The Politics of Fear — Again

[babylonsister]

The Politics of Fear — Again
by Ruth Rosen


Although I have supported Barack Obama in the primaries, I would not be devastated if Hillary Clinton should turn out to be the Democratic nominee. What does upset me, however, is how Clinton is employing the politics of fear and how much she emphasizes national security in order to mobilize support for her campaign.

The politics of fear worked wonders for Bush and Cheney. I’m genuinely saddened that Hillary Clinton would reach out to tell us, “be afraid, very afraid.” Her ads warn us about our children’s ’safety at 3 am in the morning and do nothing more than employ the politics of fear. Her relentless assertion that only she will be a strong commander-in-chief makes my blood boil. In response, Barack Obama must rejoin her attacks and convince us that he, too, would be a fine commander who can deal with crises and war.

Excuse me, but is this what we want from Democrats? Fear mongering? Haven’t we had enough from the Bush administration?

Of course we need a strong president who can protect the American people. Of course there are terrorists who are planning attacks on the United States. But no president can prevent a surprise attack. All a president can do is to ensure that our intelligence is excellent and that we are cooperating with nations around the world to prevent terrorist attacks.

So why do need a strong Command-in-Chief? To make war? Haven’t we had enough wars in the last 7 years?

What so disturbs me is that Hillary Clinton has created a debate that is irrelevant to our true domestic and economic security. Both Democratic candidates will be able to handle a crisis, but who among us, wants them to start and command yet more wars?

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/06/7501/

[DesertFlower]

1. i'm totally disgusted with what hillary

has been doing and saying. it's bad for the whole party.

[babylonsister]

2. You are not alone. nt

[Rageneau]

5. All Hillary is doing is standard campaigning. Mondale also had a "3AM ad"

Not that it did Mondale any good, but he ran essentially the same ad as Hillary did, and there wasn't a democrat (or a talking head) alive in those days who criticized him for it.

LBJ also used the same argument as Hillary is using; so did R Raygun. It is STANDARD to criticize an opponent's lack of experience in political campaigns. This tactic is certainly no less dishonest that Obama claiming Hillary isn't qualified because she voted for "war," when the truth is she voted for inspections to continue, backed up by force, if necessary.

Those who claim to be outraged at Hillary's actions are not credible. Their outrage is custom-manufactured to fit the occasion. Truth is, it doesn't matter WHAT action HRC takes, these people will always see it as unforgiveably unfair and underhanded -- not because it actually is, but because they hate Hillary to the point of mindless rage and/or they have a swooning teenage crush on BO.

(And you know how huffy, obnooxious, and put-out teenagers start acting when someone criticizes their latest fad.)

[DesertFlower]

6. excuse me, but i was not

an anti-hillary person. i've always said that i would support her 100% if she were the nominee. but what she is doing now is unforgivable and i can't in good conscience support her.

i don't really care what other politicians did or said in the past. right now we're at war and she's playing republican politics.

[OHdem10]

3. Keep in Mind-- Rank and file voters do not share the anti-war

sentiment.

Like it or not Americans view Commander In Chief Role as very
important. Every candidate knows this as he enters the race.

Bring up Commander In Chief is not fear mongering.

[babylonsister]

4. Majority of Americans were anti-war as of last September:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/washington/15fact.html

snip//

In a New York Times/CBS News poll last week, 64 percent of Americans said the United States should set a timetable for withdrawing troops sometime in 2008. But only 30 percent favored troop reductions or withdrawal if it meant that Iraq would become a base of operations for terrorists.

Yes, the commander in chief is important; one who isn't a warmonger is even more important.