Policy Failure: Good for the GOP?

This is, I think, a disaster:

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

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

Two points in response. The first is that I think the Democrat best positioned to deal with GOP political mobilization in a post-attack environment is going to be the one who isn't reflexively inclined to see failed Republican policies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans as a political advantage for the Republicans.

The other is that I think there's a pretty clear sense in which the further one is from Bush's Iraq policy, the easier it is politically to say that the failures of Bush's national security policy should be blamed on Bush's failed policies. Obama has a straight shot ("this is why we should have fought al-Qaeda like I said") and Edwards (and Matt Yglesias) has a straightish one ("this is why we should have fought al-Qaeda like I think in retrospect") whereas I'm not 100 percent sure what the Clinton message would be. Most of all, though, I think the politics of national security call for a strong, self-confident posture that genuinely believes liberal solutions are politically saleable and substantively workable, not the kind of worry-wort attitude that says we need to cower in fear every time Republicans say "terror."

Comments

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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Since 9/11/2001 this has been a strange bizarro world in which the right wingers who precisely failed on 9/11/2001 and went on to make a steaming pile of warlord terrorist hell in the center of the Middle East are somehow "strong on security".

Posted by El Cid | August 24, 2007 10:31 AM

Yessir.
Here's a perhaps-risky generalization: What appeals to me about Obama is that in this instance, as in his politics generally, he is pro-active in his sensibilities; 7 years of the current administration have made most politicians, no matter their politics, re-active. But a politics predicated on fear will tend to have that effect. Clinton's remarks here would serve only to perpetuate that emphasis on politics rather than policy.

Posted by John B. | August 24, 2007 10:32 AM

So Clinton is not only preemptively surrendering to the Radical Right, she is doing so using their language and frames.

Remind me again why I am supposed to vote for her over, say, Guliani? At least the true Radical Authoritarians are honest about what they want.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 24, 2007 10:38 AM

and Edwards (and Matt Yglesias)

Sorry to see your polls are in the shitter at the moment, Matt, though I believe you're still beating Biden.

Posted by Jake H. | August 24, 2007 10:48 AM

Cranky,
That's an easy question to answer: Because Guliani is even crazier then Bush. Yeah, I'm be much happier if Dodd was our nominee.

Unfortunately it looks like Clinton is going to win. Name recognition is everything. And she'll win the general election for the same reason. Everybody will here the name "Clinton" and remember the good ole days.

Our best bet is to try and get some promises out of her during the primary when she has to at least pretend that we exist.

Posted by DR | August 24, 2007 10:50 AM

So Clinton is not only preemptively surrendering to the Radical Right, she is doing so using their language and frames.

As far as I can tell, the entire premise of the Clinton campaign is that yeah, basically we are stuck in a game designed & refereed by the right, but we should vote for her because she's the only one who can outmaneuver them on their own territory. And it's amazing how many people I'm finding who buy that; among less-political types there seems to be a lot of 'well, at least she'd be able to do something' sentiments. People are so conditioned to accept GOP frames & assumptions that the idea of punching them in the nose, taking the ball, and rewriting the rules seems unthinkable. And HRC's banking on that, because ducking and weaving is the Clinton trademark.

Posted by latts | August 24, 2007 10:51 AM

Remind me again why I am supposed to vote for her over, say, Guliani?

Hil's got a better record on ferrets' rights.

Posted by Jake H. | August 24, 2007 10:51 AM

This nailes what bothers me about Hillary, and also what bugged me about Bill all those years.

Bill would constantly cede ground to the Republicans, a surrender that only resulted in Republican slurs that Clinton (and, thus, all Democrats) had no "core beliefs". Someone should ask Hillary how her flag-burning amendment is coming along.

Posted by tc | August 24, 2007 10:52 AM

I am getting some really bad vibes from this entire "Inevitability-of-Hillary" thing.

In 2003/2004, during Dean-mania, I remember making a comment about John Kerry being "toast", because he was running a "brain-dead" campaign. He had just appeared on Leno (Letterman?) riding a Harley, and it struck me that it was just Bill Clinton appearing with his saxophone but dressed up differently. (Further horrors lay ahead: remember the "reporting for duty" salute at the convention that summer?) Didn't Kerry's campaign managers have any creative ability at all?

Fast-forward to 2007, and I think John B. has it right. Clinton campaign is reactive, carefully imbedding itself in all of the frames and stereotypes of the past, just dressing up the past with some new ribbons and bows. Doesn't Clinton realize that it is necessary to present real change and not just serve up another cup of the same old poisonous, lukewarm horse piss? Apparently not. At least not if she believes it will help her get the nomination. And, the sad thing is, it probably will.

Posted by Baldrick | August 24, 2007 10:52 AM

Based on comments like this, her initial support for this stupid war, and the fact that her negatives are so high, I don't think she'll have my support. In fact, I'm encouraged to actively work against her now.

Posted by Noam Sane | August 24, 2007 10:53 AM

I think what the Senator is trying to say is that, should something bad happen, the media (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and of course FOX) will spend day after day after day talking about how now, more than ever, the country needs a big daddy to take control. The way things are and the way things get portrayed in the media are often disparate, and almost always this works to the benefit of the GOP. It's axiomatic in the beltway media, if something good happens, it's good for Republicans, if something bad happens, it's also good for Republicans. If you don't buy this reasoning, imagine for a moment 9/11 happening on President Gore's watch. The media would have crucified him--they crucified him just for being a candidate.

