Read between the lines. The Republicans know this information too. They know exactly what they need to do to keep Republicans on top.

is this Hillary's really weird way of getting the terrorists not to attack us??

Well, if she can't win voters over with her constant flip-flopping, maybe she can just try to scare them into voting for her.

"Whoa. Was she playing the terror card? Isn’t that the other team’s playbook. From Washington, the New York Post’s Geoff Earle writes up the AP quotes with the headline, “HILL: TERROR WOULD BE GOP BOOST.”

A little bird with an elephant’s memory reminds us that in the past, Clinton has maintained, as she did in The Washington Post in April, that terrorism “shouldn't be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight.”

Back in 2005, the Albany Times-Union wrote that she had told the newspaper’s editorial board that the Bush administration had used the war on terror as a "political tool" to frighten Americans into submission.

And last year, speaking to a United Auto Workers legislative policy conference in Washington, she lambasted Republicans by saying: “Contrary to Franklin Roosevelt who had nothing to fear but fear itself, this crowd is, ‘All we got is fear and we’re going to keep playing the fear card.’ “

It turns out to be a card that both sides can deal.

Right out of Karl Rove's playbook, this is why they call her Bush Lite.
Hillary will be no different

By Mike Allen 11:28 AM | comments (10) | post comment | permalink
digg this del.icio.us reddit Yahoo!
Facebook Google Technorati
Please leave your comments below.

name:
IP Address: Recorded on submit
comments

what was to be gained by her by saying that, granted, it's what most dems believe. in fact, I'm not surprised if Bin Laden himself has already been captured, and is being held in the White House basement, only to be rolled out just before the 2008 elections as a campaign stunt.

What a very odd thing to say…

I keep hitting my backspace key since words cannot simply describe how distasteful this line of 'reasoning' is! (and the post probably wouldn't comply with the CNN Comment Policy)

Who actually tries to 'calculate' which party will gain an advantage in the wake of such an unspeakable event? Then assert that "I'm your girl" afterward.

The more she opens her mouth, the more petty she seems. It's all about her. If she does win, and go on to win the general election, Bill's "legacy" will definitely take a downward turn.

Have a great weekend,

Chip

She's right, I have heard many people privately voice the same concerns. What if we are attacked again between now and November 2008? As the Republicans are generally viewed as being stronger on defense, it would definitely help their candidate. Notwithstanding how poorly the Bush administration has handled this issue since 2001.

Let's not forget about the 1976 election and how Iran released the hostages right after Reagan was elected president. The hostage situation tanked any chance Jimmy Carter had of a second term.

God forbid that happens again!! The election is very important but the lives of innocent people are more so and I cringe to think of another terrorist attack in our land.

As someone who was in the North Tower on 9/11 and saw things I would never want to see again, I still would vote for a Democrat if the worse happens once again.

What was actually adequate about Bush’s response to 9-11. The passenger’s response was adequate to down one airplane. The US government had none to minimal response and zero on effectiveness. The CIA was effective in Afghanistan as they started under Clinton but the Iraq chapter once again was a Republican Disaster. The world is not safer without Saddam!

BRILLIANT!

No Terrorist Attacks = Democrats favor

Terroist Attack = Republican Favor

Since it's been the Republican administration (Bush) that has used our military to pursue OBL, Al Qaeda, and terrorists - IF the terrorists want the Democrats in office, they won't attack.

Keep electing Republicans and the terrorist won't attack!

I love you Hillary!

wait a minute mrs.clinton if we get hit again it wont be a gop or dem problem. this comment will comeback to bite you

It seems like former first lady Sen Hillary Clinton is taking a page straight from the Bush-Cheney-Rove playbook.

She is using the scary prospect of a terror attack to somehow promote the illogical argument that she can best take on the Republicans.

She seems to think that her experience in fending off the Clinton-era scandals, some of which were her husband's own fault, will somehow give her the edge. That's not true.

What is so odd and so weird about Hillary's Comments on the GOP Terrorism Fear Card? It's the unequivocal truth. The Republicans have been playing the Fear Card throughout their entire reign!

Hillary is not flip flopping, she is strategically pointing out that the Republicans have been playing and are still playing the Fear Card since they were elected, because it is the ONLY card they have to play!

Hillary's message, which seems to have been missed, is that SHE is the best Candidate to handle any POSSIBLE future attack by the terrorists. But if you truly read between the lines, she is not promoting fear on a terrorist attack, unlike the Republicans, she is promoting assurance that SHOULD an attack take place, Americans do not have to fear, as she can and will deal with it in in a way that ensures the highest level of safety to Americans.

Maybe instead of reading between the lines, some could try reading the lines as they have been written, orated, quoted and printed.

Quite frankly, as someone who doesn't even have a vote, I'm tired of reading comments charging Hillary with Flip Flopping based on articles, statements and/or re-runs on issues that were news three to four years ago. C'Mon what person among us holds the exact same beliefs, assessments, on issues over a three to four year period. A person's assessments and beliefs change as does the situations they are associated to.

And this woman is NOT POLARIZING

On the surface Hillary's comment is bizarre. If you stop and think, there actually is an underlining reasoning to the thought process.

Hillary wasn't addressing the war on terror. The war on terror is an oxymoron, since you can't fight an emotion. She was addressing an act of terrorism, like a bombing or something similar.

Take the Madrid Spain bombing. That act of terrorism had such an impact on the voting populace that the existing government was voted out. The new government ended Spain's military involvement in Iraq.

So yes, it could be argued that an act of terrorism could play into the hands of the republicans who advocate a strong military.

Gads, that's twice today I stood up for something Hillary said. I feel so dirty now.

Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."

BECAUSE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… I've got all day lady………………………..

How many years does it take to put together a functioning, comprehensive health care plan anyways Ms. Clinton? we're running on about 10 years at least here.

Yeah?

America losing the war in Iraq helps the Democrats.

This woman is not fit to lead this country.

