Hillary Clinton will position herself as the Democratic candidate who’s tough on security / terrorism / etc.
Clinton also sought to draw a contrast with some of her Democratic rivals on the issue of terrorism. “Some people may be running who may tell you that we don’t face a real threat from terrorism,” she said. “I am not one of those.”
Chris Cillizza points out that Hillary isn’t ‘just’ positioning herself as a strong potential commander in chief, she’s also courting African-American voters – which isn’t that difficult for her to do considering Bill Clinton’s popularity among black voters.
This historically black university — founded in 1870 by the African Methodist Episcopal Church — was a fitting backdrop for Clinton’s visit, which focused heavily on courting the African American voters considered crucial winning the Palmetto State’s primary next year.
[…]
Much of Clinton’s appeal among black voters is attributed to her husband’s popularity. Even the mention of President Bill Clinton brought a roar from the crowd, and Sen. Clinton repeatedly referenced her husband’s administration during her comments. Asked why she was best qualified to handle the situation in Iraq, Clinton said: “Obviously, during the eight years of Bill’s presidency, I had a front row seat on history to see the difficult decision any commander in chief has to make. I learned both what works and what doesn’t work.”
I think that Hillary is handling this campaign quite well thusfar, at least from a national perspective. It’s not impossible that her tough-on-terror(ism) attitude will cost her some of the left (wing) of the Democratic party but, we should also remember that the black voters form a substantial part of the ‘left wing’ / Democratic party… in other words, Hillary can afford to alienate some of the white members of the left (wing) of her party as long as she limits the damage and as long as minorities – esp African-Americans – (continue to) support her.
I’m not willing to defend the statement as such, but I think that it’s important to remember that if one does not spend a lot of time on terrorism, on how to fight it, ect. one – whether one likes it or not – creates the idea that one simply doesn’t care that much about it. In return someone like, say, Edwards could point out that Hillary seemingly doesn’t care about poverty.
The result: mudslinging, no real debate.
My point? She should not have said what she said but it is understandable.
Matt Stoller, meanwhile, demands an explanation:
Who exactly? I’d like to hear a reporter ask her just who she means.
Matt contacted Peter Daou:
he tells me that her quote is accurate. He is not sure about the context, and says that Clinton could have been referring to Republican candidates. He promises to get back to us tonight or tomorrow.
“Could have been referring to Republican candidates”… That’s not really a strong reaction. Hillary was quite obviously referring to other Democratic candidates, not to Republicans.
It will be interesting to see what Daou will say when he gets back at Stoller. I suggest that Hillary – and thus Daou – stand by what the former said. No flipflopping. Better to make a couple of enemies with strong, bold statements (albeit it’s even wiser to simply refrain from making sweeping statements like that), than to flipflop often.
Ron Chusid isn’t exactly happy with Clinton either, same goes for Matthew Yglesias.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.