Lest we forget:

financial times and get it published? no.
so why is she bringing this up--and endorsing trump's plan?

in the hope he'll do something for her in return (his "foundation" has a lot of money coming in from dubious sources, and it can set up endless boards, institutes, and other places where a famous person can get a cushy job for spouting neoliberal platitudes).

It's full of people who are the last ones you'd want to see in charge of Gaza.

since it is responsible for Trump.

Everything that has happened since is a direct and predictable consequence of that very bad choice.

And it's quite unfair that the bad choice made by US voters has an outsize impact on the rest of the world. I fear there will come a reckoning.

This is extremely disappointing.

I'm not sure what that's all about, even the former presidents are keeping fairly quiet. Yes, she does have the right to do so, but still, it's a bit curious.

shocking and depressing.

I hope Hillary doesn't fall victim to this wretched cabal.

She's probably one of the clearest sighted people we have. She knows exactly what a monster Trump is, and she's been warning us about him since 2015.

The last thing she's doing is "falling victim" to his cabal.

It is up to those concerned for the people of Gaza. to present an alternative plan or insist upon necessary changes to this Board of Peace.

That includes people posting on this board, the DSA, Bernie Sanders, and a number of organizations.

Meanwhile the slaughter and misery continue.

When Sanders urged us to vote for Harris he said he would work with her on a plan for Gaza. She did not win but we still need a plan.

Needs to be done even though Harris not president.

Least toxic agreement.
Hoo Haw for him.

Idiot

It seems like many of the same people on the left that thought Trump was just fine when letting him get elected over Hillary/Kamala because they wanted to """teach Democrats a lesson""" are now upset when Hillary points out that there are no other viable alternatives at the moment.

Or is letting the war in Gaza wage on for several more years while they wait for a Democrat to fly in and save the day their grand plan? Because we could have cut to the chase and elected one in the first place and spared our country and the world more MAGA bullshit.

It's a hard-to-accept lesson in reality.

There is no connection between 'Trump was just fine when letting him get elected over Hillary/Kamala because they wanted to ""teach Democrats a lesson""', and thinking that Trump's Gaza scam is not the only viable alternative.

Thinking that Trump's Gaza scam is a scam is, for instance, a position held by most of the world - the governments of the EU, UK and many more, for instance. Thinking that losing an election to Trump would "teach Democrats a lesson" is an idiotic position held by a tiny minority of Americans who see elections as performative rather than a choice for the future of the country.

You are equating about 5% of US voters to about 5 billion people worldwide. And, you know, DUers are in the 5 billion, but not the 5%.

And that set us down this course in the first place.

It should be noted that the organization responsible for this article is one of those that frequently attack Democrats from the left.

Finally, it doesn't matter what the entire world wants. Sadly, it's left up to Trump and Netanyahu at this point, with Netanyahu seemingly willing to veto Trump if it takes that.

It's almost like Israel is its own sovereign nation and can do as they want, unless the world is willing to step in and stop them. And the world isn't ready to do that and Trump certainly won't be, not as long as he had a significant financial interest in the outcome.

as a rebuke to a few American losers who are fairly anti-capitalist and will not be reading it. No, the world is not about what you blame the 2024 US presidential election loss on.

Yes, it does matter what the world wants. If you think the fate of Gaza is "up to Trump and Netanyahu", then you are capitulating to them, like certain law firms and universities capitulated to Trump - "oh well, he's powerful, I want a quiet life, let him do what he wants, I'll use this as a way to blame some people I don't like and who were actually pretty powerless themselves".

The American Prospect was full behind Kamala. It had, for instance, an explicit warning that the US needed to support her, and that not voting for her would not have fixed anything about Gaza:

What “viable alternative” does the world have?

The “Board of Peace” is all there is to address the reconstruction of Gaza. No other country is stepping forward with an alternative framework, nor could it, since Netanyahu and Trump would refuse to be involved.

As Hillary says in that piece, “The choice for governments is not whether this process is ideal. It is whether they are prepared to help shape an imperfect framework from within or stand aside while more destructive actors shape what comes next.”

Anyone would be a better leader of reconstruction in Gaza that Trump. Hillary herself. Mitt Romney. Gordon Brown. Bono. No Board of Peace at all would be better than one led by Trump. Cooperating with the destructive actors is a bad choice.

