Trending Topics:

Hillary Clinton’s 11th-hour diplomacy

on 80 Comments
Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Imagine you are Benjamin Netanyahu and you have just really, really messed up.

You started a war with Hamas with a lie about the murder of three Israeli teenagers and got caught out; the real motive, an attempt to sabotage a Hamas-Fatah alliance,  soon became clear and it exposed you as someone more interested in keeping your opponents divided than seeking peace.

You fought the war with exceptional brutality, killing hundreds of children and civilians, leveling whole streets and bombarding hospitals and United Nations shelters with indiscriminate artillery fire. 

You misjudged the caliber and skill of your military opponents and lost over sixty young Israeli soldiers whose parents may not be so forgiving when they learn, as they eventually will, that their sons died in the cause of an untruth. 

And far from weakening Hamas to Fatah’s benefit, your war served only to strengthen it, not just in Gaza but on the West Bank where angry crowds protested not just the cruelty of your army but Fatah’s collaboration cum acquiescence in the violence against their fellow Palestinians.

Worst of all, not only did world opinion turn against you – nothing new there – but in the United States, normally an uncritical ally, your military tactics alienated many, especially young people, and even brought unprecedented if circumspect expressions of exasperation and censure from the White House, Foggy Bottom – and most strikingly – from some in the usually dependable American media.

And now you find yourself forced to take part in ceasefire talks with Hamas and on the agenda is the ending of the siege of Gaza, something that could only boost Hamas’ popularity both there and in the West Bank and bring a little closer that most dreaded of spectres, Palestinian statehood.

Imagine you are Benjamin Netanyahu and you would know you really, really messed up.

And then, all of a sudden, along comes Hillary Clinton, courtesy of a Jeffrey Goldberg interview in the Atlantic magazine, riding like the Fifth Cavalry to the rescue, signaling virtually uncritical support for Netanyahu’s war and the way he fought it – civilian deaths and all –  pouring blame on the heads of Hamas, Islamic terrorism and European anti-semitism and giving Netanyahu the green light, should she succeed Obama, to demand ongoing control of security in the West Bank.

Imagine you are Benjamin Netanyahu and suddenly the gloom begins to lift a little.

You can see a happier ending to the mess you created for yourself: drag out the ceasefire talks until the US mid-term election after which, if the polls are correct, Obama will be a much weaker and faint-hearted president and then hold on till 2016, channel lobby money to the Clinton campaign and hope she wins. And even if she doesn’t, her GOP opponent will likely be in the same camp.

Imagine you are Benjamin Netanyahu and suddenly you find yourself smiling again. 

Thanks Hillary.


Ed Moloney


Other posts by .

Posted In:

80 Responses

  1. Citizen on August 17, 2014, 4:25 pm

    I don’t personally know a single female of any age or political stripe who will not vote for Hillary. There’s a lot of females in my family and extended family–all will vote for Hillary, and have declared so.

    • mijj on August 17, 2014, 6:23 pm

      why would any woman vote for a psychopath in drag? What’s blinding them?

    • Abierno on August 17, 2014, 6:29 pm

      Unless of course Elizabeth Warren is the candidate. Also, given the pace of world events, 2016 is light years away and Netanyahu never misses a chance to spiral even the most minor crisis into incitement – Jerusalem and the West Bank are burning with Israeli violence to non Jews.

      • tree on August 17, 2014, 6:53 pm

        Elizabeth Warren will be the same, as will Biden or any other Democratic candidate. Clinton is no worse than Obama, who was no better than Bush on the subject. Welcome to the extreme lack of choice of candidates on this issue. There’s always the Green Party, which is the only party with a rational position on this, but they have zero chance of winning.

      • on August 17, 2014, 7:36 pm

        No. Both of the Clintons are worse than Obama.

        The Green Party has no chance of winning if you allow the mainstream media to make you believe this.

      • tree on August 18, 2014, 12:51 am

        I beg to differ. Obama has shown no inclination to criticize Israel on any of its violence and in fact has condoned it. He supports and condones targeted assassinations and drone warfare for both the US and Israel. He may hate Netanyahu (as do the Clintons) but he has done nothing about it.

