Be careful what you say?

jt okc — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:44:48 GMT

Strength and Experience? Give me a break! This was a ploy by the campaign to make sure they crossed the t's and dotted the i's incase an attack came on the homeland. Disgusting politics!

Be careful what you say?

Will Gibbs NYC — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:54:21 GMT

Great point!!

It was absurd for her to say it to begin with. It is impossible to think you can discuss foreign policy in any substantive way without discussing hypotheticals?

Be careful what you say?

Dave, Tn — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:06:15 GMT

The other dems should break out a copy of The Looming Tower, and ask her just what she's basing that claim on.

Be careful what you say?

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:06:44 GMT

What a dumb move to so blatently reinforce a GOP talking point. She believes Republicans will get an advantage on terrorism if we're attacked, no matter how badly they've mishandled it? You know, I think the word "defeatist" is just a red herring when it comes to war policy (because any idiot knows that no one supports losing wars), but this quote by Hillary Clinton is the definition of defeatism when it comes to politics.

Apparently, Clinton thinks we will always live in the 2002 political climate, and she clearly has no faith that a Democratic candidate could simply point out that Republicans have decimated our military and our treasury only to enact policies that our intelligence agencies tell us each year are increasing the number of anti-American terrorists. There's no doubt in my mind that Obama could make that case effectively to the public as a nominee, and Clinton has, with her statement, given me every doubt that she would be capable of doing the same.

Here's one independent that's hoping that Democrats are smart enough to nominate somebody other than Hillary Clinton, and her apparent Stockholm Syndrome regarding the GOP noise machine.

Be careful what you say?

nuanced — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:14:30 GMT

It sounded to me like she was saying she would be the best candidate to keep Republicans from making political hay from a terrorist attack. Isaac Baker's explanation doesn't ring true and is unfortunate because I saw nothing wrong with the comment itself except for it probably not being true (i.e. I think other candidates could also deal effectively with political opportunism). It would have been better to not bring it up and I don't think Dodd should have made an issue of it.

Be careful what you say?

BionicWoman, Tucson, Arizona — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:15:00 GMT

Too bad Dodd and the rest of the wannabees have to constantly pick at Hillary. They are desperate and hard up. It won't do any good - they are also rans and she is the champ.

Be careful what you say?

Amber Vessie, Fargo, N.D. — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:24:29 GMT

The photo above which one is Clinton and which one is Obama ?

Be careful what you say?

Monica,D.C. — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:24:41 GMT

She can't keep her own husband from sodomizing interns.
She voted for the Iraq war. I feel safe.

Be careful what you say?

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:26:00 GMT

Dodd's right...it is poor taste to politicize the safety & security of this country, and it's citizenry.
Too bad he didn't choose to speak out agianst that sort of thing when the republiCANTS were doing it last year, and the year before, and the year before, and..........

Be careful what you say?

Matt, Chicago — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:39:50 GMT

Gosh, Monica in DC, shall we blame Laura Bush for being unable to keep her husband from sodomizing countries, coastal cities, and the Constitution? To stay on point, though, Hillary is pointing out a painful truth. With Repubs in the White House, a new terrorist attack would be one big smarmy photo-op and saber-rattle from the bully pulpit. It has nothing to do with defeatism; it has to do with who has the microphone.

Be careful what you say?

Erik — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:44:46 GMT

Thank you Mark Murray for writing this! Can this please become a story featured on one of your news shows? She was all over Obama for speaking common sense and now she 's creating a fear tactic to win not cool! The DNC should speak about this in a responsible way not a presidential candidate who should work with all not divide the country even more.

Be careful what you say?

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:05:18 GMT

I think Ron Paul was quoted as predicting the possiblity of the Bush regime 'allowing' a terrorist attack to occur before the election.
It's what they used to call the 'October Surprise', a dirty trick by the outgoing President to swing the election in his party's direction.

Prior to the 2000 election, Bush's minions (Wolfowitz? Perl ?) were urging the Israelis NOT to agree to a peace agreement with the Palestinians, that Clinton was trying to broker to prevent a possible Democratic victory.

