Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton's Terror Talk
Has Rivals on Attack

On the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidates have been pointing to the absence of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001 as proof that the Bush Administration and GOP are following the right course in fighting terrorism.

But now comes another candidate to declare that if there were, god forbid, another attack prior to the 2008 election, that would also help the Republicans. The speaker? Hillary Clinton, who used that presumption to make a case for herself as the Democratic nominee.

Addressing voters in Concord, N.H. yesterday, Clinton said her experience would help her "handle things I have no control over" in the general election. "It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself 'What if? What if?,' " she went on. "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."

Her comments sparked outrage on left-leaning blogs, where critics accused her of conceding a key Republican talking point without a fight and blithely accepting a Karl Rove-like framing of the terrorism debate. A Democratic candidate, bloggers argued, should be able to confidently make the case that another terror attack might suggest mistakes in the Bush and GOP approach to fighting terrorism, instead of just accepting the assumption that any threat to national security causes voters to run to Republicans.

This afternoon, Clinton's rivals chimed in with their own criticism. The John Edwards campaign charged Clinton with underestimating her own party's ability to make a case on national security. "Compared to George Bush, there is not a single Democrat on the planet who couldn't do a better job as Commander-in-Chief," said Edwards Communications Director Chris Kofinis.

Bill Richardson criticized Clinton for ceding ground to the Republicans and said that he, by contrast, was "prepared to stand up to the GOP on national security because I've been there and done it." "We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," the New Mexico governor said in a statement. "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. Our ports are less safe. Our cities are less safe. Our transportation systems are less safe."

Christopher Dodd was more blunt. "Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," the Connecticut senator said in a statement.

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.

--Alec MacGillis

By Washington Post editors  |  August 24, 2007; 4:04 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Getting to the PowerPoint
Next: Candidates May Be
Forced Out of Fla.


Posted by: markdmorris | August 25, 2007 03:06 PM

Thank you for that poll, and a return to relative sanity. The fact is, either Hillary is WRONG about her assertion that after all this time, a terrorist attack would still benefit the GOP, or Americans are FAR dumber than even I give them credit for.

Come on people. How many buildings were destroyed by Islamic terrorism in the United States between 1990 and 2001? That would be Zero. How many were destroyed between 2001 and 2007? That would be 3 (WTC 1,2 and 7). The worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor took place while a supposedly tough Republican was Commander-in-Chief.

Since then he has clamped down on basic American freedoms and invaded an unrelated sovereign nation that was not a threat. If we actually were attacked again (I predict that the next attack will be early in the next presidential term, as the '93 WTC bombing, 9/11, and the recent London attacks were all orchestrated shortly after a new leader took office), the GOP should be taken to task for failing to keep the country safe.

If they are not, then America truly has battered woman syndrome. Clearly our abuser must be right, and what we see with our own lying eyes must be false.

Posted by: piper190 | August 28, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

karren: I think/believe Hillary is someone that over the years has remained true to her core beliefs. I have spent a lot of time trying to find out about her from childhood and have found she has been remarkable in her positions on most issues that have been discussed for the past fifty [50] years. Everything from education, child care, health care, and living up to our potential with the talents we have, are the ones that stand out for me, although there are others.

Posted by: lylepink | August 28, 2007 6:50 AM | Report abuse

What Hillary Clinton said is right and nearly erveryone knows that. Most of the people are just scared because she dares to say the truth.
We need someone for president who do so and is not afraid of telling the people the trueness about terrorism and things that concern every American.
I think the last 6 years showed us what happens if the president do not.

Posted by: karren | August 28, 2007 4:54 AM | Report abuse

jckckc: First, Hillary DID NOT vote for the war. Another thread has talk of repubs supporting Obama, and this, btw, is what I have been saying for months. The opponents of Hillary, repubs, will try anything to deny her the nomination for they know they cannot beat her in the General. When you have been around a little while, you will soon learn in the primary you support the weaker opponent in hopes of knocking off the one you know you can't beat.

Posted by: lylepink | August 27, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Just because we haven't been attacked since 9/11 doesn't mean the country is any safer than it was on 9/10, when everyone thought we were just fine. Mrs. Clinton is speaking from past experience (various "October surprises"), which is something that Mr. Bush has blithely ignored in getting us inextricably entangled in Iraq. I find it refreshing that any candidate, not just Mrs. Clinton, actually has the temerity to suggest that the U.S. might not always make the right decisions.