        I’ve voted Green Party for President since 2008, have you? That doesn’t mean that they have a realistic chance of winning the Presidency, sad to say, but it won’t stop me from voting for them until and unless a decent candidate with a chance to win is nominated from one of the major parties.

      • radkelt on August 17, 2014, 10:40 pm

        I understand Senator Warren has already made the requisite trip
        to Israel. She has also previously publicly supported Israel. Not
        true of Dr. Jill Stein, the (former?) Green Party candidate, who made
        an impressive showing despite the difficulties the duopoly visits on
        anyone not ordained by abcnbcmsnbabcetc.

      • Kathleen on August 18, 2014, 11:03 am

        And Warren has repeated Israel and the I lobbies must repeats about Iran. Repeated unsubstantiated claims about Iran.

      • Kay24 on August 17, 2014, 10:54 pm

        Warren is also shows much devotion to Israel. If you read her website it is obvious. There is NO Presidential candidate in the US who will reject the evil influences of Israel. Without it, they cannot win.

      • just on August 17, 2014, 10:59 pm

        Exactly why we cannot WAIT until the POTUS election. We have to act now and make sure that all of our Reps and Senators know/feel our POV.

        We can’t, the Palestinians can’t, the world can’t wait for another just like the other. We have to turn Congress around, election by election.

    • Pamela Olson on August 17, 2014, 6:59 pm

      Citizen, not all women are blinded by someone’s gender, and it’s rather insulting to be accused of such. I know lots of women who would never have anything to do with that sleazy war criminal.

      Sadly, there’s virtually no one else who has any apparent shot at the next presidency whom I would want to have anything to do with, either. With special interests controlling everything (and most people still not educated enough to see through it), our political culture is almost entirely toxic.

      • Pixel on August 17, 2014, 7:12 pm


        +1 paragraph 1

      • Citizen on August 17, 2014, 7:50 pm

        @ Pamela Olson
        I was only speaking about the women I personally know. Reread my comment. I was not implying anything. Just stating the facts regarding the women I know personally. Please don’t take offense, Pamela, I value you and your work immensely, and the other women in the fight to untangle the “special relationship” to make this world a better place. Yes, I fully agree our political culture is almost entirely toxic. Also, I agree with tree that Warren would be no better than HRC, and that there’s an extreme lack of choice regarding Israel, and that the Green Party (Stein, last cycle, if memory serves) is best on subject specific issue, but has no chance of winning.

      • globalconsciousness on August 17, 2014, 10:13 pm

        Pamela, I couldn’t agree with you more.
        I simply cannot understand why one should vote for someone on the basis of gender or race for that matter…

    • crone on August 17, 2014, 9:02 pm

      Not this female.

    • CloakAndDagger on August 18, 2014, 1:02 am


      I don’t know a single woman in the Bay Area, a predominantly liberal region, and very much desirous of a woman president, who will vote for Hillary. That goes for men too.

      I am betting that annie won’t vote for her either. Right annie?

    • Inanna on August 18, 2014, 4:02 am

      Citizen, count me as another female not voting for Hillary.

      • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 10:30 pm

        I don’t imagine many folks who find there way to Mondoweiss will vote for Hillary, female or male. Nobody I know personally would ever bother to spend any time on this site, or any site critical of Israel. Tonight I was busy selling my library. To a women who runs an online used bookstore. She thought that Obama regime was anti-Israel. I asked her where she gets her news on the subject (she’s old but very busy, trying to survive as a senior citizen, age 71, by running a day care center in her home, as well as her online used bookstore), and it was: Fox News Channel (but she doesn’t like Hannity). I told her Fox News Channel was a propaganda organ for Bibi Netanyahu’s Israel. And that the only thing GOP and Democrats agree on is lavish support for Israel. I informed her of how much US spends on Israel–new news to her. She also told me the handyman for her big old home told her the Holocaust was a hoax. She was amazed by that, and didn’t agree at all. She immigrated from Poland in 1965, and had been to Auchwitz three times.

      • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 10:51 pm

        She also agreed with me that the US today is an oligarchy/plutocracy.

    • Tuyzentfloot on August 18, 2014, 5:15 am

      I don’t personally know a single female of any age or political stripe who will not vote for Hillary. There’s a lot of females in my family and extended family–all will vote for Hillary, and have declared so.

