One of the agreed principles with the Israel Factor panel is that we do not reveal the specific results awarded by each of the panelists. As we explained in the introduction to the Factor a year ago, "The one thing that will remain confidential is how each panelist voted on each specific question." Many of these panelists maintain good working connections with American counterparts, and we can't endanger future such relations by exposing their judgments of political leaders.
However, this month presented us with a temptation that's very hard to resist (we will resist it, though). Hillary Clinton's sudden rise to second place in the monthly ranking deserves explanation. Alas, this explanation must involve some transparency on our side. Clinton was always second, or a fairly close third, in the eyes of some members of the panel. The difference of this month reflects a change of heart for a very few panelists, especially one who ranked her very low so far and has decided to upgrade her marks dramatically.
I can't say who this panelist is, but I can and will give you his reasoning. I called him as soon as I got his updated numbers, thinking there must have been a mistake. But no - he really meant to give her credit that he didn't find appropriate in the past. He was happy with her vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terror organization (many Democratic activists weren't happy with it, as I mentioned earlier in the week in the What To Read section).
He was also impressed with her Israel agenda that was released a couple of weeks ago. All in all, he said, she seems to be trying to be a realistic centrist on issues related to Israel. And he thought it was time for that to be reflected in his rankings.
If he (and another panelist for whom the change was not as remarkable) sticks to this new line, the Israel Factor has entered a new phase. Three New Yorkers at the top - a Republican (Giuliani is still king, and this doesn't show any signs of changing), a Democrat, and an Independent who isn't even running yet. Giuliani and Clinton, who are leading the general polls, are also the leaders of the "Good for Israel" ranking.
This raises another question, one that in all honesty no one can really answer. Is this similarity proof that the panel is influenced by these polls, and reacting to them it is elevating the most viable candidates to the top of the list? Or maybe it is the other way around: candidates that seem best for America in the voters' eyes are also those who tend to express views that seem to be best for Israel?
Of course, I don't mean this in a simplistic way. Clearly, Israel is not on the top of the voters' agenda, and no one can seriously claim that the candidates' views on Israel are those which catapulted them to the top. However, one can make a credible argument by saying that the views expressed by Giuliani and Clinton regarding Israel in many ways match their views on other, more significant issues of this election cycle.
If this is the case, it can't get any better than that as far as Israel is concerned.
Related links:
The Israel Factor panel
Rosner's Domain: What To Read
Israel Factor: Do you trust Clinton to tell the truth about Israel?
External links:
Pollster.com on the top Democratic candidates
Pollster.com on the top Republican candidates
|
