Comments on: Clinton Upsets Many Raising Issue Of Future Terrorist Attack

By: Jason Steck

Jason Steck — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:37:04 +0000

All Sen. Clinton seems to be saying is two things:

1) Whenever an attack occurs, the party that occupies the White House at the time receives an immediate boost of support (the “rally ’round the flag effect”).

2) She is the Democratic candidate with the most solid and centrist national security credentials.

#1 has a lot of support in political science research and is, in fact, a relatively uncontroversial claim.

#2 is a common claim from any political candidate and may even be true (though I think Biden’s credentials are a bit stronger myself).

Either way, Sen. Clinton’s statement is hardly outrageous in any way.

By: Elrod

Elrod — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:20:57 +0000

Interesting responses. I’ve heard all the hemming and hawing on the leftward side of the blogosphere that she’s reinforcing frames about the GOP’s “strength” on national security. But the rightward arguments are just completely disingenuous. As if Hillary Clinton is the only politician who would respond to a terrorist attack by thinking about its political impact and how it would affect her/him and the her/his party? Puhhh-leeze.

By: Mikef

Mikef — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:21:08 +0000

I don’t suppose we’ll see anyone arguing that this mis-statement demonstrates the lack of experience on the part of the Junior Senator from New York.

By: SisterToldjah

SisterToldjah — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:59:28 +0000

Joe, FYI, that Jules Crittenden post was actually written by me – I’m guest blogging at his site for the next week

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:08:01 +0000

I don’t think the statement is correct (since I think that any conceivable Democratic president will react quite similarly to the way that any conceivable Republican president would act under the circumstances). But, as should be apparent from the blogs cited above, it would fracture the Democratic Party.