A Nod In Karl Rove's Direction

It would be interesting to know precisely why Sen. Clinton believes a new terrorist attack would help Republicans. Does she endorse the "Morality Salience" theory?

"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.

Comments

Huh? How does the fact that Republicans would be advantaged by another domestic terrorist attack lead to the conclusion that Clinton would be "the best of the Democrats" to deal with it.

Her hidden premise would have to be that "on national security, I'm the most Republican," where being Republican is defined as being among those who have "mishandled it... made the world more dangerous."

Wonderful.

Posted by lampwick | August 24, 2007 9:55 AM

This is right in line with a bit of recent Andrew Sullivan analysis of the differences between Clinton and Obama. She reflexively "fears" Republicans...Obama doesn't. It doesn't even occur to her that it's possible for Republicans NOT to have the upper hand on terrorism.

The key element:

They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side...

...The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/clinton-obama-a.html

Posted by rashomon | August 24, 2007 12:35 PM

Unfortunately, history proves that Clinton is correct here.

Post 2004 election analysis shows that the Bin Laden tape, released (by Bush) just days before the election, hurt Kerry and helped Bush.

Posted by JoeCHI | August 24, 2007 12:53 PM

From 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

Love it or hate it, Democrats indulge their short-term memory at their own risk!

Posted by JoeCHI | August 24, 2007 1:01 PM

You should trust Hillary on this one. She is a Very Serious Person.

Posted by Justin | August 24, 2007 1:34 PM

"How does the fact that Republicans would be advantaged by another domestic terrorist attack lead to the conclusion that Clinton would be "the best of the Democrats" to deal with it."

-------

Because Clinton's poll numbers on issues like national security, dealing with terrorism, etc. dwarf any of the other Democratic candidates in the race. In fact, she leads ALL candidates in both parties on questions of experience and toughness and readiness to be commander in chief. Note that failure to cross the "commander in chief" threshold has been a frequent stumbling block for Democratic candidates. Mike Dukakis is probably the most glaring example.

Posted by hwc | August 24, 2007 1:52 PM

Missing the point, folks.

The point is not that Clinton isn't well positioned or the right candidate on national security and terrorism...it's that she immediately cedes the Republicans the advantage after a terrorist strike. It's as if there will never be a possibility for the Democrats to win the argument...even if they're right. When you think you'll automatically lose, you've already lost.

Why does it have to be 2004 all over again? Are we not allowed to try and do things differently?

Posted by rashomon | August 24, 2007 4:01 PM

I think people are starting to not accept the blanket statement that Clinton's experience and knowledge in foreign policy/national security is superior.

First she made a couple mistatements and then the media started questioning and digging up more mistatements. By the time we get to December I think she may be fighting the impression that she really doesn't know much.

The Brzezinski endorsement of Obama might hasten that process.

Posted by Paul | August 25, 2007 7:12 AM