Hillary's Huge Gaffe

[ProSense]

We Suck (Don't Tell Anybody)

08.24.07 -- 11:21AMBy Josh Marshall
I agree with Matt on this one. 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.

It also signals a lack of confidence either in your own policies or the American people's reasoning powers. And quite possibly both. And whether or not your policies make sense and whether or not the American people know jack you just can't be an effective advocate of those policies unless you think average Americans can be persuaded that they make sense.

Otherwise, you are permanently off balance, ill-prepared and incoherent.

Policy Failure: Good for the GOP?

24 Aug 2007 10:13 am

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.

more

Hillary's Huge Gaffe

The Experienced Candidate....

Time: "After Maliki, Few Good Alternatives" and Juan Cole: "Hillary develops Foot in Mouth Disease"

[Elidor]

1. It says a lot about how she thinks

And after laying out a pretty convincing case for why she should NOT be the candidate, she goes on to say, with typical arrogance, "So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that."

Truly, she has no clue. These are not the thoughts of a leader.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Gee, thanks for tapping us into another board. The conversation here has been slow lately...

There are not enough threads at DU slamming Clinton that you had to go outside to find one?

[MaineDem]

4. Since the OP doesn't say what the gaffe is...

I'm not going searching. DU is enough for me.

On edit...I was wrong and I apologize for my flippant post.

[killbotfactory]

5. It's in the post

"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.

She's basically saying if we are attacked by a terrorist, it will help the republicans.

[MaineDem]

7. My mistake. I apologize.

I did miss that. I read it as something else.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. and that very same thought

is expressed here almost daily.

Many people here just presume there will be a terrorist attack (or a false-flag attack) on the US before the election, in order to ensure a Republican victory.

Why is it OK for dozens or hundreds of people here to say that, but not for Clinton?

[jgraz]

20. You may not have noticed this, but those "dozens or hundreds of people" are not running for Preznit

Hillary is, and this kind of crap is why progressives can't stand her.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Well

first, let's establish if it's true or not.

Do you think a terrorist attack shortly before the election would benefit Republicans?

I do.

So why is what she said wrong? And why is it OK for people here to say it every day, but wrong for her to do it? I know that DUers aren't running for President, but I don't understand why she's wrong to say something that most people here believe to be true.

[jgraz]

26. No, I don't accept that at all

If we "get hit again" it will be the end of the Republicans. The End. Hillary should be pushing the fact that * hasn't done shit to increase our security, rather than buying into the Rethug view of the world.

Of course, someone who supported the renewal of the Patriot Act may have a bit of trouble sounding credible on this topic.

[WhiteTara]

29. your lips to the ears of the Goddess

but, somehow, I think that not only will be to their advantage, I think they will declare martial law and then it will be game over, reboot.

[Cha]

36. Exactly! That's what we should have

been trying to push since 9/11/01..the repukes let it happen on their watch! condisleaze was useless and surprise surprise..still is.

Fuck that..the repukes are gonna benefit. Dumb shit thing to say.

[Nite Owl]

30. What's wrong about it is that

she thinks that it will be good for the Republics. Every dem should be ready with the phrase, 'a failure of GOP policies."

[Luminous Animal]

34. RE: benefiting the Republicans

"Conventional wisdom" agrees with you. That is the point of the criticism levied on Clinton. This specific conventional wisdom is a result of a decades long PR campaign that has served to drive home the erroneous notion that Democrats are weak on defense... that Democrats will not protect us so that it is the natural order of things that it will take a Republican to do so.

The problem is that not only do Republican strategists cynically promote this wholly manufactured mindset but they've got most of citizenry to accept it. Including Democrats.

The OP's point and those who are quoted to refute the conventional wisdom, is that we must cease repeating. And not only must we cease repeating it, we must replace it.

A much better response from Clinton would have been to point out that a terrorist attack would be a complete disaster for the Republicans. You know, those folks who have been controlling policy the past six (and if you want to include the Republican congress under Bill) or more years.

[renate]

61. absolutely!

The "Republicans = defense" and "Bush = tough on terrorism" memes are completely illogical and through-the-looking-glass. Why don't Democrats talk more about our porous borders and ports and our vulnerable nuclear power and chemical plants instead of letting the Republicans get away with their constant driveling about how they're the ones keeping us safe? I just don't understand. It's as if Republicans were going around saying "the sky is green" and Democrats never suggest even tentatively that the populace, um, look up and examine the evidence.

