Hillary now using Bush talking points, says fellow Dems don't care about the war on terror

Who is this woman? Because she sure as hell isn't the same Senator from New York who I was willing to give a fair shake to just one month ago. Now she's doing her best Dick Cheney/Ken Mehlman impression about how leading Democratic candidates for the presidency don't care about the war on terror. What?

Here's what Mrs. Clinton just said in South Carolina:

In response to an audience member’s question about the war — one of eight she fielded — Clinton said America faces a dire threat from terrorism.

“To underscore a point, some people may be running who tell you we don’t face a real threat from terrorism,” she said. “I’m not one of them. We have serious enemies who want to do us serious harm.”

Some people? Would those be the same mythical "some people" who George Bush and the Republicans always cite when they want to claim that Democrats don't care about fighting the war on terror, that we don't care about America? What are we going to hear next from Senator Clinton, that her Democratic opponents hate the troops?

But let's give Hillary a fair shake. Tell us, Mrs. Clinton, who are the Democratic presidential candidates who apparently are traitors and don't care about defending our country against the terrorists? I want names, now. Because either you're a liar, or we have traitors running for president and you know who they are but won't tell us.

This is beyond belief.

It started two weeks ago when Hillary claimed that her special experience as the Senator from New York during September 11 (even though she was in DC that day) somehow gave her special insight in to the Iraq war vote.

"As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and I am still dealing with the aftereffects," Clinton said. "I may have a slightly different take on this from some of the other people who will be coming through here.... I do think we are engaged in a war against heartless, ruthless enemies," she said. "If they could come after us again tomorrow they would do so."

She implied that day that she might have a different take on the war on terror from her other Democratic opponents because she lived through September 11, and apparently they didn't.

It continued with James Carville making the same allegation a few days later:

Clinton voted for the war, even though other senators who had been given the same faulty intel she had, voted against it: "But they weren't from New York," [Carville] said. "Their state wasn't hit. They didn't have to deal with the grief of these 3,000 people."

This fed speculation that linking September 11 to Iraq, and suggesting that Hillary had some kind of unique experience that day that other Democrats didn't have, was a carefully crafted talking point the Clinton camp was now using.

Today, we know for a fact that this IS a new talking point of the campaign.

I don't care how Hillary voted in 2002. I don't care if she apologizes or says she made a mistake. What I do care about is the political Advent calendar that is Hillary's ever-changing position on the war. Pick a day, pop a chocolate, and get a new and ever-more exciting soundbite from Hillary. If it's Tuesday, it must be Al Qaeda (or should I say "Madrassah"?)

You see, Hillary is the only one who thinks America faces a threat from terrorism, when in fact, it's the Democratic party that faces an ever-growing threat from Hillary Clinton.