What Palin would have said today (and why Hillary backed out)
I've spent the past few days listening to people play the blame game about today's Iran rally: Malcolm, Malcolm bo-balcom, banna fanna fo-Hillary, mi my mo-morman – Forman. One thing is clear: The McCain camp did intend to use the joint appearance with Hillary Clinton as a hammer with which to slam Barack Obama.
How do we know?
Because the McCain campaign is circulating the remarks that it says she would have given at the rally (they were published in Monday's New York Sun).
Check out this passage:
Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.
Translation: Clinton gets the threat, Obama and Biden don't.
The back story: Clinton voted for a resolution calling on the Bush administration to designate the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. Obama and Biden voted against it.
The missing piece of information: Obama and Biden say they agree with the Bush administration's subsequent decision to sanction the Iranian outfit, but opposed the resolution over concerns that the White House might use the measure to justify future military action against Iran without Congressional resolution.
So ... if we are to believe that these were really her intended remarks... Not only was Palin planning to use Clinton (and her platform at the Jewish community-sponsored rally) to swipe at Obama, but she was going to do so in a misleading way.
Democrats may have mishandled the situation, and may be unfairly assigning sinister motives to rally organizers, but one thing is clear: They were right to be concerned that the invitation to Palin would infuse a heavy dose of partisanship into what was supposed to be a unity rally.
UPDATED: Forgot to mention that Palin also planned to offer a strong plug for McCain's Iraq policy:
If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons – they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.
In general, that would be a perfectly understandable and legitimate point to make in a stump speech, but not the best talking point for a rally aimed at building a politically diverse coalition for tougher sanctions against Iran.
Here's the full text:
I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country – leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York – to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan – and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.
Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.
He must be stopped.
The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" – the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman – not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.
The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.
The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.
So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.
If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons – they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.
But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.
Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.
It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.
If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.
If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.
But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.
Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.
Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!
Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.
Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech – a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.
We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.
We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.
We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.
President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.
We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps – which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.
Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.
Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.
Thank you.
20 Comments
Share This
Democratic convention,
hillary clinton,
Iran,
Presidential Race,
Sarah Palin
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
I for one was very impressed with Governor Palin’s speech, and I think it was a tremendous loss that both she and Senator Clinton did not speak at the rally, Clinton because of choice, and Palin because of what? I don’t exactly know, unless it was just plain fear of making the Obama campaign look weaker. It’s a pity that once again partisan politics has bested two of the most powerful women in America today. What better show of solidarity against Ahmadinejad’s terror regime than a bipartisan team of powerful and articulate women?
As a Canadian Jew who agrees that Ahmadinejad and Iran not only have a desire to be a nuclear armament nation but also constantly declares it will destroy Israel the protest march was important. However the excuse of Hillary Clinton bowing out on a flimsy excuse was not an acceptable reason. But more important was the organizers bowing to the Democratic Party’s pressure to disinvite Sarah Pailin was a “SHUNDE” Shame on the organizers and shame on the Jewish community for not standing up for to Democratic Party pressure.
I agree with the organizers’ decision to disinvite Sarah Palin. Why give politicians running for office the chance to use this event for their partisan political purposes? Even before Palin was disinvited, she and the McCain camp were already trying to use Clinton’s decision to not attend to attack Obama--by saying that somehow, only they perceive that the event is more important than partisan politics. Also, don’t forget that one of the reasons why McCain chose Palin was because he wanted to use her to get votes from Hillary’s supporters, so of course they eagerly accepted the invitation to attend. To see the two of them highlighted in news reports would of course redound to Palin’s favor. Why should Hillary allow herself to be used? Hillary’s not stupid. Palin and McCain have everything to gain politically, while Hillary does not.
Finally, people have the right to not attend an event if they do not want to be with whoever else is invited. The organizers never told Hillary when she was invited that Palin would be there too. So, just as a matter of common social courtesy, I would say that Hillary was the wronged party here, not Palin.
Palin would have said it in person had the National “Jewish” Democratic Council not intervened to ruin the event.
The National “Jewish” Democratic Council also used its nominally Jewish identity to whitewash MoveOn.org’s anti-Semitic hate speech in 2006, and to damage Jewish-Christian relations by publishing anti-Christian hate material under color of Judaism.
Our Christian friends should be assured that NJDC is no more representative of Jews than the “Christian” Identity Movement (white supremacist) is representative of real Christians.
Anyone who takes Palin at face value is completely deluded. She’s a friend of Jews? Think again. It’s clearly convenient for her to be a “friend” now. This woman is a right wing religious fanatic--someone who believes that she is expressing God’s will and wants to bring Jews back to Jesus. At Palin’s church the “Jews for Jesus” leader proclaimed that terrorism against Israel is “God’s will.”
Why does everyone assume all jews are democrats? I would have liked to see Palin regardless of the “swipes” she was to make at Obama. (i do disagree here with the author, i don’t’ think there were swipes or hits at obama in Palin’s speech)
As far as I am concerned, Obama is no friend of the jews and one of the reason I will not vote for him this fall.
I am really disappointed by Hillary pulling out. She was one democrat I was willing to vote for since 2000. She used to be a friend of Israel, but politics are more important to her.
You are reading into Palin’s comments what YOU propose she MIGHT have meant—a weasily excuse for “disinviting” her. As a life-long registered and voting Democrat I am appalled at the way YOU have politicized the situation. If Democrats and Republicans cannot work together to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear bomb, how can we expect the rest of the world to join America’s efforts to stop Iran NOW!
I was very interested in reading what Mrs Palins comments would have been in NY. And so
disappointed in the pressure put on her and the reason given that she could not speak.
