Hillary Clinton To Blame For EHS

Hillary Clinton’s message of real hope and real opportunity and real progress continues to resonate throughout the nation. Hillary Clinton dominates the polls. Hillary Clinton dominates the debates.

Hillary Clinton is also to blame for this late August outbreak of EHS.

The latest outbreak of EHS has spread rapidly. Emergency treatment is required.

Let’s call in the epidemiologists. From Politico:

Some puzzled buzz among Democrats about remarks Sen. Clinton made at what the AP’s Holly Ramer calls “a backyard gathering of supporters” in Concord, N.H., on Thursday. According to the AP’s story, Clinton said she also would be better than rivals at handling the unexpected, including a terrorist attack. “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. So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well.”

That is the root, trunk, branches, and leaves of Hillary’s statement. The New York Post explained the “story” this way: “The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP’s negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again.”

No one who has witnessed Hillary at the debates questions that Hillary can, with Wiimbledon skill, lob back any trick Ripublicans try. And Ripublicans will try just about anything. How many of us were worried months before the presidential election of 2004 that the all too convenient “terror alerts” would turn into an actual “terror attack” a few days or weeks before the 2004 election? There were plenty of those “terror alerts” before the 2004 election and none after. We did however get a well-timed Bin Laden video just before the election.

We expect Dailykooks and MyDud to melt down like August snow, today we were treated to the uncloaking of more duds.

Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo wrote:

I agree with Matt on this one. It is extremely important for the Democrats to nominate someone who doesn’t think like a loser. And assuming that any failure of the president’s anti-terrorism policies will automatically be a political boon for the Republican party means thinking like a loser.

It also signals a lack of confidence either in your own policies or the American people’s reasoning powers. And quite possibly both. And whether or not your policies make sense and whether or not the American people know jack you just can’t be an effective advocate of those policies unless you think average Americans can be persuaded that they make sense.

Otherwise, you are permanently off balance, ill-prepared and incoherent.

Uh, Josh, on this one you really should watch the use of the words “off balance, ill-prepared” and “incoherent”. Frankly, in this case those are self descriptions. But thank you for unmasking your feelings about Hillary. Now we know. And in case you don’t know Josh, we agree that we must nominate “someone who doesn’t think like a loser.” Recall Josh when Obama was asked at a debate what he would do if the U.S. was attacked? He responded with some nonsense about first responders.

And also Josh, if you don’t think that a terrorist attack would benefit Ripublicans unless handled appropriately (like Hillary would) please go back and read about the “terror alerts” which hurt Democrats in Ohio precincts in 2004. Face reality.

Of course Josh was not the initiator of this nonsense – the dishonor goes to Matt Yglesias. Here is Matt’s uninformed opinion:

Two points in response. The first is that 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. Obama has a straight shot (“this is why we should have fought al-Qaeda like I said”) and Edwards (and Matt Yglesias) has a straightish one (“this is why we should have fought al-Qaeda like I think in retrospect”) whereas I’m not 100 percent sure what the Clinton message would be. Most of all, though, I think the politics of national security call for a strong, self-confident posture that genuinely believes liberal solutions are politically saleable and substantively workable, not the kind of worry-wort attitude that says we need to cower in fear every time Republicans say “terror.”

Again, Matt needs to face reality and acknowledge the depths of depravity the Ripublicans are capable of. Second Matty, in case of attack, Obama would be under the bed with his flashlight looking for first responders. Check out the debate videos Matt. Edwards would be busy apologizing for his sponsorship of the Iraq resolution and ordering new apology drafts from his staff.

Obama and Edwards do not inspire confidence and will be devoured by Ripublicans:

Mr Obama and the third of the frontrunners, John Edwards, started slowly and stumbled on a few occasions, particularly on how to respond to any new terrorist attacks. Mr Obama, who has been gaining in most of the polls and has matched Mrs Clinton in fundraising, showed little of the dynamic rhetoric on which he has built his reputation.

Here is what Hillary said she would do if attacked and why Hillary can, without doubt, handle any “October Surprise”, Commander In Chief Hillary Clinton:

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond,” she said.

Hillary as Democratic Nominee will respond with the same vigor and sure footedness as President Hillary Clinton. 

The Big Blogs we expect boobery from. Now we know what to expect from Matty and Josh.

Share

78 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton To Blame For EHS

  1. We need a strong, decisive, calm, confident, visible and compassionate leader on this ISSUE – the most important issue.

    If/when something awful like this happens we need somebody who will tell us what the reality is instead of sugar coated words. Somebody who can think on their feet. So far, only only one DEM candidate has displayed these characteristics. And she will act as required!

  2. when attack, respond harder. that’s what im talking about. rabid response team, bill clinton style. hillary will not do a kerry and dukakis(a real authority on giving advice on how to win a race).

  3. Thanks for posting on this. When I read the context, of course it made more sense, lol.

    As for Josh Marshall, I’m beginning to be bothered by his number of anti-Hillary posts. I always considered him pretty fair, but he’s been posting more pro-Obama stuff, too, lately to go along with the negative take on HRC. I’m just looking for a little balance. He’s far from a Hillary-hater, of course, but it’s getting clearer that she’s not his first choice. what left me scratching my head was when he referred to her statements as being akin to having a losing attitude. Huh? When has either Clinton ever had a losing attitude???