Be careful what you say?

nuanced — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:05:31 GMT

"that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again,"
I hope she is wrong and that the intelligent but gullible American voters have wised up to the scam. But I also believe that she should not be re-inforcing that mis-perception in the voter's mind.

Be careful what you say?

Laura, D.C. — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:32:15 GMT

Gosh Matt in Chicago,

Yes, we should blame Laura, for standing by her man as he lies and murders his way into history. George's lies are certainly worse than anything Bill did. But saying she's better than George is hardly a ringing endorsement. We all know that Hillary will say and do anything for power. Why not try Barack, As far as I know, his wife Michele hasn't sodomized any interns.

Be careful what you say?

Laura, D.C. — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:36:43 GMT

Osama already knows that terrorist acts benefit Republicans. He obviously would like another Republican in the White House. Look how helpful George has been. He let Osama escape tora bora. He attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 911. He's been the best recuiter for Al Qaida ever. In fact, the classified part of the NIE says that Osama is sending agents to America; not to plant bombs, to vote Republican.

Be careful what you say?

literate1 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:50:25 GMT

I wish the Obama campaign would do more to publicize the hypocrisy of much of Clinton's criticism of his foreign policy statements. I also can't believe she can get away with making statements like she did at the AFL-CIO debate: "you should not always say everything you think when you are running for president, because it can have consequences." There should be political consequences for NOT SAYING WHAT YOU THINK. If Obama had said that there would have been sensationalist headlines and much criticism from his rivals. If Obama makes a comment, Clinton's campaign manager chastises him for forgoing the "politics of hope." It's infuriating. I think we SHOULD be allowed to know exactly what a candidate thinks, and I guess one can infer that Clinton doesn't believe we need or deserve to know. And, of course, she only says what she thinks she needs to say to be elected and it never seems sincere anyway. Everyone I know who has seen Obama in person comes away believing that - finally - there is a politician who actually is involved in politics to serve rather than to rule. Clinton can't project that to any voters other than the most die-hard Democrats still longing for some nostalgic return to Bill's administration (something many of us don't remember so fondly) or those who are not informed or educated enough to see beyond headlines that misconstrue Obama's positions and ignore Clinton's blatant hypocrisy.

Be careful what you say?

Edward, Sacramento — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:10:51 GMT

Hilary is highly over-rated as a politician. Obama is outflanking her from all sides. Her greatest suit is national-security / foreign-relations. But here again she over-reached in order to define Obama as naïve and irresponsible with limited experience for prime time. Hence, she unintentionally defined herself as establishment candidate who cares more about status quo than new ideas. Here are few of her missteps.

The reason why she upbraided Obama for staking his position that under his administration, if there is actionable intelligence on top leaders of al-Qeeda and Pakistan does not act, that he will. Hilary disagrees; she contends that President Musharraf is in a very precarious position and could be easily undermined by his adversaries.
Hence, Hilary wants US foreign policy to be based on an individual’s whims and caprices. So, what happens if Musharraf were to die a natural death? But Obama only echoed what has been part of US law for the past three years. Just for Hilary’s bag of experiences.

Hilary jumped all over Obama for accepting to meet with rogue leaders without preconditions. Hilary’s reason was that there must be spadework before US President meets with foreign leader. Hilary could not make the distinction between “precondition and preparation”. Official meetings always have terms of reference or agenda. That is the details of preparing for a meeting. Precondition in this context means the principal issues that led to breakdown in diplomatic relations with these rogue countries.

Now, Hilary has descended to the level of scare tactics. This is even when she has the entire Democrat establishment in her pocket. Obama has cleverly boxed her in and she cannot climb out of it.

Be careful what you say?

Lee Holmes — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:12:03 GMT

Sierra: This,of course,is unfactual.[Indeed,Clinton himself never alluded to this lie in his ''My Life''autobiography].

