Hillary Refuses to Speak at Joint Rally With Palin

An anti-Iran rally in New York City will not feature Hillary Clinton:

Clinton backed out of a protest scheduled for Monday in New York against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attendance at the opening of the UN General Assembly after learning that organizers also invited the Republican vice presidential nominee without informing her.

Organized by American Jewish groups, the "Rally to Stop Iran Now" sent out a media advisory billing the joint appearance in their headline: "SEN. HILLARY CLINTON AND GOV. SARAH PALIN AT “RALLY TO STOP IRAN NOW,” AT UNITED NATIONS, MONDAY, SEPT. 22nd, 11:45 A.M."

Good for Hillary.

< PPP VA Poll: Obama Maintains Small Lead | Biden: Feds Should Not Bail Out AIG >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Meanwhile, several thugs we support... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    ...or their representatives, will be there too.  We really are trying our best to make the Iranian populace, already not happy with their government, even more unhappy with us.  Personally, I'm tired of all this sh*t.  Palin, for one, probably has more in common with the Iranian president's fundamentalist mindset than she has with me.  Instead, how about we all rent some beautiful little Iranian movies like CHILDREN OF HEAVEN or THE COLOR OF PARADISE and try to, little by little, understand something we simply want to thug into more malevolence.


    No distractions (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    This is about not providing any distractions.

    Clinton, and I'm sure the Obama campaign, with whom she's in touch, know that the press would have loved to have a Palin and Clinton in the same picture, and would have reported on it, creating a distraction. A distraction at a time when the focus should be on the economy.

    The wise choice was to pull out.

    Exatamente (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by blogtopus on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:04:14 PM EST
    I'm sure the chattering class will make a big 'cat fight' story out of this, but they would have done that anyway; Good for her.

    I would love to hear (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by indy in sc on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:16:37 PM EST
    directly from her or her staff (on the record):

    1.  Why she was planning on attending the rally in the first place; and

    2.  Why she pulled out.

    I feel like both things are being distorted in the reporting on this so far.

    Yep. (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    Yeah, what's to protest? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Exeter on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    I think when young girls are stoned to death by fundamentalist whackos b/c they were raped by their father, its just the Iranian culture that we do not understand. Admenejhad is an extreme fundamentalist whacko of the same ilk that breeds fundamentalist terrorists.

    The leaders are always (none / 0) (#45)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    more moderate than the extremists in any country.  Plus it often takes a ruthless tyrant to crush various practices, whether it is honor killings or a religion that the leader doesn't approve of.  And that's how America has ended up backing despotic regimes - because they are "our" despotic regimes.

    Like Iraq... (none / 0) (#70)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    in the not-too-distant past...

    sorry (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by mymy on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:19:43 PM EST
     guys,but it makes Hillary look small and afraid to be on the same stage as Palin.She should have gone and not make a big deal about it

    She wasn't the one making a big deal... (4.20 / 5) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    ...she was blindsided IMHO. I'm sure that Palin knew that Hillary would be there when she was invited and accepted.

    oh piffle... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:45:24 PM EST
    It could so easily be spun with a "We're glad to see that Palin has put campaigning on hold and joined us." and a quick reminder that this is one of the places that should transcend politics.

    Oh yeah.... (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    ...that would keep the media from turning it into a circus and trying to turn it into a catfight. I think Hillary wants no part of this and since she is not the nominee, she is right to stay out of it.

    The media (none / 0) (#33)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    will turn the very fact that Clinton pulled out of a planned event into a circus.

    Without Hillary... (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    its a sideshow, with Hillary its a circus.

    then she should (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    not have agreed to go in the first place.

    The fact that she backed out has made it a news story that it wasn't before. And the presumption (from what I'm reading) that she backed out because Palin accepted an invite makes it even bigger news.

    One of the messages that will be spun out of it is a simple "What're the Dems afraid of?" And given the Dem track record as Charlie Brown to the GOP's Lucy, that question will resonate.


    I dont think... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:34:43 PM EST
    theres anything wrong with her having planned to go, not knowing they were going to blindside her like that.  Those are her constituents, so it just makes sense for her to go.  

    It was a dirty trick to blindside her like that with palin, so I think she did the best move she could under the circumstances.


    Oh for crying out loud... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
    a dirty trick? For the organizers to invite Palin?

