The Case for Clinton
by Matt Stoller, Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:25:15 AM EDT
This is the argument as it's being made by the Clinton camp to donors.
Both Clintons have made the case to potential fund-raisers that the U.S. will probably suffer a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 after the next President is sworn in -- and that Hillary is the only Democratic candidate capable of handling such a crisis because of her Senate Armed Services Committee tenure and her years in the White House.
I hadn't heard this before, and it's a new wrinkle in the debate. They are probably right we'll suffer another massive terrorist attack, and it's very useful to have the argument about what to do before it happens. Certainly any Democrat would be far superior to any Republican in this kind of event. There seems to be a number of possibilities in thinking through this kind of question. What would you do immediately? What would your goals be medium-term, and how would you use such an event to change the country to better prepare for the 21st century? I'm interested to know that someone will retaliate with force, for instance, but that strikes me as an obvious answer that any leader would give. I can only imagine how Gore could have used the crisis to push through a different energy state instead of saying 'go shopping'.
It's a useful question to think through. Why would your candidate be the best leader in the event of a massive terrorist attack?