It was Arafat who torpedoed the talks. Not ''Perle''or ''Wolfowitz'',who,allied with the Gingrich bloc until his resignation,demanded only that the upcoming Wye Agreement hashed out as a Clinton-brokered scheme,included the recognition of ''Israels right to exist''[ which has still gone unacknowlaged unto the extant hour,even with a Republican president]. Almost immediately,HAMAS launched six separate attacks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem killing mostly school-aged children and the infirm.[The two most infamous,in Tel Aviv where a HAMAS terrorist aimed his bomb-laden vehicle at a bus packed with children and another where a bomber struck a childs birthday party killing 21 members of the family and wounding over 100].Enough was enough and while the outgoing Netanyahu backed out of Wye,the incoming Sharon took office just in time for Arafat to launch the Second Intifada. Nobody but the Palestinians were to blame for this failure. Had Arafat stopped HAMAS,which he had the power to do,the Wye Agreement would have gone forward. Even Bill Clinton acknowlages this.

Also see: The Middle Eastern Review of International Affairs:''US Policy Towards The Middle East In Clintons Second Term'' www.meria.idc.ac.il

Clinton,Bill -''My Life'' Knoph Publishers[Random House],2004.

Be careful what you say?

Marcus, Chicago — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:29:54 GMT

I didn't realize that Rove was now actually helping Clinton craft her mesage.

When it comes to her own history, the record will indicate that at a time when Osama bin Laden was preparing to murder thousands of American citizens, Mrs Clinton and her husband were both focused on trying to hold on to the Presidency, all of the tumult the result of the fact that her husband couldn't keep his unit and an intern from getting acquainted. The fact that she has no ability to recognize the grotesque nature of her husband's time in office and her own dismal record when it came to health care reform ("well, we tried" just doesn't cut it, sorry), shows the country everything they need to know about HRC.

Be careful what you say?

Desmond — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:47:40 GMT

nuanced, ayep.

Be careful what you say?

bb — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:34:26 GMT

Monica in DC is Jerry again. He can't decide on a gender. Repubs LOVE that word sodomize.

Be careful what you say?

john san antonio — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:56:26 GMT

This has been nothing but a scam from the start and to think our presence in Iraq is what prevented another terrorist criminal act in this country only highlights how naive americans are. attacking Iraq had nothing to do with keeping americans safe. But insisting how dangerous they were was necessary in playing the fear card and the patriotism card, something numerous dictators in the past used to gain control.

Be careful what you say?

nuanced — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:30:22 GMT

Amber Vessie, Fargo, N.D. said "The photo above which one is Clinton and which one is Obama ?"

-- I believe Obama is one with the bigger ears.

Be careful what you say?

diane — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:38:13 GMT

my bad for taking you to task on another post about not saying anything about her flip flop on hypotheticals.
so sorry.

Be careful what you say?

nuanced — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:39:33 GMT

Monica makes a good point. Why hasn't Laura Bush gotten George psychiatric help, drugs, counseling, intervention, spoken out or done whatever is needed to stop her husband's bloody rampage that has devasted millions of lives. Really he is the sick one, the psychologically damaged dry drunk, the one who enjoyed branding his frat brothers with a glowing coathanger, who probably doesn't have enough grip on reality to see that he needs help; but she has no excuse whatsoever. Her guilt and culpability is greater.

Be careful what you say?

William, Long Island — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:52:58 GMT

Rupert Murdoch's Fox News was the biggest seller of the war - and now he's bought Hillary and selling her - while bashing Edwards 24/7. Fox News even lied about the number of supporters at an Edwards event in New Hampshire today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbjaD3T4_4o

Be careful what you say?

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:57:48 GMT

Didn't realize Clinton was still using that nuke argument. So, she didn't learn from that mistake. She still doesn't understand U.S. nuclear policy.

Be careful what you say?

Mark Morris, Cupertino CA — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:09:33 GMT

Hillary just made her biggest gaffe! What a stupid thing to say! Obama is proving to have the vision, and wise judgement neccesary to inspire America's confidence in itself as the world's beacon of hope, not fear.

Be careful what you say?

U.S. Citizen - who can see beyond my own borders — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:28:45 GMT

Does anyone else see a problem with the phrase "just like every other thing that happens in the United States, is looked at and followed with very great interest."? As hard as it is for some people to believe, most people of the world do not sit around wondering what's going to happen in America next and how they can use it to their advantage. The phrase shows a certain lack of humility, which some might call hubris, that does not address the need for American policy to become less aggressive towards the rest of the world.

