Hillary Clinton has ignited a heavy round of criticism for comments indicating that another terrorist attack would give Republican’s a political advantage, and that she was the Democratic candidate best suited to blunt that advantage. The Washington Post reports that speaking in New Hampshire Clinton said:

Speaking at a house party the night before, Clinton said, “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,” she said. “So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that, as well.”

The political response was immediate and harsh, with her rivals attacking and the online community being critical as well. From the Washington Post:

Clinton took an immediate hit online. Left-leaning bloggers accused her of conceding a key Republican talking point without a fight and blithely accepting a Karl Rove-like framing of the terrorism debate. A Democratic candidate, bloggers argued, should be able to confidently make the case that another terrorist attack might suggest mistakes in the approach to fighting terrorism embraced by President Bush and the GOP, instead of accepting the assumption that any threat to national security causes voters to flock to Republicans. Since Republicans are claiming an edge because there have not been attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, it seems illogical, bloggers argued, to say that the GOP would gain if there were another attack.

And what of Hillary’s past criticism of Republican’s for using “fear” as a political weapon. Well she takes a pretty good hit on the consistency issue as well.

Yet Clinton appeared to open herself to charges of hypocrisy over how to talk about terrorism in political campaigns. She herself had warned in the past about Republican attempts to use the threat of terrorism as a cudgel against Democrats. At a labor convention in February 2006, she said that the strategy of Rove, White House political adviser, boiled down to this: ” ‘Here’s your game plan, folks. Here’s how we’re going to win. We’re going to win by getting everybody scared again.’ Contrary to Franklin Roosevelt, ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself,’ this crowd is, ‘All we’ve got is fear, and we’re going to keep playing the fear card.’ ” Several Democratic contenders — ever-vigilant in responding to Clinton — leveled the same charge at her Friday after hearing her comments.

John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson all joined in the criticism. As Hillary positions herself for the general election has she ceded ground to Republican’s that plays into the politically old saw that Republicans are “tougher” on terror and national security than Democrats? I think she has. For Democrats burying that traditional political vulnerability is critical, but I think Hillary has missed the boat and somewhat re-inforced the Rove view in trying to do that. Read the Washington Post story here.