I wish you were a highly paid Democratic strategist. :applause:

[dansolo]

47. Why would Hillary want to propogate that belief?

That is not merely an indictment of the Presidential candidates, but of the entire party. She is basically saying that people have the perception that Republicans would be able to better defend us, ironically after failing to protect us by allowing an attack to occur. Instead of trying to change that perception, she is encouraging it. That is extremely foolish politically, and only serves to hurt the entire Democratic Party.

[Divine Discontent]

65. wrong imo

if we're hit again badly, like 9/11, first there will be a great sadness, of course, but after that, the repubs will be hit with 'well, you were in charge and always saying you were protecting us, and now we've been hit in huge ways twice under your watch - enough". of course the wingnuts won't be effected, but independents would be, imo

[killbotfactory]

22. Here's one reason

"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."

She sees the war on terror as a republican strength, and will be defensive when it comes to the issue. Meaning she will agree with them to take the issue off the table and co-opt some of their perceived strength, which is what she did on the Iraq war vote. Despite their record of complete incompetence when it comes to this issue.

[karynnj]

28. It is different

She as the candidate should be projecting that we could do that most important job better. That it is the Republicans who did a poor job on it. Bring up that the 2004 position on WoT of Kerry is now thought by a very large % of people to be right (it also sounds like what PM Brown says). Then she could argue that Kerry's position was a post 911 version of what they did in the 1990s. The Democrats have been right, not the Republicans. (using Kerry to give continuity adds to the argument because he is seen to have been right. It costs nothing as he is not a competitor.

[Cha]

37. Yeah, Kerry who she stabbed in the back..

hillary should give him credit and stop giving all the power to the gop.

Who's advising her..the dlcrapheads?

[karynnj]

89. It would make sense - the majority of people do not know that she stabbed Kerry in the back

She also should call the Kerry (even if she avoids nis name) ideas as the logical post 911 version of what was done in the Clinton years. (In the entire Senate, no one had addressed the issue of terrorism more than Kerry in the 1990s. It is not surprising he was before he curve in 2004.)

If she doesn't claim this first, she runs the risk of a Republican taking the Kerry position and claiming it (obviously not crediting it)- at a point that they have become accepted. The view - that there is a future where we don't have to live in fear because we intelligently reduce to insignificant the chance of major terror attacks could be very very attractive in 2008. That was what Kerry was speaking of - in 2004, there were not enough people who believed the promise or who were fed up enough with being terrorized. (I strongly believe we were terrorized by our own government - what else do you call bogus terror alerts.)

The danger then is that a candidate with this position distances himself from Bush and boxes Hillary in as having the pre-911 mind set of the prior Clinton administration. Clinton was head and shoulders better than Bush, but he was not as tough as Kerry was proposing to be on this issue - he couldn't be pre 911, there was not enough political will to do so.

[FloridaJudy]

68. I don't think this will hurt her

Since when is it considered a "gaffe" for someone to speculate about how to respond to a "worst case" scenario? I wouldn't want a Commander in Chief who hadn't given thought to it.

[Maribelle]

69. And hasn't the Bush administration totally failed in this regard?

Bush's war plans failed to have proper contingency plans. His failure to do this has cost billions in tax dollars and thousands of lives. A true tragedy.

[ProSense]

6. It doesn't? Oh my! n/t

[killbotfactory]

3. Hmm...

"that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it"

That's pretty much the exact kind of judgment I would expect from someone who voted for the Iraq war resolution.

[Skip Intro]

8. What gaffe? Yes, another attack would have a "rally around our leader" effect.

We've seen it, remember?

No gaffe here, just another hit piece on Hillary.


Someone earlier accused her of playing the fear card citing this same quote. Now its a gaffe because she points out that the same gang of thugs who used 9*11 to political advantage for four years might be able to do the same with a new attack.


This is a silly, silly attack, and I think the backfire effect will probably be kicking in any time now. I know that with each Hillary-bashing thread I read, I'm more and more inclined to support her.

[ProSense]

14. Here is someone who agrees with you

sort of...

TERROR AND THE GOP....Look, maybe Hillary Clinton shouldn't have said this. Probably she shouldn't have. But let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that she's actually wrong. She's not, and we'd better be prepared to deal with it.

"Probably she shouldn't have," because it's a ridiculous!

Hillary's logic: If we get attacked, Giulliani, Romney, McCain, Brownback or Tancredo will have the edge, and I'm best prepared to deal with that.

