Hillary Clinton's AIPAC speech was...something.

[browneyedguuurl]

Hillary Clinton’s AIPAC Speech Was a Symphony of Craven, Delusional Pandering

Clinton had an opportunity to show some political courage. She decided to alienate the left instead.Any presidential candidate speaking to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, during an election year is going to bow to the hawkish elements of the Israel

Comments

[jumpgirl]

I was reading an article regarding a policy favoring on Israel that University of California is implementing. I think it's appropriate to share this since it's related.

UC regents say anti-Semitism has 'no place' on campus but reject blanket censure of anti-Zionism

[hikerpoet]

I'll speak up--I lean Clinton and still do, but I completely agree--indefensible and eye-rolly. I do see it more as overly politician-y pandering to the right/centrists than chomping at the bit to start WWIII, but worthy of the criticism for sure.

[moonshaz]

I agree.

I'm not going to not vote for her IN NOVEMBER (we just had our primary, so it's too late to rethink that one), because the alternatives are so horrifying. But I am definitely disappointed by this.

[mimblexwimble]

It's a bit more than "eye-rolly" considering the reality of what Palestinians are experiencing.

[hikerpoet]

I meant that pandering overall is eye-rolly but I see why it came off as insensitive worded that way

[meadowphoenix]

Condemning Israel would require the United States to have a more sophisticated foreign policy than that of a playground line leader.

[arisma]

Just remember, tho, the only reason not to vote for Clinton is because Bernie Bros or something?

[sweetmizre]

There are obviously other reasons. Bernie Bros are just annoying as fuck.

[celtic_thistle]

mte

[cherriesarered]

I voted for Hillary in my state's primary because there are many issues on which I do agree with her - but her stance on this (which I was not aware of when I voted) is still frightening. I know that pandering is bad (and in this case, unnecessary), but I sincerely hope that she is pandering here and that these are not her actual plans.

[moonshaz]

Iawtc.

[hikerpoet]

I think she's pandering less to the crowd she is speaking to (as someone said, unnecessarily), than to the right. They liked her husband's stance/actions/or more accurately lack thereof in regards to Israel even less than Obama's and she's trying to convince them they don't need to worry about that PLUS they're comparing her to Trump so she wanted to sound hawkish yet still sane compared to him, and as much criticism as both sides have of her here, we'd probably still agree she succeeded there, for better or for worse, ugh.
She's showing her policy-wonkiness, she's showing that establishment side that gets deserved criticism even though I think some of it is disingenuous, she's still farther right than I'd like in this area (and this is even happily admitting I'm farther right in this area than some of Sander's biggest fans here, which is to stay still not very much).
This is eye-rolly, but I still don't think she's an evil queen.

[browneyedguuurl]

She's not pandering. Do the research and you'll see.