I wish we could stop focusing on every little one-liner on the campaign trail and look at issues of substance. Senator Clinton’s comment is obviously true, and equally obviously impolitic. Mostly, it’s irrelevant.

The last line of this story is: “Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her healthcare plan.” Any chance CNN is going to report on that? Or is there new video of a candidate with a cute puppy?

She is not equipped to be Senator much less President.

Oh yea, I almost forgot to add how impressed I was that cnn.com cited the NEW YORK POST SOURCE, since we all know what a credible national gossip rag, I mean newspaper it is.

I'm not sure I understand her logic behind this message but I love her anyway. Hillary/Obama 2008

Amazing, No comment as to how terrible it would be for this country or to those who would likely perish in such an attack, only that it would help the GOP candidates. Unbelievable

I am not American. I cannot vote.

The comments that note how fast and how disparaging comment against Ms Rodham-Clinton come down on her on this blog seem to be correct.

As to me? the early one-liners are unconvincing. I value more the reasoned ones that appear a bit later.

However, I do not share those views that try to belittle the obvious many talents she obviously possesses.

History shows that Clinton has a substantive point.

From the BBC:

US Democratic Senator John Kerry says a video message from Osama Bin Laden sealed his defeat in a presidential race dominated by the 9/11 attacks.

He said the impact of Bin Laden's message was evident by the dent in his ratings that followed its appearance.

"We were rising in the polls up until the last day when the tape appeared. We flat-lined the day the tape appeared and went down on Monday."

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

Love it or hate it, Democrats indulge their short-term memory at their own risk!

What she actually SAID was that Americans will rally behind the leadership in power if the US is attacked. That is certainly what happened after Pearl Harbor and on 9/12 wasn't it? If Kerry, McCain, Nader, Clinton, or Kucinich was president on the day of an attack, Americans would rally around him or her. Also, the leadership in power will have take the opportunity to make brave, well-televised speeches and shake the hands of brave young soldiers on their way to Iran or Korea or Syria or wherever. Focus groups will tell the President whether he/she looks more heroic in front of a picture of the Washington Monument or in front of a picture of the Los Angeles skyline.

Nothing can happen to anyone anywhere without 100,000 politicians thinking first about how many votes will move this way or that way as a result of this disaster. Similarly, if a refinery is destroyed by a bomb, stock brokers immediately purchase a competitor's oil stocks. Or, if a million children become sick with fatal avaian flu, funeral home chain stores start re-designing their advertising and they immediately order thousands of cute little pink and blue caskets decorated with nursery rhyme characters. Business is, after all, business. And when your business is politics, you think the same way.

The ancient Greeks had a better system. Many of their leaders were selected by drawing names (well qualified names) out of a large pot. The man whose name was drawn assumed office and had to defend his conduct and his decisions at the end of his term. While this method surely did not select the best man for the job every time, at least it selected average men most of the time. That is better than our democracy has done for the past few decades.

Whoa, Hillary!! Don't give the GOP any weird ideas.

Before you know it, Karl Rove will be taking flying lessons.

I thought you said presidents should not deal with hypotheticals, Mrs. Clinton. And what about not saying everything you think when running for president? You already act like you are the nominee, but you keep playing it safe. Show us some substance!

Hilary Clinton continues to be the best ever at lies. Ask her to explain how and under what law she would take all the profits from Exxon/Mobil and put them in an energy fund. She said that in early spring and the Liberal media stood by idly. Talk about ignorance equals the media. She is the most dangerous person in this country and is an absolute Socialist.

Clinton…Please be quite….You are changing your mind all the time…We want to see new face..Not Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Hope dynasty will not work in USA as it is in India

Hillary is concerned about a terrorist attack.. a terrorist attack in the U.S. before the next election.

Is she concerned about what such an attack might do to our economy? Nope.

Is she concerned about what an Islamic attack might cost us in terms of human life? Sorry, but no.

She's concerned that another terrorist attack might give the Republicans a better chance of keeping the White House in 2008.

That's certainly a statement to attact attention but it's very obvious. Not only will it be a big boost to the GOP, but it will provide further "justification" to erode the Constitution and conduct reckless foreign policy.

Excuse me, but is this an experienced presidential candidate speaking HYOPTHETICALLY about national security? i'm so flip flopped

ie…, a terrorist attack will reveal the dems as the spineless jellyfish they really are.

[quote]Let's not forget about the 1976 election and how Iran released the hostages right after Reagan was elected president. The hostage situation tanked any chance Jimmy Carter had of a second term.[/quote]

Boy typical liberal. Total lack of facts and incorrect assumptions.

First off it was the 1980 elections. Carter was in the white house so HE was the one in control of talks with Iran over the hostages. Finally Carter made a deal with the Iranians to get the hostages released but it occured MONTHS after the election was over and Carter had already lost.

Please liberals take some history lessions

Well, for once Hillary is right. An attacked on the USA would benefit the Republicans because they would do something about it. Ms. Hillary and her Democratic friends will wring their hands and hope to have a civilized chat with uncivilized people.

Hillary is just plain dumb. You will not be president missy! We can be sure if terrorist get at us with a democratic president, nothing will be done. Our military will probably be cut by then, and they (the terrorist)will truly rule the world.

Unfortunately, Hillary says want people think.

Is commander Hillary communicating to her supporters over seas?

Or does she not realize that Bush is the reason no one will attack us before the election??

Hello!?
The republicans did not attack the world trade center, pentagon , etc. They do not make anything "More Dangerous". They are Americans just like Hillary. She voted for Iraq. The spin Doc's are gonna have a field day if she keeps this propaganda rhetoric going. Lance

What does that mean? Seems to me that she is implying that Republican will "engieering" an attack to win election.

I don't like the situation US is now in, but we out to defend our country from a real attack.

And anyone suggest this, or even imply US government "engineering" 9/11 or future attacks, should be banned from being in or seeking future public office. When is people going to see Clintons are nothing but bad politicans.