  4. Hey, blogger Kevin Drum of washingtonmonthly.com sort of sticks up for Hillary, lol. Check it out:

    “TERROR AND THE GOP….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. She’s not, and we’d better be prepared to deal with it.

    Now, whether or not Hillary is best able to deal with this is another question entirely, and one I’m pretty agnostic about right now. But like it or not, it’s something that someone is going to have to deal with. It may be ridiculous, but life is sometimes ridiculous.”

  5. Well Berk Vox is right. I got to resolve to construct something to put up on dailycross (to bear). Some of this bullshit is just sexist crap. Today OBOMBA announced that he has a foreign policy advisor…what’s his name from the Carter presidency. Now that’s something I’d want on my resume “worked for the Carter presidency” I love Jimmy but his presidency was a terrible disaster, for reasons that JE and BO should take into account. This guy states that being first lady doesn’t qualify you for bein’ president. As if. As I said they are seeking to undermine Hill’s experience to elect somebody else…it is classic sexism–mollyj

  6. paula, the nutroots are really stacked against our hillary. the best we can do is post diaries or comments on those sites making out casr for her. daily crap is the worst. when i hear people slam this site i tell them they have plenty of other venues to get antihillary garbage. this is one of the few sites that tells the truth about hillary, defend, and debunk the lies from the nutkooks and rightwingers.

  7. mollyj, Do you mean Dennis Ross? I didn’t know he worked for Carter, lol. I liked Ross when he was ME envoy during the Clinton administration.

    Did Ross actually say being first lady doesn’t qualify her as president? She’s also been in the Senate 6 1/2 years and on the Armed Services Committee during that time. Obama’s 2 1/2 years in the Senate is superior to that? In what universe? Sounds sexist to me, too!

  8. terrondt, This is a true oasis, and what I really like about, is the discussion of strategy that goes on. There’ve been lots of predictions on here that have come to pass, I can proudly say.

  9. I just viewed Hillary’s VFW speech on Cspan2.
    It was great. There was no ambiguity in her
    Iraq remark nor in the tenor of her concern
    for veterans issues. If you have a chance
    to view it over the week end, please do so.
    She was unfairly criticized this week.

  10. A national security advisor from Carter administration is hardly a comfort for national security. LOL.

    If I were Obama, I would run from Carter as fast as I could.

    This manufactured outrage and controversy by nuts is getting tiresome.

    We all know GOP will use terror card in the election, Rudy has been running the permannet terror campaign for ages. Clinton is purely making a case for herself that she is best equipped to counter punch Rudy’s fear mongering should unexpected event occur.

    It’s so dishonest for the netroots to assume Clinton is using fear card. Sometimes, you really want to spank those nuts!

  11. wow, his daughter mika works on the morning joe show on msnbc in the mornings. she is kinda hot.lol. any way some national security advisor from 27 years ago will not break the race for obama. zzzzzzzzzz

  12. Bloggers like Josh Marshall (and many others) confuse the number of unique hits to their websites with credibility.

  13. this is nuts. i dont get the big problem with hillary’s comment-which is the truth. she is slammed by these guys without even fully reading what she said, because if they did then they would have nothingto attack her on. but if obama or edwards got slammed out of context holy hell would break out. i hope this site can be expanded for the thousands of us who do blog but want toalso bearoundfellow supporters aswell. on mydd tody there was a big post telling hillary to go to hell. hell! wow. as for Z endorsing obama-big deal. we are voting for president here-not a former cold war advisor to one term carter. whosemind do u trust? they said bush has gret advisors. nuff said

  14. terrondt, Mika Brezinski is married to my second cousin, lol, who’s an investigative reporter for a NYC TV station.

  15. Other candidates are slamming Clinton now, from talkingpointsmemo.com campaign roundup:

    Chris Dodd Blasts Hillary, Calls Her Terrorism Remarks “Tasteless”
    Chris Dodd released a statement lambasting Hillary Clinton for saying that a potential terrorist attack would give the Republicans a political advtange, and she was the best candidate to deal with that. “Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States,” Dodd said. A Hillary spokesman offered this clarification: “Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe.”

    Edwards Camp: Hillary’s Terror Remarks “Deeply Troubling”
    John Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis also blasted Hillary: “Senator Clinton’s remarks are deeply troubling. After nearly seven years of George Bush and the politics of fear, the American people deserve a President who will focus first on keeping America safe, rather than calculating the political consequences. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton is seemingly taking a page straight from the GOP playbook that got us into this mess — using fear of another terror attack as a political tactic to bolster her candidacy, and that is just wrong.”

    Richardson: Hillary “Seems To Think” Bush Has Made Us Safer
    Bill Richardson had a statement, as well. “We shouldn’t be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists,” said Richardson. “Senator Clinton seems to think that President Bush has made this country safer. I disagree with her. Our failed policy in Iraq is making us less safe.”

    Obama Camp: Hillary Obsessed With Republican Attack Machine
    Barack Obama advisor David Axelrod said that Hillary Clinton has been obsessed “with what she calls the Republican attack machine.” Instead, Axelrod said, “I think we need a candidate who is obsessed with unifying this country again.”

    I hate to say it, but this reminds me of when Obama made some of his flubs. I was feeling OK about it awhile ago, but now I wonder if this will cause some damage. They were just waiting for a misstep, and this might be one. 🙁

  16. Her campaign responded to Dodd’s attack, but that’s it. Maybe they think that’s all they need. I guess if they say nothing else over the next few days, that means she weathered it OK. (Fingers crossed!)