Be careful what you say?

Chima Ordu, York, PA — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:52:32 GMT

Hillary with another flip flop. So she bashes Obama for supposedly using hypotheticals, then she uses a hypothetical....
eh...ok Hillary.

Be careful what you say?

Rick Lapin, Albuquerque, NM — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:55:49 GMT

If y'all vote Sen. Clinton into the Oval Office, you won't believe what happens next -- but you'll deserve it. She will betray Liberals and Moderates the way Shrub has betrayed Conservatives and Moderates, using the exact same play-book.

She represents Corporate America. Period. Not you. Not me. Not common sense, or the American Ideal, or our fighting men and women -- just The Bottom Line as it is envisioned by the same financial interests that have repeatedly used our love for the United States to feather their own nests at our expense, and who laugh behind closed doors at our gullible and easily-employed patriotism.

Who glibly mouth all sides of any issue secure in the knowledge that an American public hungry for change will assume that they are just "playing the game" -- that their public votes stances are simply forgivable little white lies and clever dodges absolutely necessary to secure election; after which they will reveal themselves to be the very personification of each individual voter's highest ideals and aspirations.

(In other words, they're always lying [and forgivably so] except when they say something you agree with -- THEN you figure they are telling the truth. One born every minute, I guess ... )

Anyone who voted to give Bush the authority to cut Congress out of its Constitutional duty as the one public organ deputized to commit the nation to war knew EXACTLY what he or she was doing -- and cannot be trusted ever again to place the principles on which the entire real-world success of the United States AS A WHOLE has always been based above petty personal ambition and transitory corporate interests.

That's just the way it is. And a lot of wishful whining about a return to the Wonderful Clinton Years won't change that truth one iota.

The Clintons are no longer what they were then. You and I are no longer what we were then. The country is no longer what it was then.

We've gotten used to having a treacherous snake-in-the-grass fouling the White House, and some of us think we need to put a snake-in-the-grass of our own in there just to even things up.

But that New Snake-in-the-Grass won't care who it bites once it's in there, anymore than does the current Snake-in-the-Grass.

That is the nature of Snakes-in-the-Grass, and if you don't want one to bite you don't give it your trust, your hopes, or your vote.

Yeah -- politics has always been a rough and dirty game. But, as with every other social endeavor, there are limits beyond which "rough" and "dirty" lead to national paralysis and the break-down of a healthy social order; and we are 'way past that point -- just like we were at the turn of the last century, when a wave of reform and a strong renewal of the idea of The American Way were required to stave off our own self-destruction.

To save corporate capitalism from its own excesses, and our owns souls from its blandishments.

We were lucky back then -- we got Teddy Roosevelt up there to be clean and forthright and, yeah ... "Green".

That job -- the job of a true Moral Leader -- (and TR proves you can play hard politics without breaking the whole system and the trust it's based on to pieces) is so far beyond the Hillary Clintons, George Bushes, and other riff-raff we have come to accept as our leaders that it would be better to elect None of the Above than to mindlessly continue down this sorry road we're traveling under their guidance.

Respect yourselves, Homeys. None of your current leaders do, not anymore, not after what you've let 'em get away with -- and until they do you are cannon fodder and an increasingly-cheap work-force in their eyes, and nothing more.

Be careful what you say?

Michael James -- Illinois — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:07:21 GMT

It sickens me to think that the main thing Hillary seems to be worried about in the event of another terrorist attack is the political impact.

Also, how many times does this woman tell us that she doesn't want to engage in hypotheticals? Then, she starts theorizing on the hypothetical impact of an attack. This one is even more blatant than her flip-flop on who to hypothetically nuke.

The Republicans certainly are the standard-bearers when it comes to the politics of fear, but Hillary's whole campaign is pretty much based on scaring people too. That's really the lynchpin of the pitch when she tries to convince everyone that Obama is too inexperienced. After all, if he had enough experience, he'd really be a much better candidate than HRC, wouldn't he?

