Hillary, our "quinoa and kale" candidate, bloviates and panders before AIPAC earlier today.
What is a panderer and can you trust him or her? A political panderer is one who will say anything to any specific audience in order to try to grab its support and votes. It helps mightily as well, if the particular pandering person believes the message being reeled off. In the case of her AIPAC speech, Hillary Clinton - an inveterate war hawk - meant every word. Strangely, her groupies, especially blacks, seem unwilling to process this dimension, but will if she gets us into a new war (and has to do massive social budget cuts to pay for it). She unashamedly backs AIPAC's Israeli nationalist agenda and even supports the warmonger Bibi Netanyahu who has a thing about taking out Iran.
At least Bernie, kudos and props to him, nailed it by refusing to appear at this right wing Israeli ass kissing fest, despite being the only Jewish candidate. As he related to Chris Hayes, on his 'All In' show earlier tonight, he refuses to kowtow to Israeli nationalists (at the expense of Palestinians) and the likes of Netanyahu who he described as a "right winger".
Recall that a year ago Netanyahu delivered an hysterical performance on Capitol Hill. At the invitation of the Repukes, and with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively - demanded the only alternative had to be war.
Philip Stephens in a Financial Times article on Mar. 5, 2015 ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran') highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending.
What was most puzzling was how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' - has any creds left when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.
And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, nobody one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.
Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- had been critical of the speech and believed its only effect to be "a clear and present danger to Israel".
While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. One wonders where they will get the money to pay for such intervention, especially as none of them (including Hillary) want to raise taxes on the Middle class.
My fear is that neocon war hawk Hillary is also itching for a chance to show she's her own "boss" - and can run with the males - so she may well overturn the Iranian initiatives set in motion by Obama (who she professes to endorse and "follow") by helping Netanyahu launch a war against Iran as one of her first acts as President. I could be wrong, but her moves in Libya, and later the Ukraine (to help topple Viktor Yanukovich) are not designed to inspire confidence.
Predictably, Clinton blasted her principled opponent Bernie, the only presidential candidate to turn down the invitation to speak at the AIPAC conference, for promising to be neutral on Israel-Palestine. Sanders's' is the correct stance, when you subtract all the hysteria and the only chance for real peace in the Middle East. Sanders said he would pursue a “level playing field” in negotiations, something Clinton insisted she would never imagine doing. The question is why not?
Is she a paid representative of the AIPAC lobby? Or is she in Bibi's pocket as a fellow war monger? Do her delirious supporters pay attention to any of this? Or are their heads so far up their fantasy land asses - to try and protect against "the Donald" - they don't even care?
Thankfully, I am not a lone voice in the wilderness. Numerous progressive organizations and Palestinian leaders publicly condemned Clinton for her profusely pro-Israel remarks. For her shameless pandering. According to one observer:
"The speech that Hillary Clinton gave to AIPAC took pandering to a new level,”
As he continued, quoted in a salon.com piece:
“Clinton promised to never be neutral and yet most Americans consistently express that they want the United States to be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians. When one looks at public opinion among Democrats alone, this sentiment is even stronger and sympathy for Palestinians is even higher. This is especially true in the progressive base of the Democratic party — indeed the future of the party — made up of youth and minorities.”
Meanwhile, the social justice group Jewish Voice for Peace, or JVP, which is very critical of the Israeli government and its oppression of the Palestinians, blasted Clinton for her remarks. Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, said in a statement that the discussion at AIPAC “relies on racist and Islamophobic tropes to justify unquestioning support for Israel.”
She went on to say:
"From Democrats to Republicans, the message is the same: more arms for Israel, a stronger relationship between Israel and the U.S., no mention of Palestinian rights, and no recognition of the impossible contradiction of being both democratic and Jewish when the state is predicated on maintaining systems of unequal rights and rule by military occupation,”
I am not certain, but I think Hillary may have just cremated her last chance to get Sanders's' supporters onto her bandwagon if and when she gets the Dem nomination. They have been enraged enough at the rigging of the primaries by the superdelegates but this AIPAC farce may be the last straw.