Skip to main content

(Temporary blogging hiatus interrupted, again.  Because I am apparently a junkie, and this story made steam come out of my ears.  Which hurts.)

*****

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a dog in this Democratic primary fight yet.  I'm liking both Obama and Edwards, though not swooning for either.  Gore would be excellent, but it's looking unlikely that he'll throw his fedora into the ring.  I wish Wes Clark had jumped in, but...eh, bygones.  And yes, I'll support whoever is nominated in 2008.  

But Lordy, does our ostensible frontrunner -- one Senator Hillary Clinton -- make it hard to rally to her side.  Today she handed the Republican party a nice little gift, and ceded the "terror" issue to them.

Way-smart whippersnapper Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic has the exact right take on it, below:

This is, I think, a disaster:

"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.

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."

Young Mr. Y is spot-on here.  The last sentence says it all.  

One could have perhaps excused the moral cowardice of surrendering the whole "terror" issue to the GOP for a week or so after 9-11.  The shock of that horrible day drove some to temporary insanity.

But real leaders need to shake off their fears and fight for what is true and right.  The fact is that EVERY time a Democrat like Ms. Clinton waves the white flag on the terror issue -- which means, of course, letting the GOP set the terms of that debate -- it becomes harder for the next Democrat to go against that bondeheaded "conventional wisdom."

I'm picking on Sen. Clinton, but this could apply to any number of Democrats, including every single one who gave us the pre-recess FISA surrender.  (And sadly, that includes a Senator who I worked to get into office last year, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.)

Quite aside from anything else, the logic is absurd:  the Republicans propose, and Democrats like Clinton support, the following idea:

  1. If there are no terrorist attacks in the United States before 2008, this is a big WIN for the Bush and the GOP. It shows that they know how to keep us safe.

AND...

  1. If there is a devastating terrorist attack in the United States before 2008, this is also a big WIN for Bush and the GOP.  It shows that we need them to keep us safe.

Beyond ridiculous, of course.  

But instead of pointing out that shameless nonsense, too many Democrats sign on to it.  

Instead of taking the issue head-on, as will be required to defeat the nasty black magic of the GOP electoral machine, too many Democrats -- like Ms. Clinton -- think they can triangulate and borrow a little of that ugly mojo.

It won't work.  It shouldn't work.  And it's YEARS past the time when surrendering to the GOP on this level is acceptable.  

Democrats need to stand up on their goddamned hind legs and start pointing out what everyone should know by now:  that the Republican record on terrorism is a dismal failure, and that these feckless creeps couldn't "keep us safe" from a water balloon.

There's no need to surrender the issue of terrorism to the Republicans.  There never was.  And Democrats who insist on waving the white flag should be ashamed of their moral cowardice.  

They don't deserve our support.

.
.
.
[UPDATE:  Title edited for...maturity.  Previously lacking.  Sorry.]

Originally posted to chumley on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:15 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What the hell? (320+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Malacandra, Kimberley, reef the dog, RichM, Sharon, RobertInWisconsin, Ed in Montana, cdreid, sj, Maccabee, PLS, Lois, pb, Night Owl, miriam, Sean Robertson, Chicago Jason, itsbenj, taylormattd, vivacia, ferg, assyrian64, casamurphy, Jeff Simpson, kiwing, cosbo, rbrianj, TrueBlueMajority, MontanaMaven, sphealey, Yoshimi, ParaHammer, Shockwave, byteb, Andrew C White, AAbshier, be inspired, cookiesandmilk, GayHillbilly, Duncan Idaho, DFWmom, HarveyMilk, RFK Lives, Semblance, BenGoshi, object16, bumblebums, bam bam, Zagatzz, RubDMC, rasbobbo, opinionated, Otis29, Boston Boomer, mackellanpatrick, bronte17, conchita, SamSinister, msbatxnyc, nyceve, SecondComing, djMikulec, srkp23, peace voter, RabidNation, wanderindiana, chuckvw, Glic, scamp, vmibran, Zueda, roses, BuckMulligan, slatsg, oceanspray, wishingwell, itsmitch, larryrant, bincbom, semiot, Gray, ctsteve, Jesterfox, diana04, arkdem, dmsilev, Rotegard, worldwideellen, psnyder, weary hobo, Eddie in ME, pat bunny, Wilmguy, IndyScott, limaike, cometman, Science and Art, GN1927, joan reports, joliberal, never forget 2000, rockhound, onemadson, alizard, coigue, fritzrth, inclusiveheart, bwintx, Bluefish, Noisy Democrat, jj32, Silverbird, YetiMonk, randallt, WisVoter, Da Buddy, kd texan, eztempo, xndem, vivens fons, Gowrie Gal, sxwarren, AttyDave4, davidkc, rapala, soros, angrybird, lcs, marina, Pokerdad, William Domingo, Alexander G Rubio, bellevie, Gabriele Droz, Sam I Am, LarisaW, JanetT in MD, zaraspooksthra, Mad Mom, mjd in florida, irate, Simplify, chancy gardner, ThunderHawk13, zbctj52, techiechick, wildcat6, devadatta, The Damned Yankee, jfadden, buckeyedem08, IL dac, majcmb1, civil society, jorndorff, GTPinNJ, Barcelona, annefrank, SheriffBart, antiapollon, Richard Bowser, rb608, KOTCrum, The Raven, sodalis, Rogneid, Ekaterin, psyched, edfreeze, Jim P, begone, Mehitabel9, dole4pineapple, esquimaux, trashablanca, gwilson, tarheelblue, Debbie in ME, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, BlueInARedState, tarantula, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, cookseytalbott, koNko, smokeymonkey, dennisl, Junior Bug, mystery2me, KozmoD, DarkestHour, MJ via Chicago, Aly, atrexler, StrayCat, DumpDoolittle, Everest42, FireCrow, NearlyNormal, armadillo, el cid, Potus2020, ER Doc, edgery, feduphoosier, doinaheckuvanutjob, quantumspin, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, frankzappatista, zedaker, pissedpatriot, chesapeake, bstotts, Autarkh, duha, xrepublican, seabos84, One Pissed Off Liberal, Heterodoxie, dotdot, Reagan Smash, nocore, zelbinion, pfiore8, Ken in MN, khereva, maddogg, TrueBlueCT, dmh44, Trim Your Bush, Cottagerose, LV Pol Girl, cfaller96, BruceMcF, lynmar, Duccio, flumptytail, picklegfunk, NCDem Amy, WayneNight, Sean in Motion, mystic, ronlib, gatorbot, Rex Manning, Thucydides Junior, funnywittobunny, chicago jeff, what if, The Angry Rakkasan, Reno Biff, sabershadow, rrheard, RudiB, pioneer111, MadAsHellMaddie, Rumarhazzit, journeyman, leonard145b, madgranny, Puffin, ImpeachKingBushII, Korkenzieher, willb48, Predictor, Terra Mystica, TomP, extradish, cville townie, Theghostofkarlafayetucker, MyBrainWorks, VelvetElvis, bigpappa10834, SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia, Mad Kossack, ratador, WahooMatt, ShadowSD, RickMassimo, Blackacre, brklyngrl, RedJet, BlueTape, Faheyman, Wes Opinion, Saint Saddam, CPDem81, Mother of Zeus, Akonitum, beltane, Greasy Grant, Happy Days, CenFlaDem, MainSt, pamelabrown, smartdemmg, left my heart, Progressive American Patriot, pickandshovel, TokenLiberal, NogodsnomastersMary, Tam in CA, enarjay, smitha007, o the umanity, valsagem, luckylizard, xysea, viralvoice, lenzy1000, MariaIvette, Till Eulenspiegel, valdeyn, goofygringirl, rigso, ludwig van brickoven, GrouchoKossak, Boise Lib

    Stop being punked by the GOP's phony tough-guy crap.

    They're not "tough."  They're shameless liars.  

    SAY it.

    Really, what the hell?

    IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

    by chumley on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:14:43 AM PDT

  •  OMG! (12+ / 0-)

    Not another "bash Hillary" diary!

    I'm with you on Clark and Gore, but I wish we'd just unite all our energy to bash Republicans.  Bashing other Democrats sucks away energy from that.

    Have a nice day.

    "It does not require many words to speak the truth." Chief Joseph - Nez Perce

    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:18:48 AM PDT

  •  More Americans trust the Dems on ntn'l security (27+ / 0-)

    than they do the GOP. Given that, her comment is puzzling.

    "If you were really in Iraq, where would you get a functioning flack jacket?" --- Aasif Mandvi, to Rob Riggle

    by droogie6655321 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:20:08 AM PDT

    •  Exactly, (25+ / 0-)

      It buys a frame that no Democrat needs to buy anymore.  They never really did.

      Too many of our Dems live in a Beltway bubble, methinks.  

      IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

      by chumley on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:25:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She's been living in one for 15 years now... (15+ / 0-)

        and she has bought every iota of Beltway CW along the way.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:39:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is a political bumpersticker. (15+ / 0-)

          John Edwards in Foreign Affairs:

          There is no question that we must confront terrorist groups such as al Qaeda with the full force of our military might. As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interests, take measures to root out terrorist cells, and strike swiftly and forcefully against those who seek to harm us.

          But I believe we must stay on the offensive against both terrorism and its causes. The "war on terror" approach has backfired, straining our military to the breaking point while allowing the threat of terrorism to grow. "War on terror" is a slogan designed for politics, not a strategy to make the United States safe. It is a bumper sticker, not a plan. Worst of all, the "war on terror" has failed. Instead of making the United States safer, it has spawned even more terrorism -- as we have seen so tragically in Iraq -- and left us with fewer allies.

          There is no question that we are less safe today as a result of this administration's policies. The Bush administration has walked the United States right into the terrorists' trap. By framing this struggle against extremism as a war, it has reinforced the jihadists' narrative that we want to conquer the Muslim world and that there is a "clash of civilizations" pitting the West against Islam. From Guantanimo to Abu Ghraib, the "war on terror" has tragically become the recruitment poster al Qaeda wanted. Instead of reengaging with the peoples of the world, we have driven too many into the terrorists' arms. In fact, defining the current struggle against radical Islamists as a war minimizes the challenge we face by suggesting that the fight against Islamist extremism can be won on the battlefield alone.

          snip

          Yet the politics of fear remains tempting. Some have chosen to pillory those who dare question the concept of a "war on terror" as somehow weak. But these attacks unmask the slogan for what it is: a political sledgehammer used to stifle debate and justify policies that would otherwise be utterly unacceptable.

          Senator Clinton, can you hear us?

          "The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement." John Edwards

          by TomP on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:09:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Mark Penn is her key foreign policy adviser... (10+ / 0-)

            of course, he's her chief domestic adviser as well.  I'd really like to see a Dem nominee who could take positions w/o having to call his/her pollster first.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:30:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Mark Penn. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yoshimi, RFK Lives, Predictor, lenzy1000

              I have written about some of the work Mr. Penn's company has done to prevent unionization.  From two diaries earlier this week (actual cites and links are in the diaries and easily found there):

              One of labor’s bigger irritations with the Clinton campaign has been the role of chief strategist Mark J. Penn, who has remained worldwide president & CEO of Burson-Marsteller, the global public relations and public affairs firm. One of the B-M clients most despised by labor is Cintas Corp., which is the largest uniform supplier in North America and say it clothes 5 million people for work each day.

              With Burson-Marsteller's assistance, Cintas has staved off a push to unionize its workforce, and the public relations firm's website at one point boasted of its work in parrying union pressure.

              Mark Penn Must Go

              Eleazar Torres-Gomez was pronounced dead on the scene after apparently being dragged by a conveyor into an industrial dryer.  Torres-Gomez was trapped in the dryer—which can reportedly reach temperatures of 300 degrees—for at least 20 minutes.

              According to Cincinnati-based Cintas Corp., a worker who died March 8 after falling into a dryer at the company's Tulsa, Okla., facility "did not follow established safety rules, which would have prevented [the] tragic accident."

              Representative Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, said yesterday, "OSHA’s findings prove that Cintas inaction led to the death of Mr. Torres Gomez despite the company’s ridiculous allegations that he tried to commit suicide or was too stupid to operate the machinery

              "Federal safety officials have called for a $2.78 million penalty against the Cintas Corporation, the nation’s largest supplier of uniforms, for violations at its Tulsa plant, where a worker died when he was pulled into a large dryer."

              Eleazar Torres-Gomez

              "The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement." John Edwards

              by TomP on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:10:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  And... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RFK Lives

          ...that is what she believes constitutes her superior experience.

          •  as I've said, I'm rethinking my position (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yoshimi, lenzy1000

            on voting for HRC if she gets the nomination.

            Her most recent foriegn policy statements tell me that she's either deliberately lying to get votes or she simply can not be trusted on foriegn policy issues on the basis that she's incompetent enough to believe Bush's bullshit... she bought the bullshit in the runup to Iraq, and she's buying the GOP "THE TERRORISM!!! OMFG" Party Line now.

            Her use of an anti-labor specialist as her top political advisor speaks for itself.

            Is she better for America than anyone else in the Republican field?

            I'm wondering.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:38:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Short answer: yes (0+ / 0-)

              I can't imagine any Republican that could get the nomination that would be better. As in 2000, a key issue is the Supreme Court. At the very worst, Hillary would be definitely better in regards to SCOTUS, and not much worse in regards to everything else.

              Encouraging, isn't it?

              But of course, her nomination is not a done deal, despite the media's current horse-race-call, so work for whom you think would be best.

        •  Vote for me - I am the Quintessential Politico (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yoshimi

          What her statement boils down to is "I can out spin the spinners." The question now is do we want another presidential term based on spin and not substance? Can America and our planet survive it? The majority of Americans are sick and tire of spin. We need a leader with vision and conviction. What we don't need is a leader who plays political games in the event of another terrorist attack --- may it be Republican or Democrat. The only anecdote to spin is Truth and sadly this is something I fear is lacking in Hillary Clinton.

    •  Hillary sold out the Democratic party (18+ / 0-)

      in order to win.  The problem is this:

      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.

      Why would anyone vote for her if Repulicans have a tougher reputation by default?  Because she is the toughest Democrat?

      Can you say John Kerry (D-Vietnam) vs. George Bush (R-AWOL)?

      •  exactly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, Matt Z, lenzy1000

        I keep trying to make this same point - Hillary is going to get MAJORLY John Kerry'd, and there is much, much more to tar her with than there was ammo to use on Kerry.  She's the Dem to stand up to them?  Its a joke.  They'll bury her, even in their weakened state.  She has the most baggage of all of the major candidates, and will be by far the least effective in standing up to the Cons.  if Hillary's the nominee I'll vote for her, but I'll be expecting to wake up to a worse scenario than we woke up to in Nov. '04.

        Mother Earth is pregnant for the third time - for y'all have knocked her up. ~ maggot brain

        by itsbenj on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:25:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The press will be writing about this mistake! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, Boxer7, smartdemmg, lenzy1000

      Just kidding, they could not care less. I was listening to NPR this morning. They are still calling it the Petraeus Report even when we know the White House is going to write it. They love Senator Mark "GOP Press Stunt" Warner's proposal to possibly bring 5,000 home by Christmas. They are even calling it a major break with the President, never mind that he had a meeting at the White House (presumably to clear "his" statement word for word) before he made the statement. They are still parroting hopelessly flawed comparisons to Vietnam, Germany, and Japan.

      So, when Clinton makes a real mistake, conceding the issue of national security to the Republican Party, they will of course cover this in the way that they bashed on Obama for standing up for strong Democratic foreign policy? Right? Yeah, dream on.

  •  We should never surrender any issue. (34+ / 0-)

    We are right.  Why should we ever concede that any events will be a political advantage for the Republicans?  It makes people think you're not confident that your positions are correct.

    You never see Republicans admitting that anything is a political advantage for Democrats.  You never hear, "Gee, the economy is going badly, that will hurt us in the election."  No.  They spin that by saying, "The economy is going badly, so the country needs to elect us so we can implement our policies that will improve the economy."

    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -- Thomas Jefferson [-4.25, -5.33]

    by GTPinNJ on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:21:20 AM PDT

    •  Even if voters disagree with us, (13+ / 0-)

      They'll respect our candidates for taking a firm stance on something.

      Leadership trumps issues.

      "If you were really in Iraq, where would you get a functioning flack jacket?" --- Aasif Mandvi, to Rob Riggle

      by droogie6655321 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:37:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is very true... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, alizard, slave138, lenzy1000

        ...and the DLC approach of being ashamed of liberal/progressive ideas and trying to present a democratic candidate as Republican lite failed for Gore and failed for Kerry. It could very well fail for Hillary as well.

        •  Could the DLC actually want to lose in 2008? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lenzy1000

          If they lose the White House for us, they can blame "TEH EVIL!!! LEFT WING COMMIE BLOGGERZ!!!", they can say "We lost because we didn't triangulate enough", and most important, they don't have to deliver on any promises to govern on behalf of the American people other than HRC's "real people" lobbyists.

          While we know they never intended to try to govern for anyone but K Street, if there's a Democratic sweep in 2008 with HRC leading it, it's going to be obvious to everyone who really owns the Democratic Party. If the American people find a Democratic Party in power governing as socially liberal Republicans, the Party's over. Perhaps the DLCers see this, too, and want to ride the gravy train and keep their perks for a few years longer instead of having the train go up in flames in 2010.

          There is precedent for this, it's called "Fiddling while Rome is burning". It didn't do the Roman Empire a lot of good and is likely to lead not only the US, but the entire world into disaster.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:48:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's because we're reality based (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      al Fubar, jxg, Lying eyes, KnowVox, lenzy1000

      And repubs are delusional and dependent on spin.

      This actually makes me like Hill more.  I want a grown-up candidate who thinks ahead to possible problems, not ignores or sweeps them under the rug.  As I've said elsewhere, if she's worrying about nothing, she comes out just fine, and if she pegged it correctly, at least she's had time to consider counter moves.

      Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

      by drbloodaxe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:44:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I conced the republicans can better cut (0+ / 0-)

      taxes for the rich while drowning our government in Grover's bathtub and running our country into the ground.

    •  Rethugs don't even concede on Foley sex scandal (0+ / 0-)

      yet Hillary (and she's not alone, she's reflecting the dominant mind set of the Dem politicians) concedes on an issue we lead in in the polls.

      Again, if she wanted to make the point that a terrorist attack would be used nefariously by Bushco to prop themselves up, she should have stated it differently, stating that they'd exploit it but Dems are better.

      Her comment reveals the clueless strategic mentality of the DLC, ever cautious, ever fearful of some mythical soccer mom that wants a tough daddy mommy running the WH, so give her a simpering Dem to vote for. Makes no sense whatsoever strategically.

      Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty Internati

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:33:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He so often does... (22+ / 0-)

      and I remember when he was much more guarded, moderate, etc., but he's had enough.

      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.

      My take is that she a) doesn't think this is loserish, because her core reasoning is that she can outwit the GOP at their own game, and b) she wouldn't be able to do much else anyway, because her claims of experience are based on the famous Clinton agility & skill at ducking punches, not whacking the bully in the nose outright.  She wouldn't have much claim to the job if we didn't assume that the game is permanently rigged to favor the right and that we need her specific skills to stay in it.

      "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

      by latts on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:34:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huge HUGE blunder (8+ / 0-)

      My god, HRC's quote sounds like it came straight from the mouth of Rove, written for one of the GOP candidates.

      It is simply wrong on the facts and wrong on just about every other level.

      It reminds me of the lead-up to the Iraq War, when Bill and Hill refused to stand with Democrats and just fell in line with the President.

      •  It is a truly wrong-headed thing to say, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lenzy1000

        but I am not sure that it will alter the campaign at this point -- I just do not know how much visibility it will get outside of 'our world'. But it really does indicate that she is unable to say loud and proud that fighting stupid does no one any good, and fighting smart, or avoiding unnecessary fights, is not a sign of weakness. She, being a woman, is deathly afraid of appearing to be weak within a macho definition of the term.

        The Republicans will get the stupid macho vote, but it is way, way short of a majority. She just has to get out of this mindset or she will be utterly ineffective even if she wins it all.

        We have only just begun and none too soon.

        by global citizen on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:46:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  His: George's Amazing Technicolor Surgecoat (0+ / 0-)

      Nails it too.

      An excellent title to boot!

    •  I'm a big Josh Marshall fan ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norwegian Chef, lenzy1000

      TPM is my second morning reading, right after "Today's Papers" in Slate - but he slips on this one.  Hillary isn't accepting a frame; she's identifying a known endemic disease and offering herself as the inoculation to it.  Which is the name of the game in a primary race.

      For what it's worth, and reading between lines, I've been getting the impression for a few days that Josh is an Obama guy, or at least a leaner.  I've got no problem with that - TPM is the one political link on my science fiction blog, and will remain so.  And if Obama gets the nom I'm down with him just fine.  But I do think it's coloring Marshall's commentary on the primary race.  Human nature - can't live with it, can't live without it!

  •  While democrats should not concede the issue. . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi

    My impression had been that Republicans fared better in polling on national security than Democrats. When did this change?

    The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

    by Pacifist on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:28:59 AM PDT

  •  Sorry. She is not making it difficult (18+ / 0-)

    to rally to her side.  She is making it almost impossible.  I guess it comes down to (again) how much shit we are willing to eat to see a "Democrat" in the White House...

    www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:29:05 AM PDT

  •  no matter where you stand, or how you feel (10+ / 0-)

    about Hillary, this needs to be confronted:

    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,

    Thanks a lot, DICK!!! -K.O.

    by Rumarhazzit on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:29:43 AM PDT

    •  agreed (10+ / 0-)

      It's less about Sen. Clinton than it is about that absurd, self-defeating mindset.

      IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

      by chumley on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:38:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd rather have a candidate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lying eyes

      who has the foresight to consider potential problems.

      If she's right, she's got plenty of time to think of ways to offset any advantage.  If she's wrong, she doesn't have to worry about it.  Seems more win-win than lose-lose to me.

      Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

      by drbloodaxe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:41:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emsprater

      What I see here is people reading strategic capitulation into a statement that isn't specific.  On context I think she's talking tactically.

      IOW, I think she's saying a bad event will mostly get media focus on Bush and Giuliani and take away from her own and Democratic efforts.  And since those two losers are far down, they're going to grab the opportunities and run with them as far as they can.

      Strategically, big bloody attacks by Al Qaeda or affiliates in Western countries do drop Bush/Republican support about 10% (attacks in e.g. UK or Spain) or 20%+ (attacks inside the US) permanently.  Republicans can presently rally the ~47% who side with them on 'handling terrorism' with a barrage of fearmongering.  That's the only thing that keeps them in contention for power nationally; all other major ratings have them with under 40%.  If that number drops, they're utterly dead.

      Renewal, not mere Reform.

      by killjoy on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:08:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am in constant amazment at how (32+ / 0-)

    successful the completely illogical GOP spin on terrorism has been.

    Who ever has the guts to stand up and say "WTF have you people been doing!?  We've given you well more power than you ever deserved and you still couldn't stop these people?!" gets my full support.

    One thing Clinton is doing is yielding ground she has no right to give away because her premise - whether she understands it or not - suggests that Democrats are saying that terrorism isn't real - which is NOT what Democrats are saying at all.  If she reasons that an event would prove the Republicans "right", she is doing just that.  But as far as I'm concerned, if anything did happen it would prove that they suck at what they say they are best at doing - keeping us safe.

    I happen to be one of a handful of people (I think I am in a small minority anyway) who was thinking that Bush should lose his job because of the 9/11 attack on or about 9/13 of that week.  September 11th was a massive failure on the part of our government and the Bush Administration in particular.  It should never have happened.

  •  These "I'm not bashing Hillary, but ..." diaries (7+ / 0-)

    are getting old.

    I'm picking on Sen. Clinton, but this could apply to any number of Democrats, including every single one who gave us the pre-recess FISA surrender.

    So why pick on HRC?  Why not insert Obama, or, god forbid, Edwards?

    And by the way, could you please provide a reference to support your statement that HRC supports absurd repug logic.  I'd be really interested in knowing which other Dem presidential candidates you believe support repug party lines.  References ... please.

    ... the Republicans propose, and Democrats like Clinton support ...

    Those who stand for nothing fall for anything - Alexander Hamilton

    by BigiMac on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:30:12 AM PDT

  •  I thought (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, coigue, ShadowSD, smitha007

    Hillary wanted us to beat up Republicans and not our own?  Jesus talk about bullshit

    "We will get fooled again" Me

    by givemhellHarryR on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:33:29 AM PDT

  •  Owning an issue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue, drbloodaxe, o the umanity

    There have been a lot of comments about owning issues, various candidates or representatives take a stand on a certain issue and suddenly they OWN it.  I find this way of looking at things to be a bit juvenile and definitely unproductive.

    Why should another representative join in the fight in someone else is seen as owning the issue?  What good does it do anyone to claim than an issue is owned?  None whatsoever.  Basically it is a nonsensical phrase.

    DAGGER 24 hour news service...your post could make news!

    by lightnessofbeing on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:33:31 AM PDT

  •  I don't like Hill, but... (7+ / 0-)

    I don't read what he and you do out of what she said.

    From over here, it parses as her believing that the American people will swing to the right if something nasty happens.

    AS they HAVE consistently done for the last 7 yrs or so.

    So I see it as a bit of cynical pragmatism, her saying if something nasty happens, Dems will have to work harder to keep Americans focused on the reality, not the 'terra' BS the Repubs put out.

    Not as 'surrendering the issue'.

    Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

    by drbloodaxe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:34:09 AM PDT

  •  I wish she hadn't said that (7+ / 0-)

    You cannot stand in front of progress for your country because of your fears, you must stand behind Her in spite of them.

    by coigue on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:34:40 AM PDT

  •  This better explains her acquiescence on Iran... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    el cid, ShadowSD, o the umanity

    I'm amazed/concerned/confused by Congress's utter timidity about a potential attack.  Perhaps the advisors to one highly influential senator have sold her on the concept that the prudent thing to do is to keep her mouth shut on this issue.  Plus, ya can't aliente AIPAC, ya know.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:34:49 AM PDT

  •  Why is "SURRENDERS" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCDemocrat, Norwegian Chef, campskunk

    yelled?

    Help make history - HILLARY in 2008. She's our girl!

    by Caldonia on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:35:46 AM PDT

    •  I DON'T KNOW. (6+ / 0-)

      SORRY TO OFFEND.

      Heh.

      IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

      by chumley on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:47:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I rec'd the diary... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, Caldonia, lenzy1000

        ...and it's on the recommended list now (keep those recs coming in folks to keep it there), but...

        I would urge you, from a tactical perspective, to amend the all caps in the headline to normal case lettering. The use of all caps distracts from the very powerful merits of the case being made.

        Nobody has died as a result of this comment.

        by viralvoice on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:51:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You and Caldonia, above... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pioneer111, okamichan13, viralvoice

          ...actually make a good point, for all my wise-assed-ness.  

          I gave into my inner teenager.  Bad call.  I'll edit.

          Thanks for the nice comments, btw.

          IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

          by chumley on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:09:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  because it suits.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norwegian Chef, Caldonia, KnowVox

      the agenda of the diarist.

      No other reason.

      I'm sick of America being covered by conservative crap and now Felons go free when they are GOP.

      by emsprater on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:51:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What agenda is that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lenzy1000

        Do tell.

        IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

        by chumley on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:14:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm pretty sure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chumley

          It has to do with pumping sales of Girl Scout cookies to empower a multinational ring of olive smugglers who are desperately trying to bnring back the secret heir to the Holy Roman Empire to do battle with GWB in a limerick contest to the death.

          Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

          by drbloodaxe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:17:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Damn, I'm busted! (0+ / 0-)

            (Grabs remaining boxes of Thin Mints and hops on secret flight to Dubai.)

            IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

            by chumley on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:44:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The agenda to ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Norwegian Chef

          frame Hillary as a "surrender monkey" to the GOP scam of all time.

          The following applies to the rash of anti Hillary hit pieces I've seen here lately, and not particularly to this diarist in general, although he is following a set formula for the "progressive" (oi, misnomer!) "team attack Hillary".

          Folks who dislike her can't decide exactly how they want to portray her: one day it's a DINO neocon warmonger, the next day it's a "surrender monkey": which is it?  If it's not those, it's folks here who know better repeating the "she's Bush-Cheney lite" crap. Pick a line of attack and stick to it.

          The folks who dislike Hillary at the cost of all else sane are simply tripping over themselves to blast every word that comes out of her mouth: she's dammned if she says anything, and THAT'S the agenda, to try to drown her out in favor of one or more of her contemporaries who are up for POTUS, to "shut her up", to make her "fear" making any commentary at all.

          If she came out tomorrow and gave a speech that poised each and every progressive point line by line, some of you would diary about how she "really meant" something else and then actually twist her words 180 degrees.  Some of you even "quote" her words incorrectly, using words she never used in order to foist your anti Hillary bias on the rest of America.  When called on it, you do not even blink in saying "well, that's what she meant", as if you are some great reader of minds.

          Frankly, I'm sick of the lot of you.

          I'm sick of America being covered by conservative crap and now Felons go free when they are GOP.

          by emsprater on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:24:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you're a conspiracy theorist (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sphealey

            Who sees all criticsm of Hillary Clinton as part of a dark, irrational, "agenda."

            Noted.

            I'll tell you what -- why don't you take off the tinfoil hat, stop reading my freaking mind, and address the actual argument above  -- with REAL Clinton quotes, not your cartoonish made-up ones.  I posted about a specific issue, and you responded with a silly, defensive rant.  

            I often think Clinton is very impressive.  This time, she was awful.  

            But...I guess that makes me part of the conspiracy to silence her, eh?

            Frankly, I'm sick of the lot of you.

            And I'm sick of you and...and your...ass-face!!

            IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

            by chumley on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:37:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your .... (0+ / 0-)

              assessment of my opinion as a "conspiracy theorist" is just as much crap as your initial assessment of Clinton's words.

              There is an "agenda" here on dKos, and it is propagated by the folks who want to trip up a Clinton nomination at any cost.  That's the facts.

              I offered no "cartoonish, made up quotes" from Clinton, in fact, I offered NONE.   I suppose your stating that I did says volumes about your lack of ability to comprehend what is written, and therefore just might excuse your inaccurate assessment of CLinton's speech as a "surrender".

              I stated this at the beginning of my comment:

              The following applies to the rash of anti Hillary hit pieces I've seen here lately, and not particularly to this diarist in general, although he is following a set formula for the "progressive" (oi, misnomer!) "team attack Hillary".

              Apparently I was wrong.  NOW it applies to you particularly.

              I'm sick of America being covered by conservative crap and now Felons go free when they are GOP.

              by emsprater on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:38:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton thinks republican positions are winners. (20+ / 0-)

    Basically, she thinks democratic positions are liabilities and republicans are winners, and that it's smart politics to imply that she's different only on some tactical issues, such as, the surge should have been two years earlier.  She's moving toward a "me too" on a lot of issues, and it's really making me think less and less of her as she triangulates between good positions and idiotic ones.

    Plus, I think she' overestimating the appeal of republican stands.

    Read Obama's 2002 speech against invading Iraq. http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

    by Inland on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:36:51 AM PDT

    •  It's because she is trying ot overcome (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RichM, Norwegian Chef

      the meme that Dems are weak on security/women are weak on security.

      But she just shot herself in the foot with this comment. She needs to remember who we are against here.

      You cannot stand in front of progress for your country because of your fears, you must stand behind Her in spite of them.

      by coigue on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:44:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  By staying close to Bush and Cheney and neocons. (7+ / 0-)

        That's the explanation for the AUMF, for her saying the surge is "working", for her refusal to say the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea.  She refuses to differ with Bush except on a tactical level, that is, that she'd fight the same wars but better.  She had faith that Bush could turn Iraq into roses, and she has even more faith that she could.  

        And the quoted passage basically shows that to her, security policy is less about security and more about winning elections.   You're not supposed to SAY that, because for most people it's the other way around.

        Read Obama's 2002 speech against invading Iraq. http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

        by Inland on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:52:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, it is revealing because (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NearlyNormal

          she showed her cards. In some ways, I guess it is comforting, because I was pretty sure taht all this hawk-talk from her was political, now I am sure it is. I think if she can avoid such gaffes in the future, she will win the election (if she is our candidate).

          You cannot stand in front of progress for your country because of your fears, you must stand behind Her in spite of them.

          by coigue on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:56:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It may be "just political", may not. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vivacia, drbloodaxe

            Nobody really knows: somebody's being scammed, and I think it's democrats.

            Moreover, the concept that when she's in office she's going to stop being political is crap, of course.  Ambition and the belief that republican positions are winners doesn't stop at being sworn in.  We won't find out if she's merely playing politics with national security or really wrong at heart until 2013 at the earliest.

            Read Obama's 2002 speech against invading Iraq. http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

            by Inland on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:01:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Now HERE'S one I agree with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vivacia, NearlyNormal

          Here's where she gains points with the cynical among us, but loses with most everyone else.

          And the quoted passage basically shows that to her, security policy is less about security and more about winning elections.   You're not supposed to SAY that

          Dead on.  Most Americans don't want cynical types in office who don't think highly of America's ability to not be terrorized by GOP BS.

          The darn terrorists shocked us, angered us, made us grieve.  

          But it was the GOP who then used their attack to TERRORIZE us for 6.5 years.

          Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

          by drbloodaxe on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:56:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect given what she has (0+ / 0-)

        endured, she knows better than you or I or anyone here "who we are up against here".

        "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

        by Lying eyes on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:45:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, (0+ / 0-)

      Her devotion to republican positions stems from her social class, background, and sense of entitlement.
      My objections to her are on social grounds coupled with her extreme closeness not to corporate money, but to corporate representatives, to the Bush family, and to a cross-party elite that is corrupt and anti-democratic.

  •  Hypothetically Clinton (21+ / 0-)

    What happened to this statement that Senator Clinton made at the AFL-CIO debate on August 3?

    "I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals."

    And how did she get from there, in just three weeks, to this?

    "...if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again... So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that."

    This is a major gaffe for various reasons:

    • Clinton contradicts one of her most repeated soundbites of the campaign to date.
    • Clinton surrenders the issue of terrorism to the most unimpressive field of Republicans in presidential campaign memory.
    • Clinton hands the GOP nominee a terribly embarrassing quote to use against her in advertising and through surrogates if she does get the nomination.

    But here's the most interesting part:

    Obama's August 1 foreign policy speech already addressed this kind of Rick Santorum-esque fear-mongering by taking it back to the Republicans, declaring that they fought the wrong war and that he would get out of that one and take it instead to the terrorists.

    This boneheaded statement (morally and politically wrong) by Clinton is going to come back at her a thousand times. And it should.

    (And by the way, regarding the diary title, although I am no fan of Mark Penn, I can't believe he would be that stupid to have scripted this: I bet she came up with this doozy all by herself. That's "experience" for ya!)

    Nobody has died as a result of this comment.

    by viralvoice on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:41:59 AM PDT

  •  surrendering to GOP frames (16+ / 0-)

    The last thing we need is a Democrat surrendering to Republican talking points. I'm sorry, Hillary doesn't inspire confidence at all.

    And what's with her playing the "terror card" against her fellow Democrats?

    The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of crisis, remain neutral.

    by ten10 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:45:07 AM PDT

  •  Shorter Yglesias: "blah blah blah blah" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, Jfriday, emsprater

    This makes my blood boil.

    Sorry, guys. I read Matt's response and my eyes glazed over by the time I read the word "mobilization." What a honking load of boring crapola.

    And I think the average voter will react the same way if ANY Democrat talks like this.

    Are you kidding? "Post-attack environment?" What the fuck is that? That kind of rhetoric is a freaking snooze fest, Matt. It's exactly what people hate about Democrats.

    I'll tell you what: I'm not a Hillary supporter (I lean more toward Obama -- go ahead and review my diaries if you like).

    But I think she's on the right track to bring up the conundrum that the diarist mentions (damned if you don't and damned if you do). Bring it up now and start talking about it. Get it out in open before it is too late.

    Democrats damn well better face facts: Bush's legacy and reputation (and that of the Republicans in general) can only be redeemed if there is total victory in Iraq or if there is another massive terror attack in the US.

    And the sad reality is that Bush and the other Republicans no longer see any difference between the two.

    Why should they?   Another terror attack would allow Bush to grab a massive amount of power as per the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (put in place May 9, 2007).

    If you think Bush won't do it, you're a pathetic bunch of dreaming losers.

    So I welcome Hillary talking about this now and getting the public to think about it as well. Her rhetoric may be clumsy, but it's a damn sight better than the nuanced, academic, pundit-ese that some bloggers want to employ.

    Flame on, dudes.

  •  all the GOP has is tough talk. no good ideas. (6+ / 0-)

    I can't believe she said this would be their automatic advantage. How about MANUALLY trying to override that advantage?

    Geez.

    there are only two sides -- with the troops or with the President

    by danthrax on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:50:27 AM PDT

  •  I second the comments... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that we must not surrender the issue to a political party that such a terrible record on fighting terrorism, and attempts by our own politicians (example: Hillary) to triangulate around the problem instead of attacking the GOP thugs and their failures head on.

  •  A Few Questions To Help Frame This Debate (18+ / 0-)

    I really wish our Democratic candidates could simply stand before a crowd and ask the following:

    • Who got a Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001 that said "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." and completely ignored it?
    • Who ignored Richard Clarke?
    • Who sat on his ass for eight minutes in a Florida classroom after being told "Mr. President, your nation is under terrorist attack"?
    • Who has failed to catch Osama Bin Laden?
    • Who has failed to catch the anthrax killer?
    • Who lied America into war in Iraq by claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
    • Who put Donald Rumsfeld in charge of the Pentagon?
    • Who fought the 9/11 Commission every step in the way -- and then failed to implement their recommendations?
    • Who took the Baker-Hamilton Commission report and essentially threw it in the trash?
    • Who wanted to outsource our port security to Dubai?
    • Who sent our kids to Iraq without the body armor they needed to maximize their safety in the field?
    • Who had his political hitmen blow the cover of a covert CIA officer in a time of war?
    • Who landed on a fucking aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003 and declared the Iraq War over?
    • Who pimped the bullshit Pentagon narratives about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman?
    • Who skipped Vietnam and let John Kerry, Al Gore and Max Cleland go instead?

    The answer to all questions: Not a Democratic President

    If our side can't change the narrative with all that we have to work with, then I'm ready to give up.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:53:16 AM PDT

  •  This is a Washington view of the world (4+ / 0-)
  •  blows up fight them over there instead of here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, vivacia, cosbo

    Yeah, I re-read her quote and she kinda implies that if it happens, I'll be the best one to argue back.  But that not the point, why the hell say that a terror attack would give the GOP an advantage?  Why?  Why the fuck are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq to fight them over there instead of here?  Where the fuck was homeland security?  What, the God Damn FISA bill didn't go far enough?  

    you are exactly right with your 1 and 2 points, the GOP distorts to win either way when clearly they should and must be faulted if and when another attack occurs.

  •  Yglesias misses the point ... (7+ / 0-)

    This time.

    Hillary is talking about what will happen if there actually is another terrorist attack - and you can pretty much count on a reflex increase in support for Republicans.  

    Fear triggers the reptile brain, which is primitive and stupid.  Americans have been conditioned for decades to think of the GOP as the "tough" party, and the reptile brain isn't good at identifying jive.  Look at the way Likud has always benefited from bus bombings in Israel, even though their policies exacerbated the problem.

    Hillary is just identifying the problem (and spinning it in her favor; that's the name of the game).

    •  Why cede the frame... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, lenzy1000

      It just makes you look weak.

      "Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You *are* surrender monkeys." - Meteor Blades to Capitulation Dems

      by RichM on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:12:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why would anyone select Hillary when (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cosbo, YoloMike, Reagan Smash, lenzy1000

      Hillary is talking about what will happen if there actually is another terrorist attack - and you can pretty much count on a reflex increase in support for Republicans.  

      ???

      The framing is awful and it does her and her fellow candidates a world of disservice.

      •  Identifying a problem ... (0+ / 0-)

        Is not accepting a frame; it's the first necessary step to establishing a counterframe. The GOP has been pretty effectively hanging "weak on defense" on Dems since Joe McCarthy, in spite of consistent historical experience showing that we've been right and they've been wrong. They get away with it because they're into tough talk, which always works with frightened people.  

        Why the hell do you think that thrice-married, drag-dressing, has-gay-friends Benito Giuliani is leading the GOP pack? Not because of his family values! It's because the one thing everyone remembers about him is that he showed tough on 9/11. (While Bush's handlers managed to keep him out of sight till he was sort of over the panic attack).  

        Right now Dems have gained a narrow, tentative edge on defense issues, thanks to Bush's truly awesome incompetence. The public's rational mind has just begun to absorb the facts ... but let another attack happen, and chances are that the fear reflex will take hold, at least for a while till it wears off again. Look at the occasional rightie slip about how we "need" another 9/11 to put a good proper scare into us. If you don't believe that GOP strategists sometimes think about that, you haven't been paying attention.

        A lot of what Hillary does that people here don't like is all about establishing herself as the Tough Girl. She can't dress in leathers and a bandanna and ride around on a Harley, but that is pretty much the subtext. It ain't pretty, but it's plenty smart.

        •  No, a counterframe is (0+ / 0-)

          "I'm not sure why anyone would ever vote for a Republican again after the Bush Administration failed to keep us safe on 9/11 and Katrina."

          Kerry blew this argument and now Hillary is FUBAR.

  •  thank you (10+ / 0-)

    I really hope that Obama and Edwards pounce on this. They should ask Clinton (1) why are you using terrorism as a political football about which party would benefit? Who cares who terrorism would help politically, what matters is the people it hurts physicially in the real world. (2) Why are you reinforcing the false norms of people on fox news that republicans are stronger on security? As most anyone can tell you, we are now much LESS safe with the Presidency of George W. Bush

    better luck next universe

    by the new on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 09:59:00 AM PDT

  •  why do the dems (9+ / 0-)

    why do the dems fall into the stupid traps so easily?  

    Republicans go screaming into the night everytime a foreigner says " boo"

    Democrats go screaming into the night everytime a Republican says "boo".

    Pathetic

    Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses.. Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of deaths construction..........

    by pissedpatriot on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:00:07 AM PDT

  •  The Title Here Reminds Me Of (7+ / 0-)

    Kos's "Obama Caves In To Bush" Story.

    There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:01:02 AM PDT

  •  Hillary Orwell Clinton "War is Peace Since 911" (5+ / 0-)

    Am I right?

  •  Hillary Shows Her True Colors (9+ / 0-)

    Hillary and the Republicans are basically one and the same.

    Corporatist, fearmongering anti-progressives.

    I hope that Kossacks that have been supporting her will finally wake up and smell the coffee.

    Today, mine's Columbian..  mmmmm....

    Ned Lamont for US House of Representatives (CT-04) in 2008

    by bincbom on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:03:59 AM PDT

  •  If we had elected Kerry/Edwards (12+ / 0-)

     then we would have already been a long way down the path to defeating the actual terrorists - instead of creating and emboldening new ones.

     We were right - they were wrong -

     Yet Clinton says just the opposite.  Is she auditioning to be Giuliani's running mate?

    •  Ding, ding, ding! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edgery, Boxer7, lenzy1000

      This is exactly what I thought when I read this.  This is a kinder, gentler version of Rudy's "If you vote for  a Democrat, WESA GUNNA DIE!!!!"  Hilary just said, basically, Rudy is right.

      "Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You *are* surrender monkeys." - Meteor Blades to Capitulation Dems

      by RichM on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:09:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is up to us (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RichM, smitha007, lenzy1000

         DC will only change if we make it - and already HRC is trying to blunt any transformational change.  

         The hell of it is - it is only our national security at stake - and staying in a quagmire - lsoing so many sons and daughters - while the resources available to repair our infrastructure sear in the forsaken desert - makes no sense.  

         '08 is our chance - we cna't blow this time.

        •  The worst case scenario... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jorndorff, Boxer7

          Is not President Hilary - it's President Rudy.  She is literally handing this issue over to opponent - especially if it's Rudy.

          "Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You *are* surrender monkeys." - Meteor Blades to Capitulation Dems

          by RichM on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:27:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  such "surrender" = conventional wisdom among (10+ / 0-)

    Establishment Dems, the politicians and their advisors whose "surrenders" have been LOSING elections for us for years.

    see dday's great diary from last month, re: an encounter at the CA Dem convention with top CA Dem Party advisor, Bob Mulholland:

    In increasingly out-of-touch fashion, he claimed that there will be another terrorist attack between now and next November, that the public will run into the arms of the Republicans as a cause of that, and that Democrats are essentially helpless to do anything about that.

    This, of course, completely neglects what has happened in this country since the war in Iraq, and how America has given up on the idea of "strong on defense" Republicans, particularly given the facts of today's NIE, which suggests that, nearly 6 years after 9/11, precious little has been done to protect the homeland.

    Consultant X (I'm going with Consultant X from this point forward) argued that none of that matters, that people will trust Republicans more on security.  This is a DEMOCRATIC consultant, mind you.  Apparently he's made a conclusion that it's impossible for Democrats to argue that the imperial adventure in Iraq, that ignoring our allies, that engaging in horrific acts like suspension of habeas corpus and torture, that inflaming the Muslim world, has made us less safe.  In fact, he said that any Presidential candidate basing their campaign out of "getting us out of Iraq" will lose..... So he would squander the historic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to capitalize on a trashed Republican brand by utilizing the one significant issue on which Democrats and Americans are in perfect agreement.  This guy is PAID to advise Democrats.

     

    •  just like to add one more ddayism from that diary (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, Yoshimi, chumley, jorndorff, lenzy1000

      that I think describes the losing strategy of Mulholland and other Democrats like Clinton fearful to challenge the GOP "national security" bullshit:

      This is a 30-year strategist who consistently spouted the "play not to lose" line of attack over the "play to win."  

      Except I'd edit that to read:

      "spouted the "play not to lose" line of DEFENSE over the "play to win" attack."

  •  How's your mom? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, lisastar, lenzy1000

    Dear Hillary: PLEASE just sit down and STFU.  God.

    "Well, senility aside, he was competent." -- Darksyde on "terrific" President Ronald Reagan, 7/17/07

    by Mehitabel9 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:10:48 AM PDT

  •  Considering that the GWOT Is A Fraud, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, chillindame, rrheard, lenzy1000

    to cede competence to the GOP above the Dems regarding the bu$$$h$t War On Terror implies they alone should deal with it if it happens.

    This frames the Repubs as the true protectors of the Homeland. To submit like this is a fundamental undermining of Dem credability.

    An unfortunate situation.

    "Is this manly?" - Saddam

    by Saint Saddam on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:13:43 AM PDT

  •  This is exactly why I love Hillary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, campskunk, Caldonia, KnowVox

    ...she's staking out fail-safe positions on virtually every issue, including terrorism, to make sure she doesn't give the Republicans an inch of advantage, anywhere, no matter what.  After two straight HORRIBLY-run Democratic presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004 (sorry, Gore, Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards), she is not going to see us lose this one.

    Clinton '08 // Putting People First

    by Berkeley Vox on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:15:34 AM PDT

  •  She is TOAST. Pew Poll (yesterday)... (13+ / 0-)

    No Crossover Appeal for Hillary:

    "Among the leading Democrats, Obama and John Edwards have higher overall favorability ratings than Clinton (64% and 61% respectively, among voters who could rate them). Each of these candidates also has far greater political crossover appeal than does Clinton."

    Turn the page.

  •  Boy I hope she gets some enlightenment.... (6+ / 0-)

    ...on this issue.  But that kind of talk kicks her way down my list of desired nominees.

    As we used to say in the program, HRC seems to have some stinkin' thinkin' goin' on.

    Andy
    Alton IL

    Chazak, chazak, v'nitzacheik - Be strong, be strong, and let us strengthen one another.

    by AAbshier on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:17:41 AM PDT

  •  you said this says it all... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, Yoshimi

    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."

  •  Just like Kerry conceded the war issue in 2004 (9+ / 0-)

    In August 2004, Kerry said knowing everything he knew then (Iraq had no WMDs and no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11), he would still have voted for the war. I said that day, "he just lost the election" since he had just neutralized the issue on which Bush should have been most vulnerable.

    Karl Rove is no genius but the one thing he did understand is that you have to challenge your opponent on what is perceived as his/her biggest strength. This should be particularly easy when that perceived strength is based on a pack of lies, but Hillary wants to just concede the point that Republicans are "strong on terror" so she can run on things like achieving universal health coverage "by the end of my second term." Yeah, that'll turn out voters for her in droves!

  •  Jesus. (5+ / 0-)

    We're not even quite into the primary season yet, and she's already ripping a gaping hole in the hull of S.S. Democrat.

    We really don't like you, Hillary.  We really don't!

    Shut up and impeach.

    by HarveyMilk on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:24:54 AM PDT

  •  This is the last straw. (8+ / 0-)

    I am now officially committed to any candidate that points out the obvious fact that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

    If one of them has the guts to say it, they have my vote.

    "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." J.S. Mill

    by Thaddaeus Toad on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:27:32 AM PDT

  •  Change title of diary to (5+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton Surrenders to GOP. That sounds more like it. I'm really starting to worry about this woman and what she is really up to. I'm thinking the Dibold machines might go in her favor this time because she will do whatever she is told to do.

  •  I am going to be in a really (7+ / 0-)

    difficult position if HRC gets the Democratic nomination. Like you, I believe in supporting the Democratic presidential contender. But I can't get around my distaste for Clinton, for her seeming lack of political courage, which takes the form of endless pandering to the neoconservatives, and to the corporations that fund her. That she is so well-funded, that we are being asked to take her seriously as a "progressive" candidate, speaks to the grave sickness of our electoral system.

    Edwards isn't perfect, either, but has won my whole-hearted support, for articulating an unequivocal, detailed plan for healthcare reform. His words tell me he means business.

    I haven't heard Hillary articulate an unequivocal, detailed plan for any desperately needed progressive reform. That tells me she doesn't mean business. It troubles me very much.

  •  Unchangeable Candidate (5+ / 0-)

    Bush Sr.
    Bill Clinton.
    Bush Jr.
    Hillary Clinton.

    Hillary is the "more of the same" candidate. America and the world have changed since 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000. Hillary has not changed, except to become more like a Bush (universal government healthcare, anyone? Iraq War was a mistake?).

    Vote for Hillary if you want more of the same endless Bush/Clinton cycle that's getting us nowhere. But is wearing a track down into the ground we'll never get out of.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:33:03 AM PDT

  •  thank you for saying this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, okamichan13, smitha007, lenzy1000

    The only thing more outrageous than the Repugs' manipulation of terror and fear for purely political advantage is the Dems' willingness to play along, and that goes not just for Hillary but for Pelosi, Reid et al.  And I'm disappointed at Hillary for trying to take this particularly despicable play from the Repug playbook to use against her Dem opponents.  It's disturbing to say the least.

  •  How is this surrender? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, Pacifist, Edgar08

    President McDoucherson scared the crap out of Americans in 2002 and 2004 by and won, big time, both elections.  

    Hillary is saying here that if Republicans try pulling that fear crap again in 2008, she's best equipped to fight those attacks.  

    What's the difference between this and Edwards saying, just yesterday, that he's best equipped to take on corporations?  Is that "surrending" the issue to Republicans?

    Listen, I'm a big Hillary supporter, and I think this comment was stupid--what's the point of saying this?  Shouldn't your surrogates be making this argument?  Why say this now?  A rare slip-up in an otherwise great campaign so far.  But equating Hillary's comment to "surrender" of the issue to Republicans is so very, very, hyperbolic, in my ever-so-humble opinion.

    "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

    by LiberalVirginian on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:35:42 AM PDT

    •  Sigh - she began by saying (5+ / 0-)

       a terrorist attack would be good for Republicans.

       Instead of saying that the reason for it is because we voted Republican in '04.  Goodness - this ain't that tough.

       She has capitulated - you may think it hyperbolic - what many of us see as hyperbolic is the claim that HRC advance American ideals and principles.

      •  Do you have any evidence (0+ / 0-)

        any at all to support your belief that a terrorist attack would be bad for conservatives?

        When has that EVER been the case in the past?

      •  She was clearly speaking politically... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg

        I think a strong case can be made that 9/11 was good for Republicans, politically, because they exploited the hell out of all of our fears and won big in the polls, twice.  If another terrorist attack occurs, Democrats need to be damn well sure we won't let the fear tactics of 2002 and 2004 repeat themselves.  

        That's what she's saying--politically, Republicans have benefitted greatly from 9/11, and should another terrorist attack occur, we need to do a better job, politically, than we did in 2002 and 2004.  It's horribly stupid of the candidate to advance such a politically "horse-racy" argument using terms that can easily be taken out of context (again, why didn't some staffer say this instead of Hillary?  Dumb, dumb, dumb)

        But "surrender" of the issue, in perpetuity, until November 2008?  Geez.

        "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

        by LiberalVirginian on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:04:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Same old failed Centrist tactics... (7+ / 0-)

    that have kept the Democratic Party out in the wilderness all these years.

    Fear your opponent.  
    Don't fight him.

    Run away from issues.  
    Don't confront them.

    Hillary may call herself a Progressive, but at least as far as election strategies go, she simply doesn't get how to play the game.

    "Fear is not the natural state of civilized people." - Aung San Suu Kyi

    by Night Owl on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:37:27 AM PDT

  •  Clinton's analysis right. Terrorists good for Rep (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, Berkeley Vox

    It's a clear and correct political assessment by Clinton.  A terrorist attack always causes a rally round the chief effect.

    By talking about it now, Clinton will help to counter the election effects of a terrorist attack on US before the 2008 election.

  •  This is the same as Cheney threatening (4+ / 0-)

    America with an attack if we elect a Dem.

    I've always wondered what the Bill Clinton/Bush Sr buddy buddy relationship was all about.

    In my view it was a deal between establishment Dems and Sr. We got Hillary's Presidency and the assurance of some insiders that she'd get a slanted shake from the media, and Sr got to keep Jr out of prison.

    Now I truly wonder what this threat from Clinton is about?

    Am I now suppose to understand that if we don't support her, we're going to get hit again?

    Is Hillary now in on all of this cartel of Neocons, Israelis, and Texas oilmen/Saudis who basically let 3000 Americans die to get their agenda going?

    Don't let Bloomberg/Lieberman08 "Nader" our Democratic unity.

    by Lieberberg Plan on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:40:06 AM PDT

  •  This is another in what I fear is (12+ / 0-)

    a pattern of her promoting herself at the expense of the party.

    She should have said something like, "If there is another attack it will be a direct result of the Republicans' failing to work toward making America safer over the last six years," etc. She should be working toward implanting in people's minds the idea that the GOP sucks on national security.

    Instead she is conceding that another attack will enrich their talking points (something I don't necessarily think is true), and saying that, for some reason, if/when that happens she will be the best candidate (although she doesn't seem to articulate precisely why that is).

  •  Gaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh! (10+ / 0-)

    Boo!  Hiss!

    What does she mean?  "I'm the best of the Democrats to....", what?  Act like a Republican in case of attack?!?!  Surrender liberty at the altar of security and bomb nasty brown people to satisfy winger bloodlust?  THIS IS OUR FRONTRUNNER???????

    Feed me donuts.  I am not voting for this jackass.

  •  War on Terror is a ploy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, feline, lenzy1000

    for political gain.  Just as threats from communism were highly overrated to keep Americans paying for the Military/Industrial Comples, now we have a war on terror which is supposed to last for years and we won't really know when it is over!  Pleeesssse.

    U.S. security will come when we can mind our own business and cooperate with amity with other countries, allowed them to be and remain different that we are.

    Even the Democrats have not ever said the do not agree with the Project for A New American Century and our military's Vision 2020.  Both of those envisiou America as the sole power dominating the world.  I am waiting for somebody other than Kuciniach to repudiate that future.  Otherwise, there is little difference between the right wing Democrats like the DLC, and the Republican position, as they both are support positions of authoritarion privatization.  The Democratic base is left of that, as is most of the country who have made it clear we want our troops so stop being wasted in options wars to protect this destructive economy.  

    We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. -- William Faulkner --

    by Silverbird on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:50:18 AM PDT

  •  Couple o' questions? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pete Rock, emsprater

    Do we know this is true? Does we know what Clinton said or didn't say? (The only source given is the NY Post, and we know what that's worth.)

    Is this a case of "She's right but she just should never say that" (given the empirical "mortality salience" evidence that she is right)
    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...

    We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:50:50 AM PDT

    •  Also reported (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, SecondComing, Boxer7

      by the Concord Monitor, the local paper where she gave the speech.

      It's hard to tackle the full impact of what she said without the full context. The quote itself leaves much to be desired, though, particularly since it's a passive way of framing the issue and never really arrives at just how she's best qualified to take on the GOP exactly. Having been in Washington longer than others isn't a satisfactory answer, imo.

      That's leaving aside the fact that she's already denounced 'engaging in hypotheticals' when it was convenient to do so.

      ...and that she has also denounced Democratic candidates criticizing each other in the past (usually when she herself is being criticized), while in this speech she apparently ripped into John Edwards (though not by name) for not being sufficiently pragmatic. Interestingly, that criticism of Edwards' pragmatism would seem to speak very much to Obama's flavor of politics.

      'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

      by jorndorff on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:06:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Big problem relying on NY Post and others. (0+ / 0-)

      Before running up and posting breathlessly a hysterical "denounce "Hilary"or "Hate Hilary" diary, it would be nice to get the statement and context.

      The problem this week is the Sen.Levin, HRC comments critical of Maliki to the extent of replacing him which is exactly what the RW neocons supporters of Cheney want.

      .

      America has been stolen, your citizenship is a hollow fraud, and you have no power. What will YOU do to reverse these hurts, crimes, outrages?

      by Pete Rock on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:16:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  here's the original account (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pete Rock, emsprater

      http://www.concordmonitor.com/...

      And it shows Hillary's recognition and preparation for everything the GOP amchine can and will throw at our next nominee.

      We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

      by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:31:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It shows quite the opposite (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi

        Starting here:

        Other Democratic candidates "say things like, 'We're going to go and make it happen,' " Clinton said. "You've got to get the votes. . . . And that very often means you've got to compromise, which is not a word that people in a Democratic primary like to hear, because we all want to think that we can just go in and do exactly what we believe in and make it happen. Well, the fact is, you can't."

        Now, obviously that response shows she's stung by John Edwards' "Lincoln Bedroom" speech and it is a response to it. But in the Clinton v. Obama sub-primary, Clinton loses this matter hands down. It is precisely her divisiveness that helped bring her first health care initiatives down to defeat: even as she "compromised" with insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies, she was unable to "reach across the aisle" in any meaningful way legislatively.

        Contrast that with Obama's history - both in the Illinois and the US Senates - of winning over Republicans to support his initiatives without giving away his core principles, and the question of who can "get the votes" is a big advantage for Obama over Clinton.

        Moving on...

        Clinton cast those poll numbers in a positive light yesterday, arguing that years of Republican attacks have already unearthed any potentially damaging information from her past. Running for U.S. Senate from New York, Clinton said she was able to break down those negative impressions by interacting with voters on the campaign trail.

        This contradicts her previous statement in that same article, that:

        Republicans "will go after anybody we nominate. Anyone who thinks that this election will be a runaway because it's so self-evident that we have to have a Democrat I don't think understands the intensity of the campaign that they will run," Clinton said. "It is important that our nominee have no illusions about the difficulty of this race. I have none."

        So, on the one hand, Clinton has "no illusions about the difficulty of this race" but on the other she seems to feel that all the "potentially damaging information from her past" has been "already unearthed." That sounds awfully rosy and naive to me. A New York Senate campaign is not a national campaign: New York voters could give a crap about half the stuff that bothers people in other parts of America. She wasn't vetted on her own Rose Law Firm and Whitewater and other corporate dealings in Arkansas in the New York Senate campaign: all that is virgin material nationwide. It is so entirely different being a family member of a presidential candidate than being that candidate when it comes of the intensity of the scrutiny. Al Gore wasn't even related to Bill Clinton but took big hits in 2000 because of what the Clinton administration had done (and for Bill Clinton's personal problems, which unfairly shed bad light on Gore: certainly Senator Clinton will suffer that to a larger degree than even Gore did). Clinton is showing great naivete with this fantasy that she's been vetted: the vetting has only just begun.

        And part of that vetting occurs when she makes boneheaded statements like those she did yesterday. The "experience" boomerang continues to pummel her on repeat return flights. Most naive of all: She's the one that first threw it into the air.

        Nobody has died as a result of this comment.

        by viralvoice on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:10:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Lincoln Bedroom" is GOP meme-slinging (0+ / 0-)

          I don't think this helps your case.

          And I don't think you have an accurate reconstruction of the Clinton years.

          But if this is your case, shout it loud ... all the way into single digits.

          We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

          by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:35:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Believe Whatever You Want (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yoshimi, LV Pol Girl, lenzy1000

            John Edwards used the term in a speech yesterday. You can call it "GOP meme-slinging" but I think he stands on principle.

            On the merits: Do you think that presidential candidates should give use of the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House over to a constant march of big-donors and big-fundraisers, as the Clinton Administration in the 1990s did?

            That's one of the bad things about the first Clinton White House that we had to swallow back in the 1990s when, yes, the Republicans raised it. A lot of us grew tired of having to swallow that kind of crap in order to defend a mediocre Democratic administration whose only two big accomplishments were bad ones: NAFTA and "welfare reform."

            The Clintons spilled a lot of political capital with crap like that and that has everything to do with why things like health care and an end to mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and so many other initiatives the could have improved millions of lives went down to defeat.

            That kind of "playing it to cute" that is the trademark of the 1990s nostalgia wing of the Democratic Party has lots to do with why G. W. Bush is president today. Democrats cleaning their own house (or White House, in this case) is obligatory if the White House is to be wrestled back in 2008.

            But, clearly, some Clinton supporters want to go back to the la-la-land of "playing it too cute" instead of picking their fights on the big issues that help millions of people, and not perques for the people that already have millions.

            Nobody has died as a result of this comment.

            by viralvoice on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:47:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You sound like DLC (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vivacia

            all the way into single digits.

            A DLC member would certainly know about that since they practically ruined the Democratic Party.

            "PC Load Letter"? What the fuck does that mean?

            by gjohnsit on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:52:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  After reading that comment by Hillary on terror (8+ / 0-)

    FUCK her I won't vote for her in a general election under any circumstances now, If Obama doesn't get the nomination I'll wait to support him till 2012.

    OBAMA--because 51% isn't enough!

    by nevadadem on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:50:54 AM PDT

  •  Karl Rove still rocks her world! (10+ / 1-)

    It's like she's pining for him, or something.  Reminded me of this:  

    A savage place! as holy and enchanted
    As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted
    By woman wailing for her demon lover!

    • Kubla Khan, Samuel Taylor Coleridge

    .

  •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    decembersue, jxg

    Where do you people see this as a surrender of the terror issue?

    I thought by clicking this diary I was going to see some kind of quote of her saying that she would not change any terror policies because George Bush has made us safe, instead I see what people here have pondered for years when talking about what a terrorist attack would do politically--that it might help George Bush and rally people to the GOP.

    That was an observation, it was not a surrendering of the issue. This diary is pathetic and people seeing in her comment what simply isn't there is quite extraordinary.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:00:23 AM PDT

  •  what an asshat! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, jimmyboyo, smitha007, lenzy1000

    Which is exactly the same thing I said yesterday about her Maliki comments. In both cases, it is true, of course. REAL leaders please.

    "We didn't create this fetid political swamp, we just live in it." - Digby

    by Whigsboy on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:00:44 AM PDT

  •  Damn! How stupid can you get? (7+ / 0-)

    If Hillary Rodham Clinton is so inconceivably retarded as to believe that the Republicans have been EFFECTIVE at fighting terrorism, God help us.  In fact, the situation on terror DEMANDS a classic Rovian response from us.  Namely, hit them where they are SUPPOSEDLY strongest, on terror.  There is NOT ONE shred of evidence to support this conclusion.  In fact, the opposite is true.  We should be pounding the hell out of the GOP on this issue, and to a large extent, this issue alone, because it's all they THINK they have left.  

    This idiotic statement could and should destroy Clinton's chance of winning the nomination.  

    •  Two shreds of evidence: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YellowDogBlue

      There is NOT ONE shred of evidence to support this conclusion.

      Um, a Republican was President, read a report title "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside US", said Republican President did nothing, Bin Laden attacked inside US.  

      Exhibit A: Election of 2002
      Exhibit B: Election of 2004

      Clinton never said Republicans were "EFFECTIVE at fighting terrorism".  She they are effective at exploiting the fear of terrorism to win elections.  I think she's absolutely right.

      "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

      by LiberalVirginian on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:08:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not Only That (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YellowDogBlue

        She said she'd be the best at fighting Republicans exploiting Terrorism.

        There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

        by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:18:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Semantics (0+ / 0-)

        Using no indefinite pronouns:  

        Perhaps HRC did mean that the GOP has been effective at exploiting the fear of terrorism, instead of effective at fighting terrorism.  What the media will say and the public will hear is one thing:  an attack favors Republicans.  The opposite SHOULD be true.

  •  HRC statements designed to stay in "lead" (6+ / 0-)

    not to be leader. Her connections among many in the media, long standing favors owed, and a long reach among regular Dem Party ops and big donors = lead.

     The de facto pro Bush statements like echoing call for Maliki to be replaced, and concessions to Republican "strength" on terror issues are downright awful.

     She gives out these statements assuming she is ahead and only needs to avoid taking a big swing the "wrong" way on some topic in the media.

     Most Americans no longer trust Bush or are very wary of what he has planned. Clinton should acknowledge that a  terror event very near an election would be viewed as a possible pro Repub PR stunt by many in America.  Saying it is a possibility now would defuse such a stunt ocurring later. Recall the "Bin Laden " videos prior to Nov 2004?
     

     Her current strategy based on the shallowness of traditional media reportage of politics might  work enough for her to snatch the nomination, but it is a real hollow feeling to know this is a manipulation just like any of the statements of the Repubs.

    America has been stolen, your citizenship is a hollow fraud, and you have no power. What will YOU do to reverse these hurts, crimes, outrages?

    by Pete Rock on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:04:17 AM PDT

  •  I gotta agree (4+ / 0-)

    and am baffled that every single time I turn on the tee-vee or MSM of any kind, the meme is put forth that HRC is unstoppable and has the unwavering support of almost all Democrats.

    Judging by this thread alone, they couldn't have gotten it more wrong.

    And for the 'Pugs, HRC's nomination is a foregone conclusion. WTF? It's very frustrating.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:13:13 AM PDT

  •  GOP wants Hillary to run (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smitha007, lenzy1000, invisiblewoman
    1. they think they can tear her to shreds and win
    1. if they can't defeat her at least they will only have Hillary to deal with.

    The vice president is the single greatest threat to American and international security in the world today...Scott Ritter.

    by lisastar on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:15:37 AM PDT

  •  Yet another refl3ection of her bunker mentality. (5+ / 0-)

    She's got a set of attitudes that are shaped by the 90s.  One of those attitudes is that Reps still "own" national security.  Another reflection is the fact that she doesn't think she can do anyting on her number one domestic priority until (possibly) her second term.  Another reflection is her "disciplined" campaign.  Well, "disciplined" is the nice way of putting it.  The not so nice way is that she's obscuring her positions through intentional ambiguity and refusing to answer "hypothetical" questions.

    This is not the kind of campaign we need to be running if we're going to win a progressive mandate.

  •  "If you want it to rain, wash your car"... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, lenzy1000, invisiblewoman

    ...The rationale doesn't follow that because there's been no terrorist attack, that it's because the repubs have made us "safer"!

    That's about as logical as this statement:
    "My neighbor cut down all of his trees. There hasn't been a hurricane in our town since. If there's no trees around none will hit my house. My neighbor has made me safe by cutting down his trees".

    The term "terrorism" means the mental act of terrorizing, whether or not there's an actual concomitant physical event causing the result or the effect.

    By that standard, who has terrorized us the most? The terrorists or Mister Bush and his repubs? Who has consistently used Osama bin Ladin as their "terrorism poster boy" and sole reason to keep the GWOT on the front burner? Mister Bush and his repub enablers, that's who! Who has failed to stop the one beating heart that killed 2750 Americans on 9/11? Who has, in spite of the best military technology in the world, not been able to locate and kill OBL? Yet, he seems to find no problem accessing our TVs anytime he wants to with his latest terrorist plot!

    And we Dems continue to let Mister Bush off the hook, even letting him lay the blame at OUR feet! But I'm not going to let them get away with it this time! And neither should you.

    What's wrong with picture? Now comes Hillary Clinton all but surrendering the national security issue to the repubs once again! Incredulous!

    So it does not logically follow that the reason we've had no physical event since 9/11 is because of Bush's policies. The terrorists have already won! Why attack us when their goals are already realized? Aren't we bogged down in two wars? Aren't we already spending ourselves into bankruptcy? Why then, logically speaking, should we be vulnerable to another attack when their goals are nearly complete? Are we NOT already sufficiently terrorized, politically polarized, and near economic ruin?

    I'd say their mission is nearly a fait accompli.

    08.04.07 It took the Titanic longer to sink than for the 110th Congress to surrender to Bush.

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:19:09 AM PDT

  •  If this is the voice of experience (5+ / 0-)

    ...we're in big trouble.

    Clinton should be totally  pre-emptively grabbing the frame that if there is an attack prior to 2008--it's Bush's fault  (please supply your own caps b/c I am saying it very loudly) and this absolutely proves it.

    All the Dems should be saying this all the time until it's a cultural meme.

    It's called immunizing the public and with all her boasting of being the experienced candidate she should know this and be doing it. It's really Politics 101 stuff.

  •  Hillary Clinton (D-Stockholm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jimmyboyo, lenzy1000

    Syndrome)

  •  The real diaster of the statement... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, lenzy1000, invisiblewoman

    ""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."

    is that it is just ambiguous enough to me alot of differnt things to different people.  By the use of the words "horrible prospect" it could mean that if there is another attack it would help the Republicans.  That is how most would take it imo.  But in typical HRC fashion, she is ambiguous enough that this statement is devoid of a clear meaning for which she can be held to account.        

    My trust-o-meter is busted and my give-a-damn is barely hanging on.

    by chillindame on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:26:56 AM PDT

  •  Using the "Fear Factor" is a no-win strategy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, Yoshimi, Pithy Cherub

    It doesn't work anymore - whether it's "be afraid of terorists" or "be afraid of Republican victory in 2008".

    Forcing the voters to find a positive message in the rhetoric isn't going to help, IMO.

  •  Attaboy Chumley! nt (4+ / 0-)

    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,,,they never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and neither do we" G W Bush

    by irate on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:34:21 AM PDT

  •  FOLKS! NY Senator is running against mayor of NY (0+ / 0-)

    Two things, whether you care to listen to them or not:

    1. if we're hit with a terrorist attack, its rally time around the President -- plain-n-simple, irrefutable, the nation will rally around Bush. Its obvious beyond argument.
    1. if we're not hit with a terrorist attack, then its Gulliani playing "9/11 - America's mayor" and pandering to the basest of fears and xenophobia in the red states (and rural sections of blue states...like upstate NY...).

    Assumming #1 doesnt happen, then HRC, outside of Schumler, is the only Democratic leader who can claim she is more knowledgable, more experienced and as a result, better equipped to fight terror than other Democrats because it was her state, her constituents which were attacked and killed on 9/11.  

    So, one year from now, assuming HRC is the Democratic candidate and Gulliani is the GOP candidate, Hillary will have to fight the Democrat's fight perception of "who's better against terrorism?" on the national stage -- and whether you like it or not, she's not surrendering a thing.

    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

    by dcrolg on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:35:59 AM PDT

    •  Again, spare us the crap. (6+ / 0-)

      I am sorry did she exercise some crucial or critical decisions on 9/11 as a U.S. Senator.  Did she direct first responders at 9/11?  No and No.  Being a U.S. senator from New York doesn't make you more knowledgeable about fighting terror.

      It is all about good judgement. HRC exhibited her judgement by giving Bush & Co. a blank check on Iraq.

    •  What are you talking about? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, lenzy1000

      What kind of revisionist kool-aid drinking logic it this? Just like Hillary, you are playing within the Republican frame. Because Sen. Clinton's state was hit, she is just automatically the "best qualified" to fight terror? That is the frame and that is total BS. This is twisted logic that has been reinforced by the Bush admin. for the last six years. It plays right into the Repub rhetoric that Bush is best qualified to fight terror because he was president when the attacks on 9/11 happened. I thought this logic to be total BS on 9/12/01 and it still is. And Rudy being anointed Mr. 9/11 is another insane claim. He did hold a good press conference, I'll give him that. But what did he do? He walked the streets because he stupidly put the emergency center at the World Trade Center and HE HAD NO PLACE TO GO! We to need re-frame this twisted logic, not play into it. By the way, Ray Nagin was mayor when the disaster hit New Orleans, is he the disaster expert? Rudy was mayor was when the Yankees won three championships. I guess he is the baseball expert too! This logic is just insane. A real leader will stop perpetuating this lunacy not reinforce it as Sen. Clinton has done. Oh and by the way, “The surge is working!”

      •  It doesnt matter how it plays here; it matters... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emsprater

        ...how it plays in a few red (purple actually) states, the states we need in 2008 to win -- the few states we didn't have but could have used in 2000 and 2004.  

        Don't underestimate how powerful terror still is in the mind of the voters.  For many, it will come down to the base case -- who is the best qualified to handle terror.  Right now, right or wrong, the 9/11 images are viscerally burned on many voters minds -- its irrational to be sure, and it will be difficult to reframe.  Rudy obvisouly plays into that.

        In order for any Democrat to go toe-to-toe to those powerful images, that Democrats will have to convince many voters of their abilities.  The only who can is Hillary -- many senators when running for president have used their Senate votes and debates to profile themselvs int he voters minds.  Only HRC, in commercials with voiceovers and on the debate circuit can talk about the terror in NY as a NY senator.

        This is about marketing, not kool-aid.  I want the gOP to challenge us and I want us to win.  I dont want a candidate that will talk hypotheticals about fighting terror -- I want someone on the stage talking to the camera about what it was like and what they tried to do about it.

        Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

        by dcrolg on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:37:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't count on Rudy to be the Repug nominee. (0+ / 0-)
        •  You are wrong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sphealey, dennisk

          You will not win within this frame against any Republican.  A red state war bully is going to vote repub no matter who the dems run. Have you seen the repub debates? They should just drop their pants determine whose is bigger and declare their nominee. The dialouge needs to change. No Dem will win playing within this republican frame. WHo willl a red state bully vote for; Hillary saying I was in NY during 9/11 or a lunatic like Romney saying, "Double Guantanamo!" No dem can out do a repub for the lunatic vote. This IS marketing and you will never Out Coke Coka-Cola, look at Pepsi. Now there's Red Bull, it's not coke, they changed the entire frame of what a youth oriented drink is. You are right it is marketing, but like anything it has be executed properly.  Change the frame.

          •  Slim, take a look at KS (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            emsprater

            in 2006, Sebelius, our democratic governor has been able to have moderate GOPers run for statewide offices after they switched to Democrat.  If it can happen in KS, at the state and local level -- to have GOPers switch parties -- it can be expanded to national levels.

            She needs a few red states to change colors. And its no longer too far out of the realm of possibility.

            Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

            by dcrolg on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:23:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The War on Terror was won on Flight 93 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sphealey

          The War on Terror does NOT depend upon who is POTUS.

          True Americans will REJECT the idea that we need to be protected. We will protect ourselves.

          We tell America the truth.

          At times a handful of loonies might get lucky and kill a few people. But we need to be strong and NOT BE AFRAID. Remember, every dies someday. Everyone.

          We the people fought back on Flight 93, and won.

          No POTUS necessary.

          Democracy is a constant conversation and if we value democracy, our conversation can't be over, yet.

          by Bill White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:51:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I dont disagree Bill, but (0+ / 0-)

            I believe you give the average voter too much credit.  Its easier to react to fear.

            Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

            by dcrolg on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:26:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  With this logic, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, lenzy1000

      anyone in DC (also hit) is qualified to be President.

    •  We must NEVER surrender the Constitution (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, lenzy1000

      and it appears you and Hillary are willing to surrender it for a song.

      Do NOT BE AFRAID of Islamic hoodlums or yahoos who desire to be lead by a powerful leader rather than remain FREE people.

      The America you describe is not worth defending.

      Democracy is a constant conversation and if we value democracy, our conversation can't be over, yet.

      by Bill White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:48:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •   Points made by diarist are Repub basic themes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Electric Slim

    "No attack" supposedly, since 9/11/2001 means?    
    It means al Queda USA hasn't put together an effective USA attack plan similar to the impact of NYC/Sept 2001. There have been a bunch of much smaller scale and amateurish attempts.

      If there is  a large scale terrorist attack actually happening inside the USA from any source, what does that mean?

    1. It could be a systemic failure of the defense.
    1. It could be a new grouping not yet known to the intelligence and counterterrorism agencies.
    1. It could be like the anthrax attacks, an inside job with some black bag special ops or corrupted government types.

    Of all the possibilities, I  would lean on #3 as being likely if it happens close to Nov 2008.

    Between now and elections I would explain and refute Republican talking points about global, not specific  countries and situations, "warronterra"
    as Bush psychological war propaganda to sell Republicans.

    America has been stolen, your citizenship is a hollow fraud, and you have no power. What will YOU do to reverse these hurts, crimes, outrages?

    by Pete Rock on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:37:44 AM PDT

  •  wow. this is as nitpicky as it gets (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, emsprater, carneystaff

    she's talking tactics. I see no surrender here. Are candidates not allowed to talk about various scenarios that might play out? She explicitly says they don't deserve the favoritism they receive during crises. And if you don't think authoritarians get a free pass during national crises, you haven't been paying attention.

    I don't get this at all.  Somebody page me when she turns into Michelle Bachmann. Then I'll be interested.

    •  You mean talk (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, Yoshimi, lenzy1000

      "hypotheticals"? She's doing that now.

      You candidate is full of shit, your only option is to use bullshit to defend her because the truth has an anti-Hillary bias.

      •  "My candidate"? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, emsprater, carneystaff

        Is Barack Obama.  And I don't feel it does him any favors to buy into false arguments like the one in this diary.

        Thanks for playing.

      •  you are completely out of line (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pete Rock, o really

        and ridiculous. Get a grip and stop insulting people.    The person you are addressing is not full of shit and in fact Clinton is not "her candidate".
        I am debating troll rating you.  On one hand, it is hardly the worst attack I have seen, but on the other, people around here are going to have to get use to the fact that Clinton is the front runner in the democratic primary and the lying about her and bullying anyone who supports her is counter productive and not worthy of this site.
        As usual this diary is crap. Matt Y.  Has cherry picked what Clinton said.  Mis-characterized it and the diarist has further mis-characterized her.
        The fact that 99 percent of democrats never see this site is why she is doing so well in the polls.  It is amazing to me that so many people aroung here are act like such a mindless mob and wonder why you are all so out of touch with the rest of the country.

        •  Well said (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yoshimi, lenzy1000

          "The fact that 99 percent of democrats never see this site is why she is doing so well in the polls. " I could not have said this any better. Most of the country just follows the marching orders of the MSM and advertisements. This is a popularity and money contest. That is why Sen. Clinton is leading. And don’t forget, "The surge is working!"

    •  She's delivering a GOP message (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, Yoshimi, jimmyboyo

      If this had been, say, Wolf Blitzer saying the same thing I'm pretty sure it'd be panned here and on MediaMatters.  

      Obama got nailed for repeated GOP themes about religion.

      You simply do not "catapult the propaganda" for them.
      .

    •  Tactics: Thats why people are so upset! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, Sparhawk, Yoshimi, jimmyboyo

      She is all tactics, and completely at the expense of strategy.

      The Clinton's hurt the party because they were thinking tactically. The Bush campaign in 2000 set up the GOP so well because they thought strategically (of course, they've since blown that).

      Clinton's campaign so far has been 100% about a series of small tactical victories without building a long term strategy.

      Her tactical victories are about her "experience" but that only paints her to be set up later by Obama, in a strategic sense, as the insider candidate in an election about change.

      And this is the way she will govern. Polls, polls, polls -- all tactics, always thinking about how to survive today and tomorrow as opposed to how to build a movement with long term viability.

      This is a gaffe. We'll see what kind of attention it gets. She's been lucky so far in that the press has given her a pass on all her mistakes. That will end in a few months, and she'll have no strategic raison d'etre for her campaign to fall back on.

      •  I don't see it picked up yet (0+ / 0-)

        Only one article in the NY Post so far.

        Apparently she was just fielding questions from some supporters.

        I'm sorry.  Drudge has picked this up.  So there you go!

        There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

        by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:42:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Did you even READ the statement? (0+ / 0-)

        or do you make your assertion about "gaffe" based on second hand accounts, like the diarist selectively quoting the Concord Monitor's paragraph? Which was a snippet,  BTW, not even the main fraction of what she talked about.

         It is just like the traditional media to give us a caricature and just like  some partisans who are other Kossacks, unfortunately, infatuated with one or the other candidates to hop on and take a swipe.

        It is too bad. It really is. When it is partisans of other Dem candidates doing the hatcheting and sliming, not even our outside enemies.

        Buying Rethug tactics, frames and ways of doing politics. Ugh.

        BTW, I have criticized said candidate as much as I have praised her. You?

        America has been stolen, your citizenship is a hollow fraud, and you have no power. What will YOU do to reverse these hurts, crimes, outrages?

        by Pete Rock on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:54:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read the statement. eom (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sphealey, Yoshimi
          •  False statement (0+ / 0-)

            the Republicans propose, and Democrats like Clinton support, the following idea:

            If there are no terrorist attacks in the United States before 2008, this is a big WIN for the Bush and the GOP. It shows that they know how to keep us safe.
            AND...

            If there is a devastating terrorist attack in the United States before 2008, this is also a big WIN for Bush and the GOP.  It shows that we need them to keep us safe.

            the part in italics is the diarists' ideas, NOT anything Clinton said.

            Start by critiquing her statement in context. Repubs love this meme. In fact "warronterra" is their construct which NOBODY in the world (other countries) supports or even mentions except Howard of Australia.

             Even the Brits are making a point of disavowing Blair's old echoes of Bush. They are specifically not using Bush's language. So picking up, embellishing a statement and passing it off as if "Bush/Clinton" said it is disinformation.

            Republican propaganda in your comment from their media. Think about it.

            America has been stolen, your citizenship is a hollow fraud, and you have no power. What will YOU do to reverse these hurts, crimes, outrages?

            by Pete Rock on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:13:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know what Clinton said (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sphealey, Yoshimi, lenzy1000

              and I know what words are the Diarists.

              Perhaps if you want to change my mind, you should stop condescending to me.

              The fact is that I agree with the diarists' interpretation full stop. I had the exact same reaction when I read her quote.

              Her arguement, in context, is at best a below the belt smack at Obama as being not credible against terrorism. It is certainly that.

              It is also though, a promotion of the right wing frame that being hawkish and catering to the rules of the game that THEY set up is the only way to win.

              •  That's Not the Argument (0+ / 0-)

                The argument is that she will be better than Obama at dealing with how the Right Wing exploits the issue.

                I don't know anyone who isn't saying it could have been said better.  (And I believe she can hone the message in a more formal setting and not the discusssion Q&A being reported here.)

                But that's the argument.

                There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

                by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:46:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK then... (0+ / 0-)

                  it begs the question... WHY does she think she would be better?

                  The rest of us know her answer to that question, which is what we're fucking pissed off about.

                  The fact that y'all think we don't "get" what she's technically saying is particularly condescending.

                  •  What Do You Think (0+ / 0-)

                    The Answer is that is so obvious to everyone?

                    I think it's cause she has a record of fighting the Republican Smear Machine that thrives off of exploiting Terror.

                    There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

                    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:45:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Its because she thinks her (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sphealey

                      hawkish behavior in particular and willingness to call other Democrats "naive" will isolate her and give her more credibility.

                      •  Oh Right (0+ / 0-)

                        That's what it is.

                        Well it could be worse.  She could be out there portraying Democrats as owned by Corporations.  That'll really help the Party Image.

                        Anyway.  We disagree.  

                        I like my Answer better.

                        There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

                        by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:18:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  That's no better (0+ / 0-)

                  Even if you are right, she is still resorting to demagoguery and using fear in an attempt to win votes. We can do better than that.

                  If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

                  by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:30:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

                    Unless you mean the more legitimate fear that we could end up with a Candidate who is not prepared to handle the way Wingers exploit terror.

                    She might be trying to exploit that fear.

                    There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

                    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:34:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  If you do not see surredner here (0+ / 0-)

      BUY SOME NEW GLASSES!

      And then read up on Overton windows and framing.

      Democracy is a constant conversation and if we value democracy, our conversation can't be over, yet.

      by Bill White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:56:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I regularly defend Hillary (7+ / 0-)

    against the various false attacks we see here regularly but she blew this one.

    Do not cede ground, any ground whatsoever, to republicans!

    "Parlimentary inquiry Mr. Speaker... does whining come out of my time?"

    by Andrew C White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:54:57 AM PDT

    •  As a supporter, maybe you can talk her (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, lenzy1000

      into not commenting on hypotheticals.

      •  I didn't say I was a supporter (0+ / 0-)

        I'm staying with Gore until November.

        I said I defend her against the b.s false attacks.

        I know her staff, particularly her internet staff, already have the message.

        Peace,

        Andrew

        "Parlimentary inquiry Mr. Speaker... does whining come out of my time?"

        by Andrew C White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:00:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  go up and read Talex (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      o really

      his comments explains what she actually said in context.  The diarist and Matt Y got it wrong.

      •  No, they didn't get it wrong (0+ / 0-)

        I've read the text of her comments. Sen. Clinton got it wrong.

        "Parlimentary inquiry Mr. Speaker... does whining come out of my time?"

        by Andrew C White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:58:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is much ado about nothing (0+ / 0-)

        I took carneystaff's advice and through much scrolling and squinting found Talex's comment.  Talex takes the statement apart and breaks it down, correctly.

        In this day and age of sound bites, it's difficult to convey a complex issue in 20 seconds.  Hillary Clinton   statement is not the clearest of statements but must she, every time she speaks, say "GOP, bad! Democrats, good!",  after every statement that may be misinterpreted?  Matt Yglesias, seems to be trying to gauge intent instead of figuring out what she actually means.

  •  This and the 'some success' remark (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sphealey, Yoshimi, jimmyboyo

    have me thinking, and I'm thinking that she's campaigning as though she has the Dem nomination sewn up, that the Dem base will vote for her no matter what because she's better than anyone the Repubs put up.  Consequently, she's taking us for granted (the worst we'll do is not vote) and starting to court Republican voters using the R "terror" message.  

    Frankly, I think she's wrong to take the left for granted, but she has the best pollsters money can buy, and she's nothing if not calculating.

  •  National Security (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jimmyboyo

    This diary perfectly explains why Wes Clark MUST be our VP nominee- so that, for the first time in four decades, the Democrats won't get absolutely whooped on the national security debate in this country.

    This diary also perfectly explain why Hillary just can't be our Presidential nominee.

  •  Hillary thinks/knows a false flag attack is comin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, jimmyboyo, invisiblewoman

    And yet, instead of helping filibuster the FISA amendment, she is enabling these people?!?

  •  As I have stated before, (6+ / 0-)

    her interests are entirely those of her class, not those of the people at large.
    If you want more of the same, vote for Ms. Clinton.
    She represents everything that has been, every machination against the people, every manipulation of the media, and every war crime.
    She has no motivation to change anything.  She is completely satisfied with everything as it is.
    She will create a consensus if people decide that she's all there is.
    She is counting not on your hope, but on your resignation.

    •  About as coherent an argument... (0+ / 0-)

      that I can offer, is this:

      If you want more of the same, vote for Ms. Clinton.

      ?

      She represents everything that has been, every machination against the people, every manipulation of the media, and every war crime.

      ??

      She has no motivation to change anything.  She is completely satisfied with everything as it is.

      ????

      She will create a consensus if people decide that she's all there is.

      ??????????

      She is counting not on your hope, but on your resignation.

      ????????????????????????

      "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

      by LiberalVirginian on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:15:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well (7+ / 0-)

    Im sure glad she's got (washington) experience eh? Because someone without it might have said something stupid!

    /Snark

    "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl. Unbossed.com

    by cdreid on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:25:32 PM PDT

  •  Hillary continues to disappoint (4+ / 0-)

    on style and substance when it comes to foreign policy and her ever present triangulation of the day's realities.

    Weak Hillary, that was just weak!

    Every time history repeats itself the price goes up - Anon. Share the pricey do over at Mind Sorbet

    by Pithy Cherub on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:34:09 PM PDT

  •  Michelle Obama has something to say about this (8+ / 0-)

    At a rally in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Michelle Obama showed just how fiery we can expect her to be as her husband's battle for the Democratic nomination heats up.

    "Think! Listen!" she implored during an impassioned introduction of her husband today, "The game of politics is to make you afraid, so that you don't think!"

