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

[Mahavishnu]

What Clinton said is simply the truth. It seems to me that there is a certain element of our own Left (or Right-Wing imposters)that demands that Clinton PANDERS to them. What she said is simply undeniable­...for whatever reason, fair or unfair, it seems any act of terror will benefit Republican interests.­..that is what she said and it is true. She wants to change that. BTW, the Senator's negatives are high, about 45%, but not the 60% claimed by a liar on this thread.

[sabocat]

I don't really understand all the heat on this issue of talking points and the war on terror. As if there ever was really a big difference between the democrats and republicans when it comes to issues of war and foreign policy. The ruling class in this country, depending on which wing, leaves very little wiggle room for the government managers of the plutocracy to differ. And that is all the president really is, a manager. The president has never made any big decisions. He (or she) is told what to decide by handlers who speak for various and sundry corporate interests. You have some difference in whether to bother pandering to the electorate or just ignore them altogether. No one in the echelons of power really cares about the middle class, and certainly not the working class, except as a market for consumption in the case of the former, and as a a source of surplus value wealth extraction and cannon fodder with regard to the latter. To believe otherwise is simply not to understand REALITY.

[Dap]

Dear Ms. Marsh,

Seems to my untrained eye, that Hillary Clinton is channeling John McCain. And hopefully she will be toast soon also.
Agape.

[Spookcatcher]

Just think, if George Bush knew that Hillary was just like him, he could have had her be his Vice-president. that would have freed Dick Dastardly to remote control everything back and forth between Texass, Iraq, and D.C. (and Saudi Arabia) It would have been like a trilateral obsession. Or maybe Condaleeza would have had to "bone up", if Bush would have put Billary in his Cabinet. Who Knew?

[happytrails]

"Back and forth between Tx, Iraq, DC and Saudi Arabia," you have left out the major motivation for the Neo-Cons: protecting Israel from just retribution for its 40 year occupation­/colonizat­ion of Palestine. If I read Cheney correctly, he doesn't give a damn about Israel but that is the motivation for the Neos and the wing nuts.

[Raven]

What if the progressive blogosphere quit trying to turn Hillary into something she's not?

She's not a Democrat. She just likes to pretend she is.

Just listen to her. Really listen to her.

What if progressive activists quit trying to elect Hillary simply because they've resigned themselves that she's got the race cornered?

What if the fact that she's a feminist were not considered her only credential?

Hillary will lead us to trouble. She is not what our country needs right now.

What if we just started looking for the right candidate and quit pretending?

[Maverick226]

As long as the War in Iraq continues, voters in general are going to look for someone "tough" who has the quote-unquote "balls" for it. Hillary needs to talk like this in order to make herself a viable candidate. For me, anyway, this also begs the question why the Republicans are the "go-to" party for terror fighting in the eyes of voters (I don't doubt the perception is out there, but the voters should ask themselves why). Besides, it's about time Democrats took off the gloves and put on some brass knuckles. Politics isn't a gentleman's sport.

P.S. How exactly have we proven "Democratic prowess on national security"? By getting really really frustrated with everything the Republicans have done over the past 6 years?

[Rescisco]

"First, I can't stand the 'global war on terror' talking point."

I have always felt this language to be fundamentally stupid. The language suggests a very narrow range of thought. It improperly defines the threat, misunderstands the roots of the problem, and limits the strategic and policy options that may be considered to create the effective collective international response required to meet the threat terrorism does in fact pose. But being smart never wins elections I guess. And strategic thinking and intelligent policy are soooo old school.

[MPeter]

Thanks Taylor. Finally someone is calling HRC on her warmongering and militant posture. Today, one of the greatest foreign policy minds said that she does not understand the sort of foreihn policy America and the world need. he rejected the idea that being First Lady is qualification enough to be President. Thank you for a good article.

[May2002]

The more Hillary talks the more she reveals to us that she indeed wants to win by saying anything and doing anything.

This is not a leadership.

I want a true leader who has conviction and is not so calculated for political gains but for the well-being of the country.

The more Hillary talks, the more we realize that she is not big enough to be a leader but small enough for her own political ambition.

[Tommymac]

Amen, May.

[rssrai]

About Edwards on the Lincoln Bedroom. He was talking about George Bush.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0310-04.htm

[LIR]

I am afraid my support for Hillary will be gone for good if she keeps it up...as I said yesterday, I have decided to support Obama, but I don't think he, Hillary or Edwards need to mimic the Repig talking points...a losing strategy when only 20% of the country even think these ideas are rational. Stop pandering to voters who don't matter, EVER!

[klondiker]

Yes, it's depressing but true.

The first woman president has to be a hawk and a half. In the mold of Margaret Thatcher.

It's extremely depressing but its true. And Clinton will win because she grasped this fact the moment she first became a Senator and started her hawkishness.

[DCNana]

Then she should run as a Republican, like Thatcher, not as a fake Republican & fake Democrat.

[Tommymac]

Good comment, DCNana.

She needs to take off her sheep clothing.

[klondiker]

Well, national security and foreign affairs positions aren't enough to make one a Republican.

She still believes in a whole host of Democratic positions - pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, etc.

Most of all, there is a big ideological difference between the Dems and the Repubs about the role of the government.

Many Repubs believe that the govt is not to be trusted at all and its power should be minimized, with increased authority given to the market and churches - hence the aversion to universal health care, social security, etc.

Dems - including Hillary - believe in the importance of govt to bring change. They understand that while the govt cannot be the answer to all our problems, it can still provide important solutions to many pressing issues - hence, the support for issues like universal pre-K, health care, etc, etc.

And that's why it makes a difference whether we elect a Dem or Repub - yes, even a Dem like Hillary.

[LIR]

God help us, no!

[bringbackimus]

Hillary Clinton is Joe Lieberman in drag

[MrLiberal53]

It is good to see such a logical, serious posting. So rare these days.

[OhPlease2007]

Taylor, you quote Hillary Clinton:

"We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war."

MY question is, just exactly WHAT war is SHE preparing for ??? Iran ???

Who wants to bet that if Hillary gets the nomination, she will pick 'Holy Joe' Lieberman as her running mate/Secretary of Defense ?!?

I'm sorry, but America Deserves Better; Senator Edwards has my vote.

Thanks for the post Taylor.

[Absintheforall]

Of course Hillary has to talk like a warrior chief. She has to counter the debillitating image of the 2006 "cut and run" stance attributed to the Democrat Party. It's called damage control, and she is savvy enough to distance herself from defeatists.

Right on, Hillary!