Gavin Newsom SLAPPED AROUND By Ben Shapiro On Israel

During his interview with Ben Shapiro, Gavin Newsom struggled to take a clear stance on whether Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. While stating he doesn't 'share that opinion,' he also expressed understanding for 'the tendency for people to assert that on the basis of the images and the proportionality.' This nuanced, non-committal approach was criticized by the hosts as failing to satisfy either pro-Israel conservatives or the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

Newsom: 'My opinion is I understand the tendency for people to make that to assert that on the basis of the images and the proportionality... I don't share that opinion as it relates to genocide.'

The hosts characterized Newsom's performance as 'lame,' 'weak,' and 'pathetic,' arguing he 'got smacked around' by Shapiro. They contend that his decision to appear on Shapiro's podcast and his subsequent equivocation yielded no political benefits, alienating his base without winning over Republicans. This suggests a significant strategic misjudgment and a perceived disconnect from the sentiments of the Democratic electorate.

Host: 'He satisfies no one and just comes off looking absolutely weak and pathetic and like he got smacked around by this guy in this exchange.' 'He's out of touch with the country. He's out of touch with the Democratic base.'

For a large segment of the Democratic base, the Israel-Gaza conflict has become a 'moral dividing line litmus test issue.' It differentiates between Democrats who 'cave' to political powers and donors versus those who 'rock the boat and challenge the status quo.' Newsom's perceived capitulation on this issue, especially when challenged on his own press office's tweets, indicates a failure to pass this crucial test for many progressive voters.

Host: 'For a large part of the Democratic base, it is this sort of moral dividing line litmus test issue because it tells you which type of Democrat you are.'

The hosts drew a parallel between Newsom's performance and Hillary Clinton's reluctance to use the term 'radical Islamic terrorism' in 2016. They argue that this tendency among some Democrats to 'word weasel' or engage in legalistic definitions on emotionally charged issues, rather than taking a clear stance, is a political vulnerability that opponents like Trump effectively exploit to portray them as weak or out of touch.

Host: 'Hillary just wouldn't say it. And it was one of those where it was kind of like this. She's like, 'Well, it's not technically the definition and all that.'' 'You're just wasting a bunch of your time. And this this begets like all of like any legalistic uh type of stuff where been like trying to have sympathy uh but then also try to retain who you are.'