    Her introduction was a super-charged version of Barack Obama’s stump speech, which has increasingly vilified the bleak status quo of a rigid Washington establishment. But where he, highlights hope, his wife warned today of the consequences of fear. Jabbing a pointed finger in the air, she derided a political system in which "every decision that we've made over the past 10 years wasn't FOR something, but was because people told us we had to fear something."

    She put a hard edge on her husband’s "war that never should have been waged" applause line, too, exclaiming, "We are in this war because for eight years; we were told to be afraid!"

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

    Hillary is playing right into the Obama campaign's strategic vision for this race, in which they plan to peak in January. Will she be smart enough to stop making statements like this? I don't think so.

    Its in her DNA. Part of it is generational -- boomer/vietnam era stuff -- but most of the rest of it dates back 15 years ago. She just has this thing where she instinctively fears/panders to the right. Its an inferiority complex. She can't help it, and if we think its going to stop when she gets into the WH, we are kidding ourselves.

    •  Where did you come from? (0+ / 0-)

      Just curious.  
      Your userid is recent.  
      I don't mean to be suspicious or anything but it seems like a lot of you just popped out of the woodwork lately.  Your message seems to prick at the fears everyone has had about Clinton.  
      I'm pretty sure that many lefty bloggers are clobbering her today reflexively without thinking about what she really said.  
      And then there is your post, and forgive me for singling you out.  You are just convenient.  Your post is carefully crafted to make us doubt, to sew mistrust.  It doesn't really address any particular issue.  It just bounces around in the subconcious.  
      So, are you working for someone?  
      I have to tell you that sooner or later, someone on this board will find out who all of the operatives are.  They're wicked smart here.  
      Of course, if you're just pissed at Hillary, carry on.  Your post is misleading but no more so than a couple of dozen other like minded people on this blog.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:34:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Seems like Edwards hit the nail on the head (10+ / 0-)

    yesterday. This kind of stuff seems to be what he was referring to in part. Its to move on, the Clinton years are over.

    Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - www.VirginiaForEdwards.org - get involved!

    by okamichan13 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:43:38 PM PDT

  •  Hmmmm, have we ever seen Bush and HRC in the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jimmyboyo

    same room?  She IS Bush in women's clothing.

    •  It's That Diaries Like This (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emsprater, o really

      Inspire these kinds of comments that one finds it hard to take Diaries like this seriously.

      Clinton could have and should have said this differently. Fine.

      But it just ends up looking like a big group of people and this Comment is as reflective of that group just as much as the Diary itself is.

      There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

      by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:54:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't take it seriously (0+ / 0-)

        It is a bunch of people emotionally attached to another candidate jumping in and piling on.

        And some of them know better,and some of them know it is a bit of a cheap shot, and they jump anyway.

        Sad part is some of them even have respectable and interesting and valuable things to say and contribute about any other topic...except HRC.

        Oh, well. I would troll rate the tip jar if I could find it. This version of a "Hate Hilary" diary made the top of the rec list.  Barf time (speaking as a Dem, not that I am distressed about the troubles of any single candidate.)  

        America has been stolen, your citizenship is a hollow fraud, and you have no power. What will YOU do to reverse these hurts, crimes, outrages?

        by Pete Rock on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:06:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I notice that (0+ / 0-)

    you refer to her as Ms. Clinton more than one in your diary.   Is that intentional?

  •  This is a ridiculous diary (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, d3n4l1, Pete Rock, carneystaff, o really

    All Hillary is saying is that the GOP tends to do well against Democrats on the security issue, but she and her husband are best equipped to beat the GOP spin/fear machine, as demonstrated by the fact that Bill won 2 elections and contributed to the 2006 victory with his stirring smack down of Chris Wallace on Fox just as the GOP was gearing up its theme for the 2006 election:  that 9/11 was Clinton's fault.  

    Yeah, she could've said things differently, and I would say she has been a little off her game in the past 2 weeks and I've never heard Obama sound better than he has in the last 2 weeks.  But she concedes nothing to the GOP on national security.  If you like Obama's positions and his statements, vote for him.  Just don't bore us with these silly defeatocrat diaries.  Hillary is as tough as they come, and the GOP knows it.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:05:15 PM PDT

    •  She just bought the Republican frame (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, sphealey, lenzy1000

      which says that Americans dying = Good for Republicans. That is absolutely false and a shameful thing to say. Before Hillary came out and said it, this was an idea limited to the most extreme fringes of the right wing.

      I'm tired of hearing how "the Clintons" are the best at beating the GOP smear machine. How? By agreeing with them? First of all, it was Bill, not Hillary, who won 2 presidential elections. Hillary is incredibly gaffe-prone and if this pattern continues, she will be a huge liability for us in the general election.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:25:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We need allies in the frame wars (0+ / 0-)

      This statement accepts Rove-ian frames.

      Hillary MUST retract and re-state her thoughts on this.

      Democracy is a constant conversation and if we value democracy, our conversation can't be over, yet.

      by Bill White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:54:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Correct (0+ / 0-)

      This diary is a good example of the stupid hysterical left.  

      Obstruction of Justice: Most people are idiots... But don't tell them. It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't.

      by d3n4l1 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:56:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What she should have said... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, BenGoshi, goldberry

    "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, the Republicans will attempt to take advantage of it 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 and to expose to the country the weakness, failures, and propaganda of the Republicans." she [didn't add].

    •  That is much clearer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      She sounds like she is rolling out a new concept but the message isn't as fine tuned as it should be.  There is always a risk that the other side will bash you for accusing them of propaganda.  They'll say both sides do it or you're paranoid.  
      There has to be a better way of phrasing this but you are absolutely right about the intent.  I just don't agree with Matt or Josh Marshall.  They were too hasty.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:25:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  insanity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, ThunderHawk13

    how dare this candidate use the same tactics that have held us, through fear, for years enthralled at the gates of fascism. I will not and cannot buckle under to this madness and  capitulate to the insanity we have had driving us, it is untenable. The world has always been and always will be in flux. Domination is so hard, and I won't lend my vote nor brain  to this madness.  

    "And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan

    by shaharazade on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:12:27 PM PDT

  •  http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/terrorism/ (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThunderHawk13, Boxer7, lenzy1000

    for a far different than Clinton--more honest, and more effective--way of discussing American fear of attacks and how a Democrat would address it--see this page!

  •  She's capitulating on health care too. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Electric Slim, Pym, lenzy1000

    "You've gotta get the votes," she said later at a house party in Concord. "You've got to compromise, which is not a word people in a Democratic primary like to hear because we want to think we can go and do exactly what we believe in make it happen. The fact is, you can't."

    Fucking sellout.  THIS is who the Dems consider a "leader?"  Hey Hil...you'll have the votes if you don't kill us down-ticket.  But I suppose when you're the number one recipient of health insurer and pharmaceutical company contributions (bribes) in the entire Senate, well, there's compromising that needs to be done.

    Hillary: Your Girl for caution, capitulation, and compromise.  How motherfucking inspiring!

    Her nomination will likely trigger my un-registration from the Democratic Party.  We all have our breaking points, and some of us even have standards.

    A Vote For John Edwards Is A Vote For Yourself. Iowa Underground

    by ThunderHawk13 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:25:08 PM PDT

  •  The best? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, Yoshimi

    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,"

    If a terrorist attack gives Republicans the advantge, why is she the best to deal with that? Because she's repub-lite? Or is that just "silly?"

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

    Bush's post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

    by William Domingo on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:25:48 PM PDT

  •  Newshoggers Highlight The Problem With All This (0+ / 0-)

    Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror.

    They call this winning?
    By Libby

    I find it incomprehensible that five years into the occupation, the propaganda is still working. Who are these people who are so easily fooled by White House spin?

    Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s up three points from a month ago and just a point shy of the highest level of confidence measured in 2007. The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 32% now say the terrorists are winning. That’s down from 36% in July.

    A breakdown of the stats reveals the majority of them are Republicans who apparently are still unwilling to admit their chosen president is an abject failure but a disturbing amount of independents and Democrats also seem to be buying the lies.

    ...

    By every metric, the surge has failed. Our media fails to keep us informed. We need facts, but all we get is propaganda. Our world standing is in tatters and terrorists never had recruitment so easy. So by what criteria do these people believe we are achieving victory?

    http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/...

    "Is this manly?" - Saddam

    by Saint Saddam on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:26:05 PM PDT

  •  Dodd responds to Hillary (5+ / 0-)

    in a rather strong statement, saying it was tasteless, according to Wolfy.  

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:30:22 PM PDT

    •  Tasteless? Huh? What? (0+ / 0-)

      A statement unworthy of someone seeking to lead a free and proud people, perhaps, but how is it tasteless?

      Jez saying . . .

      Democracy is a constant conversation and if we value democracy, our conversation can't be over, yet.

      by Bill White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:45:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dodd & Richardson both have denounced it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, lenzy1000

      Here's the CNN piece:

      "Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," [Dodd] said.

      New Mexico Bill Richardson, another Democratic presidential candidate, disparaged Clinton's remark.

      "We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Gov Richardson in a written statement.

      'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

      by jorndorff on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:46:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Never. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, Yoshimi, Electric Slim, Pym, lenzy1000

    Ever.

    A Vote For John Edwards Is A Vote For Yourself. Iowa Underground

    by ThunderHawk13 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:32:05 PM PDT

  •  With Dems like Hil, who needs Reps? ( nt ) (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sally in SF, vivacia, Yoshimi, OWTH, lenzy1000

    The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:36:38 PM PDT

  •  Clinton Channels Rudy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, Saint Saddam

    Bush's post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are.

    by William Domingo on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:37:54 PM PDT

  •  Hilary is trying too hard.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill White

    to please the voters out there who think Islam is the same as Islamists, who believe that every problem is a nail and every solution is a hammer, and who feel so scared that they cannot think straight. This is not Hilary's making, but a politician must deal with what has been created. Bush created the hyperfear after 9/11 for politics, and every candidate must work inside that environmnent, for the moment.  She missed an 'teachable moment" in her remarks, to move the debate on to new ground.

    I am disappointed that she didnt say something like..

    "Although terror threats are real, they have been real in America for a long, long time. We have always dealt with these fears effectively, and we will do so today. Our choice is to make the problem better. or to make it worse by what we do and what we say. Any attack, should it happen, will be dealt with by the people and the government, and yet, we should not anticipate an attack, since expecting one makes it more likely. That is the nature of terrorism. If we act fearfully, we increase its chances. If we overreact, or react in unjust ways, we increase its chances. We will do exactly the proportional response to decrease terror's chances, and minimize any further chance of attack by creating sympathy for the terrorists in the minds of anyone who is wavering. Notice this is not the same as 'predicting' an attack. We are prepared in hundreds of ways, and we will prepare in hundreds of new ways, but the one way we will NOT prepare is to fearfully EXPECT a terror attack. We reserve the right to believe in peace, and we EXPECT eventual peace, not perpetual war."

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:40:39 PM PDT

  •  Clinton=hypocrite (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, Yoshimi, dennisk

    NYTIMES

    Mrs. Clinton has said before that she perceives the threat from terrorists as real, but she rarely frames it in partisan terms. She was among the Democratic candidates howling in April when Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican, said in New Hampshire that Democrats "do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us" and that if a Democrat were elected president, the country would suffer "more losses."
    At the time, Mrs. Clinton said, "We have to protect our country from terrorism — it shouldn’t be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight."

    Is Mrs. Clinton now taking a page from the playbook of her nemesis, Karl Rove? When she was running for re-election last year to the Senate, she accused Mr. Rove and President Bush of playing the fear card.

    So Hillary screamed at Giuliani when he attempted to use the terror-card as a political tool , but now , she's using it by telling democrats she's the only candidate who can protect them from terror?

  •  Hillary buys into "War" solves everything meme (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lenzy1000

    don't vote for someone who thinks more war solves problems. Enough with republican-lite.

  •  This is a pimple on an elephant butt. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, masslib

    Amazing. Absolutely amazing. God there are a lot of Hillary haters here aren't there. I'm afraid she's going to disappoint a lot of you by winning the nomination because most democratic voters out in the country don't indulge in this navel gazing twaddle.  

  •  you are sexist! (0+ / 0-)

    You slammed Hillary!  Seriously, folks -- SHE MUST BE STOPPED. ELECTORAL DISASTER WARNING.

    Hillary: the GOP's Only Hope

    by Tuffie on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:04:37 PM PDT

  •  Can we surrender Hillary to the GOP? (4+ / 0-)

    I'm tired of weak democrats like Hillary.   I can't believe she's leading in the polls.   We don't need a DLC candidate.   NO MORE Republican-lite.   If she's our nominee, I'm not voting in the next presidential election - or I'll vote for the Libertarian / Green / Nader and I'll waste my vote, but I'm not voting for the candidate who is the Democrat's big business candidate and who thinks that a terrorist attack will help elect Republicans.   Ugh.   She's horrible.

  •  I think we need to deal with reality (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    d3n4l1, emsprater

    If we are attacked the people will panic, as much and perhaps more so then on 9-11.  The commander in chief has the duty to defend the nation.  There will not be time for a debate on TV or in Congress.

    So she is likely correct.  We need to work extra hard just in the event there is an attack.  

    It is getting a bit tiring of everyone attacking or cheering every word out of our candidates mouths.  They are all pretty good, lets hear them out fully and pick the best one next year.

    •  Total rubbish -- complete garbage (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, OWTH, Blackacre, Saint Saddam

      If we are attacked the people will panic, as much and perhaps more so then on 9-11.  The commander in chief has the duty to defend the nation.  There will not be time for a debate on TV or in Congress.

      We are NOT in danger -- as a nation -- because of a handful of nutjobs claiming to be part of radical Islam.

      Yes, terrorists can kill some of us, but very very few of us compared to Hitler and Stalin and I will NOT sacrifice the Consitution out of fear of a rag-tag bunch of hoodlums.

      Democracy is a constant conversation and if we value democracy, our conversation can't be over, yet.

      by Bill White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:32:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So a Few Of Us (0+ / 0-)

        are Expendable.  For the sake of your Idealism with respect to the Constitution??

        Can it be one of your family and then you can say how much more the Constitution means to you?

        There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

        by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:13:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And Let Me Ask (0+ / 0-)

        Do you live in a Big City?

        There's not enough Popcorn in Mini-Bags. I will only support the candidate who will outlaw Mini-Bags.

        by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:21:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Everything is good for Republicans (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, Yoshimi, OWTH, Saint Saddam

      Terrorist attack = Good for GOP since people rally around Bush
      No attack = Good for GOP since they kept America safe.

      Heads I win, tails you lose.

      If another Hurricane hits New Orleans, maybe Ray Nagin's popularity will go up too.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:35:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The more she talks, the more I am beginning to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia, Yoshimi, lenzy1000

    really dislike her. I can't stand it.

    She voter for the disaster. She voted to allow the town idiot to have his way on lies.

    She gaddam frikkin VOTED FOR IT.

    And we the people, are expected to forget all about it.  Those who are willing to forget about that vote, must have supported the invasion of Iraq, for, in my mind, how could anyone support a person who voted for it and has supported it for the past five years while at the same time, rend their garments, tear out their hair, weep tears every day for the slaughter that is going on and has been going on, lament the Bush policies of not allowing flag draped caskets to be photographed and all the rest of the despicable manipulation over every single bit of horror this invasion has produced.

    She VOTED FOR IT. Then claimed she was "duped". Then stated recently that she has been around DC and it's politics for thirty five years, yet plays a dumbass when it came to the most serious of all decisions--send our young to die on a lie.

    I may not be long posting on any of the liberal blogs if she is the nominee. Verboten--we are supposed to ignore that vote and "hold our nose" and rally behind a person whose policies caused death and destruction over and over.  We are being sold a Clinton nomination that she has bought and you know how we are being "sold" I will never ever vote for her or for ANYONE who supported this invasion. NEVER

    And I will emerge from the booth, knowing I have done the right thing.

  •  Hillary Is A Republican At Heart. This Is How (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lenzy1000

    they think and how she thinks.

    Why does Ted Nugent hate Hillary?

  •  Hillary helped write the articles of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    d3n4l1, masslib

    impeachment for Richard Nixon. She was one of the staff lawyers in the back room. She is not a Republican in any way, shape, or form.

    I assume what she is doing is driving toward the middle, with the general in mind. She has more political skills than anyone in the race, and I dare say more than any of us here on this thread.

    Keep the faith.

    •  Political skills? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, Yoshimi

      Um, when you suggest that a terrorist attack strengthens Republicans, that lobbyists are real Americans, and that voting for the Iraq War was a good idea, that's not called political skill. There's nothing moderate or skillful about surrendering to the 25% of people who still back the Bush administration.

      Whenever Hillary says something dumb, her supporters always explain it away with "oh, she must know what she's doing" or "she's inevitable, stop complaining." The Emperor has no clothes. Period.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:32:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or maybe she is inoculating herself and (0+ / 0-)

        us against Rove's talking points in case we do get hit.

        She is doing this for a reason. I have faith in her. I think she will be a great president.

        In terms of her voting for the war, she finally addressed it in the last debate to my satisfaction. She finally said she was lied to. She should have said that earlier.

  •  What's that about being the best person to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, dole4pineapple

    take on the Republican attack machine?

    I guess if your definition of "take on" includes capitulaton, she's your girl.

    Edwards/Edwards '08

    by jetfan on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:34:35 PM PDT

  •  She's no Democrat (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, C Mac, OWTH, lenzy1000

    she's an opportunist.

  •  Nice... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    d3n4l1

    ...job in explaining what you percieve are the problems with the GOP'ers....but what are the Dems to propose instead?

    "I used to be Snow White, but I drifted."

    by pere on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:39:08 PM PDT

    •  Well, let's start with not saying a terrorist (0+ / 0-)

      attack helps Republicans and start saying that Republican incompetence has put our nation at greater risk and the War in Iraq has prevented us from making headway against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Then you could argue that we should shift our foreign policy to target our enemies where they really are.

      That would be a start.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:48:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary Clinton never surrendered to anyone in (7+ / 0-)

    her life.

    Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

    by oldpro on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:39:44 PM PDT

  •  Is Hillary '08 just Kerry '04 with a different (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    C Mac, lenzy1000

    name? Like John Kerry, she is running a very cautious campaign and has a tendency to make gaffes that will hurt bad come November 2008.

