What should Hillary do about the hostage situation?

If you haven’t heard yet, there’s a hostage situation at a NH Clinton campaign office.

Early reports are saying that the hostage taker is holding out for a conversation with Hillary.

What should she do?

If there is any hope, keep the partisanship to a minimum, keep the snarky comments (e.g., oral sex) to the pit, ignore the type of lunatic he is (righ/left/whatever), and assume that no political operatives (inside or otherwise) have anything to do with this.

Imagine she calls a special meeting, turns to you and asks how you think she should best handle it.

Does she talk to the man?

Does she thump her chest and go for political points?

Does she have any interaction with the security/SWAT/rescue/negotiator?

Given that any action she takes will have political consequences, how much should they weigh in your advice?

If this becomes protracted to any degree, what happens to her candidacy? To elections in general?

Cross her fingers and hope no-one gets hurt?

Or maybe just follow the advice of experienced successful negotiators?

Perhaps waiting until its over would be a good idea as well?


You’re right, she’s clearly she’s not going in guns a-blazing.

Aside from various Hollywood writers and actors, what negotiators really have experience in this realm? Aren’t most (egad, that’s a bad word to use without a cite. Sorry.) hostage situations domestic in nature? The number of Evil Overlords out there is vanishingly small.

The circumstances are quite rarefied. As in, she wants to hold an office where she really will be staring down Evil Overlords. Say Madman X in Country Y takes a group of Americans hostage. Isn’t it natural to ask how will she react? How is this all that different? Granted, she doesn’t have the same authority, but that’s an awfully fine line (yet line it is). Won’t all of her opponents make hay out of whatever she does — especially if things don’t turn out well? (I’m assuming the hay-making won’t start until after the crisis is resolved.)

I’m not saying I disagree with you, but this is not just a case of a ‘regular’ civilian’s or even a high profile person’s involvement.

This is a horrible situation.

I think that if she has any intention at all of talking with the captor, she should definitely do so through the SWAT/rescue/negotiating team. They’re much more experienced than her with this sort of thing, and would have a better idea of how things would need to be handled.

I don’t think there’s anything to gain, and potentially a lot to lose, from doing that. In fact, I don’t think chest thumping works very well unless you have some sort of upper hand/advantage.

I think that politics need to jump into the back seat, for the duration of this situation. The only things that Clinton, and anyone else, should be worried about is getting the hostages out unharmed, and apprehending the captor. If she follows that mindset, and receives some kind of political fallout, then that’s just how it’s got to be.


This is obviously bad news for the Democrat Party

If she has a lick of good sense (and I believe she does) she goes to the hostage negotiater experts and asks them what to do. I doubt Secret Service is going to let her go into the situation. It’s too dangerous.

She should do whatever she’s advised to do by negotiators and people who, you know, actually have some clue how to deal with these situations. If she does anything that could inflame the situation or make political advantage from it, she’s a reprehensible asshole. I don’t think she’d do that, though. I’m not a fan, but she’s smarter and hopefully more decent than that.

She has cancelled the speech she was giving to the DNC tonight. Cite

She needs to stay out of it, off the air, away from the press, and let the police deal with it.

Another vote for doing whatever the police handling the situation say. If they think her presence can help, she should go straight to the scene; if they say it would hurt, she should stay away.

RE: Thumping
I am assuming that the negotiator is going to tell her to stay away from the situation. She does. Does she go on camera and take a bold stance? That is, posture to counter Rudy’s ostensibly greatest strength?
I’d love it if this had no affect on the overall campaign, especially if there’s a nice, quick, painless ending. But I have to imagine that her inner circle is scrambling at the moment, and choices aren’t as linear as merely listening to the negotiators. Heck, I daresay someone’s putting together as complete a dossier as possible on all those involved on both sides.

Huh? There’s one guy, on no side, involved.

I don’t see anything to be gained from doing that, politically or otherwise.



Two hostages have been released according to CNN.

Of course, if she doesn’t like what they tell her, she should set up a different group of experts, say, an Office of Special Negotiation, and ask them to come up with a different set of recommendations.

Oops… by “both sides” I meant both sides of the good guy/sanity line. I don’t think it’s nefarious or anything, but I’d say that it’s understandable for anyone in her position (i.e., ostensible front runner in a primary) would want to know that the head negotiator in the area is a huuuugggeee Rush fan, or Thomson-head, or whatever.

I hardly ever venture into GD (somewhat odd for a philosophy/econ/environmental science major with a law degree and a job that has him up to his elbows in climate issues), but I’m for some reason fascinated with the pragmatics of this. That is, given who she is, given who political candidates at that level are in general, I have a hard time seeing a completely passive approach flying unquestioned.

Meh. It’ll be the story of the day and forgotten in a week. With the writers strike, there aren’t even any late night shows to remind people of it during their stand up routines.

Well, there are people who try and call what breakfast cereal she eats into question. Unless Hillary does something really stupid (and she won’t) in response, I don’t think her usual critics will get much traction questioning her response.

Honestly this story has about as much to do with Hillary as the Reagan assassination attempt had to do with Jodi Foster. She’s just the celebrity some random nut has decided to focus his delusions on. There isn’t really anything for her to do except release the usual statement about how she’s praying for a peaceful resolution, etc. etc.

Say what you will about her, but she’s not a stupid woman. This isn’t Sept 11, this is one seriously deranged individual and a couple of hostages. She’s canceled her appearances for the time being, and I think laying low is her best option.

Afterward she can make some statement about the wonderful job the police did and get back on the campaign trail.

I went with a cop for ten years, and one thing I know is that one thing cops really hate is civilians getting into dangerous situations. They are the experts and want to do their job without worrying about other people getting into the situation.

She shouldn’t do anything. I mean, what possible good could she do?

Since she can do absolutely nothing to help, the only correct decision is to stay out of it. I mean, what should George Bush do about it? He’s the PRESIDENT, shouldn’t he do something? No, George Bush shouldn’t do anything about it, neither should Bill, Hillary, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Buzz Aldrin, or Jodi Foster.