Hillary Clinton is trying to keep the Jewish money flowing by suggesting privately she will be better for Israel than President Obama, according to Politico.
And you know what? It will probably work. The people of my tribe vote Democratic every time – and donate the same way – despite the abundant, irrefutable evidence that Republicans are far more supportive of Israel than Democrats. Not to mention better for the economy, but one can at least have an argument about that.
From the piece:
Hillary Clinton is privately signaling to wealthy Jewish donors that — no matter the result of the Iranian nuclear negotiations — she will be a better friend to Israel than President Barack Obama.
But, even as donors increasingly push Clinton on the subject in private, they have emerged with sometimes widely varying interpretations about whether she would support a prospective deal, according to interviews with more than 10 influential donors and fundraising operatives.
Clinton’s private responses in some ways resemble a foreign policy Rorschach test; donors who see a deal as important to world peace have come away thinking that Clinton shares their perspective, but so, too, do donors who oppose any prospective agreement as compromising Israeli security.
Publicly, she’s expressed support for the negotiating process, which she secretly initiated during her time as secretary of state, but has also said “no deal is better than a bad deal.”
Well, this is easy enough for her, isn’t it? After all, being better than Obama to Israel is not much of a commitment.