they refuse to use the model that is lying right in front of them.

Looks as if Kevin has internalized the Radical Right's "you need a daddy; Democrats are pus&*#$" meme. Good going Kevin.

Cranky

The last NIE on terrorism basically stated that we can expect another attack on the homeland.

The NIE also says that more people are being sucked into the AQ philosophy because Bush invaded Iraq.

If there is another attack on the homeland then it will obviously be because of chimpy's failed strategy to deal with terrorists. Invading Iraq has not lessened the terrorist threat, it has increased it. The dems need to realize this.

One can anticipate in advance that if another attack occurs between now and Jan 2009, the republicants will blame it on the dems because a) they want to stop the war in Iraq, and b)they are impeding NSA's ability to monitor terrorist activity by failing to eliminate the role of the FISA court. This is plain hooey, but it appears that most of the dem politicians believe that the GOP will make this stick - that's why they keep futzing about to continue to fund the war and why they profferred their rumps to chimpy by letting Gonzo decide who gets to get spied on.

Hilary was describing what is realism to a DC politician. I'm just surprised that she can't see beyond that and start a new drumbeat - that if we get attacked again it is because of the failure of the republicans to implement a realistic strategy for dealing with terrorists.

That's my rant for the week!

mhr's posts are more coherent when they are deleted and replaced with a "*".

If I am to take a charitable view of Hillary's comment, she has to follow up and tell me: _how_ is she the best Dem to deal with GOP exploitation of another 9/11? What exactly would she say or do?

Let's be clear: she was not talking about a terrorist attack _after_ she's elected. She was not arguing that her "experience" would be best for dealing with an al Qaida attack on her watch. She was explicitly talking about a GOP attack during the election campaign.

The time to settle this "hypothetical" is now, while it is still a hypothetical. The time to convince the American electorate that invading Iraq failed to prevent the next 9/11 is now, _before_ the next 9/11. Hillary needs to ask Rudy, now, what country _he_ would invade after the next 9/11, for instance. It is entirely possible that most Americans will _not_ react to the next 9/11 by thanking God that Dubya is our President. But the time to argue about it is now, not after it happens.

Incidentally, any sane candidate for President would remind people that the next 9/11 won't "change everything" any more than the first 9/11 did. We will still have to look for work, meet the mortgage, find health insurance, and pay our kids' tuition. The next 9/11 will not be the Rapture, no matter how much political joy it will give to certain Republicans.

There's some serious head-in-the-sand action happening in this thread. Sure, if there's another attack in the near-term it will be largely the result of Republican policies, and sure, people should recognize this. But realistically, we all know that's not likely to happen. Of freaking course another attack will help Republicans electoral chances! Wishing that's not the case won't make it so.

As I read mhr's comment it puts me in mind of the vast sweep of human history. I'm rendered speechless by the never ending ignorance and downright stupidity that the human species is capable of.

Perry:
And you trust HRC's instincts? She sure showed good ones following The Decider over a cliff, didn't she?

I've got to agree with Kevin here -- I really do think that another terror attack would in fact benefit Republicans, though certainly not nearly as much as in times past.

I think that the American people have become quite cynical about the competence of Bush and the Republicans to handle terrorism. And I think that in the wake of a terrorist attack, Democrats can emphasize that impression of incompetence to undermine any upsurge in support for Republicans.

But I don't think there's a Democrat alive or a speech imaginable that would, in fact, overcome the natural rallying around the President that a terrorist attack would engender.

This is where, again and again, I just don't get most Democratic activists. They seem to think that a "good" Democrat would somehow be omnipotent, and able to rally the American people around the Democratic ideal no matter what the circumstances might be.

It's magical thinking. And it's plain crazy.

Why isn't the smartest way for a Democratic candidate for President to deal with the possibility to have a laundry list of Bush failures and lingering vulnerabilities, to recite EVERY single time the issue comes up?

Don't make it about the past, but the future, along the lines of "we know that we could have been better prepared for September 11th. We were warned, as recently as August 6th 2001, but we didn't act. So NOW we should be doing x, y and z..., but we're not, and when I'm in the White House, we won't ignore warnings, we won't make this political, we won't tell analysts they've covered themselves when they've told us their fears, we're going to do x, y, and z..."

The trouble with Senator Clinton's response is that it was POLITICAL.

That's bad politics.

Borovan:
How will it help the Republicans this time? I'd like to hear your reasons as to why.

Why should I trust a person who preemptively surrenders to Guiliani and Romney with my security?

Cranky

frankly0:
No one is saying any Democrat is omnipotent. We are only saying that the buck stops with The Decider. He's the one that won't have protected us.

Hard to see how Hillary will face down the terrorists when she's been afraid to take on the right wing, the corporate fat cats and lobbyists and the neocons.

Will there be another Osama video on Halloweeen 2008? We'd better pray there won't be one.

I do agree this is the loser mentality of the Democrats. Even though I think she's right, she should have kept her mouth shut. Did she get advice from Mark Penn on this?