      On a site like this support for a candidate tends to depend on the I/P issue. One can question how sensible that is. I think a case can be made against her foreign policy in general, but people may vote based on domestic issues as well, and gender equality is a legitimate domestic issue.

      • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 10:35 pm

        I know, but the women I personally know wouldn’t even discuss whether or not Hillary’s a good choice, all and all–The case is already closed for them–they will vote for her no ifs, ands, or buts. Don’t even bring up the subject again. That’s what I met.

    • maura on August 18, 2014, 2:15 pm

      You must have your head in the sand, as well as those you know.

      Whatever misgivings I might have had about Hillary in office, after reading this article, she will not have my vote nor the vote of the majority of women and men I know. Her pandering to Israel shows a distinct lack of character, conscience, and leadership. To use ‘anti-semitism’ to justify any of the Israel’s actions is to put her into the herd of the unconscionable. Hilary’s support of Israel is her clarion call to aid her own political desires.

      I guess she would have championed gas chambers too – ( had Hitler been supporting her political ambitions). For Hilary, it is all about recognizing her staunch supporters. I’m glad she’s cleared any ‘fog’ I had about her character, and shown her true colors.

      Cowardly and lusting for power at all costs obviously – even the cost of children’s lives . “Fog of war?” No Hillary, the siege on Gaza is not a war, it’s a massacre of the occupied Palestinian people – and the only ‘fog’ here is your fog of politics and conscience.

      • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 10:39 pm


        Who is You in “You must have your head in the sand, as well as those you know.”?

        If you mean me, I suggest you click on my handle and review the Mondoweiss archive. I agree those females I personally know do have their heads in the sand on the I-P conflict, except for one of my sisters who doesn’t follow said conflict much, but she does know Israel is no saint by far.

  2. Daniel Rich on August 17, 2014, 4:33 pm

    Hillary moved to NY to get access to congress [as a given] the same way Rahm conquered Chicago [as a given].

    If you figure out why that is a ‘given’ you’ll know all the ‘ins and outs.’

    No more Clintons in the WH. Please…

  3. MHughes976 on August 17, 2014, 4:45 pm

    I was mentioning on another thread that Clinton seems, per the polls, to be all but nominated before the nomination and elected before the election. I suppose she fears that the one thing that could destabilise her is a powerful rhetorician from the right able to secure Israeli backing, so readily offered to Romney last time. There may be a quiet smile on Netanyahu’s face at the thought of this militaristic ultra-Zionist in the White House – even so, I don’t think he can trust her.

    • JeffB on August 18, 2014, 9:33 am


      Since you aren’t American let me just clarify a bit from reality. Israel would rather stay out of USA elections and enjoy the warm support of both parties. In general Labor governments have somewhat better relationships with Democrats and Likud has somewhat better relationships with Republicans. In 2012 Romney / Obama we had a moderately supportive candidate vs. an extremely supportive candidate particularly on the issue of war with Iran. Romney was running on a pro-war platform, while Obama had a long history since the start of his candidacy in 2006 in trying for diplomatic solutions. In particular he was running on a policy for Iran that likely had a willingness in practice to tolerate a nuclear Iran over the next decade. The Israeli population strongly sided with Romney on this, which is completely understandable. No question a USA / Iranian war is in Israel’s interests. That BTW is normal Obama, he is for an American, pro-diplomacy on almost all foreign policy issues.

      Jews are disproportionately reliable democrats. Older Jews like many other older democrats have a tendency to be much more antsy regarding black democrats. Moreover Jews disproportionately since the late 1960s race riots have a tendency to demand strong pro-Jewish sentiment or their level of support plunges.

      Romney did terribly with essentially every ethnic minority in the United States. Among religious minorities it was mixed: Mormons who are disproportionately Republican were even more enthusiastic about Romney, Jews who are disproportionately reliable Democrats were notably much more pro-Romney than one would expect. The state where this is most applicable was Florida which is a key swing state and has a sizable older Jewish population.

      Hillary who has a lifetime of pro-Jewish positions is not going to face the same problems. While Jews may be slowly drifting right her appeal against most other plausible Republican candidates is huge. So the Romney situation is a one-off.

