Hillary goes 1-for-2

August 24, 2007

Sen. Hillary Clinton has spoken quite a bit this week about the war in Iraq, and raised eyebrows with two comments in particular. In the first instance, I think she was slammed unfairly. In the second, she probably went a step too far.

On Monday, Clinton told the VFW’s national convention, “We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it’s working…. We’re just years too late changing our tactics. We can’t ever let that happen again.” This was immediately picked up by conservative news outlets, and some not-so-conservative outlets, as proof that Clinton was endorsing Bush’s so-called “surge.” She wasn’t; her quote was largely taken out of context.

That said, this wasn’t helpful.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year’s election, warning that it could boost the GOP’s efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ 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,” Clinton told supporters in Concord.

“So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that,” she added.

Now, I didn’t hear the comments, and the New York Post isn’t exactly a reliable paper. But if the piece quoted her accurately, Clinton may want to clarify those remarks.

To be sure, I think I know what she meant. Clinton probably was trying to make the point that in the event of another attack, Republicans will try to seize on the tragedy as a political plus for the right. The media will, regrettably, go along, because it fits into a ridiculous narrative reporters have been buying into for years. “It wouldn’t be fair,” Clinton seemed to be saying, “but I can deal with it when it happens.”

Maybe, maybe not. The point, however, is that it’s a mistake for any Democrat to amplify the bogus narrative in the first place.

Matt Yglesias’ take sounded about right to me.

…I think the Democrat best positioned to deal with GOP political mobilization in a post-attack environment is going to be the one who isn’t reflexively inclined to see failed Republican policies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans as a political advantage for the Republicans.

The other is that I think there’s a pretty clear sense in which the further one is from Bush’s Iraq policy, the easier it is politically to say that the failures of Bush’s national security policy should be blamed on Bush’s failed policies.

I’d only add that conservatives have been talking for a quite a while about the political benefits of another terrorist attack. Dennis Milligan, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, recently said, “I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.”

On the substance, I think this is rather foolish. If Americans are killed in a terrorist attack, I find it hard to imagine the majority of the country celebrating the president’s national security policy.

But isn’t that exactly why Clinton shouldn’t buy into their spin and repeat it on the stump?

But isn’t that exactly why Clinton shouldn’t buy into their spin and repeat it on the stump?

Of course, but it’s not corporation-think, and that’s the problem. So long as the people who matter are getting filthy rich off the current state of affairs, don’t look for anything to change much among the ones they choose for their cultural or political mouthpieces.

Edwards and Kucinich are talking a different line, but they’re already been written off as corporate stooges.

  • If there is an attack, that pretty much does away with the right’s “Bush has protected us from a second attack on his watch” talking-point.

  • This just boggles my mind, on so many levels.

    For one, being attacked again before Bush leaves office seems more likely to me to make the case that the war in Iraq did not make us safer, which has been a favorite GOP talking point, and depending on how it happens and where, makes a case for the abysmal lack of port, border or cargo security, as well as the failure to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. How does this help the Republicans, exactly? Is it really an advantage for the GOP and Bush to get another opportunity to make bad decisions? How hard would it be to pose the questions – “What if we were attacked tomorrow? How would we be able to respond militarily with our military stretched so thin? What is the GOP plan in that case? Is there a plan?”

    I don’t think so.

    This brings the conversation and the questions around to what the Dems would do if we were attacked again, and works to Hillary’s advantage in that she could easily say that this is one of the reasons she has been working to get information out of the Pentagon – that we can’t be prepared without it, and keeping Democratic Senators in the dark is not only an example of the short-sightedness of the administration, but it’s just plain dangerous.

  • Dems are so weak in defense of themselves and their political situation that they actually believe the lies used to tarnish them.

    While Hillary probably did simply mean to suggest that Republicnas would attempt to capitalize on a terrorist attack and that a complicit media would tell America that it makes Bush stronger and reinforces the need for his policies, the way her remarks were reported suggests that some Dems truly have internalized the notion that Republicans have the advantage on terorrism and the Dems are weak on national security. As sad as it is scary.

  • “So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that,”

    Could we expect another accelerated assault on our Constitutional Rights, like the “Patriot” Act which she voted for, under Hillary’s hypothetical?

  • However much they may have been complicit, by turning a blind eye to warnings and PDBs, in the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the Rethugs certainly knew how to suck the tragedy dry for political gain. That is their field of expertise. They will surely do it again if the opportunity arises (or can be engineered). They have no shame.

    Is it really possible the American sheeple will be so dumb as to be hoodwinked a second time around? You know, “Fool me once.. ” and all that.