But let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that she's actually wrong.

Who is the "us" in this sentence?

I for one don't plan to buy into the self-defeating frame created by the GOP and eagerly lapped up by "wiley" political creatures like HRC who inspire ZERO confidence that they actually have a plan for dealing with the complex issues surrounding the problem of Al Qaeda and similarly branded terrorist groups. Frankly, I think it would be far better to lose the election with a candidate who is willing to challenge the conventional wisdom and call bullshit on the Bush doctrine at every opportunity.

Bush has destroyed our credibility and is destroying our military. Yes it would be nice to have some boots on the ground to ensure our oil supply until we figure out what to do about our insatiable appetite for energy, but he even screwed that up. Iran is playing us like a fiddle, even our staunches allies in Europe hate us now, and what was once the world's finest military force is stretched to the breaking point.

Forgive me if I think Hillary's comment immediately disqualifies her from consideration for the job of fixing Bush's fuck-up and setting things right. Not that it can be accomplished by just the U.S. in one presidential term anyway, but we can't address the challenges ahead with yesterday's thinking and yesterday's political frames. They suck, and anyone who clings to them because they are lack the imagination or courage to try to approach thinks any differently doesn't deserve my vote.

If the next election is a contest between Rudy and Hillary, then we are royally fucked.

It is true but she should have not said it out loud. my 2cents anyway.

Borovan:
How will it help the Republicans this time? I'd like to hear your reasons as to why.

Because for a variety of sociological and historical reasons, middle-of-the-roaders perceive conservatives as being stronger and more willing to "defend America" than liberals, and will flock to the former as soon as they feel seriously threatened by external enemies. Former Bush voters flirting with the idea of maybe voting Democrat would be scared back into the Republican camp in a heartbeat. They might be disenchanted with Bush himself, but remember Bush isn't running. The Republican nominee would quickly move to sell himself as strong like Bush but too informed by Bush's missteps to repeat his mistakes. Again, I'm not saying the perception that conservatives are stronger is correct--in fact, I think it's demonstrably incorrect--but it's pretty inarguably the perception of an importantly large portion of the voting public.

Secondly, all Democratic candidates not named Gravel or Kucinich--hell, probably them too, now that I think about it--would immediately cease criticizing the president and call for national unity in the face of this dastardly attack on our homeland, etc., etc. We might wish they would take the opportunity to step up their rhetoric instead, but really we all know that wouldn't happen. The right-wing noise machine would take advantage of the Dem's moratorium to shift into overdrive with the "Dems are soft on defense" meme in all its various versions. The MSM would pick it up promptly and repeat it ad infinitum.

If the attack happened within four months of the election, I don't see how the Dems could possibly recover in time.

If additional terrorist attacks would be good for Repubs, then avoiding terrorist attacks would be good for the Dems. Yet, it's the Repubs who are willing to compromise civil liberties in order to get the info to prevent terrorist attacks, whereas Dems give higher priority to civil liberties than to getting anti-terror information. Are both parties working agains their best interest?

If the next election is a contest between Rudy and Hillary, then we are royally fucked.

Posted by: Dope on the Slope on August 24, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Agreed, but Rudy vs. Hillary would enable the New York tabloids to sell a lot of additional newspapers -- and isn't that more important?

Certainly Republicans and traditional media will try to spin it that way, but I don't think the GOP will be able to get the American public to play along. We as a people are clearly fed up with this president and his cohorts and another attack will further underline their incompetence.

Unless, of course, the nearly equally pathetic democratic leadership echoes or reinforces those talking points, like Nancy Pelosi did yesterday by highlighting the NIE report's finding the Iraqi leadership had "failed to make progress". Non, Nancy, OUR LEADERSHIP has failed to make progress! I used to blame the "our leadership" part on the GOP, but clearly they are not the only problem.

frankly0, the only thing Democrats have to fear here is fear itself. Unless you truly think Democrats can't handle the security of the nation, that is. Otherwise, there's absolutely no reason to cede the Republicans anything, including the assumption of their "natural advantage". Which is based on what, exactly? Their willingness to start and support stupid, futile wars? It's one thing to discuss the politics of the matter off the record, but there's no reason for Hillary Clinton to reinforce it in her public speech.

MeLoseBrain:

Dems are afraid of being blamed for another terrarist attack. Very afraid I might say so thats why they voted for the FISA fiasco. my 10cents anyway.

But I don't think there's a Democrat alive or a speech imaginable that would, in fact, overcome the natural rallying around the President that a terrorist attack would engender

Lemme take a stab at it ...

"After five years of complete Republican control of the U.S. government we remain in even greater danger than before. This administration and it's political allies in Congress have failed us repeatedly in every single test they have faced. This criminal incompetence has allowed our enemies to strike us, again, in spite of the best efforts of our armed forces and the intelligence community. It is clear that this administration and the Republican party cannot be entrusted any longer with the security of our nation - for this reason and for the sake of our childrens' future we have no other choice. We must impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney, and remove them from office before they can do any further harm."

