Hillary Says GOP Would Benefit From Terrorist Attack

[JTWood]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.

Sen. Hillary Clinton said the Republicans would benefit politically if a terrorist attack occurred before the '08 vote.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign.

"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 added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."

Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her health care plan.

A Clinton spokesman, Isaac Baker, told CNN "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who is also competing for the Democratic nomination, issued a statement Friday afternoon calling Clinton's remark "tasteless."

"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," he said.

New Mexico Bill Richardson, another Democratic presidential candidate, disparaged Clinton's remark.

"We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Gov Richardson in a written statement.

[brewcrew4you]

I hate that woman.

[sportsaddict]

Wait, maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't it benefit the Democrats if there was a terrorist attack? Because wouldn't it show that the Republicans aren't doing a very good job providing safety for the country, and if they mishandled the situation, wouldn't that make them look even worse?

I don't get what she's saying and there's no reason to say it.

[JTWood]

Wait, maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't it benefit the Democrats if there was a terrorist attack? Because wouldn't it show that the Republicans aren't doing a very good job providing safety for the country, and if they mishandled the situation, wouldn't that make them look even worse?

My wife said the same thing.

[Sticky Spice]

Wait, maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't it benefit the Democrats if there was a terrorist attack? Because wouldn't it show that the Republicans aren't doing a very good job providing safety for the country, and if they mishandled the situation, wouldn't that make them look even worse?

I don't get what she's saying and there's no reason to say it.

It would only prove that to people who think logically.

I think she's right.

Most voting Americans would revert right back to the post-9/11 retardation where if you say anything that can be taken as a slight against the current presidency or even the party in office then you are somehow anti-American. They will be paralyzed with fear and not steer from the status quo. Voting conservative is "safe," and voting for liberals would just be inviting more terror.

Now that 9/11 is far enough away in the rear-view and the War on Terror has been unpopular, it's trendy to vote in another direction. But once there's another attack I think we'll just repeat the past.

You're right about there being no reason to say it, though. It's a statement that's just inviting people to pick it apart and shed a bad light. You have to say happy things like I'm the best one for the job!

[JTWood]

You're right about there being no reason to say it, though. It's a statement that's just inviting people to pick it apart and shed a bad light.

And if you're a real cynic, you might even view it as a message from her to the terrorists.

I'm not a cynic. I'm just sayin...

[bigh0rt]

Wait, maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't it benefit the Democrats if there was a terrorist attack? Because wouldn't it show that the Republicans aren't doing a very good job providing safety for the country, and if they mishandled the situation, wouldn't that make them look even worse?

I don't get what she's saying and there's no reason to say it.

It would only prove that to people who think logically.

I think she's right.

Most voting Americans would revert right back to the post-9/11 retardation where if you say anything that can be taken as a slight against the current presidency or even the party in office then you are somehow anti-American. They will be paralyzed with fear and not steer from the status quo. Voting conservative is "safe," and voting for liberals would just be inviting more terror.

Now that 9/11 is far enough away in the rear-view and the War on Terror has been unpopular, it's trendy to vote in another direction. But once there's another attack I think we'll just repeat the past.

You're right about there being no reason to say it, though. It's a statement that's just inviting people to pick it apart and shed a bad light. You have to say happy things like I'm the best one for the job!

I completely agree with you.

[sportsaddict]

Wait, maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't it benefit the Democrats if there was a terrorist attack? Because wouldn't it show that the Republicans aren't doing a very good job providing safety for the country, and if they mishandled the situation, wouldn't that make them look even worse?

I don't get what she's saying and there's no reason to say it.

It would only prove that to people who think logically.

I think she's right.

Most voting Americans would revert right back to the post-9/11 retardation where if you say anything that can be taken as a slight against the current presidency or even the party in office then you are somehow anti-American. They will be paralyzed with fear and not steer from the status quo. Voting conservative is "safe," and voting for liberals would just be inviting more terror.

Now that 9/11 is far enough away in the rear-view and the War on Terror has been unpopular, it's trendy to vote in another direction. But once there's another attack I think we'll just repeat the past.

You're right about there being no reason to say it, though. It's a statement that's just inviting people to pick it apart and shed a bad light. You have to say happy things like I'm the best one for the job!

I think that the "post-9/11 retardation" has taken a complete 180 though, because now it seems, unless you are a conservative, that it's very trendy to destroy the current administration. So if there was another terrorist attack, wouldn't that give the anti-Bush people more ammo? People wouldn't rally around the government, because it would be a second offense and there would be an overall feeling of a lack of safety.

[WharfRat]

Well said Sticky.

I think that the "post-9/11 retardation" has taken a complete 180 though, because now it seems, unless you are a conservative, that it's very trendy to destroy the current administration. So if there was another terrorist attack, wouldn't that give the anti-Bush people more ammo? People wouldn't rally around the government, because it would be a second offense and there would be an overall feeling of a lack of safety.

It would definitely be another knock against Bush, but at the polls, people wouldn't be voting for or against Bush. The non-Bush Republicans would likely wrap themselves in the flag and advocate for the more aggressive, violent reaction then the Democrats would offer, with their faith in Wilsonian internationalism, diplomacy and reason; in other words, the Republicans would offer the kind of thing a scared voting demographic will respond to. They'd be voting based on emotion and security, which means they vote for whoever is going to seem more aggressive or makes them feel more safe, which I would guess means a bump for a guy like Guiliani.

Of course, I could also see a big group of independent voters who would say "we're tired of the Republican approach; let's try the Dems." I think it would be unlikely in the event of an attack, but it could happen.

[Art Vandelay]

Was it a stupid thing to say? Yes. But I wish more politicians spoke what they felt and thought rather than tempering every word and only saying what they think people want to hear.

Was it an incorrect thing to say? I doubt it. In the last six years, just about everytime there's a specific threat, or a group of morons get caught with some ridiculous plot, or the threat level is raised to orange, or whatever else, the administration's ratings go up, people's approval of the war goes up, etc.