    It's only a matter of time before she gives us an "I voted for it before I voted against it" whopper. So far we have "lobbyists represent real Americans" and the surge is working. Given her other tendency to support idiotic tenets of Bush's foreign policy, we need to seriously ask ourselves whether she is the best candidate we can put up. Her tendency to blur differences with the GOP will turn the general election into a personality contest if voters can't see any clear differences and her tendency to make gaffes will further increase her negative ratings.

    If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

    by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:46:13 PM PDT

    •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

      Their delivery of their message does seem awkwardly similar.

      To live at the top of the hill, you need to learn how to smile while you kill.

      by noelcor on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:18:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's really quite stunning (0+ / 0-)

        Kerry 2004 is a textbook example of how not to run a campaign: an uninspiring candidate runs a cautious campaign and tries his very best not to alienate people by not taking strong stands on any issue (not being for or against the Iraq War because of fears of being seen as "soft on security"), but who has the tendency to make gaffes that are easily picked up by the opposition.

        Now Hillary Clinton. Like Kerry, she voted for the war and says Bush is not handling it properly but refuses to characterize her vote as a mistake. Like Kerry, she avoids taking strong stands on any issue out of fear of being seen as "too liberal." Instead, the public sees the candidate as an opportunist and assumes the worst. Then, we have the tendency to make gaffes which are useful to Republicans. So far we have one supporting the surge, saying "lobbyists represent real Americans," and now terrorism helps Republicans. She couldn't do a better impression of John Kerry if she tried.

        She is counting on the public being so fed up with Republicans that they'll vote for any Democrat (just like Kerry), which they may or may not be. It's much better to be proactive, run a good & strong campaign and not have to rely only on anti-Bush feelings to win.

        If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

        by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:37:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  you got that right! (0+ / 0-)

      and yes, the media pushed and pulled the "inevitability" as Kerry as the front-runner while primary voters dutifully marked his name on their ballots, thinking they were unifying against Bush.  Scary, scary stuff--have we learned nothing??? we dare not run a non-charismatic, non-charming, elitist candidate, and expect to win.

  •  politician 'is-not-equal-to' character.... (0+ / 0-)

    They will say and do absolutely anything that they think will get them elected.  Even playing chicken about what they will do if we have another 9/11, another new-Pearl Harbor, or another anthrax attack, or a dirty bomb, or a flu pandemic, or what-the-hell-are-they-going-to-scare-the-shit-out-of-us with this time?

    I say loud and clear that if there is another attack, I lay it at the f**king doorstep of BushCo. period.

    He has all the tools in place to detect and prevent anything from happening.  Don't go bullshitting to me that Reps are stong on defense and Dems are weak. Dems just have no character....and I'm a dyed in the wool democrat from way way back....

    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. -George Orwell Iraq Moratorium

    by ezdidit on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:48:58 PM PDT

  •  Hillary isn't being punked (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    d3n4l1, Norwegian Chef

    She is saying, in very kind words, that she knows that WE will once again allow ourselves to be punked if a new terror act takes place, and she is correct. The media will work with Bush and replay every second of the next terror act 24 hours a day, while replaying the worst of the 9-11 footage, and reporting every scary rumor Karl and Dick can come up with. We have shown ourselves to be just as scared and just as controllable as the fucking sheep we are. Hillary would like to jump in and have some of that control for our side. She's looking for a way to thwart the GOP mind control machine. Reading most Dems today I'd say her efforts are falling short. BAAAAAH!  

    •  This is a pretty serious gaffe (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sphealey, Junior Bug

      And no amount of "but she meant..." is going to make it ok. She has surrendered the terrorism issue to the Republicans with that statement because as the diarist noted, whatever happens is "Good for Republicans" according to the current standard she is helping to set.

      Even if you interpret her as saying what you say she did, it's not much better. So she says that in the event of a terrorist attack, she's the best candidate to fight back against Republican attacks. That appears very cold and callous to the public. How can we complain about Republicans politicizing terrorist attacks if our candidates do the same?

      As to her assertion that she is the best candidate to fight against Republicans, this gaffe and her frequent gaffes over the last couple months suggest the contrary. Gaffes like these will be easy to use in the general election to paint her as out of touch with the public and play upon her high unfavorable ratings.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:07:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not what I said at all! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        d3n4l1

        She doesn't WANT people to react in fear, she KNOWS they will. It's like preparing for a riot that you know will take place.
        I never said she is trying to play the same game. The game HAS been played and it is very likely it will be played AGAIN. This time Hillary wants to be prepared, and she would like some of us to be ready as well. This is another sign of a great and forward thinking leader. I honestly believe Americans are so accustomed to having male Presidents they are having a hard time seeing Hillary. It's like having dad come home in a dress and makeup. It's simply not what we want or expect to see, but she is the best candidate by far.
        Reagan was popular in great part because he was "grandfatherly". Kennedy was in part so beloved because he was so handsome. Even this Fred Thompson guy is banking almost solely on his Presidential looks and his ability to do Reagan's 'sweet-wise old man' act. We are creatures of habit 100%, and she is NOT our habit. If she loses it will be for this reason, and it will be among the single greatest losses to America resulting from sexist confusion and hate.

        •  Talking meta to voters is not a good idea (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sphealey

          Whenever I hear candidates talking meta and saying "Democrats need to..." it always gets on my nerves. Don't say "Democrats need to..." but instead, just do it yourself.

          So instead of discussing a purely hypothetical situation (which she says she doesn't do), it would be much better to be prepared for it. Talking about how "I'm the best candidate to take on the right wing" is another frustrating example of this. Take on the right wing! Don't talk about how you're going to do this. I was also annoyed when Edwards tried to talk about how he was the most electable candidate. Instead, position yourself as the strongest candidate on the issues and let people rally to your cause.

          If Hillary wants to prepare for such a situation, good. We should have candidates prepared for right wing assaults against them. But talking candidates talking about hypothetical situations like she did is confusing to voters and ultimately gets them nowhere.

          If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

          by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:09:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your theory sounds good (0+ / 0-)

            but this is the real world. The situations she describes are not hypothetical, they are real, TODAY, and no one else can get her messages out better than she can. You don't like her and are obviously looking for some reason. There are many things about her I don't like, but I've never seen a better candidate, and I've been around and watching since Kennedy. She may not speak as well, and she may not be a granpappy we all love to listen to, but I don't think she'll be sleeping with movie stars in a White House closet or killing innocent nuns in Nicaragua.

  •  About 500 Hillary haters going nuts. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    d3n4l1, Norwegian Chef

    It's totally bizarre. Here we have the front runner for the democratic nomination. There's little possibility she isn't going to get it. Polls show here as competitive across the country. And yet there is an outpouring of hysteria and rage that would not look out of place at Redstate. Totally bizarre. Perhaps Will Rogers had it right.

    •  You just don't get it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sphealey, Junior Bug, lenzy1000

      This is a very serious gaffe. Not only is Hillary reinforcing the right wing frame about terrorism, she will also appear callous to the public because she is arguing she'd be the best candidate to deal with Republican smears after a terrorist attack. How can we complain about right wing bloggers saying terrorist attacks help Republicans if Hillary Clinton says it too?

      Hillary supporters say she's the best candidate to take on the right wing, but she's showing quite the opposite by running a cautious and gaffe-prone campaign. Hillary supporters always try to excuse her gaffes (like saying the surge is working and lobbyists represent real Americans), but her tendency to slip up is going to hurt her very badly in the general election. What matters is how statements appear to the public, not how you meant them.

      Case and point? "I voted for it before I voted against it" was actually true, but the public saw it as Kerry trying to have things both ways. Hillary is fast headed toward one of these mega-gaffe moments and that could be enough to tilt a close election to the GOP.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:13:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dole, your deluding yourself. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        d3n4l1, Norwegian Chef

        As far as I and most Democratic electors are concerned she hasn't made single gaffe. Her campaign has been flawless which is why in the RCP average she's at about 39% and Obama is at about 22%. She's at the high end of where she's been for months and he's at the low end of where he's been for month. Basically his wave has passed. There's no doubt she is going ot be the nominee and this kind of silliness just gets picked up by wingnut bloggers and turned into a big deal which it isn't. Apart from the minds of about 500 Hillary haters at Kos that is.  

        •  These ivory tower purists are in for a shock (0+ / 0-)

          when real people start voting.  Half of the population don't even own computers much less spend half their life blogging.  When the rank and file Democrats go to the polls, Hillary is going to come out way on top and the purists can just go off to their corners and cry.

          Bring on the voting!!

          I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

          by Norwegian Chef on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:59:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The story is on CNN (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sphealey, C Mac, doinaheckuvanutjob

            You can either delude yourself and insist your candidate is Perfect and Never Makes Any Mistakes or you can accept reality, which is that your candidate made a pretty big mistake today. Whether you like it or not, this is a big story now and it won't reflect well on Hillary.

            There are valid criticisms to be made of all candidates. For example, Obama is talking about unity as if it is the Democrats are equally at fault for the nation being divided. This is a bad tactic because primary and general election voters both blame Bush for the nation's divisions and talk of "unity and bipartisanship" won't get you anywhere with the radical right. Now Obama supporters could dismiss this as "Obama hating" or they could acknowledge that it is a serious issue in his campaign.

            Hillary needs to walk this one back and issue a clarification because whatever she meant to say, it came off pretty badly.

            If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

            by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:17:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Puullleeessee, who is deluding who (0+ / 0-)

              Do you really think that Ma and Pa Democrat in Bugtussle Arkansas will ever have any clue or could care less about the "pillory Hillary issue-de-jour" on daily Kos.

              No they don't and no they won't.  And next to Michael Vick this is a minor footnote on CNN that hardly anyone will notice and noone at all will remember.

              Hillary just stated a plain and simple truth.  Any time there is a terrorist attack, it swings in favour of the rethugs because people get scared.  And fear feeds Rethugs like ants to an aardvark.

              Unless Hillary makes a "real" mistake, come voting day she is going to be on top, and I am happy to wager that with anyone.

              I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

              by Norwegian Chef on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:44:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  By that logic, no statement any candidate makes (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sphealey

                can ever work to their disadvantage because "Ma and Pa Democrat" will not hear about it. This story will end up in the paper under the headline "Hillary Says Terror Attack Will Help GOP in '08" and yes, people will read that. It's the kind of thing that jumps out at you in the paper.

                And could you please give me any instances of recent terrorist attacks helping Republicans? Oh wait, there are none. There is 9/11, but there is no evidence the public would have a similar response. Even events such as Saddam's execution or the death of Zarqawi still could not pull Bush out of the doldrums. I know there are some right wing bloggers who think another 9/11 would strengthen Bush, but I know of no Democrats other than Hillary Clinton who subscribe to that unproven and dubious assertion.

                Also, how exactly is Hillary better at dealing with this hypothetical situation than other Democrats?

                If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

                by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:01:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's pure twaddle (0+ / 0-)

                  If a candidate makes a REAL gaffe and say something like "Please let me introduce the giant pink invisible rabbit sitting beside me" then that would be a big deal and the candidate would be in strife.

                  This is a nonsense issue-de-jour, and quite frankly I for one strongly believe that fear fuels rethugs.  That's how rethugdom works.  

                  And there is no end to the academic theses that support such notions.  The whole Enlightenment came to an abrubt close, most scholars argue, as a result of widespread calamities, epidemics and invasions that instilled so much fear into the European populace there was a major shift to religious fundamentalism.  Hillary is just arguing an already well-academically substantiated premise.

                  I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

                  by Norwegian Chef on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:11:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Rally around the flag is a phenomenon that occurs (0+ / 0-)

                    Jimmy Carter's popularity went up after the hostage crisis initially but declined as people saw he was unable to handle it. But nobody would have suggested that if another country seized our embassy that Jimmy Carter's popularity would go up. Whatever the reaction of the public would be to another attack, presidential candidates ought not to speculate on that. We're not hiring a Pundit-in-Chief to tell us who is electable and who is not and what the public might do in response to a hypothetical event. No candidate ever makes a gaffe as big as introducing an invisible pink bunny but making mistatements can help opponents paint a negative caricature.

                    One of the most disappointing contrasts between Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign is the lack of big ideas. Bill had a long list of things he wanted to do if elected, which was a welcome relief from a do-nothing president who just liked being in office and didn't want to do much. Hillary's campaign mainly consists of watered down ideas that don't challenge the status quo, combined with repeated assertions that she's the best candidate "because she can win." The "I can win" argument is at the heart of her primary campaign, but once the general election rolls around, that message won't work.

                    The best thing for Hillary Clinton to do is to run on a clear platform that challenges the Washington status quo. This is the best way for Hillary to convert her opponents into supporters. Once they hear her plans for the country and realize that they agree with most of them, they'll begin warming to her candidacy. But if she runs with a cautious and non-specific platform, it will be easy for the GOP to misrepresent her positions and make voters assume the worst about her. The country has rejected Bush Republicanism and is waiting to see if the Democrats have an alternative. Hillary could be a transformational president, especially because we have a Democratic Congress and there are far fewer Dixiecrats than there were when Bill got in. But first, she needs to stop talking meta and start talking policy.

                    If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

                    by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:33:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "I can win" mantra is essential for the primary (0+ / 0-)

                      in my opinion, and I think how she is campaigning and her statements will solidify the centre for her, where most average voters (including Democrats) are, and that will win the primary. However, it will also piss off the purists as it has clearly done.  Frankly I am not a big fan of purists.

                      But I will concede your point that in the general election there should be a total policy focus as well as a strong anti-Bush, anti Rethug focus, and kill off all the meta and hypotheticals.

                      I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

                      by Norwegian Chef on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:45:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Most Democrats view her as the most electable (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        doinaheckuvanutjob

                        candidate, which means she should feel free to shift the focus to other things. Her main tactics right now for winning the primary are courting important constituencies, harshly criticizing Bush policies, and capitalizing upon her status as a well known public figure. But she has opened herself up to attack from Edwards and Obama by going light on the policy. If she were to lay out her specific strategies right now, she could probably lock up the nomination. The main driving forces behind the Edwards and Obama campaigns are that Hillary is too status quo and too yesterday to be relevant for the future.

                        Her campaign seems to confuse centrism with having only a modest agenda, which is not something Bill did. The problem with this is that people then assume the worst about her: many Democrats assume she is a captive of the corporations and Republicans assume she is a socialist. If she started rolling out the ideas, it would become pretty clear that she shares the goals of most Democrats and most of the country. That would fix her most glaring weakness and solidify her general election position.

                        If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

                        by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:21:18 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  For God sake what more do you want her to do, (0+ / 0-)

                          Alegre (DKos diarist) has rolled out diary after diary after diary of all Hillary's policies, platforms and positions.  They are nearly infinite and certainly not lacking in any detail.  Hillary 99% of the time does nothing but stay on line talking about these great policies.

                          I agree with you that perceptions are also critical, but no matter what Hillary says now will be ultra-spun in every godforsaken direction at the moment because she is way out in front.  If Edwards or Obama were any real threat at the moment the same would be happening to them. If they ever are, they will know what it's like.

                          I can also agree with you that Hillary and all Dem candidates should stay out of hypothetical land. It serves no useful purpose to go there.

                          Where I take issue with you, is that this particular comment of hers will be anything more than a fly-by-night issue-de-jour that will be all but forgotten by this time next week, when we will all be doubtlessly blogging about the issue-de-jour of that day. But the blogging world is nothing like the real world (thankfully) ;-)

                          I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

                          by Norwegian Chef on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:52:14 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  But, uh, you do blog (0+ / 0-)

            so what's your excuse?

            "I remain just one thing, and one thing only, and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician." - Charlie Chaplin

            by Junior Bug on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:25:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, if winning a primary was tantamount (0+ / 0-)

          to winning a general election, you might have a point. Citing poll numbers is completely irrelevant in this matter. Poll numbers now are no guarantee of success or failure at this point. Howard Dean had a big poll lead and eventually his gaffes took a toll on it. Stop thinking as a complete Hillary partisan for a moment and think of how this comes off to average Americans:

          Hillary says terrorist attacks help Republicans. Your first reaction is probably confusion. Then if you read further and realize that she's arguing she is the best candidate to fight the GOP in the event of a terrorist attack, your stomach turns. This kind of statement will seem very callous to most Americans and will also weaken her position vis-a-vis the Republicans on national security.

          And what are people to make of "lobbyists represent real Americans?" That is a gigantically dumb comment that reinforces her insider status. And saying the surge is working? That also gives ground to Republicans at her expense. You may think Hillary is perfect and makes no mistakes, but she's made quite a few lately and it will be a big problem if it continues.

          Also, when you reduce critics of your favorite candidate to "haters" and dismiss any points they make, you do yourself a big disservice. BTW, the story is on CNN now.

          If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

          by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:09:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  A terrorist attack wouldn't help Bush (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia

    I disagree with that argument. A terrorist attack would undermine his entire "War on Terror". That is the last thing that Bush would want to happen. God forbid, should something tragic happen, it would not help Bush. It would hurt Bush because he has been in the White House for almost eight years and has had time to "fight terror".

    •  I disagree.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emsprater

      Perhaps because I have little respect for middle America. But I believe the majority would simply see it as proof that Bush is needed, or his ideals. They wouldn't see it as a failing of this administration, but as a testament to the voracity of our enemy. They would rally behind him more than ever, and all of America might pack up and move to Iraq. And that would suck, because it's hot there.

      "People aren't born gay.." ~Logic

      by Kyro on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:52:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I guess I'm not surprised.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vivacia

    as Hillary Clinton has proven to be one to say about anything to gain favor.. and she must think by saying this she would gain favor. Maybe she has with some, shrug. But this is why she never had my vote.

    Same with Edwards, just so goddamn fake.

    If Gore got into this race, my god.. He'd clean up. I personally never really liked him as a politician, much more as an ex-politician. But after seeing him out of that scene he'd have my vote, no doubt. For now, Obama is about the only likely candidate I can get behind. McCain is one I like, as well as Ron Paul, but it's not as if they'll win the republican nomination and both Giuliani and Romney make me shiver. Romney in much the same way as Edwards. Giuliani however, simply must not happen.

