And so it begins, First campaign attack ad targets Hillary, and it shows a systemic vulnerability.

[Savannahmann]

The other day I asked the question about union support for Hillary, and if she could win without it. The answer I got after a half dozen links in the OP was don't worry, the Unions will support her. No proof, no linked announcements. Just have faith that the party will muddle through to the end and it will be alright on the day.

kpete posted a story about Centrist Dems pushing back against the Warren wing of the Democratic Party. This post was interesting IMO because the Centrist Dems were giving up several populist issues by telling the Left to shut up and sit down. Worse, the Centrists announced they were giving up those populist issues.

This evening, I stumbled across this when I got my email up and running. Here's the story. A Pro-Israel group is asking where Hillary is regarding the speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In short, the ad is asking Hillary to come out and make a statement regarding her position on Israel regarding the Iranian nuclear program. This is a trap, an obvious one, but an effective one.

Since Hillary has been Secretary of State, it's assumed that she'd got some serious Foreign Policy experience. So when someone asks a question regarding Foreign Policy, they expect an answer pretty much right away. The NY Times falls into this trap, and sent an email to the Clinton camp asking Hillary's opinion on the ad and if she supports Israel. No response was all that the NY Times got in answer, and that is probably the best answer she could have given.

Gallop has support for Israel at a whopping 64%. That's as high as it has ever been in this particular poll. Now, the ad was put out by the Conservative groups, granted. But this shows a serious weakness in the Democratic party, and how we are positioning ourselves for the 2016 election.

Populist issues are often derided, but the truth is that populist issues have a lot of people behind them, which is why they are referred to as populist. From legalization of Marijuana, to Civil Rights reforms, there are a lot of issues that have popular support. Either pluralities, or outright majorities. So just how many of those populist issues can Democrats eschew and remain serious in the eyes of the public?

Worse, by rejecting the populist issues championed by the left Hillary sets the campaign up as a choice between the RW, and the slightly less RW. As we saw in 2014 when we had lackluster turnout, GOTV works best when we give the people a reason to GOTV. We need to give the people a candidate, a plan, an ideal to vote FOR.

A thirty second ad produced by a Conservative group that supports Israel in perhaps as much as two hours. Released to Youtube, and emailed to the NY Times has struck the mark, and nobody has even announced their intent to become President yet.

No, I'm not suggesting that the election in 2016 will be decided on who supports Israel. I am saying that this is a papercut. A single small insignificant thing by itself. But there is an old saying, the death by a thousand papercuts. A single papercut is insignificant. A thousand would be the death of the candidate on the day. The Democratic Party must embrace those populist issues that are being rejected this early in the campaign. Because without the populist support, all the GOTV efforts in the world won't do a damn thing to help us win.

[creeksneakers2]

1. It appears

that the differences between the factions are about message. No specific policy differences are reported here.

[OKNancy]

2. The whole email story collapsed a few hours after it was written

1. It was uncovered by the Benghazi committee
2. There was no law against it at the time
3. The article itself is poorly written and full of holes.

this will be another nothing story in a few days.

Oh, of course the Republicans will be hounding her. What's new about that? They do it to every Democrat.

[HereSince1628]

3. Yes, but that's not even mentioned above

I can't decide if you've made a non sequitur, or a strawman

[Katashi_itto]

4. It's the usual word salad

[OKNancy]

7. posted in wrong thread - three windows open... excuse me...

[Capt. Obvious]

5. Indeed

No one's even talking about it anymore.

[el_bryanto]

6. How dumb do you think Americans are?

I think the problem isn't accepting or rejecting populist proposals (by which you seem to mean center/right proposals), it's standing for what you believe in. One weakness of a Clinton campaign will be similar to the one that Romney run; i.e. the sense that as a candidate they are willing to tell you what you want to hear in order to win.

Bryant

[Savannahmann]

9. Populist means populist.

I mentioned two in the OP that certainly are not Center Right.

1) Decriminalization of Marijuana. Hardly a Center Right position. Polling has over the last several years consistently shown that a plurality, and occasional majority support this effort.

2) Civil Rights especially the ones violated regularly by the Security State. A majority of Americans oppose NSA spying. Again, hardly a Center Right populist issue.

I agree that the support for Israel tends to come from the Center Right, and I mention it in the OP. I mention that the Ad came from a Conservative group that supports Israel.

But how is Marijuana legalization and NSA spying part of the Center Right?

[stevenleser]

8. There is no vulnerability here both Clintons have lots of experience with Netanyahu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu#Oslo_Accords

Oslo Accords
Netanyahu opposed the Oslo accords from their inception. During his term as prime minister in the late 1990s, Netanyahu consistently reneged on commitments made by previous Israeli governments as part of the Oslo peace process, leading American peace envoy Dennis Ross to note that "neither President Clinton nor Secretary [of State Madeleine] Albright believed that Bibi had any real interest in pursuing peace."[127] In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo Accords]," "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."[128] However, this is clearly consistent with Yitzhak Rabin's October 1995 statement to the Knesset on the ratification of the interim Oslo agreement: "B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term."
-----------------------
All Hillary has to say is that they are strong supporters of the state of Israel, but also expect Israel to live up to its existing agreements on peace with the Palestinians and expect Israel to negotiate in good faith to bring about a comprehensive and permanent peace agreement in the context of a two state solution.

[Savannahmann]

10. Possibly.

All Hillary has to say is that they are strong supporters of the state of Israel, but also expect Israel to live up to its existing agreements on peace with the Palestinians and expect Israel to negotiate in good faith to bring about a comprehensive and permanent peace agreement in the context of a two state solution.

But Hillary would look even dumber if she did that. Because again, the Ad was about Iran, not the Palestinian question. In 2008 Hillary said that the US Policy towards Iran was massive retaliation if Iran attacked Israel. http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm#Iran That was during the Pennsylvania debate on the eve of the primary, which means she wasn't expressing the opinions of President Obama, but Candidate Clinton.

So she could come out with a statement like you suggest, but it wouldn't answer the question, and that would be commented on, and it would not be in keeping with her previous statements on the issue, which would at best label her as a flip flopper, or a craven attention seeking individual desperate to say anything that would grant her higher office.