That is undoubtedly the worse comment I have ever heard a political candidate make. If anything does happen now, the GOP will be blamed? That seems to be all the Democrats know how to do is put the blame on others. I have not heard any of the Democratic canditates say how they are better, just blame the Republicans. They can do it better, but how?

Good job, Hillary. Remind independent and other party voters that the Democrats are weak on terror and the Republicans are strong.

Is it me or are all Democrats this week committing political suicide?

The Democrat mayor in New Jersey doesn't want his police to send illegal aliens arrested for crimes to the Feds. Meanwhile, three colleges students may have been killed by an illegal alien in his own city!

I just can’t bring myself to vote for someone who would only think of political gain or loss in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Forget the victims, forget the families, what about Hillary’s political chances? Come on, that’s sickening.

I’m definitely voting for Obama. He is the only one that makes any sense nowadays.

I'm starting to really dislike her. Nice message to the terrorists, Hill.

Absolutely twisted. The LACK of terrorist attacks has been the only success point for the GOP. But Clinton twists that to say the GOP really wants (benefits) from an attack. What?!?

Clinton is trying to parry the truth:

1) No terrorist attacks after 9/11. Thank you Bush!
2) Success in Iraq is bad for the Democrats. Think about that for a minute.

Hil's right: The Reps. know how to make a barking seal bark–SCARE EM !

I have to say, this is a horrible comment to have made for anyone, let alone a candidate for President! Hillary no longer has any right to make fun of Obama's gaffs after this sorry statement.

I have always hated the way the Bush administration used fear to try to control the population and thought that at least the democrats were above that kind of despicable behavior. But to speculate on who would win an election if there were a terrorist attack (AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE DIED!!!)
is the most incredibly insensitive thing I've ever heard!
I think Obama must be moving up quite close to Hillary in those opinion polls CNN is so fond of quoting.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS ELECTED. As a wise man once said:

"…no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scum [...] that got you in there, and this little screen comes down… and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll…. And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'

"Just what my agenda is."

Who cares about the damn polls. Wake up and smell the coffee Shrillary. We need someone who will not appease terrorists. And deep down the citizens of this country know that. For hundreds of years Christians, Jews, Buddhist, Hindu, and Atheists alike have been fighting islamic extremism. AKA muslims. Did you notice that Muslims are equal opportunity killers?
They are against and will kill or convert everyone not worshipping Allah.
et the picture - it is everyone agaist islam.

We've talked, shook hands, given presents, and probably a lot of other things that I don't even want to know about. This crap is not going away. The only way it will go away is to eliminate the source. I don't care how smart you are, how much education you've had, and what kind of diplomat you are. Nobody is going to negotiate with these psychos. And if you did, as history tell us, they would just lie and back out of the deal.

The Socialist, I mean Democrats will not do what is necessary to eliminate this threat to the Ameican and western way of life. The Republicans are only going to halfway do it. So Democrats and Republicans alike should not be allowed to mention the word terrorism.

Anyone that thinks like that, should not be President. Politians should not even talk about running war's. She want's another Veitnam.

And she want to be the chief executive officer of the United States and like the other two top Democratic candidates has NEVER run a State, a City, or even a business. How is she at all qualified to be President?

She's exactly right and just stating the obvious. Nice to see someone do that for a change.

However, if there is another terrorist attack prior to the elections, it only means that the Bush's war on terror has failed and that Republicans can't keep us safe.

Hillary is right. Why is it when people tell you the truth you want to crucify the messenger. Then turn and say why don't they just tell us the truth. Why? Cause they know you can't handle THE TRUTH.
The GOP win because they are best at using fear to win. They've done it for the last almost seven years. Don't get mad at Hillary for telling the truth. She's warning Dems to be ever viligent be ready to take on the GOP if they play that card. If you can stop hating on her long enough you'll see that she's right.

Dear Chip:
Dont you remember Cheney saying if we vote for democrats the reality is we will be hit and hit hard by terrorist. how about that for a calculated approach to our fears?

have a nice weekend

Lovely…Hillary plays the terror card. Is Karl Rove hiding under her dress, feeding her those lines? Why would she disparage her entire party like that? She's perpetuating the ridiculous lies that Cheney and Bush spread when Kerry ran; that a vote for a Dem means that Al Queda will be at your front porch. I've been a Democrat my entire life and I can't imagine why Hillary would prop herself up by positioning the Dems as weak on terror, while suggesting that the Republicans as the only ones who can keep us safe if a terror attack happens. I will vote for anyone but Hillary. If she's the nominee, I'm going third party or staying home. We don't need another warmongering, neocon who refuses to denounce their Iraq-war vote and trounces about the country stating that "war with Iran is not off the table". We need a true leader who can save our democracy, our civil rights and be a rational, diplomatic leader. We don't need Hillary.

Everybody already knew that…

For Reps is a political advantage…

For Dems is a political disadvantage…

For ALL of Us is a Shame and Disgrace.

If she felt inclined to list things that would help republicans why not mention a victory in Iraq or the strongest economy in decades. this is just a message to al qaeda not to attack us until after the election. Her advisors probably told her that the only thing between her and victory is a major terror attack. There is no other reason to say this. She is clearly talking to the terrorist - how could anyone see it differntly?

Nice to see that Clinton has faith in her ability to affect policy change in government. Last time the terrorists attacked, who voted for the wrong war again? Oh. That's right… a democrat with the initials HRC.

I'm very much afraid that if we do get attacked again, she will continue to make the same mistakes. Nice leadership Hillary! We -really- need Obama to get the nomination. Really badly…

Columbus, OH … "constant flip flopping"?

Wasn't it Dubya who spoke out AGAINST using our military for foreign nation building before his 2000 election?

Wasn't it Dubya who said "I don't think you can win it" in reference to a war on terror BEFORE he said we were "absoliutely" winning it?"

