Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.
Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.
"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.
Then this response from Matt Yglesias:
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."
This makes my blood boil.
Matt's response makes my eyes glaze over by the time I read the word "mobilization." It literally took me three tries to wade through it.
Gaaaaaaaaah! What a honking load of boring crap. And I think the average voter will react the same way if ANY Democrat talks like this.
Are you kidding? "Post-attack environment?" What the fuck is that? That kind of rhetoric is a freaking snooze fest, Matt. It's exactly what people hate about Democrats.
Face facts:
Bush's legacy and reputation (and that of the Republicans in general) can only be redeemed if there is total victory in Iraq or if there is another massive terror attack in the US.
Worse yet -- Bush and the other Republicans no longer see any difference between the two.
Why should they? Another terror attack would totally allow Bush to grab a massive amount of power as per the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. And if you think Bush won't do this, you're a pathetic bunch of dreaming losers, no matter what big-ass liberal magazine or blog you read or write for.
I'll tell you what: I'm not a Hillary supporter (I lean more toward Obama -- go ahead and review my diaries if you like).
But I think she's on the right track to bring up the conundrum (i.e., "damned if you don't and damned if you do").
I say she's smart to bring it up now and start talking about it. Get it out in open before it is too late. Deal with it and defeat it. NOW.
As for Matt and the rest of you who agree him: Snap out of it and stop sounding like a bunch of pseudo-intellectual titty-babies.
I welcome Hillary talking about this now and getting the public to think about it as well. Her rhetoric may be clumsy, but it's a damn sight better than the nuanced, academic, pundit-ese that some pussy-bloggers want to employ.
Jaysus.
Comments are closed on this story.