…she goes and says something like this:
"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.
I simply don’t agree with the premise.
If we are attacked by terrorists between now and Election Day, people will recognize that as a failure of Bush’s (and Republican’s) policies which have been in place since 9/11. How could that possibly become an advantage for Republicans?
Of course, Hillary must realize that, to some extent, those policies are her policies, having voted (for example) for the war against Iraq (thus diverting our attention away from al Qaeda). I suppose she has to try to distance herself from that now.
But should we gat attacked again, it seems to me that the candidate with the advantage does not lie with a Bush-supporting Republican or a Bush-supporting Democrat, but one who has always been opposed to the way in which the war on terrorism has been executed. That, clearly, would be Obama and/or Edwards. Not only were they right all along (unlike Hillary), but they seem to understand that liberal solutions to national security are workable and sell-able to the American public. Unlike Hillary, they don’t play into the false narrative that "Republicans are strong on security; Democrats aren’t".
Dumb move, Hillary. You’re buying the Republican spin and repeating it in your speeches.
UPDATE: Carpetbagger thinks he know what Hillary meant:
Clinton probably was trying to make the point that in the event of another attack, Republicans will try to seize on the tragedy as a political plus for the right. The media will, regrettably, go along, because it fits into a ridiculous narrative reporters have been buying into for years. “It wouldn’t be fair,” Clinton seemed to be saying, “but I can deal with it when it happens.”
Possibly. But she now has to do damage control because, as Carpetbagger notes, "it’s a mistake for any Democrat to amplify the bogus narrative in the first place."