Clarke: Another "national security incident" would cause people to question Clinton's fitness for presidency
On the June 24 edition of ABC's This Week, during a roundtable discussion with host George Stephanopoulos, Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria, syndicated columnist George F. Will, and ABC News chief political correspondent Jake Tapper, former Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke asserted that "the single thing that will make the biggest difference between now and November of 2008" in terms of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) chances in the presidential election "is whether or not there is another very large national security incident." Clarke continued: "Because then, I think it will be very hard for people to look at Hillary Clinton, no matter what they thought up 'til now, and say, 'Umm, you know, can she sit in that chair? Can she make those awesome decisions that the next president of the United States may have to make?' " She added, "Fair or unfair, I think some people would think that." Clarke served as assistant secretary of Defense for public affairs from 2001-2003.
From the June 24 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does she [Clinton] have to be likable in the end? Or will strength and experience be enough to carry through a general election.
CLARKE: Bob Teeter, God rest his soul, used to always say, at the end of the day, it really comes down to "Who do they like better?"
STEPHANOPOULOS: Tell people who Bob Teeter is.
CLARKE: A famous, famous, wonderful, wonderful pollster. One of the best ever and just fabulous on these things. But I'll tell you, I think what makes the biggest difference, the single thing that will make the biggest difference between now and November of 2008 is whether or not there is another very large national security incident. Because then I think it will be very hard for people to look at Hillary Clinton, no matter what they thought up 'til now, and say, "Umm, you know, can she sit in that chair? Can she make those awesome decisions that the next president of the United States may have to make?"
STEPHANOPOULOS: Perhaps against [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani [R] --
CLARKE: Fair or unfair, I think some people would think that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- but against [former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney [R], against [former Sen.] Fred Thompson [R-TN], we'll have to see. I mean, but that is one of the big questions going forward.
CLARKE: Huge.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Thank you all very much.
As I read it, I new national security incident will cause me to wonder if Hillary can handle this incident. Why just Hillary, that kind of thought would not be limited to her, if it occured.
Extrapolating from her statement I would think bush would go to war with at least 2 more countries. If there is 2 more attacks then 4 countries would be invaded (which means we are at "war" with a total of 6 countries). hantywaste of the Alan Combs show, would be in a perpetual state of orgiastic bliss and b.o. would add 2 more hours to his "brain candy" show on fauwques nieweus. What will baby bush's ratings be?
Max
What exactly are the hotel rates like on Planet Wingnut?
I'm only asking because someday I may want to take a vacation from rational thought.
What does this have to do with the OP? If I didn't know any better I'd say you were trolling.
Well, given that Bungle remains in the WH, and Darth at his side, and Abu Gonzo in Justice; another very large national security incident (on a par with giving away the computers with blueprints for nuclear weapons?) might cause me to wonder if Hillary wouldn't just be a better choice than those larcenous incompetents.
Just what we need, the GOP thinking that a domestic terror attack would help them.
Lord Vader...do what must be done!
And This remark coming from a woman! Amazing! I watched This Week this morning and couldn't believe what I heard. Glad to see it got picked up right away for everyone to see. The Republicans want another attack so they can continue to play this fear card. Hopefully, if this ever happens, the American people have wised up to this charade. Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, in my opinion, to deal with such a crisis where it to happen. She was in the White House for eight years and has very good relationships with other heads of state as well as many Generals. Further she will have Bill Clinton right there to offer his advise and guidance, if it was sought out.
I will not engage in bashing the current First Lady! As First Ladies go, she is not the worst ever; and we already know that Bungle ain't gonna listen to any voice but Barney's and God's, so I guess I can already support her nomination as the least harmful member of this Administration.
However, I do note the difference as to counsel available.
Another domestic terrorist attack would make any half aware person question the effectiveness of the Republican national security strategy.
OK......? As oppossed to thinking 'What the hades is *president* Bush doing getting attacked twice...?'
And if this qualifies as a 'huge question' for Stepinalotopoo, he may as well renew his subscription to Highlights kids magazine and gaze with familiarity at the Goofus and Galant portion...
She probably wouldn't waste any time reading My Pet Goat.
At the very least, she'd get through it more quickly because she wouldn't have to move her lips.
come one mandan you know its in the intrest of national security to not scare the kids by leaving a room quietly
I'd like to know what it takes to be a "famous famous wonderful wonderful" pollster. Jesus.
And I have to go along with everyone who has already pointed out how ridiculous it is for anyone to argue that Hillary Clinton might not be "up" to dealing with a National Security crisis. After George W. Bush? Seriously?
So let me get this straight.
According to this woman, if we get attacked again by some terrorist group, this will make people wonder about Hillary?
Huh? What? Who is she trying to kid peddling this BS. I'm sure somehow Rudy et all would turn it into you, somehow, "Hey. You elect a democrat, they'll be MORE attacks." Then he fails to mention that there was a republican in the White House, and a republican as mayor of New York City on September 11. If, god forbid, we were attacked again on the scale of 9/11, we could ONLY blame the current administration for once again, not doing enough to protect the country, and this time, although I'm sure that they would try, they couldn't blame Bill or Hillary Clinton.
