The Israel Factor's Clinton reader

1.
The Israel Factor site was updated over the weekend with a new weekly question. This time, the focus is on Hillary Clinton's stated positions toward Israel (last week's question, dealing with Fred Thompson's positions is still here, the numbers and here, the analysis). Clinton, the panel argues, says all the right things from the Israeli perspective. The question remains if she will stick to her current positions if she becomes president.
The panel was somewhat skeptical, giving Clinton a 3.125 out of 5, a notch above disbelief. When even Israeli cabinet members are talking openly (and one must add: quite stupidly) about a divided Jerusalem sometime in the future, is it realistic to assume that Clinton will stick to her support of an "undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital"?
2.
This is not the first time thepanel has expressed doubt over Clinton's positions. When we asked the panel to compare the three New Yorkers, Giuliani, Bloomberg and Clinton, the subject came up:

The one who fared the worst was (Clinton). In fact, there's a clear majority who thought Clinton is the right candidate to get the job done (Bloomberg got no votes on this question, Giuliani got only two), but also a clear majority ranking her below both Giuliani and Bloomberg.

Why is this? The answer may lie in another question. The panel believes that Clinton is the most "dangerous" candidate for Israel, in that she might change her tone if elected. Four of the panelists singled her out on this point, compared to just one who named Bloomberg. Trustworthiness, it seems, trumps compatibility, at least in this survey and for these panelists.
3.
Clinton was typically found in third to fifth place of the Israel Factor general ranking. That didn't change much over the first ten surveys.
However, there's reason to believe that her favorability with the panel is more nuanced (as also seen from the fact that she's regarded as the most qualified of candidates). For instance, even when McCain was leading Clinton in the general ranking every month, in a two way race the panel clearly preferred Clinton over John McCain.
We tried to compare these two a while ago and this is what we came up with:
The methodology we followed was this: For each pair we gave one of the candidates a score of 3, and asked the panelists to rate the other candidate from 1 to 5. A score of 3 means that the two candidates are perceived as equally good for Israel, a higher number means the second candidate is better, a lower number means the candidate is seen in a less positive light. In the case of McCain and Clinton, we gave the Republican the imaginary 3. Clinton finished with an average of 3.25, meaning she is somewhat preferable to McCain.

Clinton's higher ranking than McCain was not unanimous, but is nevertheless quite definitive. Four of the panelists gave her a higher ranking than 3 (meaning, higher than McCain), two ranked them as equal, and two preferred McCain.
4.
Several questions we asked about McCain in a different part of this survey (the one we discussed above) can provide us with some clues as to why Clinton was able to beat him.
The four panelists who preferred Clinton were the same panelists who gave McCain the lowest grades on the question of his emotional attachment to Israel. This, evidently, is an important question, and probably the most profound reason why Giuliani keeps getting better marks than McCain (and Clinton - in a two way race he beat her easily with 4.12 to 3). The panelists highlighted the "emotional attachment" as the most distinctive difference between the two, with McCain scoring 2.75 to Giuliani's 4.12.
5.
So, Clinton is somewhat perplexing for the panel. On the one hand, they seem to think that an emotional attachment plays some role in her policies towards Israel but they aren't quite sure if they're ready to believe every statement she makes on this issue. I think it all goes back to the other Clinton and his relations with Israel.
Look at this analysis from November 2006. Hillary Clinton won't be as friendly to Israel as her husband, the panel concluded. But this conclusion has to be taken with a grain of salt, as each panelist approached this question prejudiced by his political beliefs. Thus, one panelist thought Clinton would be better than her husband, four thought she'd be as good and three gave her lower marks, driving her ranking down. But one must remember that those three are the panelists who generally weren't very fond of President Clinton himself.
Today on Rosner's Domain:
Rosner's Guest:
Ruth Wisse on Jews And Power
New Special Project:
The changing face of American Jewry
Previous blog:
The emerging consensus on intermarriage: the trial has begun
What To Read:
Women commentary on the Torah
Updated The Israel Factor:
Do you believe Hillary Clinton?