Absurd!

[killbotfactory]

15. Yeah, right

I would be more concerned with Bush using another terrorist attack to declare martial law and give himself all sorts of fancy powers, than with an attack helping republicans.

[rinsd]

10. That's a gaffe? I think its stating the obvious.

Shit that has been a fear of many DUers before the 2002, 2004 & 2006 elections.

[kenfrequed]

67. Well

It certainly is a good idea for her to cede the field while claiming in an under the table fashion that being 'Tough' and 'strong' is the way to win the election. What better way to continue supporting the war indefinitely.

It is one thing for a bunch of schleps on a website to specultie how the Repugs might advantage themselves if there is a terrorist attack again. That is just commentary on the reptilian nature of these thugs.

It is another for a stilted bit of commentary on how such an attack atuomatically gives the repugs the edge by a front runnign dem candidate to scare voters away from other candidates with clearer foreign policy ideas.

She also manages to do this speaking passively about this. People here at least call the repugs on their propeganda BS. Her commentary might have been acceptable if she had stated that they use terrorism to advantage themselves politically. Instead of informing us about them, she is scaring us about the other candidates.

Idiocy

[madrchsod]

11. so hillary is going to stand up to the republicans

because obama , edwards, and the rest are`t smart enough,brave enough,or clever enough to deal with the overthrow of the elections....i thought we were opposed in using terror as a political tool.....

[terisan]

12. Do you have a factual news story rather than Rupert Murdoch's N Y Post?

Your link is to a NY Post item. I can't find any when, where, to whom, info in the link---other than that she said it to supporters. I like to get the specifics and the context. NY Post stories are designed to arouse emotion, not inform.

Incidentally, I think it is true that a terrorist incident might create a temporary stampede to right wingers--it has happened before--and it may well be true that she is the best candidate to deal with that.

[rinsd]

13. Her campaign has confirmed the comments.

What is silly is calling it a gaffe.

Another terrorist attack and GOP exploitation of it has been a Democratic worry since 2001.

[killbotfactory]

17. Which is why I think she voted for the Iraq War Resolution

She felt she needed to look tough on national security by voting for a resolution that would make our national security situation 100x worse.

Apparently she thinks that the republican bullshit talking points on terrorism can't be defeated. Despite their complete lack of results, incompetent management of the war, and complete inability to protect American citizens from nature, much less a terrorist.

And now the republican party approval ratings are in the toilet, and I'm supposed to believe another attack will help these incompetent idiots?

[Cha]

39. That's the way I see it..

hillary is sucked in by their so-called POWER. But, she's the best dem who can handle that? Yeah, right..murdoch gonna write up something positive about her?

[Inuca]

43. Would the WP do?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082401968.html

Reactions (from the article):

Talking with reporters in Wolfeboro, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said he would focus on keeping America safe _ not scoring political points.

Likewise, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said in a statement, "We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists."

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said in his own statement, "Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States."

In a response to the criticism, Clinton campaign spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said Friday night, "Senator Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."

[terisan]

46. Almost. I think there could be a terrorist attack, possibly contrived, and I think

it is possible that it could give Republicans an advantage, even though they have badly mishandled the issue of terrorism and have made the world more dangerous, and it is important that a Democratic candidate be wise enough and strong enough to deal with the possibility of another terrorist action and be able to prevent it giving an advantage to Republicans because the continuation of Republican policies is going to destroy our country.

From the Washington Post link you provided:

On Thursday, the New York senator told supporters in Concord that she could defeat any Republican nominee, in part because she already knows how her opponents will go after her and because she is good at handling the unexpected.

"There are circumstances beyond our control, and I think I am better able to handle things I have no control over," she said. "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," she said. "So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well.

[huskerlaw]

16. I think she's correct

unfortunately. Much that I wish she was wrong, we've seen it happen. Nothing else explains Bush's 85% approval rating on Sept. 12, 2001. Nor does anything else explain why it has taken 5+ years to knock that number down to his ACTUAL approval rating, which is nearly the exact opposite.

The thing is, there are 2 different questions here. 1) WOULD another terrorist attack cause Bush's (and therefore the Republican's) approval ratings to go up? and 2) SHOULD it?

The answer to question 1 is unknowable, but I think it's relatively safe to say that there's a fair possibility the answer is yes. Or at least, there's a logical argument for that answer.