    "People aren't born gay.." ~Logic

    by Kyro on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:48:20 PM PDT

  •  Oh Jeebus (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    d3n4l1, kck

    Why is this on the rec list? Hillary is not even my 4rth choice, but this sort of hyperventilating hysteria is ridiculous.

    Do you propose another round of the circular firing squad, or maybe a regal fete of each other's young?
    Where's the god damned pie?

    •  There must be a middle way... (0+ / 0-)

      It's either a mutual masturbation/circle jerk or a circular firing squad. There must be something circular in between...or is that too "DLC'ish"?

      Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

      by kck on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:02:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm by no measure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kck

        a DLC'r. But I don't see the need to adopt the hysteria generally reserved for AM radio. I tend to doubt Hillary will be our candidate, but if she is, why do the RNC's work for them?

        How someone can wake up in the morning, look at the headlines generated by the Bush regime, and come to the conclusion that Hillary is the end of the universe is beyond my suspension of disbelief.
        And I am not a Hillary supporter!

        Do we want to be the party of reason, or the party that out crazies the crazies?
        This struck me as a tad over the top.

  •  Bullshit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater

    You're twisting her words.  She did not mean what you say she means.  You are putting words in her mouth.  

    Obstruction of Justice: Most people are idiots... But don't tell them. It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't.

    by d3n4l1 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 04:49:00 PM PDT

  •  Stop twisting her words (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank, d3n4l1, Wufacta, kck, o really

    LOOK AT THE VIDEO!

    She clearly says that Republicans have made the world more dangerous, and messed up the terror issue.  She is simply analyzing what is going in American politics, and people do still trust the GOP with terrorism more than Dems, it's changing but still hasn't 100%

    Why attack her because of analysis?

    And she said she'd be best equipped, oh no! a candidate saying that?

    •  because it's bullshit analysis (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sphealey, churchylafemme, pamelabrown

      she's saying that a terror attack will redound to the GOP's favor.

      Why would she believe that?  I don't.  The fact that she does believe that means if such an attack were to occur, she would automatically go on the defensive rather than the offensive--and lose.

      It's a big fucking deal.

      •  Hm (0+ / 0-)

        Why would she believe that?

        Maybe because the GOP has had an advantage (undeservingly, certainly) on all national security issues since the Vietnam war?

        It does not mean she would automatically go on the defensive, but she believes she would have more credibility if she went on the offensive because she's taken less dovish stances in the past.

        •  So since she voted to authorize Iraq (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sphealey, churchylafemme

          she will have more credibility on national security? If we got attacked again, it would most likely be because we're focusing on Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, where the terrorists who were responsible 9/11 are still hiding out.

          Edwards and Obama are not saying that we should retreat from fighting terrorists. They are saying we should fight them where they are, not where they aren't. Since when does authorizing unnecessary wars make you Serious About National Security?

          If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

          by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:38:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, Edwards voted for authorization as well (0+ / 0-)

            I don't think you can judge that vote by the standards of what we know now when we did not know those things then. I think that's the distinction that Hillary is making that Edwards is not- and yes, I think it shows greater discernment. There is an argument you could make that Hillary was not suspicious enough of executive power and the GOP's willingness to distort and lie. But I think that's a domestic politics matter, not a foreign policy one. Currently, they're both against the war and they would both end it, and that's the most important thing.

      •  Hillary go on the defensive? (0+ / 0-)

        Read up, sir...it's so...so...unlike her. I don't think Hillary would know how to find "the defensive" if she had to go there. Respectfully, imo, you're not even in the right ballpark.

        Btw, absolutely love you on the radio!

        Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

        by kck on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:57:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks for the compliment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          churchylafemme, kck

          I think you must misunderstand "defensive" though.  The DLC is nothing but defensive at all times.  That's Hillary's problem--did you hear her at the YearlyKos debate?

          •  Yes, I caught it on ustream (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thereisnospoon

            First, I am not fluent in DLC but I have always seen it as populated with a mixed set of agendas: collaborators (Hillary, Kerry), centrists/appeasers (Lieberman), and scum bags (Ford).

            There are issues, like war in Bush world, where collaboration is not a reasonable path. Eliminating Social Security, same thing. But a lot of the Congressional agenda can be streamed through avoiding gridlock. I recall the hatefull vitriol felt for Congress with Gingrich's gridlock. That was what the DLC was to me, a way of getting out of that gridlockitis sterotype. Now the DLC seems obsolete.

            The epitome of triangulation, imo, was the heart-breaking Clinton reneg on his gay rights promise. He submitted to Powell and Nunn and threw a whole lot of Democrats who worked their asses off for him under the bus. Politics hurts sometimes.

            Thoughts?

            Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

            by kck on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:22:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  First of all (0+ / 0-)

        the fact that she would go on defensive is not clear from what she said at all.  And second, she would believe that, because that's what would happen, be a realist.  People are not going to rely on barack and john Edwards to defend us from terrorists, they'll rely on tough guys.  Polls still show that's the ONE issue republicans are still competitive and winning on.  

        I think Hillary meant she wound go on offensive and is generally more credible on terrorism issues.

    •  by the way, read a freaking poll sometime (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme

      the people trust the DEMS more than the GOP on terrorism.  Check Rasmussen, check Gallup.

      •  no they don't (0+ / 0-)

        while those might have dems winning. many still have GOP winning, not deserving, but winning.  Even if not winning, it's still an issue that they have leverage on regardless of what polls say, they have legitimacy on that issue.

    •  You are ignoring the power of frames (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme

      If she has been misunderstood, she should clarify.

      Start by reading FDR's fireside chats.

      We defeated terror on Flight 93. Not via POTUS or the Pentagon but with ordinary Americans willing to do the needful, knowing they would die.

      Not being afraid of death is the core of not being afraid.

      al Qaeda can kill Americans with terror. They CANNOT threaten America unless we allow and encourage it.

      Democracy is a constant conversation and if we value democracy, our conversation can't be over, yet.

      by Bill White on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:21:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the video. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rigso

      I wish we knew what the question was.

      She's either right or things are just now starting to change in Democrats favor. She's speaking on the offense and is clearly not spouting off RWisms like I read here.

      Such short fuses and hysteria!

      Still uncommitted, undecided...enjoying the dates; not ready for the ring or uhaul.

      by kck on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:53:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Optimism vs. Pessimism is the difference (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater

    Yglesias's reaction is predicated on the idea that
    (1) When you look at the actual policies for security at home and in foreign policy, terrorism is not a Republican-owned issue. Reading the quote it's apparent that Hillary agrees with this.
    (2) The American public can be made to see this between now and 2008. This is where Hillary and Yglesias part ways.

  •  Despite wandering into... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the room late and bewildered by all the people already here, yeah, I agree with you.

    2008 reflects a real opportunity for change.  Yet, we're stuck with a frontrunner who seems instinctivly bent on bet hedging and triangulating.

    Obama or Edwards could still knock her out of the lead, and take the nomination from her.  But, it's getting awfully late, her support just keeps getting stronger, and the nomination is looking like it'll be decided fairly early this time around.

    One (or both) of those two needs to straighten out their campaign, or else we're going to end up mired in another era of Clintonian muddling, when the country (and the party) really needs someone who's going to be bold and straight forward.

    •  Defeating Clinton would be hard any year (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WayneNight

      But what really complicates that is all of her major challengers candidacies are flawed. Neither Obama nor Edwards have been able to build up a base of support in their home states that would allow them to create a rival center of gravity to Clinton's solid New York base. This is mainly because Obama only got to the Senate 3 years ago and Edwards only served one term and was on the losing ticket in 2004. Thus, neither had a large base of support going into the election An ideal opponent for Clinton would be a second term senator or governor from a fairly large state (extra points for a swing state).

      That doesn't mean Edwards and Obama can't win. But they will need a perfect convergence of events to be able to beat Hillary. She will need to lose all of the early states (Iowa, NH, SC) to one candidate and then primary voters in other states would need to be willing to follow the bandwagon. There is the risk that they could ignore the early results because Hillary is so well known and stick with her.

      Hillary will never trail in a national poll unless she loses a primary, so Edwards and Obama need to concentrate on the early states. Also, it would help if one knocked out the other early in the contest and picked up their support. Could happen, but it's an uphill battle.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:41:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In that case, I really am... (0+ / 0-)

        ...starting to hope that Al Gore jumps in.

        Yes, it's not very likely at this point, and, yes, he wasn't exactly the perfect candidate in 2000 (certainly not, for the most part, "bold" and "straight forward").

        However, Gore has changed quite a bit these past few years, and seems a little more willing to speak his mind now.  Even while admitting that he's still not perfect, I'd feel more comfertable with him leading the ticket than Senator Clinton.

        Part of my problem with Clinton, too, is that I'm just not looking forward to campaigning for her.  Aside from the fact that she has a way of saying things that sometimes makes me feel "luke warm" about her, I also have to deal with the fact that I live (and do campaign work) in an extremely conservative area.  It's going to be "bad" with any Democratic nominee, but HRC, I fear, will stir up the nuts even more than usual.

  •  GOP = great ol propanganda. sick of it. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Ye gods, is she working for Bush? (0+ / 0-)

    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.

    What about trying -- just for grins -- the argument that we obviously aren't safe from terrorism with a GOP president since we never had any terrorist events inside the US until Bush came into office -- in spite of the fact that we are fighting them 'over there' so we don't have them swimming 'over here.'  

    If another terrorist event were to happen, and the Democrats had the brains present in the cranial cavities of mere cockroaches, they would immediately point out that we obviously are less safe then we were before; else no terrorism in our country.  

    Terrorism = present administration FAILED TO PROTECT US. (I put this in bold in case a Democrat should happen to be reading.)

    Did any terrorists attack inside the US during her hubby's administration?  WELL THEN?

    How dumb does she have to be to say what she just said?  Whose side is this woman on, anyway?  With Murdoch supporting her, I've been asking myself that question anyway... but when she says things like this, I deeply mistrust her motives.

  •  Other campaigns call her on her capitulation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doinaheckuvanutjob, nocore

    I think the real primary is about to start.

    Chris Dodd Blasts Hillary, Calls Her Terrorism Remarks "Tasteless"
    Chris Dodd released a statement lambasting Hillary Clinton for saying that a potential terrorist attack would give the Republicans a political advatange, and she was the best candidate to deal with that. "Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," Dodd said. A Hillary spokesman offered this clarification: "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."

    Edwards Camp: Hillary's Terror Remarks "Deeply Troubling"
    John Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis also blasted Hillary: "Senator Clinton’s remarks are deeply troubling. After nearly seven years of George Bush and the politics of fear, the American people deserve a President who will focus first on keeping America safe, rather than calculating the political consequences. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton is seemingly taking a page straight from the GOP playbook that got us into this mess — using fear of another terror attack as a political tactic to bolster her candidacy, and that is just wrong."

    Richardson: Hillary "Seems To Think" Bush Has Made Us Safer
    Bill Richardson had a statement, as well. "We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Richardson. "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."

    Obama Camp: Hillary Obsessed With Republican Attack Machine
    Barack Obama advisor David Axelrod said that Hillary Clinton has been obsessed "with what she calls the Republican attack machine." Instead, Axelrod said, "I think we need a candidate who is obsessed with unifying this country again."

    Obama Camp

  •  There's no surrendering here. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia

    It is probably true that the Republicans would still ger a boost out of that. Unfortunately, and totally unjustifiedly so. But, I think it is a true statement.

    Then she combines it with 'I'm the best to handle it', which sounds like standard campaign rhetoric.

    It all sounds like your average campaign season stuff, which leaves me neither warm nor cold. And of course other campaigns will try to jump on it, yada yada.

    Pretty standard stuff, with which you may agree or disagree. But there's no 'surrender' here, though.

    Help! Mitt Romney's hair is hypnotizing me!

    by Frank on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:11:26 PM PDT

  •  best hope that (0+ / 0-)

    Wes Clark does see a way to jump into a primary that is proving to be a real national security freak show...my guess, Yglesias would agree.

  •  Hillary is too concerned by what the GOP thinks (0+ / 0-)

    Like LBJ, Hillary will constantly fret over Republican accusations of being "weak on national security." The result will be another unnecessary war like Vietnam, imho. She would be a dangerous person to have in the White House.

  •  Jaysys Feckin' Christ (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia

    I feel like I've wandered over to RED STATE by accident for all the attacks on a Dem. candidate here today.

Bob Johnson, Kimberley, NegSpin, RichM, Alumbrados, paradox, RobertInWisconsin, cdreid, AustinSF, MarcTGFG, Marek, PLS, Lois, Night Owl, Nathan in MD, Sean Robertson, Jsea, taylormattd, jennifer poole, Sally in SF, GernBlanzten, vivacia, AmericanHope, casamurphy, Better Days, joejoejoe, JustWinBaby, houndcat, Jeff Simpson, mikeb42, bradnickel, Steve in Sacto, dcdanny, Mike Stark, cosbo, Pandora, mndan, gaspare, MontanaMaven, Unstable Isotope, machopicasso, dday, JTML, Grand Moff Texan, sphealey, Yoshimi, ParaHammer, Shockwave, Wintermute, Andrew C White, Pondite, nevadadem, be inspired, norabb, cookiesandmilk, GayHillbilly, Troutfishing, Pompatus, azale, WI Deadhead, zenbowl, HarveyMilk, RFK Lives, voltayre, Semblance, BenGoshi, object16, bumblebums, cgilbert01, expat germany, Jerome a Paris, expatjourno, angelmom, PeterSD, goObama, RubDMC, Otis29, bronte17, Joe Sixpack, conchita, SamSinister, msbatxnyc, nyceve, C Mac, SecondComing, whenwego, djMikulec, jiffykeen, DaleA, PsiFighter37, peace voter, RabidNation, highacidity, YoloMike, Pithy Cherub, wanderindiana, chuckvw, Glic, scamp, vmibran, Zueda, Transmission, Siberian, roses, oceanspray, bincbom, BruinKid, Spindizzy, Shaniriver, ctsteve, diana04, navajo, Alna Dem, Pachacutec, mayan, hhex65, scorpiorising, psnyder, danthrax, pat bunny, leevank, cometman, Nina, churchylafemme, joan reports, Chirons apprentice, joliberal, Neighbor2, The Termite, applegal, chillindame, onemadson, Mrcia, LeftyLimblog, lecsmith, Pirate Smile, fritzrth, inclusiveheart, bwintx, Bluefish, Sam Loomis, parkslopper50, fugue, zerelda, jj32, YetiMonk, randallt, Da Buddy, sfluke, kd texan, eztempo, rmx2630, thereisnospoon, wolverinethad, Gowrie Gal, sxwarren, AttyDave4, davidkc, 3goldens, IamtheReason, kingubu, Alexander G Rubio, bellevie, ten10, Five of Diamonds, Sam I Am, munky, LarisaW, baccaruda, JanetT in MD, zaraspooksthra, Mad Mom, OpherGopher, aerojad, frandor55, clammyc, Simplify, DocGonzo, DoGooderLawyer, ThunderHawk13, 5oclockshadow, YucatanMan, FutureNow, flubber, Chaoslillith, Bill White, buckeyedem08, IL dac, Mr X, jorndorff, washingtonsmith, GTPinNJ, Inland, jcitybone, SheriffBart, twalling, onanyes, The Raven, Gottayo, sodalis, Dem Soldier, deepsouthdoug, benny05, Rogneid, bookwoman, Ekaterin, Arsenic, mightymouse, simplicio, Tigana, begone, Mehitabel9, Reality Bites Back, RiaD, dole4pineapple, Coherent Viewpoint, esquimaux, gwilson, Do Tell, Compound F, kraant, tarheelblue, Debbie in ME, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, jsamuel, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, leo joad, faster democrat kill kill, tarantula, koNko, smokeymonkey, mystery2me, DarkestHour, global citizen, atrexler, StrayCat, zorba, Tanya, DumpDoolittle, FireCrow, NearlyNormal, bleeding heart, el cid, ER Doc, edgery, feduphoosier, jonboy, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, zedaker, chgobob, AmySmith, chesapeake, pkbarbiedoll, bstotts, Autarkh, Land Use Watch, duha, Intercaust, Temmoku, Callandor, AndrewOG, Nulwee, Aaa T Tudeattack, ammasdarling, McSnatherson, One Pissed Off Liberal, Boxer7, Reagan Smash, zelbinion, Feeling Blue, pfiore8, Ken in MN, khereva, maddogg, TrueBlueCT, dmh44, Cottagerose, Opinionated Ed, LV Pol Girl, cfaller96, BruceMcF, rooreed22, America08, Duccio, kath25, david mizner, HeartlandLiberal, flumptytail, NCDem Amy, Tenn Wisc Dem, WayneNight, londubh, Sean in Motion, mystic, Democrat, ronlib, pathgirl, malharden, Kyle the Mainer, Rex Manning, funnywittobunny, what if, The Angry Rakkasan, Vic Arpeggio, rrheard, RudiB, pioneer111, Rumarhazzit, leonard145b, madgranny, Puffin, ImpeachKingBushII, JML9999, Predictor, Robin Scott, TomP, Empower Ink, extradish, cville townie, Theghostofkarlafayetucker, AJ WI, bigpappa10834, Mad Kossack, BlueStateLiberal, RickMassimo, RSA TX, RedJet, Aureas2, brooklynbadboy, CPDem81, okamichan13, denbo, Mother of Zeus, Akonitum, beltane, Greasy Grant, EAP, MainSt, smartdemmg, Jocelyn, TokenLiberal, enarjay, the new, dagnabbit, Drewid, jimmyboyo, smitha007, costello7, o the umanity, shigeru, luckylizard, joy sinha, JDB252, DixieDishrag, viralvoice, Michael 4 Edwards, lenzy1000, Tyrannocaster, Till Eulenspiegel, ludwig van brickoven, watercarrier4diogenes, Keith from Oxford, Stroszek

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.