When Hillary Clinton calls half
of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling
French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake."
Human society is way to complex for alpha males to succeed unconditionally... Quite a different set of traits is often needed.
Notable quotes:
"... Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed the reality of the heightened sense of entitlement that the very rich possess, as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them. ..."
"... Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change as well. It's the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference. ..."
"... I feel Fitzgerald got the basic idea right ..."
"... Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald thought remained unaltered by events, including the loss of economic status. ..."
"... "They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." ..."
"... "He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing that wrecked him." ..."
Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed the reality of the heightened sense of
entitlement that the very rich possess, as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them. The rich
shouldn't be different in this way, but they are. In some other societies, such entitlement and deference would accrue to
senior party members, senior clergymen, or hereditary nobility (who might not have much money at all).
"Go with the winner." That is how it works for the alpha male (a chimp, an ape, or a gorilla) for most followers anyway. Some will challenge. If victorious, followers will line up (more go-with-the-winner). If defeated, an outcast.
Without a doubt Hemingway had a rather catty attitude toward his literary rival, but in this instance I think the debunking
is merited. It's quite possible that rich people act the way we would act if we were rich, and that Fitzgerald's tiresome obsession
with rich people didn't cut very deep. Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change as well. It's
the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference.
In my opinion, the fact that if they had less money would change the way they think, does not change the fact that, while they
have more money, they think differently, and different rules apply to them.
Addendum: The fact that an Alpha Chimp would act differently if someone else was the Alpha Chimp does not change the fact that
an Alpha Chimp has fundamentally different behavior than the rest of the group.
"Hemingway is responsible for a famous misquotation of Fitzgerald's. According to Hemingway, a conversation between him and
Fitzgerald went:
Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me. Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
This never actually happened; it is a retelling of an actual encounter between Hemingway and Mary Colum, which went as follows:
Hemingway: I am getting to know the rich.
Colum: I think you'll find the only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money."
Just want to point out that that quote of Hemingways wasn't about Fitzgerald and wasn't even by Hemingway. Anyway I was more
attacking the "rich have more money" thing than I was trying to defend Fitzgerald, but I feel Fitzgerald got the basic idea
right
Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald
thought remained unaltered by events, including the loss of economic status.
"They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations
and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are
better than we are. They are different."
Hemingway suggested that Fitzgerald had once been especially enamored of the rich, seeing them as a "special glamorous race"
but ultimately became disillusioned.
"He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing
that wrecked him."
"... My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests. ..."
"... This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution. ..."
"... They also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this. ..."
"... the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game." ..."
"... So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out. ..."
"... Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it. ..."
"... A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony, like Chris. ..."
"... I assume he meant certain professors [of economics]. Actually on @4, there's a good chapter on the topic in a Thomas Franks latest. ..."
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition
of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr.
Deerin's argument, although it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers,
teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For
much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations,
and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and
protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere
around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and
professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and
interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed
the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really
didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since
it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while
transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar
community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals,
anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc.
all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards
the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class
are confused and bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They
also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province
of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this.
Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity
– and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside
that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology
of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly
but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism",
I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among
the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class
still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for
channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled
out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency
against the New Class – but I think he tapped into something like one and
is riding it for all he can, while not really having the slightest idea
what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments
are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class,
and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the
horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it.
A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers
and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers
of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm
probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony,
like Chris.
"... My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests. ..."
"... This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution. ..."
"... They also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this. ..."
"... the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game." ..."
"... So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out. ..."
"... Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it. ..."
"... A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony, like Chris. ..."
"... I assume he meant certain professors [of economics]. Actually on @4, there's a good chapter on the topic in a Thomas Franks latest. ..."
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition
of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr.
Deerin's argument, although it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers,
teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For
much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations,
and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and
protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere
around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and
professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and
interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed
the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really
didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since
it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while
transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar
community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals,
anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc.
all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards
the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class
are confused and bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They
also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province
of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this.
Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity
– and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside
that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology
of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly
but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism",
I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among
the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class
still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for
channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled
out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency
against the New Class – but I think he tapped into something like one and
is riding it for all he can, while not really having the slightest idea
what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments
are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class,
and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the
horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it.
A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers
and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers
of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm
probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony,
like Chris.
". Clinton raised $154 million in September for her campaign and the party.
And people "getting the resources they needed"? Seems odd."
smells like the allegations thrown at the Clinton Foundation--insiders
directing very generous contracts to other insiders. with competence or
efficacy secondary.
How Podesta may have caused Clinton to weaken her position on Wall Street.
New Wikileak shows he pushed her to show "love" for Obama rather than criticism
of BHO's handling of reform
The next day, an OpEd under the byline of Hillary Clinton appeared at
Bloomberg News. Obama's name was mentioned four separate times in a highly
favorable light. Clinton said Obama had signed into law "important new
rules" after the 2008 financial crash; she was going to "build on the
progress we've made under President Obama"; "thanks to President Obama's
leadership" the economy is now on "sounder footing"; and the Dodd-Frank
financial reform legislation that Obama signed into law had "made important
reforms, but there's more to do."
Since Bloomberg News is heavily read by people on Wall Street, this was a
signal to them that Hillary Clinton would leave the bulk of her husband's
cash cow deregulation in place by following in the footsteps of Obama. What
Obama's administration had done in 2010 was to create the illusion of
regulating Wall Street by proposing hundreds of vaguely worded rules in the
Dodd-Frank legislation, then putting crony Wall Street regulators in charge
at the SEC and U.S. Treasury to be sure the rules were never actually
implemented in any meaningful way. (Under Dodd-Frank, the U.S. Treasury
Secretary now sits atop a new financial stability body known as the
Financial Stability Oversight Council. The crony Federal Reserve, which
failed to see the crisis coming, was given enhanced supervisory powers over
the largest Wall Street bank holding companies.) Obama even ignored one of
his own rules in Dodd-Frank. It called for Obama to appoint a Vice Chairman
for Supervision at the Federal Reserve to police Wall Street.[…]
There is another telling fact in the email. Hillary Clinton seems to have
had very little to do with actually fashioning her policies. Another Clinton
adviser, Dan Schwerin, indicates that WJC (William Jefferson Clinton, i.e.
Bill Clinton) had edited the OpEd with "further refinements from policy
team," but there is no mention that Hillary Clinton was involved in her own
OpEd that would bear her byline.
So not just by Podesta but victimized by her philandering husband one last
time? Awhile back Pat Lang suggested it was really Bill who pushed her into
running. The impeach-ee needed his legacy redeemed.
Hillary Clinton seems to have had very little to do with actually
fashioning her policies.
This is a point that has irked me ever since I waded into the Podesta
emails - how even the smallest public statement or even just a Tweet
required numerous rounds of revisions, feedback, vetting and tweaking from
the Clinton insiders.
It seemed that Clinton rarely had a fire in the belly on any particular
position. It was whatever her team determined was the most politcally
advantageous at the moment.
Maybe this is how most presidential candidates function, but it made me
see Clinton as Presidential Robot Version 2016, programmed by her team to
simulate the appearance of a person with convictions.
I'm sure she has some real convictions and I'm sure she has done real
good in the world. But maybe Assange is right - she has been consumed by
power and greed and was seduced by the possibility of more.
Slavoj Žižek Says He'd Vote Trump: Hillary Clinton 'Is the Real Danger'
|
04 Nov 2016 | Slovenian-born philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek said a
Hillary Clinton presidency is a greater danger to the nation than a President Donald
Trump. Žižek explained that while he is "horrified" by Trump, he believes a Trump
presidency could result in a "big awakening" that could set into motion the formation of
"new political processes." By contrast, Žižek said he sees Clinton as "the true
danger"--pointing specifically to her insincerity, her ties to the Wall Street banks,
and her dedication to the "absolute inertia" of our established political system.
"... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
"... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham
Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's
efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders
backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote
for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.
Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed
Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was
cheered.
He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly
turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care
about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors,
the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman
Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good
friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."
The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.
"She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what
it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another
lesser of two evils, there's no point."
At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to
escort him off the stage and out of the event.
"... I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail. ..."
"... In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them. ..."
"... While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift? ..."
"... I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument. ..."
"... Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net. ..."
"... Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it. ..."
"... Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. ..."
This is all true but Krugman always fails to tell the other side of the story.
I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes
to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail.
The centrists always do this to push through centrist, neoliberal "solutions" which anger the
left.
In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain,
Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican
plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch
brothers will primary them.
Let's hope Hillary does something about campaign finance reform and Citizen United and takes
a harder line against obstructionist Republicans.
While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win
elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class?
Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business
interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift
the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift?
I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift
to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to
me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest
group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years.
I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument.
Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation
based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of
which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles.
While we shredded the safety net.
Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats
up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population
and they couldn't bear it.
Perhaps the less partisan take-way would be - is it possible for any political candidate to
get elected in this environment without bowing to the proper interests? How close did Bernie get?
And, how do we fix it without first admitting that the policies of both political parties have
not really addressed the social adjustments necessary to capture the benefits of globalization?
We need an evolution of both political parties - not just the Republicans. If we don't get it,
we can expect the Trump argument to take even deeper root.
Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day
in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. East Asian
economists including Ha Joon Chang among others debunked comparative advantage and Ricardianism
long ago.
Manufacturing is everything. It is all that matters. We needed tariffs yesterday. Without them
the country is lost.
Great interview. Very worthwhile to listen in full...
Notable quotes:
"... you're in the age of globalism, where a select few uber rich control everything and no one can do anything about it. ..."
"... She is every bit as banal and myopic as tRump. It is not about merit----it is about surrogates and political clans supported by gangster capitalists. ..."
Michael Hudson just sits there and details the exact situation and the real truth, as he
has been doing for a long time now. Remember this video in six months.
HarryObrian > NilbogResident
No, you're in the age of globalism, where a select few uber rich control everything and
no one can do anything about it. Everyone was warned about this over 30 years ago but
there wasn't enough exposure to the facts for enough people to care or do anything about it.