Well, guess what? He actually does have enough experience: Obama has held elected office longer, has more legislative accomplishments and can work with Republicans instead of focusing exclusively on fighting them.

To top it all off, Obama has much better judgment and leadership skills than Hillary and without all the baggage. The sooner people start realizing that, the better off we'll all be.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is absolutely right in saying "Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president," and "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."

Be careful what you say?

JimmieFromDayton — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:09:50 GMT

Not with my vote. These guys need to be prosecuted.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

Be careful what you say?

STRAIGHT UP/ AZ — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:48:59 GMT

Now this stupid painted up paper hanging clown is useing the threat of doom and gloom , Which is all self serving. Will you let this goose stepping hemeroid hang on your A@@?? Her intent is to paint a picture which has fasle content! now see the real bull sh!t you will contend with!!!!

Her vote for war and her contiued support for monies to conduct war show how two faced this clown will show her real self as a constant liar! One moment she is vowing to give new progress to health care and the next she is delighted our troops are killing off more Iraqis. Damn we have been shown she would deliver our troops up to her self serving agenda and have no guiltof how wrong her leadership!!

We are glad to see this fool expose what she realy is ""an Idiot playing to a self serving agenda!!!!!

America is strong, get rid of this corrupted fool of yesterdays wrong leadership!!! We want a leadership ""not a Paper hanger """

Be careful what you say?

Iowa Democrat, Williamsburg IA — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:59:23 GMT

Wow. I thought the enemy was terrorism, not Republicans; I guess I was thinking of America's enemy, not the Clintons'. Measuring the impact of a hypothetical terror attack in political terms is disgusting enough, but she even claims a political advantage from it. How about a President this time around, not just another ruthless politician.

Be careful what you say?

Straight up/az — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:02:42 GMT

The Demos for the past decade have been trying to shove free medical down the throat of America, we under stand the self serving agenda, The is no way America wants to self destruct!! Now the promises and """I VOW""" """I WILL""" !!!!! I is not America!!! """I""" is self serving!!!! ""I is not America nor shall be controlled by an ""I""!!!

Be careful what you say?

Mil Nzemba — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:34:20 GMT

Like the comment made by Monica in DC.

Hillary could not keep her own husband from sodomizing interns. Now she wants to protect us from Osama Bin Laden

Always remember she voted for the Iraq war and I feel safe too.

Is that experience or judgment!

We need a youtube video!

Be careful what you say?

Peter, M, Toronto, Ontario — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:02:54 GMT

This woman is so dangerous, America has no clue what it is in for if she rigs and wins. She lies so often, she forgets the same lie she just told 24 hours ago. And where are her so-called smart advisors? where the heck is slick willy? Did she duck-tape his mouth? If the media did its job right, HRC would by now be burried under a pile of lies and contradictions. Instead, the media looks for non-existent inconsistencies from Obama.

Be careful what you say?

Peter, M, Toronto, Ontario — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:03:52 GMT

Be careful what you say?

Amazed, Atlanta GA — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:11:29 GMT

Actually, the statement she made is 100% true. IF, god forbid, there was a terrorist attack, we all know the republicans would jump on that political advantage quicker than you can say "Osama Bin Laden" Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but it doesn't make them less true. People hate the truth.

Be careful what you say?

Ben, Chicago — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:26:30 GMT

This isn't a game, this isn't about using your last name and connnections to win something that is so vital to the future of our country. She is a liar, a flipflopper, devoid of any personal beliefs. That's why the partyliners and special interests love her. She has no shame. Not even when it comes to the safety of this country. I don't care if we have a democrat,independent or republican as long as they are honest, fair, and respect human life around the world. Barack is the future. This primary is a historical moment in history and I'm proud to work hard with everyone else for that future. Don't be afraid of thinking and change. Don't let fear and complacency drive this country. We have so much to do and we need to stand together and do it. President Obama. Sounds pretty good to me.....

Be careful what you say?

Bill C., Little Rock, Ak. — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:14:56 GMT

Here you go.... hillaryclinton.com

Be careful what you say?

