Supporting Failure
I just finished reading Frank Rich’s column about how Hillary Clinton is starting to look a lot like Al Gore. Not the new Al Gore that is confident in his views and public image – The old Al Gore. The guy that was so careful about what he said during the 2000 campaign that his answers to questions were often very long and indirect. I’ve noticed that about Hillary Clinton too, and I agree that if she continues to be evasive when she could answer a question with a short, direct statement, she could end up coming across as insincere and robotic like the old Al. Well except for the new giggle.
But here’s is a part of Rich’s column that really got my attention:
We are repeatedly told that with Barack Obama still trailing by double digits in most polls, the only way Mrs. Clinton could lose her tight hold on the nomination and, presumably, the White House would be if she were bruised in Iowa (where both John Edwards and Senator Obama remain competitive) or derailed by unforeseeable events like a scandal or a domestic terror attack.
I’ve seen this before in other columns by presumably intelligent pundits and I just don’t get it.
Why will another terrorist attack in America hurt Democratic candidates and help Republican candidates?
Who was our president on September 11, 2001? You’d think it was Bill Clinton based on the crap you read in the papers, but it was George W. Bush.
Who was handed a memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US?” You’d think it was a Democratic president, but it was George W. Bush, a Republican.
And if we are attacked again while he is still president are we to believe that the public would rally around the Republican candidates?
Is Rich right? Are there millions of dumbasses out there who would support the man who would have twice failed to prevent a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Would they then support another Republican candidate for president?
Why?