Now that the facts and reality have hit you have all these lazy alarmists like Hudson who prey
on the fear of a few who really can't do anything about it but who haven't realized it yet. Oh
well, whine on.
sufferingsuccatash > NilbogResident
Hillary is not a qualified leader either. She is every bit as banal and myopic as tRump.
It is not about merit----it is about surrogates and political clans supported by gangster
capitalists.
0040 • a day ago
Another great video from Mr Hudson. Von Clausewitz's axiom that "War is politics by other
means" has never been made clearer.
NormDP
Hudson is right on. Trump is the lesser of two evils. Under Trump, checks and balances will
remain strong and active. Under Hillary, they will disappear.
Glen Ford says Hillary Grand Bargain on the way (should she win).
But in the interim, Clinton will have a unique opportunity to cut grand austerity deals with all
the "big elements" of Simpson-Bowles, to renege on her corporate trade promises, and to wage war
with great gusto in the name of a "united" country. Ever since the Democratic National Convention
it has been clear that the Clintonites are encouraged to consider everyone outside of their grand
circle to be suspect, subversive, or depraved. Their inclusive rhetoric is really an invocation of
a ruling class consensus, now that Trump has supposedly brought the ruling class together under one
banner. In Hillary's tent, the boardrooms are always in session.
By virtually every measurement, the United States is in deep crisis, as both a society and as the
headquarters of global capitalism. We can roughly measure the severity of some aspects of the crisis
with the tools of economic analysis. Such an analysis is quite useful in explaining why Washington
is so eager to risk war with Russia and China, whether in Syria or the South China Sea or along the
ever expanding borders of NATO. To put it simply, the U.S. and western Europe become smaller, in
terms of their economic influence, with every passing day, and cannot possibly maintain their political
dominance in the world except by military force, coercion and terror. Those are the only cards the
imperialists have left to play. The ruling circles in the U.S. are aware that time is not on their
side, and it makes them crazy -- or crazier than usual.
The ruling class's own analysts tell them that the center of the world economy is moving inexorably
to the East and the South; that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future; and that the
U.S. is already number two by some economic measures -- and dropping. The Lords of Capital know there
is no future for them in a world where the dollar is not supreme and where Wall Street's stocks,
bonds and derivatives are not backed by the full weight of unchallenged empire. Put another way,
U.S. imperialism is at an inflection point, with all the indicators pointing downward and no hope
of reversing the trend by peaceful means.
Now, that's actually not such a bad prognosis for the United States, as a country. The U.S. is
a big country, with an abundance of human and natural resources, and would do just fine in a world
among equals. But, the fate of the Lords of Capital is tied to the ongoing existence of empire. They
create nothing, but seek to monetize and turn a profit on everything. They cannot succeed in trade
unless it is rigged, and have placed bets in their casinos that are nominally seven times more valuable
than the total economic activity of planet Earth. In short, the Lords of Capital are creatures of
U.S. imperial dominance; they go out of business when the empire does.
Beat the Clock
The rulers are looking class death in the face -- and it terrifies them. And when the Lords of
Capital become frightened, they order their servants in politics and the war industries and the vast
national security networks to take care of the problem, by any means necessary. That means militarily
encircling Russia and China; arming and mobilizing tens of thousands of jihadist terrorists in Syria,
in an attempt to repeat the regime change in Libya; waging a war of economic sanctions and low-level
armed aggression against Iran; occupying most of the African continent through subversion of African
militaries; escalating subversion in Latin America; and spying on everyone on earth with a digital
connection. All this, to stop the clock that is ticking on U.S. and European world economic dominance.
Left political analysts that I greatly respect argue that Hillary Clinton and the mob she will
come in with in January will pull back from apocalyptic confrontation with Russia in Syria -- that
they're not really that crazy. But, I'm not at all convinced. The ruling class isn't just imagining
that their days are numbered; it's really true. And rulers do get crazy when their class is standing
at death's door.
For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.
"... So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian? Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering. ..."
"... We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt. ..."
"... And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh? ..."
"... Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class. ..."
"... Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular support it will be the best upset in modern history. ..."
"... Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH, his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce, to the WH, his arrogance, etc. ..."
"... As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate. ..."
"... Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting the country he has kept it divided. ..."
"... The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the powerful and elite makes my blood boil ..."
"... The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ? ..."
"... The condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote the impeached X President and his caustic wife ..."
"... Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree. ..."
"... And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys. ..."
"... "But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page. ..."
"... Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting president before him. ..."
"... And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be addressing important issues of the country? ..."
Massive multi billion dollar corporate entities and
financial conglomerates who have a vested self interest in
the election will throw everything they have got into the
system. No effort too extreme, nothing out of bounds.
65jangle 6h ago
So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian?
Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring
wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering.
We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt.
And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your
chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh?
BlueberryCompote -> ByzantiumNovum 6h ago
The lunatic Russophobia of the US State Department makes your intervention unnecessary as Obama probably was the last bulwark against insanity.
Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the
defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class.
Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top
politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular
support it will be the best upset in modern history.
aldebaranredstar 8h ago
Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his
lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH,
his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce,
to the WH, his arrogance, etc.
He has not only destroyed the Dem Party--which is weaker than it has ever been--but the entire
nation with his Executive orders that got overturned by the SCOTUS--the man is pure hell. A bad
leader is a bad leader, no matter the color. People are disgusted with his actions as POTUS and
that is the bottom line cause of the rise of DT. Obama has waged war in his own nation--not only
overseas. Peace Prize--HAHAHA.
Flugler 8h ago
Walkover;
As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are
growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in
record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate.
In addition to this, the polls may be horribly off, as Trump has what many are calling the
"monster vote" waiting in the wings. This is in reference to the stunning amount of previously
unregistered voters who have never voted in their life but plan on showing up to the polls to
support Donald Trump, as internal polling is showing.
Further supporting how strong his momentum is across all categories is the fact that Donald
Trump now has the majority of support across ALL age categories. A huge development, considering
that he has been struggling with young voters throughout much of his campaign.
rocjoc43rd 8h ago
Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is
also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting
the country he has kept it divided. I wonder if he is keeping the country safe while he
spends the next week campaigning for his replacement.
mandyjeancole 8h ago
The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic
and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the
powerful and elite makes my blood boil
The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black
vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a
thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ?
The
condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs
earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote
the impeached X President and his caustic wife another bite of the proverbial cherry, Donald
Trumps somewhat blundering campaign has been mired in his apparent misogyny and he has come in
for the most horrendous criticism by the world's press while Mrs. Clintons lies and, deceit up
until now were considered acceptable for a 30 yr veteran of politics.
Mr. Trump maybe an
all-American dreamer, he may not always come across as the most coherent, but he loves his Country. and he wants what's best for it.....If America is looking for mistakes made look no
further than Europe, The powers that be.. have made the most catastrophic decisions that have in
turn left the once proud cultures of Europe in the grip of Islamic fundamentalist whose barbaric
in doctoring wants to take us back a 1000 yrs. Give Mr. Trump 4 yrs.. its not too long..He just
might surprise you. MJC
Meep_Meep 8h ago
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump decried Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as
"the candidate of yesterday," calling himself and his supporters "the movement of the future."
Yeah...the future!
DeAngelOfPi -> Brighton181 8h ago
Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on
the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree.
SoloLoMejor -> PostTrotskyite 9h ago
And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and
implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of
illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh
and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and
you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys.
RememberRemember 9h ago
2016 Obama, perhaps you would like a word with 2008 Obama.
Obama: "I'm Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message."
Announcer: "It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get
elected. Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama.
"The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked
the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close
corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.
"But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to
Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost
South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for
George Bush's war in Iraq.
"Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page.
Paid for by Obama for America."
calderonparalapaz 9h ago
A Hillary ad should be about Clinton Inc as the american dream. Thanks Teneo!
"Until the Friday blockbuster news that the FBI was reopening its probe into the Hillary email
server, the biggest overhang facing the Clinton Campaign was the escalating scandal involving the
Clinton Foundation, Doug Band's consultancy firm Teneo, and Bill Clinton who as a result of a
leaked memo emerged was generously compensated for potential political favors by prominent
corporate clients using Teneo as a pass-thru vehicle for purchasing influence.
In a section of the memo entitled "Leveraging Teneo For The Foundation," Band spelled out all of
the donations he solicited from Teneo "clients" for the Clinton Foundation. In all, there are
roughly $14mm of donations listed with the largest contributors being Coca-Cola, Barclays, The
Rockefeller Foundation and Laureate International Universities. Some of these are shown below
(the full details can be found in "Leaked Memo Exposes Shady Dealings Between Clinton Foundation
Donors And Bill's "For-Profit" Activities")"
the more the media hush up on Huma Abedin, the more there is to know. it was her & criminally
accused Weiner's PC which (in a folder innocuously labelled) had 650,000 emails. Abedin comments
"she did not now how the 650,000 emails got there" (sic). the US media continues to cover up this
aspect of the Trio story: Abedin-Clinton-Weiner... the fact that Weiner is buddy with Israel's
Netanyahu simply adds to this intertwined messy cover-up.
BoSelecta 9h ago
The Clintonite corruption spreads in to the Justice Department:
Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the
election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting
president before him.
And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be
addressing important issues of the country?
ALostIguana -> vr13vr 9h ago
Hatch Act explicitly excludes the President and Vice-President. They can take part in
political campaigning. Most other members of the executive are constrained by the Hatch Act.
Jill Stein to win over the hearts of some progressives and jump start her far-left "
people-powered
" movement.
"This is Jill Stein's moment," said longtime Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Pat
Caddell.
"There are many Clinton voters who would rather vote their conscience than vote for a major party.
According to the latest Breitbart/Gravis poll, when given the choice of whether you should vote for
a major party candidate or vote your conscience, 44% of Clinton voters said you should vote your
conscience," Caddell explained.
Even before the FBI director's dramatic announcement on Friday, the ABC News/Washington Post
tracking poll
indicated that "loosely affiliated or reluctant Clinton supporters"- which includes white women
and young voters under the age of 30- seem to be floating off and "look less likely to vote."