Oh, lovely. ex-lib is back, using the Constitution as toilet paper once again.

Listen up, nimrod, the preservation of civil liberties is what makes us Americans! Without them, we might as well order burkas and just give them the whole damned place! What the fuck happened to you over the course of a lifetime? If I ever turn into a sniveling coward like you, I hope the hell someone shoots me in the head and puts me out of my misery, because cowardice like you exhibit here daily is my idea of hell.

And by the way, you must really have a pair. With civil liberties intact, we had advance warning of the attacks of 9/11. Your boy chose to ignore it, and 3000 died. THEN he launched a vanity war and killed 4K more!

Your support of this administration is galling, as well as appalling. Tool.

The idea that Republicans always win when the issue is security is a self-fulfilling prophecy carried like a virus by DC and media types.

One response to the virus (apart from not carrying it, as Hillary does) is to fight it. Hillary's response is to act like a hawk, so that no one will ever blame her for being weak. That's a dangerous, dangerous reflex.

But let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that she's actually wrong. She's not, and we'd better be prepared to deal with it.

Goddammit no, as long as facts and truth have any place in our public discourse.

If the knee-jerk reaction is as Hillary says, then we hit it head on, we don't cower and mumble and equivocate and invade Iran just because we don't want to look like wimps, even if we know it's completely counterproductive and immoral.

We fight for this, or we don't have a country worth fighting for.

> After five years of complete Republican
> control of the U.S. government we remain in
> even greater danger than before.

No. We. Don't.

Is every Democrat conceding the "You're in DANGER! We're in DANGER!! We need a strong daddy!!!" meme of the Radical Right? Seriously?

The night before the Blitz started the British government's estimate of casualties was 200,000 physical and 200,000 psychiatric. IN THE FIRST WEEK OF GERMAN BOMBARDMENT. Yet the Government and Parliament still agreed to stand up to Germany even if it meant paying that price.

Now we are ready to give up our Constitution, our way of life, and our MENTAL security in favor of the Radical Right's program of all fear all the time because "WE'RE IN DANGER"? Seriously?

Cranky

It's one thing to discuss the politics of the matter off the record, but there's no reason for Hillary Clinton to reinforce it in her public speech.

David W, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this. I do think her saying this might reinforce the wrong impressions -- though I'm not really convinced of that, since I can see arguments both ways. Arguably, she's actually forestalling those impressions.

I think Hillary is closer to the truth than most of the commenters on this thread... The fact is Dems have 40 years of appeasement and/or Blame America First to atone for, and Hillary is willing to deal with that reality. Your hair-trigger flapping and jibbering about FISA, bank wire transfer records, etc. reinforces that perception. [Oh the poor cell phone users in the caves of Waziristan, how can we compromise their rights!] Some important questions that would help swing voters address that question would be:

1) Have the Dem candidates read Losing Bin Ladin, by Richard Miniter...Have they learned anything, and are they willing to accept some culpability for those errors.

2) Would the Dem candidate avoid appointing another Reno/Gorlick team with a hypersensitive fixation on civil liberties.

3) What was Obama's position on Gulf War I? If he supported that effort while rejecting the AUMF it would be a good talking point,

What bothers me most about HRC's comment is that she is not just shooting herself in the foot -- she is bringing every other Dem down with her, making it harder for every other Dem to pushback against this stupidity of ceding ground to the GOP.

It is one thing for a candidate's gaffe to bounce back against themselves, but to hurt your entire party, most notably your fellow POTUS candidates is ridiculously egregious. Expect the other candidates to come out forcefully to counter this nonsense, and expect the HRC supporters to attack them for their efforts.

Shorter minion: *

What bothers me most about HRC's comment is that she is not just shooting herself in the foot -- she is bringing every other Dem down with her, making it harder for every other Dem to pushback against this stupidity of ceding ground to the GOP.

She is playing primary election politics as if it were a zero-sum game; if she hurts her opponents in the primary race with a statement more than she hurts herself, even if she makes them all less credible, she wins.

Of course, that also makes it less like that a Democrat will win the general election.

I was a regular on this site. Drum's incessant Hillary apologizing (of which is this not only the most recent, but also most egregious example) has driven me away to the point where I only come here now when she makes yet another ridiculous gaffe, just to see if Drum is defending her. And, yep--here he is.

What a disappointment.

It's about the politics of fear. One of the Republicans core election strategies involves stoking Americans' fear of another terrorist strike. It now seems that one of Clinton's core election strategies involves stoking Democrats' fears of Republican core election strategies.

Meet the new boss...

Nope, she's not right, and neither are you, and it won't happen unless the weasely cowardly consultant-ridden dems make it happen. Get it thgouht your heaads--he's at 30%! Nobody likes the war! It's unpopular, it's a mess, the surge will NOT work; it can't work, it has no clear goals. If there's another terrorist attack it'll be Bush's fault, not the Dems, except Dems like Clinton will cower and appease and accept the frame the Republicans have put on them.

