|
Why do these donors support Clinton’s strategy?
Hillary Clinton promises to prolong the primaries, which she has essentially lost, All The Way to Denver
Sen. Clinton gave a pretty astonishing interview to the Washington Post in which she appears to say she will stay in the race till the convention in August, where she will take her fight to the credentials committee to have the delegates from the non-sanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries seated.
That may rip the Democratic party apart. In my view, that alone wouldn’t be a big loss. But it seriously increases the chances for McCain to win the bigger race and the chances for more wars in the Middle East.
In a letter to speaker Pelosi major donors support Clinton’s strategy and put pressure on the Democratic Party to not force an earlier decision.
Xymphora, Jeffrey St Clair and Nicholas D. Kristof have suggested that a 2008 victory for McCain is what Hillary (and Bill) Clinton now want.
In four years McCain is too old to run again and Clinton could then have another chance to run and win, while a 2012 attempt against a sitting president Barak Obama is likely a guaranteed defeat.
So one can certainly understand Hillary’s personal motives to take the fight to the bitter end.
But one wonders what the real aims of these party donors are. Why do they support a strategy that may lead to a devastating loss for their party? Why do they essentially support McCain and his bellicose threats against Iran?
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency finds:
Twelve of the 20 Clinton backers who warned Nancy Pelosi to keep out of the Democratic presidential primaries are Jewish.
The 20 signatories to the letter sent recently to Pelosi (D-Calif.), the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, are major donors to the Democratic Party and strong supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Hmm … time for some ‘conspiracy theories’?
for those of you who are scrolling impaired
circa’92
DS: I’ve known Bill for seven, eight years from the National Governors Association. I know him on a personal basis. I have friends. One of my friends is Hillary Clinton’s scheduler, one of my officer’s daughters works there. We gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absences to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen people in that campaign, in the headquarters.
HK: You mean in Little Rock?
DS: In Little Rock, and they’re all going to get big jobs. We have friends. I also work with a think tank, the Washington Institute. I have Michael Mandelbaum and Martin Indyk being foreign policy advisers. Steve Speigel—we’ve got friends—this is my business.
HK: I understand, David.
DS: It’s very complicated and the more you get into it, you’ll love it. You sound like a smart guy.
HK: I’m a smart guy, but I have a, maybe because I’m more orthodox than you are, I’ve had bad experiences with Gentiles. Let me ask you, you know what “tachlis” means?
DS: Yeah, sure.
HK: From a practical point of view, if Clinton wins the presidency, and I’m sure he will, I hope so at least, what will be the benefits to Israel better than Bush? From a very practical point . . . I mean, you just told me that Bush gave you everything you wanted. . .
DS: Only, not everything, at the end, when we didn’t want the F-15s, that’s a terrible thing.
HK: Selling the F-15s? If Clinton is elected. . .
DS: Let me tell you the problem with the $10 billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have the first year. We have authorization from Congress, but it’s at the discretion of the president every year thereafter, so if Bush is there, he could say, you know, use it as a club, you know. ‘If you don’t give up Syria, I won’t give you the money. If you don’t give up the Golan Heights.’ It’s at the discretion of the president. And that’s why we need a friendly president and we have Bill Clinton’s ear. I talked to Bill Clinton.
HK: And Bill Clinton has made a commitment that if he’s elected . . . ?
DS: He’s going to be very good for us.
HK: And he’ll go ahead with the loan guarantees?
DS: We didn’t talk about that specifically, listen, I didn’t ask him that, but I have full confidence that we’re going to have a much better situation. He’s got Jewish friends. A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood up for them at their wedding. Hillary lived with her. I mean we have those relationships. We have never had that with Bush. Susan Thomases, who’s in there, worked with me on the Bradley campaign. We worked together for 13 years. She’s In there with the family. They stay with her when they come to New York. One of my officers, Monte Friedkin, is one of the biggest fund-raisers for them. I mean, I have people like that all over the country.
HK: So, I mean from a practical point of view. . .
DS: He’s going to be with us.
HK: I don’t say, this business, you say, Bush only went ahead with the loan guarantees for one year.
DS: We only have. It’s mandatory they give us the $2 billion for one year. After that it’s subject to the discretion of the president.
