’)You would think most liberals and Democrats would realize by now that the equation the media pushed from 2001-5 – that terrorism automatically helps Republicans – is no longer operative, but apparently someone forgot to tell Sen. Clinton.
“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.”
This just isn’t true, and reflects a lack of self-confidence in the Democrats and a recognition of Republican failure. If we were hit with another terror attack, most people would likely trust Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic candidate over George W. Bush.
Aw, c’mon. It’s true and you know it.
If “it” happened again, the GOP would be out front–again–with simple solutions and us versus them rhetoric which would in turn be amplified by cable news channels dressing up that jabber with slick computer generated graphics and martial music.
That’s what happened last time, isn’t it?
Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice…um…we won’t get fooled again.
See what I mean? Hillary doesn’t bring it either. She seems to be listing to starboard more and more each passing day. Pretty soon, she’ll be cozying up to Joe Lieberman.
Sure, it’s true, Quaker, but I sure don’t like the Dem front runner cheering for the other team.
At this point, I think if we were hit with another terror attack, most Americans wouldn’t know who to trust anymore.
I actually don’t think it’s true.
Something tells me Hillary is trying to preempt this right wing meme by talking about it now, before a terrorist attack. Thinking this also makes me wonder if Hillary fears there will be a terror attack before the 2008 elections and that the Repubs will again try to capitalize on it politically the way they did with 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq.
Actually, I think this could be part of a good strategy. Say it will help the GOP if the terrorists attack again, but point out that the reason they can attack is because the GOP let them go to invade Iraq.
Start drawing parallels between Iraq and a future terrorist attack before it happens, because if you wait till after, the GOP will accuse you of, “playing politics” and “playing the blame game” and you know the media will fall in line with that bullshit.
We knew this when the candidates at one of the forums were asked if they bought into the GWOT meme. Only Edwards said he didn’t.
But to OW’s point, I don’t buy that the GOP is stronger than the Dems when it comes to attacks. Just ask Giuliani and Bush, in which 9/11 happened on their watch. If Clinton buys into this, since she is showing herself to be weak as well. Not a good thing.
Like Quaker said, it simply is true even though it’s garbage, because the media spin machine will go into overdrive. What she should do is state the obvious – namely that it’s possible any future “terrorist” act was simply the arsonist turning out to be the firemen themselves.
You can take the girl out of the DLC, but you can’t take the DLC out of the girl.
This makes Clintoin look like a shifty, wimpy-ass, limp useless liberal chump that scared people will have a hard time voting for.
Now, say maybe HRC actually had proposed something specific regarding national security, or terrorism, or Iraq. Say she actually had some position or vision or well articulated proposals, instead of wasting her time posturing around to look tough. Then maybe it might be different.
But she has been the vaguest and triangulated of all the Democrats. And now she comes out with this crug. Looks sad and weak and cynical and worst of all loserlike.
I think that it would hurt the Republicans. Another terrorist attack could be argued by the Democrats as a failure by the Republicans to keep the US safe.
-stuart
my world political forum