    There was no problem with her going. There was no problem with the organizers inviting Palin...unless they aren't allowed to invite whomever they choose.

    It makes total sense for them to want as many high profile people as possible to make sure that their message gets out re: Iran.

    She pulled out...and now it's a "thing" where it might not've been a "thing" with the right response that would neutralize any campaign clap trap. And we know that HRC is top drawer with her ability to put out a message that can neutralize the situation.


    Come on now... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    you know this event isnt going to be in a vacuum.  Obviously they want the most attention for the event, and if they had told the Clinton camp that palin was going to be there as well, thats one thing.  But Hillary found that out through the media, so the organizers didnt bother to tell her that she'd be appearing with palin, a republican VP only chosen because she wasnt.  So yes, they knew what impact it would have and they knew there was a good chance she wouldnt even show up if she'd known palin would be there, which she isnt.  

    This was an attempt at a cheap publicity stunt at Hillarys expense.  The Clinton camp is furious and I dont blame them.


    Not in a vacumn...granted... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:56:34 PM EST
    But now it's even bigger news.

    and Dems just ceded ground (none / 0) (#58)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:57:23 PM EST
    on an important FP issue...Iran.

    Look... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    Im not saying this is going to be the most fun news story for Dems, and yes everything youve said are ways this could be spun.

    But what I am saying is that I think Hillary made the best move with the options she was given.


    And I think she had a better choice... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    one that she's very very good at.

    really?! (none / 0) (#53)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    She pulled out...and now it's a "thing" where it might not've been a "thing" ...

    You believe that?

    That the press wouldn't have reported it as a "joint appearance"?


    No... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:55:00 PM EST
    they would've reported that.

    But, given the topic of the event, that wouldn't have been as bad as the "What're Dems afraid of?" spin I pointed out earlier.


    are they reporting ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:02:55 PM EST
    ... that spin (anywhere beyond FoxSnooze)?

    I don't know... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    Cause I'm sitting here at my desk looking at the spin possibilities from all sides.

    No radio here...nor TV. So I've no idea what the spin doctors are saying.


    One possible effect... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    emerging is the mccain/palin response to Clinton withdrawing, as CNN put it, is a criticism on Hillary.  Now Im very ok if that ends up being the narrative, having republicans -- since republicans have been doing it for decades -- painted as criticizing Hillary yet again.  Would be a nice reminder of how they actually feel about her.

    Now maybe that's just wishful thinking, but Dems could spin things that way.


    One of the questions raised (none / 0) (#81)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:49:53 PM EST
    by a reporter (listened to a bit of news on the way to my night job) was...

    "Did the Obama campaign have anything to do with Hillary's sudden decision to withdraw her involvement?"


    Yes I heard that too... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 05:17:52 PM EST
    if its spun right I think both sides will negate each other.

    What happens... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:37:48 PM EST
    if we find out, after the last little "to do," that the Obama campaign did have something to do with Hill's withdrawal?

    You don't think... (none / 0) (#72)
    by sj on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    ...that the Obama campaign might have had an opinion on a "joint appearance"?  If so (and I do indeed think that it is so) do you think they would have encouraged it?

    Clinton did what she could to keep it from becoming a "partisan political event".  Give her some credit for knowing a little something about media spin.


    Oh...of course the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#74)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    would have an opinion.

    I give her a lot of credit for coming up with great responses that have done their part to try and neutralize the Palin effect. However, her solid messages have been undercut by a team of spinners who don't have her savvy.


    You mean... (none / 0) (#90)
    by jccleaver on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:56:31 PM EST
    Without Palin, right? :)

    lol!~ (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    afraid to be on the same stage as Palin

    this is a snark, right?


    Hillary isn't running. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:35:33 PM EST
    Otherwise I would agree with you.

    At my retirement party last night (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    the subject of Palin came up and, for once, I was not the person who started the talk about politics.  Some of my friends (male non-observant Jews) were really livid about Palin, espec. the Jew for Jesus founder speaking at her church while she was present and the Third Wave.  I was surprised at their intense anger.

    Happy retirement! (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    I hope this was not a hastily organized party because you work for Lehman Brothers, or anything of that nature.

    Ha. Nope--that other coast (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    and I worked for a public entity.  Thanks for the good wishes.