Posted by Brady | August 24, 2007 10:54 AM

This is a broader frame I'd like to see Obama and Edwards adopt. Something like: "We need a standard bearer who will stand up for our vision and values no matter what. There are a lot of folks in our party, and indeed a lot of my Democratic friends in this race, who worry whenever a national security or foreign policy issue comes up. They throw out hypotheticals where some event would supposedly strengthen the GOP's position. What event would that be? You're telling me that another terrorist attack would prove anything other than what we already know: that George Bush is a failure? How many polls do we have to see where huge majorities of this country reject the policies of this President and his party? How many times does this President have to screw up before we feel confident taking him on?"

"Bush-Cheney lite" is broadly the correct line of attack for both of them to take, only throwing it out directly as a slur is the exactly wrong way to go about it. "Corporate Democrats" from Edwards yesterday was marginally better, but still too trash-talky. Once they start explaining how Hillary approaches so many foreign policy issues (not to mention domestic issues) from a position of weakness and fear it becomes easier for these attacks to hit home. It's an attack of triangulation on the merits, rather than in the tired language of "DLC, triangulation bad!!!" The problem isn't that Hillary agrees with Bush--it's that she's often scared to disagree with Bush. That's how you end up with Bush-Cheney lite.

Posted by MSB | August 24, 2007 10:58 AM

Brady has hit the proverbial nail on the head here, and this is what it seems Hillary is saying. Like it or not, this is the reality, and I'm kind of surprised the "reality based community" reflexively rejects this argument. Could it be the reflexivity is because the messenger is Hillary?

Posted by Sharon | August 24, 2007 11:05 AM

I actually don't see Obama as being the kind of guy to point the finger at the GOP in the wake of another terrorist attack. Edwards, maybe. But if Clinton is saying that she's actually willing to draw the link between Bush's failed policies and whatever may come, that actually does give her a leg up.

It's always baffled me that Jimmy Carter gets universally blamed for that helicopter that crashed in the desert, but George Bush has been assigned virtually no blame for 9/11 other than in extremist Michael Moore-land. (The other side has no reservations; they blame Clinton for 9/11 every day.) While I was one of those who appreciated the unity after 9/11 as opposed to an atmosphere of finger-pointing, unity only works if both sides are willing to play, and I don't want to vote for Democrats who will get chumped if the same scenario arises again.

Posted by Steve | August 24, 2007 11:05 AM

It's the Stockholm Syndrome: Hillary's been abused by the Republicans so much that she identifies with them.

See her otherwise bizarre and inexplicable prayer group behavior here.

Posted by lambert strether | August 24, 2007 11:05 AM

Funny.

We've killed or captured more AQ in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

The argument that we would have because the only reason they are dying in droves in Iraq is only because we are there rather than fighting AQ in Afghan mountains - is brainless.

Unless one argues that the 10s of thousands of AQ terrorists killed or captured in Iraq are not the "real problem" which is getting the 4-5 surviving leaders of the 9/11 attacks "hooked up" with their ACLU lawyers for a grand trial lasting 4-5 years -

Which, of course, is brainless and insipid too - arguing that there is no ideologuy of radical Islam that has butchered 18-22 million people in the last 40 years - only a James Bond fantasy of a single "Dr Evil" that orchestrates everything..

Posted by Chris Ford | August 24, 2007 11:07 AM

Along the same lines, where the hell are the Democrats on all of this:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

If we're attacked again it will almost certainly be by the same folks who attacked us every other time. And it will be a direct consequence of the fact that the Bush administration has spent the past six years scrambling around on their knees kissing Saudi royal ass instead of defending this nation against those who are actually attacking us.

Another terrorist attack will only confirm what should be clear to everyone by now, that the administration's policy on the War on Terror has not only been grossly incompetent, but treasonous to boot.

Posted by Bill in Chicago | August 24, 2007 11:09 AM

I have a very strong intuition that were there to be a terrorist attack before the election, it would doom the Republicans in 2008. Many people do believe that the Iraq invasion has made us less safe, not only because it was a diversion away from AQ, but also because it increased the number of people who would want to attack the US, and gave them powerful motivation. No one in the world would see the USA as an innocent victim of irrational terror anymore.
The notion that the vast majority of people would reflexively swing to the side of this President is wishful thinking on the part of the dead-enders at this point. People are learning from the experience of the last six years, and our political culture is being forced to mature as a result of this political crisis.
The same applies to the prospect of the provocation of a battle with Iran. The fundamental misapprehension of both the Washington Republicans and Democrats is that they underestimate the extent to which broad middle of the country not only rejects the War in Iraq, but also rejects the logic behind it, and political "facts of life" that prevent cutting off the funds, or even impeaching Bush/Cheney, and now, reflexively and irreversibly distrusts the administration. Nothing can be done, or can happen, that will cause the broad middle of the country to trust this President again, about anything. Like the bridge in Minneapolis, or the mine disaster in Utah, everything that happens will be blamed on him, and on the Republican party ,within hours of its happening.
If there is another terrorist attack, the overwhelming public question will be the suspicion that the administration either allowed to happen or planned it in some undisclosed bunker. That will not be a concern of the fringe, but a middle of the road suspicion.
Politically speaking, either another attack by terrorists or war with Iran will move the Democrats to the Left, and the Republicans into truly crazy territory. People will be looking, hungering for a leader; all that desire for a leader that settled on Bush in 2001 will be looking for a place to land, because it will not settling on Bush again.

Posted by tominma | August 24, 2007 11:10 AM

The Republicans win if we are attacked? That is such a pre-2006 election mindset.

Posted by Labbe Partner | August 24, 2007 11:12 AM

This is disgusting.

Posted by mop | August 24, 2007 11:17 AM

I'm sorry, but how long are we going to continue the charade that Clinton is running some sort of "disciplined", "gaffe-free" campaign?

-Lobbyist are real people too, they represent real people...and I don't listen to them!

-We shouldn't talk about foreign policy details publicy (to raucous boos)

-I advise the President should take nukes off the table in certain narrow situations, but I think its a bad idea for a Presidential candidate to take my advice on that.