HK: You mean the other $8 billion?
DS: That’s correct. On an annualized basis.
HK: Also, I heard that. . .
DS: They don’t have to give it to us.
HK: But if Clinton is elected. . .
DS:… feel reasonably certain we’re gonna get It.
HK: He’s made that commitment?
DS: Well, he said he’s going to help us. He’s got something in his heart for the Jews, he has Jewish friends. Bush has no Jewish friends.
HK: Right.
DS: Reagan had something . . . meshuga, but at least he had a commitment. He knew Jews from the film industry, he was one of the best guys for us. He had an emotional thing for the Jews. Bush doesn’t have it. That’s what it is really, if you have a feeling for our people, for what we believe in. Bush is, there’s a man with no principles. Absolutely no principles.
HK: I heard something about, but I never really understood it, with the scoring. One of my friends told me there’s a difference in the scoring, but I don’t understand. . .
DS: Scoring is like points that you pay.
HK: So let’s say, if Bush is elected on the loans . . .
DS: No, we’ve got the scoring arranged, it’s four and a half percent. It’s all done.
HK: That’s all done, even with Bush?
DS: Even with Bush. I’ve got that worked out.
HK: So that’s all done.
DS: It’s in the bill. It’s all passed. He signed the bill. It’s a matter of law.
HK: So it’s already four and a half percent?
DS: We could’ve had it less, but then we couldn’t. . .
HK: And Clinton, if he was president, he would give…?
DS: He could not change it, you cannot change it.
HK: No, but I’m saying, if he was president now, before the bill was signed, he would’ve given you the four and a half percent. . .
DS: I would’ve gotten less.
HK: I’m sorry?
DS: I would’ve gotten it cheaper.
HK: How much? Even two percent?
DS: Yeah, we thought we were going to get two percent. But Rabin gave it away.
HK: You mean Rabin didn’t bargain as good as he could have?
DS: That’s right.
HK: Unbelievable. So, if Clinton is elected, that will be the best. ..
DS: I think that will be the best we could do.
HK: So if you had a little lamp, a wishing lamp and you could wish for either Bush, Clinton or Perot. . .
DS: Clinton.
HK: Clinton all the way? And in terms of Israel having political power, between the three candidates, the one who will give us the most political power?
DS: Clinton is the best guy for us.
HK: He’s the best one.
DS: I hope you’re serious about what you told me.
HK: I am, I’ll tell you this [tells a long anecdote about David Souter promising to oppose abortion as a nominee and then reversing himself on the Supreme Court]. So I wish we had a Jewish candidate for president.
DS: I don’t think the country’s ready.
HK: If the country was ready, is there any Jewish candidate…?
DS:I wouldn’t venture to say anything.
HK: You know who? I don’t know him, I’ve never met him, Joe Lieberman.
DS: Oh, I’m very friendly with Joe. I’m having dinner with him Monday night.
HK: Let me tell you, I think Joe Lieberman would have, uh, would have, if he wasn’t Jewish, that’s the only problem he has. He’s highly respected.
DS: I’d like to see him on the Supreme Court.
HK: If Clinton is elected, has he told you who he’s going to put on the Supreme Court?
DS: We’re talking now. We don’t have no commitments yet. We’re just negotiating. We’re more interested right now, in the secretary of state and the secretary of National Security Agency. That’s more important to us.
HK: If Clinton is elected, who do you think will be secretary of state?
DS: We don’t know yet, we’re negotiating.
HK: Who are you hoping for?
DS: I’ve got a list. But I really can’t go through it. I’m not allowed to talk about it.
HK: But you figure, God willing, if Clinton’s elected . . .
DS: We’ll have access.
HK: You’ll have access and you’ll have a good input into who’s secretary of state.
DS: I do believe so.
HK: And the other position is. . .
DS: National security adviser.
HK: Those are the two critical positions.
DS: Right.
HK: Gotcha. Well, David, thanks for talking with me.
W: And we’re going to get together next week. I hope you’ll have your checkbook ready.
HK: Will do.
DS: Okay, thanks.
Posted by: annie | Mar 31 2008 17:10 utc | 32
|
