August 24, 2007

Hillary: Republicans Would Benefit from Terror Attack

Marc Comtois

What to make of this?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"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," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

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.

So what's she saying? Well, apparently she's acknowledging that the public views any generic Democrat as weaker on terror than any generic Republican. But she's also trying to say that she's the best one of the worst, I guess. I think she botched this one.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

If you read the post-2004 election book put out by the editors of Newsweek, they tell the story of how the Republicans caught Kerry on video with the infamous statement about voting for the 87 million before he voted against it.

The formula for success against all of these Dems is to keep 'em talkin', and keep the video camera's rollin'. Sooner or later you will get each of them to stand on all eight sides of an octagon!

Come the Fall of '08, the negative ads will practically write themselves!

Posted by: brassband at August 24, 2007 12:40 PM

I wonder if she would handle a terrorist attack the same way her husband did.

Posted by: Greg at August 24, 2007 1:11 PM

But first, she would re-build Jamie Gorelick's wall!

Posted by: brassband at August 24, 2007 2:25 PM

It's amazing how both parties think alike. I'm starting to think Prof. Quigley was right. Clinton believes a terrorist strike inside the US would give the GOP an advantage in the elections. Ah....that thought is shared by the GOP.

Posted by: PDM at August 24, 2007 4:35 PM

This is great!

"I voted for our action in Iraq. I helped make the case for it. Then I changed my mind and voted against it. We really don't need to be there, whatever I said previously.

"But if we're attacked, I'm your girl! For sure. I'll defend our country. Right up until the polls tell me I should stop defending our country."

Thanks, Hill. We'll get back to ya.

Posted by: SusanD at August 24, 2007 9:38 PM

PDM, equating what Hillary Clinton actually said, publicly, on the stump is a little different than a rumored memo mentioned in a decidedly partisan web outlet, isn't it? I don't doubt some hacks think this way, mind you, but there is a difference in the sources.

Of course, regardless of the distasteful hackery of it all, I guess we can say that even hacks agree: Republicans can be more trusted in matters of Defense.

Posted by: Marc Comtois at August 24, 2007 9:59 PM

Is Hillary attempting to use a fear-based approach to campaigning now? Ridiculous. SusanD, your comment cracked me up. Right on.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2007 10:37 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.