      • lysias on August 18, 2014, 10:13 am

        No question a USA / Iranian war is in Israel’s interests.

        That’s the kind of coldblooded, short-term thinking that will doom Israel. Once a war starts, nobody can predict to what disasters it will lead. Israel wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq. Who has that helped? The centennial year of World War One the fact that wars can be terrible should be obvious.

      • just on August 18, 2014, 10:22 am

        It’s also WRONG thinking. Normalized relations between Iran and the US are in the best interests of the region and for the US. btw, what on earth has Iran done to deserve a war??? Nothing, nada, zip!

        Israel is a belligerent, intransigent and nasty piece of work.

        “That BTW is normal Obama, he is for an American, pro-diplomacy on almost all foreign policy issues.”
        JeffB– how do you feel about that?

      • JeffB on August 18, 2014, 11:16 am


        Normalized relations between Iran and the US are in the best interests of the region and for the US. btw, what on earth has Iran done to deserve a war??? Nothing, nada, zip!

        The question was in Israel’s interest not in the USA’s interests. As for what they’ve done to deserve a war, they sent arms and possibly troops to oppose USA consolidation of Iraq during the American occupation. They’ve sent arms to Hezbollah and supported Lebanon’s switch from a pro-western country to effectively anti-western. They have destabilized Kenya which the USA has been pulling into their orbit.

        That may not be worthy of war, but it ain’t nothing.

        “That BTW is normal Obama, he is for an American, pro-diplomacy on almost all foreign policy issues.”
        JeffB– how do you feel about that?

        I agree with him. I vote and donated to both his campaigns and support the Democrat’s approach to foreign policy.

      • Shingo on August 18, 2014, 7:31 pm

        The question was in Israel’s interest not in the USA’s interests.

        NO, the question was in USA’s interests. Israel’s interests are of no concern.

        As for what they’ve done to deserve a war, they sent arms and possibly troops to oppose USA consolidation of Iraq during the American occupation.

        Absolute rubbish. Not a single Iranian soldier was ever identified in Iraq. Not only that, but they were perfectly happy with what the US was doing. Even Chalabi was exposed in the end as a double agent who helped lie the US into attacking Iraq on behalf of Iran.

        They’ve sent arms to Hezbollah and supported Lebanon’s switch from a pro-western country to effectively anti-western.

        It was Israeli stupidity that led to that outcome. The US is hardly revered in Lebanon

        They have destabilized Kenya which the USA has been pulling into their orbit.

        False. They have not payed a finger on Kenya. They have no interests whatsoever in Kenya.

        So yeah, you got nothing.

      • MHughes976 on August 18, 2014, 1:02 pm

        That a war with Iran is not in Western interests is probably true and probably the majority opinion in the West. Lysias is reminding us that war has a way of not really working out for anyone, never really being in anyone’s ‘best interests’. That doesn’t mean it isn’t ever the only remotely bearable option available – I was brought up on the interpretation (of course, questionable) of UK history where we should have found a way to avoid WW1 altogether but should actually have started WW2 sooner, rather than disgrace ourselves at Munich. Israel’s embattled, militarised existence may make alternatives to war unbearable at some junctures of events and may make wars fought by someone else, eg United States v. Iran, highly advantageous. I’m being a bit wordy but I suppose that it is indeed arguable that that sort of war was in Israel’s interests at the relevant time.

      • JeffB on August 18, 2014, 11:11 am


        Once a war starts, nobody can predict to what disasters it will lead.

        That’s true of many influential events. For example the changes to the energy industry are hard to predict their influence on Israel. Fracking driving down the price energy and thus the viability of solar has been terrible for Israel. On the other the shift away from nuclear has been great for Israel.

        In life you look for a good place to put your money in the pot and take your chances on the next card. The fact that there is risk doesn’t mean it isn’t a good bet.

        Israel wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq. Who has that helped?

        It has been wonderful for Israel! First off it has shattered the old pan-arabist coalition that developed from the 1920s onward and has helped to encourage the ethnic breakup across the middle east. A Jewish state has a tough time surviving surrounded by Arab-Muslim states. A Jewish state would have no particular difficulties in a middle east split on ethnic and religious bodies: Maronite, Alawite, Hashemites, Copt, Kurdish… states would just make the Jews / Israel one of the many. They would advance tremendously in just fitting right into the background.

