Clinton Called ‘Tasteless’ by Rival
Emaild ABC News’ Donna Hunter, Sarah Amos and Raelyn Johnson report: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has drawn criticism from two of her Democratic presidential rivals for comments she made this week about the potential political fallout of a future terrorist attack in the United States.
"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., in a statement released by his campaign.
Dodd’s criticism of what he called Clinton’s "politicization" of the terror threat was followed by a statement from another Democratic rival, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
"We shouldn’t be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Richardson.
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., also criticized the former first lady.
"If we’re talking about America being attacked the last thing we should do is be engaged in political calculation," said Edwards.
Clinton provoked Edwards, Richardson and Dodd to criticize her by telling the Associated Press, "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. So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well."
Beyond criticizing Clinton’s comments about a future attack, Richardson also rapped Clinton for saying that the United States is safer since 9/11.
"Sen. Clinton seems to think that President Bush has made this country safer," said Richardson. "I disagree with her."
Earlier this year, Clinton said that she thought the United States was safer since 9/11, while adding that the United States is still not safe enough.
Richardson appears Saturday morning on ABC News’ "Good Morning America."
UPDATE (10:35 PM): Response from Clinton campaign spokesperson Blake Zeff: "Senator Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives 
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters
Hey ABC, where is the story about Zbigniew Brzezinski backing Obama over Hillary Clinton? I know you people are pro-Hillary but you can’t just ignore this… or can you??
Posted by: zbob | August 24, 2007, 7:58 pm 7:58 pm
if hilly wins and then is elected will she serve as
PRESIDENT HILLARY RODHAM……..period?
ciao,
Harvey
Posted by: Harvey Osteele | August 24, 2007, 8:27 pm 8:27 pm
Why couldn’t the smartest woman in the world remember which future market she invested 1000 usd and earned 100,000 usd?
ans: Because then she wouldn’t be the smartest lawyer in the world.
even if i were a moron, i would not only remember, but do it again, again, again.
ciao,
Harvey
p.s. americans have to stop voting for lawyers to run the government.
Posted by: Harvey Osteele | August 24, 2007, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm
What happen to NO HYPOTHETICALS
Posted by: cd | August 24, 2007, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm
Am I the only Democrat that has enough sense to realize this woman is no good for the country? Consumate politician thru and thru. Do they teach talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Posted by: DK | August 25, 2007, 5:40 am 5:40 am
Is HRC dealing in hypothetical?
Posted by: nctodc | August 25, 2007, 11:03 am 11:03 am
Did I read somewhere Hillary Clinton said she is the best one to have control over something she has no control over? Yes I did. Again, flipflopping in just one sentence. People, she cannot be president. This is a real problem. How can one say they can CONTROL something as they say they have NO CONTROL over that something? I think she’s just spinning and spinning, her own say nothing spin, or does she have a mental problem?
Posted by: RuthieM | August 25, 2007, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
Can you please report on Zbigniew Brzezinski endorsing Senator Obama please?
Thank you!
Posted by: Cate | August 25, 2007, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
Hillary-If there is another terrorist attack most sane people, apparently you are included out, will see it as another Bush failure just like 9/11 was.
The only ones who believe we are safer today are nitwit politicians who also refuse to secure our borders like you and Bush.
Posted by: A Viet Nam Vet | August 25, 2007, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
Sen. Clinton was merely pointing out that Republicans will OF COURSE attempt to exploit any terrorist attack on American soil for their own benefit. Already a Republican legislator has argued that another 9/11 is just what we need to unify the country. And Giuliani,the apparent Republican front-runner, is campaigning SOLELY on his fictitious anti-terrorist credentials.
Furthermore, Sen. Clinton was in no way “flip-flopping” on her stance against answering hypotheticals that would narrow her options as president. The question wasn’t about specific actions she would take in the event of a terrorist attack, but, implicitly, about whether the Republicans would attempt to benefit from such an attack. (AGAIN: YES, THEY WOULD.) Nothing in her answer commits her to a particular course of action in the event of such an attack: hence, no “flip-flop.” And, naturally, she believes she’s the best Democrat to address such an attack both in terms of safeguarding the American people and preventing the Republicans from absconding with the “strong on security” mantle once again. If she didn’t, she wouldn’t be running for the nomination. Her Democratic rivals and their supporters are clearly trying to gin up a controversy that simply doesn’t exist. Doesn’t ABC have anything better to “report” than this non-story?
Posted by: dawn | August 25, 2007, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm
She makes a good point till she loses me on that safer part.
Posted by: Sandra | August 25, 2007, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
How can all of these so called experts say that they think we are not safer now then we were on 9/11? Where is their proof? They are just ofering their own opinions with no facts to back them up and as we all know opinions are like aholes every one has one. They will say anything to get elected so why should we trust them to be our President? Give us proof or shutup and sit down.
