In a new low of political promoting, Senator Hillary Clinton says that a new terror attack would help Republicans. The New York senator is reported by the New York Post online edition as saying,
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' 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,"
This brings up two points. Firstly, how low has political campaigning sunk that any candidate for the Presidency would even consider saying something like this as part of a campaign? Whether a terror attack would or would not help a single political party should be irrelevant- all Americans should be working together to prevent a terror attack and to defeat our enemies. We should be working together regardless of who occupies the White House. Unfortunately, that message apparently hasn't reached most of the Democratic Party. Secondly, how can any media outlet, especially one from a city that has first-hand experience of being attacked by Islamic terror, treat this statement as being a normal, straightforward campaign sound bite? The Post should be ashamed of itself for not highlighting this statement as the outrageously partisan and (in my opinion) unpatriotic statement that it is. But the Post can only bring itself to call the statement 'surprising'.
The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP's negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again.
This is yet another indication that where Democrats and especially Hillary are concerned, the national media has only one standard for their comments- help them win at any cost. How else can one explain the lack of critical analysis that accompanies the Post's reporting of this over-the-top accusation from Senator Clinton?