I was also disappointed that you began with an editorial to make her look so political that she could not have meant what she said with pure motives. Why do you need to do such a thing? Can’t trust the reader to see for onesself and read what one reads?? I think that is as bad as censorship.
But glad to see many Jews and democrats seeing what is decent and right in her.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak.
To shine a little light on who would have said what and mishagas over the fouled up invites to the anti-Iran Rally.
It was not the Democrats who turned the rally into a partisan issue by demanding that Palin be disinvited; it was the people who invited her in the first place.
· The most charitable explanation for the organizers of the rally agreeing to allow Palin to speak is that they were monumentally stupid. It is difficult to understand how they could fail to understand that inviting a figure who is disliked by the majority of the American Jewish community and despised by a good many of them would cause the backlash that it caused.
· The less charitable explanation is that they knew full well what they were doing, and did it because they support the McCain-Palin ticket. The Jewish Right has proven itself to be just as good at dirty politics as the rest of the conservatives, and make no mistake, this was dirty politics par excellence. If they did this on purpose, then this is how their thought processes went: “If we get away with having Palin speak at the rally, then we give a boost to her foreign-policy credentials and increase her support in the Jewish community. If we don’t get away with it, then we can attack the Democrats for turning the rally partisan and decrease their support in the Jewish community. It’s a win-win scenario!”
· An aside… Whether we should judge the organizers of the rally charitably or not hinges on whether Hoenlein supports McCain-Palin and is willing to play politics to increase their chances of winning. I don’t know the answer to that question. I suspect that the answer is yes, but we can’t make the accusation unless we’ve got something to back it up. On the other hand, here’s a JTA article which would seem to argue for charitable judgment (i.e., stupidity rather than politics): http://blogs.jta.org/politics/2008/09/17/1728/source-hoenlein-aimed-for-bipartisanship/. So perhaps we should avoid this angle of attack.
· The speech which Sarah Palin supposedly would have given at the rally mentions John McCain twice in what can only be interpreted as an attempt to advance the McCain-Palin presidential ticket. This is ample illustration of why she should not have been invited.
· As others have pointed out, she didn’t write a single word of the speech herself, and to claim otherwise is patently absurd.
· Senator Clinton was an appropriate choice for the rally for four reasons: (1) she represents the state in which the rally took place; (2) she has substantial foreign-policy experience from her time in the Senate and as the first lady; (3) she is on the record opposing Iran’s nuclear program and its other nefarious activities; and (4) she has always been a staunch supporter of Israel and friend of the Jewish people. The Republicans could have and should have chosen someone with similar credentials to speak for them. Instead, they chose Sarah Palin, who represents Alaska, has no foreign-policy experience, and has no record whatsoever on Iran or Israel. The only reason why Palin was chosen was because she’s on the McCain-Palin ticket. This means that, rather than helping the cause by speaking at the rally, the cause would have been helping Palin. This is patently obvious to any objective observer.
· The Obama campaign had nothing to do with Senator Clinton’s decision to withdraw from the rally; she made that decision on her own, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Obama pressured her to withdraw.
· The Obama campaign had nothing to do with the pressure to disinvite Palin from the rally. The outcry against her appearance there was an entirely grassroots effort, independent of Obama’s campaign.
· In fact, Obama was (belatedly) contacted to send a representative of the campaign to appear “across from” Palin, and Obama agreed to send Congressman Robert Wexler. So to claim that Obama is in any way responsible for getting Palin disinvited is ludicrous.
· Liberal Jewish Americans are just as worried as the conservatives about the threat that Iran poses to America, Israel, and the world, and claims to the contrary are patently offensive and entirely unacceptable. However, we are also worried about the threat that John McCain and Sarah Palin pose to America, Israel, and the world. We were unwilling to allow supposed efforts to oppose the one threat to strengthen the other.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Leave a Comment
To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.
Not Registered?
There are real advantages to a FREE registration with JTA.org:
- Make your voice heard through comments on articles
- Receive our e-mailed Daily Briefing, an invaluable quick-read
- Help decide what Jewish news matters most with interactive tools
Register Now
Already a JTA member?
Recent Comments
- Bill Pearlman on NJDC:GOP must condemn "Tea Party" signs
- Ben Packer on Tidbits: AJC, J Street on Iranian ship, Hebron and the Mets
- steve ariza on Carter, facts and Jews
- steve ariza on Tidbits: AJC, J Street on Iranian ship, Hebron and the Mets
- Lori Lowenthal Marcus on Tidbits: AJC, J Street on Iranian ship, Hebron and the Mets
David N. Friedman
09/22/08 09:53 PM
I am pleased to read what might have been Governor Palin’s speech, if Hillary Clinton had not backed out for no good reason. And contrary to what author Ami Eden says, it is a speech with sound propriety. If she planned to say that she agrees with Hillary Clinton--the person also announced to be on the platform--what is wrong with that? The belief that Obama does not look good on Israel and Iran in comparison with Hillary is not Palin’s fault--indeed, Palin scrupulously avoided any comparisons to Obama-only commonality with her Democratic colleague scheduled to be on the same stage. In no manner did she suggest or imply that Obama-Biden does not get the Iran threat--Mr. Eden has nothing to demonstrate his assertion.
Lastly, Palin would be AWOL if she failed to indicate that she and her running mate did not have Iran in their sites. In the middle of a political campaign--is it reasonable to expect that in some small way, concerning a prime foreign policy subject, she should refrain from making clear that Iran was important? A Biden surrogate would have obviously been all over the point.
If there is bi-partisan support for Israel in its search for survival against an Iranian regime promising Israel’s destruction--why not show it so Iran can be deterred? By failing to deliver such a message, Iran was given a gift. And why? Because Palin is pro-Israel and might over shadow Hillary C’s stand and Obama’s stand? This is a scandal.