  • History indicates that Clinton may have a point, substantially.

    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!

  • I do not think Hillary is buying into the bogus view that Republicans are better at dealing with such a crisis. I think she is recognizing the very real fact that a very large percentage of the American public is mindless in these matters. I am afraid that she is correct that in the event of an attack during the 2008 campaign there are many who would mindlessly turn to the Republicans who would of course be loudly trumpeting how macho they are. I would hope that more people would react as Anne above said and see that Bush and the Republicans have failed to keep the country safe. However, there is the old saying that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the general public. If that all sounds elitist, I am sorry, but it is based on a lifetime of bitter disappointments.

  • There was no reason for HRC to say what she did about another attack benefiting republicans. Regardless of the odds, it’s just a stupid thing to say. She’d have been a lot better off saying that if another attack occurs, Americans are going to have to decide for themselves whether Bush has made the nation more secure or less secure — at which point she should launch into all the reasons why she thinks Bush has done little positive and much negative.

    She and her people know this — or at least I hope they do. But given these marathon campaigns, countless appearances and a press just waiting for her to screw up, things like this are inevitable. No one can be at the top of their game this long.

    That said, I still wish she’d drop out.

  • Slightly OT, but I can’t help but feel that part of the reason the primaries are being moved up is so we (the Dems) are locked in with Billary as our nominee and then when $hrub is bombing Iran and Israel is bombing Syria, the Republicretin ads will be saying “do you trust a Dem and a woman at that to handle 3 simultaneous wars on Moslems?” Obviously not, you will need a full-fledged Republicretin war-monger to keep you safe and kill all those nasty brown-skinned people (or so the ad will say).

  • Bottom-line:

    Hillary could have said that Republicans would try to exploit such a strategy 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.

    That’s some weak stuff right there.

  • Didn’t Hillary say in a recent debate that she didn’t want to talk about hypotheticals?

  • HRC should know better. Never let em see you sweat.
    beep52 and mop hit the nails on the head!

  • Kucinich is no corporate stooge…just the opposite. He’s the best candidate out there if you would just look and listen.

    Anyway, another terrorist attack on the US would prove how Bush cannot make us secure, how his failed policies are making matters worse. Why the hell conservatives would think this would bolster Bush or his policies is beyond imagination. It would demonstrate his total failure and the need to replace him not give him more powers.

    What these conservatives can’t seem to understand is we are already united against terrorism. We are already as vigilant as we can be but Bush’s policies are making us less secure, less safe and are bolstering terrorists attacks. An attack would not in any way help Bush or his supporters. For Clinton not to know this speaks volumes about her understanding of the American people. She needs to listen more to us than to the GOP rhetoric.
    Kucinich/Edwards ’08….Now that’s the ticket. Make it happen.

  • Beep and mop are correct. I hate that Hillary is playing into that meme. I wonder though, if an attack did occur after the primaries, but before the general if it wouldn’t be the perfect opportunity for some 3rd party candidate to enter the race. Like a Gore, or even an Edwards. You know Hils and Mittster or Jooooolie would be out ballsying each other in their stump speeches on how best to respond. And the general public, after their first horror and sdness and fear, would just be plain old madder than hell at both parties. And I think if a 3rd candidate with perhaps a different response might be able to change the face of the debate.

  • Hillary just sounds too much to me like somebody who will say anything to get a vote. Yes, you should want the presidency, or you don’t belong in the race – but I think it’s wrong to want it so badly that you will try to be all things to all people. It’s the kind of promise you can never fulfill; I’ll be the candidate who keeps you safe from Muslim terror while respecting the human rights of every American – if you’re looking for more tax cuts, pick me, but if you’re looking for somebody who will serve notice to the corporations that the gravy train has just been derailed, also pick me. Say, if you want withdrawal from Iraq, you might want to vote for me – but if you think we should maintain a security presence sufficient in numbers that we could instantly react to any Middle Eastern threat to American interests, I’m your girl. I think the level of unregulated surveillance to which the American people have been subjected is disgraceful and fundamentally wrong….but on the other hand, the threat is real, and we have to be able to know who is plotting against us. Vote for me, vote for me, vote for me.

    I certainly don’t have anything against the idea of a woman president, I think it’d be great; but I’m not so over-the-moon about it that I would support Hillary (if I had a vote, that is) just because she’s a woman. Hillary is far and away Bush’s mental superior, and she’d certainly run America smarter – but if she gets in, she’s going to owe pretty much EVERYBODY. People might want to think what America might look like if she fulfills all her promises.

    • Comments are closed.