  17. this is crunch time for them. i don’t know if they are secretly joining forces but all of them feel they have to knock hillary down some pegs to gain traction.

  18. Hey all
    I think Dem rivals attacking HIllary at this point should’t surprise anyone. They will do that no m atter what you say. If you don’t say anything fearing their attacks you cannot move your campaign forward.
    She was speaking about a very important issue. Why her negatives are a positive. She said since they are done with her – they just cannot do anymore and people will be tired to hear the same old thing.

    Then she went on to say if there is another attack – Republicans will try to gain momentum creating fear so, we need a strong democrat and that she is that candidate.

    What the hell is wrong. If any other democrat thinks they are strong on National Security – just say so. Hillary doesn’t have to be a mouth piece for all the candidates!!

  19. Everyone: Hillary and Bill are the best in the business, so I am trusting that they will handle what is shaping up to be a rough time. We’re flying across mountains right now, the ride is a little bumpy, but we’re going to be fine. Daily Delusion at a subliminal level realizes that time is getting short, and if Hillary is going to come now, this is the time. They are ratcheting up the noise. I was there in 2004, and the echo chamber had it that Kerry was going to win. When he lost, there was despair across the blog. Daily Kos is like that. It gets a line going, and opposition to the Established Doctrine is beaten into the ground. They are totally caught off guard by a core of committed, smart, thoughtful, methodical Hillary supporters. Hillary was near to being Liebermanized there, and we stopped it. But it was a very close call some months ago.

  20. August 24, 2007, 5:49 pm
    Brzezinski Offers Support for Obama
    By Sarah Wheaton

    Right on the heels of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion that she could handle the political ramifications of a terrorist attack better than her Democratic rivals, a major foreign policy figure associated with Democrats endorsed her archrival, Senator Barack Obama.
    In an interview with Al Hunt that will air on Bloomberg’s “Political Capital” at 11 p.m. tonight, Zbigniew Brzezinski said that Mr. Obama is “clearly more effective and has the upper hand.” The national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter continued, “There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs, and Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America’s relationship with the world.’’
    He called Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy “very conventional.”
    “I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago,” Mr. Brzezinski said.
    Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign’s communication director, had no comment.
    He also weighed in on the dispute over Mr. Obama’s statement that he would meet unconditionally with Venezuelan, Iranian and Syrian leaders, which Mrs. Clinton called “naïve.”
    From Bloomberg’s report:
    “What’s the hang-up about negotiating with the Syrians or with the Iranians?’’ Brzezinksi said. “What it in effect means’’ is “that you only talk to people who agree with you.’’
    Mr. Brzezinski is a popular and influential figure among Democrats, and his support of Mr. Obama’s candidacy could bolster his campaign’s argument that, despite his limited time on the national stage, wisdom embodies his vision for change. The Brzezinski name also provides a strong counterweight to the marquee names on Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy team, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke, the former United Nations ambassador.

  21. Obama campaign that brushed off endorsements suddenly touts as if endorsements makes the difference between getting the nomination and falling apart!
    NYtimes of course laps it all up like nobody’s business!!

  22. I listened to the clip…anybody things that she’s playing on “fear” well, she’s not. Of course I know, none of US are. But it’s SO taken out of context. These tactics remind me of the ones creationists use to fight against science. They are dirty tricks and creating nonissues. I am so proud of BOMBA for gettin himself a national security advisor. I hope they studied geography and the titles of foreign leaders first thing. The 1970’s foreign policy might be just a teeny bit behind the times.

    QUestion: what reliable do we know about the demographic makeup of dailykooks. Are they really all “educated” white men? Do we know anything else. Sorry not to offend; just planning my diary. I am workin up my nerve. –mollyj

  23. Hi folks,

    Just want to chime in. Don’t worry too much about this. Hillary is tough. Even her comments were capitalized on by her opponents, she is absolutely right. All those whinings from her opponents and bloggers in the end will not matter. When you whine, it always make you look weak. When GOP uses terror line, democrats always whine, it just make them look weak.

    This eposide is just tempest in a teapot. I don’t believe they can Liebermanize Hillary. Remeber Hillary made a decision not to apologize for her war vote, and even ‘challenged those who did not like her non-apology to seek somebody else’? That caused a huge uproar in blogsphere, I believe it’s in Feb or March…. Kos almost declared a war against Hillary.

    However, Hillary still stands strong today, and those nuts never bother to bring this up since they know Hillary is strong and she will not bow to netnuts.

    Those nuts are just a bunch of whiners. There are two scenarios. If there’s no news over the next fews days, the MSM may want to rehash this episode, and I expect Hillary campaign to clarify a little bit, but never back down. Let’s face it, it’s a great opportunity to remind mainstream primary voters why they should choose Hillary because she is the only one who can beat GOP candidates with her toughness.

    If MSM has other stuff such as Iraq to report, they may just skip this story, and eventually it will die down.

  24. I think someof the folks here are right-those anti-hillary types, many of whih also targeted gore in 2000 and cost him the white house and gave us bush-now see a chance to create a malestrom over her comments. edwards in the past week attacked president clinton over the lincoln bedroom scandal some ten yrs ago. obama-i think-i getting ready to launch a furious negative ad campaign against hillary and will play the race card to try and bring her down in s.c. etc.. we are now at the moment when i think we must be most vigorious. frustrated by the clinton campaign’s sucesses obama and edwards and now perhaps dodd are treaming up againgst hillary for now. but guess what? i think she will only be strengthened as her opponents soon go after each other to try and be the “one” anti-hillary guy. labor day is here.

