In his November 2 National Review Online column, NRO editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg offered “questions” for the media to ask Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Referring to comments Clinton made at an August 23 house party in New Hampshire, Goldberg wrote: “You've claimed that you are the Democrat best able to 'deal' with the Republicans' natural advantage if there is another terrorist attack. Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but O.K. for you to say so?” Clinton, however, did not say Republicans are “tougher on terrorism than Democrats.” As Media Matters for America has noted, in her August 23 remarks, Clinton criticized Republicans for their handling of terrorism. Clinton said: “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.”

Goldberg wrote in his November 2 column:

When promoting your autobiography, you gave interviews expanding on your personal feelings while insisting you'd rather talk about substance. And yet, you told the Washington Post that you wouldn't discuss the political substance in your book. Why? Because playing the victim helps?

You've claimed that you are the Democrat best able to “deal” with the Republicans' natural advantage if there is another terrorist attack. Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but O.K. for you to say so?

Your husband granted clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists linked to more than 100 bombings and several murders on the eve of your run for the Senate. You supported the decision. How does that square with your claim to be tough on terror? What did you think of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the 1970s? Why did the New World Foundation approve a grant that ultimately went to PLO-affiliated groups when you chaired its board in the 1980s? Does your infamous decision as first lady to sit silently next to Suha Arafat as she viciously and deceitfully propagandized against Israel weigh against your tough-on-terror credentials? How about the $50,000 you took in 2000 from the anti-Semitic and pro-terror American Muslim Alliance, which you returned only after being criticized for it?

Do you think Republicans won't ask these questions? Why? Because you're a woman?

The Associated Press reported on August 23:

Clinton said she also would be better at handling the unexpected, including a terrorist attack.

“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,” she said. “So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well.”

Media Matters has noted that while discussing Clinton's comments on the August 24 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto similarly cropped Clinton's comments and asked radio host Ben Ferguson, “So, Ben, your take on this is that she knows in her heart of hearts Republicans are tougher on terror?” Ferguson replied, “Sure she does.”