Posted by: djmolter | August 26, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Those who refer to Hillary as "Mrs. Bill" are clearly sexist pigs, or worse, misogynists and should thus be completely ignored. Every woman, regardless of how you feel about Hillary, should be very, very offended -- unless you, too, are unable to view Hillary on her own merits.


Posted by: femalenick | August 26, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Comparing the career achievements of Mrs. Bill to that of other women politicians, exposes a resume quite thin. Placed against the legislative records of accomplishments of Texas Governor Ann Richards, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Senator Olympia Snowe, Congresswoman Bella Abzug, Pat Schroeder, Ella Grasso, Patsy Mink, and others, the voting record of Mrs. Bill shows only how closely her rise in politics has been tied to the political fortunes of Mr. Bill. And that wouldn't be all bad, except for this: if the American people are looking for a new President in 2008 with fresh solutions to the problems Bush has created, domestically and internationally, if we are looking for a President who inspires the hopes of most of the world, if we're looking for a Profile in Courage, then we should not hesitate to vote for someone other than the candidate most of the world associates with the Mother of All Public Humiliations.

Posted by: thedefendant | August 26, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Iylepink: maybe you are sold on the inevitability of Hilary's crowning as Democratic nominee, but you are hugely mistaken. Hilary is beginning to unravel. She is a conventional politician more beholden to the already worn path but not innovative enough to be a creative politician. Let me give you few examples.

Hilary upbraided Obama for saying that if actionable intelligence has that Bin Laden on the cross-hair and Pakistan President fails to act, that US will. Hilary's argument is that a presidential candidate should not telegraph intentions to avoid giving opponents of the Pakistan President cause to overthrow him. Hilary is more or less suggesting that US foreign policy should be based on relationship with a leader. Then the big question becomes; what happens if such leader dies a natural death or incapacitated in office due to health reasons? Do you see how shallow Hilary's foreign policy experience is? Furthermore, Hilary who has been in the Senate for the past seven years and does not know that US has preexisting, 3-year US Congress sanctioned policy that supports Obama's views.

Hilary voted for the war and her regret is that Bush Administration did not manage the war properly. It means that Hilary is not well grounded to understand then and now that the problem in Iraq has no military solution but political. Beneath the simmering political problem in Iraq reside tribal and religious rivalries of disparate entities trying to erect hegemonic dominance over others. Military conquest by foreign power cannot force the Sunnis or Shiites or Kurds to start accommodating one another. It is only social evolution through institutional framework that is based on self-determination of these tribal competing groups that can resolve Iraqi's problem. It is naïve to assume that such problem could be resolved through round-table conference, which would be my personal preference, but in reality it is going to come about after severe political crisis and negotiation can happen only after exhaustion. If Hilary Clinton knows all these but voted for the war, then she is a hostage to political opportunism or else a classic case of crass ignorance.

You think Hilary is winning? No, Obama is pulling the rug under her feet. By the time she realizes what is going on, it will be too late. But she is beginning to sense it as she has entered into fear mongering mode that underpins bankrupt political ideals. Scare tactics cannot work post George Bush's administration when the results are in about the monumental foreign policy disaster in Iraq.

Posted by: jckckc | August 26, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh no! Mr. Bill. Please take your wife. Not her again. When he subjected Mrs. Bill to the Mother of All Public Humiliations, it ought to have showed us that she has not a fiber of good judgment. Hopefully, what we're seeing in her latest gaffe (posing herself as the only Democratic defender against Bush terrorist demagoguery) is a long overdue unraveling of her campaign momentum. Next she'll claim that she is the only Democratic candidate able to politically exploit Bush's lack of response to another Hurricane Katrina disaster this fall.

Posted by: thedefendant | August 26, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

jckckc: This type of foolishness is about the only thing opponents of Hillary have. Don't beleive it for a second, as she is offering logical solutions for simple yet complex problems in some cases. You folks better get your pipe out and do some smoking, for Hillary is going to be our next POTUS. There you can now take it to the bank, so welcome aboard.

Posted by: lylepink | August 26, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

The reason Hilary Clinton wants to be voted in office is contingent of terrorist attack. She assumes to be the only candidate that will defeat Republicans. But she does not have records to prove her bogus claim.
If she thought herself as that capable, why did she choose to seek Senatorial office in New York, a liberal state, instead of Arkansas? If she had won her seat in a "red state", then, her claims would have been very valid.

