There’s a line between talking about national security on the campaign stump and exploiting the politics of fear. I just don’t always know where that line is.<\/p>\n
Clearly, ads like this one<\/a> from Rudy Giuliani fall into the “shameless demagoguery” category. If the former mayor wants to emphasize the terrorist threat, that makes sense. If he wants to argue that he has a strategy to prevent attacks, terrific. But for the better part of the year, Giuliani has instead decided to effectively tell voters, “If you don’t vote for me, you might die.” It worked for Bush-Cheney nearly four years ago, but Giuliani seems to be struggling with the pitch.<\/p>\n On the Democratic side of the aisle, meanwhile, we have this<\/a>.<\/p>\n Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack — and that she would be the best person to handle it.<\/p>\n She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.<\/p>\n “I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n