        Moreover as the prime minister of Lebanon has said, and quite accurately, ISIS in their ethnic cleansing / religious behavior as part of the Sunni resistance is legitimizing Israel’s behavior. They are showing quite explicitly to the people of the middle east (and most importantly to Sunnis) what state formation normally looks like. Once the Iraq / Syrian Sunnis form their state it is going to be impossible to talk about the Nabka as a unique historical event.

        There were also advantages like the breakup of UNRWA camps in Iraq. UNRWA has worked hard to keep the Palestinian refugees together as a cohesive group rather than through intermarriage having them assimilate into their host countries as citizens of those countries.

        Drawing Iran and Saudi Arabia into more direct conflict has played well for Israel. Once the Shah fell Iran’s relationship with Iran was terrible yet their relationship with Saudi Arabia did not improve. With the Saudis no longer having Iraq as an effective buffer they are moving away from their pan-Arabist orientation and towards the kind of alliance with Israel that the Shah’s Iran had.

        I could go on and on and on. For Israel the Iraq war was a huge win.

      • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 11:03 pm

        Politicians live in the now; their vision is always short-term. They never learn from history. As Bush Jr said, I’m the doer, they’re the scribblers.

      • MHughes976 on August 18, 2014, 12:50 pm

        I don’t know how far what you say contradicts what I said, though I’m always ready to accept clarification! I would have supposed that there is a certain chance that the Republican candidate will be superlatively pro-Israel and will hope for Romney-style Israeli support and that Clinton, who is I think famous for acting with great calculation, wishes to foreclose that possibility even at this early stage. If you ask me to accept that there she may also, for all the calculation, be completely sincere in what she specifically says, I cannot deny that she may be. I’m sure you’re right to say that she has a long relevant record. She does come from a generation of progressive (maybe ‘progressive’) thinkers for whom Israel was a good example of much-desired social progress. Whether she is entirely what she seems I don’t know.

      • JeffB on August 18, 2014, 1:12 pm


        I was mainly addressing the getting attacked from the right as a way to get Zionist / Jewish backing part. My point was that Romney’s ability to do unusually well in Florida’s Jewish community on the Israel issue had to do

        a) With a large spread in position between dem and rep
        b) Obama being black

        neither of which is liley going to present in 2016.

        As for the rest, I don’t claim to be able to read politician’s minds. I mostly assume they pretty much believe what they claim to believe unless there is strong evidence of their lying. I think voters choose between candidates who accord with their views. Additionally behavior changes belief so that a person who begins to consistently and assert a particular view will mostly hold that view even if they started out not having any particular opinion or a different weakly held one.

    • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 10:46 pm

      Hillary goes where the political winds blow.

  4. bopfromthedarkside on August 17, 2014, 5:03 pm

    Hillary is a psychopath and a serial murderer. When the IAF dropped phosphorous on Lebanese children in ’06, she was there to declare “Israeli values are American values.” She frightens me, and she sickens me. Any thinking American knows the American empire will fall. It’s only a matter of time, and I fear it could be on her watch.

  5. James Canning on August 17, 2014, 5:13 pm

    Should we remember that Hillary Clinton tried to stop the growth of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and that the White House refused to back her?

    • just on August 17, 2014, 6:01 pm

      I find anything that she said in the past irrelevant right now. I personally think that she is more than a bit of a neocon…and always has been.

      • James Canning on August 17, 2014, 7:47 pm

        Just – – Hillary is an ardent interventionist, there is no doubt. And a neocon flavor obtains. But she did try to stop the growth of the illegal settlements, and it is a sorry commentary on Obama’s presidency that he felt unable to back her. Israel lobby.

