Greg Sargent: Israel, Netanyahu Could Split the Dems

     If you want to know all the things that could go wrong for the Dems his blog at the Plum Line is always a good place to start as he worries about everything-not wrongly, often is the case. In light of my previous post about Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, and the Netanyahu speech,

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/elizabeth-warren-begs-off-for-netanyahu.html

    he thinks this whole thing could be kryptonite for the party and Hillary in 2016. 

    She has to take a 'clear position' he warns. Yet what constitutes a 'clear position' is often in the eye of the beholder. 

     "In his speech to Congress today, Benjamin Netanyahu will reiterate his argument that President Obama’s push for an international deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program is naive and dangerous for Israel. The Obama administration argues that a well-defined, enforceable deal is actually the best hope for preventing Iran from gaining nukes."

     "But the theatrics attending the conflict between the two leaders — standing ovations in Congress; Democrats skipping the speech; etc. — will eventually fade from the headlines. And the talks with Iran could ultimately lead to another conflict: A split among Democrats, with ramifications for the 2016 presidential race."

Consider: If the Obama administration and other world powers do reach a deal with Iran, Hillary Clinton — the all-but-certain Democratic nominee — will presumably have to take a clear position on it.

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg last August, Clinton said that Israel’s position in opposition to any Iranian enrichment capacity is “not an unrealistic position,” seemingly laying down a harder line than the Obama administration. However, Clinton had previously claimed some enrichment is acceptable under certain circumstances, and last month she came out against legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran, which the administration fears could scuttle the nuclear talks.

The bottom line is that a deal with Iran would likely exert pressure on her to firm up her position. While it seems likely Clinton would back any such deal, any hedging is likely to provoke anger on the left.

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/03/morning-plum-fight-over-netanyahu-and-iran-could-split-democrats/

     On this note, some potentially happy news: now as many as 56 Democrats will miss the speech-which is about a 3rd if my math is right. 

    "The Hill’s whip list puts the number at nearly five dozen. Given previous Democratic skittishness about appearing out of sync with Israel, that’s actually surprisingly high."

    I still think Israel has to be careful. You don't want to make Israel a partisan issue that only GOPers support. As for the Jewish vote-the reality is that most American Jews are progressive; this has always been the case. 

    The idea that American Jews care only about the single issue of Israel is insulting in itself. 

     UPDATE: I'm watching the start of the Bib's speech here on C-SPAN and have had to watch them all clap and jerk themselves off for 10 minutes already rather than just get to the miserable speech already. 

     Ok, it just started. Bibi is kind of smart though: he led off by reaching out to Harry Reid and telling him it's good to see him on his feet again. 

      Now he's talking about all the wonderful things President Obama has done for Israel. So he's working the Dems in the room. Hey, this guy is a good politician-how else does he somehow stay in power this many years?

     UPDATE 2.0: The speech itself though 'Smells like 2002' when he was warning about Iraq's nuclear capacity. An oldie but not a goodie,

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/02/john-kerry-on-netanyahu-hes-been-wrong.html