Caddell explained that the polling data suggests "there are many people who are ambivalent
about Clinton who don't want to vote for Trump. Given these new revelations from WikiLeaks and the
re-intensity of the concern regarding the corruption of her emails, these ambivalent voters need
a place to go and Jill Stein-being not only a progressive woman, but an honest progressive woman-is
the obvious choice for so many of these voters, particularly for those who supported Bernie Sanders."
Indeed, nearly 60 percent of voters- including 43 percent of Democrats- believe America needs
a third major political party,
according to a Gallup poll released late last month.
As one former Bernie Sanders supporter told Breitbart News, "It's come to this: voting for
Hillary Clinton is voting for the lesser of two evils. But voting for the lesser of two evils is
still voting for evil, and I'm tired of voting for evil. That's why I'm voting for Jill Stein.
"
This sentiment has been echoed by Stein herself who has argued, "it's time to reject the lesser
of two evils and stand up for the greater good."
Stein seems ready to capitalize on the FBI's announcement as well as the steady stream of WikiLeaks
revelations that have exposed, what Stein has characterized as, the Clinton camp's "hostility" to
progressives.
"The FBI has re-opened the Clinton investigation. Will the American people rise up and vote for
honest change?" Stein asked on Friday, via Twitter.
... ... ...
Clinton's strained relationship with progressives has been well documented and could
present Stein– who has demonstrated a remarkable ability to articulately prosecute the progressive
case against Clinton– with an opening, especially as polling reveals a significant chunk of Clinton
voters believe voting their conscience ought to trump voting for a major political party.
As Politico reported in a piece
titled "WikiLeaks poisons Hillary's relationship with left" :
Some of the left's most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they
and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers
in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as "puritanical," "pompous", "naive", "radical"
and "dumb," calling some "freaks," who need to "get a life." […] among progressive operatives,
goodwill for Clinton - and confidence in key advisers featured in the emails including John Podesta,
Neera Tanden and Jake Sullivan - is eroding…
Even before the FBI's announcement, many noted that it was becoming increasingly difficult
to view a vote for Clinton as anything other than a vote to continue the worst aspects of political
corruption.
As columnist Kim Strassel recently
wrote , the
one thing in this election of which one can be certain is that "a Hillary Clinton presidency will
be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law."
As such, "anyone who pulls the lever for Mrs. Clinton takes responsibility for setting up the
nation for all the blatant corruption that will follow," Strassel
concludes
. "She just doesn't have a whole lot of integrity,"
said far-left progressive Cornel West.
West
endorsed Stein over Clinton explaining Stein is "the only progressive woman in the race."
"The Clinton train- [of] Wall Street, security surveillance, militaristic- is not going in
the same direction I'm going," West
told Bill Maher earlier this year.
She's a neoliberal… [I] believe neoliberalism is a disaster when it comes to poor people
and when it comes to people in other parts of the world dealing with U.S. foreign policy and militarism.
Oh, absolutely. Ask the people in Libya about that. Ask the people in the West Bank about that.
West has separately
explained that Clinton's "militarism makes the world a less safe place" and that her globalist
agenda created the "right-wing populism" that has fueled Trump's rise.
Clinton policies of the 1990s generated inequality, mass incarceration, privatization of schools
and Wall Street domination. There is also a sense that the Clinton policies helped produce the
right-wing populism that we're seeing now in the country. And we think she's going to come to
the rescue? That's not going to happen.
"It's too easy to view him [Trump] as an isolated individual and bash him," West
told Maher. "He's speaking to the pain in the country because white, working class brothers have
been overlooked by globalization, by these trade deals"– trade deals which Stein also opposes.
Stein has railed against the passage of TPP, which she and her party have described as "NAFTA
on steroids" that would "enrich wealthy corporations by exporting jobs and pushing down wages." They
have argued that the deal essentially amounts to a "global corporate coup" that "would give corporations
more power than nations" by letting them "challenge our laws".
Stein is
against the "massive expanding wars," "the meltdown of the climate," "the massive Wall Street
bailouts," and "the offshoring of our jobs."
Pointing to Clinton's "dangerous and immoral" militarism, Stein has
warned that "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war" and has explained how under a Clinton
presidency, "we could very quickly slide into nuclear war" or could start an air-war with Russia.
"No matter how her staff tries to rebrand her" Clinton is "not a progressive," Stein has
said -rather Clinton is a "corporatist hawk" that "
surrounds
herself with people who are hostile progressives" such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz "after she sabotaged
Bernie [Sanders]." Stein has warned progressives that the role of corporate Democrats like Clinton
is to "prevent progressives from defying corporate rule."
Stein has made a point to
highlight the fact that "we're now seeing many Republican leaders join Hillary Clinton in a neoliberal
uni-party that will fuel right-wing extremism," by continuing to push its "neoliberal agenda [of]
globalization, privatization, deregulation, [and] austerity for the rest of us."
In contrast to Clinton's corporatist "uni-party", Stein and her party have explained that their
campaign represents a "people's party with a populist progressive agenda" that-unlike Democrats and
Republicans- is not "funded by big corporate interests including Wall St. Banks, fossil fuel giants,
& war profiteer."
Stein is a Harvard Medical School graduate, a mother to two sons, and a practicing physician,
who became an environmental-health activist and organizer in the late 1990s. As the Green Party's
2012 presidential candidate, Stein already holds the record for the most votes ever received by a
female candidate for president in a general election.
In Jill Stein, her party writes, "progressives have a peace candidate not beholden to the billionaire
class."
Rank Name Donations
1 Tom Steyer $38 million
2 Donald Sussman $23.4 million
3 Miriam & Sheldon Adelson $21.5 million
4 Robert Mercer $20.2 million
5 Michael Bloomberg $20.1 million
6 Fred Eychaner $20 million
7 Paul Singer $17.3 million
8 George Soros $16.5 million
9 Maurice "Hank" Greenberg $15.1 million
10 Elizabeth & Richard Uihlein $14 million
Lloyd Blankfein is all in for HRC, so we know what sort of
economy we will get.
The Clinton administration will have a
tough balance, throwing enough crumbs to the left to keep
them happy while giving payback for the speaking fees.
Before Anne demands that you identify who this is - let me
help. Lloyd Craig Blankfein is an American business
executive. He is the CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs.
Now
was that so hard? As for "we know what sort of economy we
will get". No Rusty - we do not know WTF you mean by this. So
get to it as man splain this to us.
Since both major parties are owned by plutocrats, we get a
choice between quicker or slower misery. And since Hillary is
in bed with the neocons, we also get the probability of major
conflagration or US oppression of the globe.
If a
progressive/populist revolt doesn't change the current path
we are all screwed.
"... "We have not run this campaign as a campaign against the GOP with the big broad brush - we've run it against Donald Trump," Kaine told the Associated Press. "We're going to get a lot of Republican votes, and that will also be part of, right out of the gate, the way to bring folks back together." ..."
"... In an interview, Kaine said Saturday that he and Hillary Clinton have already discussed how to work with Republicans if they win the presidential election against Trump and his running-mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, in a little more than two weeks. He said that tackling economic anxieties, finding common policy ground with the GOP, and perhaps bringing Republicans into the administration would be elements of unity, though he added that he and Clinton did not discuss cabinet positions, the AP reported. ..."
"... So the plan isn't to try and turn the Senate blue? What kind of work can a Clinton/Kaine administration "get done" with a GOP congress? My first guess would be giving big business something they want in "exchange" for something they want like a repatriation tax holiday to gently suggest corporations bring some of the money they have overseas back to the US and using a small portion of that money to pay for infrastructure spending business associations like the US COC have been advocating for years. ..."
"... It's not like the Dems have a chance of taking congress or at least the Senate so why do anything that might annoy the GOP. Since the GOP are usually so reasonable and the slightest suggestion Dems may want to take over Congress would be the straw that broke the camel's back and turn the generally reasonable GOP into a well oiled "no" machine. ..."
Sen. Tim Kaine said he's already reaching out to Republicans as the Democratic
vice presidential hopeful looks for ways to repair damage done between the two parties during
th divisive race for the White House.
"We have not run this campaign as a campaign against the GOP with the big broad brush -
we've run it against Donald Trump," Kaine told the Associated Press. "We're going to get a lot
of Republican votes, and that will also be part of, right out of the gate, the way to bring folks
back together."
In an interview, Kaine said Saturday that he and Hillary Clinton have already discussed
how to work with Republicans if they win the presidential election against Trump and his running-mate,
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, in a little more than two weeks. He said that tackling economic anxieties,
finding common policy ground with the GOP, and perhaps bringing Republicans into the administration
would be elements of unity, though he added that he and Clinton did not discuss cabinet positions,
the AP reported.
Kaine, who is in his fourth year as a senator from Virginia after serving as the state's governor,
said Clinton is stepping up efforts to help Democrats recapture Senate control, but he hasn't
made a specific pitch for a Democratic Senate. He's focusing his efforts on finding policies Republicans
and Democrats can agree on.
"I have very good relations with Republicans in the Senate," Kaine said.
"There's some people
who really want to get some good work done."
[So the plan isn't to try and turn the Senate blue? What kind of work can a Clinton/Kaine administration
"get done" with a GOP congress? My first guess would be giving big business something they want
in "exchange" for something they want like a repatriation tax holiday to gently suggest corporations
bring some of the money they have overseas back to the US and using a small portion of that money
to pay for infrastructure spending business associations like the US COC have been advocating
for years.
It's not like the Dems have a chance of taking congress or at least the Senate so why do anything
that might annoy the GOP. Since the GOP are usually so reasonable and the slightest suggestion
Dems may want to take over Congress would be the straw that broke the camel's back and turn the
generally reasonable GOP into a well oiled "no" machine.
"... Nonsense. You would have to be so incompetent as to need a daily caregiver to be a "liberal" activist and not know Hillary Clinton despises you. ..."
"... Didn't click on the link. I presume this is just face-saving blather from inside the pen. ..."
"... It's compatible with Hillary's three-act campaign's third act of "putting the Party back together" with the solvent glue of conflation and the structural adhesive of Stronger Together ("get in mah fasces, maggots"). ..."
Some fun dish in here: WikiLeaks poisons Hillary's relationship with left. After learning
how Clinton feels about them, liberals vow to push back against her agenda and appointments.