      • peeesss on August 18, 2014, 12:48 am

        Please . Hillary is in the hands of the Saban , Zionist family. What minor deference to a “liberal” Zionist viewpoint 20 years ago are long gone. She is a certified neo con , war monger . No POTUS , in the near future, will change the abhorant , right wing Zionist policies What is even more scary is Hillary’s strident, neocon Iran policy. Obama , with all his faults and they are many, has put the US in negotiations with Iran over the Nuclear issues. Although the US is quite hypocritical in their negotiation stance there appears the possibility of an accord of some kind . Anything that can alleviate the threat of a war with Iran is a major accomplishment. Hillary has made it clear she stands with the neo con, Zionist, Netanyahu war monger crowd and would scuttle any attempt for an easing of tensions. She even stated the “obliteration” of Iran could be a consequence. She is truly scary.

    • jimby on August 17, 2014, 7:57 pm

      that was before she ran for office in New York…she used to say sensible things.

    • edding on August 18, 2014, 8:44 am

      That may have been the case many years ago, but Oslo was intended to wink at settlement expansion while putting the Palestinians on ice in a multiyear strait jacket.

      You are right, she is an ardent interventionist, but that language is much too soft to describe the full extent of her ardor. She never met a war she didn’t embrace, and of all those wars, every one of them was a war crime. Tally how many millions of innocents or their family members died as a result, or were dispossessed and displaced. Should she escape responsibility for that?

      She is a skilled politician but a disastrous policy maker. If she were elected President I am certain the country, with all its problems would either descend into chaos, or would be led into another war- and perhaps a nuclear one- to distract the public- this time with Iran, Russia and/or China. Best to fully vet her record for public consumption, and do it now.

      • Mooser on August 18, 2014, 11:42 am

        Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Hilary has it in for the entire US.

      • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 10:49 pm


  6. traintosiberia on August 17, 2014, 5:23 pm

    This is the waning years of Roman Republic . The leaders are evaluated and chosen on the basis of war readiness and eagerness for more wars ostensibly for allies .

    • MHughes976 on August 18, 2014, 6:26 am

      So who will be Caesar?

      • JeffB on August 18, 2014, 11:19 am

        If you are going to go with the analogy. There hasn’t been a Sulla. I suspect we have time till Caesar.

  7. lysias on August 17, 2014, 5:47 pm

    That’s our Killary all right.

    I wouldn’t rule out Rand Paul’s chances of getting the nomination quite yet.

    • joefiasco on August 17, 2014, 6:20 pm

      after this last slaughter of innocents by the illegal, apartheid and psychotic rogue state of Israel funded by us tax payers, the civilized world is sick and tired of this criminally insane neo-fascism. The BDS movement is gaining strength with more and more young people demanding accountability and indictment of Israel. I believe aipac is responsible for most of the crap going on in the whitehouse nowdays and predict that very soon supporting them will become a liability for congress members and future canadates . BDS Israel and standing up to the deeply embedded lice, aipac will get you more votes and a more sane world.

    • CloakAndDagger on August 18, 2014, 1:04 am


      I agree. Rand Paul stands a good chance of getting the nomination.

      • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 11:15 pm

        Rand Paul just might drive Bibi crazy as he has done with the GOP. I think his secret view of foreign policy is the same as his father’s, but he’s willing to say anything, push anything, that will get him to a higher seat than pops got with his channeling mental integrity.

  8. Edward Q on August 17, 2014, 6:01 pm

    At one time AIDS activists bird-dogged VP Al Gore as he campaigned around the country. Maybe a similar strategy would work with Clinton.

  9. Kay24 on August 17, 2014, 6:28 pm

    Hillary Clinton, like so many others, have sold their miserable souls to the Devil.
    There is no turning back now. They have hitched their wagons to a brutal occupier, and are complicit in the massacre of civilians in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, by arming them, and justifying their brutality. I doubt we will see a Congress or leaders with more spine and the conscience to support the victims of Israel’s constant wrath, in our lifetime. Meanwhile, Americans who are in dire straits at home must be deprived of any help by those they vote for, because our shameless congress keeps sending our tax money to that evil, greedy, brutal nation:

    “Hellfire in perspective || U.S. military aid to Israel exceeds $100 billion
    Does suspension of missile deal mean trouble in relations with U.S., or is it just a tap on the wing?