    Happy Retirement! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:48:17 PM EST
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    Congrats! (none / 0) (#83)
    by dead dancer on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    Hope to see more comments from u now. You help make this site a daily read.



    Believe it or not, I seem to add fewer (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    comments than when I was a work.  (Don't tell my former employer!)

    The only reason she ain't going.... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    is because she is scared that someone will snap a picture of her and Palin together...iow, petty politics.

    Make no mistake, Palin and Clinton, aka R and D, are on the same page in regards to Iran.

    Actually (none / 0) (#27)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    you are of course correct that the Dems are not the Peace Party, but Palin's interview with Charles Gibson actually put her to the right of the Bush administration with regard to Iran.  So I mean, I get where you're going with this, but there's worse and then there's worser.

    Fair enough.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    I agree the D's might be slightly more hesitant to pick a war with Iran...but only slightly, unfortunately.

    You sound like the Naderites who say (none / 0) (#86)
    by WillBFair on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:33:30 PM EST
    there's no difference between the parties. The fatcs say different. Bill used far reaching diplomacy and promoted peace, and Obama will get us out of Iraq. The repubs invent wars to dump cash on the war and oils industries. Hello.

    same page? (none / 0) (#54)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    same library, perhaps. likely the same bookshelf.

    but hardly the same page.


    she (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by mymy on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    can't go protest Adnadinejad because Palin is going to be there.Hillary looks either scared or not able to take the heat from the Obama campaign.I guess those are really the same thing

    You win the prize (4.40 / 5) (#75)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    for Lame Comment of the Day.

    This is v-e-r-y simple b-a-s-i-c politics.  I'll spell it out for you:

    This is a tight campaign for all the marbles.

    McCain's campaign thinks there are Hillary voters up for grabs who have not yet decided how to vote.

    Hillary has told 'her voters' to vote for Obama in no uncertain terms.

    How can McCain's campaign undermine that message and suggest that 'she doesn't REALLY mean it?'

    Simple.  Get a smiling photo of Palin HUGGING Hillary in public and ...Bingo!  TV ads...targeted mailings...radio talk shows run with it...

    Hillary should never appear with Palin during the campaign if she can avoid it...not at protests or demonstrations, not at funerals, not at weddings...no time, no way, no how.

    Class is dismissed.


    Thank you. (none / 0) (#87)
    by WillBFair on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:39:35 PM EST
    :: snicker :: (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    Yes, you keep telling yourself that.

    okay, that makes sense *snark* (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by STLDeb on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    okay, let's see now ... we have a murderous, suppressing women's rights thug coming to the U.N. and Hillary doesn't want to be in the same place as Sarah Palin?  Okay, that makes sense, NOT!

    speaking for myself only (hey BTD sorry I borrowed that from you LOL), this should be an issue that is beyond politics.  Hillary has & will always be a STRONG supporter of women's issues.  I truly wish she would reconsider.  There needs to be a strong statement made from both sides of the political aisle.  

    It is beyond politics (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    yet the GOP is sending their VP nominee, who just happens to have a problem with some Jewish voters right now, to the event in order to score political points.

    If the event also featured Republican elected officials like, say, Peter King (actually pretty hard to think of Republicans in the area!) of course Hillary would have no problem appearing alongside them in a bipartisan fashion.  But Sarah Palin doesn't make it bipartisan, she makes it partisan.


    Disappointment (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by BrooklynBlue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:23:18 PM EST
    Hillary is my Senator and I supported her vs. Obama because she is strong and reasoned on national defense, but Obama is too timid on foreign affairs.  

    As a Hillary supporter (but NOT Obama supporter), I am bummed that Hillary made this decision.  I would hope that Hillary and Palin could both put their mutual opposition to Iranian threats ahead of party and show some national unity on this matter.  

    Hillary should have kept the appointment with the rally.  I'm sure the organizers could have arranged them to not be hanging out in public together, if necessary to keep photographers from (oh gasp!) taking pictures of them near each other,... like when presidential candidates speak at the same forum at different times.  I still don't see the problem of them appearing on stage together -- if necessary to make it all work, drag in a couple of other big politicos from both parties, as I am sure they both have the clout to do that.  Nation above party.  

    Obama and McCain got together at Ground Zero on a matter of importance to the nation.  Why can't my senator get above politics and put her country above party?  What a disappointment.  I still love Hillary but I'm disappointed on this one.

