Hillary just lost the White House in Gaza - same way she lost it in Iraq the last time

[4now]

Hillary’s done it again. Her pro-war comments in that famous interview two weeks ago have painted her into a right wing neoconservative corner. In 2016, a Democratic candidate will again emerge to run to her left and win the party base, again because of pro-war positioning on the Middle East that Hillary has undertaken in order to please neoconservatives.

The last time it was Iraq, this time it was Gaza. Hillary Clinton had nothing but praise for Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza, and echoed him in saying that Hamas just wanted to pile up dead civilians for the cameras. She was “hepped up” to take on the jihadists, she said that Obama’s policy of “not doing stupid shit” was not a good policy. She undermined Obama for talking to Iran and for criticizing Israel over the number of civilian casualties in Gaza. She laid all the fault for the massacre at Hamas’s door.

And once again, Hillary Clinton will pay for this belligerency; she won’t tenant the White House.

Am I saying that the Gaza massacre will have actual weight in American politics in 2016? Yes. I know I’m going out on a limb, but I believe that the discourse on Israel/Palestine is shifting so fast in this country that by 2016 the Democratic Party base will be overwhelmingly against Hillary’s position on supporting Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and that a rival will exploit this sentiment for political gain. And she will tack too late, and too feebly, as she did in 2008.

Consider: Gallup says that Israel’s actions in Gaza were unjustified in the eyes of the young, people of color, women, and Democrats, and overwhelmingly in some of those categories 51-25% disapproval among the young. 47-35 percent among Democrats, 44-33 among women, 49-25 among nonwhites.

Much more at link.
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/hillary-white-house.html

You can see the change he is talking about when you talk to young people.

[brooklynite]

2. After her Iraq vote...she got 17 million votes in the Democratic Primary

Only a dramatically different candidate could beat her. And that candidate won't be running in 2016.

Add to that, Gaza isn't an issue that resonates with most voters.

[JaydenD]

3. We can look at vote counts in other ways:

[brooklynite]

5. Congrats! you just insulted 50% of your own Party

[JaydenD]

6. Yeh, I did. But I think you misunderstand which 50%.

[MoleyRusselsWart]

7. This

She knows what's she's doing. It's hers to loose, and she's not stupid enough to do so.

[zeemike]

9. Perhaps she knows something we don't.

That the decision has already been made that she is the one. and has nothing to fear by pissing off the progressive democrats...and instead is showing the right wing her colors.

[MoleyRusselsWart]

18. Since when

Do democrats worry about pissing off liberals? Real liberals have virtually no representation or voice in this country anymore.

Personally, I sometimes think I'd rather a Republican win then Clinton. Nothing is ever going to change until more people hit rock bottom and have their eyes opened.

This country is going to continue down the same fascist path anyway with Clinton, so why not put a Republican in, speed up the process, and let everyone see who and what the enemy is.

[zeemike]

19. And sometimes I think that TPTB want a Dem to win now and again.

Because when they do and do things that are against the democratic principles we have to accept it and defend it because our party did it...it moves us to the right while the right moves further right to make us vote out of fear of them...triangulation.

[MoleyRusselsWart]

20. Yeah I think

The right is just fine with how things are right now. The control much of the local govt's and congress, enough to block everything and keep things status quo...and they can blame the Dem president for everything. Sometimes I swear they threw the 2008 election because the knew things were going to bad and wanted to blame Obama.

[Logical]

10. And lost a 30 point lead to an unknown! Impressive! nt

[4now]

21. I am still shocked that someone as inevitable HRC could have lost

to a 2nd year junior Senator named Barack Hussein Obama.

[Logical]

22. I 100% agree. nt

[oldandhappy]

4. The militarization of the police will have a short term influence

with some -- turning them away from war talk. But I suspect that will not last. Already folks are jumping on the bomb ISIS band wagon. I am not saying you are right or wrong. I am saying maybe it is a little early yet to predict ?? maybe??

[RobertEarl]

8. No. It is a good call

Hill probably would have been president if she hadn't been a supporter for war. Or, to put it another way, if there was not someone that was less warmongering than her.

The Peace Now crowd turned out big time for Change, in both 2006 and 2008. They are still hungry. Hill has them on a starvation diet, so either she loses the nomination, or a republican lying warmonger wins if somehow she wins the nomination.

We need to just give up on Hill, she's a loser.

[tritsofme]

11. Boloney, there is widespread support for Jewish state within the Democratic Party

It is even in our platform.

Support among Democrats also tends to increase as we become further removed military hostilities, so I really don't consider polls that show more nuanced support of Israeli military action to be indicative of much.

A candidate who is not a strong supporter of Israel would have no chance in a Democratic presidential primary.

[Niceguy1]

12. gaza isnt even on the radar

For most people.

[LloydS of New London]

13. The last thing this country needs...

is yet another "leader" who takes orders from a perpetually-plaintive Bibi.