Tuck, Btown, Kansas — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:15:17 GMT

It seems this forum is dominated by Clinton haters.
Who knew the GOP hangs out at MSNBC forums.

...

There's a reason the GOP doesn't want Clinton as the nominee.
She'll win.

Be careful what you say?

HMT-MI — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:59:48 GMT

I agree with Hillary and Ron Paul---get it out into the open.Look at ari fleisher waving the bloody shirt of 9-11 again and also the republican candidates.This administration or regime is well known for their goody bag of tricks and really do not care if we die or not---collateral damage.Still trying to figure out how and why 9-11 is the cattle call of the republicans but they thought it was just super peachy for anne coulter to smear the 9-11 widows.

Be careful what you say?

Phyllis — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:28:55 GMT

This is no surprise. Hillary is desperate and will say whatever.

Be careful what you say?

JimmieFromDayton — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:31:40 GMT

Mark, you and Chris are doing a better job of reporting the truth to the american people than any of the other MSM journalist. It shows your courage and journalistic intergrity when compared to some of the other well known journalists who insult our intelligence with their bias pro hillary propaganda. You should be commended for that courage. I thank you for that courage and urge you to continue to be true to your profession and to the people. Well done!

Be careful what you say?

N. Williams — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:36:48 GMT

I have no idea what in the world she was thinking when she said this. Maybe she and her team are getting a bit cocky. I don't see why they should with this much time before the election.

If this was an ad-lib, her campaign manager needs to tell her to cut this kind of stuff out. It makes me think that she thinks the American public are just a bunch of sheep. I would think that if another terrorist attack happens, the Republicans would try to take advantage of it, but would fail because they have done this before.

You know the old phrase, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on you."? (I know, George W. Bush mangled this quote. I thought that I would set the record straight.)

Be careful what you say?

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:08:08 GMT

This was not the brighyest remark she has made, It was also made by Dukakis who said "One act of terrorism just before the election could scare people into electing another republican", and I agree that it could.
Off post I apologize for the post I made yesterday I was acting like a republican opposing free speech it just irritates me to see democrats bashing each other. When Reagan ran the first time he said "Remember the eleventh commandment 'Thou shalt speak no evil of another republican'". I have been looking at other blogs and have seen a few friends from here on them. but I still prefer this one.

Be careful what you say?

Jerry,minnesota — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:32:45 GMT

What do you expect from MRS. Queen Bee? She tells every group what they want to hear. I admire her for her guts. I just think that as a democrat, I want to win and I strong do not believe that Mrs. Clinton will get us there. I want outsourcing to stop, want health and most of all an honest leader and that individual is Mr. Obama.

Be careful what you say?

Jerry,minnesota — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:33:07 GMT

Be careful what you say?

Dr. Ashe, SF CA — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:23:30 GMT

She just gave the Republicans the "gift that will keep on giving." One would not expect this type of absurdity from a candidate who claims to have 35 years of experience. Like GW Bush, Hillary is pushing to politics of fear to bolster her candidacy. It's about time to turn the page...Go Obama!

Be careful what you say?

H P Boston — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:10:55 GMT

jerry why do you want to be Monica? You are obsessed with her. We will gladly call you Monica. jerry's new moniker is Monica. Forget the DC part she is not fully wired. Slander jerry, untruths, slander.

Be careful what you say?

ST from JC — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:32:19 GMT

Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth. Barack shouldn't speak to hypotheticals, but it's okay if she does. She is using the GOP "fear" tactic to get people to believe that somehow she can handle a terrorist attack better than her opponents. Hillary is no different than Bush, she doesn't represent change and she sure doesn't sound like a leader.

Be careful what you say?

vanreuter, NY NY — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:38:39 GMT

When you're all through flailing and gnashing teeth, try to think all the way back to the 2004 Presidential campaign. Some here seem to have come to the party just this past year or month, or week. Do you remember how many terror alerts there were before election day? Do you remember the Osama tape from the WEEK of the election? John Kerry does;

“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.

“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.”

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

The opposition WILL play the terror card. They have to, as it is really their only issue, and whoever the republican nominee is, will hit the issue and hit it hard.

Clinton has been talking about this topic, in terms of the republicans using the terror card, for the entire campaign, and frankly, it shows again why she is the only one of the current contenders who can win against the tactics that are sure to be employed against the democratic nominee.

From the Washington Post;

"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."

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

Rudy has been leading the republicans all year and if he is the nominee, he will be RUNNING on 9/11. It will be a, "fear-based" campaign that will attempt to paint the democratic candidate as, "weak", on terror. The other leading republicans will have to run on the terror issue too, because it's the only thing that the American people trust them on as much or more, than the democrats, in the polls.
Who would like to bet that there WON'T, be some terror related news and scares coming from the DHS in the months and weeks leading up to the election?
How many here are even thinking about what the opposition will do to the democratic nominee during the campaign? Do you think it will be the first campaign in political history that won't come down to negative ads aimed at the electorate's biggest fears?

Can you see Senator Obama, in the first televised debate, answering that question about what he would do if al qeda attacked TWO cities, talking about 1st responders, and NOT talking about responding to the attack itself? it would be one of the more damaging TV ads, as the republican candidate's face takes up the screen, saying,"If we're attacked again, THIS PRESIDENT, will do more than make sure we can carry away our dead."

Van

Be careful what you say?

Bonnie Stillwater, Oklahoma — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:51:41 GMT

I am one with a small brain capacity. Yet, I am offended by the campaigners not addressing our more serious issues: the instability of the global economy and how American is going to survive an upcoming depression, the overwhelming rising birth rate of American-born muslims (3 times that of Americans) and it's impact on our society/future, the up coming federally mandated universal healthcare plans (recently implemented in MASS and to follow in California) and its social impact of differential between the rich and poor or, in short,
The reason(s) why after Bush went into office I have been jobless, starved, homeless and after I apply myself my state enacts law to include my family in healthcare--only to be recently shot down by my (awful) president of the United States? I see no hope for our American future except that born of a revolution.

Be careful what you say?

Jane Doe, Seattle, Wash — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:49:45 GMT

It seems that Hillary is imploding.
I don't think she ever anticipated not being the clear front runner. And it seems that Obama is surpassing her.

What new gaffers will she give this week?

Be careful what you say?

Dee of VA — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:58:43 GMT

"that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again,"

Nuanced,

What you are ignoring is that implicit in that statement is her belief that the American electorate is stupid or gullable. It's interesting, no laughable, that she wants us to forget her war vote, but she's still living in the past. The '06 mid-term elections was clear evidence that the American public is no longer willing to be blinded by GOP fear-mongering. Talk about out of touch with today's reality!

Be careful what you say?

Linda St. Louis, mo. — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:17:14 GMT

Gee I wish I had all the money spent on these campaigns. All the canidates talk about education and helping the less fortunate but in the past it all comes down to "Big Talk" and very little action. The millions of dollars spent on TV adds and fundraiser dinners could really be put to good use in these areas and many more.

Be careful what you say?

Rufus Gibbons — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:25:09 GMT

Van once again a great post. When those planes flew into the twin towers it saddened us all with one exception KARL ROVE who was elated because just as "Soft on communism" was losing its effectiveness he now had another bugaboo to scare the sheep.
We have survived for hundreds of year without Universal Fear and we will survive this also.

Be careful what you say?

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:51:41 GMT

Michael James would you want someone in the white house who wasn't worried about a terrorist attack?
Bush was not worried even when warned it could happened.

Be careful what you say?

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:36:18 GMT

Tuck - you assume that because there's Hillary bashing afoot, it must be from Republicans. So you don't see the possibility of independents and Democrats not liking her?

Be careful what you say?

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:40:29 GMT

Why do we never hear of somebody being Gomoroized..J. Leno

Be careful what you say?

J. Smith, Portland, OR — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:31:41 GMT

No. Here YOU go, www.barackobama.com. No hypocrisy, flip-flopping, or pandering like Clinton. Obama is truth, straight up and honest. It's what America needs after eight years of Executive dysfunction.

Be careful what you say?

