Hillary Talks Terror; Democrats Respond

In a statement that seemed directed at independent voters and other Democratic candidates more than anyone, Hillary Clinton directly staked a claim to the issue of terrorism on the Democratic side:

“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.

This quote says a few things: first and foremost, that independent voters who would in the aftermath of a terror attack vote for Republicans would consider her uniquely among the candidates. Secondly, she implicitly criticizes those same independent voters for that choice with the “no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world” part of the quote. The third thing the quote does is that Clinton again touts her ability to fight back against Republican attacks, which she has really gone out of her way to hammer home throughout the campaign.

Democrats almost immediately responded to the quote:
Bill Richardson:

“We shouldn’t be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists,” said Governor 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. Our ports are less safe. Our cities are less safe. Our transportation systems are less safe. George Bush is cutting funding to first responders. America’s alliances are in disarray because of this President. We need someone with an international record of accomplishments to rebuild strong American international leadership to keep Americans safe. I am prepared to stand up to the GOP on national security because I’ve been there and done it. I’ve been in the negotiating rooms. I’ve faced the dictators. I’ve brought hostages and service men home. I’ve broken an impasse on North Korean nuclear facilities. I was instrumental in bringing the North Koreans to the table and getting this deal to shut down the nuclear reactor in place. I’ve got more international experience than the all GOP candidates combined.”

Chris Dodd:

Senator and Presidential Candidate Chris Dodd issued the following statement in response to Senator Clinton’s remarks on the political implications for her campaign of a potential terrorist attack on the United States:

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

The general reaction online wasn’t much more friendly. Take this response from NBC News’ Mark Murray:

At last weekend’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton once again made this argument in criticizing Barack Obama for saying that nuclear weapons should be off the table when dealing with Al Qaeda in Pakistan: You need to be careful what you say. “We shouldn’t use hypotheticals. You know, words do matter. And this campaign just like every other thing that happens in the United States, is looked at and followed with very great interest.”

So given those remarks, it’s striking that she made this hypothetical yesterday: “It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself ‘What if? What if?,’” she said. “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. So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well.” Clinton’s comment came as she was touting her experience and how that would benefit her in a general election.

John Edwards:

Earlier today in New Hampshire, Senator John Edwards made the following comments when asked about Senator Hillary Clinton’s comments yesterday that Republicans would have an advantage if there is another terrorist attack and that she is the best Democrat to deal with that.

“If we’re talking about America being attacked the last thing we should do is be engaged in political calculation. What I would do is focus on uniting America and doing the things I need to do as president of the United States to keep this country safe.”

In response to another question, Edwards said:

“Well first of all, I strongly disagree with what [Senator Clinton] said. [Senator Clinton] has said she believes that we are safer under George Bush, I strongly disagree with that. What I believe is that it is the responsibility of a presidential candidate, a serious presidential candidate, and the president of the United States when you’re talking about something as serious as the potential for America to be attacked, to focus on what’s good for America, not politics, and what needs to be done to keep this country safe, which is what I would do as president.”

The Obama campaign, interestingly, declined to comment. This may have been designed to avoid being listed in articles on the subject as just another candidate. He may wait to respond for a day or two, and then respond in a manner to take the news cycle for himself. Or he may just allow the criticism to be made by others to keep his campaign more clear. The refusal to comment was almost certainly a political and strategic decision.

It should be interesting to see if this will undermine Clinton’s support on the left, or if she will still maintain her numbers, which have shown no signs of coming down yet.

[Photo Credit: flickr user ickl]