Reading Clinton's op-ed it sounds like she'd fully agree with you that almost anyone would be a better leader for this than Trump and his cadre. No disagreement from me or any DUers either, I expect.

But how? Trump is the president. The Republicans control Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Netanyahu is out of control. How do we put someone else in charge of fixing this?

Clinton says in this op-ed that the world has two choices: let the death and suffering continue, or move forward with this very flawed plan.

What alternative do you suggest?

Boycott Israel while it's led by Netanyahu. Support Israeli politicians who advocate a proper peace, which includes withdrawing settlers from the West Bank.

Cooperating with known criminals - Trump and Netanyahu - is not the only alternative to them killing more people.

Who is in power now who will support Israeli politicians who advocate a proper peace?

I sincerely hope you are not living your life in the US with the attitude of "Trump is now in power, we should support him until the next president is elected". And Hillary needs to reverse course. She's advocating collaboration with criminals.

You can say that Americans "should" boycott Israel but I don't think many people do what others think they "should" do.

I have zero power over Israeli politicians. I'm fighting tooth and nail to try to get some Democrats elected to the House and Senate.

I think this discussion is a clear demonstration of two different ways of thinking about crises. I assume that, like me, you want to see suffering in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Israel, and everywhere else in the ME end.

I think you and I have very different thoughts about how to achieve that and which politicians to elect toward achieving that.

and I don't think we should listen to ones who tell us to work with Trump, even if they're no longer running for election (and Democrats like Fetterman should be primaried, if they dare to run again after collaborating with him). That goes for US domestic policy and foreign policy too.

We have a lot less flexibility on this side of the pond. If Trump were prime minister in Britain new elections would be called now. We don't have that option. We're stuck with this administration at least until January 2029. (And getting rid of Trump won't help. JD Vance automatically becomes president if Trump is removed. Vance would be more effective than Trump at achieving the white supremacist goals of his billionaire handlers.)

If Fetterman runs again I hope the people of Pennsylvania choose a different Democratic nominee who can beat the Republican. That's very possible in Pennsylvania. In contrast to West Virginia, where Democrat Manchin is replaced by a Republican.

One of the truly un-democratic aspects of our Congress is that the winner takes all. When Republicans have a simple majority they control everything about the process. They have a majority vote on every committee, chair every committee, and have total control over what gets to the floor. So literally electing any Democrat is better than any Republican when control of the House or Senate is at stake. Manchin and Sinema were infuriating, but their elections gave Democrats the razor thin majority that gave us control of Congress for a few years.

We need that back. If we can get a comfortable majority then the votes of Fetterman don't matter.

So I have one single goal: help Democrats regain the House and Senate in November.

he did not endorse Joe Biden in the 2020 general election, and he did not endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 general election.

Kuttner's approach to Democratic presidential nominees is something that he calls "critical co-existence": voting for what he characterizes "the lesser of two evils", leveraging pressure campaigns against Democrats, and relentlessly criticizing Democrats from his very public bully pulpit. Kuttner one of those Democratic Party critics for whom nothing we do is ever good enough, or indeed even good.

FWIW Kuttner also heavily criticized UN Security Council Resolution 2803 on its passage (even though there were 13 Security Council votes in favor and none against), and, because he is a purist and an ideologue, Kuttner sees the UN's pragmatic approach as nothing short of "grotesque".

Because he is not experienced in any way in international diplomacy, Kuttner likely doesn't realize that taking the first steps by no means guarantees that the final steps will also be taken. He doesn't care that there is no alternative and that the people of Gaza are living in limbo. That anyone takes his "nothing is better than something" approach to an international crisis seriously is bewildering at best.

Politics CAN be about changing things and not just consolidating the way things are.

This is endorsement dressed up as “realism”.

Sometimes no, people (even including the elites to whom this is addressed) will actually not eat the shit sandwich.

I don’t think this is so much motivated by concern about the status quo or general human suffering as the possibility that there will indeed could be a shift in conditions that some quarters would find unfavorable to what they consider to be Israel-US interests.

That is what it smells like.

I pass

I wish I was surprised. I really do.

Second time in the past few weeks.

Really, that's the best I can come up with to justify this. Can't say what I really think, either.

Hasn't the Middle East suffered enough of white men solutions to their situation that the white supremacists created ?

