It does not matter if she casually "mentions" later on that the Republicans are bad in some way.  She is promoting and selling the idea that a new terror attack would benefit the GOP.

It is political suicide (General Election in '08) to promote that idea...even for a second.

The GOP has been a textbook case of doing everything imaginable to make terrorism far worse, let the true perpetrators of terror escape, and weaken our own Country.

That has to be the new talking-point.

because democrats like losers, lol.

Most of these bloggers only know how to scream loud. Their candidate will likely get creamed in general election. To have a Carter administration security advisor to endorse you is hardly a plus. Everybody knows Carter was an extremely weak president in national security.

Nonsense.
Jimmy Carter won the Presidency on a promise to have an honest foreign policy and to never start a War. George W. Bush was elected (sort of) by deceiving people in 2000 by promising a humble Foreign Policy. Bill Clinton won in 1992 by promising to focus on Domestic problems "like a laser beam".

Crossing the "Commander-in-Chief" threshold does not mean that you have to do dumb things, say dumb things, support dumb policies, or accept false arguments where bad policies are somehow marketed as "strong" policies.

 

• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never shut down FBI efforts to investigate Osama Bin Laden.


• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never ignore numerous advance warnings.


• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never lie to the Nation about weak Countries like Iraq, while letting Bin Laden escape in Tora Bora.


• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never abuse our kids uneccesarily as cannon-fodder.


• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never send our National Guard over to Iraq, when they should be at home protecting the Nation.


• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never transform America into the most hated Nation on the planet.


• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never Bankrupt our own Nation.


• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never sell control of our Ports to the United Arab Emirates.


• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never be reckless and dishonest with our Military.


• A strong Commander-in-Chief" would never gut our own Civil Liberties.

Crossing the threshold, means diametrically opposing all of these policies.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most influential foreign-policy experts in the Democratic Party, threw his support behind Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, saying the Illinois senator has a better global grasp than his chief rival, Hillary Clinton.

Obama ``recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world,'' Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.''

``Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand,'' Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, said. ``He has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.''

Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. ``Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president,'' Brzezinski said.

Clinton's foreign-policy approach is ``very conventional,'' Brzezinski said. ``I don't think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.''

Democratic party has been making this point for years. The key is you have to be believable. Voters still don't buy it. Reading these knee-jerk reaction from blogs to merely mentioning 'war', 'terror' makes you understand why independents do not side with democrats on national security.

You're grasping at straw. It's becoming laughable. These sort of daily bashing gets you nohere in this little echo chamber.

This is pure smear. Hillary is saying GOP will use terror card no matter how badly they mishandle the situation.

She is making the case she is best equipped to counter attack GOP's fear mongering.

That makes the issue a tie. If attacked the Republicans will suffer at the poll's.

> GOP: 44%
> DEM: 43%

This is only because the Democrats do not stand up with conviction and clarity for an alternative vision on Foreign Policy.

The GOP only looks "strong" because they set the agenda and the talking-points, not because what they do makes any damn sense or actually makes the Country one bit safer.

In 2004, for example, John Kerry's message was that he would just fight the War better.  He didn't call out Bush on the criminality and lies and unnecessary murder and say "Mr Bush you have disgraced our Nation and made it much weaker!"

Until Democratic stand-up like that with real conviction, passion, and follow-through for a different Foreign Policy, the polls won't change much because the GOP will still be setting up the strawman argument.

But this does not mean that the message of change itself is unpopular or "naive".
The message for change is very popular and people really want that instead of the madness and insanity that we have now.

   Good you can try and put 50% together with the "pro-Gop talking points on security" voters I won't be part of it. Perhaps she can take ads out on Fox news to reach them. when it fails Obama will pick up the pieces from the stupid dems that fell for shit like she said yesterday.

Nothing works better for the Republicans than a terrorists attack if she were the nominee - because she has not new ideas.

If Obama or Edwards were the nominee and adressed why terrorists attack us and present a different way to handle the issue, we wouldn't cede it over to the Repubs.

This is a foolish, ignorant, niave, comment.

yes the rest of teh quote basically says she is the only one who can save us- not the democrats, not the party, her. that's it. hillary for hillary. if you think this frame is better, then maybe you didn't read the quote as well as you think you did. this isn't the hillarycrat party. it's democratic.

Now, seriously, how can she be the best candidate, when she is saying that a terror attack boosts the GOP?
(presumably it demonstrates their policies are working????)

Anyone advancing the talking-points that the GOP is somehow successful on Defense (after Bin Laden, Iraq, new Nukes in N. Korea, Katrina, the Halliburton theft of tax dollars, the diasappearing Pentagon billions, and all the debt and bankruptcy of the U.S. Treasury)   needs to have their head examined.

It's the wrong message and a message that interferes with a change in our policies.

Hillary has just proven that she is, in fact, the worst to lead the Democratic Party.

I have said many time over and over again.  THE ONLY WAY A DEMOCRAT COULD POSSIBLY LOSE IS IF THERE WAS ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK.

I, too, have felt that an October surprise would be the only think likely to derail the Democrats in 2008. That's why I have cringed when one of the potential Democratic nominees dismisses the global war on terror as a bumper sticker.

did you read whatelse she said- she pulled a chenney.

And to put the video in context, it was part of answer to the question, "Why would you be the strongest Democratic candidate to run against the Republicans in the general election?"