And did not he say that REPEATEDLY up until the Nov 7th elections which was before his newly hired Sec of Defense said we WERENT winning in Iraq?

And didn't he just compare the conflict in Iraq to Vietnam after telling us for years that there was no comparison?

Or were all those just LIES rather than flip flops?

Tell us wont you?

Jon from Sacramento,

Where do you get that the Bush administration has gone after Osama Bin Laden??? Now if you told me we went after the leader of a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Fact: None of the terrorists on board the planes that hit us on 9/11 were Iraqi) then I'd say you are correct! Unfortunately that is not exactly pursuing Osama Bin Laden my friend, which is what you all criticized Barack Obama for wanting to do. We need to scale back our presence in Iraq to aid and assist the training of the Iraqi forces and escalate our presence in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan to capture and/or execute Osama Bin Laden

Way to point out the obvious Mrs Clinton. Maybe this wouldn't be true if Jimmy Carter and Billy Boy hadn't shown us how well doing nothing works.

Isn't it ironic that at one time Democrates were viewed as tough on National Defense, but John Kennedy was a different breed of Democrat and nothing like the majority of the jellyfish that the Democrates have running around now.

That's a surprisingly candid statement coming from the Dems frontrunner. Does she know something we don't? Hmmm…

today @ 5 PM
http://political-buzz.com/2007/08/23/political-buzz-radio-tomorrow-at-5-pm-eastern/

Gotta love the logic here. If terrorists attack under the Republican watch, it helps the Republicans. Nevermind the intelligence incompetence that would allow such a thing to occur. No one shines quite the illusion of safety as those Republicans!

And yes, this was a stupid move on Hillary's part.

The more that woman talks, the more she puts her foot in it.

She's right. I'm just not so sure I would have phrased it the way she did. But Bush, his cronies and other GOPs repeatedly use fear to keep us voting for them. They also use it as a way to distract us from the real issues.

The argument that terrorists will put off attacking us to get a democrat in office is pretty silly. The Bush administration has done more work to errode the world's opinion of US than any Clinton I know of. We are making enemies faster than we can kill them. How about electing a president that will keep us from being attacked?

Hillary's comment reflects the unfortunate fact that, in wartime, one of our major parties is not serious about defeating the enemy. Rather, Democrats would prefer to focus on health care and the environment. How much better off would we all be if both sides were truly interested in finding and eliminating the terrorist threat?

Aren't politics supposed to stop at the water's edge? Just reading some of the posts above remind me of how much dissent the Democrats have chosen to sow with respect to nearly every anti-terror measure the President has employed. Wake up, people.

Dear God, the woman could say she had Eggs Benedict for breakfast and you'd find someway to attack that! She will be the Democratic nominee for President, get used to it. The question is, which old cronie from the right will go up against her?

While I am not certain this is a wise thing to say, it is what most people already believe.

If you don't believe that Karl the Rover or other conservative strategists have already worked out how to take political advantage of a successful terrorist attack (while simultaneously absolving Bush/Cheney of any responsibility), then you probably believe there are still WMDs in Iraq.

She's no better than Bush. I dislike them both, and even after all that Bush has messed up, I would rather see him than Hillary as president. I don't trust her as far as i can throw her. She's a real snake in the grass, just you wait and see.

Dave, NC .. Hillary stating a simple astoundingly obvious FACT to those who have a brain in their heads is "playing the terror card"?

Which party do you think will jump all over another attack with their "SEE! I told you we were in constant threat from the terrorists we need to get over THERE before they come here!" rhetoric?

Hint: They got fleeced on Nov 7th last year and they're run largely on a campaign of FEAR since its all they have to run on.

James, Conshohocken PA .. isn't it even more odd that it's the TRUTH?

Chip .. it's even more distasteful to see that Dubya used that very line of reasoning to get re-elected isn't it?

Jon, Sacramento Ca .. yep .. BRILLIANT in its astounding simplicity: Republicans LOVE terror - it's kept their Commander in Thief in office and makes their politically connected companies richer.

This is the kind of rhetoric that we don't need. She is taking a page from the Bush campaign. She is beginning to show her true colors.

Didn't bush got re-elected in 2004 for this fact. The real reason America voted for these two fools is that America felt more secured with a GOP candidate, bush kept scaring the Nation about terror and this is why we all got to pay for our mistake as a Nation for voting for whats his face? by the way I'm independent.

Then I hope they so us a big favor and carry out another attack. If that's what it takes to get rid of this woman once and for all.

Anybody but Hillary.

I'm speachless… What a horrible thing to say. Although, I could just be over sensitive. I'd like to hear her repeat that on national TV. I'd like to see what the American people would have to say.

Lets put it in this perspective Hillary girl, if the U.S. has another terrorist attack in the next year and a half or beyond, we all lose. If we do not have another terrorist attack we all win.

Look beyond the politics into the lives of people in our great country. Who wants to elect someone that is focused on party advantage from an attack? I want someone who is focused on keeping myself and my family safe.

I knew Hillary was more of the same, but I have to say I'm surprised to see her using the politics of fear. Republicans aren't any better at tracking down terrorists and bringing them to justice, they're just more willing to sacrifice our civil rights for that end. Instead of challenging conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton is just pointing out why you should be scared into voting for her. Obama is the candidate who is challenging the conventional wisdom.

Republicans made the world more dangerous? What about that sissy Carter or her two timing husband?

Jon - that's not what she is saying. That was a stretch of the imagination. And Mike she wasn't playing the fear card either. Your posts totally mischaracterized her statement. If your going to discuss or debate something at least try and use some semblance of logic. Give us a break.

ie…, wait unti after the election, then we'll be sitting on our thumbs and doing nothing to stop you.

Hillary is right. People are so stupid that another terrorists attack would probably help the Republicans. This is dispite the fact that the Republican administration has made our world a much moore dangerous place and bungled things badly! The fact that the Republicans are still viewed by many people to be "stronger on terrorism" shows how stupid they are.

