Democrats need to strengthen message on security, Sen. Clinton says

[Freddie Stubbs]

BY THOMAS M. DEFRANK

New York Daily News


NEW YORK - (KRT) - Sen. Hillary Clinton lamented Monday that Democrats booted security issues in last fall's election and urged her party to embrace the "different course" she's been pushing - or risk another four years of GOP rule.

Meeting with New York Daily News editors and reporters, the New York Democrat said her party must "do a better job" of debunking Republican attacks that Democrats are soft on homeland security as well as national security issues like the Iraq war.

Without directly criticizing Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 presidential candidate, Clinton argued that more Americans agree with Democratic values than with what she called the GOP's "extremist agenda."

"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our (national) interests, you can't cross the (electoral) threshold," she added.

more: http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/11372355.htm

[rodeodance]

1. Hil is very very right.

[Tamyrlin79]

25. In a way, but...

She is pulling the "National Security Democrat" routine... It's the DLCs new spring lineup that plays into Republican framing of the Democratic base as weak on security. So, she gets no props from me for this. She may be right that we need to burnish our image on security, but become bush-lite preemption apologists is hardly the way to be strong on defense.

[paulk]

36. I really don't see

where she says anything about adopting Bush's pre-emptive strategy. You're putting words in her mouth.

In fact, you've completely spun what she said in order to make a point that has nothing to do with her statement.

[mike_c]

26. I disagree-- STRONGLY disagree....

She's making one of the same mistakes Kerry made: she's trying to co-opt part of the conservative, republican agenda as a dem issue. That simply lets the repigs frame the debate, with the dem challenger forever playing a catch up game of "Me too!" Any dem that runs a successful campaign in '08 will have to bring alternative issues to the public attention and put the repigs in that position on those issues-- or take diametrically opposed positions on shared issues and convince the public that the repigs are utterly wrong. Agreeing that they're right, but simply not doing a good enough job is the politics of the weak.

[VegasWolf]

31. Exactly! Well said. n/t

[Writer]

33. When it comes to security issues, the Repubs didn't frame...

the debate. SEPTEMBER 11th framed the debate! Being strong (yet more lucid) on national defense (which doesn't always mean war, btw) doesn't mean we are supporting Republican initiatives. It simply makes good political - and POLICY - sense.

[paulk]

38. stop making sense!

:toast:

[mike_c]

41. again. I disagree....

Sept. 11 was a single event, or at best, the culmination of several decades of corrupt foreign policy combined with intelligence neglect. It was not a watershed in American history that necessitated the inauguration of a "security state." The republicans in general and the neocon administration in particular seized the opportunity 9/11 presented to enact sweeping social changes in the U.S., including major adjustments to law enforcement policy and "reinterpretation" of the Bill of Rights. NOTHING about 9/11 necessitated those abuses of power. THAT ought to be the opposition message, not "we can create a better security state than they can."

[Writer]

46. I agree with you that the Repubs took advantage of 9/11, but...

simply walking away from Sept. 11th is also not a viable political or policy option. What is your alternative here? That we only say "I oppose you?" Shouldn't we present a better solution for achieving national security? One that doesn't involve mindless warmongering and draconian security measures? I think so!

[mike_c]

53. I'm not advocating "walking away from 9/11...."

I'm saying that dems must reframe the debate about 9/11. Republicans have framed that debate as a matter of national fear and have used it to entrench-- and strengthen-- the very policies that created 9/11 in the first place. Opposition parties should not walk away from that-- they should expose the lies, neglect, myoptic policy, and policy excesses that came before 9/11 and have been redoubled without restraint since then. Simply embracing the national security mantra is more "Me too-ism." If we agree that America should be a "security state" then hell, the repigs are actually doing a reasonable job, although it's dabatable whether they can succeed. I don't think ANYONE can succeed-- it's a recipe for perpetual war. The neo-cons know that. Simply junping onto their boat is not an answer. It's gonna' sink.

My feeling is that dems should attack this issue from the other direction-- if the U.S. works for international social and political justice, our need for extraordinary security will decrease. We should be working toward solutions that diminish the need for a security state. That's not walking away from 9/11-- that's learning the REAL lesson it should teach.

on edit-- stated another way, the republicans own the security state issue. The opposition party needs to restate the issue in ways the repubicans are unable to successfully address. IMO, the best way to do this is to advocate OTHER ways to enhance national security, and convince voters that those alternates would be more effective.

[Writer]

58. I agree with much of what you suggest above,

and I believe Bill Clinton approached international policy by pushing for international, social and political justice.

But I really don't think that, because Hillary is using the words "national security," that she means "yes, let's do what the Republicans have done." I think she means, "yes, we need to be strong but let's also be smart." I think that would entail much of what you describe above. I honestly don't think that Hillary would use a warmonger approach.

Re: Lies, neglect, myopic policy, etc... all of that has been exposed, imho. The issue is that the American people - as a whole - haven't shown the care needed to keep those issues at the top.

[redqueen]

54. Kerry outlined his security plan... it's not security that's the issue.

Read his acceptance speech from the convention... go read the transcripts from the debates.

I don't know where Hillary is coming with this stuff. I'd like to see her critique his statements about security and tell us what exactly he did wrong.

She's betting that nobody remembers that Kerry did a fine job of proposing a better solution.

Sadly, that's apparently a pretty safe bet.

[Writer]

59. Hillary is just picking up...

where Kerry left off. I doubt that she disagrees with anything Kerry espoused during the election... it's just another person at another time.

[Al-CIAda]

62. PNAC 'framed' 9/11, and the sooner the TRUTH is exposed the better

Bring the mass murdering traitors to justice. THAT is the way to win back the American people.

[Algorem]

2. she wants another preemptive war to vote for?

[Skwmom]

3. Voting to give a Republican administration a blank check

to go to war does not make Democrats look strong on national security. It makes them look like political opportunists who will do anything to further their own political careers.

[OKthatsIT]

4. He's BS. I dont trust his Centrist views.

He gave us NAFTA, WTO, wanted Kerry to join the Reps on anti-gay marraige amendment, gallavants around with Bush Sr. "I like you, you're the real deal"

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. You may want to reread the article

It is about Senator Clinton, not President Clinton.

[applegrove]

5. Very true. I think that the Dems are strong. They just are not loopy.

Look forward to Rumsfield the Magnificent getting old. And diminishing in 'power' as he continually blames Turkey for his own failures.

Men stand up & take responsibility for things. Sending out rumors that he 'did volunteer to resign' does not make up for the fact that the USA LOST THE PEACE. That is criminal.


To go to war and do it in such a half assed way.. because you are so vain with your own brilliance & assumptions - is horrid. And those Iraqi people will be living with car bombs forever. When an extra 100,000 troops or the UN would have secured the countryside and properly won the hearts of the people. They could have gone in under the UN with the auspices of a humanitarian intervention which Bush did not want to create more precedence for because he does not agree with the policy of invading all genocidal spots..and because he did want to set a precedent for neocon perpetual wars where War is legit based on 'future threat').

Dems would have gotten bin-laden. That is what they would have focussed on. The Bushites may not have needed bin-Laden so much. They already knew they were going into Iraq.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

6. Well put.... she is right to position Dems this way...

Either you're a party with the ability to govern or you're a party of peacenik idealist hippies that the country will not entrust with the security of its citizens. Let alone their health care system or Social Security.

While I absolutely laud peace, love & understanding, you have to be in power to move any agenda. The Dems need to win. Commander in chiefs aren't going to fall from the sky (Can anyone see Russ Feingold prosecuting the war on terrorism?).

[Algorem]

12. She's full of shit.

check out her tightass website.she needs a bottle of whiskey and a bag of weed.

[Larkspur]

16. Yes, I could see Feingold prosecuting the war on terrorism because

the military is not the only way to attack terrorists and it can actually increase terrorism. Just look at Iraq and Palestine. Military might should be used sparingly and only in cases of where terrorist camps can be attacked with little or no civilian casualties.

When terrorists integrate themselves in civilian communities, that is where police work must happen. Military strikes, a la Falluja, will only harden the hearts of the people we need to win over. Should we have obliterated Las Vegas, like we did Falluja, if we had known that the 9/11/01 terrorists were there and knew that they were going to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center?

Of course, the real way to fight terrorism is to "drain the swamp" that feeds it. That swamp is fed by injustice and oppression. When we force our corporate ideologies down other people's throats and ransack their natural resources to sate our consumer addictions, we enable terrorists.

[Lerkfish]

19. "peacenik hippies"? welcome to DU

When you say you have to be in power to move any agenda, if the way to power is to be warmongers, then guess what your agenda becomes?

[mike_c]

27. proud liberal hippy peacenik here...

...who votes like one. If wielding a corrupt foreign policy and making a police state at home is the way to power, I don't want any part of it-- nor do I want to belong to a political pary that embraces that view for the sake of winning elections. Guess I'm "just" an idealist....

[paulk]

40. It's a long way from Sen. Clinton's statement

to "wielding a corrupt foreign policy and making a police state at home". Sounds to me like you're talking about the Bush administration.

[mike_c]

45. not that far at all....

For example, do you think that support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq-- as Sen. Clinton has expressed both through her IWR vote and her subsequent public statements-- is not support for "a corrupt foreign policy?" If so, I doubt that we share enough common conceptual ground to have a meaningful discussion.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

"How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen.

...more..."

That's NOT opposition to the war, that's criticism of the Adiminstration's failure to prosecute it with sufficient brutality to win the quick victory the neo-cons promised during the run up to the invasion. There's lots more where that came from. Hillary Clinton is another John Kerry-- same shit, different day.

on edit: whoa, that was some freaky html formatting!

[paulk]

60. the rest of her statement...

To the disappointment of some antiwar liberals in her Democratic base, Clinton, the former first lady, voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution in October 2002.

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

But she said the Bush administration's short-circuiting of the U.N. weapons inspection process didn't permit "the inspectors to finish whatever task they could have accomplished to demonstrate one way or the other what was there."


Why do you feel the need to gratuitously attack Kerry?

People like you on the left have driven my politics steadily toward the center these last three years. I find these kind of bullshit statements just as idealogically out of touch with reality as anything offered by the right.

You're correct, we can't have a meaningful discussion, anymore than I could have a meaningful discussion with Rush Limbaugh.

Have a nice day.

[Dawgs]

42. No, you're just on the losing side and always will be...

Keep voting with your heart, and you hurt everyone. I am sick and tired of this way of thinking.

'Well, my vote might have helped that war criminal win, but at least I don't vote for that Democrat who was anti-choice."

WTF!!!

[mike_c]

50. no, I didn't vote for that democrat...

...who offered no real alternatives to the war criminal. Instead, I voted for the Green candidate who represented my political views. I've been bending over for the democratic party for 30 voting years, and other than Jimmy Carter, I'm not certain that it was worth it. I won't do it any longer. Nor, I think, am I alone.

on edit: and I repeat, if being on the winning side means selling out to facism, I'm quite proud to be a loser.

[redqueen]

56. The numbers of losses in our party since Clinton's wins

are a testament to the fact that you are SO not alone.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. Yes, I can see Russ Feingold prosecuting the war on terrorism.

Far more effectively than Chimpy.

We look weak when we allow the Republicans to set the agenda and then try to look strong by shouting "me too" the loudest. We look strong when we define and set our own agenda.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the more the Democrats try to look hawkish and "tough" by accepting the neocon agenda, the worse they seem to do electorally.

I also don't buy that rejecting the neocon agenda makes one a "peacenik idealist hippie".

[VegasWolf]

32. She is simply saying what she assumes will get her elected. Puke Lite

won't do it. It is looking more and more like 3rd party time.
If Hillary keeps up this Puke Lite crap she will lose her core and
still lose the election by 10 points.

[Dawgs]

43. Vote 3rd party, and nobody wins... except the Republicans...

Would that be better than having a moderate Democrat? You decide.

[redqueen]

55. The problem isn't third parties.

It's Democratic candidates BLOWING OFF their base in favor of appealing to republicans. That is in no way, shape, or form a winning strategy.

You can point the finger as much as you like, but the cause is what it is.

[Writer]

49. Give me a break!

As if even the most liberal politicians also don't say what they need to say to get elected! Pah-leeeeze!