    Good for her, but. . . (4.75 / 4) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    I wish someone somewhere would stand up and show some spine about this ridiculous Ahmedinejad baloney.  Don't they realize they're setting up the next insane war?

    I hate the Nuclear Iran rhetoric. (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:33:52 PM EST
    There's no perspective at all to it.   We might not call Iran an ally, but there's no reason to call them an enemy.

    You're either with us or you're agin us. (4.00 / 1) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    That's how human nature views the world. Watch how often it pops up here on TL, or at your work, or your home, or...

    's stupid. (4.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM EST
    You never know who you'll need to help you.  Best to keep your options open.  Also, best not to push potential allies into the arms of your enemies.

    This is where foreign relations gets tricky.  How much should you tolerate/overlook to keep people on your side?


    I agree, it is stupid, (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    unless you're in a life or death situation. We're not in much danger any more of being eaten by saber-toothed cats and dire wolves, but the instincts that kept us alive then are hard to shake today...

    Yes, foreign relations are beyond tricky exactly as you say.


    My husband got a McCain mailer (3.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:58:06 PM EST
    The theme?

    Terrorism!  We have been protected, but the rest of the world is under attack constantly!  Be SAFE - vote GOP!

    Yup.  With the GOP, the wolves are always at the door.  Never mind that the public thinks a failing economy is the problem.  With the GOP, if it isn't the terrorists, then it's the gays or those gun-hatin' Libruls.

    Vote for McCain?  Never.


    The terrorists are on Wall St. (3.66 / 3) (#69)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:14:03 PM EST
    these days.

    Economic terrorists.

    There's more than one way to bring down a government.


    Both sides play that game. (3.00 / 2) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    If you vote for McCain that means you are voting for teenage girls getting coat-hanger abortions in back alleys.

    Sarcasmo (none / 0) (#100)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:49:12 PM EST
    I have not yet seen the "coat hanger" invoked by the DNC or primary Obama surrogates.  Have you?

    This actually sounds like a gift from (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by WillBFair on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:44:21 PM EST
    conservative jews to the mccain camp. Why else would they invite palin to share a stage with hillary? They didn't know that the two are in a bitter struggle and couldn't figure out the political tally? Please.

    Good move (none / 0) (#1)
    by david mizner on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:47:20 AM EST
    But I wish she hadn't agreed to participate in the incendiary rally in the first place. She's not running anymore: does she really need to still be pandering to conservative Jews?

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:51:08 AM EST
    She's only the Senator from New York now; it's not like any of her constituents have strong feelings about Iran or anything like that!

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by david mizner on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:01:37 PM EST
    Fair point.

    I'm a Jew who lives in NY and I promise you more Jews here have views closer to mine than to Abe Foxman's, but yeah, pandering to conservative J's is a full-time project here in the Empire State.


    Sure (none / 0) (#17)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    But I don't think you have to be Abe Foxman to think Ahmadinejad is a bad guy.  Quite separate from the issue of whether we should start bombing tomorrow, of course.

    You know here's where dems or liberals or (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    progressives all have to face up to what they REALLY mean to be "tolerant", accepting.  This has always been a hard issue for me. I like to think of myself of tolerant of the beliefs of others, accepting.  But honestly, I have a really hard time with countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia) and other countries and most religions that do not give women equal rights, equal opportunity, protection from bullies.  
    Interestingly enough, I think Iran is better than our supposed allies in Saudi Arabia when it comes to women (well, the not wealthy women anyway).  

    I would protest against Iran on any of those countries more for how they treat their own female citizens than for how they talk about Israel or the threats of them getting nuclear weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons.  So I at least understand their desire in terms of MAD foreign policy.  Maybe it's because I came of age during MAD insanity in the USA vs USSR.  

    If Palin is going to protest the Iranian government it comes off as silly....considering fundamentalism is her world view too.  A different fundamentalism for sure but imo just as insane.  Hillary I understand.  Representing NY means at least assuring some of the large Jewish population there that she is aware of how insane it all is....

    I for one am glad Hillary is avoiding being on the same stage as Palin. Even the term "cat fight" insults me and I see the sexist media drooling over the chance to see women go after each other...
    it's a strange phenomenon I don't get.  But then I would not, did not when I was younger, think there was anything romantic about two guys blooding each other over a woman either. I guess I am weird.


