New Republic: Did Taking Cues From Lobby Cost Clinton The Nomination?

<snip>

"John Judis in The New Republic writes that Hillary Clinton might have lost the nomination due to her efforts at "winning the support of the pro-Israel lobby."

Specifically, Hillary's big mistake was backing the Kyl-Lieberman resolution which targeted the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. That resolution was drafted by Dick Cheney's office and Congressional neocons as a part of the run-up to war with Iran.

"Like her refusal to apologize for the October 2002 war resolution, her vote on Kyl-Lieberman may have stemmed from her ignoring the primary and thinking about the general election, or--as Helene Cooper suggested in The New York Times--it might have been an attempt to win support from the pro-Israel lobby,' which strongly backed the resolution. Whatever the case, her vote was a political disaster. It confirmed the worst fears of anti-war Democrats about her foreign policy inclinations. Her rivals denounced her vote, and she had to answer for it in ads, mailings, and debates through early January. It gave Obama an enormous push at a time when he seemed to be floundering and laid the groundwork for his success in fund-raising and in the Iowa caucuses."

In other words, just as she was succeeding in overcoming the negative political effects of her vote authorizing the Iraq war, she seemed to climb on the Iran war bandwagon.

Let that be a lesson to other Democrats. A Democrat can only go so far in appeasing the neocon right. The overwhelming majority of Democrats are not neocons (nor are Republicans, for that matter). Democrats who support neocon schemes are not going to get past the primaries."

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/21/new_republic_hillary_may_have/

Hillary would be the nominee this very day if she had not voted to approve the use of force in Iraq.

Period.

A new survey of American Jewish opinion, released by the American Jewish Committee, demonstrates several important propositions: (1) right-wing neocons (the Bill Kristol/Commentary/ AIPAC/Marty Peretz faction) who relentlessly claim to speak for Israel and for Jews generally hold views that are shared only by a small minority of American Jews; (2) viewpoints that are routinely demonized as reflective of animus towards Israel or even anti-Semitism are ones that are held by large majorities of American Jews; and (3) most American Jews oppose U.S. military action in the Middle East -- including both in Iraq and against Iran.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/12/ajc_poll/

and I have read Greenwalds article and other polls that Israel/ME is not on the list of top priorities with with any group of American voters, including Jews, so why would a war with Iran be a popular idea? Where does it serve American interests?

"...so why would a war with Iran be a popular idea?" It doesn't appear to be a popular idea with the exception of a few war-hawks and the rapturists.

"Where does it serve American interests?" I never said it did (yes, I know you didn't say I did). I have no idea how it would serve American interests, perhaps it would be better to ask that question of someone who supports such actions (I am not one of them). Unless, it is another rhetorical question.

Sure, if Nader didn't run Gore probably would have clinched it. Or if the butterfly ballot thing didn't happen. Or if Bill kept it in his pants. Or maybe if he was just a bit more personable...

When a race is as close as this one you can pick and choose your favorite issue and pretend that the whole shebang hinged exclusively on that. Besides the ludicrousness of doing that there is a huge flaw in the logic of the OP. Let's assume that Hil did lose the nomination because she voted for this resolution and the war in Iraq. Let's even assume that the pro-Israel lobby supported the war and this resolution, (which is a pretty big assumption.) What is just too absurd is the idea that Hil got behind these things because she wanted to win support from the pro-Israel lobby.

I mean, come on! Is this serious?

Helene Cooper did not suggest that reason as Hillary's primary motivation anyway, she mentioned it as an "also." Anyone who thinks that Hillary is voting according to AIPAC's whims to win their crucial support should be happy that she wasn't nominated anyway.