Clinton Channels Rudy

by Taylor Marsh

You just can't script this stuff... er... Or maybe you can (but shouldn't) and that's exactly what happened. Talk about propping up a wingnut talking point. Is there something in the air? First Obama, next Edwards and now Clinton. Somebody grab these people and take them on vacation.

She tweaked my tolerance when in front of the VFW Clinton said this: "... .. We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war." I gave her hell for it for good reason. First, I can't stand the "global war on terror" talking point. Secondly, pandering to an audience is one thing, but how about stopping any new war instead of always using language like being ready to "fight it," which we've proven over the last century we're more the eager to do? Muscular diplomacy has simply got to be the mantra out of Democrats, because Republicans sure aren't going that route. Let me also add that I understand fully that a woman running for commander in chief has to have muscular rhetoric, which I've written about at length.

But it's hard to know where to begin with Clinton's latest rhetorical bomb.

"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.

HILL: TERROR WOULD BE GOP BOOST

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 about 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. It is a gift to the other side. 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.

How about saying this instead: What if? What if? Republicans think terrorism and national security are their issues. Not anymore. Between their incompetence in Iraq and what they've done to our military, our country is more vulnerable than ever. Terrorism and national security no longer belong to Republicans. So if, God forbid, the worst happens the American people won't automatically turn to Republicans, though they'll try to make that point by telling everyone to be afriad. But I know how to fight these fights and I'm the best of the Democrats **blah-blah-blah**.... ..

Again, I understand that a woman running for commander in chief has to sound tough, but channeling Mr. 9/11's script? This pandering hawkery needs to stop.

However, something tells me it won't, especially with Clinton's poll numbers set on high. She's running a general election campaign at this point and Republican and scaredy cat voters eat this stuff up. But will Democratic primary voters?

Then there's the cleavage in the room issue, to use a favorite hack pack picture. Is this how a woman has to talk to get herself elected commander in chief? The obvious answer to that question is depressing, especially since Clinton obviously believes the answer is yes.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[bar1ed]

she just said what people want to hear [vfw]. WAR, its in our dna.

[Gettagrip]

Have you not wondered why, from very early on, all of main stream media has been telling us it is all about Obama and Clinton? Why they imply that Clinton and Obama are the only viable Democratic candidates? Why they try to minimize the other Democratic candidates? Have you asked yourself who has the most financial interest and influence over main stream media? What part of our social strata owns most of these different media venues? Well, you should ask yourself these questions.
Then decide whether or not you want another Republican President. I don't want someone as our president that may perform as poorly or even worse than GW Bush. I don't want a president that will continue the Iraq fiasco, continue to ignore the increasing downward spiral of the middle class, or continue to act as though the Constitution of the United States was not written to include these modern day Republicans. With a spineless Democratic controlled congress, this country can not afford another president that has little regard for what needs to be said and done for the good of our country.
This country is not ready to elect either a woman or an African American, it will be someday, but not now. If we allow ourselves to be convinced by the Republican "drum beat" for Obama and Clinton we will have Democratic voters stay away in droves and they know that. Please think about what is best for our country.

[feelfree]

I don't find it odd that a blogger would find fault with Mrs. Clinton on the issue of national security.

She's right that Republicans would get a bounce if the country suffers another 9/11 like attack.

Isn't it the truth that Democrats are perceived as weak on national security? Hasn't it been like this for awhile?

The public doesn't believe the Democrats would be stronger on handling the war because of strength on national security, they believe that Democrats are anti-war and will end it.

With Mrs. Clinton I think middle America will get someone stronger on national security than most of the other candidates and someone who will go to war if needed and fight to win.

Isn't it curious that so-called progressives are always questioning Mrs. Clinton truthiness but when she tells the truth so-called progressives whine about it?

[kfdan]

Hilary panders, slithers and posses! It would be a shame for the Democrats to allow this candidate to get off scot free splashing these views in speeches obviously intended to whip up support among right wing-nuts many of whom you find in organizations like the VFW. Do you really want a continuation of the folly in Iraq? Not even the Iraqis want that ~ so oppose Clinton! She is Bush-lite!

