Shadowbox

Clinton and Trump shadowbox over terror attacks

From the language they used to the measures they called for after the Brussels attacks, the two front-runners provided a potential November preview.

By Annie Karni

Hillary Clinton’s message after the Brussels terror attacks was about strategic resolve in the face of radical jihadism. Donald Trump went into strongman mode, preaching toughness and even torture against Islamic terrorism.

From the language they used to the measures they called for, the reactions of the two presidential front-runners were 180 degrees apart and right in line with their campaign messages: Clinton called for cooperation and coalitions, while Trump promised violence to combat violence.

But it was Clinton, perhaps uncharacteristically, who sought to take the fight to Trump on Tuesday — and the Republican front-runner who did little to engage. In a series of television interviews and campaign appearances after attacks in Brussels on Tuesday killed at least 30, Clinton took thinly veiled shots at the real estate mogul. And the typically combative Trump — who is still focused on a potential battle with his own party to secure the nomination — appeared less eager to engage in a war of words with Clinton.

"You can put walls around your country, but you don't keep out the Internet, and that has been a major tool for radicalizing, recruiting, propagandizing that ISIS is quite sophisticated at using," Clinton told CNN on Tuesday afternoon, a reference to Trump's main campaign pledge to build a wall along the Mexican border. Campaigning in Everett, Washington, she again mocked Trump’s solution: “How high does the wall have to be to keep the Internet out?” Clinton said.

As the two campaigns begin to look forward to a possible November showdown, Clinton’s aides and allies said they believe any comparison with Trump on foreign policy shines a positive light on the former secretary of state. On Wednesday, Clinton is scheduled to deliver a counterterrorism address at Stanford University, marking her third straight day of sober focus on foreign affairs.

Trump is taking a different route. On Twitter and in a series of television interviews, the billionaire blasted President Barack Obama; called for more torture; renewed his pledge to close America’s borders; and trashed Europe by calling Brussels a once beautiful city that has deteriorated into a "hellhole.”

“There’s something going on,” he told Fox Business Network, “and we have a president that doesn’t even want to talk about radical Islamic terrorism. … Obama has been the great divider.”

It was the second day in a row that Clinton played offense against the biggest bully in the race — and received very little blowback in return. During her speech Monday in front of the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC in Washington, D.C., Clinton excoriated Trump for encouraging violence and said the world needs “steady hands” at the helm, as opposed to an erratic leader.

In his own remarks before the same group Monday, Trump did not bother to respond; he stuck to prepared remarks that he, uncharacteristically, read off a teleprompter, and made no mention of Clinton.

In fact, Trump’s sharpest mention of the Democratic front-runner over the past two days was during an interview with Breitbart News in which he said that “the terrorists will cause Hillary Clinton to lose the election.”

“[She’s] weak on borders. She’s weak on crime. She’s weak on anything having to do with controversy other than controversy with herself. She’s weak on the police. She’s weak on anything having to do with strength,” he said. But his bigger target throughout the day was Obama.

When asked about Trump’s reluctance to fully engage with Clinton on foreign policy, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told POLITICO: “Everything that Mr. Trump does is strategic. So take that into consideration.”

On Tuesday, Clinton allies were quick to dismiss Trump’s reaction to the attacks in Brussels — for which ISIS claimed responsibility — as more of his usual bombast: stoking fear and paranoia about terrorism abroad in the same way he creates anxiety about the economy and immigration at home. Democrats supporting Clinton said they expect his comments to hurt him as the race turns toward a general election battle in which he will have to expand his base beyond the angry, white male voters already on board, who make up less than half of the Republican electorate.

"One is a serious person who has spent her career on these issues, and the other is half entertainment,” said Tom Nides, a former deputy secretary of state under Clinton who remains close to the campaign. Nides said he was not worried about underestimating the appeal of Trump’s strongman language.

"The election won't be determined by sound bites,” he said. “It's not going to be a quip at a press conference. It's about a thoughtful approach, bringing allies together. You can't talk about wanting to dismantle NATO and how we'd be stronger abroad — it doesn't make sense."

But Republican strategists said it was naive to dismiss Trump’s reaction to the latest round of European terrorist attacks, which targeted a central subway station and Brussels’ main international airport.

“The terror attacks in Paris and weak response from the administration benefited Trump earlier in the campaign,” said Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, who served as a top strategic adviser to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 campaign. “When he talks about more waterboarding meaning fewer attacks, what voters are hearing is that you have somebody who will bring maximum toughness to the task. This is an election that has every potential to turn on who is perceived as the strongest leader. The strongest leader so far, as it's played out in the Republican Party and independents, strong leader has not meant the most diplomatic leader.”

While Democrats assume Trump’s views on foreign policy will only alienate all but his core base, some of the substance of Trump’s response to the Brussels attacks was not so far out of the mainstream of his own party — a sign that his biggest fight right now is with the Republican Party’s establishment, not necessarily the GOP rank and file.

“The authorities in Belgium cannot find, cannot track and don’t understand the depth and breadth of the conspiracy,” said Schmidt, who is not involved with any presidential campaign this cycle. “The notion that this can’t happen here is wrong. So the notion that there is not legitimacy to Trump’s point — however inarticulately expressed — is wrong. The easy dismissals of it by the Acela Corridor is profoundly naive.”

The differences between Clinton's and Trump’s reactions to the attack were beyond stark. Clinton said in a statement that America needs to stand with Belgium and the country’s European allies. “These terrorists seek to undermine the Democratic values that are the foundation of our alliance and our way of life, but they will never succeed,” Clinton said.

Trump said in an interview with Breitbart that “the terrorists are totally winning. The terrorists are making us look like fools.”

Leaning on her State Department pedigree, Clinton stressed the importance of a coalition of Muslim nations to defeat ISIS. Trump was more direct and to the point, asserting that the dangers posed by terrorists call for torture, rather than international collaboration.

“If they could expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding. You have to get the information from these people. And we have to be smart. And we have to be tough. We can’t be soft and weak,” he said.

Rather than emphasizing the need to stand with Europe, Trump described Brussels as “like living in a hellhole right now.” Where Trump reiterated his call to close the borders, Clinton told MSNBC that while the government needs to intensify its efforts to fight terrorism, “I think closing our borders is not one of them.”

Even the politicization of the attacks was a point of difference between the two leading candidates.

On a tragic day of bloodshed, Clinton’s campaign declined to comment on the politics at all. Trump, meanwhile, was happy to do so himself. “I have proven to be far more correct about terrorism than anybody — and it’s not even close,” he tweeted Monday ahead of Republican primaries in Arizona and Utah. “Hopefully AZ and UT will be voting for me today!”