Say what you want about Hillary, she certainly knows how to keep her name in the papers. This time, it's not making a fuss about a fashion article in the Washington Post, though. No, this time it's making a calculated statement to ensure that several people make comments and point fingers. The comment? That a terrorist attack will help a republican candidate more than a Democrat.
This is a very smart move on her part, because it puts her position out there, gets her name back on the headline, and lends itself to other discussions. There will be those who will criticize what she said, assailing her for using the threat of terror to score political points. There will be the "but the Republicans have said that, too" crowd, and then there will be those who will debate the veracity of her assertion.
My hunch, though, is that she was not attempting to point out she is the best candidate to deal with an unexpected terrorist attack (which is basically what she said), but rather she was trying to make sure that people kept talking about her. This is the stuff that keeps her in the lead for the Democratic nod for President, and she seems to have a good shot at getting that nomination.
She is a polarizing figure, perhaps more polarizing than President Bush. She plays at being a moderate, when she's actually closer to the fringe, and I sort of think she's the candidate the Republicans want to face next November, because they think she will be the easiest to play "better us than her" with. Should that come to pass, then we'll see another election like 2004, where we had bad and worse to choose from.
This century has proven to be the strongest argument in favor of a viable third party in our country's history. Now if only all the real moderates and independents in this country could just find a way to work together...