-A terrorist attack should be looked at first and foremost through a political lens, and what we see is: good for the GOP! Therefore, vote for me.

WTF?

Posted by mop | August 24, 2007 11:22 AM

Clinton does not have anything like a lock on this yet people, don't give up hope. There are still a good four and a half months before any voting takes place, and in modern political terms, that is forever and a half. She can be defeated and neutralized, and forced eventually to throw her support behind another.

But she does have to be stopped, or it won't matter how much "like a Republican" she would govern, she won't be elected. As Michael Moore keeps trying to tell Dems, "...the Republicans ALREADY have a candidate!"

Posted by Onceler | August 24, 2007 11:25 AM

Shorter Hillary:

"If there is another 9/11, people will go batshit crazy and look for a leader who is crazy like themselves but also serious."

"I can be that batshit crazy, serious leader."

"I can carry our hysterical, imperialistic foreign policy to new heights of hysteria and imperialism."

"Yes, America - I can!"

"Because I have Experience."

Posted by lampwick | August 24, 2007 11:26 AM

I think this is a disaster, too, but for a far different reason. These comments by Hillary amount to a wink, wink to al queda that says "we are in this together, we have a common enemy." She is giving real weight to the argument that the American left has made an unholy alliance with terrorists for political gain. Yes, it's a disaster.

Posted by DM | August 24, 2007 11:28 AM

If this quote is true, she's lost my vote. I won't go for someone trying to scare us into voting for her.

Posted by Boronx | August 24, 2007 11:28 AM

As Michael Moore keeps trying to tell Dems, "...the Republicans ALREADY have a candidate!"

Yes, I always look to people who voted for Nader in 2000 to give me advice in the primaries. Both sides look the same, yawn.

Posted by Steve | August 24, 2007 11:28 AM

You do express sharply and effectively the awaiting debacle for the Democrats if they nominate this turkey of a candidate.

Posted by apetrelli | August 24, 2007 11:30 AM

Does anybody have a better link to the quote than the NYPost? Perhaps something more trustworthy. We can't tell what "Shorter Hillary" really is until we see the whole exchange.

Posted by DR | August 24, 2007 11:32 AM

Again, Senator Clinton's comments are quite smart, she's getting ahead of any potential narrative or script that might come out of another attack. People need to know that the means by which they get their political information is inherently flawed, and it can only behoove all Democrats make this important point. Smart, well-informed liberals knew at least by 2004 that the war in Iraq was a clusterf**k. And yet Bush won and John Kerry spent a great deal of time talking about what a badass he was in Viet Nam instead of the atrocities at Abu Grahib. And we heard about his windsurfing, and his cheesesteak faux paus, and his rich foreign wife with an accent, and how boring and tedious he was, etc. And this was not crap coming from the news desk at Fox, this was a daily ritual in the news and opinion pages of the NYT and WaPo, nightly on any number of cable news shows. And now we hear about how John Edwards has an expensive haircut, and endlessly about how conniving and soul-less Senator Clinton is, and we get the occasional reminder that Bill Clinton was a philanderer in the White House. And we hear this instead of hearing about the numerous other atrocities occuring in Iraq.

So please, let's quit pretending that the information market is some kind of eutopia where every consumer is as well informed as the next. Most voters have little to no knowledge of any candidates foreign or domestic policy (see, e.g. the PIPA report from 2004 where a strong plurality of voters still thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11).

If we want to see a Dem in office in 2009, then all of us need to do our best to ensure that the "facts" on the ground on election day are, at the very least, not following the same pro-GOP script they have been for the past 15 years. Otherwise, get ready to inaugurate Rudy!--because, as everybody knows, he'll at least play offense against the evildoers.

Posted by Brady | August 24, 2007 11:33 AM

Matt's right and Brady is being nice. I don't disagree with Brady's interpretation - we all know the deal. But if, if, it is what Hillary meant then she needs to say just exactly that. Edwards telling FAUX News to f-off was such a welcome gesture!

I agree with the other posters that the Republican-Conservative brand is moldy. However, another attack will see more, not less, cowardice from Dems and more brownshirt maneuvering from the protofascists that can rely on the liebermans and salazars to tip the scales.

The pols could set fire to the constitution on the Capital steps and the media would yawn. The public" would be voting for the next American Idol and grossly underestimate the relevance to their own lives.

Progressive Dems get no advantage or goodwill with another attack.

"

Posted by kennyp | August 24, 2007 11:33 AM

Since 9/11/2001 this has been a strange bizarro world in which the right wingers who precisely failed on 9/11/2001 and went on to make a steaming pile of warlord terrorist hell in the center of the Middle East are somehow "strong on security".
--------------------

It's because the Republican approach to antiterrorism - the war in Iraq, extraordinary rendition, torture, etc. - is a pet rock. It may not make us safer, in fact it may make us less safe, but at least it's SOMEthing. What are the significant differences between Bush's approach and say Hillary Clinton's? Seems like most of the Democratic candidates are trying very hard not to say, "I'll be just as tough as Bush, except I'll get us out of Iraq and put an end to rendition, torture, kangaroo courts for terror suspects, etc." Obama is the only (serious) candidate willing making an articulate case that Bush's policies have made us less safe. I hope he's not giving the general public too much credit ...

Posted by Mike LeP | August 24, 2007 11:39 AM

Even if we read this as Brady as put it, Clinton is saying that she'll surrender to the media spin instead of surrendering to the Republicans. How is that better?

Posted by Trevor | August 24, 2007 11:40 AM

It is bizarre how Democratic politicians like Clinton have internalized the belief that being slammed in the conservative press, talk radio, and Hardball is somehow more important than the actual views of actual American voters. Is there any objective evidence that another terror attack would swing future elections Republicans' way?

Americans don't like or trust Republicans. The GOP has burned its credibility on terror, war, and national security. The public is overwhelmingly cynical about the effectiveness of anti-terror programs. This is just reality.

As for Clinton, I am impressed by her brazeness. If there was one thing Karl Rove was always good at, it was turning his candidate's negatives into a positive. Clinton's campaign is built almost entirely on her supposed "electability," despite the fact that she is one of the most disliked political figures in modern American history. Sure, it sounsd a bit Orwellian when her supporters argue that Obama's inexperience is far more damaging to his electability than the 40% of Americans of hate their candidate...but I admire the ballsiness of their approach.

Posted by owenz | August 24, 2007 11:45 AM

What she said was: "that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage"

Posted by Trevor | August 24, 2007 11:46 AM

"Unless one argues that the 10s of thousands of AQ terrorists killed or captured in Iraq are not the "real problem""

Just because the Bush Administration calls them Al-Qaeda doesn't mean they really are al-Qaeda or that they're the same Al-Qaeda that attacked us on...oh, forget it. Just keep looking at those keys being jingled in front of you.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | August 24, 2007 11:52 AM

"We've killed or captured more AQ in Iraq than in Afghanistan."

This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that we have ten times as many people to catch them in Iraq, would it? Or the fact that the original AQ escaped to NW Pakistan where we have precisely zero troops to catch them? Or the fact that AQ in Iraq doesn't have many proven connections to the actual AQ, but use the name for marketing purposes? Or the fact that the Bush Administration tends to call the people fighting us in Iraq "Al Qaida" irrespective of who is actually arming them?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | August 24, 2007 11:54 AM

It's all so depressing. This long before the primaries, the CW can make a case that it's a lockup for Clinton. For the candidate whom the Republicans can most easily beat the crap out of. For the candidate who's the least qualified (of the top three) to lead us in a post-9/11 world, because she's more afraid of the Republicans than of the terrorists.

Posted by bob | August 24, 2007 11:55 AM

I think most of you are interpreting what she said the opposite of what she meant. She meant that she has the political experience (by osmosis from Bill presumably) to fight back against the Republican/MSM tidal wave of demagoguery that would follow another terrorist attack while other candidates would get swept away by it. Unfortunately there's not much context in the link Matt posted, so it's hard to say for sure exactly how she meant it.

Posted by Ron | August 24, 2007 11:59 AM

We've killed or captured more AQ in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

duh

Posted by cleek | August 24, 2007 12:02 PM

Sure, Ron, the throw-away line at the end might have meant that -- but she's already proven her inability to stand up to demogogues, and she confirms it with this nonsense that another terrorist attack would be good for the GOP.

Posted by bob | August 24, 2007 12:14 PM

Shorter Chris Ford: This paste is delicious.

Posted by taylormattd | August 24, 2007 12:20 PM

Sharon wrote, Brady has hit the proverbial nail on the head here, and this is what it seems Hillary is saying. Like it or not, this is the reality, ...

I agree with that, insofar as I think it's the empirical reality.

That is, I'll wager that if you look at instances where a nation was attacked from the outside, or the government there succeeded in creating a hoax of an outside attack, then many people will buy into it.

"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain." -- Schiller

Posted by liberal | August 24, 2007 12:21 PM

Rove's conditioning has worked. Anything that happens, no matter how disastrous, is always a win for the Republicans.

Posted by susan | August 24, 2007 12:24 PM

The other thing about HRC's comments is that once again we see a Democrat talking about meta political strategy instead of simply executing it. We don't need our candidates to act like the pundits predicting which way things will work out or how we ought to appeal to people...JUST DO IT. This not just about HRC, Obama has done this (re religion) and even Dean has done this (confederate bumper stickers), this has got to stop!

Posted by econ4dean | August 24, 2007 12:28 PM

susan wrote, Rove's conditioning has worked. Anything that happens, no matter how disastrous, is always a win for the Republicans.

No, but there is a genuine question here; you could even call it a scientific question.

Here's my scientific hypothesis: in times a nation is attacked from the outside (no matter how small the attack, and even if the attack never actually happened but was some kind of fiction created by the government), many people are going to side with the forces of reaction and against the forces of reason and reform.

My claim is that this script has been repeated multiple times throughout history---and by "history," I mean the past many thousands of years.

As far as evidence goes, in our own recent history, it's true that the MSM helped drum up support for the Iraq invasion, but who were the idiots who actually believed it? Apparently a huge number of Americans. Who are the idiots who believed that many/most/all of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi? Again, apparently a huge number of Americans.

It's true that a lot of this is fed by Rethuglican and MSM lies, but part of the problem is what appears to be a "biological invariant" of humans to be snowed by this nonsense and side reactionary parties.

Posted by liberal | August 24, 2007 12:32 PM

I am not a great fan of Hillary but I do believe she is correctly assessing the MSM landscape.
The media buys into/plays up the myth of Repubs Strong on Security and that makes it a political reality for far too many voters.
It is disgusting but a fact of politics today.
It is also true that two major books came out on her life and found no significant new negatives. As a Presidential nominee, most Repub attacks on her will only be recycled old news.
Against Obama and Edwards, the Repub spin machine will have open ground for their attacks to gain traction and to dominate the news cycles.
I would prefer Dems and Progressives to focus less anger and negative energy on the candidates and more on pressuring news outlets. Whichever Dem gets the nomination, success in 08 will depend on blunting the Repub spin machine by pushing the MSM toward some balance. That has to occur with constant pressure over the next 18 months through emails and letters and calls and even pressure on advertisers. Push on which guests are booked. Push on what topics are covered. Complain the an Edward haircut gets big coverage but Romney makeup bills are ignored. Complain how little national coverage was given to Rudy claiming to be at Ground Zero more than the rescue workers. Go to every media comment section on every national story and get attention for the stuff the MSM is trying to skip over.
There needs to be a ground swell from us to help push back against the MSM norms and the Repub attack machine. There is no single Dem leader who can re-frame the debate climate by themselves. It needs to be a major effort from the entire Dem/Progressive side.