[OtayPanky]

As others have pointed out, there's very little political difference between Hillary and Rudy.

Both are essentially centrists, based on their political history. Both have a history of pandering, and both are pandering right now.

New polls yesterday (for what they're worth) show that Rudy picks up more of the independents than Hillary right now. Also (interestingly) Rudy picks up some dem votes, while Hillary doesn't do as well picking up repub votes.

One significant difference between the two is that Rudy has a resume as an executive - and Hillary does not.

Of course, on a lefty blog like this, you'll hear a lot of random disparagement of Rudy's record - but all in all he did a remarkable job bringing NYC back from the brink of ruin.

With all his flaws and tendencies towards strong-arming, he made his bones before 9/11, not after.

The only executive level job Hillary ever had (correct me if I'm wrong) was as Bill's health care czar. And the truth is she was miserable at the role.

The truth is, any idiot can be a senator (and some would say 100 idiots are). But being mayor of NYC is widely regarded as the second most difficult job in the country.

People who know public policy and municipal management - and aren't blinded by lefty bias - rank Rudy among the greats.

For me as an independent sick to death of Bushco, the biggest downside of Rudy is that he comes with the baggage of being a part of the GOP - the party that has truly done ruinous things in both domestic and foreign policy.

Does that mean Hillary would get my vote?

No.

I could write in Al Gore - which would cost her one vote...or vote for Rudy, which would cost her two.

These are ALL Hobbsian choices, as far as I'm concerned.

[raptor]

I know that Hillary is one of the senators who did not read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting in favor of the Iraq Lberation Joint Resolution. OK, they’re busy people. Speechifying, fund raising, color coordinating etc. Then I saw in a recent TV documentary that Congress’ copy of the NIE was kept in a locked room for members of Congress to read.Too busy to walk over there, which I think was a room in the Capitol, I guess. And Hillary has the gall to claim that Bush wouldnt’t do what she knew he wanted to do, the gall to claim “I’m your girl”. “Girl”. What if anyone else called her that? Gall to gal. Now she wants to be Commander in Chief. To listen to her, you’d think she was constantly in the War Room and in the
Cabinet Room with Bill. Go figure.

[laurenc]

Taylor: we will end up with a hideously flawed candidate--unless we stop her. The Democrats will never put a woman on the top of the ticket once her candidacy is derailed, just as Kerry's was. They are equally flawed as candidates who won't resonate with ordinary Americans. Also they both mouth platitudes and are boring to watch and listen to. Please Taylor, consider endorsing Edwards NOW, while it matters, when we can still stop Hillary--and win the White House back in the bargain.

[raptor]

In my opinion, nominating Hillary will be "a firebell in the night" galvanzing every Republican to vote for their man, whoever it is.

[Herrington]

Well "preparing for the next war" is definitely pandering and a lousy job of it. The problem with Ms. Perfect Leader is that she has a pretense of never making a mistake. Which current resident of the White House comes to mind?

She does seldom make the same mistake twice, which is more than can be said for the remainder of the field. This, however, begs the question of what she would consider a mistake. If she will pander to the public does that not mean that she will also pander to the big money? It takes big money to get political mindshare and not so much to keep it. Having garnered significant public support, she can arguably use that as a foil for the payback expected from big money interests. But will she? Will she both get public support and use it in the interest of those who give it?

What you see is what you get. Clinton will serve Clinton first and the extent that this serves the public better than it does big donators is pure campaign dynamics. She can’t be trusted at her word but her motives are dependable predictors of what she will do. Bill was and is a highly popular figure, gaining more appreciation by the day. In order to serve her ambition, Hillary will be like Bill, only slightly more screechy, sorry.

So here is the mistake. Rather than lead, Clinton will aim to define herself as being the candidate of the bell curve, not too hot and not too cold. In doing so, she will forfeit the public support, settling instead for elect ability, that could free her from the yoke of big money. We do not know what she would do with that freedom and that is what keeps her from getting it.

[hoopoe]

democrats need to be actively and aggressively changing the debate, and educating the public on the facts of why this strategy is failing for republicans and the country. they need to advancing viable alternatives, not bowing in reverence to their GWOT talking points. she's just validated their whole doctrine in one breath. she's proven that, if she's elected, there will be no appreciable difference between the two parties on foreign/defense policy, and no matter which way the election goes, we'll be getting more of the same.

