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

[snaggster]

Very depressing. Even if you set aside the fact that we were lied into an illegal war in Iraq, we can't afford Iraq. We have too many pressing finacial needs of our own. Crumblig infrastructure (New Orleans, Minneapolis), Social Security, education, climate change, you name it. We need a president that wants OUT of Iraq ASAP.

[SensibleAmerican]

Hillary's pronouncements are practical and based on reality. While Gravel, Kucinich and Barack Hussein are busy catering to the far left, the ostensible "base" of the Democratic Party, Hillary realizes that she will not fall for the cardinal sin that all primary contenders commit: go far right/left in the primaries and come back to the center in the 'general'!

Her liberal detractors who still preen at our 2006 victory do not realize that those elections were won in the Center. The last election was also the resurgence of the "blue dog" Democrats who not only helped us win the House but also take the majority in the Senate

What we need is a tough but practical President on Foreign Policy and a Democrat who honors traditional Democratic domestic agenda. No one but Hillary fits that bill and speaking of "Bill" ... the most popular/respected ex-US official in the World! No one better than him to make amends, build bridges and raise our prestige again globally

One can nitpick about Hillary and take cheap shots with "cleavage" comments but it just shows their lack of understanding of the current politics in America and above all, that they have learnt nothing from 2000 and 2004. The need is to WIN and to pulverize the right wing slime machine which has no conscience and/or scruples

A street fighter, a hawkish C-in-C and a true blue Democrat on Socio-Economic issues: THAT IS HILLARY!!!

[timm0]

You're not even close on the primary strategy. What she's doing is running the classic Carville, DLC-honed formula which has led to the ruin of candidates like Ford and many, many others since the other Clinton won with a modest plurality of the popular vote. Tell the left wing what they want to hear, tell the right wing what they want to hear - but never, under any circumstances stand for anything or be specific about anything (except to your K-street allies, of course).

Then when it's time for the general, you've fed the RNC's smear cannons with limitless ammunition to go through the standard litany of slurs - waffling, weak, no plan, blah blah blah.

We've been there, done that over and over and over. By standing for something - something that voters care about, you define yourself. The attacks will come, but they are about the plan/action/objective. In the case of this constantly failed approach, you stand for nothing out of fear of attack or fear of offending voters. Problem is that it changes the opponent's attack from your actions to you. They attack your weakness - your fear of committing to an objective. Were you around during the Kerry campaign? Is this news to you??

[SensibleAmerican]

Carville was instrumental in Bill Clinton winning and the right wing has been smearing the Clintons for over 2 decades!!! There is nothing left to smear! I am sure they will run the "lincoln bedroom" BS again but like I stated, been there done that!

And yes I was around AND active in the Kerry campaign. Someone like Hillary will be loathe to flip-flop, will return attacks with attacks and will not put a gag order during the Convention in 08/08! She will go beyond that if you have seen the members of her "inner circle": she will hit back so hard that the Repugnants will be washing off the slime for the next 2-3 election cycles

As for "By standing for something - something that voters care about, you define yourself": PLEASE mention the last WINNER who stood for anything except WINNING! Stop chasing windmills and WIN!!!

[cocksman]

I totally agree with you. Going up against Rove/GOP in this election can't be fought lying down. Rove departure from the White House only gives him more breathing room to smear and attack Hillary. As the front runner, Hillary is under tremendous pressure to maintain that lead which is being challenge everyday from candidates spouses and from Rove/GOP radio water carriers. Does anyone think that winning the White House is going to be a PTA nomination love fest.

I say Hillary should do whatever it takes to win the primary and the general...and that includes pander, being a hawk and dove on issues that can give her some wiggle room.

Obama will not win because the other America will not get pass his race. Edwards will not win because his poll numbers are low and he has a mother Teresa like personality. Hillary has the capability to counter the Rove/GOP war machine when it's unleash in the coming months........and it will be brutal.

So while I agree with Taylor Marsh about Hillary making comments that the Rove/GOP will use to energize their base and alienate some Democratic voters, we all have to agree and should agree that a fighting unyielding ruffian like Hillary/Clark candidacy is the ONLY chance the DEMS have in 08.

[FearlessFreep]

"Edwards will not win because his poll numbers are low."

Why bother with an election? Just take a poll.

[Tommymac]

Where do you come across saying Edwards poll numbers are low? He is leading in Iowa...

The MSM and their Corporat Masters are scared to death of John Edwards...of coarse, they are going to spin, twist and lie to the American people about the true support he has. And this includes trumpiting 'polls' that only support their pov.

[DrVandy]

Fear mongering and conceding protecting this country from terrorism is a huge gaffe on Hillary's part. I must have missed it but how does being a former first lady prepare one for running the country. The platitudes sound great on tv but she has yet to explain in any coherent manner, the reason for her campaign to even exist. I deserve it for putting up with the "Republican attack machine" isn't good enough.

[bossysooz]

We don't need to elect Hillary to get Bill. He will be out there and visible no matter who is elected. In fact, he can accomplish more without her in the White House, since she will be forced by her own character to keep him in "his place."

[bossysooz]

Why doesn't everyone watch the Code Pink video on Youtube of Hillary insisting to the women in pink that she did NOT take Bush's word for the need to go into Iraq that she based her vote on her own research. There she is, unedited, speaking her own words from her own mouth.

Enough of this "poor little me, I got fooled by another man."

[altohone]

Hillary is too weak to walk away from the weak justification she argued to go to war for fear of appearing weak?

Makes sense. Not!

Hillary thinks she looks tough by saying the surge is working... though it's too little too late.

Hillary thinks she looks tough by calling for another regime change... bashing the democratically elected leader, an ally in the country now the central front in her GWOT, and calling for him to be replaced.

Hillary defends the war she supported, the policies behind it, the propaganda spun to continue it... Hillary defends that which we oppose.

[JoAnnCr]

And do we even know what Hillary will really do when she gets into office? She's a skilled politician, researches her audience before she speaks and panders, panders, then panders some more.

I like Richardson, Biden and Edwards because they tell it like it is. Each in their own ways would make changes. Edwards is the boldest.

When Hillary cuts her acceptance of D.C. lobbyists, I will finally sense her sincerity.

[rocketoo]

JoAnnCr,
You write some funny stuff. Only Hillary panders. Hee. All politicians pander for votes. When Obama/Edwards tell you what you want to hear they are pandering for your vote. They smile and kiss all the babies. They want to be President and they say what they believe will help them win the primary. Believe me if they thought repeating what Hillary says would help them win they would become Hillary clones. You cannot accomplish anything in the White House unless you are elected President.

Hillary is smart. She is plying the Repubs as well as the Blue Dog Dems. Like Marsh said she is already running as the Dem nominee against the Repub establishment. She is so far ahead it may be the largest popular vote landslide in history.

[MrLiberal53]

Sen. Clinton did not say the surge is working, that is disingenuous. She said that in some areas the surge is working, which is to say that in others it is not working.

[Thurber]

I don't see the problem with her statement. The GOP's primary political tool is fear, which makes them quite literally political terrorists.

Sheeple would be expected to respond to a violent terror attack by gravitating to the party of fear.

Democrats just need to return to a political theme of courage, ala JFK and/or RFK.

Not that Hilary would understand that, she's been using the same political tools as the GOP and has not been a champion of Democratic ideals. So, it's no surprise to me that she doesn't get it ... again.

[mongus]

I thought that hillary did NOT do 'hypotheticals'? What's going on here?

Yes, hillary is the MOST experienced.......
at flip-floping. This is the forth one in the last two weeks.

Her kind of 'experience' we do NOT need.
Give me the Judgment and Integrity of Barack Obama any day.
In fact, make that Inauguration Day, Jan. '09.

[research]

Since most people think the GOP has made us less safe, I think they will jump to the democrats even faster should terrorist be allowed by the Bushies to attack the USA again.

[bossysooz]

If being first lady is considered experience, and we want someone tough, how about Nancy Reagan? She was glued to her husband's side, totally involved, and is about as tough as they come.

Or, if just living in the White House is considered experience and we want someone tough, how about one of the Clinton's pets?

Hillary Clinton has had a derivative career and has neither the experience or the character to be President.