    We entertained two female Iranian physicians (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 08:43:05 PM EST
    recently and I was surprised at some of the things they said and did.  They dressed very western style except for the small scarf they each wore, and they talked about women in medicine as a natural fact.  They also talked a little about now that families had fewer children the parents were more permissive in their upbringing.  In fact, they said many parents are intimidated by their young. One of the women was married and was on a tour of the US (complements US State Dept education exchange).  I know the country has rules about women, but I didn't get the feeling that they were terribly abused.  Of course I did not press them on 'touchy subjects' just surprised that the married physician obviously left her husband for a month for hercareer.

    I am not talking about individuals (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM EST
    and frankly in all societies there are exceptions to the rule.  But there are issues I have with governments who as public policy imply women are inferior to, belong to, must listen to, are owned by the males.  Enforcement is not the issue. It is the fact that this is the belief they continue to push.

    I had an Iranian student years ago. Her father was very pro education, pro western style.  But he never would bad mouth anything about his country's government because he still had relatives there.....

    From what I read, in Saudi Arabia, in the privacy of their homes, rich women are afforded every right and when they travel outside the country they get all the rights to education etc.  But it's not the rich, the upper class, the well educated who suffer.  It is the poor people, the masses....


    there's a broad chasm (none / 0) (#57)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:57:12 PM EST
    ... between "Iran is not an ally" and the Manichean "Ahmadinejad is evil incarnate"

    this isn't merely binary.


    Right (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:59:27 PM EST
    which is why you can support an anti-Ahmadinejad rally without being as extreme as Abe Foxman.  Or were you intending to agree with me?

    She's still a Senator from New York. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    Which is to say, yes, she does.

    OT but good strategy for Dems (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    LINK; the title of this piece at HuffPo says it all: Hello? If McCain Had His Way, That'd Be Our Social Security Money Wall Street is Losing.

    In terms of a ready-made Dem talking point this is on par with the GOP plan to cage voters who've had their homes closed. i.e. Lose Your House, Lose Your Vote.

    Why oh why can't our guys just RUN with these readymade missives.


    Conservative Jews (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    She still is the Senator from New York.

    Life imitates art (not) (none / 0) (#6)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    Ever since the SNL skit, everybody wants to see the two of them together.

    "Rally to Stop Iran Now". Would like to know which Jewish groups are involved. And I'm not too thrilled that Hillary was planning on participating in this at all.

    try this (none / 0) (#61)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:00:32 PM EST
    Thanks for the link, wystler (none / 0) (#84)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 05:52:58 PM EST
    Not everyone (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    I don't care to see them together (tho I loved the skit on SNL).  

    And I would protest Iran on the basis of how they treat females.....but that's me.  Ditto Saudi Arabia, or any country where women are treated as chattel.


    Yay! I hope Hillary beats Palin in the election! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Exeter on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    sorry, but this is bad politics.  Refusing to share the same stage w/Palin in a rally against Hitler-lite Ahmadinejad is about as politically savvy as refusing to attend a wreath-laying ceremony for 9/11.  Ultimately, its bad staff work, for not nailing down who was invited, but after the fact, she she should have just grinned and beared it.

    Sorry, but it's not bad politics (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by rdandrea on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    It was originally a protest.

    Now the McCain folks want to turn it into a campaign event.

    Good on Hillary for calling BS.


    Invitees (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:30:30 PM EST
    It was after the fact that Clinton found out she would be sharing a stage/photo op with Palin. She had two choices:  pander to her conservative Jewish supporters in New York or figure that McCain/Palin would distribute a smiling picture of the two on stage making it seem like Clinton and Palin were gal pals.  She chose not to appear.

    It really isn't a big deal.  


    Um (none / 0) (#50)
    by WS on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    no it isn't.  Palin is a nothing compared to Hillary.  

    I have not opinion on this. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:17:58 PM EST

    SNL (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:36:17 PM EST
    Anyone remember the line where Amy Poehler said she was only there cuz they didn't tell her Palin was coming????

    Hillary is a partisan dem, she is not Obama, she doesn't do unity with republicans.

    Actually.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    she looks pretty united with the Israel lobby, and by extension her supposed Republican adversaries...at least on this issue.

    She's not going because she doesn't wanna be seen with Palin, not because she isn't 100% in agreeement with the pro-Israel groups protesting Iran, along with Palin.  Clinton and Palin agree, she just doesn't wanna give the press a photo op of them together and in agreement.  