Really, I think the Dems are headed the way of the Whigs. They're unable to take a moral stand on any issue.

Why is Alberto Gonzalez still Attorney General, for example? People will LIKE IT, if you impeach him--and not just the base

Wake up and stop sniveling

The only real evidence you need to know just how wrong Hillary is:

"I think Hillary is closer to the truth than most of the commenters on this thread... The fact is Dems have 40 years of appeasement and/or Blame America First to atone for, and Hillary is willing to deal with that reality."

I thought HRC claimed Rove was writing Obama's talking points?

Here's the Concord Monitor's extended account of the occasion the NY Post squib was drawn from.

By my read, it supports none of the day's bombastically adverse reactions ... unless you really want it to.

Have the Dem candidates read Losing Bin Ladin, by Richard Miniter...

Why should they? Bush lost Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Have they learned anything,

You and W first.

a hypersensitive fixation on civil liberties.

Shorter minion: "Enslave me and keep me safe"
You're an embarrassment.

Most of you have mis-read Hillary, but that is of course what happens when you hate someone and aren't willing to rationally examine their claim. Sigh. Exactly what are all of you going to do if HRC gets the nomination? Well? Seems I remember most posters here absolutely slamming people for their Nader votes.

Read it again with the assumption that Hillary is saying she'd best turn this positive for the Dems--like you'd read it if Obama/Edwards said it.

You know, it would be worthwhile for people attacking Hillary's statement to quote it in full:

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, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world.

So what exactly did she say that was so terribly wrong here?

Most of you have mis-read Hillary

What's to mis-read? Care to tell us what she's really saying? Maybe we missed it. I think she's simply wrong, both on the merits, and on how to be a leader.

I don't hate HRC. I'll happily vote for her if she wins the nomination, over any clown on the other side. However, I won't vote for her in the primary. What she said was stupid and would be just as stupid out of the mouth of any other Dem. However, in her case, it confirms what I've believed about her along, she's permanently cowed by Republican talking points.

And stop saying, "sigh"; I know the great unwashed are beneath you, but you could at least assume an attitude of noblesse oblige.

RonK, the extended account offers no additional context that changes any of the interps here.

HRC was talking about how her experience gives her a leg up on the other Dems. She gave as an example that she would be better equipped to handle the automatic GOP-advantage of a terrorist attack. What we are quibbling with is her assumption that a terrorist attack would give the GOP an advantage.

Is that plain enough?

"Most of you have misread Hillary, but that is of course what happens when you hate someone and aren't willing to rationally examine their claim."

Well that's a convenient bit of reasoning -- anyone who disagrees with Clinton's claim must be irrational. So consider this your teachable moment, Bush Lover: what makes her -- the Democratic contender with the highest negative ratings, one who authorized the war in Iraq & stands by her vote today -- a) correct in saying that a terrorist strike benefits Republicans, and b) any better situated than her fellow Democrats to respond to this unsupported assertion?

I assume that a "Bush Lover" pushing HRC is a satire troll.

Btw, I appreciate that in the article HRC addresses her huge negs, but she gives no reason why she can win with those negs, or any argument how she is going to whittle away those negs accept by referring to how well she plays in NY.

Sorry, Hill, but I'm going to need a little more than that.

Maybe Hillary and Drum are right. But what is toxic is their presumption that American hasn't changed since the fall of 2002, or the fall of 2004, for that matter.

And for Kevin to suggest that those of us who think the country has changed are "sticking our heads in the sand" tells us a lot about why we haven't made the sort of progress against the Cult of Bush that we should have.

Democrats like Hillary are shell-shocked. They've been bitch-slapped by the GOP for so long that their ears are permanently ringing.

I would like to see the people who have problems with what Hillary said really attempt to deal with the full quote from her on this point.

They seem, again and again, only able to deal with the beginning of the sentence, namely,

"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, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

Hey Kevin,
All these comments make a pretty compelling argument. I'm usually with you, but you owe a further explanation or clarification on this one--or maybe be unlike Bush, and admit you are wrong :-).

Democrats like Hillary are shell-shocked. They've been bitch-slapped by the GOP for so long that their ears are permanently ringing.

Good pt. In the article a constituent refers to HRC as having developed the thick skin necessary to win the general. This is true. The problem is that along the way she has also created deeply worn ruts that she is by all appearances incapable of pulling herself out of.

New ideas are needed.

I would like to see the people who have problems with what Hillary said really attempt to deal with the full quote from her on this point.

I would really like to see you not start out with a strawman.

We are dealing the the full quote. How about you read the full article and then read what our complaints with her comment actually are?

Your ability to apply one rule regarding your beloved candidate and the opposite rule for your hated candidate is truly... Republican.

Two words - Where's Osama?

Let's not forget which politician did nothing when warned that terrorists might commit an act of terror on American soil, using commercial aircraft. Nothing.