  25. mollyj, I’m not sure, but I know someone observed that most of the people who showed up at Yearly Kos were older white guys.

  26. Obama,

    Gosh, bring Brzezinski, a carter national security advisor will bring no confidence to the table.

    We all know Carter was a big disaster, a terrible loser. He’s been roundly ridiculed by mainstream voters, especially in national security.

    I hope they play this up. Obama = Carter? Unbearable.

  27. mollyj, This cracked me up:

    “I am so proud of BOMBA for gettin himself a national security advisor. I hope they studied geography and the titles of foreign leaders first thing. The 1970’s foreign policy might be just a teeny bit behind the times.”

  28. Brzezinski? Big deal. This is inside baseball stuff. I do think Hillary should clarify her comments, but I am sure she will.

  29. mollyj-
    there is a digital divide in this country-most who have internet access are those who are economically mobile-primarily white middle and upper classes. african americans and latinos tend to have less access to the internet. unemployment in the black community is at 11pct.bill clinton tired to close this gap, realizing that everyone will need access to the web and computers for education etc.. so in sum-expect way more white folks in these blogs. one other thing-the battle i think will be won with the groundwork-with getting committed delegates who are well trained inc onvention rules etc.. obaa and edwards folks can blog nasty things about hillary all they want-but it wont win the primaries. only the most committed forces on the ground will win this thing in 5 months. and we are those forces.

  30. Yes, this all makes sense. And I can say this: everytime Hillary gets attacked, she just gets stronger. I have never seen her weakened since I started seeing her in politics in the 1980’s. This sort of stuff really is nonsense. And, of course, if you are looking for something to attack somebody on, you are going to look for a soundbyte that you can take out of context and capitalize on it.

  31. Folks,

    don’t be intimidated by those liberal blogs. They are just a bunch of sycophants.

    It’s laughable almost all the democrats in the red states elected in 2006 are now becoming Matt’s ‘Bush dog democrats’.
    Those folks are not bowing down to those nuts, that’s why they are becoming increasingly infuriated.

    Let’s face it. netnuts can make some noise in primaries, throw in some money. However, they still have to support the moderate, conservative democrats in red states to win. They have failed to deliver any liberal democrat to victory in those states. Maybe the new Ohio senator is rather liberal, but even he had to break away from those nuts before 2006 election and voted for a bill that angered all the netnuts.

    In the end, these nuts just forget about all these things since the power within the party is still firmly with centralists.

  32. Well i been called a lot of things in my life, but “Bush dog democrat”—I have to say that is a first. Thanks all for sanity in the midst of this kos crap. I had a real good friend of mine tell me she “hated Hillary.” And I am going…wtf…why do you hate Hillary? I think some people — men and women — just resent really intelligent people who know what they can do and go out and get it. Hillary is one of those. And she’s not going to tell you what you want to hear. I mean I remember her saying (about Bill), Well, if ya don’t like him…then don’t vote for him.” It’s a way of doing that t’ai chi thing we been talkin’ about. Somebody was right when they said Hill and Bill are the best in the business. And Brzezski please….can anybody say “Iranian hostage.” And nobody, but nobody, not any world leader anywhere, is ever gonna hear Hillary whine or think she’s weak. Hell, I’m gonna go send Hillary some more money –mollyj

  33. folks,

    Be prepared for more whining from netroots. Hillary was interview by NH paper on terror…

    epresenting New York in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks gave presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a “somewhat different perspective” than her Democratic primary opponents on the continuing threat of terrorism, she said yesterday.

    “I think they’re out to get us every single day, and they are very clever and they bide their time,” Clinton, a New York senator, said in an interview with Monitor editors and reporters. “I have no doubt that they are looking . . . for another spectacular attack, because they believe that makes the biggest impact.”

    But if Clinton separated herself from other Democrats, she also distinguished herself from Republican candidates, stressing the need for diplomacy to quell anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. “I guess I’m somewhere in between here,” Clinton said. “I think we’ve got to do a lot more in reaching out and being smarter about how we connect with people than some Republicans do, but I think it’s a very serious and real threat.”

    Clinton’s comments suggested a foreign policy strategy focused on aggressive diplomacy coupled with enhanced intelligence-gathering and tough-on-terrorism rhetoric. A return to the diplomatic efforts of Bill Clinton’s presidency would shore up the nation’s standing in the Muslim world, potentially encouraging Muslims to reject the extremists in their midst, Clinton said.

    “There will be a moment of opportunity” between next year’s election and several months into the new president’s term to signal a change in course, to inform the world that “the cowboy diplomacy is done with,” Clinton said. The effort will require a combination of aid and outreach – building schools for Iraqi refugees in Jordan, sending eminent Americans to represent the nation – and frank discussion of what Clinton described as the Bush administration’s bungles and “dismissive” attitude toward the rest of the world.

    —ADVERTISEMENT—

    “I had an Arab diplomat say something to me that was chilling. He said, ‘You know, for a superpower you have to be either liked, respected or feared, and right now you are none of those,’ ” Clinton said. “We’ve got to be able to reinstate where fear is appropriate: with our true adversaries, fine. We have to restore respect and we have to hope to be liked.”
    Nowhere was Clinton’s foreign policy critique so bleak as her assessment of Iraq.