[Writer]

34. Bravo! n/t.

[Guaranteed]

51. What, so say the same thing as the neocons?

Even when they're dead wrong- about our SECURITY??

No. We have to CONTRAST. We have to emphasize that what the Repukes have done has HARMED our security.

This isn't about peacenik idealism, and we don't want it to come off that way. But we need to attack the people who actually ATTACKED us on 9/11. You don't go around invading any old country just because it's convenient or they have the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.

[Al-CIAda]

63. The 'war on terror' is a LIE. 'Prosecuting' it means prosecuting the

criminals in the WH.

[katsy]

7. Question:

How many articles have you read about Dems speaking to what the party "MUST DO" since election 2004?

Why don't they just speak to what they stand for?

I'll vote for the Dem nominee regardless of whom is chosen. But it angers me to read these nuanced jabs at a former or potential nominee by Hillary or any other Dem Rep.

Speak to your own strengths Hillary... we'll be the judge of the past.

[Dhalgren]

29. I concur!

Let's start talking about what we believe, what we want, how we would help improve the country. Screw the Republicans and their dead-end agenda! We should start talking like Democrats and leave all this Republican talk to its owners! Democrats stand for something, right? Let's talk about that!

[katsy]

39. "Democrats stand for something, right?"

That's right.

Hillary is shouting out to the world that that Dems "NEED" to stand for blah blah and blah blah... uhmmmm, wake the hell up Hillary and just state your position instead of giving the impression that the dems are a party in the making!

We're not a party in the making. And playing the blame game doesn't make you look better.

:banghead:

[Writer]

35. Because mere ideals...

won't win elections.

[redqueen]

57. Kerry DID what she's SAYING to do.

Read the transcripts of his speeches and the debates.

He did what she's saying Democrats 'need to do'.

This is unreal...

[Al-CIAda]

64. Why doesn't she just announce Al From's endorsement of her now?

She can get the jump on and wrap up the Christo-fascist lite vote.

[Lerkfish]

8. Since when do candidates bend voters to their will? isnt that backwards?

[Q]

9. What does being strong on national security issues...

...have to do with the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

The answer: absolutely nothing. Hillary and other 'new' Democrats are giving credibility to Bush's lies when they equate national security and the Iraq war.

[Al-CIAda]

65. Bingo. This was an ILLEGAL war based on LIES. WTF does that have to do

with the fictious 'security threat'.

[mmonk]

10. Personally, I'm tired of our "security state"

[Boo Boo]

11. Hill is just pushing the

DLC/AIPAC approved line. I'm not impressed.

[redqueen]

13. She makes me sick when she plays this game.

Years ago she had the courage to speak about the republican stranglehold on the media... now she ignores it's consequence -- that morans everywhere believe the idiots sending soldiers off to die, which has made us LESS secure, are somehow better for our security. Did she somehow miss the speeches where Kerry said how tough he was going to be? Or is she choosing to ignore all that tough talk? And if so, why?

What we NEED to do is expose their failures more effectively and propose solutions in sound bites, not lectures. Communicate our own agenda instead of responding to theirs. Hopefully now that Dean is head of the DNC, we won't be using her "US too!" sorry excuse for a strategy.

[w4rma]

14. Sen. Clinton is not helping with this "Dems need to do" BS.

If she wants something done, she is a high profile U.S. Senator, she can GET IT DONE, herself.

Maybe SHE needs to strengthen her *own* message on security first. Maybe if she did, she wouldn't be saying her own message is weak.

[bemildred]

15. Jobs! Jobs Jobs Jobs jobs ...

Strengthen your message there, Hil.

[belab13]

17. How about clarifying the issue for the electorate

by promoting smart security as opposed to the republicans faux brand of reactionary security and resource grabbing invasions that have little to do with protecting the citizens of the country.


I worry about how many of these politicians have been co-opted by the military industrial complex. These security discussions are sounding more and more like mi complex marketing campaigns.

content editd

[renaissanceguy]

23. Bingo. We don't beat the Repugs by acting like them.

Just as we don't get rid of "terra" by killing off the rest of the world.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14744896

[JohnOneillsMemory]

44. Bingo. Public politics is ALL MARKETING for the Pentagon's owners. Period.

We are watching advertising adjust to a market created by the same people who financed the Nazis and took over the White House in the 1950s, very smart fascists who have the biggest bombs and best-funded psy-ops program, American public elections.

That's where General Clark comes in to meet shoppers' 'demand' for a kinder gentler Pentagon, the good cop tag-teaming with the bad cop neo-cons.

WHERE IS MARINE GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER WHEN YOU NEED HIM TO STOP A CORPORATE-MILITARY COUP AGAIN??!!

General Butler's essay 'War is a Racket' is the antidote to to the clever psy-ops espoused in Clark's 'Winning Modern Wars.'

[Leilani]

52. BS! This is about Hillary

in case you missed the thread topic.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

61. "Dems" "security" ...in case you missed the thead topic...n/t

[Guaranteed]

48. YES.

SHIT!


Someone gets it. Awesome.

[Bridget Burke]

18. This is a good idea.

But no details of her plan were included in this article.

How about pointing out that the current president allowed 9/11 by ignoring clear warnings of an attack? And pointing out his actions that morning--sitting like a stunned ox in that classroom before fleeing?

And if protecting our (national) interests is a good idea, let's look at how well Americans have been faring since Bush came office. The ones who died on 9/11, the ones who've died in Iraq, those who can't afford health care and those without jobs.

If done right, this is a winning strategy.

[AzDar]

20. "Democrats must rid the country of Diebold voting machines" says Azdar

THAT'S how we will win (as we have in the last 2 elections).

[Dhalgren]

21. I will not vote DLC, period.

If we are going to have thugs, hacks, and fundie-driven careerists in office, let 'em be Republicans, until we can get a real progressive party off the ground. Third parties can work, it just takes a real national crisis - and folks, we are right in the middle of one. I would like to call our new third party The Democratic Party. How does that sound?

[DemBeans]

22. let's see...

Religion and national security - the two issues Hillary has spoken on recently.

She's starting to sound like - George Bush.

This is the kind of triangulation that did indeed advance Bill Clinton's political career, but almost destroyed the Democratic party. We're out of power everywhere, Hillary - think about why.

[Al-CIAda]

66. She will NEVER get my vote. N-E-V-E-R. Anyone who tries to

capitalize on the lies of 9/11, the 'war on terror', or the deciet and treason thereof is at the least an opportunist, but more accuratley a traitor themselves.

[nolabels]

24. What a bunch of whoey, get a permit and pack some heat if your scared ....

If your fool enough to bite into their paranoia anyway, otherwise the message is just another message from the echo chamber. The most militarily armed country there ever was and the only message to be heard is be scared, eff all of that.

The whole problem is this group of greedy hearted evil bastards and their minions that run our oligarchy (they call government)can't figure how they were able to steal so much and get away with it.

To them type of people, I would say be scared, very scared, for one day you will be gone (even old age will get you if nothing else does). They should be weeping in the here and now for their stupidity. They will never be able to take any of it with them.

All that gathering of money and things is a big waste of time and will be of little use when they leave this earthly abode :popcorn:

[Nite Owl]

37. One thing she is right about is that

the Dems need to be 'strong and tough'. But it isn't on the specific issue of security. They need to defend themselves and be on the offensive. What people seem to perceive is that the Dems are too weak to stand up for the issues that they proclaim are theirs so how can they defend them on national security or anything else if they are so willing to be bullied by the GOP? It's an overall strenght that they need to exhibit. Kerry should have slammed them on the SBV liars and well we know how many other issues instead of assuming that people wouldn't believe these things. The public wants to see a fighter, this can all translate into someone who will fight for them when they need it most whether it be security or wages.

[Guaranteed]

47. FINE, THEN READ MY SIG, YOU STUPID FUCK.

God, I'm SICK of this.

[NightOwwl]

67. A day late and a dollar short.

Does she not see that the tide has turned on Bush and the neocons. A majority of Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake and Bush's approval ratings are the lowest ever. And Republicans are getting slammed right and left on issues unrelated to security.

I don't support Hillary as a 2008 candidate so I don't care if she ruins her chances. But when she just assumes she can speak for all Democrats; spouting off that we must "do a better job," she's sinking the entire ship. If she wants to fail, fine. But she has no right to drag the rest of us down with her.