Bill Clinton won his elections because he is charismatic, smart and personable. People love to be in the company of Bill Clinton and most Americans would not mind having him in their living rooms for the next four years. But most Americans cannot stand Hilary Clinton because of her flagrant political opportunism. It is not enough to ask women to vote for her because she is a woman. People see through such simplistic viewpoints. After the euphoria of electing the first female president, then what next but political gridlock. Under political gridlock, women issues will remain unresolved.

Is it sheer desperation that is pushing Hilary Clinton into fear mongering? Before the votes are cast, most Americans will be disgusted in Hilary for her fair-weather political opportunism.

Posted by: jckckc | August 26, 2007 3:17 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of the campaign trail, do you believe the Mormon church's change in stance on homosexuality is due to Mitt Romney running for President? You can vote on this at

Posted by: JengoPop | August 25, 2007 11:40 PM | Report abuse

This is type of life long dems that cannot accept a strong woman. I thought this was way past most members of my party, although in the south many still feel keep them pregnant in the summer and barefoot in the winter. Silly, yet many still believe this crap.

Posted by: lylepink | August 25, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

This is just another example of why lifelong straight-ticket Democrats like myself will simply refuse to vote for this divisive and politically calculating candidate should she be the party's nominee. She just conceded that Republicans are (and will be!) stronger on terror than Democrats, at a time period when some new ideas and strong leadership (by Democrats!!!) could forever change the perception of Americans on the ability of Democrats to handle military problems. How in the world could this be the first thing Hillary thinks about with regard to a deadly terrorist attack?

Posted by: modanielkent | August 25, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

rahsf: You are correct in your "The Clintons know how to win elections." comment. The one thing I have been suprised about is in polling [Rassmussen] that have Hillary as the most "Liberal" of the top dems running by a huge margin. From folks I talk with, put her in the Moderate/Middle, and this is both dems and repubs, so I can't figure out where or whom Rasmussen is polling on this question.

Posted by: lylepink | August 25, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

It could have made more press if she would have asked why is it that the bank that burnt for so long did not fall down like the other world trade buildings.

Posted by: BUBBAJ1 | August 25, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

We were attacked and humiliated while Bush, a republican was president, and guess what? He is got 90 percent of approval. In this country only ten percent are smart and fearless.

Posted by: bluelagoon21 | August 25, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

CBS News Poll. Aug. 8-12, 2007. N=1,214 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
8/8-12/07 44 48 8
7/20-22/07 39 53 8
7/9-17/07 39 53 8
6/26-28/07 39 53 8
1/21-24/02 87 9 4
1/15-17/02 87 10 3
1/5-6/02 88 9 3

If you see a difference in the polling between 2002 and 2007, you're smarter than Hillary Clinton. Either that or she's sees it too and ignores it to manipulate you!

Posted by: markdmorris | August 25, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is unfit to be president. She spends all her time trying to understand what's happened in the past, while Obama is using his experience to plan his vivion for the future. Hillary spouts a 2002 republican talking point, and with no reason why she says "so I think I can handle that better". Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama are brilliant. Hillary is Bush-Cheney lite.

Posted by: markdmorris | August 25, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The idea that a potential Democratic president will not prosecute the war on terror, and defend the United States from attack, is abhorrent. Any president who will not do those things should be impeached. Why doesn't Hillary slam these bastards that keep throwing this stuff out there??

Posted by: mike13 | August 25, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

She has run close to a flawless campaign so far, but this is a bump in the road, no question. Chris Dodd had it exactly right; this was a tasteless thing to have said. If she is going to be the nominee, she had better start scripting herself more, and not blurt this stuff out, or she is going to regret it.

This business about the Democrats being untrustworthy to handle the war and terrorism, that was mentioned above, is a bunch of crap -- a total marketing ploy from years ago that the GOP has been rammming down our throats for years, admittedly with a lot of success. I think it's disgusting that Republicans (especially Rudy this year) basically question the patriotism of Democratic candidates, and are allowed to get away with it. When is someone with some, shall we say, high testicular fortitude, going to put a stop to this? Whoever steps up on this issue will get my support.

Posted by: mike13 | August 25, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

since the repugnicants failed to protect us from terrorism on 9/11 what makes you think they will do any different in the future? and being the wife of a president does not count as expierence...

Posted by: squashisgod | August 25, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

There is not a single Democratic candidate who doesn't scare me to death regarding the war on terror. I wouldn't trust a Democrat as far as I could throw them to handle the war on terror. America's worst nightmare???? A Democratic congress with Hillary Rodham (Socialist) Clinton as President of The United States. What a total embarrassment for a great country that would be!!!