    “I’m not sure there are any good outcomes,” she said. “There are perhaps less bad options.”

    A continued U.S. presence in Iraq simply “keeps the cap on” violence, but won’t heal that country’s divisions, the “depth of feeling and the sense of, just, rejectionism they have for whoever their adversary is,” she said.

    Until Iraqis assume responsibility for security and political reconciliation, United States military involvement is futile, Clinton said. “If we withdraw at the end of this year, or next year, or five years from now – in the absence of the Iraqis themselves deciding that they’d rather be an intact country, they’d rather not be a pawn of Iran, they’d rather figure out how to have some political system that includes the Sunnis – there is nothing we can do militarily.”

    In 2002, Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Unlike other Democratic presidential candidates who cast the same vote, Clinton has refused to renounce her decision, arguing that the fault lies solely with Bush for launching the conflict.

    U.S. troops ought to begin withdrawing immediately, Clinton said, although she acknowledged the “very difficult problems” ahead. Improvised explosive devices could harm troops traveling through southern Iraq into Kuwait. “Pitched battles” against Shiites in the south could also stymie the withdrawal, she said. And then there are the thousands of civilian Americans working in Iraq, and those Iraqis who have sided with the United States.

    Withdrawal will also shift the political landscape in the region, as Iran is forced to side with factions in Iraq and changes “create space for a resurgence of Iraqi nationalism,” she said.

    As neighboring countries continue to absorb refugees from Iraq, Clinton warned that “Jordan can particularly be destabilized by this, which is very dangerous for the entire region.”

    Despite mounting opposition to the war – earlier this week, Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia said some troops should return home by year’s end, to signal to the Iraqi government that the U.S. presence is not open-ended – Clinton predicted little change in the Bush administration’s strategy.

    “There’s not much appetite in the White House to actually plan to withdraw because they don’t want to admit it’s necessary, and they frankly don’t want to do it on their watch, which I think is the height of irresponsibility,” Clinton said. Although Bush might draw down some troops, Clinton anticipated that “it will be up to me to figure out how to withdraw our troops in a careful manner.”

    The conflict in Iraq – and the Bush administration’s larger foreign policy approach, which Clinton described as heavy-handed – has damaged U.S. standing in the world, she said.

    To restore the nation’s reputation, “we’ll have to not only talk about Iraq. We’ll have to talk about Abu Ghraib. We’ll have to talk about Guantanamo,” Clinton said. “We’ll have to start by acknowledging that the United States has made life very difficult for people inside Iraq and in the region.”

    But Clinton used stark language to describe what she deemed the “long-term struggle with Islamic extremists.” Such extremists, she said, “have a combination of motives, among which are a rejection of modernity, of women’s roles, of democracy, a dangerous nostalgia for the past that drives them to believe that they hold all the answers because of their specific religious perspectives.”

    Much of the Muslim world, however, is home to individuals who might respond to diplomacy: They reject extremism, yet also oppose “what they see as the culture and mores” of the western world, Clinton said. But “right now, we’re not winning that battle of ideas.”

    That battle of ideas, as Clinton described it, also includes the seemingly superficial.

    Clinton recalled a conversation with an officer at Fort Drum, a U.S. Army base in New York that had recently hosted a group of Afghan officers. Before visiting the base, the Afghans’ sole knowledge of the United States came from watching Baywatch and professional wrestling. “We laugh about it, but think about what that would mean to a devout Muslim living in the mountains of Afghanistan,” Clinton said. “We haven’t don’t a very good job of conveying our real values.”

  34. Wow, Kostner, I’m actually really impressed with Hillary here. Such command of the issues, and so confident. Yes, the netroots will cry about her “in between” word useage, but screw them. She has to differentiate herself from the pack. This is very good.

  35. What did I say the other day about lemons outta lemonade. She is so tough. And I thing the netkooks are more afraid of Hillary than they are a bunch of terrorists. I guess Bomba and the other guys don’t really get that a Commander and Chief has to be tough. Not a bully, like shrub. But tough and smart. And she makes it very personal by talking about what she’s learned from others in different situations and in different countries. Good for Hillary! mollyj

  36. mj,

    I definitely believe she has her eyes on general election. If this drives netnuts crazy and forces MSM to cover it. It will only be plus for her in the long run.

    Rudy is all terror all the time. If Hillary’s opponents try to capitalize on this interview, media will go crazy and more people will know she is serious about combating terrorism. To be tough on security is a long term buildup for democrats thanks to the failure of Carter administration.

    She has to keep on talking and talking in order to win general election.

    Short term, it may cause her some points across blogsphere. The more they whine, the starker the contrast she becomes with other democratic candidates in national security area.

    Be prepared for more whining!

  37. admin-
    lookslike john marshall has been put on notice from a supporter of his site-this is a great defender of hillary!
    Put on Notice
    Mailbag …

    Soooo tired of bloggers jumping on the bash Clinton bandwagon.
    A loser…?

    If you’d stop for a moment, you would be exposed to the reality that Clinton is dominating the debates, dominating the polls. On the ground here in California, she has in place a growing organization that I guarantee you will crush any opposition – Democratic primary, or general election against the Repugs.

    It’s time the blogosphere, and people like you, began to clean up your act. Stop acting so reactively. And perhaps realize that your unique hits aren’t necessarily a measure of your credibility.

    And there’s more …
    I am one of your very early contributor and I kicked in a buck here and there whenever I can but you disgusted me today.

    Calling Hillary Clinton a loser ? The woman has been through the RW grinder for years and she is still thriving. I understand your opposition to have another Clinton in the WH but you should have looked at your actions and words carefully.

    From today on, your site is off my fav links and I will make sure that my friends will do the same.

    You are pathetic and despicable.

    Didn’t actually realize that I’d called anybody a loser. But I will try harder to censor inappropriate thoughts.

    –Josh Marshall

  38. This line leaves me a bit cold though. “I guess I’m somewhere in between here,” Clinton said. “I think we’ve got to do a lot more in reaching out and being smarter about how we connect with people than some Republicans do, but I think it’s a very serious and real threat.” What does she mean? Only Repub’s believe there is a serious threat? Well, she’ll be creamed over that one.

  39. Gorto earlier posted a link to the video of Hillary’s remarks.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/24/clintons_terror_talk_has_rival.html

    There was also this:

    “As it happens, Clinton herself has warned in the past about Republican attempts to use the terror threat as a cudgel against Democrats. At a labor convention in February 2006, she said that Rove’s strategy boiled down to this: “‘Here’s your game plan, folks. Here’s how we’re going to win. We’re going to win by getting everybody scared again.’ Contrary to Franklin Roosevelt, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. This crowd is, ‘All we’re got is fear, and we’re going to keep playing the fear card.'”

    In now predicting an inherent “advantage” for Republicans in the event of another attack, Clinton may just have been keeping up on the latest academic literature. A group of psychologists has been making waves with extensive research suggesting that the Sept. 11 attacks, and subsequent evocations of the attacks by Bush and other Republican candidates, provoked in many voters a subconscious fear of their own mortality and a “worldview defense” that made them more likely to vote Republican in 2002 and 2004.”
    ————-
    We wish that in 2004 Kerry had prepared the American people for what eventually did happen just before the election – the Bin Laden tape. Many of us knew that fear would make an appearance just before the election but the Kerry campaign would not listen. When the Bin Laden video came out just before election day the American people reacted in a positive way towards Bush instead of recoiling at the fact that Bin Laden was still on the loose due to Bush’s incompetence.

    Campaigns are not about wishful thinking. Campaigns require preparation of the landscape so when events turn against you there is a plan to overcome the difficulty.

    Hillary is already preparing the American people mentally for events that might occur. She is weaning them off fear.

  40. epublican strategists employ the political equivalent of a sneak attack, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said yesterday.

    “They don’t usually attack you where you’re weak. They attack you where you’re strong, and where you have understandable pride or sense of priority,” Clinton said. “Attacking Senator (John) Kerry for his patriotism – I mean, who would have predicted it? And because of that, it causes cognitive dissonance in a campaign and particularly in a candidate.”

    As Clinton makes her case for the White House, she increasingly references the stream of political attacks she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have withstood. Because she’s intimately aware of the Republican strategy, Clinton argues, she’s best equipped to respond to the inevitable attacks that will accompany a general election campaign against any GOP presidential candidate.

    “It’s incredibly difficult in the heat of a campaign unless you have thought about every single attack that can come and how you will respond on the fly, to be able to counter it,” Clinton told Monitor editors and reporters yesterday. “I think that I know how to do it and have proven that I have done it in the past.”

    By describing the way Republicans have gone after Democratic candidates – rather than simply referencing the ferocity of those attacks – Clinton revealed more about her assessment of past Democratic candidates, and about her strategy for withstanding a general election. Part of that blueprint, Clinton said, is refusing to let political attacks go unanswered.

  41. This is exactly what the front page article was talking about. Hope and willful blindness are not a good strategy. Good article on John Kerry and the Bin Laden tape here:

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

    “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.

    Mr Kerry told NBC TV his opinion poll lead over President George W Bush fell away after the tape was broadcast.

    He said national security was the decisive issue in the November 2004 poll, won eventually by President Bush.

    Osama Bin Laden’s video, shown days before the vote, urged Americans to back neither Mr Bush nor Mr Kerry.

    [snip]
    “I believe that 9/11 was the central deciding issue in this race,” he said.

    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.”

  42. I think Hillary showed her strength here, she is definitely preparing for the GE, my only concern with that is, she needs to win the primary first, shouldn’t start too soon. But then again, this could be a reversed psychology attempt, to provoke republican attacks on her, and that will highlight her even more as the ONE to beat! Could be a good strategy.

    On a side note, just saw on youtube Christ Matthews was on Jay Leno, and talked about the campaign, apart from sounding like he is in love with Obama, he basically said he thinks Hillary has pretty much sealed the deal on the nomination! Which is music to my ears! Even he admits it . 🙂

  43. By acknowledging the effect on voters of another terrorist attack, Hillary showed that she is a realist. In that way, she is truly the candidate of change. Didn’t someone in the Bush WH awhile back say something to the effect that facts were for reality-based people, the Bush WH makes its own reality? I think voters want someone who sees things as they are and will get to work and fix the problems.

    Hillary’s comments also show that her campaign will never pooh-pooh anything. They will counter every advantage the Republicans try to gain.

  44. mj, I read that article kostner posted, and think she did very well.

