Senator Clinton's special effects from the 9/11 attacks than other candidates

[zulchzulu]

It was when Senator Clinton first came to Iowa that she made sure to imply that other candidates campaigning there did not have the same "aftereffects" that she had from 9/11:

"As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and I am still dealing with the aftereffects. I may have a slightly different take on this from some of the other people who will be coming through here."

Carville Le Turncoat added more to the pile when he snickered:

"But they weren't from New York. Their state wasn't hit. They didn't have to deal with the grief of these 3,000 people."

Add the recent statement that Senator Clinton said where she views terrorism "more" than the other candidates and you begin to see a pattern:

“To underscore a point, some people may be running who tell you we don’t face a real threat from terrorism. I’m not one of them. We have serious enemies who want to do us serious harm.”

Note: for those that think that Senator Clinton is getting picked on too much, I ask that they measure their judgement if these statements and their implied messages had come from other candidates...or perhaps from people like Al Gore, Wesley Clark or John Kerry... let alone candidates running for the GOP.

If Senator Obama had dared say such statements, I would immediately jettison my support for his candidacy.

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/topstories_story_027181418.html

[papau]

1. nothing untrue about what she said - the media is in tear down Clinton mode -& praise Obama

It will be interesting to see if the media controls who the Democratic Party nominates.

If Obama gets even one editorial or op-ed that says using the GOP Lincoln bedroom line by his staff spokesperson was sliming in contradiction of the Obama line about running a clean campaign, I will be surprised. The Obama is into sliming was the initial reaction of the 11 pm news folks - but over night it is Obama strong and Clinton lost it.

Sure would like to know who writes those guidance for the next day staff memos for the media.

[rodeodance]

2. I have said this before ------She is from NY--a Senator who is involved

with the issues of 9/11 on a deep level. I take her at her word.

[GeorgeGist]

3. One small question Jimbo...

just how does one deal with the grief of 3000 dead people?

[Skidmore]

4. What a crock...

The nation and the world experienced 9/11. The vote was for use of force with IRAQ, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Let's play a *-Cheney shellgame, Hillary, if nothing else works.

[MaineDem]

5. NY is her state

She is correct in what she says.

I really don't like the slime being thrown around here already. This is a LONG campaign season. Let's see how things play out.

MaineDem (uncommitted to any candidate yet)

[Arkansas Granny]

6. She probably did feel the loss on 9/11 more keenly than the rest

of the nation, just as the residents of the states affected by Katrina felt it more deeply than those of us who don't live on the gulf coast. That doesn't lessen the feelings of anyone else, but if you have direct ties to an area your feelings are quite likely to be more intense.

[zulchzulu]

7. I had a friend die in NYC while I lived in SF at the time

I guess my suffering at her loss was a little less than, say, someone who lived in Syracuse who knew someone who died.

:sarcasm:

[ljm2002]

8. She's playing up...

...her New York residence. As the junior Senator from New York, she gets to (even though the Clintons hadn't lived there that long at the time, they did live in NY State when 9/11 happened and IIRC Chelsea was in Manhattan when the attacks occurred).

She is also playing up her security bona fides, saying: "...some people may be running who tell you we don't face a real threat from terrorism. I'm not one of them." No opponent holding that view is named; the image, not the thing itself, is strung up as a straw man so that she can shine in comparison -- a rhetorical trick with no substance except to slime her opponents, equating being against the Iraq occupation with saying we face no real threat from terrorists -- a position that none of the real candidates is known to espouse.

She needs to recognize that the tough talk may not be her ticket to the White House. Maybe she could start by listening to the broader Democratic constituency. If 60% or so of the country overall opposes this continuing occupation, what do you think the percentage is among Democrats?

Let's lay it on the table. This is a major issue with voters. I can forgive the IWR vote IF I see signs of thoughtfulness and maturation. That would include Hillary asking questions of herself, like: "What was I thinking??!!??" ("D'oh" optional) -- and having good convincing answers that make us, the voters, trust her general good judgment. If a politician of Hillary's experience and stature could not decipher the truth, certainly many of us could. We knew it was a foregone conclusion that Bush would invade. Those who voted for the IWR were endorsing this ill-considered and ill-fated endeavor; their names are on it, including Hillary Clinton. Justify it or tell me how your thinking has changed. And convince me you won't get the *next* life-or-death decision so terribly, tragically wrong.