What Color Is The Sky On Hillary Clinton’s Home Planet?August 24, 2007
I’m a little late to post on this one, but I thought I’d comment on this absurd comment from Mrs. Clinton:
“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.
Say WHA….? What kind of triple backflip inverse logical reasoning is that? Bush and the GOP have been banking on the “no attacks since 9/11” line for quite awhile now. Heck, we saw Cheney blurt out “make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again” before the ’04 elections. How in the hell can both the lack of an attack and an attack be to their advantage?
Look, I’d like to think that another terrorist attack would be to no American’s advantage, politically or otherwise. Maybe I’m just naive, but I have no idea where Clinton is coming up with this notion, or what might have motivated her to say this. Am I missing something here? Or, is she just acknowledging the fact that, unfortunately, people really fall for the “vote for me, and I’ll keep you safe”, followed by the “See!, I told you that you need us to keep you safe!” after an attack happens?
I’m not sure why Clinton wouldn’t have just gotten out right in front of it preemptively, instead of giving us this lame line:
“So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that,” she added.
I wanted to check on some of the other blogs’ reactions, and I found one from a righty blogger that I respect for his intellectual honesty, Allahpundit:
Of course she’s right. For one thing, people tend to rally to their leader when they’re attacked. The single biggest security lapse in American history happened on Bush’s watch six years ago. How’d his approval ratings look two weeks later?
I’ll have to disagree with Allah on this one. Terrorism wasn’t a front-burner issue when we were attacked on 9/11, and Bush was still a relatively new president. People forgot about hanging chads in Florida pretty quick. But what would we do now? Insist we invade another country? It’s just hard for me to picture another attack being anything other than bona fide proof that 6 years after 9/11, Bush has actually pulled of the incredible feat of making the situation worse for us. All the “fight them over there”, and “follow us home” and “democracy will defeat the ideology” sloganeering would suddenly be revealed to be the crap that it always was. In a sane world, another attack would be bad for every American, but especially the GOP. In a sane world…