Posted by: wpowers1951 | August 25, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

It sounds as if the truth of the reckless planning by Bush and his cronies is coming out.Due to the Republican agenda the citizens were set up to injest so many twisted lies and misconceptions portrayed by this administration that history will find it hard to understand why the american people did not stand up and rebel.
People who were swayed by the fear factor, finanncial benefits or religious rightousness into becoming true believers of the Bush regime,... come out of the box now. As Americans, and what it stands for,no one can or should stay that "protected" and naive.
Hillary Clinton is not naive.She is a strong woman leader who is our best bet for planning and implementing a new, all encompassing direction for our country. We need to heal this country of it divisiness and return ourselves to the reputation we once deserved.

Posted by: sbalenger | August 25, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Clearly she wasn't making the argument that she is better equipped than other Democrats to deal with the actual terrorist attack.

Rather, she was saying that she is better equipped to fight back against any Republican spin that might perversely use terrorism as a political tool.

That's different.

Further, there's a historical precident in Kerry's ineffectual response to the Bil Laden tape that the White House released the week before the 2008 election.

That's a lesson from which every Democrat can learn.

Posted by: JoeCHI | August 25, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Putting the Fear Factor aside. Does anyone want more of the same Washingtonian leadership? You can't look backward at the 90s now. The world has moved on. We need Barack Obama to change the way Washington works and restore our image around the world. Believe me, if the whole world thinks we are nothing short of loud, swaggering, war mongering invaders, there will be more attacks on us. Definately abroad and most likely at home. Just do some research into Obama's proposed policies! There can be no doubt he's is the best candidate for Prez.

Posted by: mageduley | August 25, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

What Senator Clinton said was that should there be a terrorist attack, she is the only Democrat who would be politically viable.

Can you imagine the outrage if John McCain suggested that a terrorist attack would make his candidacy more appealing to the electorate because he's "been there and has been involved in the terror issue"?

No candidate for office should ever make the case that a terrorist attack would benefit them politically. No candidate for office should ever *think* that a terrorist attack would benefit them politically.

That is simply sick.

Posted by: zmorgan | August 25, 2007 5:15 AM | Report abuse

My kneejerk reaction when Clinton said this was "she's right." Clinton touched on the Republicans' trump card, terrorism, and the Democrats' achilles heel, their perception of being weak. But political framing aside - the social psychology of this is right; we keep putting the hawkish Republicans in office because of their perceived strength while ignoring that they're just making the world more dangerous and more extremist. As a Democrat, and after watching Christiane Amanpour's God's Warriors, I worry about those two potentially retiring Supreme Court Justices - when they retire, and if a Republican Adminstration installs partisan judges, the U.S. will be run by fundamentalists and their values. That will be a true nightmare.

Posted by: bbln | August 25, 2007 3:47 AM | Report abuse

Gosh - so much venom and stupidity and partisanship. Unbelievable. Thank heaven for the few reasoned, moderate posters, e.g., rahsf, and bfiedleri.

So many of the other posters sound like angry, uninformed idiots. I understand it from Republicans, but Dems sounding like the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh...geez. What planet are you people living on?

Posted by: femalenick | August 25, 2007 2:47 AM | Report abuse

If Mrs. Clinton is elected president, I hope that she doesn't fail us the way her husband did, partying for eight years while Al Qaeda trained, planned, and executed attacks against us, culminating in the greatest attack in history for which Clinton luckily escaped direct blame, having already slithered into retirement.

The attack vectors used by Al Qaeda have shifted: now, they are coming north from Mexico, using their dark complexion to hide among the Latino migrants. They are planning new attacks, albeit with diminished capabilities. The U.S. is fighting a major war in the Middle East and Afghanistan against an implacable foe; many of the combatants are recruits from Saudi Arabia.

These are the issues I would like the next president to address.

Posted by: ttraub | August 25, 2007 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Wow. It amazes me how quickly some pounce. Considering the reasoned political argument she makes - that national security has been a Republican strategic pillar - the negative response feels like grasping at straws.

Rarely does a blog or a forum comment make a reasoned, un-angry case against Clinton. Rarely do her detractors take her on her merits and judge her on her actions and proposed policies.

Those who resent the hell out of her, Democratic and Republican alike, have a long nine-plus years ahead of them.

Never forget the obscure Arkansas governor. Clintons know how to win elections.

