Is Clinton using "FEAR" to paint herself as the better nominee?

[FrenchieCat]

Clinton talked about knowing more about Foreign policy, and talked about the economy in the debates last night. Something caught my attention, I want to know if other DUers picked up on it, and how they feel about it.

I remember that Bush talked the economy down during the 2000 election, and that he used Fear in the 2004 election.

Is Hillary Clinton doing the same thing in 2008?

On the economy, Hillary said.....

SEN. CLINTON: Charlie, let me make a connection here that I think is really important.
I think the economy is slipping toward a recession.

-------------------

On Terrorism (there is more than one example, but I'll use this one),
Hillary said.....
SEN. CLINTON: There cannot be safe havens for stateless terrorists who are in these networks that are plotting to have the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the smuggling into our country or elsewhere of the kind of suitcase device that could cause such havoc.

So I think we have to be very, very clear. You know, deterrence worked during the Cold War in large measure because the United States made it clear to the Soviet Union that there would be massive retaliation. We have to make it clear to those states that would give safe haven to stateless terrorists that would launch a nuclear attack against America that they would also face very heavy retaliation.
--------------------
Debate transcript:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
--------------------

Is she using fear to bolster the idea that she should get our votes?

[aquart]

1. YIPPEE!!! Another Push Poll!

[FrenchieCat]

2. I find this poll very telling of the truth.........

or did she not say what she said? :shrug:

Meanwhile, BREAKING NEWS: Obama lies because he shook his head.

[dipsydoodle]

Massive retaliation

for the worst draw imaginable. Big fucking deal.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Massive retaliation

for the worsrt draw imaginable. Big fucking deal.

[Kucinich4America]

4. I sure would like to know what these "books" were that Chuckie Gibson claims to have read

...which allegedly told him that the US was in danger of a nuclear attack (in turn, allowing him to setup Hillary for the fear tactic)

If such books actually exist, and Gibson actually has read them, I'll bet they were written by the same lying treasonous bastards (i.e. members of PNAC) who got us into this shit in the first place.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. What did she say that was inaccurate in those quotes?

For me playing a fear card means distorting and hyping threats out of context or beyond all reason.

Clinton made the same case on the disaster that the economy has become under Bush that most of us here on DU make all the time. And it was a big Democratic issue that Bush refused to implement the findings of the 9/11 Commission that included making our ports safer and many many others, all involving making this nation better prepared to prevent terrorist attacks. We blasted Bush for making us less safe, by starting a war we didn't need and wasting billions upon billions of dollars while cutting corners on common sense recommendations from the 9/11 commission regarding domestic security measures.

It isn't playing a fear card to advocate for competent approaches to managing potential security threats. It is reassuring people that Democrats can deal effectively with real concerns. I still agree with General Clark that the Democratic Party needs to present itself as a full service party; competent to manage our economic and international security needs. And we do that by contrasting our real grasp on reality as opposed to Bush's ideologically driven fantasies.

[Adsos Letter]

10. Agreed, and well said. n/t

[msongs]

6. fear of gays? fear of boomers, unions and working people? of ted kennedy? nt

[yourout]

7. Right out of the Bushco playbook.

Fear, Fear, Fear,
Terror, Terror, Terror.

[wisteria]

8. Suggesting that this country needs to have a leader with experience enough to hit the ground running

enough to hit the ground running and a cabinet that knows the ropes is not scaring people. It is making people aware that this is a dangerous country we live in and after Bush, we don't need another leader who is inexperienced. We need someone who can actually clean up the mess he leave behind. The last thing we need is a new president that needs a learning curve.

[Sparkly]

9. In the first case, yes. In the second case, no.

In the first case, she was probably raising an alarm about the economy; and I figure pretty much everything a politician says is what they think is in their political interest. So it'd follow that she brought that up because she thought it'd help her.

In the second case, I think she was just answering the question. They were talking about terrorists, states, and nukes anyway.

[Adsos Letter]

11. It's about time the candidates started talking seriously...

about the economy. I'm glad she brought it up; a meltdown of the economy is one of the most credible threats hovering out there right now, on a lot of different levels.

[Sparkly]

18. With the problems in the housing market, you could be right.

It needs to be dealt with very carefully.

[AtomicKitten]

12. Unfortunately for her "9-11" has already been coapted by Giulliani.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Unfortunately for us Republicans repeatedly coopt National Security concerns for themselves

They do it dishonestly, but they do it because it is effective, and it is effective because most Americans care about remaining safe in uncertain times. There is nothing wrong with advocating sensible security policies. Obama does it too in case you haven't noticed. Democrats can not play into the myth of being the nanny party that only cares about poverty, education, and the environment while being hopelessly out of our depth when it comes to any potential security threats. For all the love shown JFK and RFK around here, people seem to forget that the Republican Party did not have a lock on the national security issue when those men were leading Democrats.

[no name no slogan]

14. ....which is hilarious, because the Dems have gotten more defense $$$ this year

than the Repubs.

The defense industry is backing the winners this year, too.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. The key is in the word "sensible"

What is and is not a sensible security policy is a critical distinction, and one urgent to be resolved. But acknowledging the fact that there are actual security concerns in the world is eminently sensible for all Democrats to do. That is why I started my first post with the question; "What is inaccurate in the quotes from Clinton?" If you or anyone wants to take her on about the specifics of her reply, great - that is called for. But acknowledging legitimate concerns in and of itself is not playing a fear card, and that was the question asked in the OP.

[AtomicKitten]

15. Anybody punctuating fear in their spiel bites.

All the candidates have addressed the issue of terrorism, but only Clinton (edited to add: among the Democrats because all the Republicans are doing this) has pressed the notion that only she can protect the nation and with anybody else we would be rolling the dice.

That's fear-mongering any way you slice it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. If she thinks her ability to manage national security threats...

...is superior to that of one or more other candidates, that is a legitimate point for debate, and let the voters decide. It is just as legitimate as a candidate claiming they can best addresse issues of economic justice or the environment. When a questioner starts out the round of discussion about positing a nuclear bomb being smuggled into our ports, and cites studies claiming a 30% chance of one going off in America within ten years, the answer to that concern most likely will not be cheery and smile laden.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Nice soft sell except her campaign has said with anybody else we'd be "rolling the dice"

You can try to reframe that anyway you like, but it is what it is.

She is fear-mongering and that is a disgusting, wretched GOP tactic.

[Cha]

19. Ayuh, it worked so

well for the bushits for 8 years with the help of their M$$$$$$$$$M buddies. This was the clinton strategy all along..sidle up with bushits and look tough on the Wars and all the other shit bush came up with and then when it was her turn to run she could slide into home with no conscience.

Edit~ A sad thing happened on the way to the white house..the War On Iraq didn't turn out like the bushits promised and those who enabled it were left looking like executioners.