Ok, since 911 we have not been attacked, is that due to them not wanting to mess with Bush? Is it because they have not been able to plan and impliment? It sounds like Hillary is saying: The terrorist are afraid of the GOP staying in office so they will not attack. If the DEM get office we can look forward to being attacked because they do not fear the Democrats.

Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war…doesn't seem as if she's the best candidate to react to a terrorist attack.

Her redhead headdress collapses. Try not to forget about that.

http://www.golden-lamp.com

It's absolutely true - and every other candidate and pundit are thinking the exact same thing….but not speaking it. The Republicans have worked this very message for the past eight years and know all too well the implications of another attack. Like it or not - it's a fact of life in American politics now.

she is absolutely right….
The terror attack in Madrid's Etocha Station is a perfect example of how terrorist attacks can and will effect elections.

It's a sad state of affairs when you have to use fear tactics to win an election. Is that all we have going for us? If it is, we're doomed.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend? In a very strange way, are the Terrorists the GOP Stealth Friends? I hope the electorate disavow themselves of such stealth alliances. Our hopes will triumph over our fears, so Hillary, you are wrong. Hillary,if you want to be our President you will have to trust our evolved judgement. We trusted you on the Iraq war vote and you got it wrong.If our judgement is better than yours, we will not blindly sanction any stealth alliances and the next President will demonstrate the capacity not just fear tactics leading us through such challenging times.

Why is this controversial? Isn't she right?

Somehow I can just see her on her knees, hands folded on her bed at night praying for a terrorist attack…she's as sick and twisted as her husband….

The Terrorist is our Government. They planned 9/11, and they're planning another attack on their people. It's all part of the Project for a New America. We are never leaving the middle-east, as a part of the New World Order.
http://www.newamericancentury.org

Google The American Empire, David Ray Griffin.

Americans have been fooled and continue to be fooled.

Peace, and good luck.

You may be right that her comment was tasteless; however, sometimes the truth must speak irregardless!!

WHAT? Isn't this the person who distains hypotheticals as evidence of being naive and inexperienced?

MS.Clinton's comments were not only tasteless, but frightening…let us not forget that we are talking about electing a PRESIDENT here. As a presidential candidate, she should be demonstrating her best behavior, discretion and judgment. To make such unguarded and unwise remarks surely raises questions about her ability to control her words, and by extension, her actions & reactions.

If elected, she would be dealing with untold amounts of information that would need to be closely guarded. National security concerns are only one issue. Diplomatic meetings, contacts with other heads of state and governments, as well as with other political leaders & constituents make discretion & foresight essential.

Ms. Clinton appears to "shoot from the hip" & react to situations, rather than having the ability to carefully weigh her words before thinking. Too often,she appears to put expediency & situational concerns before the wiser course of considering long term implications.

Do we really want this type of behavior representing our country on the world stage?

I think not.

I love the way people always have an issue when a politician states the obvious! Stop trying so hard to be politically correct. Us regular American folk want truth, not pretty words and niceties.
Signed,
Republican

I think that the candidates should leave these hypotheticles about attacks out of the debate as much as possible for it centers attention on attacking us. If it does happen both parties will have to deal with the issue anyway and we the people will decide whom we shall pick as the best leadership to handle our future and in this area I actually think that the Dems. can hold there own when it comes to defense, after all the Republicans got us deeper into this mess and have created more terrorists with the invasion of Iraq.

Help is on the way!

BaROCK the vote !!!

Hillary is just Bush-lite! she will just continue the head games of the bush adminstration

What you missed after Dodd said it was "Tasteless", is where he mumbled "but true."

She isn't playing the fear card as the republicans do on a daily basis. She is simply stating the obvious truth when asked a question.

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

1. Hillary - this was simply an unbecoming remark, even though the other side has been doing it since 9/11.

2. Why do those bloggers who whine about CNN keep coming back?

She's probably correct in that assertion, the question is whether or not she should have said it. Was it a foot-in-mouth moment for Hillary? She seems to choose her words pretty carefully, she knows the ears of the world are listening. Maybe she's trying to draw a reaction from the Republican candidates, since all they seem to want to talk about is abortion and gay marriage.

Republicans, of course, are more than happy to use the fear of terrorism as an election tactic. Nobody ever brings this up, but remember before the 2004 election all the "terrorism alerts" issued by the Dept. of Homeland Security? Seemed like every time Bush's numbers dipped, Homeland would issue another alert. There was one right before the Fouth of July weekend about exploding beer coolers! As far as I know, nobody ever investigated this abuse or mentioned it again, and we haven't had an "alert" since the election.

I suspect Hillary is trying to stay a step ahead of the GOP and frame the debate her way. John Kerry spent his campaign defending himself, and poorly at that. Hillary seems well aware of the lows the GOP will go to smear a Democrat, and she won't let herself be swift-boated.

Clinton is:
proud of voting to authorize the president to go to war;
delighted that Saddam Hussein was captured;
thinks American troops should stay in Iraq for as long as they're needed, and at higher levels than present, if necessary;
thinks that the postwar fight to secure Iraq is crucial.

And yet, for some reason, she also thinks a terrorist attack is good for the GOP??

Hey Chip, stop with all of the drama. Its no secret that political outfits use our fear of a terrorist attack as a way to present one political party as being more concerned with the security of the American homeland. Bush constantly commented during his second campaign that if the Democrats are elected, they won't keep Americans safe. When called on his alarmism, he then switiched to the whole gay marriage mantra. Terror alert levels were always at their highest in airports during the last presidential campaign. I am not sure whose campaign you are working on, but we all know that the Republicans have used the fear factor since Sept. 11th to control the thinking of Americans. Also, if you will remember, when the Iraq War vote went before Congress intially, a number of politicians that voted against it lost their seats during reelection. So stop with the drama. As for Chris Dodd; if it ain't broke, then don't try and fix it. That is, your legislative career is going well; stay there. You are a legislator, not a President.