Posted by: rahsf | August 25, 2007 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Does the marvelous really have readers as ignorant, silly and hysterical as some of these posts (not all) seem to indicate? Calling Hillary Clinton "Hilly" is not exactly the mark of a political sophisticate. Is it too much to hope for a reasonable argument on issues?

Posted by: chuckmcf | August 24, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm a bit curious why some folks are so uptight about Hillary for simply recognizing a likely MSM meme while overlooking John Edward's use of a Republican smear against the Clintons. Does anyone really think that after another major terrorist attack the media is going to focus on 7 years of Republican incompetence? If so, there's a lovely bridge in Brooklyn I can get you wholesale. No, what we'll see will be hours upon hours of "human interest stories" focusing on the victims, their families, the afflicted community, etc, interrupted every so often with appeals for national unity and admonitions "that this is not the time to point fingers." Anyone who suggests that the attack might have been prevented if we had a semi-competent people managing national security, or that maybe spending nearly a trillion dollars rying to turn Iraq into an Arabian West Texas wasn't an optimal antiterrorism strategy is going to shouted down for "playing politics" with a national tragedy. Then Blitizer, Mathews and other assorted nattering nincompoops of the nonsense news industry will start asking their usual "experts" (Bill Kristol, Bill Bennett, Joe Lieberman "Isn't this going to help (Giuliani) (Romney) (Thompson)?" Given what happened in the 2002 and 2004 elections it wouldn't be a completely unreasonable question. Unfair? Yeah. But as the greatest president of my lifetime once said "Life's not fair." (And by the way JFK was not the liberal favorite for the Democratic nomination in 1960. As a hard line Cold Warrior, whose brother worked for Joe McCarthy--a close family friend---JFK was viewed with high suspicion by many progressives)
What impresses me more and more about HRC is her bulldog grip on reality. She is considerably more realistic than either Senator Edwards or Senator Obama, and vastly more so than their supporters, especially the good people who post comments on blogs. Do you really believe that Edwards or Obama if elected can instantly turn the United States into another Sweden by just snapping his fingers? If so you're even more delusional than Dick Cheney. Repairing the damage inflicted on this country by the Bush junta let alone trying to enact needful reforms will require political skills of a very high order. Our next president will have to be able to deal with groups with different values, perspectives and interests. He or she will have powerful and determined enemies. She or he will have to understand how to assemble coalitions of supporters, which may require compromises. Clinton has the brains and skill to do this. Whether she has the will to help advance the progressive agenda is another question. Obviously there are some grounds to doubt her progressive bona fides, especially among those so committed to their ideals that they fail to recognize that politics is the art of the possible, not a death struggle between the children of light and children of darkness. I would simply urge you to consider that if Hillary becomes president she will face a political environment much more favorable for the progressive cause than Bill did in 1992.

Posted by: bfiedleri | August 24, 2007 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see now!

Hillary thinks that maybe George W. Bush did not plot and orchestrate the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001? That's liberal heresy!

And Hillary thinks that Bush's War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq may have made us just a teensy-weensy bit safer? That's liberal heresy!

Will the Democrats burn Hillary at the stake?

Will the Democrats impose a politcally correct Reconstruction on rebellious Florida tomorrow?

Time will tell! Stay tuned for another episode!

Posted by: DaTourist | August 24, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance.

See Know whom you are voting for.

Posted by: DrColes | August 24, 2007 8:23 PM | Report abuse

What happened to not engaging in hypotheticals, Senator Clinton?

Posted by: NMP1 | August 24, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Clinton saying she will win and saying she has experience is only empty words. She never backs it up by saying what she has done to be so more experienced than the others, or what she plans to do to overcome her negatives. So many Democrats are praying she will lose the nomination because either they don't like her or think she will fail to win. If it was down to a two person race, I am sure Clinton would lose.

Posted by: goldie2 | August 24, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Tavi88, Mrs. Clinton is not speaking truth, it isn't her habit. Election of 2004 was lost by democrats because Dean was ruined mainly because of Mrs. Clinton's conspiracies, and Kerry was not electable, mainly because he, himself, was not interested to be elected; he played alone with Republicand and Mrs. Clinton's people all the way through. Remember how he refused to make recount in Ohio, though, he won there, and remember, how he immediately conceeded before ANYTHING was really counted. Anyhow, Mrs. Clinton is THE WORST choice for nomination, as she would continue Mr. Bush policies and pull us into the war with Iran, maybe, a bit slower that Bush/Cheney would do, if still in power for the next term.