Nonsense. You would have to be so incompetent as to need a daily caregiver to be a "liberal"
activist and not know Hillary Clinton despises you.
Didn't click on the link. I presume this is just face-saving blather from inside the pen.
Gotta pretend you're not in the pen to get more calves in there with you. If they can actually
see the wires and the prods, it takes more effort to get them down the chute.
It's a decent bit of dish, but what one gets out of the forced synonymy of "liberal" and "left"
and "progressive" depends on what priors one brings in with it, and I don't think I'll wait for
the third time around before calling it as enemy design.
It's compatible with Hillary's three-act
campaign's third act of "putting the Party back together" with the solvent glue of conflation
and the structural adhesive of Stronger Together ("get in mah fasces, maggots").
Today's aptrogram from professional political kayfabe: Amanda Marcotte → At Drama, Moan Etc.
I agree with this. All a person has to do is look at a few of her votes in the Senate to see
how right wing she is. Some examples (which I posted during the primaries - sorry for the repetition):
Her vote in favor of the insidious bankruptcy reform act:
The 2001 bill did not become law, but it was similar to the 2005 bill (S. 256) which did
become law. Hillary Clinton was not present for the 2005 vote, because her husband was having
surgery for a partially collapsed lung:
She is a Democrat only by name. In reality she is a wolf in sheep clothing -- a neoliberal (and
a neocon -- a warmonger with the distinct anti-Russian bet) that betrayed working people
and middle class long ago and pandering only to the top 1%. The while "clitonized" Democratic party
is the party of top 1% (top 10% at best). Rejection of Hillary is just rejection of Demorats
(neoliberal democrats) betrayal of working and middle classes. It remains to be seen f Wall Street
managed to push her thrith the thoat of Americal people, despite all re revultion her candidacy
evoke, her corruption and her failing health.
The soullessness of [Clinton's] campaign - all ambition and entitlement - emerges
almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign
is about. In one largely overlooked passage,
Clinton
complains
that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or
rationale. Isn't that the candidate's job? Asked
one of her aides
, Joel Benenson: "Do we have any sense from her what she believes
or wants her core message to be?"
It's that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and
position negotiable and politically calculable. Hence the
embarrassing about-face
on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the popular winds
swung decisively against free trade.
So too with financial regulation, as in Dodd-Frank
.
As she told
a Goldman Sachs gathering, after the financial collapse there was "a
need to do something because, for political reasons . . . you can't sit idly by and
do nothing."
Of course, we knew all this. But we hadn't seen it so clearly laid out.
Illicit and illegal as is WikiLeaks, it is the camera in the sausage factory. And
what it reveals is surpassingly unpretty.
Who on the left is genuinely excited about voting for Hillary Clinton? Sure, there
are some, but
she strikes me as being a Democratic figure who's a lot like Mitt
Romney was on the Right: the perfect distillation of a kind of Establishmentarianism
within their own party.
(I hasten to say that whatever my disagreement with Romney
over policy might have been, he always struck me as a thoroughly decent person. Hillary
Clinton … not.) It is hard to think of two more different figures on the Right than Mitt
Romney and Donald Trump - temperamentally and otherwise. Yet within four years, the GOP
convulsed so much that it got Donald Trump. What Trump's triumph over the GOP
Establishment showed was its deep weakness. It just needed a strong push.
Might that be the case for the Democrats post-Clinton? Who is the Donald Trump of the
Democratic Party? Where might he come from? I don't think we can see him (or her) now,
but I have a hunch that he's out there.
I find it hard to believe that the Democrats
are not going to be immune to the same economic and cultural forces that dismantled the
GOP. I could be wrong. Her sort of conniving, careerist, technocratic liberalism surely
is not long for this world. Yes?
Posted in
Democrats
,
Presidential politics
. Tagged
Charles
Krauthammer
,
Donald Trump
,
Hillary Clinton
.
There was a time, not long ago, when deficit scolds were
actively dangerous - when their huffing and puffing came
quite close to stampeding Washington into really bad policies
like raising the Medicare age (which wouldn't even have saved
money) and short-term fiscal austerity. At this point their
influence doesn't reach nearly that far. But they continue to
play a malign role in our national discourse - because they
divert and distract attention from much more deserving
problems, depriving crucial issues of political oxygen.
You saw that in the debates: four, count them, four
questions about debt from the Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget, not one about climate change. And you see it
again in today's New York Times, with Pete Peterson (of
course) and Paul Volcker (sigh) lecturing us * about the
usual stuff.
What's so bad about this kind of deficit scolding? It's
deeply misleading on two levels: the problem it purports to
lay out is far less clearly a major issue than the scolds
claim, and the insistence that we need immediate action is
just incoherent.
So, about that supposed debt crisis: right now we have a
more or less stable ratio of debt to GDP, and no hint of a
financing problem. So claims that we are facing something
terrible rest on the presumption that the budget situation
will worsen dramatically over time. How sure are we about
that? Less than you may imagine.
Yes, the population is getting older, which means more
spending on Medicare and Social Security. But it's already
2016, which means that quite a few baby boomers are already
drawing on those programs; by 2020 we'll be about halfway
through the demographic transition, and current estimates
don't suggest a big budget problem.
Why, then, do you see projections of a large debt
increase? The answer lies not in a known factor - an aging
population - but in assumed growth in health care costs and
rising interest rates. And the truth is that we don't know
that these are going to happen. In fact, health costs have
grown much more slowly since 2010 than previously projected,
and interest rates have been much lower. As the chart above
shows, taking these favorable surprises into account has
already drastically reduced long-run debt projections. These
days the long-run outlook looks vastly less scary than people
used to imagine.
Still, it's probably true that something will eventually
have to be done to bring spending and revenues in line. But
that brings me to the second point: why is this a crucial
issue right now?
Are debt scolds demanding that we slash spending and raise
taxes right away? Actually, no: the economy is still weak,
interest rates still low (meaning that the Fed can't offset
fiscal tightening with easy money), and as a matter of
macroeconomic prudence we should probably be running bigger,
not smaller deficits in the medium term. So proposals to
"deal with" the supposed debt problem always involve
long-term cuts in benefits and (reluctantly) increases in
taxes. That is, they don't involve actual policy moves now,
or for the next 5-10 years.
So why is it so important to take up the issue right now,
with so much else on our plate?
Put it this way: yes, it's possible that we may at some
point in the future have to cut benefits. But deficit scolds
talk as if they offer a way to avoid this fate, when in fact
their solution to the prospect of future benefit cuts is … to
cut future benefits.
If you try really hard, you can argue that locking in
policies now for this future adjustment will make the
transition smoother. But that is really a second-order issue,
hardly deserving to take up a lot of our time. By putting the
debt question aside, we are NOT in any material way making
the future worse.
And that is a total contrast with climate change, where
our failure to act means pouring vast quantities of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, materially increasing
the odds of catastrophe with every year we wait.
So my message to the deficit scolds is this: yes, we may
face some hard choices a couple of decades from now. But we
might not, and in any case there aren't any choices that must
be made now. Meanwhile, there are genuinely scary things
happening as we speak, which we should be taking on but
aren't. And your fear-mongering is distracting us from these
real problems. Therefore, I would respectfully request that
you people just go away.
Kind of like Obama's gift of mandated health insurance
coverage given to a health insurance industry that is
consolidating more and more every day...and becoming an
oligopoly?
Of course, we already know how this ends from
privatization of retirement plans in Britain and in
Chile--it's a boon mainly to the finance industry.
"Britain's experience with individual accounts has been
troubling. None other than the business oriented Wall
Street Journal, in fact, headlined an article on the
British experience: "Social Security Switch in U.K. is
Disastrous; A Caution to the U.S.?"[7] While the Journal
article mainly focused on a multi-billion dollar fraud
scandal in which British pension sellers gave workers bad
investment advice, others have critically noted the
system's unexpectedly high administrative costs and the
growing income inequality among the nation's workers"
http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/social-security/PensionPrivatizationBritainBoondoggle-Sep00.pdf
What else would you expect from the Clintons, who have
spent a good part of their careers sucking up to the
finance industry?
"... Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S. militarism there. ..."
"... "We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going to put more of our fleet in the area." ..."
"... In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria, from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however, she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was required in Libya. ..."
"... Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it." ..."
"... Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]." Really? From whom? ..."
"... it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?" ..."
In the speech transcripts from June 4, 2013, October 29, 2013, and October 19, 2015, Clinton was
apparently paid sufficiently to do something she denies most audiences. That is, she took questions
that it appears likely she was not secretly briefed on or engaged in negotiations over ahead of time.
In part this appears to be the case because some of the questions were lengthy speeches, and in part
because her answers were not all the sort of meaningless platitudes that she produces if given time
to prepare.
Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and
virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination
of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than
the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy
that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now
show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from
thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing
all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan
Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S.
militarism there.
Yet, in these speeches, Clinton projects exactly that approach, accurately or not, on other nations
and accuses China of just the sort of thing that her "far left" critics accuse her of all the time,
albeit outside the censorship of U.S. corporate media. China, Clinton says, may use hatred of Japan
as a means of distracting Chinese people from unpopular and harmful economic policies. China, Clinton
says, struggles to maintain civilian control over its military. Hmm. Where else have we seen these
problems?
"We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going
to put more of our fleet in the area."
On Syria, Clinton says it's hard to figure out whom to arm - completely oblivious to any options
other than arming somebody. It's hard, she says, to predict at all what will happen. So, her advice,
which she blurts out to a room of bankers, is to wage war in Syria very "covertly."
In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria,
from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however,
she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was
required in Libya. "You're going to kill a lot of Syrians," she admits. She even tries to distance
herself from the proposal by referring to "this intervention that people talk about so glibly" -
although she, before and at the time of that speech and ever since has been the leading such person.
Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar.
In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was
now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton
said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each
other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it."