Or that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, and Diane Feinstein (among others) voted FOR the Iraq war. The more things change…

Max Baucus
Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
John Breaux
Maria Cantwell
Jean Carnahan
Tom Carper
Max Cleland
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
Chris Dodd
Byron Dorgan
John Edwards
Dianne Feinstein
Tom Harkin
Fritz Hollings
Tim Johnson
John Kerry
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Joe Lieberman
Blanche Lincoln
Zell Miller
Bill Nelson
Ben Nelson
Harry Reid
Jay Rockefeller
Chuck Schumer
Robert Torricelli

Wikipedia

Carper (DE)
Wyden (OR)
Murray (WA)

are the only Dem Yes votes who still are in the US Senate.

Here are all 22 Dem Yes votes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/politicsspecial1/senate-roll-call-on-roberts-nomination.html

Arkansas Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes

Colorado Salazar (D) Yes

Connecticut=Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (D) Yes

Delaware Carper (D) Yes

Florida Nelson (D) Yes

Louisiana Landrieu (D) Yes

Michigan Levin (D) Yes

Montana Baucus (D) Yes

Nebraska Nelson (D) Yes

New Mexico Bingaman (D) Yes

North Dakota Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes

Oregon Wyden (D) Yes

South Dakota Johnson (D) Yes

Vermont Leahy (D) Yes

Washington Murray (D) Yes

West Virginia Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes

Wisconsin Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!
SMDH

35 years ago today. 11 Democratic Party Senators made that 52-48 appointment possible.

As was Bernie Sanders. It was my first real look at the Senator from Illinois and I thought, I like this man! He should run for President.

I wonder if she will come to "regret" and "apologize for" this latest acquiescence to a Republican President with ulterior motives.

See:
Clinton’s Iraq War Vote Still Appalls - Progressive.org https://share.google/LN8BJKv3kAHpvn2uz

But can’t say I’m shocked.

I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/43244.Groucho_Marx

Politics, strange bedfellows, all that, but huh?

Popular saying of Larry Summers.

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/

Ah well

Same class that looted the S&Ls in 1990.

Same class that, when caught, didn’t have to pay it back.

Same class that got bonuses when everyone in lesser classes were losing their homes.

That Epstein class, who then wanted to privatize Social Security and now want to put US taxpayers on the hook for crypto.

as always

I will again post a transcript to her interview. She offers a lot of insight and knowledge about everything happening in Iran/Israel/Gaza etc.

https://singjupost.com/david-remnick-interviews-hillary-clinton-at-92ny-transcript/

A few more thoughts covered by The National with also has an interview with UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher who echoes her warning.

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/world/hillary-clinton-backs-donald-trumps-gaza-plan-calling-it-only-realistic-path-to-reconstruction/ar-AA25ZLc2?ocid=BingNewsVerp

for Hillary’s political insight.

Over and over in this op-ed Clinton states that she disagrees with most of the plan but sees absolutely no alternative at this point.

She urges the world to do something to stop the suffering and death, rather than waiting for a better plan (which is very unlikely to emerge anytime soon with Trump in the White House.)

Describing this as an endorsement makes it sound like she thinks it's a good plan. She says over and over that she does not.

I think that this misunderstanding of Clinton's message is similar to the misunderstandings she accrued during her runs for the presidency. Clinton focuses on what is possible to do now in these constrained moments. She doesn't make big promises. She doesn't throw lofty ideals down on the table and declaim her eternal constancy to those ideals alone.

Clinton is unwilling to make promises she isn't certain she can keep. She is unwilling to allow deaths and suffering to continue if there is any possible way forward, even if it is a very flawed way.

Clinton sees a humanitarian disaster in the Middle East and looks for the only possible way to stop the killings soon. Even though that plan is greatly flawed, she thinks it's the only way forward.

Representing this op-ed as an endorsement is a misrepresentation and I believe a fundamental misunderstanding of who Hillary Clinton is. She is not a natural politician. She doesn't tell people what they want to hear. Her archetype is that of the elder mother who is telling the family what they need to do in order to survive, even though they and she hate having to do it.

Jmo

Hillary Clinton is right about a lot of things that people don't want to hear. That's why she wasn't elected to the White House.

Like her or not, she's always been an unapologetic and skilled US interests hawk

Reading the whole article you can see she's talking about a framework here, not the dipshit individuals Trump's got on his board.

