August 5, 2015

The two camps who have squared off in the intense debate on whether to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement are distinguished in motive quite distinctively.

Those that oppose the agreement do so passionately on the merits of the knowledge that the deal before Congress is a bad deal. They do so with the implicit understanding that the security of both the United States and Israel will be compromised by this bad deal. They oppose the agreement because they understand fundamentally that the only good thing about the deal is a possible pay-off over ten years which would be remotely possible only if we were not dealing with Iran.

Supporters of the deal are not supporting the deal because they believe that it is even minimally adequate. They are just attempting to paper over the ugliness of choosing diplomacy today with liars, over conflict with liars tomorrow. The $150 billion dollar signing bonus that the liars will get, will come back to bite us in the form of terror and regional instability.  The President does not even deny this.   Having to make believe that we even have benchmarks with which to judge Iranian cheating or that we even have a fair chance to discover cheating, and if we do discover cheating that we have an effective means to coerce a change in behavior, are just too many balls even for the best of jugglers to keep credibly aloft; especially while the audience screams “death to America”!

This stark reality of this smoke and mirrors charade is beginning to sink in with the American public. Recent polls show a strong shift in American opinion towards the opposition.

Which brings me to Hillary who even with women has slipped precipitously in the polls. To date she has skated deftly around the issue. As questions with her credibility and capability continue to expand however she will have very few means available to counter the negative momentum. There is an opportunity for Hillary right now to assertively jam on the brakes. She could do that by taking a leadership role in helping to corral the opposition votes of undecided Democrats. Doing so would speak forcefully to independent voters on the question of her lack of substantive accomplishments as Secretary of State. It would also blunt the coming inquisition on Benghazi by relegating the question of past lapses to the “that was then basket”.

But the key will be in leading the polls. Americans are tired of leaders who read polls and as opposed to leaders who lead the polls. This is a super-charged make-over opportunity for Hillary which could help close the wound.