Hillary's terror comment was beyond dumb! If the country is attacked

[ProSense]

(God forbid), it will not "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."

And if it does, as she ridiculously predicts, unless she is a Republican, she will have no advantage!

Dumb!

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. I am no Hillary fan

but I didn't have a problem with what she said. I find it refreshingly honest and I agree with her.

But I do realize I am in the minority here.

[ProSense]

3. Yes, politicizing attacks and claiming you are the only person who

can surmount the made-up Republican advantage is refreshingly honest. Give me break!

[rodeodance]

11. She has been brutally attached by RW, yet she is # 1. The evidence speaks

for itself

[ProSense]

12. Give me a break! n/t

[rodeodance]

13. you are such a crack up.

[ProSense]

14. I know, but

it was really a dumb comment, despite the apologists and spinmeisters!

[rodeodance]

15. I just do not think it was that significant.

[ProSense]

16. It is significant to the extent that

she is running for president and showed a remarkable lack of judgment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. I guess I didn't get that out of what she said

I am also not going to defend her because I generally despise the woman. I just think that what she said was true. If we have another terror attack, the rethuglicans will use it to their advantage on election day. That's their pattern. So yes, I do agree with her on this.

[ProSense]

20. How the hell is the "Bush is making America safer"

Republicans going to automatically have an advantage for failing to protect America from being attacked?

It's one thing to say the Republicans will try to use it and the media will try to spin it (why the hell is she politicizing an attack, Cheney-style?), but to say they will automatically have the advantage is wrongheaded and plays into the GOP spin.

[Adelante]

4. I will agree

This is being wayyy overpumped.

[ProSense]

8. Criticizing her for it overblown? I doubt it.

Stupid comment by her, definitely!

[EST]

18. I'm with you, not understanding what it is that people are so pumped about.

What she said is, or has been until now and is likely to continue, expressly, exactly true. If there is a terrorist attack before she takes the seat of power, all pukes and a hell of a lot of the dumber dems will automatically assume the "daddy image" pukes are better in a crisis.

Sure it's not true and there his been more than ample evidence that pooplickers are utterly incompetent at it, but people are who they are and they are more likely to turn to an authoritarian figure than not in a violent crisis. Plus, the media and all the mouth breathing talking heads (picture that talking fraud-John Fund) would be chunking up repoops and condemning dems.-

The point is: she described future reality as accurately as a human can and a bunch of people are jumping her for it and not providing an acceptable rationale for precisely why her statement was wrong.

[ProSense]

27. She is saying this?

If there is a terrorist attack before she takes the seat of power, all pukes and a hell of a lot of the dumber dems will automatically assume the "daddy image" pukes are better in a crisis.

That makes no sense!

If we're attack because daddy couldn't protect us, we'll run to daddy!

Ridiculous (but this is the explanation being offered for clarification). Dumb!

[EST]

33. Since I am quite sure you did not intend to be insulting, I will try

to address your question.
Almost everything people do is nonsensical. Have you done any work that includes people who have been held captive-the ultimate authority figure? Or consider people who admit to committing heinous crimes when they did no such thing?

We say--without knowing anything about it--"Why would anyone confess to something they didn't do?" We ask with the smug self assurance that ignorance brings, knowing in our inner being that WE would never do such a senseless, nay, stupid thing. Hah!

Why did Bush have a ninety one percent approval rating right after 9-11? He sure didn't deserve it. Those of us who make it a point of being informed knew he was a class A number one jerk in puppy's clothing.

People do not behave sensibly; especially when their safety and security are involved. There was a case in Missouri where a man succumbed to his neurosis and killed his entire family then himself. Witnesses said his kids were running to him for protection as he was shooting them.

People are not great thinkers, mostly, nor are they the problem solvers they think they are. What we are is powerful pattern recognizers and matchers. What we do when we think is not what we think we do when we think.

Check it out. People do not consistently behave logically, almost never when they are scared.

[ProSense]

44. What is she talking about?

If we're attacked, Republicans automatically gain the edge? No false

People do not behave sensibly; especially when their safety and security are involved...

People are not great thinkers, mostly, nor are they the problem solvers they think they are.

Speaking of insulting!

People may not pay attention to the details and rely on the MSM to a fault, but they're not stupid and they're not going to believe, as you and Hilllary believe, that if we're attacked, score one for the Republicans.

[NewJeffCT]

2. It's true

the media will roll over for Republicans and do whatever they say.

[ProSense]

5. Except she didn't say anything about the media.

The media has been rolling over for Republicans, and guess what: Dems still won in 2006.

Dumb comment!

[rodeodance]

7. they were not voting for the Pres. People do not like to change presidents during

times of crisis

[ProSense]

9. Bush is running again? n/t

[emilyg]

28. They will flock to Repugs if attack happens.

[rodeodance]

6. she let the elephant in the room out.

[papau]

37. She said the obvious that has been said on DU and by Kerry re week before election Osama video - I

don't see the statement as "stupid" in any way.

[ProSense]

38. Look over there!

Don't bring Kerry into this. There is a difference between citing an actual event, after the fact, that was clearly using a bin Laden video for political gain, and claiming that an attack (does she believe that the Republicans will fake an attack?) will "automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it..."