It is natural that people rally to support their leaders when their homeland is under attack. (Remember the atmosphere after 9/11.) It is the conclusion of her statement that is incorrect. Most of countries (other than Western Europe) operate on traditional principles of having a male leader. Mrs. Clinton might be able to implement some good ideas about education and health care, but she would not be taken seriously in male dominated countries (which are many and I lived in some, too, so I know what I am talking about). Weather we like it or no, this is not about enlightening chauvinistic guys or inspiring oppressed women somewhere in Pakistan. This is about the world's only Superpower being lead by a female, Hillary Clinton, Commander in Chief. To think that this is irrelevant or could be overcome, THAT is truly naive…America is laughed at and hated already, this would create even more division… I can sympatize with her as a woman, but partisan politics aside, she is not the right person for the job…

"What If"? Is this a responsible and experienced presidential candidate speaking "HYPOTHETICALLY" about our national security? I am naievely flip-flopped

To ReadBtwthlins:
Since you’ve chosen to lift your comments almost word-for-word from a previous post by Tom of Dedham Mass, I’ll give you a paraphrase of my response:

1)She’s “proud of voting to authorize the president to go to war”
She’s not proud of the vote, but she has no reason to be ashamed of it either.
Senator Clinton voted to give the President a tool to use against an enemy. That Bush completely misused that tool is not her fault. Bush bungled the war, not Clinton.

2) “she's "delighted" that Saddam Hussein was captured”
Me too. But that doesn’t mean it was worth the terrible price we payed.

3) “American troops should stay in Iraq for as long as they're needed”
Yes they should. But we need to put enough pressure on the Iraqi government so we aren’t needed anymore.

4) “and the postwar fight to secure Iraq is crucial.”
It is. We shouldn’t have gone to war, but we did. We made a mess of it and we need to help clean it up.

As to the last comment, it’s about politics, not policy. I’m not sure it was a smart political thing to say, but it’s obviously true.

Senator Clinton (and the rest of the Democratic candidates) are trying to solve a difficult problem that an incompetent Republican administration has created. They are finally being joined in that effort by rational Republican like John Warner. Misleading innuendo like your posting does a disservice to America in a time of crisis.

Too bad that Barack Obama's comment about Bush-Cheney lite was so close to the mark. Is Hilary Clinton reading from the Bush playbook the chapter on "let's use fear to scare up support". We're not that stupid, Hilary.

Wasn't it Clinton who warned against “hypotheticals” when Obama talked about Pakistan? Now she is creating one of her own. Be careful what you say and who you criticize. She is being a hypothetical hypocrite I say! Why hasn’t CNN reported on this? I wonder?

Obama in 08′ I say!

Have you all forgotten Ashcroft and his scare tactics of constantly raising the code to orange? Maybe it's because most of you are not from the NYC area, but we had enough of code oranges for unspecified dangers. The Republicans used the "war on terror" as the main reason why people should reelect Bush in 2004. Hillary is just stating the facts.

Hillary Clinton ROCKS!

The only way the government is going to move ahead and solve the problems the nation faces from immigration, to terrorism, to the Iraqi war and all the problems that are not solved by a group of divisive, partisan, politically expedient politicians is to vote for leaders who will bring people together.

These leaders are not running for the Republican side nor is Hilary Clinton. Any of these people as president is to continue the stalmated, unfavorable record of the past.

Voters need to seek out reasonable, nation first candidates or who knows where this country will be in five years.

This is not a stupid remark. She is so correct that it is scarry. The republicans do nothing better than use terrorism to keep the American people right where they want them. Any time it is close to any election, you can count on the "The Terror Color Code" being "BLAZING RED". Come on people wise up to the manipulation. Hillary how ever crazy that comment might sound to some you are definitely right.

RESPONDING TO A COUPLE OF YOU POSTERS:

Evan Esteves - you wrote, "Where do you get that the Bush administration has gone after Osama Bin Laden??? "

Perhaps you missed the whole Afghanistan engagement? You remember - where we told the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. They refused. We went into Afghanistan, removed the Taliban, killed high-value Al Qaeda targets, tracked OBL to mountain caves (Bora Bora) and still have an ongoing presence seeking OBL's death? Is that all news to you?

Rick ~ Chicago

You wrote, "BRILLIANT in its astounding simplicity: Republicans LOVE terror - it's kept their Commander in Thief in office and makes their politically connected companies richer."

Awww Ricky - here I thought we were going to be friends! First - let me compliment you … you ARE a very knowledgeable person - and I assume a fairly honest guy. SO… how about you and I set the record STRAIGHT:

In 1997 the Clinton Administration put up for bid the LOGCAP (U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program) for the Balkans. The present company doing the contract was Halliburton. The lowest bidder in 1997 was Dyncorp. WHO DID PRESIDENT CLINTON AWARD THE CONTRACT TO?

Just want to make sure when you start touting how Republicans make sure "their" companies (ala Halliburton) get all the big contracts - you stay intellectually honest here.

I'm sorry, but I have to reorder my preference for the democratic candidates. Note: this is just my voting, it is perfectly reasonable for people to conclude to support any of the candidates, I am not criticizing.

My preferences

1. Obama (retains my first choice) Obviously sincere, experienced, tremendous leader. Very detailed policy statements clearly articulated in speeches and on web site. I KNOW where he stands and what he'll do. I have never been more excited to support a candidate.

2. Biden (up from third). Very detailed policies I KNOW where he stands and I trust him.

3. Clinton (down from second). Where's the experience? She has almost no clearly articulated plans. Just look at her web site. In her most recent speech available on her web site, she promises a comprehensive health plan next month. I'm sure she is studying Obama's and Biden's web sites for the excellent health care policies they have explained in detail there. I'm losing faith in her, she is a lightning rod for partisanship. The statement reported here doesn't bode well. I just don't see her earning the trust of the republican side to allow compromise, in part because I don't see her ever trusting the republican side. She also seems rather hypocritical in doing the saying the things that she criticizes Obama for saying - nukes, hypotheticals, etc.

4. Richardson (retaining 4th). Again, just not enough details to judge. Vague plans relative to Obama and Biden.

Obama just received the endorsement of the top democratic foreign policy experts: Brzezinski. The only person to endorse HRC's foreign policy statements: HRC.

So glad Hillary is not afraid to keeping speaking the truth. Finally, a candidate who is not afraid to be controversial.

The GOP is so hypocritical it hurts. Neocons have been using terrorism to scare up votes for years, and now they blast Hillary for pointing it out? Who are these people kidding.

I think they're just terrified they've finally met the Democrat who can (and will) beat them at their own game. The view ain't so good from the other side, huh?

Somehow I can just see her on her knees, hands folded on her bed at night praying for a terrorist attack…she's as sick and twisted as her husband….
Posted By Lynn, Tucson, AZ : August 24, 2007 3:22 pm

Want to know who's, "sick and twisted", Lynn…read your disgusting psychotic post.

Van

I guess there is no getting through to die hard Republicans. They will stay loyal and true at whatever cost. They will see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and keep praising Bush and his administration for the imaginary accomplishments they see in their fairy tale world.

So go ahead, put another Republican in office. And when your next Republican leader continues to destroy all you hold sacred, you can go again to your safe fairy tale world and pretend all is well and good in America.

In my world, the terrorists do not create as much fear or dread as the Republicans.

Good Ole Hillary….using a hypothetical. She has alot of nerve trashing Obama. Double standard at it's best! True leaders stay focused and Hillary is not one of them.

That statement is right out of the Bush playbook for the last election. It was distasteful when they used it and still is today.

$1000 bucks says ReadBtwthlins doesn't respond to the verbal bashing he's endured on this thread!

He continually posts a comment, then cut and runs away at the slightest hint of confrontation.

1000 more bucks says he's a republican!

I'm a democrat and while this may be true its utterly disgusting for Hillary to be thinking about and talking about things like this. If there's anything holy left lets please not frame a domestic terror attack in terms of who stands to "benefit" from it. Please!

I've never been a huge Hillary fan but this comment has pretty much sealed the deal. If she's the Democratic candidate, I may just stay home. We don't need more of that kind of divisiveness in America.

Jon, Sacramento,

"Since it's been the Republican administration (Bush) that has used our military to pursue OBL, Al Qaeda, and terrorists"

Ummm … Would that be the same Bush administration that promised to get OBL "dead or alive" (insert more bad-azz, cowboy statements as you see fit here) .. and then called off American troops when he had OBL pinned down in Tora Bora?

Would that be the SAME Bush administration that then disbanded the terrorist tracking unit that was looking for him?

Would that be the very ummm … same Bush administration that HAS YET TO FIND HIM?

And would this be the same Bush administration that is now responsible for Al Queda's presence in Iraq - a place where they formerly couldn't reside when Saddam was in power? Who is now nation building in Iraq with our military after criticizing Clinton for doing so with peacekeeping missions in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans?

WAIT!

Would this ALSO be the same Bush administration that said "I don't think you can win it" in reference to the very War on Terror that they started, with OTHER (under-armored) kids lives, to secure those stockpiles of WMDS that they were in a rush to NOT find?

LOL … better luck next time coming up with some Bush "positives" that I can't tear down quite so incredibly easily.

Now she's done it. Inciting terrorism, even if indirectly, is a very bad move on her part.

I bet the repubs really are worried now, because Hillary has just lost a large percentage of her "in the bag" supporters, because of this outrageous comment. And the repubs were hoping SHE would be the nominee, because she would be easiest to beat (compared to Edwards and Obama).

She's crossed the line on this one, and am glad she did. Putting her foot in her mouth about Iraq didn't seem to be enough, now's she got BOTH feet in there. She'll never get the Democratic nod with "incite-ful" comments like that. She should just withdraw, or at least leave her feet in her mouth.

It's looking brighter for Edwards and Obama every day !!!

Did Clinton really say that terrorist attacks would "help" any group or person? Why would any candidate say that?

That Democratic Rep. Clyburn (sp?) said last week that winning in Iraq would not be a good thing for Democrats. Oh that's really a good one too.

Even though it's a difficult concept to fathom, I believe that using fear and setting up a situation to illicit fear is exactly what benefits someone who does everything they can to get elected and to achieve thier ideology. Hitler dressed up his soldiers in Polish uniforms and had them storm into a German radio station killing Germans so that he would be able to acquire Poland. This created much fear in his country and he then was able to "defend" his country against Poland as a result. Little did the Germans know that is what Hitler was up to. We can be quite blind when it comes to fear and manipulation. I do believe the 2004 vote was a result of this very same fear and manipulation. Terror warnings were used to pull people back into the Bush frame of mind. A video of Osama bin Laden came out right before the election which virtually solidified Bush's reelection; of course there was also much talk of gay marriages that brought the right wing conservation bible belt out to vote. I can't for the life of me understand how that could take precedence over a war, but it did for some. I also wonder how much of 911 was staged, or at least known beforehand, so as to acquire the Bush ideology called PNAC. If people would just do a little bit of research, you would see that not all of the events of 911 add up. It's really quite scary to research this stuff. NO, it doesn't make a person anti-American to do so. It takes a very smart person to question things that don't add up and to do what is right for their country. We cannot afford to play into this fear hand, or we will end up losing all freedoms that remain. We have lost enough already.

So Hillary can't stand on her convictions; she can't win on her vast experience with foreign matters, her financial savvy and military expertise? She thinks people will really think higher of her if she says a terrorist attack will help Republicans?

To Bea of Hoboken- at least President Bush took action to go to the cells in the Middle East instead of telling the AMerican people not to worry.

p.s. don't you think that whether or not homeland security tells us about code levels and warns us of plots, most americans will still sit ontheir fat butts, watch tv and go shopping ?