    The United States of America is Israel’s big brother and really loves us. Israel does not have and apparently will not have another friend like it. According to a recent Congress report, Israel is the country that has received more cumulative American aid than any other country since the end of World War II.” Haaretz

    • michelle on August 17, 2014, 9:00 pm

      big brother not so much cash cow better fit
      to ‘Israel’ other people are disposable servants/slaves never equals
      G-d Bless

  10. joefiasco on August 17, 2014, 6:42 pm

    thanks guys @ Mondoweiss I appreciate your existance

  11. Philip Munger on August 17, 2014, 8:07 pm

    Unless there is some unforeseeable event, Hillary Clinton will be the first woman serving as president, from 2016 to 2020 or 2024. I have no idea how she might govern, but she has made me very uncomfortable for quite a few years.

    • Citizen on August 17, 2014, 8:15 pm

      HLC has a lot of yet-to-be-fully-vented rage due to her decision to stick with women-chaser Bill for her political career advantage, and that stockpile of rage grew as the media piled on. Mooser said he thinks that may have influenced her super-Bibi hard line stance sans a single real tear for the Palestinian children and geezers. Counterpunch had an article up right after Mooser made his comment here. It echoed Mooser’s fear. Fills out quite a pants suit.

      • tree on August 18, 2014, 4:21 pm

        Oh, please, can we stop with the trotting out of female stereotypes, and I mean to include Mooser’s comment above as well as Citizen’s comment in this request. Females aren’t anymore likely to act out based on emotion than men are, and the idea that “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” pales beside the number of emotionally driven men who decide to murder their wives, girlfriends, ex-wives, etc. because they were scorned in some way.

        If you want to criticize Clinton on her positions, fine, but don’t stoop to female bashing to do it, please.

        Her accomplishments are few, and her talents are overrated.

        One could legitimately say the same thing about all the major candidates in the last few elections. Including Obama.

      • Mooser on August 18, 2014, 6:51 pm

        Okay, maybe it isn’t Bill’s philandering, and the public humiliation she suffered. But whatever it is, I have the distinct feeling that Hilary has it in for us.

      • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 11:18 pm

        Remember Bush Jr wanted to get Sadam because Sadam said he wanted to kill Pappa Bush?

      • Tuyzentfloot on August 19, 2014, 2:50 am

        [Citizen says:] Remember Bush Jr wanted to get Sadam because Sadam said he wanted to kill Pappa Bush?

        What of it? As far as I know it’s all a baseless rumor. Ok, with some effort from Kuwait to feed it.

    • Another Steve on August 18, 2014, 4:02 am

      She was the inevitable nominee in 2008, but look what happened.

      Her only claim to fame is that her husband is an extremely talented politician. Her accomplishments are few, and her talents are overrated.

  12. Shingo on August 17, 2014, 10:13 pm

    The premise of this article is a false one. Whether the winner in the mid terms is Obama or not. And whether the next president is Clinton or not will make no difference. They will all be as bad a Killary with respect to Israel.

  13. dbroncos on August 17, 2014, 10:57 pm

    The would be Queen Hillary was just months away from her coronation in 2008 when she was knocked off. I think she had a better chance then than she will in 2016.

  14. michelle on August 18, 2014, 12:11 am

    seems like the next potus is going to be another Israel sock puppet
    hope and change hope and change hope and change baaa
    G-d Bless

  15. wondering jew on August 18, 2014, 12:41 am

    On the: “Will women vote for Hillary?” question. The answer is decidedly yes, given the fact that women already vote Democratic more than men. I predict that the differential between men and women will be the usual differential, plus between 2 and 4% (in other words if the normal differential between male and female is 5%, that is 5% more votes for democrats from females compared to males, this time the difference will be between 7 and 9%. (you heard it here first.)

    • lysias on August 18, 2014, 9:53 am

      Aren’t women disposed not to like wars and belllicosity?

  16. Steve Macklevore on August 18, 2014, 3:45 am

    Hillary wants to be the next president of the United States.

    In order to do that she needs vast amounts of money.

    The American Jewish community will provide that money, provided that Hillary backs Israel no matter what. Hilary understands that, the American Jewish community understands that.

    Until there is serious and effective campaign finance reform, that’s the way it’ll be in American politics. Israel isn’t a foreign policy issue, it’s a domestic one.