The answer to question 2 is obviously no.

But American's don't always act logically, do we?

[killbotfactory]

19. Republican approval ratings will go up if democrats don't stand up to them

In this hypothetical post-attack scenario.

[huskerlaw]

21. Perhaps,

but my point is that there is a logical argument/not-completely-ridiculous scenario in which the Republican numbers would go up.

Given that, I don't see how her statement is a "huge gaffe".

Personally, I would like to think that Americans have gotten a bit smarter than that. But I don't think any of us could rule out the possibility of a Repub up-tick in the event of a terrorist attack. Not if we're being honest with ourselves.

[Raejeanowl]

84. Where Is the Gaffe?

I think she's correct, also. And it's merely in the context that yes, the GOP would see a terror attack, and attempt to use a terror attack, to advance their ends. They thought of this before she/we did. Keeping that surge going and justifying further inroads into the Middle East where "they" presumably all cavort seamlessly in and out of countries militarily or economically profitable to invade.

If I wanted to get into a really conspiratorial frame of mind, I'd even anticipate that a faux attack could or would be arranged for this purpose, and it really wouldn't astound me coming from certain sources. In retrospect, I'm even beginning to wonder if that's not what the still-unsolved, post 9/11 "anthrax scare" was about.

This is what I personally infer from Clinton's comments, so I fail to see the "gaffe."

[barbtries]

18. that quote sounds to me like

the Hillary version of terrormongering for political gain, and i think it sucks

yes, big gaffe.

Al Gore for President

[Cha]

40. Oh, that we could

have Gore running.

[jgraz]

23. Hmm...that sounds kind of familiar...

"if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again."

[Cha]

41. I think hillary has

the wrong play book.

[benny05]

24. K & R

Clinton is not doing us any favors. Wonder if that was done because she is behind Giuliani in the head to head matchups?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

Granted, it's still early. :bounce:

Update: Taylor Marsh chimes in with TPM and Yglesias..

An attack "will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again"? It's the New York Post, but the quote is obviously correct or we would have heard early push back from the Clinton camp on it.

We haven't worked all these years, including during the '06 elections, to prove Democratic prowess on national security to hear one of our leading candidates for president talk trash that image. To say effectively that our foreign policy bona fides are less in times of national peril, while using rhetoric that favors the fearmongering Republican foreign policy supremacy script. So why serve up a Republican line? So candidate Clinton can say she's beaten the wingnuts back before and she can do it again, especially when our vulnerabilities are tapped. Underground message: She's strong. It's just the Democratic image that is not, but not to worry, Clinton can save us.

Nice try. But no.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26113

[Dawgs]

27. I think the best gaffe is stating that she is the best Democrat to deal with it.

My answer is based on what? After 9/11 she supported the Iraq war at a time when we needed to be fighting the terrorists that attacked us. Is that what she's talking about, cause I don't want another Iraq war?

[ProSense]

31. Hillary Clinton surrenders "terror" issue to GOP.

Hillary Clinton surrenders "terror" issue to GOP.

[Colobo]

32. True... she's the one that should think before making that kind of remarks.

[GeorgeGist]

33. If she believes that ...

it's because she knows Bush and Cheney et al deserve to be Impeached. Would that be bad for her?

[Sparkly]

35. That's an odd thing to say.

"Automatically?" Why on EARTH would another attack help Republicans?!?

(Then again, why on EARTH did they get anywhere in 2002 and 2004? What do I know?!)

Even IF she's right -- and I'm NOT saying I think she is -- I don't know why she'd say that. I guess they think it'll help her in the primaries, but does she need to be grasping for things like that right now? (And will it help her anyway?)

At LEAST in the general elections, something that like could easily come back to bite Democrats, seems to me. I'd rather hear our candidates running against Republicans NOW when it comes to things like terrorist attacks etc...

[Cha]

42. ..

"Then again, why on EARTH did they get anywhere in 2002 and 2004? What do I know?!)"

Because of the corporatemediaWHORES like murdoch.

[killbotfactory]

52. And democrats like Clinton who ceded republicans the national security issue

And she just did it again.

Note to Hillary: It is not 2002 anymore.

[Cha]

83. That's a good note to

hillary..I hope she gets it.

[cui bono]

38. I thought only the unevolved Republican candidates actually thought that failure

to protects us was a strength and proved they were better at it than the Dems.

WTF is her problem???