That's the view of many ill-meaning and many well-meaning people who have been persuaded that
the only two choices in foreign policy are bombing people and doing nothing. That clearly is the
understanding of the former Secretary of State, whose positions were more hawkish than those of her
counterpart at the Pentagon. It's also reminiscent of Harry Truman's comment that if the Germans
were winning you should help the Russians and vice versa, so that more people would die. That's not
exactly what Clinton said here, but it's pretty close, and it's something she would not say in a
scripted joint-media-appearance masquerading as a debate. The possibility of disarmament, nonviolent
peacework, actual aid on a massive scale, and respectful diplomacy that leaves U.S. influence out
of the resulting states is just not on Clinton's radar no matter who is in her audience.
On Iran, Clinton repeatedly hypes false claims about nuclear weapons and terrorism, even while
admitting far more openly than we're used to that Iran's religious leader denounces and opposes nuclear
weapons. She also admits that Saudi Arabia is already pursuing nuclear weapons and that UAE and Egypt
are likely to do so, at least if Iran does. She also admits that the Saudi government is far from
stable.
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein asks Clinton at one point how a good war against Iran might
go - he suggesting that an occupation (yes, they use that forbidden word) might not be the best move.
Clinton replies that Iran can just be bombed. Blankfein, rather shockingly, appeals to reality -
something Clinton goes on at obnoxious length about elsewhere in these speeches. Has bombing a population
into submission ever worked, Blankfein asks. Clinton admits that it has not but suggests that it
just might work on Iranians because they are not democratic.
Regarding Egypt, Clinton makes clear her opposition to popular change.
Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim
ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have
told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]."
Really? From whom?
This is ugly stuff, at least as damaging to human lives as the filth coming from Donald Trump.
Yet it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her
identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political
system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?"
Et cetera.
In part their concern is the supposed gridlock created by differences between the two big parties,
whereas my biggest concern is the militarized destruction of people and the environment that never
seems to encounter even a slight traffic slowdown in Congress. But if you imagine that the people
Bernie Sanders always denounces as taking home all the profits are happy with the status quo, think
again. They benefit in certain ways, but they don't control their monster and it doesn't make them
feel fulfilled.
"... First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; ..."
"... Clinton frames solutions exclusively ..."
"... Policy Sciences ..."
"... Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace. ..."
"... SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. ..."
"... Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution. ..."
"... One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it. ..."
"... What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know! ..."
"... I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money. ..."
"... A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid." ..."
"... in that context ..."
"... So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not. ..."
"... Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech… ..."
"... Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel. ..."
"... Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people. ..."
"... What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria? ..."
"... The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards. ..."
"... But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little… ..."
"... Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article ..."
"... both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room. ..."
"... The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo ..."
"... The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake." ..."
"... basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem ..."
"... Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job ..."
As readers know, WikiLeaks has
released transcripts
of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton gave in 2013, and for which she was paid
the eyewatering sum of $675,000. (The link is to an email dated January 23, 2016, from Cllinton staffer
Tony Carrk , Clinton's research director, which pulls out
"noteworthy quotes" from the speeches. The speeches themselves are attachments to that email.)
Readers, I read them. All three of them. What surprises - and when I tell you I had to take a
little nap about halfway through, I'm not making it up! - is the utter mediocrity of Clinton's thought
and mode of expression[1]. Perhaps that explains Clinton's
otherwise inexplicable refusal to release them. And perhaps my sang froid is preternatural,
but I don't see a "smoking gun," unless forking over $675,000 for interminable volumes of shopworn
conventional wisdom be, in itself, such a gun. What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they
were paying for?
WikiLeaks has, however, done voters a favor - in these speeches, and in the DNC and Podesta email
releases generally - by giving us a foretaste of what a Clinton administration will be like, once
in power, not merely on policy (the "first 100 days"), but on how they will make decisions. I call
the speeches a "munitions dump," because the views she expresses in these speeches are bombs that
can be expected to explode as the Clinton administration progresses.
With that, let's contextualize and comment upon some quotes from the speeches
The Democrats Are the Party of Wall Street
Of course, you knew that, but it's nice to have the matter confirmed. This material was flagged
by Carrk (as none of the following material will have been). It's enormously prolix, but I decided
to cut only a few paragraphs. From
Clinton's second
Goldman speech at the AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium:
MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity
around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians.
Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now , what would be your
advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and
worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you
do and the people who do it, but I do - I think that when we talk about the regulators and the
politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating,
and they had repercussions throughout the world.
That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you
know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.
Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom [really?!].
And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding
and really politicizing [!] what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on
all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time .
And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally,
governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that
came later .
I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know,
get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being
reached.
There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get
to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry
better than anybody are the people who work in the industry .
…
And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where
the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations , they're
scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way
it needs to to restart economic growth.
So people are, you know, a little - they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because
they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because
of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.
So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out,
we're all in this together , how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country
going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the
spinal column.
And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot
of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political
reasons , if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were
losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of
Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.
And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through
it all.
And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued
liability [oh, really?] and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could
have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to
make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.
MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and
your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated
with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be
an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that
includes Wall Street and Main Street.
And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in,
you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers , but I am interested in trying to
figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence
in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment
rate [five years into the recession!].
So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different
roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there
has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences
not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process
and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate
on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power
that exists here.
"Moving forward." And not looking back. (It would be nice to know what "continued liability"
the banks were worried about;
accounting
control fraud ? Maybe somebody could ask Clinton.) Again, I call your attention to the weird
combination of certainty and mediocrity of it; readers, I am sure, can demolish the detail. What
this extended quotation does show is that Clinton and Obama are as one with respect to the
role of the finance sector. Politico describes Obama's famous meeting with the bankster CEOs:
Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs
of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying
high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.
"These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent
on an international market.".
But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and
offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make
those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that.".
"My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."
And he did! He did! Clinton, however, by calling the finance sector the "the nerves, the spinal
column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did.
So, from the governance perspective, we can expect the FIRE sector to dominate a Clinton administration,
and the Clinton administration to service it. The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street. The bomb
that could explode there is corrupt dealings with cronies (for which the Wikileaks material provides
plenty of leads).
Clinton Advocates a "Night Watchman" State
The next quotes are shorter, I swear! Here's a quote from
Clinton's third
Goldman speech (not flagged by Carrk, no doubt because hearing drivel like this is perfectly
normal in HillaryLand):
SECRETARY CLINTON: And I tell you, I see any society like a three-legged stool. You have to
have an active free market that gives people the chance to live out their dreams by their own
hard work and skills. You have to have a functioning, effective government that provides
the right balance of oversight and protection of freedom and privacy and liberty and all the rest
of it that goes with it . And you have to have an active civil society. Because there's
so much about America that is volunteerism and religious faith and family and community activities.
So you take one of those legs away, it's pretty hard to balance it. So you've got to get back
to getting the right balance.
Apparently, the provision
of public services is not within government's remit -- What are Social Security and Medicare?
"All the rest of it"? Not only that, who said the free market was the only way to "live
out their dreams"? Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton would have something to say about that! Finally,
which one of those legs is out of balance? Civil society? Some would advocate less religion in politics
rather than more, including many Democrats. The markets? Not at Goldman? Government? Too much militarization,
way too little concrete material benefits, so far as I'm concerned, but Clinton doesn't say, making
the "stool" metaphor vacuous.
From a governance perspective, we can expect Clinton's blind spot on government's role in provisioning
servies to continue. Watch for continued privatization efforts (perhaps aided by Silicon Valley).
On any infrastructure projects, watch for "public-private partnerships." The bomb that could explode
there is corrupt dealings with a different set of cronies (even if the FIRE sector does
have a finger in every pie).
Clinton's Views on Health Care Reflect Market Fundamentalism
MR. O'NEILL: [O]bviously the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the supreme court. It's
clearly having limitation problems [I don't know what that means]. It's unsettling, people still
- the Republicans want to repeal it or defund it. So how do you get to the middle on that clash
of absolutes?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not the first time that we rolled out a big program with the
limitation problems [Clinton apparently does].
I was in the Senate when President Bush asked and signed legislation expanding Medicare benefits,
the Medicare Part D drug benefits. And people forget now that it was a very difficult implementation.
As a senator, my staff spent weeks working with people who were trying to sign up, because
it was in some sense even harder to manage because the population over 65, not the most computer-literate
group, and it was difficult. But, you know, people stuck with it, worked through it.
Now, this is on - it's on a different scale and it is more complex because it's trying to create
a market. In Medicare, you have a single market , you have, you know, the government
is increasing funding through government programs [sic] to provide people over 65 the drugs they
needed.
And there were a few variations that you could play out on it, but it was a much simpler market
than what the Affordable Care Act is aiming to set up.
Now, the way I look at this, Tim, is it's either going to work or it's not going to work.
First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market"
rather than "single payer"; but then
Clinton erases single payer whenever possible . Second, Clinton frames solutions exclusively
in terms of markets (and not the direct provision of services by government);
Obama does the same on health care in JAMA , simply erasing the possibility of single payer.
Third, rather than advocate a simple, rugged, and proven system like Canadian Medicare (single payer),
Clinton prefers to run an experiment ("it's either going to work or it's not going to work")
on the health of millions of people (and, I would urge, without their informed consent).
From a governance perspective, assume that if the Democrats propose
a "public option," it will be miserably inadequate. The bomb that could explode here is the ObamaCare
death spiral.
The Problems Are "Wicked," but Clinton Will Be Unable to Cope With Them
MR. BLANKFEIN: The next area which I think is actually literally closer to home but where American
lives have been at risk is the Middle East, I think is one topic. What seems to be the ambivalence
or the lack of a clear set of goals - maybe that ambivalence comes from not knowing what outcome
we want or who is our friend or what a better world is for the United States and of Syria, and
then ultimately on the Iranian side if you think of the Korean bomb as far away and just the Tehran
death spot, the Iranians are more calculated in a hotter area with - where does that go? And I
tell you, I couldn't - I couldn't myself tell - you know how we would like things to work out,
but it's not discernable to me what the policy of the United States is towards an outcome either
in Syria or where we get to in Iran.
MS. CLINTON: Well, part of it is it's a wicked problem , and it's a wicked
problem that is very hard to unpack in part because as you just said, Lloyd, it's not clear
what the outcome is going to be and how we could influence either that outcome or a different
outcome.
