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.