Posted by Jim | August 24, 2007 1:07 PM

Well it strikes me that this really a fairly major gaffe. I really don't think that kind of defeatist and disloyal message will go down very well at all up here in the Granite State. Democrats should all be saying something like this:

"If, heaven forbid, there is another major terrorist attack on the United States, we need to have Democrats leading the country, since the Republican pattern of poor judgment, corruption, governmental incompetence and unpreparedness has been amply demonstrated. Do you want the party that spectacularly failed to respond to the needs of New Orleans to be in charge if some other American city is in dire straits? Can we afford four more years of misidentifying the enemy and mislocating the battlefield if terrorists strike again?"

Clinton might as well have said "you should vote for me because I am the most Republican of the Democrats." What could she have been thinking?

And Brady, what kind of candidate for the job of president - the most powerful position in the land - runs with the message that in the event of further terrorism, our party is fatalistically pre-destined not to be able to get it's message out and win the battle for public opinion, all because of the big bad media. If Clinton doesn't think our ideas can prevail in the case of a national emergency, or that she has the ability to best the Bill O'Reilly's and Michael Savages of the world in public debate, she needs to turn over the keys to someone with a more positive attitude. Stockholm syndrome indeed! Loser.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 24, 2007 1:07 PM

This is silly. Of course when there happens to be another such attack, people will focus on what the Republicans in office and Republican appointees are doing. And any PR in which they can appear to be doing something The People wants/needs is good for them.

On the other hand, not only does interest and support for them spike up, it also soon ratchets down to a new lower level on 'handling terrorism' for Bush/Republicans when there is a major attack in the West. About 10% is the average drop per such incident. Since it's now about 47% at peak, the next drop should be to under 40%.

Of course, 'handling terrorism' is by far their best issue, the issue on which they stay (if just barely) within contention for national power. If that falls below 40% siding with them on it, that's lethal in elections- the rating on it represents the Republican 'ceiling'. And they can spike up support to that ceiling by their usual means of 'terror alerts', a new Al Qaeda videotape, or minor terrorist bad behavior.

Let's just call it a tie. Hillary is correct in a tactical sense, but in the strategic sense another major Al Qaeda attack that kills a lot of people in the West- especially inside the US- is electorally lethal to Republicans nationally. But even if Democratic pollsters and analysts realize this (which is trivial- just look for when Bush support on 'handling terrorism' ratchets down and spikes up), they logically don't want to talk about it or admit to understanding it.

Posted by cd | August 24, 2007 1:09 PM

Hillary Clinton is the best hope the GOP has of retaining the white house in 2008. Karl Rove understands this - I wish more democrats did.

Posted by textaddict | August 24, 2007 1:15 PM

Hillary is right. A terrorist attack will help the GOP.

What to do? Exactly what Hillary is doing. Warn Americans NOT to reflexively go to Daddy. Daddy is an alcoholic failure, and the Repukeliscum Party is that alcoholic failure party.

Nope, this is a job for Mom. Mom has a steel apron, and she can clean up the mess.

Posted by POed Lib | August 24, 2007 1:22 PM

Hillary has just guaranteed that if we are attacked again, this quote is going to be discussed ad nauseum. I seriously doubt that would be remotely beneficial to her or other Dems.

The point is that even if she still THINKS that a post-attack rally 'round the GOP would happen (arguable, obviously), what she should SAY publicly is that it would be total BS and that she would fight it with every fiber of her being, which besides having the benefit of truth would also look less wimpy.

Posted by bob | August 24, 2007 1:23 PM

(Further horrors lay ahead: remember the "reporting for duty" salute at the convention that summer?) Didn't Kerry's campaign managers have any creative ability at all?

Not so much a question of creativity as simply having the most rudimentary common sense about how (and how not) to use your political assets. Kerry's "ear" was so tin--or that of his communications/marketing team was--that I couldn't help wondering if a lot of them were moles working for the GOP. That's still an open question for me regarding Hil's campaign. Celine Dion f'r gorpsake.

I have actually not been tuning into the campaign much--just can't stand it this far out from the actual election. But I saw Obama on the Daily Show last night and in spite of myself I was impressed. VERY impressed. As to his political instincts anyway. And damn if Stewart didn't ask him exactly the questions I would have wanted. A friendly venue, to be sure, but even so... I wish all our party/media interactions could be that successful.

Posted by DrBB | August 24, 2007 1:28 PM

I think Hillary's being pro-active in putting out there the notion that a terror strike against America could be the result of bad GOP policies and GOP-led governmental incompetance. She's not surrendering, but saying "hey, this is the terrain we're in."

Now, the way to deal with it would be to fight, against the terrorists and the people who let it happen on their watch again. If Hillary were to do that, it would be great.

Posted by American Citizen | August 24, 2007 1:30 PM

It was a disastrous statement on several levels, but I read it as a hamhanded attempt to suggest that if we have another terrorist attack before the elections, the Bush administration might be actively involved in making it happen for political reasons.

Posted by roberto | August 24, 2007 1:34 PM

Dear Dan,

I'm sure that Clinton et al do think that our ideas would prevail in any debate against whomever. But what makes you think that if there is another attack there will be a Democrat within shouting distance of a TV studio. We already know who would be on the TV--the O'Pollack twins, the Kagan brood, Kristol, Cheney, Bush, Ann Coulter would write a new book and be on the Today show, any number of GOP congresspeople would come on the air to lament about how this never would have happened but for the fact that the Democrat (sic) party tried to pull out of Iraq, which just make us look weak, and weakness begets aggression, etc etc. We've seen this show for years now.