Posted by: Ralph | August 26, 2007, 1:42 am 1:42 am
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT, THE OTHERS ARE POLITICAL ROBOTS !!!!
Posted by: Me | August 26, 2007, 10:14 am 10:14 am
The 2 criticizers just didn’t have the guts to put the blame where the blame really lies. Ms. Clinton did – she pointed out what everybody already know, the Repubs have played the terroist card to their political advantage sine 9/11 scaring the h— out of Americans that if there were another attack, only they can handle it. We have survived so far not because of the Repubs but in spite of them. They did not do anything special after 9/11 – a Dem administration would have reacted the same way only smarter. They would have limited their war to Afghanistan and would not have had the egoitists GWB & Dickey in charge to take us into Iraq. Think about that for a while, neocons.
Posted by: Ron | August 26, 2007, 11:06 am 11:06 am
This is my limited understanding of the political back and forth:
1. 9/11 was perpetrated mostly by Al-Qaida.
2. It was not in Saddam’s best interest to have an Al-Qaida connection. So the case for Iraq war is ambiguous at best.
3. The Homeland Security Dept, travel restrictions, wiretapping, etc were actions taken to *deter* terrorism. These are not meant to be 100% bulletproof prevention. We can call it luck or whatever but we can’t argue with results, we have not been attacked since 9/11. I am not going to sit here and second guess anyone else who may be working very hard in the background and communicate my ingratitude.
4. We have an enemy who hates the American way of life, it is described by their leaders as being evil. Let’s get a grip of ourselves and understand Hillary is not our enemy, it’s those outside our borders wanting for us to live a life that they advocate. Understand that! We will loose our current freedoms, if they prevail. They are not an imaginary enemy, they tried to implement their way of life in Afghanistan; just look at the results of their approach. I know I wouldn’t want that for myself or other Americans.
4. Bush, Hillary, Obama are Americans first and foremost, they are far from being a mouthpiece for the enemy. They are coming with different approaches to solving the threat that is real. Let’s make sure we criticize the ideas not the person. At end of day, I hope we all share the same goals, we want to keep our American way of life and keep this American experiment alive.
5. We don’t need to self-criticize so much to be popular outside of our walls; we can be proud of what we Americans have been able to do to influence the world in a positive way. Yes, we’ve also made mistakes but hey, we are not claiming to be perfect. But no need to slam ourselves and think we are the root of all evil in this world. That is wrong as well.
Hillary is ok, let her present her case for being President. Barack is also ok, let him present his case for being President. Same goes for other candidates from all parties; let them present their case. We’ve tried it the way of Bush and his team for the last 6.7 years; some things worked; some things didn’t, now is the chance for the American political system to kick in and make adjustments so we can perhaps have a new approach. It’s all part of the American experiment. Just make sure you go and vote and make your decision be counted.
Be cool.
Posted by: Neutral | August 26, 2007, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm
What plan? How can you be so niave to see that both partys spin anything they can to promote their agendas, which may or may not have anything to do with protecting Americans.
While everyone has been focused on Iraq we have over 800,000 bridges that could collapse. Who else is tired of the political smoke and mirror mentaility of both parties. The political system is designed to be devisieve. If someone gains a 51% majority that leaves 49% angry and vocal. The very system cannot hope to unite America on any issue.
The Rebuplicans are not the only ones that spin things or make ideal promises,
in Nov. 06 the Dems made lots of promises (none of which have materialized) and as a result the democratic controlled legislature has the lowest approval of any congress since polls began.
Also, just for the record, WWII was fought for nearly a decade before America entered the conflict. Neither party is immune to glaring faux paus in public policy. Also some numbers that deny the doom and gloom shouters on both sides of the legislature. Coalition Death toll has just reached 4k,
36,000 people died of the flu, here in the US in 2005 when we didn’t have enough flu vaccines to go around. There were over 100,000 reported murders in the US last year. Why does the media focus on the Iraqi cost but not any of the other threats that affect a lot more Americans. Or how about the fact that over the last two years tainted products have been streaming into our country – where is the outrage of the politicos on that? They are too busy bashing an administration that is no longer relative to American politics. It’s funny how the Clinton administration had an 8 year run frought with the exact kind of politics thet HRC now accuses bush of. Does anyone recall Whitewater, travelgate or the two dozen pardons Bill handed out at the end of his second term. But I guess that does give HRC the experience to use her office to do whatever she wants. Funny how we forget so quickly.
Posted by: David Randall | August 26, 2007, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
Hillary may or may not be strong….but i know for sure that……HILLARY IS NOT EXPERIENCED…….SHE IS A JUNIOR SENATOR, AND HAS ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE SINCE 2000…….She has never held any other public office……HILLARY IS NOT EXPERIENCED.
Posted by: JULIE | August 26, 2007, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm