Bill Clinton Sells Hillary's Experience

Washington Post: Former President Says Wife Will "Deal With The Unexpected" Better Than Her Rivals

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Anne E. Kornblut and Alec MacGillis.

---

Former president Bill Clinton yesterday delivered in stark terms a version of his wife's central campaign message: that her experience in Washington better prepares her to "deal with the unexpected."

Addressing more than 100 supporters at a VFW hall here Saturday, Clinton used the strongest language he has so far in the campaign to describe the threats facing the nation, making an oblique reference to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and saying that the "most important thing of all" in selecting a nominee is the question of who could best manage unforeseen catastrophes.

"You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough . . . to deal with the unexpected," he said. "There is a better than 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency, something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign. President Bush never talked about Osama bin Laden and didn't foresee Hurricane Katrina. And if you're not ready for that, then everything else you do can be undermined. You need a president that you trust to deal with something that we will not discuss in this campaign. . . . And I think, on this score, she's the best of all."

After trying out various themes and rationales for her campaign, Hillary Clinton has settled in the final week before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary on the experience plank, arguing that she is the only one of the front-running Democratic candidates prepared to lead from the first day in office, a claim her rivals have challenged by questioning the value of her tenure as first lady. Clinton advisers noted privately this week that the experience argument was bolstered by the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto and the threat of wider unrest in that country. Clinton pressed the point during a stop in Eldridge, Iowa, telling reporters: "I'm not asking you to take me on faith. I'm not asking you to take a leap of faith."
But the campaign has apparently decided that the person best able to make this case in the bluntest terms is the former president. "Who better to explain what it takes to be president than the last two-term president the Democrats have had since FDR?" said Mark Penn, chief strategist for the Clinton campaign.

Bill Clinton has been edging closer in recent weeks to arguing that the country would be taking a chance if voters nominated someone with less experience in Washington, a dig at her main rivals, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Speaking in Plymouth, N.H., last week, he said that his wife would be best suited to handle the challenges of terrorism, climate change and income inequality. He hinted that if these challenges were not met, the world, or at least American democracy, might be in peril in the coming decades.

"How we meet those challenges will determine whether our grandchildren will even be here 50 years from now at a meeting like this listening to the next generation's presidential candidates," Clinton said in Plymouth. He did not elaborate on what he meant by the prospect of the audience members' grandchildren not being there in 50 years.

His comments Saturday were incorporated directly into his standard stump speech and not ad-libbed. In past weeks, he has argued that there are three reasons to nominate his wife: her vision, her plans and her record. In Nashua, he said there was a fourth reason: her ability to deal with unseen threats.

It is a type of election argument most often adopted by incumbent candidates. In President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, Vice President Cheney invoked a particularly bold form of it, warning of the consequences of a John Kerry election for the nation's security against terrorism: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

The Edwards campaign warned recently that the Clinton campaign would try to play on voters' national security fears in the closing days before voting in Iowa and New Hampshire. "We know that Senator Clinton will spend the week touting her national security credentials in a move that echoes George Bush's 2004 campaign," said a memo written by Jonathan Prince, deputy campaign manager for Edwards. "We believe Democrats will not be fooled by efforts to play on their fears."

Hillary Clinton caused a slight stir on the trail several months ago when she argued at a house party in New Hampshire that she would be better prepared to respond to Republican tactics if there were a terrorist attack sometime during the general election campaign.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' "Clinton told voters in Concord. "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 added that she would be the best Democratic candidate "to deal with that."

[david1737]

tuckerndfw

Who blocked the Dems from withholding war funding?

Enough said!

[dinslc]

Hillary''s so called "experience" didn''t stop her from this gaffe regarding Pakistan.----
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_errs_on_Pakistan_.html

[sgtrds]

I give up. You''re lying and you know you are, so there''s no arguing the truth with you.

[sgtrds]

Take a look at any of many many items in the budget that the Democrats put increases in for social programs. Also SCHIP. They fought Bush on his vetoes until he had no choice but to at the very least sign an extension of the current program instead of the reduction that he originally wanted.

To call the Democrats rubber stamps means that you are either ignorant of the truth, too pigheaded to admit that you''re wrong or that you''ve just plain decided to tell a lie. Personally I think it''s the last one.

[sgtrds]

Democrats have rubber stamped everything Bush demanded, same as the GOP.

Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:43 AM : Jan 01, 2008

This is a complete and total lie and you constantly repeating it does not make it true. You are just plain lying.

[sgtrds]

Congress delayed the war funding bill (separate from all other legislation) for several weeks and the gov''''t did not come to a halt.

Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:24 AM : Jan 01, 2008

DELAYED!!!! Not cut off! Not stopped! DELAYED! If they cut the funding off the GOP will bring the government to a halt. You either know that and are in denial or you aren''t able to grasp that simple truth. The Democrats do NOT have the votes to stop the war. They simply do not. You can lie that they do all you want, but your lies won''t give them enough votes to do it. You just want an excuse to rant about them and you''ll do it even if you have to make up bullsh*it like this.

[sgtrds]

For Pete''s sake you can NOT be this stupid! Cutting off the war funding WOULD grind the government to a halt! Do you think Bush and the GOP would just sit on their hands and say "Oh gosh and golly, they sure stopped the war there. Guess we should just go along with it. Golly gee and *** it!" The Democrats CAN stop the war funding, but they do NOT have the votes to make it work! The GOP would filibuster everything that comes up for a vote and that as*shole Liberman would join them and the government would stop! The Democrats do NOT have enough control of Congress to stop the war! They do NOT!