Again, ask John Kerry how well it worked when Osama popped up in October 04 and all the networks went gaga trying to explain why Osama "really" wanted Kerry to win so that he could subsume Seattle in his transcontinental caliphate.

The plain fact of the matter is this: Clinton must make these meta statements on her own behalf, because very few other liberals are every allowed on TV. And those liberals that do make onto the big show are just peppered with questions about the cleavage, the haircut, the madrassa, the windsurfing, the blowjobs of yore and of course earth tones. In spite of the excellent work done at media matters and other sites such as this one, I've still yet to see an actual liberal talk about these things on TV. Sorry to say this, but although the Democratic party is the smart and tough party on defense, it just ain't true until the electorate believes it. And the electorate won't believe it until they get Matt Lauer to say it during their morning coffee.

Posted by Brady | August 24, 2007 1:35 PM

History shows that Clinton has a point, substantively.

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!

Posted by JoeCHI | August 24, 2007 1:36 PM

remember the "reporting for duty" salute at the convention that summer?

God, it pissed me off so much when I watched him do that. I got a sinking feeling in my stomache that it was lost right then and there, and I never really shook that feeling.

Posted by El Cid | August 24, 2007 1:37 PM

I believe the phrase you are reaching for is:
"It's not a bug, it's a feature."

Posted by bartkid | August 24, 2007 1:41 PM

HRC's campaign is particularly dependent on the Washington establishment. More than any candidate, she depends on the chattering class to push the "inevitability" angle, while yacking about vauge Democratic fears about terror attacks and worst case scenarios. Indeed, HRC is smart to capitalize on Democratic fears of another terror attack. She is the known quantity in the field. She is experienced. We know how she will react. She is safe. She is predictable. She is the low-risk candidate.

HRC has little incentive to pay attention to the hard numbers, which suggest most Americans dislike Republicans intensely. The same numbers show that a large number of Americans dislike her intensely. A beaten Republican party only helps her Democratic opponents.

The more HRC can portray the Republicans as a big, fearsome beast that should be feared, the stronger her appeal becomes as the safe, establishment candidate. The more Democrats realize that most Americans are unhappy with Republicans, the more a fresh candidate like Obama makes sense. The less his "inexperience" matters. The worse HRC looks in comparison.

My advice to HRC: keep stoking the fear. The more nervous Democrats are about the Republican response to a terror attack, the more likely they are to support you.

Posted by owenz | August 24, 2007 1:43 PM

Fucken-A, Bubba!

I'm pushing this one. Hillary Clinton must not be nominated!

Posted by AlphaLiberal | August 24, 2007 1:45 PM

Now, the way to deal with it would be to fight, against the terrorists and the people who let it happen on their watch again. If Hillary were to do that, it would be great.

But she won't, cause she already pre-emptively surrendered. If she wanted to fight back, she could have started when she made the above statement, by instead saying "Well if another attack happens, the Republicans will look like idiots who suck at their jobs, no matter how hard they try to pretend otherwise." But she didn't, because fighting back isn't something she will ever do.

Posted by Dawn | August 24, 2007 1:52 PM

Hillary Clinton comes from a Republican Family.

Hillary Clinton comes from a privileged background.

Hillary Clinton pushed Bill to the right.

Bill Clinton pushed the Democratic party to the right.

Bill Clinton pushed the Democratic party right off a cliff.

Hillary Clinton has Republican interests at heart.

Hillary Clinton has more experience...at pushing Republican interests.

Hillary Clinton is the most conservative candidate running...that could win.

To a lot of Republicans...Hillary looks better than Giuliani in a dress.

Republicans for Hillary Clinton...what's not to like?

Posted by S Brennan | August 24, 2007 1:55 PM

I'm imagining a conversation, at Al Qaida World HQ in Iraq (I know, I know, bear with me, here):

"My brothers in Allah! This 'surge' that America's resolute and bold president has inflicted upon us is working! We have suffered more losses than we have actual members! Six dozen of our 'number Three Al Qaida' have been captured or killed! Soon, there will be no recourse, but to follow them over there, so we do not have to fight them here!

"And next year, in 2008, the evil Americans will elect themselves a new presidential administration, to replace the dogs Bush and Cheney. It will be a choice between more strong, father-like members of Bush's so-called 'Republican Party', or the weak, effeminate cowards of their 'Democratic' Party, who are known in the American newspapers and cable networks as 'surrender monkeys'. I am told they are likely, at this point, to win that election, and leave Iraq to its people.

"Therefore, before these elections take place, we must commit a glorious act of domestic terrorism against the American infidels, to ensure another devastating 'surge' against us, and even further evisceration of our ranks. Praise Allah!"

If you think the above is stupid and makes no sense at all, please consider that the MSM (and Hillary Clinton) are treating this exact storyline as if it WEREN'T insane.

Posted by Barry Champlain | August 24, 2007 1:56 PM

For God's sake, get some balls! After 6.5 years of being in power, controlling all the money, planning all the defenses, reading all the intelligence, etc, etc the GOP is 100 percent responsible for what happens. If we are hit again they have once more failed tragically and completely and the world needs to be kept aware of it. If they f*** it up after all of that, why should some twisted logic say they might benefit? C'mon, this is not patty-cake, this is the life of our nation we're talking about, and we cannot keep pussyfooting around, afraid we'll offend some obscure group on the fringes. Our survival and continued strength demands that we see and speak clearly and powerfully and stop posturing for a temporary cosmetic advantage. Get with the program.