(I say "cope with" rather than "solve" for reasons that will become apparent.) Yes, Syria's bad,
as vividly shown by Blankfein's fumbling question, but I want to focus on the term "wicked problem,"
which comes from the the field of strategic planning, though it's also infiltrated
information technology
and management
theory . The concept originated in a famous paper by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber
entitled: "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (PDF), Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169.
I couldn't summarize the literature even if I had the time, but here is Rittel and Webber's introduction:
There are at least ten distinguishing properties of planning-type problems, i.e. wicked ones,
that planners had better be alert to and which we shall comment upon in turn. As you will see,
we are calling them "wicked" not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable.
We use the term "wicked" in a meaning akin to that of "malignant" (in contrast to "benign") or
"vicious" (like a circle) or "tricky" (like a leprechaun) or "aggressive" (like a lion, in contrast
to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by
implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the
planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely,
or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.
And here is a list of Rittel and Webber's ten properties of a "wicked problem" (
and a critique ):
There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem Wicked problems have no stopping rule Solutions
to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. There is no immediate and no ultimate
test of a solution to a wicked problem. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation";
because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions,
nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the
plan. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered to be
a symptom of another [wicked] problem. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous
ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. [With wicked
problems,] the planner has no right to be wrong.
Of course, there's plenty of controversy about all of this, but if you throw these properties
against the Syrian clusterf*ck, I think you'll see a good fit, and can probably come up with other
examples. My particular concern, however, is with property #3:
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad
There are conventionalized criteria for objectively deciding whether the offered solution to
an equation or whether the proposed structural formula of a chemical compound is correct or false.
They can be independently checked by other qualified persons who are familiar with the established
criteria; and the answer will be normally unambiguous.
For wicked planning problems, there are no true or false answers. Normally, many parties are
equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge the solutions, although none has the power
to set formal decision rules to determine correctness. Their judgments are likely to differ widely
to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological
predilections. Their assessments of proposed solutions are expressed as "good" or "bad" or, more
likely, as "better or worse" or "satisfying" or "good enough."
(Today, we would call these "many parties" "stakeholders.") My concern is that a Clinton administration,
far from compromising - to be fair, Clinton does genuflect toward "compromise" elsewhere - will try
to make wicked planning problems more tractable by reducing the number of parties to policy decisions.
That is, exactly, what "irredeemables" implies[2], which is unfortunate, especially when the cast
out amount to well over a third of the population. The same tendencies were also visible in the Clinton
campaigns approach to Sanders and Sanders supporters, and the general strategy of bringing the Blame
Cannons to bear on those who demonstrate insufficient fealty.
From a governance perspective, watch for many more executive orders acceptable to neither right
nor left, and plenty of decisions taken in secret. The bomb that could explode here is the
legitimacy of a Clinton administration, depending on the parties removed from the policy discussion,
and the nature of the decision taken.
Conclusion
I don't think volatility will decrease on November 8, should Clinton be elected and take office;
if anything, it will increase. A ruling party in thrall to finance, intent on treating government
functions as opportunities for looting by cronies, blinded by neoliberal ideology and hence incapable
of providing truly universal health care, and whose approach to problems of conflict in values is
to demonize and exclude the opposition is a recipe for continued crisis.
NOTES
[1]
Matt Taibbi takes the view that "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she
came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and
unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers." I don't buy it. It all read like the same old Clinton
to me, and I've read a lot of Clinton (see, e.g.,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here , and
here ).
[2] One is irresistibly reminded of Stalin's "No man, no problem," although some consider Stalin's
methods to be unsound. oho
October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm
I had never read this article before. Near perfect diagnosis and even more relevant today than
it was then. For everyone's benefit, the central thesis:
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders.
…
Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military,
and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.
In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of
violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical
of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts.
Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political
system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today,
Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.
Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of
cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good
for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street
was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors
to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the
way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it
benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions
and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.
A hypothesis (at least for "Main Street") proven true between 2009 and 2016:
Emerging-market countries have only a precarious hold on wealth, and are weaklings globally.
When they get into trouble, they quite literally run out of money -- or at least out of foreign
currency, without which they cannot survive. They must make difficult decisions; ultimately,
aggressive action is baked into the cake. But the U.S., of course, is the world's most powerful
nation, rich beyond measure, and blessed with the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign
debts in its own currency, which it can print. As a result, it could very well stumble along
for years-as Japan did during its lost decade-never summoning the courage to do what it needs
to do, and never really recovering.
Lastly, the "bleak" scenario from 2009 that today looks about a decade too early, but could
with minor tuning (Southern instead of Eastern Europe, for example) end up hitting in a big way:
It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central
Europe collapses, and-because eastern Europe's banks are mostly owned by western European banks-justifiable
fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits
and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated,
and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic
worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto
both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration's current budget are increasingly
seen as unrealistic, and the rosy "stress scenario" that the U.S. Treasury is currently using
to evaluate banks' balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.
…
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump "cannot be as
bad as the Great Depression." This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse
than the Great Depression-because the world is now so much more interconnected and because
the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries,
a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances.
If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on
the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.
That's a good reminder to us at NC that not all our readers have been with us since 2009 and
may not be familiar with the great financial crash and subsequent events. I remember reading the
Johnson article when it came out. And now, almost eight years later…
There's a reason that there's a "Banana Republic" category. Every time I read an article about
the political economy of a second- or third-world country I look for how it applies to this country,
and much of the time, it does, particularly on corruption.
We truly must consider the possibility Goldman wrote the 3 speeches, then paid Hillary to give
them.
Next, leak them to Wiki. Everything in them is pretty close to pure fiction – but it is neolib
banker fiction. Just makes it all seem more real when they do things this way.
Yike's, I'm turning into a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Don't fall for the 'status quo's' language Jedi mind trick crazyboy. I like to call myself
a "sane conspiracy theorist." You can too!
As for H Clinton's 'slavish' adherence to the Bankster Ethos; in psychology, there is the "Stockholm
Syndrome." Here, H Clinton displays the markers of "Wall Street Syndrome."
Ugh. Mindless drivel. Talking points provided by Wall St itself would sound identical.
Then there's this: She did NOT represent Wall St and the Banks while a Senator. They cannot
vote. They are not people. They are not citizens. She represented the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE that
can VOTE. You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation as an ELECTED official.
You can ONLY represent those who actually can, or do, vote. End of story.
I saw a video in high school years back that mentioned a specific congressional ruling that
gave Congress the equivalent to individual rights. I swear it was also in the 30s but I cannot
recall and have never been able to find what it was I saw. Do you have any insight here?
Historical Background and Legal Basis of the Federal Register / CFR Publications System
Why was the Federal Register System Established ?
New Deal legislation of the 1930's delegated responsibility from Congress to agencies to
regulate complex social and economic issues
Citizens needed access to new regulations to know their effect in advance
Agencies and Citizens needed a centralized filing and publication system to keep track of rules
Courts began to rule on "secret law" as a violation of right to due process under the Constitution
But don't forget. She is the most qualified candidate… EVER . Remind me again
how this species was able to bring three stranded Apollo 13 astronauts back from the abyss, the
vacuum of space with some tape and tubing.
This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested
in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward
in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is
the palace.
The show is disappointing, the debaters play at talking nuclear policy, but have *nothing*
to say about Saudi Arabia's new arsenal.
When politicos talk nuclear, they only mean to allege a threat to Israel, blame Russia, or
fear-monger the North Koreans.
We're in the loop, but only the quietest whispers of the conflict in Pakistan are available.
It sounds pretty serious, but there is only interest in attacking inconvenient Arabs.
On Trump, what an interesting study in communications. The no man you speak of. Even himself
caught between his own insincerity towards higher purpose and his own ego as 'the establishment'
turns on him.
The proles of his support are truely a silent majority. The Republicans promised us Reagan
for twenty years, and it's finally the quasi-Democrat Trump who delivers.
> This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
+100
With a wall of American flags waving in the background as the smoke and flames rise.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to
be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and
that includes Wall Street and Main Street.
this all reads like a cokehead's flow of consciousness on some ethereal topic with no intellectual
content on the matter to express. I would have said extemporaneous, but you know it was all scripted,
so that's even worse.
PHOTOJOURNALIST
"Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics.
It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no
supposes, no fractions - you can't travel in space, you can't go out
into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions - what
are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths - what are you
going to do when you go from here to Venus or something - that's
dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you
either love somebody or you hate them."
"Da5id's voice is deep and placid, with no trace of stress. The syllables roll off his tongue
like drool. As Hiro walks down the hallway he can hear Da5id talking all the way. 'i ge en i ge
en nu ge en nu ge en us sa tu ra lu ra ze em men….'" –Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
Completely agree. When I first read excerpts from her speeches, I was appalled at the constant
use of "you know" peppering most of her sentences. To me, people who constantly bifurcate sentences
with "you know" are simply blathering. They usually don't have any in-depth knowledge of the subject
matter on which they are opining. Compare Hillary being asked to comment on a subject with someone
such as Michael Hudson or Bill Black commenting on a subject and she simply sounds illiterate.
I have this feeling that her educational record is based on an ability to memorize and parrot
back answers rather than someone who can reach a conclusion by examining multiple concepts.
Here's what I don't understand: The lady (and her husband) have LOADS of money. Yet this is
the best that she can do?
Really?
Heck, if I had half the Clintons' money, I'd be hiring the BEST speechwriters, acting coaches,
and fashion consultants on the planet. And I'd be taking their advice and RUNNING with it. Sheesh.
Some people have more money than sense.
Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate
and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in
a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further
fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution.
Its in the culture: Podesta does it, Blumenthal does it
And now they blame the Russians!!!! Imagine the lunacy within the white house if this fool
is elected.
I think she is just not that smart. Maybe intelligent but not flexible enough to do much with
it.
Smart people seek the advice of even smarter people and knowing that experts disagree, they
make sure that there is dissent on the advisory team. Then they make up their mind.
One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent
advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on
the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will
not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework
instead of building her own ideas with it.
I don't think so. The "you know" has a name, it's called a "verbal tick" and is one of the
first things that is attacked when one learns how to speak publicly. Verbal ticks come in many
forms, the "ums" for example, or repeating the last few words you just said, over and over again.
