From the New York Post:
August 24, 2007 — WASHINGTON – 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.
In her own words:
“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.
In other words, voters perceive the Democrats as being weak on terrorism, mainly because they are. However, to read that Hillary is admitting that fact is somewhat perplexing. She is not coy that her party has been weak on the issue, she’s stating that clearly in her own words.
Hillary Clinton is just hoping that voters will not be reminded why they don’t want to elect a Democrat in 2008. She would prefer everyone forget this silly bumper sticker “war on terror” we’re fighting and just vote for her! Seriously, she is actually suggesting that if Americans are somehow reminded of radical Islam’s goal to rule the west, Democrats might lose. That’s an amazing position the Democratic Party has put itself in, at least Hillary is being realistic.
According to Hillary, if Americans perceive a threat, they will not elect a Democrat.
Here’s the video:
Here are some responses from her angry Democratic rivals:
The John Edwards campaign charged Clinton with underestimating her own party’s ability to make a case on national security. “Compared to George Bush, there is not a single Democrat on the planet who couldn’t do a better job as Commander-in-Chief,” said Edwards Communications Director Chris Kofinis.
Bill Richardson criticized Clinton for ceding ground to the Republicans and said that he, by contrast, was “prepared to stand up to the GOP on national security because I’ve been there and done it.” “We shouldn’t be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists,” the New Mexico governor said in a statement.
Christopher Dodd was more blunt. “Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States,” the Connecticut senator said in a statement.
I think she pulled an Obama on this one. Meanwhile the Obama campaign breathes a sigh of relief that someone else is drawing ire from the media and other Democratic candidates.