    • Citizen on August 18, 2014, 11:25 pm

      @ Steve Macklevore
      Exactly, and succinctly put. And there won’t be any significant campaign finance reform. Congress critters get their real power from catering to special interests with big bucks to trade for special legislative concessions and legislative loopholes. That’s why the IRS code is so huge. It’s all called “pork.”

  17. NickJOCW on August 18, 2014, 4:41 am

    In her interview Clinton blames anti-Semitism for the public response to the massacres, which she also calls “uncalled for and unfair”.

    “You can’t ever discount anti-Semitism, especially with what’s going on in Europe today….

    That is a pernicious and dangerous acquiescence to the Zionist line. The response certainly isn’t uncalled for and unfair unless she means the Zionists didn’t call for it and consider it unfair. She also calls American values “universal” when they are not even global, unless she thinks the universe is the US and Israel. Strange women. She is only 67 but appears already to have what Australians call “a roo loose in the top paddock”.

    • Mooser on August 19, 2014, 1:37 pm

      “She is only 67 but appears already to have what Australians call “a roo loose in the top paddock”

      Welcome to what modren medicine has given the US, a senile dementocracy. Unfortunately, the only efficacious preventative known is to keep the brain well emolliented, with THC since adolescence, so it may be too late for a reversal in most cases.

  18. Tuyzentfloot on August 18, 2014, 5:02 am

    I also think Clinton is a liberal hawk who’s strongly pro-Israel but I’d like to spell out what the baseline is here. Clinton is saying what she thinks is needed. There’s a word I picked up long ago: ludecy. It’s derived from the word ‘ludo’ or game and it means playing the game according to the rules. The rules may not be absolute but if you ignore them don’t expect to get anywhere. And for Clinton to be elected means she has to convincingly address jewish sponsors who support Israel. She has to convince them she’s fully on their side, and more so than democratic competitors who will be doing the same, because they also think that is how they can get elected.
    So whatever policies she would support once elected, right now she’s doing what she thinks is needed to get funds.

    One can hardly expect from people that when playing the game they ignore the rules as they see them. It would be stupid of them to do so. Do you want them to do something stupid? On the other hand, the players have some elbow room to deviate from that baseline and one tries to deduce some things from how they use that elbow room. I can’t see much good there in her case on the foreign policy field.

    • lysias on August 18, 2014, 9:52 am

      Real leaders are able to recognize when circumstances have changed the nature of the game.

      • Tuyzentfloot on August 18, 2014, 12:14 pm

        So you think that in the current circumstances she can get elected with an agenda that is not squarely behind Israel then?

  19. Kathleen on August 18, 2014, 11:06 am

    Clinton more than likely has the election sown up…but she will not have all of the progressives like myself knocking on doors, running GOTV campaigns, pulling in hundreds of voluntteers etc etc as I have done since I was 16 (now 62) for Dems. No no no Hillary is far too much of a right wing warmonger for me. Will not do it

    • JeffB on August 18, 2014, 11:26 am


      Give yourself time. Bobby Jindal has come out already against any nuclear deal with Iran that allows them to enriching uranium in getting to the right of Christie who is for greater aggression against Russia, Syria, and Iran. How will President Cruz sound to you in 2016?

      Maybe you’ll sit this one out, but if you’ve been working hard for dems for 46 years I kinda doubt the Republicans won’t do a good job of making you an enthusiastic Hillary supporter.

      • Shingo on August 18, 2014, 7:26 pm

        How will President Cruz sound to you in 2016?

        Sounds like a one in a million chance. The guy is a lunatic and will be make Sarah Palin look like a Harvard Scholar during the debates.

        With regards to Iran’s right to enrich, the deal will be done long before the next presidential elections, so it matters no what Jindal and Hillary have to say about the matter.

  20. JeffB on August 18, 2014, 8:05 pm


    JeffB: No question a USA / Iranian war is in Israel’s interests.
    lysias: Once a war starts, nobody can predict to what disasters it will lead. Israel wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq. Who has that helped?
    Just: It’s also WRONG thinking. Normalized relations between Iran and the US are in the best interests of the region and for the US.
    JeffB: The question was in Israel’s interest not in the USA’s interests.
    Shingo: NO, the question was in USA’s interests. Israel’s interests are of no concern.

    I think that’s about as clear cut as it can ever get.

Leave a Reply