The other candidates responses to Hillary's terrorism remark have been very weak.

[calteacherguy]

Almost as weak as Hillary's remark which has triggered all the controversy. What they need to be discussing is why they think they would have the ability to deal effectively with a terrorist attack. Hillary's comment was weak because she gave no evidence for her alleged greater "strength and experience." The others should be questioning exactly what kind of strength and experience she has, and explaining in their own words why the idea that they would somehow be "weaker" than the Republican candidate on national security is a myth. They need to bring the discussion back to their own qualities as a leader when questioning what makes Hillary think she is so special.

[Inuca]

1. No, Hillary'c comment was weak because

she played te fear card.

[calteacherguy]

3. And you don't think the Republicans will? nt

[Inuca]

7. Not sure you understood my point

I should have stated it more clearly. Basically she said "when you are afraid, I am your girl". That's what I meant by using the fear card. The republicans sure will do something similar and probably worse, but that does not mean that their game plans should become our game plans especially when it implies manipulation of deeply-seated instincts of self-preservation. Rove would have eventually won if we end-up adopting his tactics.

[dansolo]

5. It's worse than that

Not only did she play the fear card, but she practically told people that they were better off voting for a Republican if something were to happen.

[Inuca]

9. Not quite

but it can certainly be interpreted that way as well, and quite likely we will hear some similar interpretation from te other side at some point in the future.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. my guess is that they are sick of being set up for phoney fights by the media

[Colobo]

4. Obama stayed away and he won.

[calteacherguy]

6. Obama has talked a lot about the importance of good judgment

without specifically responding to such politically motivated attacks. That's a good strategy for him. He is explaining what qualities make him the best leader without getting into the mudslinging and fear mongering.

I expect this will pay big dividends for him.

[Dawgs]

23. I agree.

He's letting the other candidates attack, which may potentially make them all look bad; including Hillary.

[janx]

10. Good observation!

:party:

[janx]

8. What is weak about this?

Richardson: Hillary "Seems To Think" Bush Has Made Us Safer
Bill Richardson had a statement, as well. "We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Richardson. "Senator Clinton seems to think that President Bush has made this country safer. I disagree with her. Our failed policy in Iraq is making us less safe."

[DURHAM D]

11. That was a seriously stupid response.

Nothing in her comment indicated that she thought Bush had made the country safer.

I repeat what I said earlier about Richardson's response - Huh?

[janx]

12. The implication was there.

I have elsewhere at DU defended Senator Clinton to the extent that I'm tired of seeing the media take quotes out of context (especially during a primary season).

However, I think she could have done better at answering what appears to have been a question. (?) The media are so bad that I have read this "statement" over and over again, purely out of context. Yet I wish she would not react to such fear-mongering tactics to such an extent as to legitimize them.

[sandnsea]

13. She has said we are safer

"And I believe we are safer than we were."

Back during one of the June debates. And she's been playing the terror card right along, this is nothing new. This is who the woman is.

[DURHAM D]

15. Yes she did say that back in one of the debates -

but not in her recent statement. That is what makes candidates look like stupid opportunists and desperate. Again Richardson's response stunk.

On the other hand, I thought Dodd's was actually a very good response.

[emilyg]

18. we'e talking to closed minds.

[janx]

21. au contraire...

(since I can only assume you're talking about me)...

I haven't decided whom to support in the primaries yet. The ridiculously early campaigning didn't interest me much. Now it's time to take a look.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Agreed. I'm really beginning to be amazed by this guy.

Who dresses him? Who points him at the podium and changes him after the show? He talks about infrastructure and he can't even mention he runs the fifth-largest state. Sexual preference is a choice. I've got more experience than any of these guys and I can hardly get anything right.

He either didn't get what she was saying at all or he's using one of the clumsiest smears ever. She was talking about how public opinion would favor the Republicans if this happened before the election; she said nothing about how she felt Bush had improved or degraded our safety.

What she IS doing is making assumptions about how people would respond to an act like that, and in some (perhaps even many) scenarios it WOULD help the Republicans. There are certainly cases where it could REALLY hurt them, too, like if something they'd really tried to make safe got popped or some chemical plant or something else that people had warned was vulnerable got hit after the administration had done nothing to protect it.

This guy is getting to be the Admiral Stockdale of 2008. Why IS he here?

[janx]

22. He IS here because he IS running for president,

just as everyone else is.

He's "smearing" no one and simply doesn't agree with Hillary Clinton. Sometimes people disagree.

Your remarks about the man's clothing and your comparison of him to Admiral Stockdale reveal a certain arrogance of character and (dare I say it?) weakness of argument.

Really, POE, I've never seen this level of discourse coming from you before. I'm surprised.

[sandnsea]

14. She played the terror card, people are sick of it

We need a new international policy, and a change from this constant fear mongering here at home. Shame on her for pushing people's buttons like this, it is not what this country needs.

[emilyg]

16. She did not. You can read what you want into her comment and spin it any way you want. I

bad spin

[sandnsea]

17. Oh she does it all the damn time

She lived through 9/11, bla bla bla. She's awful about it. She rarely talks about any approach to terrorism except militarily. She has the same cold war communist scare construct - except when it comes to China or countries whose labor we can exploit. She might as well dub Catro, Chavez and Achmadenijad as the new axis of evil. It would not even shock me if she did.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. You're missing the point; it has nothing to do with terrorists, it has to do with Republicans

She's saying that if an attack occurs before the election, it would obviously help the Republicans. (As an aside, I completely dismiss that cocksure horseshit, but that's another issue.) She's not claiming that she's tougher on terrorism (she does that plenty elsewhere) she's saying she's the best bet FOR DEMOCRATS in a situation like this to fend off nasty Republican smears AND GET ELECTED.

The argument she makes is that she's better able to fight THE REPUBLICANS and get elected in this kind of situation. Admittedly, she's really good at saving her own skin, withstanding reactionary attacks and getting elected IN ONE RATHER BLUE STATE, but the claim here is that she's more electable. I continually and heartily disagree with this. She's really good at advancing herself, but I don't think she can do it nationwide any more than Dennis Kucinich could win a Senate seat in Ohio or Barbara Boxer could become President.

Her summation is ridiculous; it's a huge leap of logic. Why would this make her the best candidate to deal with the Republican fear onslaught? Would she be more willing to brandish a bigger saber than any other Democrat? Is it her "survivability"? She doesn't say. She's just better. Shut up, she just is. Never mind that her unfavorables are so high that on some occasions they make her unelectable by definition. (What scenario can she win if 52% won't vote for her? It'd have to be a three-way race with someone who would soak off LOTS of conservative voters.) Okay, this is the largest of her recent unfavorables and not her current score, but that's bad enough, and things are very much in flux.

What crap.

She's saying nothing about dealing with terrorists in this statement; it's about being able to withstand Republican bullshit if an attack comes BEFORE the election.

This is ridiculous.

[LWolf]

24. What ARE the other candidates' responses? n/t

[mnhtnbb]

25. Not from Edwards. I heard him respond on Face the Nation this a.m.

and he definitely took her to task. She was wrong to cede the safer issue
to Republicans, not only for politicizing the issue (but that's Hillary always
thinking of political repercussions first)but also because the DAMN Republicans
under Bush have NOT made us safer. Edwards even cited the administration's own statistics documenting that there not only are more terrorists, but has been more terrorist activity since Bush has been in office.

Here's the link for the video:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3204643n&channel=i_video