Amazing the thought patterns of some people like Clarke. I can't believe this sort of drivel passes for political discourse, well, anywhere.
I'm vacationing in Barcelona, and I am happily amazed at how politically astute many residents are. In particular, one Brit and one Barcelonian, who certainly know more than Vickster Clarke. If we could only have given the US Prez vote to Europe we would not be in this mess.
Also, note that Blair has essentially obliterated his chances of getting a good history writeup after he got in bed with Bush. If only the US media was as good as the BBC and a few others. Sigh.
I think what makes the biggest difference, the single thing that will make the biggest difference between now and November of 2008 is whether or not there is another very large national security incident. Because then I think it will be very hard for people to look at Hillary Clinton, no matter what they thought up 'til now, and say, "Umm, you know, can she sit in that chair? Victoria Clarke
During the last "very large national security incident" the person who sat in the "chair" read my pet goat while the nation was attacked. People can say many things about Hillary but dumb is not one of them.
These guys have no shame. Right before elections they start their drumbeat of "fear another attack, fear another attack". This nation survived 9/11 with the village idiot as president, Hillary should do fine cause one thing she's not is stupid.
Here's the record: FAILURE to make a case for war with actual FACTS, FAILURE to listen to Military experts (firing those who disagree with the already-formulated course of action), FAILURE to implement Gore's airline anti-terrorism safety meansures, FAILURE to read or even meet once on the Hart-Rudman anti-terrorism homeland security plan prior to 9/11, FAILURE TO THIS DAY to implement the measures called for in this report, FAILURE to defend our own borders, FAILURE to note ANY warnings that Al Queda had an imminent attack coming, FAILURE to form a coalition, FAILURE to work with the UN, FAILURE in Afghanistan, FAILURE to capture or kill Bin Laden, FAILURE in Iraq, FAILURE to have a coherent plan, FAILURE to provide enough troops to get the job done, FAILURE to provide proper armor and equipment for our troops, FAILURE to honor the Geneva Conventions, FAILURE to protect America's image as fair and humane (instead, we are now a TORTURE nation), FAILURE to provide proper health care to those who return injured, FAILURE to honor those returning home, FAILURE to account for progress in the endeavor, FAILURE to protect covert intelligence assets.
Complete FAILURE in responding to Katrina.
This record of FAILURE is ALL on the GOP and Bush. Any hint that the GOP can even rudimentarily handle a national security crisis is LUDICROUS, since their glaring record is one of FAILURE after FAILURE. The GOP is rotten, terrible, awful at national security. 9/11 happened on THEIR watch. They cannot be trusted to defend this nation, in any manner.
So, with this record, someone might question if Hillary is "up to it" if there is a national security crisis? The only REASONABLE answer is: She could not POSSIBLY do a WORSE or more INCOMPETENT job than Bush and the GOP have proven.
Even stricken with, God forbid, paralysis and coma, Hillary could not do a worse job with a national security issue. So, what was that question again?
Why do you love women & hate America, Tex?
Do you not understand the definition of the word "failure?"
Better question: Why are you as dumb as a box of rocks, mescal? Too much of the "ine"?
For the humor impaired around here, my reply to Tex was clearly intended as a JOKE... a wink... a wry nudge.
If you doubt that... well, I've been posting around here for some time, & you are more than welcome to read some of my other comments.
Sheesh!
This is clearly another example of cognitive dissonance. Republicans are consistently allowed, without fear of contradiction, to make absurd declarations based on nothing other than their desire to smear a particular democrat. ABC News has no credibility. This is more than simply poor journalism. This borders on being actively involved on the side of the republicans.
"is whether or not there is another very large national security incident."
Two things:
1. The attack on 9/11 WOULD NOT HAPPENED if George W Bush had paid attention to the intelligence and other information provided to him.
2. There won't be another terrorists attact unless George Bush and Dick Cheney create one.
I don't agree with either of those two statements. But as for the first, I sure would like to know how things would have turned out had Bush and his administration actually done their jobs.
You don't have to waste your time watching liars and fools on teevee.
You can kick this habit.
Just turn it off and leave it off.
Corporate teevee is toxic to the brain.
Media Matters folks risk their health on your behalf.
Read Media Matters on a regular basis.
It 'll change your life for the better.
So who cares what this Bush appointed hack thinks? What did everyone expect her to say? Oh sure, I see now. It's easier to have a woman jump on Hills femininity and point out that she's a chick who might be weak on national security?
Right, as if Hillary were faced if faced with a threat to the nation would sit like a bump on a log for seven minutes like the boy blunder Bush. Hillary is twice the man George W. Bush ever dreamt about being.
Unless little George S. likes the skinny, blonde, back biting, women that Bush tends to appoint I really see no need for this flavor of the day.
3. If there is another terrorist attack on our homeland, then the primary excuse used by this Adminstration for continuing the war in Iraq ... "We're fighting them THERE so we won't have to fight them HERE" ... is null and void. It will show that the terrorists are NOT following the Administration's restriction on their motions, and can indeed keep up fighting THERE, and HERE too.
So, for a miscalculation that would have the President not worrying about a terrorist attack HERE, because, after all, we're fighting them OVER THERE to prevent them being able to fight us HERE ... for such a wrong-headed and negligent notion, the president should be immediately impeached.
Un Tex,
If little Bush gets dethroned…
Wouldn’t that mark Darth Cheney, the lord high executioner?
Right and with Cheney's brain being eaten by allen mind bugs he's a little unstable. Same as Bush, no difference.
Bob Teeter isn't exactly the ultimate expert on election of the president. He made his reputation by helping to elect Poppa Bush. That was a campaign against a candidate who should never have been nominated. When he came up against a real politician, Bill Clinton, he did not do so well.
I am not sure I agree with his theory that people vote not just for a president but also for a commander-in-chief. According to that idea Daddy Bush should have easily defeated Clinton. Would the county have really reelected FDR at the peak of World War II if they expected him to plan strategy and tactics. Would Truman have won under this crazy idea.
This is typical right-wing Republican wishful thinking. Or is King George negotiating with Bin Laden to attack just before the 2008 election? After all, Reagan screamed with Iran to make sure the hostages would not be released in time to help Jimmy Carter.
yessiree bob, we gotta fight 'em over there so they won't come here, and if they come here, it's not our fault, it's Clinton's fault, and it's al-quaida/Iran that's causing all the trouble, we'll know by September, except we won't and gotta surge some more, and find some soldiers that don't have brain injuries to go back another time, could Hillary manage that?...Junior Bush is a commander guy, yessir....and we're heroic, wheee!..... we support our troops we got all the magnetic ribbons on our gas guzzlin SUV's that drink oil, oil, oil,.....gaaack....fizzle....pop.....snort....whirrrr.....
wish they'd make up their minds ... one day, Hillary's not feminine enough ... the next day, she's not masculine enough
so, quick, someone name the last male president who responded successfully to a national security crisis ... ummm ... Franklin Roosevelt?
JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush ... just drew us deeper and deeper into one crisis after another with nothing to show for it
at least Hillary has a brain. That's more than can be said for anyone who calls himself or herself a Republican
jfk handled the cuban missile crisis well, and probably avoided a nuclear war.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I expect the Troglodytes to use this strategy ad nauseum. They'll try to scare their knuckledragging base into thinking that the Turrists, who don't respect women anyway, will think Hillary is too weak to oppose them, and they'll attack us in droves. The sad thing is that we know at least 28% of America will swallow this absurdity.
Does any rational person actually think that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be twice as good as our current President Numbnuts at EVERYTHING, including national security?
Clarke is absolutely right.Hillary Clinton's integrity was hurt enough by allowing the biggest military,security and intelligence failure in the nation's history to occur on Bush's watch.
If she were to allow another national security disaster to happen while Bush is in charge, I don't know how anybody could trust her.
Can I register as a Republican now?
HBL, don't you know that if we are attacked under Juniors watch it will be the Dems fault. They control congress and since they didn't provide Iraq funding quick enough they followed us home.
You're going to have to run that by RINO Hunter.
The Republicans have closed the big tent and they now require that new members feast on the warm blood of a liberal.
Funny...
.... but I thought courage and leadership and intelligence and so on came from some place other than the reproductive organs.
My mother's did. My Grandmothers' did. My wife's does. All three of our daughters' does.
Maybe Clarke's doesn't?
The sad thing is she is right. If there is another attack with Republicans in office the fact that they failed again will be largely ignored. Why? to a large extent because the media is already primed with the conventional wisdom that no matter how often it is the Republicans who error it is the Democrats who are defined as weak. My real worry is that this drumbeat might make a President Hillary more trigger happy should a situation arise. She might well error to the side of being overly aggressive.
Although I don't agree with that panelist personally about likeability, she does bring up a good point about national security. But I actually do believe that HRC is capable of "sitting in that chair" and calling the shots on what to do next. I'm a C-SPAN watcher and I've seen her in action. She asks the tough questions and she gets things done. I'm pretty certain that among all of the candidates both Republican and Democratic, she's the one to depend on for swift, fair policy decisions.
I think I have to agree with Clarke. With the safety of the nation in mind, who would want a woman in control? Does that sound sexist? Sure, it does, but I don't think people are going to vote for a woman just becaue it is "politically correct" thing to do. There might be a lot of people out there that DO vote that way, but in reality you can't win a presidential election counting on the "political correct" vote.
Besides, you have to take into account she has done nothing to show she even qualifies to be president....other than being old enough and born in the USA. Right now she is just a figure-head to get the left motivated to vote against the right. Her radically liberal viewpoints will only get her a couple thousand votes and her attempt to gather more centerist votes only make her look stupid.