Bush and no one else is responsible for what happened on September 11th, 2001.

> or maybe be unlike Bush, and admit you are wrong

In four years I believe I have only seen Mr. Drum admit he was wrong once. Usually he just defines his critics as being insufficiently centrist and/or not seeing things/the point from a sufficiently centrist viewpoint.

Cranky

Does anyone really think that the rallying around the flag effect would not come into play should there be another terrorist attack? And, since a Republican is President, don't you think that the Republicans would tend to profit from this?

Would the netroots conclude that gravity does not work anymore because Hillary said that things fall?

Okay, frankly0, I'll take the bait. It doesn't matter if you take the first part of her statement, the second part, or the whole thing at once, it's all the same. She's wrong. It doesn't automatically give an advantage to the Republicans and if she thinks it does, she's not the person to lead the party. I'll say it again, congressional Democrats are dogs who have been beaten so often, they pee on the carpet at the mere mention of the word "terror".

frankly0:

I understand your point but she should have kept quiet. Hillary must know she can't make a mistep however small it is b/c both sides, left and right, are ready to pound on the poor lady. I don't know why she wanted to run really. If she wins, it would be the best campaign ever run by a prez candidate. The odds are very long against her being a woman.

We are dealing the the full quote.

No, excuse me, you certainly aren't. Your complaint falls apart if you acknowledge the meaning of the end of that sentence.

Btw frankly0, I'd still like to see you address HRC's gaffe calling for Maliki's ouster. Doesn't making such an egregious error demonstrate her naivety and disqualify her from being considered POTUS material?

Actually, nevermind. I really don't want to watch the spectacle of you rationalizing how what HRC did shows statesmanship.

"So what exactly did she say that was so terribly wrong here?"

First, she's either buying into, or trying to capitalize on, the politics of fear. Take your pick. Republicans want voters thinking about the bogeyman in the Wazaristan cave when they go to pull the lever. Clinton wants voters thinking about the bogeyman in the war room of the RNC when they go to pull the lever.

Second, she lacks confidence in the intelligence of the very electorate she seeks to woo. She's already given up on the idea that voters would hold Republicans accountable in the event of such an attack, precisely because they have mishandled the WarrenTerra -- precisely because they've made the world a much more dangerous place. As far as she's concerned, voters are too stupid to figure that out for themselves, and she's not even willing to help them see the situation for what it is.

Third, she hasn't explained why she's any better positioned to counter these Republicans who are allegedly already seen by Americans as better at dealing with terrorism. It'd be nice to know voters should be crying "Hillary!" when people ask, "Hoosier Daddy?"

It doesn't automatically give an advantage to the Republicans and if she thinks it does, she's not the person to lead the party.

And, again, you basically have to deny the reality of the rallying around the flag effect for your thesis to make any sense. Yet just about nothing has been better established historically than that effect. Water has to run uphill for it not to take place.

Now, maybe she shouldn't have acknowledged this; I'm not sure. But I do think that if she did acknowledge it, her immediate qualification, in that same sentence, which makes it clear how unwarranted any support would be for the Repubicans, is the best possible amplification.

No, excuse me, you certainly aren't. Your complaint falls apart if you acknowledge the meaning of the end of that sentence.

frankly0 I have lost all hope in your ability to think rationally regarding the primary campaign. You have obviously decided "HRC or GOP", and nothing will sway you otherwise.

I will state this yet one more time for the people who still have not yet taken leave of their senses:

What we are quibbling with is her assumption that a terrorist attack would give the GOP a (presumptive) advantage.

Again, don't bother replying. I just don't have the stomach for your crap any longer.

You mean how 30% of the people are rallying around the flag now, while we're at war?

Here is a good essay over at OpenLeft:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=978

But really: if your concern is that the Democrats don't look tough enough, and need to be able to "fight terror", then a display of defensive pantswetting over a hypothetical Republican strong-daddy candidate isn't exactly a mark of strength is it.

Cranky

First, she's either buying into, or trying to capitalize on, the politics of fear. First, she's either buying into, or trying to capitalize on, the politics of fear. Take your pick. Republicans want voters thinking about the bogeyman in the Wazaristan cave when they go to pull the lever. Clinton wants voters thinking about the bogeyman in the war room of the RNC when they go to pull the lever.

You argument is all over the place here. Is the problem that Clinton wants Democratic voters to worry that the RNC would use the politics of fear if there were a terrorist attack? I mean, do you seriously think the RNC wouldn't? What are you even arguing?

Second, she lacks confidence in the intelligence of the very electorate she seeks to woo.

Oh please. She is simply acknowledging obvious trends in voter response. It's called "rallying around the flag". Look it up.

Third, she hasn't explained why she's any better positioned to counter these Republicans who are allegedly already seen by Americans as better at dealing with terrorism.

Well, I'll grant you this one. If she had an argument on that point, I'm not sure I saw it. But I'm not sure that it's much different from any politician claiming they have special talents not possessed by any of their competitors.

You mean how 30% of the people are rallying around the flag now, while we're at war?

Really, don't you think that people would respond to another terrorist attack on our soil in a pretty different way?

> Oh please. She is simply acknowledging obvious
> trends in voter response. It's called "rallying
> around the flag". Look it up.

Yes, that's exactly what Winston Churchill and FDR did during World War II.

Oh wait: no they didn't. They both explained to their electorates in plain clear language the dangers they did AND DIDN'T face, and told the electorate what would need to be done and what wouldn't. Churchill in particular was quite clear that cowering and whimpering weren't going to get the job done.

What danger *exactly* do we face from these "terrorists"? Remember that a US city was ALREADY destroyed on W's watch and no one really cared that much. Admittedly it was a city with a majority of poor Democratic voters; maybe that was the problem.

Cranky

"Does anyone really think that the rallying around the flag effect would not come into play should there be another terrorist attack? And, since a Republican is President, don't you think that the Republicans would tend to profit from this?"

Lots of people don't think that, because your syllogism doesn't hold water. The fact that Americans would rally around the flag in the event of another terrorist attack does not mean that they'd be seeking shelter beneath the muscular arms of Republicans. This would be one more in an incredibly long series of failures by a strategically, intellectually, & morally bankrupt administration -- an administration, I might add, that has the seal of approval of every single Republican candidate for president. But it's nice to know that you & Clinton are willing to concede that public opinion is with Republicans on national security. Some of us aren't.

One more time: believe it or not, sometimes the response to a political question, is a substantive answer.

"Q. Tell us, Democratic candidate for the nomination, don't you think that if there is a terrorist attack before the election it will hurt Democrats and help Republicans?

A. What the hell is WRONG with you? A terrorist attack hurts AMERICANS -- and I don't much are about the politics of it.

We know that we could have been better prepared for September 11th. We were warned, as recently as August 6th 2001, but we didn't act. So NOW we should be doing x, y and z..., but we're not, and when I'm in the White House, we won't ignore warnings, we won't make this political, we won't tell analysts they've covered themselves when they've told us their fears, we're going to do x, y, and z..."

Oy.

I just read a great little story that's worth bearing in mind for the Lesson in it: during WW2, Norwegians used to run guns and supplies from the resistance on these frozen craggy islands offshore to the mainland in open fishing boats, which got strafed by the Luftwaffe now and then but were otherwise hard to catch. The real problem they had was that it was just a godawful thing to do -- open boats in the North Atlantic. One of the commanders in of these boats lost his whole crew the first time to hypothermia -- he delivered his load, but his guys all died.

Did he stop? Nope.

On his NEXT trip, when they got out to sea, he reached down into the bilge and unscrewed the seacock, letting in a steady flow of freezing water -- and then he threw the piece of brass out into the Atlantic. 'Now, you bastards,' he told the crew, "BAIL!"

That kept 'em warm -- and they all lived.

Methinks that's the kind of leadership Democrats need.

junebug,

I will only say that your comment fails to understand the basically irrational nature of the "rallying around the flag" effect. (Indeed, Hillary herself basically acknowledged its very irrationality in her comment).

Note that Hillary didn't say that the American people would incline to the Republicans when a Democrat was President, but only before the election.

In the wake of an attack, that effect is very powerful -- 9/11 is itself a nearly perfect example. It has very little to do with the merits of the President who profits by it.

I would bet on Clinton's political instincts ahead of those of the posters here.

Yeah? Then why'd those political instincts lead her to support the Iraq War when the posters here opposed it?

> Note that Hillary didn't say that the American
> people would incline to the Republicans when a
> Democrat was President, but only before the
> election.

Except that if the Democratic candidate is cowering in fear before the Republican candidate prior to the election, but somehow sneaks in (maybe on economic issues), and THEN a terrorist attack occurs (which it might), the public WILL instinctively turn to the Republicans because their candidates and politicians do not have a history of sniveling when challenged.

Cranky

It really is a bit hard to see how that statement in full is really conceding anything to the Republicans in terms of being correctly regarded as being better at handling terrorism.

It says one of three things:
1) The Republicans are correctly handling terrorism, and would be rewarded for doing so if terrorism moved up on the agenda, or
2) The Republican are handling terrorism poorly, but the Democrats (including HRC) are utterly incompetent at communicating the truth of that fact, and therefore if terrorism moves up on the agenda, the Republicans will be rewarded because of their greater competence in communication despite the bias in the facts toward the Democrats, or
3) The American people are complete idiots, and despite the facts favoring the Democrats on the issues, and the Democrats communicating those facts in a way which would make the truth clear to any people of normal intelligence anywhere in the world, will nonetheless reward the Republicans if terrorism becomes a more prominent issue.

If she though the Republicans were wrong, and if she respected the American people, and if she felt herself a competent leader, she would be working to innoculate the public against the dishonest spin the Republicans would be sure to unleash in the event of such an attack, not portraying its success as inevitable.