... who would not support her because she wasn't perfect (but what candidate is?) and in the meantime, by not supporting "the best option we have right now" out of pride or anger... we ended up with Trump. --- Same thing applies here! By refusing to support "the best framework we have right now" then things only get worse and it becomes more difficult in the future to guide things and make necessary changes.

Let's do something NOW instead of waiting, wasting time, and having to start from scratch LATER... and when things will be worse and more complicated to deal with.

Hillary knows what she's doing. (It's hard to ignore her haters. They're certainly loud... but I trust Hillary.)

and has complete control over its membership. Only his death would free it. Until then, working through it means enabling a known conman and criminal. Everything Trump touches turns to shit, and there's no way this Board will be an exception.

And if you aren't willing to work with conmen and criminals, how do you negotiate with Netanyahu or Hamas who are both?

And while we're sitting here waiting around for some theoretical plan you would prefer, how many people in Gaza die in the meantime and how much does that grow the sort of anger that fuels Hamas and other terrorist organizations?

Nobody including Secretary Clinton thinks this is ideal, but regardless the fact is Trump is president, the world has largely deferred to US leadership on these sorts of problems, and it's hard to grow that skill on the fly, we have the strongest relationship with Israel which gives us relative leverage with Israel that nobody else does. Doesn't matter that all of those things suck, what matters is they are.

Round 5000.

Some people don't read anything posted on here beyond the baiting headline.

I don't even know what to say to this other than I m extremely disappointed.

that the US is THE exceptional country. It may be that between the Arab League and countries like France there could be another plan.

I also question if the plan is viable. It was suppose to move quickly between the early stages and, in fact, hasn't. Fighting and bombing continues in spite of everyone saying there is a ceasefire. The area controlled by Israel has slowly expanded.

This plan, in conjunction with the ever expanding settlements in the West Bank and talk of annexation, eliminates any possibility of a Palestinian state ever existing.

I think that Clinton and the rest of us would love it if another, better plan emerged. But it has not emerged.

It's horrific to think about, but Trump and his billionaire supporters have all the power right now.

Not liking reality is understandable. Many people don't like Hillary Clinton. I think it's because she tells us things we don't want to hear, asks that we face things we don't want to believe, and urges us to do things we have to do. The other option is to complain and hope and demand and wish for things to change. People like doing that. It feels better.

However, I still think what I wrote, knowing Clinton knows FAR, FAR more than I do.

I also do read Haaretz often enough that I know there is very little support for a two state solution and that many refer to moving to one as rewarding Hamas for Oct 7.

However, I think the Gaza Ceasefire and Trump's plan are mostly masking continued aggression on both sides and Israel increasing the footprint of the area it controls. Add in the situation in the West Bank and in Lebanon. Could this be going too far in the other direction?

I get that Clinton might think that by taking the position she did, she could influence the Europeans to engage with Trump on this and move him to a more reasonable position. This reminds me that many top foreign policy Democrats tried to do that with the more reasonable GWB, with their Iran votes only to find they had no influence and were seen as complicit in the very thing they were aiming to stop.

She's been warning us about Trump since 2015 and everything she's said about him has proven true.

I think it's clear that Clinton thinks Trump and his cadre are absolute trash, vile people with no redeeming qualities, who can't be reasoned with in any way.

I think she's saying that the alternative is even worse.

Eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian state.

So...ummm...

because they see it as a transitional approach that provides a bridge for the implementation of the New York Declaration.

Just spitballing here, but maybe the former Secretary of State understands the nuances better than just plain folks like Kuttner.

Or it could simply be a bizarre move made because Secretary is "blinded by an assumption", take your pick.

Create facts on the ground - illegal settlements in the West Bank, the deliberate annihilation of Gaza, the forced transfer of an entire population to a mere 30% of its territory etc - and then claim it was necessary AND cannot be reversed.

Which of course is....fill in the blanks.

Other than that, I better not say what I think - as much as I would like to.

“an implacable opponent of the president” and then endorse something so patently egregious. Nope.

That should be the headline.

to endorse a plan cooked up by a scam group that was created primarily to siphon money from American taxpayers’ wallets straight into the pockets of the worst president in US history.

My only thought for now other than I did vote for Hillary for president. But not in the primary.

of the doubt on this. After all, she’s a former Sec.of State and has keen insight in on issues within the international political realm.
Far keener than mine, for sure.