    Obama is pretty (none / 0) (#40)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    behind Israel, too. It's what politicians must do. And supporting Israel isn't being 100% in agreement with Palin on the subject. You're being disingenuous about this.

    Nearly the whole govt. is.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    behind Israel, to the detriment of peace, if you ask me.  All the big players anyway, including Obama.

    That's the problem...


    No, that's a good thing (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:00:26 PM EST
    I also am behind Israel. You don't have to be a conservative or right-winger to support Israel.

    Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:08:17 PM EST
    I'm a liberal and fully behind Israel.  

    my guess is that (none / 0) (#89)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:47:38 PM EST
    most christians are 'behind' Israel and most non-christians don't see why we give special treatment to such a small country that doesn't have significance outside of religion...

    why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons and Iran is not?  It should be a simple question, but apparently it is not...

    I understand the danger that Iran poses the US (ALMOST SOLELY BECAUSE OF OUR SUPPORT FOR IRAN) but I also understand that our country does not have a government that should be allowing a religion to make its decisions...

    If Bush/McCain supporters Hagee, Fallwell, Robertson and Strang have their way we will be at war with Iran sooner than later (as they TRULY BELIEVE IT, to bring the second coming and the end of our civilization)....might explain why we are trying to box them in with wars bordering both sides of their country...how convenient to have 180,000+ troops right at their doorstep...


    Nuclear Iran vs Nuclear Israel (2.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:50:08 AM EST
    Israeli exceptionalism?

    Objectively, I can see reasons why we favor Nuclear Israel (It's unlikely Israel will attack America.) but it's still hypocritical to assume that Nuclear Israel is a stabilizing force while Nuclear Iran is a destabilizing force.  

    I wonder which nation has gone to war more often in the past 100 years?  I think it is Israel, not Iran.


    I am an atheist and not Jewish. (none / 0) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 07:00:14 PM EST
    would it be off-topic (none / 0) (#92)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 07:24:06 PM EST
    to ask why?

    very curious...beautiful landscapes? history?


    yes, this is about Hillary not wanting to (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 07:27:32 PM EST
    appear with Palin. And your comment about Israel having no meaning outside of religion is offensive. Take that elsewhere.

    sorry (none / 0) (#97)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:04:05 PM EST
    I know that Israel is a touchy subject in America

    I don't mean that Israel has no significance, just that outside of religion I see no distinction between Israel and all the other 'westernized' countries out there...

    so that's it...
    done with it...


    if she had attended (none / 0) (#101)
    by Amiss on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:53:11 PM EST
    you can be sure the McCain campaign would have had an ad out featuring Hillary alongside Palin forthwith.

    Smart move Hillary.


    Her campaign has said a few times (none / 0) (#103)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:12:00 AM EST
    that she does not want to be used against Palin --
    as in this female almost-VP-nominee vs that female VP-nominee.

      Ann Lewis also pointed out that there is no reason for Clinton to be focusing on Palin, for Obama, since Clinton is not the VP on the ticket.

      I am with her 100%.


    Two questions: (none / 0) (#38)
    by EL seattle on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:59:15 PM EST
    1.) Will Biden be there?

    2.) Will other representatives of New York's voters be there? (The other senator, reps., NYC mayor, etc.?)

    Why? (none / 0) (#42)
    by ctrenta on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:17:14 PM EST

    Why was Hillary even considering going in the first place? Sounds like a rather jingoistic FOX News-esque event to be going to, dotcha think?

    Perhaps the big $$$ behind (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 08:41:51 PM EST
    the rally are from Jews for Jesus?

    Palin: a malignant synergy? (none / 0) (#102)
    by bluejane on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:54:39 PM EST
    Agree HRC showed good judgment in pulling out of this appearance.

    Meanwhile Dadler's first comment above noted:

    Palin, for one, probably has more in common with the Iranian president's fundamentalist mindset than she has with me.

     . . . which reminds me of a frightening insight by Robert Jay Lifton ("Superpower Syndrome") referencing the Bush administration (and now seems to apply to Palin/"Bush in a skirt"):

    "In their mutual zealotry, Islamist and American leaders seem to act in concert. That is, each in their excess nurtures the apocalypticism of the other, resulting in a malignant synergy."