Rick Lapin, Albuquerque, NM — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:03:10 GMT

Well, Van, the Pugs are raising the specter of terrorist attacks, and y'all are raising the specter of Pugs raising the specter of terrorist attacks -- and both of you are trying to scare us out of our votes.

Clinton has been no more specific about what she'd do in case of attack than has anyone else, Republican or Democrat, since any response depends on specifics about where and when the attack would take place; the nature and size of the attack; the actual initiators of the attack and where they initiate the attack from, etc., etc., etc. You would like us to assume that he or she who talks toughest about retaliatory attacks would indeed mount the toughest AND MOST EFFECTIVE armed response to another 9/11 -- the same line, exactly, that we've been asked to swallow since Bush got behind the wheel. And what we've learned about that line is that those who use it are trapped by their own rhetoric into making a quick response at all costs that bears not one resemblance in hell to an effective counter-measure, and in fact makes an effective counter-measure impossible.

Ever since her vote for replacing Congressional initiations of war with Presidential ones, Sen. Clinton has simply played the standard game that the present crop of Republican candidates is playing: To appear to out-Bush Bush in the balls department. Thanks, but no thanks -- one Shrub per millenium is my absolute limit; and in my experience, those who flaunt their "balls" generally have none to speak of, which dovetails nicely with their chronic lack of common sense.

As for tape that can be run by the Pugs to cripple a Dem campaign, all the front-runners are vulnerable on that score -- and Clinton's vote for the Iraqi debacle more than cancels out any gaffes the others have made: It will be an albatross she will be forced to address again and again and again.

Now, I'll say this once and y'all can beat me with it four years hence if I'm wrong: If Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, and the subsequent presidential election, she will have done so using methods that will make effective governance of the nation as a whole after that election impossible.

She is not a leader. Just another prospective puppet-in-chief. Inevitable? God, I hope not ...

Be careful what you say?

nuanced — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:38:02 GMT

Van, great analysis of the fear tactic. I believe it will be used before the next election. What can be to done to combat it?

Be careful what you say?

STRAIGHT UP / AZ — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 05:09:32 GMT

GET THE """DUCK TAPE"""! This painted paper hanging clown is drifting out of control!!!! She voted for these war efforts and now has fliped and flopped!!! Her remarks are now effecting the daily combat operations and our troops are the ones who shall pay the price!!!

We do not want to change the cluture of Iraq!!! She has opened her dumb A@@ mouth and now made a situation which has many wanting to duck tape her big mouth!!!

Lets just clean house and get rid of this goose stepping fool!! Your right she is a radical painted like a clown!!! Dangerious is not the word!!!! insane of power!!!!!!!

Be careful what you say?

STRAIGHT UP/ AZ — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 05:32:08 GMT

There is no ""RIGHT"" OR """WRONG""" manner to end this war, A full cut and run would open the borders and all surrounding would jump in to take as much as they could!

The Iraqi wants a full blown civil war, as it will attest to who is the most powerful in the end!! We consider this inhuman, but by their laws and culture , this will be the real answer!!

Time is not kind and the battle field will flow with the blood of all! The Victor will be the American troops,, But we will have not achieved anything more but killing thousands!!!

I see a gradual pullout and this will see where all sides assume power. We have accomplished destroying a tyrant and have given billions to start a new elected government!! our troops are no longer need nor do they have a mission of battle!!! We do not want nor shall we be a common police department!!!

It is not the right of those who seek to be our next President to undermine the office of the setting President! Many times this Senators have destroyed the efforts which are paid for in American armed forces lives!!!

Someone please place a mussle on this fool for her directly attacking and making this situation much worse!!!

Be careful what you say?

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:40:23 GMT

Van, I think Obama had the question RIGHT on what to do if two US cities were attacked. His answers about 1st responders was a good one. Remember, rushing to attack someon is exactly the type of thinking that got us into this quagmire with Iraq! Also, 2008 won't be 2004. I personally don't think Americans feel the same way about things as they did in then.

Be careful what you say?

ki houston — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:38:54 GMT

VAN , getting weak.

Be careful what you say?

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 04:19:25 GMT

As WiMax related subjects continue to increase in popularity, there will be more places to learn more about this far-reaching matter.