[sgtrds]

tuckerndfw

Your entire post is a lie from top to bottom and you either know it or are pretending you don''t. I give up. You''ve got your head so far up your as*s on this issue that you can''t see the truth right in front of you. Either that or you just plain have no idea at all on how the American government functions. Any thinking person who has a basic grasp of civics (which you seem not to) knows that the Democrats do not have enough votes in the Congress to control it. I know it. Most people know it. You just can''t seem to grasp this most simple concept either because you''re ignorant or pretending to be. Either way you''re just flat out lying when you say they control Congress. You''re just flat out lying.

[sgtrds]

And BTW, there''s only one l in Randal.

[sgtrds]

tuckerndfw

You''re beginning to sound more like billysmith6 every day with the same old tired and false claims about the Democrats. The only way they could stop the GOP is to grind the government to a halt and cut off funding for everyone. Now why in the world would the fu*ck up every-one''s life just to try to prove a point against Bush? It not only would be political suicide (which is why I believe you''re pushing for it), but it would be shooting America in the foot just to spite Bush. It makes no sense. It''s not, as you falsely claim, lack of courage, it''s an abundance of intelligence. Grinding the government to a halt looks good on a bumper sticker, but everyone, Democrat and republican, would lose. Since you claim to be an intelligent person the only conclusion I can come to is that you want the Democrats to use the "nuclear option" just so you get to applaud their destruction and that you don''t actually give a da*mn about the consequences for America at all. Face it, you''re showing neocon colors.

[missingamerica]

Is it me, or do some comments remind you of your dog, when it pees on the carpet ''cuz somebody brought a strange dog in?

[sgtrds]

Tucker has admitted on the site today that he''''s spent the day drinking. Considering what illogical drivel he posts on a regular basis don''''t expect much elementary comprehension from him.

Posted by realpatriot1 at 07:18 PM : Dec 31, 2007

I''ll second that. It appears he chose option B, pretending to be fu*cking ignorant. People want to point the finger at the Democrats, but anyone with the most basic grasp of American civics knows that the Democrats are not in control of congress because they just don''t have enough votes. So Bush vetoes everything progressive they try to do and then cynically accuse them of doing nothing. He''s lying through his teeth an so is anyone else who tries to blame the Democrats for not being able to get around the obstructionist GOP. Either that or they choose option B too, just plain fu*cking stupid.

[likeitis5050]

I''m ready for change...I''m not ready for Hillary, or Edwards...or Rudy...or Thompson...or Huckabee...and he11 to the no on Paul...that leaves Obama and Romney. Not thrilled, but I could live with either one. Of all that could get in...Hillary is has the most damaging prospects. I''m sick of Clinton/Bush ticket running things...neither has any reason to crow. We''re in the mess we''re in now because everyone wanted to see ''integrity returned to the White House''...and now its running again for office!!!

[realpatriot1]

SgtRDS,

Tucker has admitted on the site today that he''s spent the day drinking. Considering what illogical drivel he posts on a regular basis don''t expect much elementary comprehension from him.

[alanrobisch]

Understand now? Or do you prefer to pretend to be so fu*cking ignorant that you don''''t understand? Your choice.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by SgtRDS at 07:02 PM : Dec 31, 2007
+ report abuse

Hey sarge I see you using your usual colorful language. I might remind you of the fact that the democrats with majorities in both houses of congress and control of the whitehouse in bill''s first two years did such an inept job that they lost 43 members in the house of representatives giving the republicans the majority in both houses.

[sgtrds]

Now that Dems are in control, they can''''t do anything because the GOP is in control.

Makes sense to me (NOT!!!!). . .

Posted by tuckerndfw at 06:06 PM : Dec 31, 2007

Let me explain this in very simple terms so that even a simpleton like you can understand it. The Democrats are NOT in control of the Congress, because in order for them to be in control when a person of the other party is president they have to have a 2/3 majority in order to override his veto. they do NOT have a 2/3 majority so they are NOT in control. they can (and have) try to make as many positive changes as they want to, but when the as*shole in the White House vetoes the changes they do NOT have enough votes to override the chimps'' veto. That''s know as the GOP being obstructionists so then they can lie their as*ses off by saying the Democrats aren''t doing anything when it''s they themselves who are blocking the necessary legislation.

Understand now? Or do you prefer to pretend to be so fu*cking ignorant that you don''t understand? Your choice.

[sgtrds]

And, your whiny excuses seem to ignore the fact Dems have likewise rubber stamped whatever Bush demanded since they came to power in January. . .

Posted by tuckerndfw at 05:26 PM : Dec 31, 2007

No they haven''t. It''s the obstructionist republicans who block them from making real changes because they don''t have a veto proof majority. It''s asinine to blame the Democrats by saying that they''re in charge when they are not. Without a veto proof majority it''s still the republican/Bush as*skissers fu*cking things up, as usual.

[thgdriver]

Some try to spread some of the blame to the Democrats, but that''''s ludicrous.

Posted by SgtRDS

Did not your Demonratically controlled congress just last week vote to support the war with more funds?? Billions!! LOL

[thgdriver]

SgtRDS

I hope you get her, but remember, a year after she is in office and every body is crying "well I did not vote for her" and I ask, well who did? I want to see your hand in the air! LOL

[sgtrds]

On the contrary - I think he played a very vital role in borrowing our country into debt for the next 5 generations.

Posted by hungry1968 at 09:37 AM : Dec 31, 2007

It was the GOP rubber-stamp Congress that gave him everything he asked for and tons of extras that they wanted. Between Bush and the GOP Congressmen they raped the treasury. Some try to spread some of the blame to the Democrats, but that''s ludicrous.