Posted by: aepelbaum | August 24, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who truly believes that we're free from the possibilities of terrorist attacks lives in lalaland. Bush has engendered such animosity because of his foreign policy that while steps have been taken to prevent new attacks, we remain very vulnerable. It's one thing to be optimistic, it's another to believe that one election will automatically reverse what Bush & Co. have done in the last six years. I, for one, am ready for this primary to be over. Voters on both sides seem to be forgetting that after the primary comes the general election -- and the other side, too, will have a say. Moderation, people, is what wins general presidential elections -- not extremes on either side. Hell, Bush sold himself as a "compassionate conservative" the first time and was reelected out of fear of John Kerry being perhaps a little too left.

Posted by: femalenick | August 24, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton is not made of the right stuff to be the President of the United States...what is her so-called experience anyway? A First Lady? White Water wheeler/dealer? Serving in the Senate and not being familiar with the National Intelligence Estimate prior to voting to allow George Bush to become emperor? Backing illegal immigration?

I give her credit for doing a good job, a fantastically great job, on analyzing health care alternatives early in her husband's Presidency. But that is where it ends.

Just so you know, I thought Shirley Chisholm or Barbara Jordan would have made great Presidents. Go search their names if you don't remember them. I would have voted for either one of them. Chisholm was actually a contender.

Senator Dodd hit the nail on the head when he said, "...I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States." He's got that right. What that means is Clinton will piece together any group of words to get attention.

Clinton is a lawyer, and she knows about as much about blood and guts issues as that which she has seen on TV. She has never served in the military...neither did her husband, or did the current President or vice president. AND MAN DOES THAT SHOW! WE BETTER QUIT VOTING FOR TV PERSONALITIES!

I pray that all Democrats support someone else other than Clinton, or we will all wind up having another Republican President which is not what I want.

Posted by: Vunderlutz | August 24, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it now!

Hillary will be nominated as the Democratic candidate for Election 2008. It's not because Hillary's more conservative than these other orthodox liberals, but Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd are so hidebound in liberal ideology that Hillary seems saner, more flexible, more able to think outside the politically correct box.

Hillary endorsed Lamont in Connecticut's US Senate election, but Hillary did not fail to note that Joe Lieberman won.

Ice Queen Hillary will be a formidable opponent for Romney or McCain, but not as formidable as for the Seven Democratic Dwarves.

Posted by: DaTourist | August 24, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"Oops, I did it again." Good Night Nurse!

On one level you really do have to love Hillary, she's such a giver. Sooner or later, the vast miasma of half truths, nuanced deceits, and flat out lies catch up to her oh-so-carefully crafted mask of humanity and the veil slips. The grasping harpy freemartin Ãœber Lib steps out from behind Professor Marvel's green curtain. Hide the kids and grocery money!

She's right about one thing. Of the three, she is the best qualified and most likely to kill if needs be. The problem is; would it be a terrorist or an American capitalist?

In the past eight years, Hilly Clinton has said exactly one true thing about her beliefs: Back on January 29 in Iowa, she let us know how she really feels about the Iraq war, "It's the height of irresponsibility and I resent it".

The Iraq War is a nuisance. It's an encumberment to her political agenda and will distract her from creating the biggest socialist boondoggle in U.S. history since LBJ's Great Society: Hilly-Care.

Of course, it goes pretty much without saying and is all too familiarly true-to-form that Hillary's resentments and current auguries presume her to be in the White House as a fait accompli, ( apologies to all, yes that was French - but- think of it as a sop to the Surrender Firsters ).

Score one for Karl. I am more hopeful than ever for the Breck Girl. Fred will eat him alive.

Keep Faith America! Do Not Despair! Don't Give up! Don't give In!

Socialism in not healthy for children and other living things!

Posted by: China_Rider | August 24, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton keeps speaking truth to power, calling it like it is, and this is no different. We all know how Saddam Hussein's capture just before the 2004 elections played into the GOP's hands, to the detriment of John Kerry. Clinton is simply neutralizing this tactic by exposing it--how the GOP has cornered the market on fear--while illustrating the real risks that terrorism poses to our nation.

Posted by: tavi88 | August 24, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

As much as she might like to claim otherwise, this is just another example of why that woman has neither the experience nor judgement for the job. Dem primary voters, think long and hard about who is really the best candidate to return the politics of sanity to the White House.

Posted by: bsimon | August 24, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

What was she thinking?

political radio today live at 5 pm. on the 2008 race.

Posted by: parkerfl | August 24, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company