    Gorto, Hillary has been running a simultaneous primary-GE campaign for some time now.

  45. Yeah Paula, it’s just that this one seemed to offend the Democrats, and she needs those votes in order to compete fully in the GE, it’s just a fine line to walk sometimes it seems, other than that, I think she doing pretty good!

  46. It certainly drew a response from some of the other Dem candidates and the blogs; we’ll see if anyone else ends up giving a hoot, lol.

  47. hi folks,

    please recommend ‘Hillary on combating terrorism, Iraq’ diary on myDD. It has generated lots of good response. Keep up the good fight!!

  48. Edwards gets into trouble…

    Detroit attorney Geoffrey Fieger, best known for his high-profile defense of assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, was charged on Friday with conspiring to channel $127,000 in illegal contributions to the 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards.

    According to a federal indictment unsealed on Friday, Fieger, 56, and legal partner Vernon Johnson, 45, worked to solicit over 60 “straw donors” from among employees, their families and vendors to their firm in 2003 and 2004.

    The indictment, which was returned by a grand jury on Tuesday, claims that Fieger then arranged to reimburse those “straw donors” for their contributions to Edwards in payments disguised as bonuses or payments for services.

    Prosecutors said that constituted a conspiracy to skirt regulations barring corporate contributions to federal elections and limiting individual donors to $2,000 each.

    Fieger faces up to 55 years in prison if convicted on all 10 counts in the indictment and fines

  49. This needed to be said. Somebody needed to throw down this marker.

    As we approach election day, the terror warnings will be flashing bright fire engine red, all signal flags will be flying, and the Bushies will be playing the fear card to the hilt. Given their track record, I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past the American RightWing.

    So let the RightWing howl and the other Dem candidates bite at her ankles. Senator Clinton will later be viewed as having made the correct call early on.

  50. Steve Clemons has a post on talkingpointsmemo.com, and he’a not anti-Hillary, but he says the Brzezinski endorsement is a big deal because he’s very highly regarded in the foreign policy community. However, like mollyj, that statement about being first lady not qualifying one to be president really pisses me off as a woman.

    Is HRC’s foreign policy too conventional? I hope most Dem primary voters don’t see it that way.

  51. This whole debacle of which party would better tackle terrorism is a needed conversation to have. For far to long the republicans seem to have claimed superiority on this issue, and falsely so.
    But that’s partly because the American people have let them get away with it. The repugs are running on fear, they need people to be afraid, so that when the going gets rough, they will run to the repugs who swear they will bomb the assholes back to the stoneage.(probably forgetting that they will take us with them in the process). Comments like “I want to double Guantanamo” “they hate us for our freedoms” “we will fight them there” “who will fight back? We will” etc.. ect.. blah blah
    Hillary will take them by their (invisible) horns and fight them to the ground.
    The latest NIE even supports the repugs rhetoric:

    We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven
    would erode security gains achieved thus far.
    The impact of a change in mission on Iraq’s political and security environment and throughout the region probably would vary in
    intensity and suddenness of onset in relation to the rate and scale of a Coalition redeployment. Developments within the Iraqi communities themselves will be decisive in determining political and security trajectories.

    • Recent security improvements in Iraq, including success against AQI, have depended significantly on the close synchronization of conventional counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.
    A change of mission that interrupts that synchronization
    would place security improvements at risk.

    So the way I see it is that we need to have this discussion, and face the facts, and confront even ourselves with the reality, only then can we begin to change it. Republicans may now begin to see that this administration has fu*ked up, but that goes for the handling of the war. If there were to be another attack, they will run back to the republican party, because they know that they can depend on them at least to bomb someone. (even if it is the wrong country)

  52. ps. the AQI stands for Al Qaida In Iraq

    p.s.s, I tried to highlight/bold some of the comments, but I see now it didn’t show.

  53. I keep in touch with my family members and friends by phone a lot. I thought I would take a telephone survey of my family members and friends regarding what if there is a terrorist attack between now and election, would such an attack give an advantage to the Ripublicans or Democrats?

    12 out of 12 respondents told me that it would give an advantage to the Ripublicans — especially Giuliani and McCain.

    This little telephone survey result appears to agree with the study cited by Washington Post posted by Admin above:

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/24/clintons_terror_talk_has_rival.html

    “In now predicting an inherent “advantage” for Republicans in the event of another attack, Clinton may just have been keeping up on the latest academic literature. A group of psychologists has been making waves with extensive research suggesting that the Sept. 11 attacks, and subsequent evocations of the attacks by Bush and other Republican candidates, provoked in many voters a subconscious fear of their own mortality and a “worldview defense” that made them more likely to vote Republican in 2002 and 2004.”

    The result appears to also support John Kerry’s contention that Osama Bin Laden’s video, shown days before the vote, gave GWB the advantage.

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

    “I believe that 9/11 was the central deciding issue in this race,” he said.

    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.”

    Based on the above observations, I conclude that Hillary Clinton was telling us Dems a stark political reality. The blogistan very much preferred that Senator Clinton spin this unpleasant reality another way. I personally believe that honesty is the best policy. No amount of spin can change this stark reality. Denial of this reality will not help us, it would hurt us. The first step toward finding a solution to an unpleasant problem is an honest grasp of the reality.

    I did ask a follow-up question of my telephone respondents — how in your opinion can the Dems fight this disadvantage?