I don't think it matters much whether Hillary thinks the Republicans are right, thinks the Democrats—herself included—are incompetent, or whether she merely has a profound disregard for the electorate. None of them are points in her favor.

"You argument is all over the place here. Is the problem that Clinton wants Democratic voters to worry that the RNC would use the politics of fear if there were a terrorist attack? I mean, do you seriously think the RNC wouldn't? What are you even arguing?"

It's a straightforward point. Both the Republican party & the Clinton campaign are using fear to motivate voters.

"She is simply acknowledging obvious trends in voter response. It's called "rallying around the flag". Look it up."

Interesting. I didn't realize there was a trend of terrorist strikes on American soil.

Kevin, I'm sure you think yourself very tough and reality-based for saying this, but you fail to acknowledge that this advantage is based entirely on a pereption that it is there. Your and Hillary's assumption that more attacks will undoubtedly be "good for Republicans" is based on conventional wisdom, nothing else.

The first (not the only) step to counter that perception is to rid oneself of the notion that it is immovably there.

If that perception is there, and our belief in it helps to make it real, then essentially terrorists are in direct control of our electoral outcomes. They can elect Republicans at will. I don't believe that this is the case.

frankly0, I feel your pain. As for the rest...

First, I'll give that HRC probably should not have brought this up at all--too hypothetical to use her own standard.

Second, she used the word "automatically." I read this as referring to the "rally around the flag" effect, which I believe is very real. Sure, I could be wrong, but I bet a terrorist attack would "automatically" push up Bush numbers.

Third, BUT, I read that HRC is pointing out that she is best qualified to counter that automatic or natural effect by explaining "how badly they have mishandled it" and "how much more dangerous they have made the world." Why can't it be read that way?

And BTW, I thinks she is wrong. I think Obama would be better suited.

"whether she merely has a profound disregard for the electorate"

Stating the obvious truth about the lizard brains of the electorate, the morals of the Republican party, and the biases of the media doesn't indicate a profound disregard for the former. I at least am in favor of candidates aware of obvious truths, though sometimes it's best if they keep them to themselves.

Democrats are like the Palestinians - they have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I agree Bush should be vulnerable on this issue, but you folks have squandered that advantage by putting up Cindy Sheehan or Abscam Murtha as your icons. For six months you screamed that Bush's Gestapo bill would shred the Constitution, you even got my Congressman, Heath Schuler, to walk the plank for you, then you pulled an Emily Litella and said nevermind. Face it, swing voters have reason not to trust you on national security issues, and Hillary is astute enough to realize that. I would bet Obama is too and would still be interested in knowing what his position was on Gulf War I.

The most charitable reading of Hillary's comments is that the american electorate are irrational fools. I wonder why so many GOPers sneer at the condescending liberal elites?

The least charitable readings....well others have already gone over those.

Basically, this was a loser of a comment for Hillary, on multiple levels. It only wins her points with the strongly converted (I've seen a few commentators elsewhere saying that she just lost their vote, so only the strongly converted, apparently, are on board). I've seen little else beyond some very limp defenses.

But..but...the American people ARE stupid! And Hillary would handle it best...just because.

Oh, I forgot...she has STRENGTH and EXPERIENCE

Good stuff.

Junebug asks why Hillary is better positioned to deal with things after another terrorist attack. We are talking about perceived security afforded by conservatives (rally round the flag), so you combat a perception with another perception. Hillary is associated with the 8 years of safety and prosperity during Bill Clinton's term. She is the only candidate who has that kind of emotional appeal when fear is in play. Obama represents hope not safety. Edwards represents egalitarian reparations. Those are not antidotes to fear. Hillary represents everything that happened during her husband's term -- not because she was first lady, but because no one doubts that she was his full intellectual partner.

"I will only say that your comment fails to understand the basically irrational nature of the 'rallying around the flag' effect."

I will only say that you have completely failed to establish the length and breadth of any such effect, particularly when it concerns a highly unpopular, incompetent, and distrusted president who has staked his entire career and reputation on preventing such an attack.

In any case, take a look at the 2004 elections in Spain.

"Hillary is associated with the 8 years of safety and prosperity during Bill Clinton's term."

Prosperity, perhaps, but not safety. Clinton's terms were not particularly associated with safety, nor is Hillary.

"She is the only candidate who has that kind of emotional appeal when fear is in play."

So you say, but you have no evidence to support this.

let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that she's actually wrong. She's not, and we'd better be prepared to deal with it.

Aw, horse shit, Kevin. I'm sick of hearing that seeing cities lying in ruins helps Republicans. It doesn't.

I�m a bit curious why some folks are so uptight about Hillary for simply recognizing a likely MSM meme while overlooking John Edward�s use of a Republican smear against the Clintons. Does anyone really think that after another major terrorist attack the media is going to focus on 7 years of Republican incompetence? If so, there�s a lovely bridge in Brooklyn I can get you wholesale. No, what we�ll see will be hours upon hours of �human interest stories� focusing on the victims, their families, the afflicted community, etc, interrupted every so often with appeals for national unity and admonitions �that this is not the time to point fingers.� Anyone who suggests that the attack might have been prevented if we had a semi-competent people managing national security, or that maybe spending nearly a trillion dollars rying to turn Iraq into an Arabian West Texas was perhaps not an optimal anti terrorism strategy is going to shouted down for �playing politics� with a national tragedy. Then Blitizer, Mathews and other assorted nattering nincompoops of the nonsense news industry will start asking their usual �experts� (Bill Kristol, Bill Bennett, Joe Lieberman et.al) �Isn�t this going to help (Giuliani) (Romney) (Thompson)?� Given what happened in the 2002 and 2004 elections it wouldn�t be a completely unreasonable question. Unfair? Yeah. But as the greatest president of my lifetime once said �Life�s not fair.� (And by the way JFK was not the liberal favorite for the Democratic nomination in 1960. As a hard line Cold Warrior, whose brother worked for Joe McCarthy�a close family friend---JFK was viewed with high suspicion by many progressives)
What impresses me more and more about HRC is her bulldog grip on reality. She is considerably more realistic than either Senator Edwards or Senator Obama, and vastly more so than their supporters, especially the good people who post comments on blogs. Do you really believe that Edwards or Obama if elected can instantly turn the United States into another Sweden by just snapping his fingers? If so you�re even more delusional than Dick Cheney. Repairing the damage inflicted on this country by the Bush junta let alone trying to enact needful reforms will require political skills of a very high order. Our next president will have to be able to deal with groups with different values, perspectives and interests. He or she will have powerful and determined enemies. She or he will have to understand how to assemble coalitions of supporters, which may require compromises. Clinton has the brains and skill to do this. Whether she has the will to help advance the progressive agenda is another question. Obviously there are some grounds to doubt her progressive bona fides, especially among those so committed to their ideals that they fail to recognize that politics is the art of the possible, not a death struggle between the children of light and children of darkness. I would simply urge you to consider that if Hillary becomes president she will face a political environment much more favorable for the progressive cause than Bill did in 1992.

What a brilliant move for the Democratic party !

A very widespread unspoken concern has now been spoken in public and can be a topic of conversation around the coffee table and on the bar stools without anyone needing to be the one to break the ice.

"Did you hear what Hillary said about another terrorist attack ?"

Let the millions of conversations that need to happen begin w/o hesitation thanks to Hillary.

Much like Obama`s comments about Pakistan these words will do nothing except improve the chances of the Democrats in the 2008 election.

Many will be the voters that think to themselves "at least the Democrats are willing to talk about these things I am concerned about".

Those of you posting in this thread that think Camp Hillary made a mistake in saying this need to put down the crayons and watch the adults put the hurt to some sleeze operators (sometimes labeled rat fu*kers).

I almost think that the main Democratic candidates are coordinating these little one act theatre pieces...

Guess I`ll have to keep watching and catch the later acts of this play.

"Democracy is made of knowledge." - Carlo Bonini

>>that think Camp Hillary made a mistake in saying this need to put down the crayons and watch the adults put

I bet these pro-Hillary/pro-4-more-years GOP adults are all very, very serious. That's what I bet.

>>Does anyone really think that after another major terrorist attack the media is going to focus on 7 years of Republican incompetence?

And we all know the answer to that problem: don't point out that 7 years of incompetence, but blame the Democrats yourself along with them. Wow, Hillary really is a genius. I see the light and have dropped my crayons.

I will only say that you have completely failed to establish the length and breadth of any such effect, particularly when it concerns a highly unpopular, incompetent, and distrusted president who has staked his entire career and reputation on preventing such an attack. In any case, take a look at the 2004 elections in Spain.

Look, there are few things as well established as the "rallying around the flag" effect. Even Jimmy Carter, no icon of strength and competence at the time, saw his approval ratings spike by 29% when the American hostages were captured in Iran. I should think the burden would fall on anyone who contested that the effect would set in.

And the Spanish elections of 2004 were so muddied in their explanation, and the Spanish government so different in its composition (lacking any figure truly comparable to a Commander in Chief President), that its relevance can't possibly be assumed.

Find an example from American history, or maybe give it up.

One thing that's ironic about all the phony outrage over Hillary's remark is that many of the same people who claim what she said couldn't be true also are the first to argue that Bush and Cheney and Rove would conduct a new war, or a new attack, or fake up a terrorist event just in order to build up support for the Republicans.

Talking out of both sides of their mouths seems to come pretty easy for them.

>>Look, there are few things as well established as the "rallying around the flag" effect.

Just wondering: how well established is the "rallying around the GOP" effect? You did notice that she said it would aid Republicans, right? And not that it would cause a "rally around the flag" effect. I dunno. Maybe some people have so internalized these talking points that they equate the flag with the GOP.