HILLARY... STOP PANDERING TO THE REICH WING! DROP OUT OF THE RACE!

[Alamom]

44. Do we really need

8 threads on the front page to discuss, debate of bash this one subject?

[ProSense]

45. Yes! n/t

[Alamom]

48. OK. If that's "ALL" you can find, have at it.

:rofl:

[ProSense]

49. You asked a yes or no question. My answer was yes.

There was nothing to find, not even anything to find funny.

[Alamom]

53. You're right, it's not funny. It's ridiculous & juvenile. eom

edgr

[usregimechange]

50. Outrageous!

[Senator]

51. This Is The "Logic" Of Impeachophobia Too

And why, without impeachment, we're more likely in for another stolen election and 4 more years (at least) of monarchical neofascism.

---

[Perry Logan]

54. Check it out: Edwards has just committed a much huger gaffe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3476268

[Inspired]

56. Are you kidding me?

Comparing a statement that he made about the Lincoln bedroom, which he denied was a reference to the Clintons by the way, to this?

Who's really grasping and who is protesting a little too much?

Talk about jumping the shark!

[rodeodance]

55. Anything "terror" related has helped the RW/Repugs. Hasn't it?:

....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.

[guruoo]

57. A cheap shot on Hillary (and she's not my candidate)

[ProSense]

58. Oh bullshit! Those are comments from all over the blogosphere. Here's more

Other Democratic Candidates on Hillary's terrorism comment

Which part of Hillary's terror statement was misinterpreted?

Clinton Channels Rudy

Hillary Clinton surrenders "terror" issue to GOP.

[guruoo]

71. Go ahead, keep feeding the fr**pers. n/t

[ProSense]

72. "that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again"

that will http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3475832&mesg_id=3475832">automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it...

Sorry, Hillary is the one feeding the freepers!

[Maribelle]

59. Oh please. It wasn't even a Gaffe, not even a tiny one.

No sane person should be denying that republicans have cashed in on all the high terror alerts, capturing the terrorist-wannabees in places like Miami, capturing bin Laden's number two man ten times, the widdle scarey packages at airports, the demand from Bush that we tax-payers will be required passports to go to Mexico and Canada ...

That republicans would cash in on any future terrorist activity is a sad reality.

And saying so does not make one think like a loser.

Pretending otherwise makes one seem like an idiot to me. Then again, they could just be a Hillary hater.

[ProSense]

62. Oh nonsense!

This is not Sept 11. She is pushing a meme that was inaccurate to begin with, now, six years after the attacks, failed policies and GOP stonewalling. The 2006 election successes behind her and she is still helping to support a false perception that in all reality is now bogus, except among wingnuts. I guess next she'll be saying if we leave Iraq, Republicans will have an edge if the violence escalates. BS!

[Maribelle]

66. It's not nonsense - - it's political reality.

Do you deny Bush cashed in on his failed policies in the past? She never said the stuff Republicans cashed in on was not a false perception, did she? Failed Republican policies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans was put to political advantage by the Rove Republicans, which created a pattern that could very well repeat itself. Why deny it could happen again?

The key issue here is: can Democrats prevent Republicans from using any potential terrorism acts to their political advantage in the next year or so. Of course they can, just as Hillary indicated, but the Democrats can stop them.

Hillary did not say she was the only Democrat that could handle it, did she? Not hardly. She merely stated she was the best.

This false sense of idealism too many Hillary haters tend to purport will not win the 2008 election.

But in all of this, what I find extremely deceptive is that nowhere, not even in all of the post and links above, can you find the question Hillary was responding to at the house party. I found only the Concord Monitor indicated that Hillary was responding to questions - - not the question itself.

[ProSense]

70. It's nonsense!

This is not pre-Sept. 11, pre-six years of Bush America.


Also, what the hell kind of statement is that for a leader to say: If we get attacked (WTF?) the Republicans will gained the edge over every Democrat, but me.


Absurd, ridiculous, stupid comment!

[Maribelle]

75. You're letting your political bias interfere with your common sense.

You've significantly parsed what Hillary actually said.

You've significantly parsed what Hillary actually said, then called it stupid.

Let's look at it this way shall we.

If a category 5 hurricane hits South Florida again, or any of the Gulf states, would Bush rush in for another of his photo ops? Of course he would. Would FEMA do its job - - a job it failed to do when Andrew devastated South Florida and Floridians were crying in streets for help, and over a decade later, when Katrina devastated New Orleans and residents are still crying for help to this very day? Probably not under the corrupt Bush administration.