[dlbdpb]

The more I hear about "the next war", the more I'm convinced we will have another attack allowed to happen by the same ones who allowed the last one. The hawks thinks it gives them an edge and to hell with however many American lives are taken with it. The more I hear Hillary, the more I think she's made some kind of deal with them. She is a true politician to the core.

My vote is for Edwards who doesn't have to make deals with anyone, and who doesn't owe any chips to anyone in Washington D.C. and is the one candidate that I believe in and trust.

Hillary will be just more of the same with a few more scraps thrown our way from time to time.

The best choice is EDWARDS/OBAMA first, EDWARDS/RICHARDSON second. I've always liked Biden but I'm afraid it would be "more of the same" but with a little honesty. We need a change, we need someone in there that gives a damn about the people of this country, not where the next dollar is coming from.

[ThomasDoubting]

Americans would like a choice in this election. If it is Hillary vs Rudy, some voters can tell the difference, (Rudy is the one in the dress) others ,like me, consider them both to be right-wing Republicans and would like to have a lefty on the Democratic ballot. I know that Hillary is just slightly better but this time I refuse to choose the lesser of two evils. I will vote for someone that I believe in (Is there anybody out there?)

[JoeCHI]

Clearly, Clinton wasn't making the argument that she is better equipped then other Democrats to deal with a future terrorist attack.

Rather, she was saying that she is better equipped to fight back against any Republican spin that might perversely use a future attack as a political tool.

That's different.

Further, it's different from Kerry's ineffectual response to the Bil Laden tape that the White House released the week before the 2004 election.

Here's Kerry's take on 2004 from his interview with 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

That's a lesson from which every Democrat can learn.

[JB64]

Has it occurred to anyone that what HRC said is essentially true? A terror attack would help the GOP. You don;t think Rudy an 'em get down on their knees, cross their fingers, rub their rabbits feet and pray to their machine gun totin' Jesus for something like that to happen? Do you not remember how pencil-neck went from Mr.42%, one term wonder to God's own warrior king by the 13th of September 2001? Do you doubt for one moment the power that images of Rudy at ground zero already have? I thought it was a pretty smart move on her part to at least try to pre-empt that advantage. To get it out there.

It's obvious that many of you think that America is one big debating society where inconvenient things like oh, say, facts can be used to sway arguments, change peoples minds but it's just not true. People instinctively trust the John Wayne party to protect them. Maybe Hil has to look tough 'cause she's a woman (and right now she looks like she could take anybody in the Democrat party) but more than likely she is simply showing that she has no illusions either about how dangerous the world is, or what the GOP will turn this campaign into. It would do Obama, and to a lesser extent Edwards(although I think he's done, and this is a two person race)a lot of good to start thinking along the same lines.

It simply goes without saying (or at least it should) that our mission in 2008 is clear, to win the White House with whomever we nominate. It is delusional to think that any of our candidates are remotely the same thing as our GOP counterparts. The last 7 years should be proof enough of that.

[oujiQualm]

If Hillary is selected by the Corporate Media we will have none of our concerns expressed in November, and the Fear Factor will be voiced by two candidates and everything Bush has done will only be legitimated and seem mainstream, because no one is attacking it, and more people will tune out because this election will be about billionaires on welfare, and fascism will get worse.

Hillary is ALWAYS playing on thier field. She is NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER raising real issues. I will fight against another clinton until the sun sheds its skin.

WIthout CLINTONS Bush itself would be impossible.

[OETKB]

I agree with this post and thank the author. The next president will be and should be involved in bringing some stable peace to this world. Preparing for the "next war" is a head shaking statement. With Senator Clinton we get a back to the future approach to Foreign Policy. The Cold War is over and the era of "regime change" or pandering to the House of Saud must end if we the people want true freedom, that is, the freedom from harm. Also she did not do her homework by skipping a reading of the NIE before casting her very political albeit poor judgment vote for that war. She herself has said there are no do-overs and therefore she should pay the price for it, namely to remain as Senator from NY.