    From my survey conversations, the respondents indicated to me that it would help the Dems very much if Senator Clinton would pick a MAN with unimpeachable military or national security background such as General Wesley Clark as VP. I asked whether former Navy Sexcretary Jim Webb would fit such a profile? They all said that Jim Webb would fit just as well. Many of them told me that they thought John Kerry would have had a better chance in 2004 if he had picked General Wesley Clark as VP.

    This is a tiny and unscientific survey but I thought I’ll share it with y’all.

  54. Thanks so much, HG! BTW, were these people Hillary supporters to being with? Just curious.

    I’d like to see that graf from the WaPo article get more play on the blogosphere, but fat chance of that happening, lol.

  55. Great post HG, just shows that unconsciously we may believe differently then we consciously first might have thought.
    We subliminally would submit to the repugs because they speak the most of terror and attack and act all tough(and childish – my bombs are bigger than your bombs).
    Messing with our minds that maybe they know better as they seem to speak more and focus more on this subject.
    As Bush has said repeatedly, the way to get people to understand is for him to just repeat things over and over.
    It’s like telling a lie, repeat it often enough, and it becomes the truth.

  56. BTW, for those of you who have CSPAN3
    on your TV, turn it on now. A 11/94 interview
    of Hillary at George Washington U. is on.

  57. Paula,

    I know four of them are Hillary supporters.

    I’m not 100% sure about the other eight.

    Three are moderate Republicans. Two have mentioned that they may vote Dem this time.

    Two are independents — one is undecided and the other one likes Romney our former Governor.

    The remaining three are Dems — 2 appears to support Obama and 1 supports Richardson.

    I have the impression that all of them are already operating on the notion that Hillary would be the Dem nominee.

  58. Gallup reports that 77% of Democrats recently surveyed were familiar with all three frontrunners for the 2008 presidential nomination.

    The findings: 94% are familiar enough with Clinton to rate her, 85% with Edwards and 84% with Obama.

    This could be good news for Clinton, who has managed to keep her wide national lead despite other candidates becoming better known.

    So much for the O-Bomb-A crowd and their attributing Clinton’s lead in all the polls to greater name recognition.

  59. hi hillfans. hope you guys are having a good weekend. my 1st posting all day. the brezinzki endoresment(can u remember iran hostage crisis 1979-80?), horrible foriegn policy failures, weak response to the soviet invasion of afganistan. i love carter as ex president. horrible record as president plus brezinzki a part of the same crowd. as for the dems piling up on our hillary i don’t sweat it. she will endure. GO HILLARY GO!!!!

  60. Update: This should help those arguing against the “Hillary support is due to name ID” dolts.
    ——–
    Los Angeles Democrat: Pollster.com has some commentary on what you wrote.

    http://www.pollster.com/blogs/whats_in_a_name.php

    “Are the national front-runners in the race for president – Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani – “coasting on high name ID?” That’s the question that Gallup’s Lydia Saad attempts to answer in a must-read analysis based on data from three Gallup polls conducted in July and August. Saad’s answer appears to be yes for Giuliani, but no for Clinton. That is, Giuliani’s front runner status does appear to depend, at least for now, on relatively high name recognition, while Clinton leads even among voters who can rate her two best known rivals. Though before assuming that the Democratic race is over, however, we need to consider what “name recognition” really means.”

    and
    Results from other polls, particularly the recent up-tick in Clinton’s national totals, support the conclusion that Clinton’s lead depends on more than mere name ID. Even Obama’s pollsters apparently concede the point, as reported by Ryan Lizza’s in his recent GQ cover story:

    When [Obama’s pollsters] compared the percentage of Democrats who said they strongly approved of Obama with the percentage who said they would vote for him, they found that the latter number was significantly lower than the former. Inside the campaign, aides dubbed this “the Gap.” It was a sobering, hard number that quantified the difference between vague enthusiasm and actual votes. For Hillary Clinton, the gap is much smaller. The majority of voters who strongly approve of her also say they will vote for her.

    In fact, Hillary was collecting about two-thirds of Democrats who liked her, while Obama was collecting less than half. The numbers suggested that the calculus for Hillary voters was much simpler: Democrats who liked her knew all they needed to know about her. But for Obama voters, there were questions. Was he tough enough? Did he have enough experience? Could he actually win in the general election?

  61. Hey everyone,
    Democrats are weaker on National Security and Republicans are stronger on that front. Now, this may not be the truth but this is the perception out there! All the democrats who cry foul at Hillary’s commets of this very perception out there are the ones who whine when attacked by Republicans and they are losers because of the same reason. I believe Hillary is gearing up for GE.
    Look if you are the front runner in your party what do you do? You don’t need to compete with other Dem Presidential candidates as that will be very risky and that will reduce your lead. So, you have to pick your enemy from the otherside – the Republicans.

    Now, what is the issue that she is most likely to be attacked once she gets nominated? National Seucirty! They will question and hound her with campaigns asking if they are willing to put the country in the hands of a woman? Can she be strong on terror?
    This is the reason she is thinking ahead how to tackle them when she gets confronted or rather bombarded with these accusations.

    I mean can anyother democrat use “Islamic terrorists”?? Well – she used it day before yesterday. There you go! That is Hillary for you! She needs to prepare to fight the Republicans.

    Being an independent voter – even I don’t trust Democrats on National Security – but I trust Hillary. So, I don’t vote for the party I vote for the person.

Comments are closed.