[hifiguy]

16. Netanyahoo (sic)

belongs in the dock at The Hague as a war criminal and then in prison for the rest of his disgusting life.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. C'mon. Massacring children looks good on a candidate's resume.

"Good" Democrats just love atrocities.

[hifiguy]

15. She will get my vote for the presidency

a couple of days after the heat death of the universe. Disgusting.

[CJCRANE]

17. She criticized policies she was responsible for implementing.

That's bad form IMO.

You don't badmouth your old boss when applying for a new job.

[sub.theory]

23. Uh, Hamas Murdered Three Teenagers in Cold Blood

And I think that demanded a response from Israel. What were they supposed to do? Lodge a complaint? Hamas is a terrorist organization with a long, long history of indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. They have openly called for the destruction of Israel. They just killed a four year old Israeli boy firing rockets with wild abandon into Israel.

The Israeli army could blow the Gaza strip off the map. They could level the place, but they haven't. The IDF claims that they have taken extraordinary measures to try to protect innocent life, and I am willing to take them at their word. Hamas is known to make use of human shields so that they can then scream about how evil the IDF is. Unfortunately, many people fall for it.

If the Palestinians want to have peace, then they must set aside terrorism and violent conflict. The problem is that they want everything. I remember well when Bill Clinton couldn't believe how Arafat refused the offer that Ehud Barak made him - an offer that was nearly everything that the Palestinians had wanted. Arafat refused because he wanted everything. How can you negotiate with such people? That's not negotiating - it's demanding.

The bottom line is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Period. And I fully support Hillary in treating them as so. I'm confident most Americans will agree.

[4now]

24. Israel murdered over 400 innocent children in cold blood

make me wonder who is the terrorist.

"Today I saw a picture of a weeping Palestinian man holding a plastic carrier bag of meat. It was his son. He’d been shredded (the hospital’s word) by an Israeli missile attack – apparently using their fab new weapon, fléchette bombs. You probably know what those are – hundreds of small steel darts packed around explosive which tear the flesh off humans. The boy was Mohammed Khalaf al-Nawasra. He was four years old.
I suddenly found myself thinking that it could have been one of my kids in that bag, and that thought upset me more than anything has for a long time."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025353523

[oberliner]

26. The US killed thousands of children in Iraq and Afghanistan

Israel can't come close to competing with the record of the big boys.

[4now]

28. Strange justification for mass murder

The country that gives Israel all the free money they need to murder over 400 innocent children also murders children.

[oberliner]

29. No justification for mass murder

I mean there have been thousands of children killed by Syria as well. It's not just a Western thing.

[4now]

32. So Syria and Israel both murder innocent children

OK. Ill buy that.

[eridani]

30. No evidence whatsoever that Hamas was involved. n/t

[sub.theory]

33. Hamas has ADMITED They Did It!

Please see here:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/west-bank-kidnappings/gaza-war-hamas-admits-kidnapping-three-israeli-teens-n186176

This is a fact. Hamas murdered those poor kids. They are proud of it. They are terrorists.

[eridani]

35. That was well after the bombardment of Gaza

At the time of the aerial war on civilians, the killers had not been IDed.

[sub.theory]

38. Huh?

What does that have to do with anything? Israel is supposed to wait until they admit it? Israel strongly suspected Hamas was responsible and it turns out with very good reason. I can't follow your reasoning.

[eridani]

39. Israel is a vicious 19th century-style colonial state

They don't right to do anything but defend its 1967 borders.

[oberliner]

25. Mondoweiss has not a clue about anything

Almost no one will be choosing their candidate based on their support for Palestinians.

The few that do were not going to vote for her anyway.

[4now]

36. Funny. That is what they said about the Iraq war vote

The smart politicians voted to allow the war.
It wasn't a tough vote. It was the smart and careful vote.
Nobody was going to vote for someone for President who didn't support our troops or our wars.
But things change.

[still_one]

27. so you won't vote for her, doesn't mean other Democrats will follow your lead, and they probably

won't

[sadoldgirl]

31. No, I don't believe that Gaza

will be an important issue,although her overly strong support of Bibi will add to point to her rather warlike attitudes in other international situations. Think Iraq and Iran. We are a long time away from choosing a presidential candidate.

The further developments in Iraq however might influence voters more. And in that case a lot depends on what the POTUS will do and how the media interpret those developments.

[wyldwolf]

34. $225 million to Israel in its ongoing conflict with Hamas. Here's your money quote

"I think the vote was right, and I'll tell you why I think the vote was right," she said. "America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren't many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world... Hamas has attacked Israel indiscriminately... But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,"

damn, Hillary!

Oh wait, Elizabeth Warren said that.

[sub.theory]

37. Nailed it

Warren nails it as usual. Sometimes force is required, even if some on the left will never accept that everything can't be solved by talking it out. You can't negotiate with terrorists that want you dead. None of us enjoy the grim reality that military action means people are going to die, but sometimes there is no other choice.

[Doctor_J]

40. wall street loves right wingers who call themselves democrats

And since they're the ones who pick the president, I like her chances