What exactly did Hillary say, when did she say it and did she know exactly what she was saying? When the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a backyard gathering in Concord on Thursday, according to the AP reporter, that she believes that she would be the best candidate to handle a crisis, even a terrorist attack.
Well, no surprise there but she added some spice to the mix by talking about a rather harsh truth: namely the ability of the GOP establishment (especially our swaggering, historically-challenged and self-proclaimed “war president”) to take political advantage of a planned, expected, feared or actual terrorist attack.
“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,” she said.
Well, there’s nothing like a backyard comment during primary season on a subject this taboo (political manipulation and terrorism) to get the hounds a howling wildly at the moon from all corners -- her Democratic rivals, those in the liberal blogosphere and those kindly souls at right-wing conspiracy central. (It’s guaranteed we will see those words in an attack ad sooner rather than later and repeated to no end -- first as a Dem primary version and then as a GOP-inspired Swift Boat operation.) “Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States,” said fellow contender Sen. Chris Dodd.
Tasteless is a matter of perspective -- especially considering how the Bush gang has done precisely that time and again since 9/11. What Clinton did do, according to Naomi Wolf in a provocative piece on Huffington Post, was broach a subject most would like to avoid like the plague -- namely that this could very well be an ugly reality (especially if the terrorists succeed in another attack on our soil or elsewhere) that could have historical implications. Wolf provides solid historical evidence to support her argument that will also get people talking.
Kudos to Clinton for having the bravado to tackle the unspeakable -- which isn't to say that there wasn't any political calculation involved. Read Wolf's piece yourself at The terror talk taboo
ADVERTISEMENTS 
