Bloodless Coup

I won't disagree that it comes out clunky, but if there's peril here, it's not the statement itself, or rather not that the statement itself read fairly suggests that people should choose a republican in the event of a future attack, but rather that it's a slap in the face (albeit deserved) to the electorate: you f*&king morons keep thinking incompetent republicans with shady agendas are the solution to national security crises, so, as a matter of empirically supported supposition, you'll probably go running back to the republican fold at the first sign of conflict like you did in 2004, sheep.

that said, he final line, about how she's the best of the democrats to deal with "this", does support yglesias's and your reading of the statement, but it's just sloppy: is "this" the voting phenomenon in question (hence implicating electability more than anything) or is "this" terrorism (hence actually implying, if only as a matter of poor syntax, that democrats play second fiddle on national defense to the GOP.

anyway, i agree that it's a rare moment of undisciplined and sloppy, off-message speech by clinton. and it's disturbing as such insofar as it occurs in a tremendously important area to the voters. of all places to slip up. . .

If we have another terrorist attack every democrat must simply say

"Oops, I guess Bush and his cronies did not make us safer." over and over again.

H. Clinton is an idiot.

"H. Clinton is an idiot."

Really? At least she earned her way into Yale.