She is pushing a RW meme that was inaccurate to begin with. Six years after the 9/11 attacks, six years of Bush's failed policies and GOP stonewalling, the 2006 election successes behind her, and she is still helping to support a false perception that in all reality is now considered bogus, except among wingnuts. I guess next she'll be saying if we leave Iraq, Republicans will have an edge if the violence escalates. BS!

She is not framing a point that the Repubs will try to politicize an attack, she is saying that it will automatically give the Republicans an advantage..."

Hillary's comment is ridiculous.

[papau]

40. Some of us believe Osama video was either fake - or held till the last week - and

sorry - but it has in the past automatically given the GOP an advantage - and I know of no poll or focus group results that indicate that it would not do so again.

[ProSense]

41. It was a video, fake or not, and the comments were after the fact.

That's different from predicting who will benefit from an actual attack. I expect that from Dick Cheney.

"They have in the past." This isn't the past. This is six years after the 9/11 attacks, six years of Bush's failed policies and GOP stonewalling, and she is still pushing the right wing meme that failed to help the Repubs in the past couple of election, most notably 2006. She is still helping to support a false perception that in all reality is now considered bogus, except among wingnuts. This is not good judgment, no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

[papau]

42. 2006 was not an election for a commander in chief n/t

n/t

[ProSense]

43. So

Republicans "automatically" gain the advantage every four years only, and the others don't count?

[papau]

46. The size of the advantage is meaningful every 4 years since 80 - n/t

n/t

[ProSense]

47. Wonder why

Hillary denied us the mastery of her advantage over the Republicans' advantage all these years? Did she want the country to suffer for six years so that she could swoop in and claim, in a very political way, that she is the only Democrat who has the advantage if we're attacked?

Dumb!

[illinoisprogressive]

10. It was a remark that is a gaffe and a flipper. naive and irresponsible

[politicasista]

19. I don't understand

People will favor the repukes if America gets attacked because they still have in their minds that they are stronger on National Security.

I thought that's what she was trying to say. I don't think she was trying to say that the Dems are weak on NS.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

22. First, "tasteless":

Using a potential terror act for political gain (Hillary's)

Second, illogical: The Republicans have no edge and an attack (no matter how the media plays up the Republican spin) after touting how much safer we are is not likely to "automatically" give them the advantage among voters, who have already rejected this meme.

Third, poor judgement: Why the hell is she talking about attacks just to position herself as the best among the Dems. That's a little too Cheney-like for me.

[politicasista]

23. Oh, ok

I am still missing something. :shrug:

[ProSense]

24. What? n/t

[Hart2008]

21. Hillary is wrong! The foremost expert in fighting terrorism in the party is Gary Hart.

Hart predicted the terrorist attacks as co-chair of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century.

Look how well he rubs Rudy's nose in it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=3479468&mesg_id=3479468

Hillary response to 9-11 was to support W's lies about Iraq until learning it was hurting her in the primaries. We don't need another president like that.

[guruoo]

25. Still at it, I see. How many threads does this make now? n/t

[ProSense]

26. Four, each with a different purpose. n/t

[guruoo]

39. That doesn't make any sense.

Four posts, same subject to catch a different work shift, time zone, or what?
Do you plan to keep this up until everyone agrees to accept your take
on Hillary?

[ProSense]

45. Yes it does:

The blog responses

The other Democratic candidates' responses

The question

The current post

[guruoo]

48. In politics, sometimes one can try too hard. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

29. Hillary to VFW: "We can’t be fighting the last war, we have to be preparing to fight the new war"

:shrug:

What's the new war? Terra? Thought that was the existing war. More hypotheticals? I'm starting to enjoy her campaign; it's one surprise after another lately.

[durrrty libby]

30. People on this very board have made the same statement hundreds of times

Did you miss it ...hundreds of times??


Who knew dumb was so contagious? :dunce: :hangover: :hurts: :shrug:

[ProSense]

32. "Who knew dumb was so contagious? "

So Hillary is picking up dumb from those "people"?

Poor judgment!

[durrrty libby]

35. No, The dumb and poor judgement would be this thread

[ProSense]

36. And

your participation in it?

[tularetom]

31. Seems to me like she is in a position to see that they don't

use it to their advantage. She is a US Senator for chrissakes. If she can't counter the advantage that she claims the repubs have she isn't very influential despite her claims of standing up to the RW machine. I'll vote for her if she is the nominee but I must confess I'm less than impressed with her so far.

-Wouldn't comment on the Scooter Libby verdict.
-Agreed that we are safer now than we were before 9/11.
-Agreed with repub candidates (and against other Dems) that Cuban travel and trading bans should be maintained
-(May have) stated that the "surge" was at least partially working.

I like how she "stands up to the RW machine". By agreeing with a lot of their bullshit? She's gonna have to do a lot better.

[BeyondGeography]

34. Adding to your list

-Labelled Obama as naive and irresponsible for agreeing to meet with foreign dictators without pre-conditions (after she had criticized Bush for refusing to do the same thing)

-Said presidents should not make blanket statements about the use or non-use of nuclear weapons in response to Obama's ruling out same for anti-terrorist attacks (after she had taken nukes off the table re. Iran).

In both cases, she embraced Republican-style views after she had more progressive statements just to score political points.

The dossier of confusion grows all the time.