Clearly not, as you accepted some "journalists" opinion as fact & tried to use it to support your claim. Obvious you didn't read much else & quite frankly, as I've told others equally in their feelings as you, if you were following so closely & were so politically astute, you'd have had to admit..

..she was far and away more likely to exert pressure to end things. Very clear that a return of hostages & ceasefire were her immediate goals & she expressed deep concern for Netanyahu's over-reaction. Your only other bet was Trump & nothing could have been more obviously against your own goals.

The opinion piece, if I recall correctly cited the CNN interview where she said as much. I figured the synopsis would be better than sending the video, but ok. Here. m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7_3...

Fascinating that you prefer to ignore the last crucial 11 seconds of that piece. Perhaps you should just admit to yourself that confirmation bias is difficult for you to overcome & causes your judgment impairment.

My apologies. 15 seconds. From :55

This is like arguing with a toddler. The larger context is that “we’ve got to get a deal done” ignores all leverage that she had to threaten to withhold offensive weaponry!

Indeed. I wish you'd grow up. Putting aside the whole issue of elections being about maintaining constituencies & "Israel having a right to defend itself" being standard fare for the last 80yrs,tell me how you hear "how it does so, matters" along with the sentence you quoted.

She said the same here in her actual statement following a meeting with Netanyahu. "I also expressed.. my serious concerns.." I wish it wasn't too late to have opened your ears.

Propose all the deals you want. If you refuse to use leverage, they’re just suggestions.

What would have been the purpose of committing to do that in a political campaign? She was determined to end it. As POTUS she'd have had many options to do so & it would be an error to give her opponent ammunition to use to call her weak or pro-Hamas or any of the things the current fuck wads do.

You have probably noticed by now that a lot of people don't give a fuck about anyone darker than beige. To expect her, as sitting VP, and in a campaign, to essentially promise to overturn 80yrs of US FP, as crap as it's been on that issue. Did you feel the Orange ass was legitimately pro-Pal?

What would have been the purpose of … winning the block of voters she needed to win the election? Look, it’s a nice day. I’m going for a run. Life is too short for this.

My ears were open. I heard her blame Hamas for the people Israel killed. I heard her allude to the mass rape story that had already been falsified at that time. And I heard no plan to cease military funding to Israel if it continued to kill innocents.

That’s mean, but we’re almost understanding each other, it seems. “How it does so matters” sounds like appeasement for voters like me. Placating. It sounds like more of the same vaguely worded “red lines” that were crossed without consequence, like when Rafah was invaded.

That's wild because what you sent, that interview, occurred *after* the speech I just sent you & is largely a TV soundbite of her position, if you had been following it along. I daresay you'd be hard-pressed to find a quote from anyone that high up so clearly addressing the Palestinian plight.

You can choose not to listen to it, or not to believe it, call it platitudes, whatever, but it is certainly not an endorsement of Israeli actions to that point, and again, your other option was the Orange fuck wanting to turn it into a Mediterranean riviera.

But you take that for granted. Why was that the only other option? Why couldn’t Kamala say “I’ve heard my voters who pledge uncommitted unless I promise consequences for violating the red lines”