Posted by Rado | August 24, 2007 1:59 PM

It isn't so much that Clinton pushed the Democratic party to the right as it is that the Republican noise machine managed to convince the vast majority of the electorate that Clinton represented the "left wing" of the Democratic party, thereby redefining the center. So we have a political climate where Democrats cannot really pander to the left wing of their party anymore without being tagged as extremists, while the Republicans have the luxury of doing nothing but pander without any serious consequence.

James Dobson and Pat Robertson receive a steady stream of Republican candidates who seek them out to pay public obeisance. When was the last time you saw a Democratic candidate playing pattycake with Louis Farrakhan?

Seen in that light, Hilary's statement is a reflection of the reality of the bias that currently exists in the MSM. She was obviously paying attention when the Bushistas cynically went about their business exploiting 911 for every political advantage they could, including clubbing every Democratic candidate in the 2002 elections over the head with it, no matter what their position. And even today, when for almost anyone with an ounce of intelligence and a pound of honesty, all the Bush policies have been discredited, and only the most partisan truly believe that he showed great leadership in the aftermath, the WH line on anyone with the temerity to question the great leader's policies is that they are obviously in bed with the terrorists, or, at the very least, a willing dupe. So, we have about thirty percent of the electorate that still believe that W is right and if there is another terrorist attack that number will swell not shrink. That is just the reality of it all. Sad to say.

Posted by majun | August 24, 2007 2:31 PM

We've killed or captured more AQ in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

And how many innocent Iraqis have we killed in exchange for each and every one of those AQ? Three? Five? Ten? Twenty?

Or are you a typical right-winger and the deaths of "swarthy Arabs" just don't count?

Phookin' ninny.

Posted by John J | August 24, 2007 2:34 PM

"Remind me again why I am supposed to vote for her over, say, Guliani?".....

Sooo many many reasons- the most salient being:

1)She looks way better in a dress
2)Her decolletage is much more appealing
3)Rudy just can NOT wear a designer pants suit!
4)Bill is SO much funnier than Judi

Posted by victoid | August 24, 2007 2:35 PM

If I were Edwards, I'd rake Hillary over the coals on this one and say she's more of the same, "just another damn Ivy League lawyer" (which also attacks Obama obliquely). John could really get some momentum on this if he's aggressive about it.

Posted by Vincent | August 24, 2007 2:36 PM

Ummm.. you do know that everything she said is correct, don't you? If htere is another atack, the media wil play it up as a republican advantage. Does anyone out there believe otherwise? If so, what in the past 30 years has happened that would make you think otherwise?

It doesn't matter how obvious the failure is - the failure of bush were obvious after 9/11, if you will recall. The media will play him up as the steely resolved leader again. anyone who challengeds him will be tarred and feathered. Anyone showing the slightest willingness to use anything but military force will be ignored, or even mocked.

Hillary is probably right about being the best candidate in that environment- she is the best candidate now. Thats not to say who would be a better president, but Hillary and Bill have beat an insanely hostile media 4 times now.

So what was your point again, Matt? Hillary is mockable for being absolutely, 100% correct about the media environmnet we live in?

Posted by Mysticdog | August 24, 2007 2:45 PM

I say for the thousandth time:WE MUST STOP HILLARY FROM BEING THE NOMINEE. I believe she will get creamed in the general, but if by some miracle not, she will be a tinkerer on domestic issues so as not to annoy the corporate powers,, a warmonger to show how 'tough' she is, and a basic four-year placeholding disappointment until Jeb.

Posted by Nick | August 24, 2007 2:51 PM

All Hillary is selling is a vague odor of experience––mostly due to her husband––and the same dynastic arrogance of inevitability that has made the New York Yankees so repugnant in the last seven years. While watching Hardball more than six months ago it became clear that Chris Matthews and all those other Beltway whores had already decided that Hillary was the frontrunner, supposedly because the betting odds in Vegas favored her. I figured that in response to this annointment by the pundits that Hillary would either be classy by dismissing such illogical nonsense or she'd run with that very tactic herself and wait for all Democrats to accept her inevitability. I now know what she's decided to do. I hope voters learned from Kerry that the worse thing we can do is nominate someone because they seem electable and not because we actually WANT them to be president.

Posted by tinisoli | August 24, 2007 2:52 PM

Mysticdog,
Here's why it would be hard (and stupid) for the MSM to try to spin another terror attack in favor of Bush and the GOP:
1) His approval ratings are abysmal, and a majority of Americans now (finally) believes that the Iraq war was and is a mistake and that the GWOT has in fact made us LESS safe.
2) The "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" fallacy would be blown apart. (Which would probably be the final nail in McCain's coffin.)
3) Katrina. If you can't deal with a huge hurricane that you knew was coming, how can you deal with some suicide bombers riding on a train or driving a truck through Times Square?
4) The "we know we're doing a good job because we haven't been attacked since 9/11" fallacy would also be blown apart.

Posted by tinisoli | August 24, 2007 3:03 PM

Chris Ford proves that the best thing that ever happened to Bush Light was that the foreign Sunnit fighters in Iraq "swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden" and started calling themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq."

This, combined with bin Laden's pre-election video in 2004 shows just how much they value W to increase their recruiting and provide them with a supply of Americans to kill.

Posted by CalGal | August 24, 2007 3:04 PM

hmmm, a link from a repuke slime rag and lots of mind reading from hillary-haters interpreting what she meant (in the worst possible light). like it or not, Hillary is going to be the Dem nominee and all the obama personality cultists and former naderites now enamored with edwards are going to have to suck it up and vote Dem/for Hillary or screw the country for another eight years. What Hillary said is absolutely right. It is also wrong and naive to say that smirk and company would be held responsible by the country and Hillary shouldn't. The terrorists are responsible if heaven's forbid we are attacked again. And if any poster on here thinks that after another 9/11 the country wouldn't seek unity yet again and the Repukes wouldn't play on people's fears yet again with the complicity of the media tearing down the Dems, then you just haven't been paying attention the last twenty years. If you people who support the other Dem candidates can't find supporters without building up your own candidates, you aren't going to find them by tearing down other candidates particularly by ginning up bs about Hillary. talk about right wing framing, you Hillary haters have it going on. It's through the looking glass, but it sounds just like limpballs and coulter to me.

Posted by joker | August 24, 2007 3:10 PM

Can someone tell me why Clinton is still leading big time in the polls?

Posted by steve EVfuture | August 24, 2007 3:23 PM

And if any poster on here thinks that after another 9/11 the country wouldn't seek unity yet again and the Repukes wouldn't play on people's fears yet again with the complicity of the media tearing down the Dems, then you just haven't been paying attention the last twenty years.

Sorry, dude, but you miss the point. The point is not what the Repukes will do, or what the media will do. The question is: What would Hillary do? It sounds like Hillary would go back into her protective crouch, fearing that the meanies in the GOP would hurt her again. (I hold it against Hillary that she was silent during 2002-2005, when leadership was needed from sane adults.) Hillary's comment is a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. Precisely because she would apparently refuse to make a clear, coherent case for a different response than the Rethugs, she would lose. Why vote for faux-Rethuglican when you can vote for the real thing?

Besides, the last year is living proof that the American people have gotten beyond the Rethugs' smokescreen and the media's trompe l'oeil magic tricks. They see through it now. Any terror attack now is the wholly-owned property of the Rethuglican crime family, and I don't mean that in a good way.

Posted by Baldrick | August 24, 2007 3:28 PM

joker,
Why is Hillary going to be the nominee?
And why would the media or anyone else not associate another terror attack with a) exhausted defenses mired in an offensive conflict on the other side of the planet, or b) an incredibly unpopular, ineffective, lame-duck president? Please tell me how another attack would be spun so that the president and ruling political party of the last six years would not be revealed as the nude emperors that they are? What could Bush say about fighting AQ in Iraq if his "fight them there instead of here" line of reasoning were destroyed by a 9/11-style attack?

Posted by tinisoli | August 24, 2007 3:31 PM

My understanding of Clinton's remarks is that she was saying when people are frightened, they are more easily swayed by the irrationalities and war talk of the right wing. And the media will certainly run with it.

And people like Obama will try to twist her words into a statement of fear. Heavens!

Is there something about that observation that suggests she is scared or foolish or fuzzy? It's called having a brain and it's called working to innoculate voters.

Settle down.

Posted by Lee | August 24, 2007 3:35 PM

My understanding of Clinton's remarks is that she was saying when people are frightened, they are more easily swayed by the irrationalities and war talk of the right wing. And the media will certainly run with it.

And people like Obama will try to twist her words into a statement of fear. Heavens!

Is there something about that observation that suggests she is scared or foolish or fuzzy? It's called having a brain and it's called working to innoculate voters.

Settle down.

Posted by Lee | August 24, 2007 3:35 PM

My understanding of Clinton's remarks is that she was saying when people are frightened, they are more easily swayed by the irrationalities and war talk of the right wing. And the media will certainly run with it.

And people like Obama will try to twist her words into a statement of fear. Heavens!

Is there something about that observation that suggests she is scared or foolish or fuzzy? It's called having a brain and it's called working to innoculate voters.

Settle down.

Posted by Lee | August 24, 2007 3:36 PM

If you remember back to 9/11, there were actually two deeply felt emotions shared by just about everyone: vulnerability/grief/anger, and a feeling of solidarity/connection to others just because we are all human beings. Assuming that another attack will elicit similar deeply felt emotions, I would think that it would both be good for the country and for a dem candidate if he/she could articulate and build on that feeling of solidarity/shared humanity. Clinton has shown no evidence of being able to do that. Obama definitely has.

Posted by bonyfingers | August 24, 2007 3:59 PM

Why is Hillary going to be the nominee?

Because she's leading in every primary poll but Iowa, and she's within the margin of error there (and has Teresa Vilmain doing her field).

Because she'll be one of the only two candidates with enough money to contend in all the front-loaded huge states.

Because big, important components of the Democratic base, black and women voters, support her.

I'd give almost anything for it not to be so, but there you are.

Posted by Nell | August 24, 2007 4:17 PM

A terrorist attack will not be good for the Republicans because of one thing: Katrina.
Katrina was the perfect test of America's First Responder Network, of all the stuff that was designed to deal with a terrorist attack.
And the Bush Administration got an F-minus. There's no coordination; the peopled the network with party hacks; and they went around blaming everybody but themselves.
After Katrina the Republicans went into the cellar and stayed in the cellar. And that's because they got tarred with a label every American is ready to believe of a politician--a screw-up.
America knows that Bush and Cheney have done nothing to improve America's security. from the leaders they werre willing to trust, they quickly became the whining, dodging, conniving kids whininng that they need another extension for that term paper and how "Billy did it too!"

Posted by pbg | August 24, 2007 4:31 PM

The nomination and election of Hilary is inevitable!
And so is the next terror attack! Inevitable!

What is the time limit on inevitable?
Does six frickin years maybe knock it down to "probable"?

I do understand that, no matter how long it takes, there is no way we could have imagined or done anything to prepare or prevent it. That, my friends, is truly an inevitability.

Posted by Mooser | August 24, 2007 4:34 PM

Sorry, dude, but you miss the point. The point is not what the Repukes will do, or what the media will do. The question is: What would Hillary do? It sounds like Hillary would go back into her protective crouch, fearing that the meanies in the GOP would hurt her again.

Precisely.