Fireweednectar’s Weblog

Views from The Last Frontier

Sarah Palin disinvite: Hillary, 1; Malcolm Hoenlein, big fat zero

Key points in the Pamela Geller article

The notorious disinviting of Sarah Palin from an anti-Ahmedinejad rally in New York is a product of the secret war Hillary Clinton is waging against the Obama presidential campaign.

The catalyst that set the disastrous events in motion was Hillary Clinton’s withdrawal.

Many weak and nonsensical excuses were made for Clinton’s withdrawal. It was said she pulled out because she thought the event was partisan, or because she did not want to appear with Palin. She was unhappy that the organizers did not tell her that Palin also was going to attend.

Actually, what Clinton signaled was her chances of seizing the nomination and the White House in 2012 were more important than presenting a united front against Ahmadinejad.

So what happened to set the ball rolling? Hillary’s pull out had nothing to do with Palin. It was an implicit hit at Obama. Hillary did not want to be the one to represent Obama. Obama’s position on Iran is sophomoric, idiotic and dangerous. Hillary has been more responsible and she was not going to clean up his mess.

In plain terms, Hillary Clinton was not going to be the face of Obama’s Iranian foreign policy. Obama has said he would meet with Ahmedinejad without condition — essentially rewarding him for his nuclear arsenal and genocidal threats. No way was Hillary going to pave that road for him, so she pulled out forcing Obama to face the jihad music. In withdrawing she forced him send someone in his stead — but who?

Clinton could not have known that Jewish lay leadership would cave to their left wing activists, but that was of little import to her. Her action was taken to shine the spotlight on Obama’s complete failure on Iran, and she accomplished this. Claiming that by inviting Palin (and Clinton, Biden and Wexler), the organizers were in danger of losing their tax-exempt status was ridiculous. It was not a political rally and Hillary attended and spoke in 2006 when she was running for the Senate. Was that political? Those who make that argument insult our intelligence.

I do not forgive Malcolm Hoenlein for caving to the leftist Jews. The buck stops with him and he blew it. Israel is in Iran’s nuclear cross hairs. Full weaponization is either here or imminent. American Jews need real leadership and that is why Malcolm Hoinlein must resign. He is tired and gutless. As executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations since June 1986, it was his decision to make. Hoenlein has demonstrated he is not capable of leading the Jewish people as the world prepares for a second holocaust. The left wing politics of yesterday cause irreparable harm.

The real issue is why Obama didn’t send anyone to represent him at the Anti-Ahmedinejad rally? Having no one there for Obama makes it seem he did not want to upset the Hitler wannabe, or that he was pandering to his widespread support in the Muslim world or his 22% lead over McCain among Muslim Americans.

Hillary wanted these question raised in the subconscious of Jewish and other pro-Israel/anti-Iran voters.

In this Presidential race, Hillary is a McCain operative even if he doesn’t know it.


Thursday 25 September 2008 - Posted by | Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. I think you’re wrong. I think Hillary was instructed to not attend by the Obama campaign and followed her orders.

    Palin would have given a speech that would have resonated very much the same as any speech Hillary would give, since there’s no way Hillary would just parrot Obama’s non-stance on Iran. That would have put Palin and Hillary on stage together saying essentially the same thing.

    I do not the Obamacrats wanted Palin being favorably compared to Hillary by the Jewish community which is critical in the battleground state of Florida.

    Comment by jonolan | Thursday 25 September 2008 | Reply

  2. This is always a possibility, but:

    *If Clinton attended, her comments and Palin’s might end up being similar or the same

    *If she did not attend, Obama comes off looking as if he considers it more important to smear Palin than to show his discontent at the Iranian president spewing his hate and doing it on our own soil.

    So he thought a favorable comparison between Clinton and Palin would hurt him more, in the eyes of the American people, than extending de facto support to Ahmedinejad?

    This, as I said, may be possible, but just supports the idea that he values politics more than national security–not what the American people want in a president.

    Comment by fireweednectar | Thursday 25 September 2008 | Reply

  3. Of course! If Obama valued anything more than getting elected he’d be in DC alongside McCain and he would pick a position on Iran and stick with it instead of hedging his bets.

    Comment by jonolan | Thursday 25 September 2008 | Reply

  4. If he had any kind of intelligence he would have hedged his bets in the other direction, unless he fears Sarah Palin more than is already suspected.

    It also shows how uncategorically stupid he is. If it were me I would have risked being with Palin.

    Comment by fireweednectar | Thursday 25 September 2008 | Reply

  5. He’s terrified of Palin. There’s no way that he was going to allow a situation where Palin would sound like Hillary, especially a situation where Hillary and Palin would be publicly seen as being in agreement.

    Most of the Hillary supporters will NOT vote for McCain-Palin, but there’s still the fear that they might sit this election out.

    Comment by jonolan | Thursday 25 September 2008 | Reply

  6. That just supports the belief he is a fool. He could have easily gotten over Hillary and Sarah looking like twins. Getting past the appearance of being soft on Iran will be much more difficult.

    I don’t know any real stats on how many Clinton supporters will or won’t go McCain/Palin, but I’m not convinced about that fear they will sit the election out. I think too many of them are too smart to do that. They know how stupid that is.

    Comment by fireweednectar | Thursday 25 September 2008 | Reply

  7. huh! oh, it’s those leftist Jews, huh? it’s always about the Jews, now isn’t it? i bet you’re a closet nazi

    Comment by me | Thursday 25 September 2008 | Reply

  8. At least two of the major Jewish groups sponsoring the event could be described as leftists. Both are heavily tied up with the Democrats.

    Comment by jonolan | Friday 26 September 2008 | Reply

  9. ..]That is one strand of Democratic foreign policy. A second strand emerged in the context of the Vietnam War. That war began under the Kennedy administration and was intensified by Lyndon Baines Johnson, particularly after 1964. The war did not go as expected. As the war progressed, the Democratic Party began to fragment. There were three factions involved in this…]

    Comment by Obama's Foreign Policy Stance | Saturday 27 September 2008 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: