In a Washington Post story today, the Clinton campaign realizes how badly Obama and others stumbled on that question as is trying to score some points while they can:
The first Democratic presidential debate did little to change the shape of the 2008 race, but it provided a post-debate flash point Friday between the campaigns of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton over the issue of fighting terrorism.
At issue is whether Obama mishandled a question about how he would respond if two American cities were attacked by terrorists: Did he fail to demonstrate the toughness and resolve that voters want in a president or was his answer a careful and comprehensive checklist for any potential president dealing with an international crisis?
The Clinton campaign seized on what happened, claiming, without mentioning Obama, that "Hillary was the candidate who demonstrated that she would know how to respond if the country was attacked." An Obama spokesman dismissed the Clinton camp's press release as "a sign of nervousness."
In the aftermath of 9/11, what was at the top of most American's most desired lists? It wasn't conducting investigations into why the first responders didn't have everything they needed, it was getting even with the bastards that did it. Hillary realizes this, and although I doubt she would actually authorize anything other than a token military response (much as her husband was fond of launching missiles into enemy buildings in the middle of the night ridding the world of night janitors), she immediately sought to play out her toughness in appearances the day following the debate.
That's why she was not scored as the winner on the wacky left's Daily Kos reader poll (that went to the Breck Girl), but her seemingly tough standing may help her with the moderates and independents she would need to win election. It's all phony, of course, but for those that don't pay attention (and that's most of the voters), she'll gain some points.
No comments:
Post a Comment