So we would have Bush rushing in for his photo op and FEMA probably bogged down in the Bushies political muck and mire - - and the Democrats can and will do something about this.

And in case some haven't bothered to pay attention - - residents that have experienced the devastation of a category 5 hurricane know to a case certain the terrorism felt while being attacked by Mother Nature and the heart wrenching aftermath of death and destruction.

So, would it be absurd, ridiculous and stupid for Hillary to indicate she would make sure FEMA did its job, and she would knock off the pathetic photo ops that both Bushies pranced to while our people were suffering, and all the while she would be ensuring that residents were better prepared to face the pending storm and evacuate when necessary? And likewise if she would do this better than any other democratic candidate?

[ProSense]

85. I did no such thing!

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.

Those are her words. Those words are absurd!

Btw, those comments in the OP, and the a number of others, were not written by me, see:

Josh Marshall

Matthew Yglesias (via Daily Kos)

Taylor Marsh

Talk Left

Dodd

Edwards

Richardson

Oliver Willis

Ezra Klein

[Maribelle]

87. You did no such thing? You did too. It was you that made up this:

Also, what the hell kind of statement is that for a leader to say: If we get attacked (WTF?) the Republicans will gained the edge over every Democrat, but me.

And it is that EXACT post of yours that I responded to, and to which I am referring.

You made it up. Then you called your made up stuff stupid. Want a link?

[ProSense]

88. It's called paraphrasing!

...if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism (If we get attacked, WTF?), that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again 9the Republicans will gained the edge), 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 (over every Democrat, but me)," she added.

[Maribelle]

90. It's called distorting.

Distort : 2. vt give inaccurate report of something: to describe or report something in an inaccurate or misleading way



There is a significant difference between the meanings of what she actually said and your inaccurately made up stuff, distorting what she said. "The best of the Democrats to deal with that" does not mean "the Republicans will gained the edge over every Democrat, but me."

[ProSense]

91. No you are trying to give the appearance of distortion

It means exactly this:

that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage...So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that.

The Republicans will gained the edge over every Democrat, but me.

Also it was...

First, "tasteless": Using a potential terror act for political gain (Hillary's)

Second, illogical: The Republicans have no edge and an attack (no matter how the media plays up the Republican spin) after touting how much safer we are is not likely to "automatically" give them the advantage among voters, who have already rejected this meme.

Third, poor judgement: Why the hell is she talking about attacks just to position herself as the best among the Dems. That's a little too Cheney-like for me.

[Maribelle]

92. More distorting will never make "the best" mean "the only"

It will never make "the best" mean "only me"

It will never make your attempt to bash Hillary on your made up stuff stand the test of logic.

Give it up. You lost this debate.

[ProSense]

93. And being an apologist will never change the fact that it was a dumb comment! n/t

[cd3dem]

79. Agree, Hillary speaks the Truth

A winner knows its enemy. That is why Hillary is the one to beat. Saying that the Republicans would use a terrorist attach to gain votes does not mean that Republicans are better in dealing with national security. It means that people have been brainwashed into believing this. You can't change people's thinking by denying the fact they believe it.

I have heard many brainwashed Republicans from teens to seniors say, "Thank God Bush was in the White House on 9/11, rather than Gore" They really think Bush did something!!!???? He was reading children's books at the time!!!????

Why is Giuliani doing so well? He has nothing in his resume other than being the Mayor of NY on 9/11. He has run around speaking about the need to be safe and fight terrorism. A bunch of rhetoric to get people to vote for him for no other reason than he is a "republican".

A good debater researches and gets to know the other side of the issue in debate. They bring up the other side's arguments and tear it apart. You don't win by ignoring your opponents’ arguments...

[Honeycombe8]

60. "Huge gaffe"? That's nonsense.

All this nitpicking on every word and phrase and pause uttered, and not uttered, by these candidates is driving me nuts!

All candidates say silly things from time to time. If GORE were running for Prez right now, it would be all over the news about the latest "huge gaffe" that Gore had uttered.

Last week it was Obama's "huge gaffe."

Next week it'll be Edwards' "huge gaffe."

It's all silliness. It means nothing, in the end. As we know, Bush made MANY "huge gaffes," and he won.

If people don't want gaffes, they need to buy cupie dolls that don't speak.

[ProSense]

63. Yes, Huge Gaffe

Her comment is absurd!

Bush and the Repubs claim he has made us safer (supported by her previous statement), but if we're attacked the Repubs will have an edge.

In fact, it's beyond absurd.

[Honeycombe8]

73. In two weeks, no one will even remember this "huge gaffe."

It means nothing. I'm no Clinton supporter, but nitpicking the Dem candidates by tearing apart every sentence they utter does nothing but help the Republicans.

When reading the comments, for example, I had trouble even FINDING the words that people are complaining of.

Some people are just sitting on the sidelines looking for ways to nitpick everything the other candidates say. It's silly.

All those supposed "huge gaffes" by Obama? Nonsense. Taken out of context...didn't even say what some reported he said...in the end, the words don't even matter.

Next week, it'll be Edwards' words that cause a stir.

It's all silliness. I prefer to focus on what really matters.

[ProSense]

74. BS!

Throughout the blogosphere, even among Hillary supporters, there are people pointing out the stupid of her comment. There are those who spin the meaning to claim that she meant to say Repubs will use it against Dems, and even those people concede that she should never have said. So don't try to turn this into an "Oh, you just hate Hillary" moment.

Nitpick? Remember when a number of the Dem party, lead by Hillary, jumped at the opportunity to claim a comment everyone understood, was stupid?

Difference: Her comment is not only stupid, it's an absurd RW meme.

[Honeycombe8]

82. Did I say "Oh, you just hate Hillary"? 'Course not. Some people just can't...

stand an impartial observation.

Yes, it's nitpicking among your own. It's the latest in a line of nitpicking among the various candidates' statements.

Do you remember some of the past "huge gaffes" by Edwards?

Do you remember some of the "huge gaffes" by Gore during the 2000 election?

Do you remember the "huge gaffes" by Kerry during the 2004 campaign?

Do you remember the "huge gaffes" by Bill Clinton in the 1992 campaign?

This always goes on, and it's so easy to tear apart what people say, and nitpick. People think Gore would be a shoe-in to win the Dem. nomination and general election. Oh, really? I wonder. Just like people though Obama was walking on water....until he announced his candidacy and every word he and his wife uttered started to be torn apart.

I prefer to focus on actions. It's relevant that Hillary voted for the Iraq War. Irrelevant some comment she made last week in what will be one among thousands of speeches. It's relevant that Romney made comments on abortion in the past...because he ACTED on his comments, WON an election based on them, and has apparently CHANGED his position. See the difference? I do.

Don't give the Republicans more ammunition than they already have. If you want to nitpick, focus on Guiliani and Romney's comments.

[ProSense]

86. No, because

you're making them up.

Do you remember the "huge gaffes" by Kerry during the 2004 campaign?

What gaffes? The RW flip-flop meme about "I vote for it before voting against it"?

Hillary's comment was really dumb! It's not nitpicking to point that out!

I'm sure she wouldn't hesitate to do that to another Democrat!

[cd3dem]

81. Dumbest Things President Bush Said in His First Term

5. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

4. "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 (Watch video)



3. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004 (Watch video)

2. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 (Watch video)

1. "My answer is bring them on." —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushdumbquotes2.htm

[JAbuchan08]

64. One reason that people believe Republicans are stronger on terrorism

is that Democrats keep conceeding it and cowering.

[sampsonblk]

76. Clinton said what we all know to be true

The only 'gaffe' may be the fact that she came out and said it in public. But we all know its true.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809_Stu_Bykofsky___To_save_America__we_need_another_9_11.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html

The GOPers have been talking it up for years. Did you call them on it? Or does this just apply to Hillary Clinton?

[usregimechange]

77. She is happy to reinforce GOP talking points to win.

[sampsonblk]

80. Not talking points, facts

[NastyRiffraff]

78. In the reality-based community...

this is not a gaffe. It's reality.

How many times have we seen on DU people speculating on this very scenario, usually with the thought that the attacks would be MIHOP? To the Repubicans, such an attack or serious threat of one is their only hope, and they know it. Hillary knows it too, and said so. She also said that they've "mishandled it" and that they've made the world dangerous.

I don't know that she's the best Democrat to handle that; as a candidate, obviously she thinks so. It would be odd if she didn't. She didn't say that the other Dems would be hopeless, only that she believes, as any candidate would, that she'd be best.

Hillary is not my first choice, but this nitpicking of everything a candidate (not just Hillary) says and does is getting silly.