If you want more of the right wing conspiracy, conventional thought and fear vote for Hillary. If you want change, an end to the red state and blue state divide, bipartisanship and common sense VOTE OBAMA.

Hey, peter, miami, florida; Rick, Chicago Illinois; Shawn, Atlanta, Georgia

The same thing was used previously? Say it isn't so. My short term memory must be fading faster than I thought, gee, thanks for reminding me. In that case, I guess that justifies Hillary using it.

Are you not tired of politics as usual?

Only one of you noticed that Chris Dodd said the same thing I did, of course he's not a "top-tier" candidate so perhaps his views are irrelevant? (if it ain't broke, don't fix it…?) What is that supposed to mean, they're all currently or have been at one time legislators….

Calling me dramatic! Asking whose campaign I'm working on. Did my comment tip that hat, or are you just suspicious because if I'm against Hillary I must be another candidate's plant or an evil neo-con.

How would Bush using the same line be "even more distasteful?" Is it because he represents the 'other guys'?

I think they're equally lame.

Do you support her actions? Why? Just because the other guy did it isn't a valid answer.

Best regards,

Chip

someone said "if Democrats get elected they won't keep America safe"…

they will have our soldiers sitting idle, getting paid for doing nothing. well, that sounds really smart.

And with this Administration leaving the Mexican border wide-open and suing any town that tries to reign in the illegal immigration situation. Makes you wonder.

Yeah, 4+ years of Clinton partisanship to look forward to. Senator Clinton, the enemy is the terrorists, not Republicans. Why can't we elect a President of the whole United States this time, not just the blue or red half?

It's an obvious statement. No need to read too much into it.

And why are people acting like "the terrorists" will hear about this and plan their entire future upon it? I doubt bin Laden gets cable TV in the mountain caves.

Wow Hillary sounds really hmmm whats the word I'm looking for not naive hmmm maybe no not inexperienced. Right because when one candidate tells the american people what they feel its unwise but when Hillary Clinton tells you to vote for her if a terrorist attack happens isn't using fear at all. Fear of terrorists keeping Republicans in power??? I really wish I knew what in the world Hillary was thinking, but we all know she would never tell us because, well she just isn't sincere is she.

Just a thought but……why do people continue to say Repugs are stronger on defense when the worst attacked on our soil was executed on their watch? Confusing isn't it?

Terrorist attacks = Endless War = Money for corporations. We'd be better off with Ross Perot as president. At least he would be straightforward about his blatantly opportunistic motives. He said flat-out he would run the country as a corporation. That's much better than allowing some corporation to outfit the war and take the money and run…Everybody's talking about WHY she said what she said–because it's the truth. Does that still matter to conservatives? Or are we supposed to operate on blind faith?

Hillary Clinton's comment was irresponsible and naive.

That's the kind of fear-mongering I would generally associate with the Bush administration.

You know it probably wasn't smart to say it but she's right. 9/11 has been very good politically for the Bush administration.

She feels that, and I have for years. I'm half afraid we'll attack Iran or something as the election nears to scare people into voting Repulican again.

Hillary is the best prepared to fight terrorists? What is her foreign policy? She showed how smart she is by voting for the Iraq War.

And I thought Hillary said presidential candidates should not use hypotheticals…so why is she using hypotheticals?

Yet another flip flop from Hillary….funny how CNN failed to point out her contradictions on hypotheticals.

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

Also, how many times does this woman tell us that she doesn't want to engage in hypotheticals? Then, she starts theorizing on the hypothetical impact of an attack.

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

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

To top it all off, Obama has much better judgment and leadership skills than Hillary. The sooner people start realizing that, the better off we'll all be.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is absolutely right in saying "Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president," and "There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs and Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America's relationship with the world."

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

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

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

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

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

Zbigniew Brzezinski is absolutely right in saying "Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president," and "There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs and Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America's relationship with the world."

The stupidity of this remark is beyond my comprehension. Is Clinton reeling of Cheney's 'talking points'?

What an irresponsible thing to say. Maybe this experience versus change debate should really be about what constitutes GOOD JUDGEMENT.

Mrs. Clinton always seems to be the first to criticize others about making reckless assumptions. But she has put it out there—now jeopardizing the races of our other Democratic candidates running in tight ‘08 Congressional races.

But now that it is out there can’t Democrats and those critical independent voters also speculate by asking, “What if? What if? Certain things happen after Mrs. Clinton has won the nomination but before the general election, particularly with respect to Bill Clinton and any suspected recent infidelities with younger women that might emerge? Wouldn’t that automatically give the Republicans a morale advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

Unfair question? Irresponsible? Bad Taste? You bet it is. But Dan Rather explored that very question on Chris Matthew’s show last weekend. You can be sure that while Mrs. Clinton is now more than willing speculate on the impact another terrorist attack might have on the entire election—she will no doubt get a pass by an equally irresponsible press that will never ask a “what if question” based on what impact any new suspected unfaithfulness by her husband might have on her as a Presidential candidate or on the general election.

Still disappointed in Hillary. She is as bad as her husband when it comes to bending to polls and soundbites.

Chip wrote:Who actually tries to 'calculate' which party will gain an advantage in the wake of such an unspeakable event? Then assert that "I'm your girl" afterward.

I think he makes a great point here.
Unfortuneatly, this seems to be the standard bill of fare that we get from all the candidates, from both parties.

If we keep having candidates of this quality running for office, we will end up like France, a socialist nightmare that keeps finding new ways to become worse.

If Hillary gets in the White House, she will find it much more difficult to handle the terrorists than if her husband had taken bin Laden after he was captured by another country and served to him on a silver platter. He also could have taken him when snipers had him in sight, but he was too wishy-washy to give the command. Will Hillary have the guts to do what her husband wouldn't? Perhaps she learned a lesson from him. If so