Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Does Hillary Clinton Have A Position On The Netanyahu Speech? [View all]Segami
(14,923 posts)22. Fight over Netanyahu and Iran could split Democrats
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 Israels 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.
Indeed, in another piece of Iran-related news, two major progressive groups MoveOn and CREDO Action are vowing a campaign against any Democrats who undermine a nuclear deal with Iran. The heads of the two groups write:
"....If these talks fail because of unwarranted congressional meddling, Democrats who side with Republicans will be at fault. And progressive activists will hold them accountable for the rest of their careers in politics. The United States is facing a historic opportunity to make the region and the world more secure without resorting to war. We agree with our allies, negotiating partners and scores of national security experts: Congress should hold its fire and let diplomacy work..."
http://www.rollcall.com/news/democrats_dont_side_with_republicans_on_iran_commentary-240443-1.html
Democratic base voters also appear to side with the administration on this matter. Wherever Clinton ends up coming out on such a deal, you could easily see some Congressional Democrats either supporting new sanctions legislation which could undermine the deals prospects or coming out against the deal itself, particularly if Netanyahus speech is portrayed in the media as a huge success. Which is to say that beyond todays media spectacle loom the prospect of serious divisions among Democrats.
cont'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/03/morning-plum-fight-over-netanyahu-and-iran-could-split-democrats/
In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg last August, Clinton said that Israels 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.
Indeed, in another piece of Iran-related news, two major progressive groups MoveOn and CREDO Action are vowing a campaign against any Democrats who undermine a nuclear deal with Iran. The heads of the two groups write:
"....If these talks fail because of unwarranted congressional meddling, Democrats who side with Republicans will be at fault. And progressive activists will hold them accountable for the rest of their careers in politics. The United States is facing a historic opportunity to make the region and the world more secure without resorting to war. We agree with our allies, negotiating partners and scores of national security experts: Congress should hold its fire and let diplomacy work..."
http://www.rollcall.com/news/democrats_dont_side_with_republicans_on_iran_commentary-240443-1.html
Democratic base voters also appear to side with the administration on this matter. Wherever Clinton ends up coming out on such a deal, you could easily see some Congressional Democrats either supporting new sanctions legislation which could undermine the deals prospects or coming out against the deal itself, particularly if Netanyahus speech is portrayed in the media as a huge success. Which is to say that beyond todays media spectacle loom the prospect of serious divisions among Democrats.
cont'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/03/morning-plum-fight-over-netanyahu-and-iran-could-split-democrats/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
22 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Not yet.. She's waiting to hear from A.I.P.A.C. about how much $$ they will give to her campaign.
Hoppy
Mar 2015
#1
Googled.. found crickets from Hillary but on a whim.. found plenty from Howard Dean..
Cha
Mar 2015
#4
It's kind of a no-brainer for Dems who want to negotiate Peace options rather than condoning
Cha
Mar 2015
#10
Please tell me where all those who have announced their candidacy for President stand.
NCTraveler
Mar 2015
#18