The brain is complex. The various parts of the brain needed for speech; cognition, vocabulary,
and vocalizations, actually have difficulty synchronizing. The vocalization part tends to be faster
than the rest of the brain and can spit out words faster than the person can put them together.
As a result, the "buffer" if you will runs empty, and the speech part of the brains simply fills
in the gaps with random gibberish.
You can train yourself out of this habit of course – but it's something that takes practice.
So I take HRC's "you know" as evidence that these are unscripted speeches and is directly improvising.
How come her responses during the debates are not peppered with these verbal ticks. At least,
I don't recall her saying you know so many times. Isn't she improvising then?
As Lambert said, HRC doesn't do unscripted. The email leaks even sends us evidence that her
interviews were scripted and town hall events were carful staged. Even sidestepping that however,
dealing with verbal ticks is not all that difficult with a bit of practice and self-awareness.
"You know" is an insidious variation on "like" and "andum", the latter two being bias neutral
forms of mental vapor lock of tbe speech center pausing for higher level intellectual processes
to refill the speech centers tapped out RAM.
The "you know" variant is an end run on the listener's cognitive functions logic filters. Is
essence appropriating a claim to the listener.
I detest "you knows" immediately with "no i dont know, please explain."
The same with "they say" i will always ask "who are they?"
I think this is important to fo do to ppl for no ofher reason thanto nake them think critically
even if it is a fleeting annoyance.
Back on HRC, i have maintai we that many people overrate her intellectual grasp. Personally
I think she is a hea ily cosched parrot. "The US has achieved energy independence"…. TILT. Just
because you state things smugly doesnt mean its reality.
I think what I call the lacunae words are really revealing in people's speech. When she says
"you know" she is emphasizing that she and the listener both know what she is "talking around."
Shared context as a form of almost - encryption, you could say. "This" rather than '"finance"
Here rather than at Goldman.I don't know what you'd call it exactly- free floating referent? A
habit, methinks, of avoiding being quoted or pinned down. It reminds me of the leaked emails…everyone
is very careful to talk around things and they can because they all know what they are talking
about. Hillary is consistently referred to, in an eerie H. Rider Haggard way, as "her" - like
some She Who Must Not Be Named.
What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know?
Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You
know!
This election cycle just proves how bad things have become. The two top presidential candidates
are an egotistical ignoramus and the quintessential establishment politician and they are neck
and neck because the voting public is Planet Stupid. Things will just continue to fall apart in
slow motion until some spark (like another financial implosion) sets off the next revolution.
"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice
to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you [Wall St] for eight years."
I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing.
No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate.
But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we
need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that
for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring
Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money.
I heard similar impressions of her at the time, from women who had dealt with her: Book smart.
Street smart. Likeable. But what might have been the best compromise you could get in one decade,
may have needed re-thinking as you moved along in time. The cast of players changes. Those who
once ruled are now gone. Oh, but the money! And so old ideas can calcify. I'm not suggesting that
Trump is even in the ballpark in terms of making compromises, speeches, life changes or anything
else to have ever been proud of. Still, the capacity to grow and change is important in a leader.
So where are we going now?
A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid."
I've said this once, but I'll say it again: After the 2008 caucus debacle, Clinton fired the
staff and rejiggered the campaign. They went to lots of small venues, like high school
gyms - in other words, "deplorables" territory - and Clinton did her detail, "I have a plan" thing,
which worked really well in that context because people who need government to deliver
concrete material benefits like that, and rightly. They also organized via cheap phones, because
that was how to reach their voters, who weren't hanging out at Starbucks. And, history being written
by the winners, we forget that using that strategy, Clinton won all the big states and (if all
the votes are counted) a majority of the popular vote. So, good decision on her part. And so from
that we've moved to the open corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign apparatus
that takes 11 people to polish and approve a single tweet.
So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016,
and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that
will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open
question, but this post argues not.
"Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit! What are Social
Security and Medicare? "
What is the US Post Office? Rumor has it that the PO is mentioned in the US Constitution, a
fact that is conveniently forgotten by Strict Constructionists.
With respect to regulation, I think it should be less a case of quantity, and more one of quality,
but Clinton seems to want to make it about finding the sweet spot of exactly how many regulations
will be the right amount.
In general, when companies are willing to spot you $225,000 to speak for some relatively short
period of time, willing to meet your demands regarding transportation, hotel accommodations, etc.,
why would you take the chance of killing the goose that's laying those golden eggs by saying anything
likely to tick them off?
I'd like to think she's kind of embarrassed to have people see how humdrum/boring her speeches
were for how much she was paid to give them, but I think there's got to be more "there" somewhere
that she didn't want people to be made aware of – and it doesn't necessarily have to be Americans,
it could be something to do with foreign governments, foreign policy, trade, etc.
After learning how many people it takes to send out a tweet with her name on it, I have no
idea how she managed this speech thing, unless one of her requirements was that she had to be
presented with all questions in advance, so she could be prepared.
I am more depressed by the day, as it's really beginning to sink in that she's going to be
president, and it all just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.
Also the "Wicked Problems" definitions are very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing those
in! I would add that these wicked problems lead to more wicked problems. It is basically dishonesty,
and to protect the lie you double down with more, and more, and more…. Most of Clinton's decisions
and career seem to be knots of wicked problems.
The wicked problem is quickly becoming our entire system of governance. Clinton has been described
as the malignant tumor here before, but even she is a place holder for the rot. One head of the
Hydra that I feel Establishment players would generally be okay with sacrificing if it came to
it (and maybe I am wrong there–but it seems as if a lot of the push fro her comes from her inner
circle and others play along).
Hail Hydra! Immortal Hydra! We shall never be destroyed! Cut off one limb and two more shall
take its place! We serve the Supreme Hydra, as the world shall soon serve us!
I've heard/read in some places Hillary Clinton described as a "safe pair of hands". I don't
understand where this characterization comes from. She's dangerous.
If she wins with as strong of an electoral map as Obama in '08, she'll take it as a strong
mandate and she'll have an ambitious agenda and likely attempt to overreach. I've been meaning
to call my congressional reps early and say "No military action on Syria, period!"
She might use a "public option" as an ACA stealth bailout scheme, but I don't think the public
has much appetite to see additional resources being thrown at a "failed experiment". I worry that
Bernie's being brought on board for this kind of thing. He should avoid it.
Is she crazy enough to go for a grand bargain right away? That seems nutty and has been a "Waterloo"
for many presidents.
Remember how important Obama's first year was. Bailouts and ACA were all done that first year.
How soon can we put President Clinton II in lame duck status?
Not really surprised by the intellectual and rhetorical poverty demonstrated by these speeches.
Given the current trajectory of our politics, the bar hasn't really been set very high. In fact
it looks like we're going to reach full Idiocracy long before originally predicted.
You ask, " What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for? "
But I think you know. Corruption has become so institutionalized that it is impossible to point
to any specific Quid Pro Quo. The Quo is the entire system in which GS operates and the care and
feeding of which the politicians are paid to administer.
We focus on HRC's speeches and payments here but I wonder how many other paid talks are given
to GS each year by others up and down the influence spectrum. As Bill Black says, a dollar given
to a politician provides the largest possible Return on Investment of any expenditure. It is Wall
Street's long-term health insurance plan.
Yeah we know which part of the "stool" we'll be getting.If the finance sector is "the nerves,
the spinal column" of the country, I suggest the country find a shallow pool in which to shove
it – head first.
I skimmed the /. comments on a story about this yesterday; basically everyone missed the obvious
and went with vox-type responses ("she's a creature of the system / in-fighter / Serious Person").
"So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers,
but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way
forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and
consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!]."
Basically, even better than a get out of jail free card, in that it is rather a promise that
we won't go back and ever hold you responsible, and we have done the best we could so far to avoid
having you own up to anything or be held accountable in any way beyond some niggling fines, which
of course, you are happy to pay, because in the end, that is simply a handout to the legal industry,
who are your best drinking buddies.
The latter part of that quote is just mumbo jumbo non-sequitir blathering. Clinton appears
to know next to nothing about finance, only that it generates enormous amounts of cash for the
oh so deserving work that God told them to do.
+1 exactly: There will be no retrospective prosecutions and none in the future either, trust
me! Not the she is any better than Eric Holder but she is certain she should be paid more than
him.
Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at
100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing
except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k
for a single speech…
I've only skimmed through the speech transcripts; did I miss something of substance?
Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual
fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction
of her speeches as mindless drivel.
However, you may be overthinking the "wicked problem" language. While it is certainly
possible that she is familiar with the literature that you cite, nothing else in her speeches
suggests that she commands that level of intellectual detail. This makes me think that somewhere
along the line she befriended someone from the greater Boston area who uses "wicked" the way Valley
Girls use "like". When I first heard the expression decades ago, I found it charming and incorporated
it into my own common usage. And I don't use it anything like you describe. To me it is simply
used for emphasis. Nothing more or less than that, but I am amused to see an entire literature
devoted to the concept of a "wicked problem".
I remain depressed by this election. No matter how it turns out, it's going to wicked suck
; )
I think the inarticulateness/cliche infestation is a ploy and a deflection; this is a very
intelligent woman who can effectively marshall language when she feels the need. That need was
more likely felt in private meetings with the inner cabal at Goldman.
Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and
that was not the case, either.
Finally, as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that, granting that Clintonismo will
privilege those interests which best fortify their arguments with cash, it's also true that Bill
and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. In other words, it could be that she has the same
hustler's disregard toward the lumpen Assistant Vice Presidents filling that room at GS as she
does for the average voter. Thus, the empty, past-their-expiration-date calories.
Sure, she'll take their money and do their bidding, but why even bother to make any more effort
than necessary? On a very primal level with these two, it's all about the hustle and the action,
and everyone's a potential rube.
As in, when Bill put his presidency on the line, the base were expected to circle the wagons.
As in, "I'm With Her". Not "She's With Us", natch. It's *always* about the Clintons.
"Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting,
reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all
the answers."
seriously, matt taibbi? next, i would like to hear about the positive, feelgood, warmfuzzy
qualities of vampire squids (hugs cthulhu doll).
Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like
bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should
henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets
on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people.
agree w you except about Bernie. he always said he'd support the nominee. the suddenness of
his capitulation has led many of us to believe he was threatened. somewhere I read something about
"someone" planting kiddieporn on his son's computer if he didn't do…… I dunno. I reserve judgement
on Sanders until I learn more,…. if i ever do
Clinton's remarks were typically vague, as one might expect from a politician; she doesn't
want to be pinned down. This may be part of the banality of her remarks.
What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for
a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying
this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor
of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear
war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon
used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan
B" Obama is pursuing in Syria?
In the Russian press every day for a long time now they have been discussing the prospect of
a conflict. Russia has been conducting civil defense drills in its cities and advised its citizens
to recall any children living abroad. This is never reported in our press, which only presents
us with caricatures of Putin. Russians are not taken seriously.
During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war
must not be allowed.
No it wasn't. Far from it. By some miracle, the globe escaped instant incineration but only
barely. The Soviets, to their credit, were not about to risk nuclear annihilation to get one
up on the US of Perfidy. Our own Dauntless Warriors were more than willing, and I believe it's
only through dumb luck that a first strike wasn't launched deliberately or by deliberate "accident."
Review the Cold War concept of Brinkmanship.
The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of
which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane
ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards.
But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding
little…
Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large,
however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility.
A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban
missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article
" "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did."
But this description is technically true. That is finance's proper function, co-ordinating
the flow of capital and resources, especially from where they're in excess to where they're needed.
It's a key decision-making system – for the economy, preferably not for society as a whole. That
would be the political system.
So on this basic level, the problem is that finance, more and more, has put its own institutional
and personal interests ahead of its proper function. It's grown far too huge, and stopped performing
its intended function – redistributing resources – in favor of just accumulating them, in the
rather illusory form of financial instruments, some of them pure vapor ware.
So yes, this line reflects a very bad attitude on Hillary's part, but by misappropriating a
truth – pretty typical propaganda.
No, finance does NOT "channel resources". Wash your mouth out. This is more neoliberal cant.
Financiers do not make investments in the real economy. The overwhelming majority of securities
trading is in secondary markets, which means it's speculation. And when a public company decides
whether or not to invest in a new project, it does not present a prospectus on that new project
to investors. It runs the numbers internally. For those projects, the most common source of funding
is retained earnings.
Clinton shows that she is either a Yale Law grad who does not have the slightest idea that
Wall Street does very little in the economy but fleece would-be investors, or that she is an obsequious
flatterer of those from whom she openly takes bribes.
Having heard Hillary, Chelsea (yes, she's being groomed) and many, many other politicians over
the years, including a stint covering Capitol Hill, Mme C's verbal style does not surprise to
me at all but rather strikes me as perfectly serviceable. It is a mellifluous drone designed to
lull the listener into thinking that she is on their side, and the weakness of the actual statements
only becomes clear when reading them on the page later (which rarely happens). The drowsy listener
will catch, among the words strung together like Christmas lights, just the key terms and concepts
that demonstrate knowledge of the brief and a soothing layer of vague sympathy. Those who can
award her $600K can assume with some confidence that, rhetoric aside, she will be in the tank
when needed. The rest of us have to blow away the chaff and peer into the yawning gaps lurking
behind the lawyerly parsing. In all fairness, this applies to 90% of seekers of public office.
The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional
wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory
"so no quid pro quo here" bribe.
Who on earth gives up their vote to a politician who is so shameless an corrupt that she openly
accepts bribes from groups who equally shamelessly and corruptly are looting the commons? Apparently
many, but not me.
Nothing like making lemons out of lemonade, is there?
There really is a question why she didn't do this doc dump herself when Bernie asked. Yeah,
sure, she would have been criticized ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") but because of
who she is she'll be criticized no matter what. There is nothing she can do to avoid it.
Not only is there no smoking gun, it's almost as if she's trying to inject a modicum of social
conscience into a culture that has none. And no, she isn't speaking artfully; nor is she an orator.
Oh. Not that we didn't know already.
The most galling aspect is her devotion to the neoLibCon status quo. Steady as she goes. Apparently
a lot of people find the status quo satisfactory. Feh.
If this document dump came out during the primary campaign, then HRC may have lost. Even Black,
Southern ladies can smell the corrupting odor clinging to these "speeches".
Given the way DNC protected her during the primaries, and what looked like a pretty light touch
by Bernie and (who? O'Malley was it?) toward her, I doubt these speeches would have been her undoing.
Dull and relatively benign, and policy-wise almost identical to Obama's approach to the bankers'
role in the economic unpleasantness. "Consensus" stuff with some hint of a social conscience.
Not effective and not enough to do more than the least possible ("I told them they ought to
behave better. Really!") on behalf of the Rabble.
But not a campaign killer. Even so, by not releasing transcripts during the primary, she faced
- and still faces - mountains of criticism over it. No escape. Not for her.
I'm not sure that's an appropriate strategy for dealing with multiple interlocking wicked problems,
but I'm not sure why. Suppose we invoke the Precautionary Principle - is incremental change
really the way to avoid harm?
The Consensus (of Opinions That Matter) says it is. On the other hand, blowing up the System
leads to Uncertainty, and as we know, we can't have that. Mr. Market wouldn't like it…
The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really
odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades -
that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain
of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was
particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential
to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major
task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake."
So while I think you are wrong that the speeches wouldn't have hurt her in the primary, I also
think Huma would have had to knock her out and tie her up (not in a fun way) to get those speeches
released.
I can't imagine a worse temperament to govern, particularly under the conditions she'll be
facing. But she'll be fully incompetent before too long, so I don't suppose it matters that much.
I'm morbidly curious to see how long they can keep her mostly hidden and propped up for limited
appearances, before having to let Kaine officially take over. Will we be able to figure out who's
actually in power based on the line-up on some balcony?
Fair points, though the "temperament" issue may be one that follows from the nature of the
job - even "No Drama Obama" is said to have a fierce anger streak, and secrecy, controlling behavior,
and refusing to admit error is pretty typical of presidents, VPs, and other high officials. The
King/Queen can do no wrong, dontchaknow. (cf: Bush, GW, and his whole administration for recent
examples. History is filled with them, though.)
As for Hillary's obvious errors in judgment, I think they speak for themselves and they don't
speak well of her.
TINA vs WATA (we are the alternative)…the next two years are gonna be interesting…evil is often
a cover for total incompetence and exposure…our little tsarina will insist brigades that dont
exist move against enemies that are hardly there…when she & her useless minions were last in/on
the seat of power(j edger version of sop) the netizens of the world were young and dumb…now not
so much…
I got into wicked problems 35 years ago in the outstanding book by Ian Mitroff and R. O. Mason,
"Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions." First page of Chapter One has subsection title COMPLEXITY,
followed by "A Little Experiment" Lets try the experiment with current problems.
One could come up with a list of major problems, but here is the one used by C. West Churchman
mentioned along with Horst Riddle. Churchman back in the 80's said that the problems of the world
were M*P**3, or M, P cubed, or M * P * P *P with the letters standing for Militarism, Population,
Poverty and Pollution.
Here is how they ran the exercise
1. Suppose there were a solution to any of these 4 problems, would that solution be related
to the other problems. Clearly.
2. Thus 'whenever a policy maker attempts to solve a complex policy problem, it is related
to all the others
Repeated attempts in other contexts give the same result: basically, every real world
policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem
This is from page 4, the second page of the book.
I ran this exercise for several years in ATT Bell Labs and ATT.
List major problems
How long have they been around? (most for ever except marketing was new after breakup in
'84
If one was solved, would that solution be related in any way to the other ones?
Do you know of any program that is making headway? (occasionally Quality was brought up)
This could be done in a few minutes, often less than 5 minutes
5. Conclusion: long term interdependent problems that are not being addressed
Thus the only grade that matters in this course on Corporate Transformation that now begins
is that you have new insights on these problems. This was my quest as an internal consultant in
ATT to transform the company. I failed.
I was a Sanders supporter. Many here will disagree, but if Clinton wins I don't think she's
going to act as she might have acted in 2008, if she had won.
Clinton is a politician, and *all* politicians dissemble in private, unless they're the mayor
of a small town of about 50 people – and even then! Politicians – in doing their work – *must*
compromise to some degree, with the best politicians compromising in ways that bring their constituents
more benefit, than not.
That said, Clinton is also a human being who is capable of change. This election cycle has
been an eye opener for both parties. If Clinton wins (and, I think she will), the memory of how
close it was with Sanders and the desperate anger and alienation she has experienced from Trump
supporters (and even Sanders' supporters) *must* have already gotten her thinking about what she
is going to have to get done to insure a 2020 win for Democrats, whether or not she is running
in 2020.
In sum, I think Clinton is open to change, and I don't believe that she is some deep state
evil incarnate; sge's *far* from perfect, and she's not "pure" in her positioning – thank god!,
because in politics, purists rarely accomplish anything.
If Clinton reverts to prior form (assuming she makes (POTUS), 2020 will make 2016 look like
a cakewalk, for both parties – including the appearance of serious 3rd party candidates with moxy,
smarts, and a phalanx of backers (unlike the current crop of two – Johnson and Stein).
"... When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." ..."
When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik
told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'."
Clinton
quickly apologized for the comment, the context of which contained compassion for many Trump voters.
But making such generalizations at a $6m fundraiser in downtown New York City, at which some attendees
paid $50,000 for a seat, recalled for me scenes from the television political satire Veep in which
powerful Washington figures discuss "normals" with distaste behind closed doors.
Beginning in the 1970s, it has increasingly become an organ of this same class. Affluent
white-collar professionals are today the voting bloc that Democrats represent most faithfully,
and they are the people whom Democrats see as the rightful winners in our economic order. Hillary
Clinton, with her fantastic résumé and her life of striving and her much-commented-on
qualifications, represents the aspirations of this class almost perfectly.
Oct 7, 2016 6:01 PM
Zero Hedge
0
SHARES
While the media is transfixed with the just released Washington Post leak of a
private Donald Trump conversation from 2005
in which he was speaking "lewdly" about
women, and for which he has apologized, roughly at the same time, Wikileaks released
part one of what it dubbed the "
Podesta
emails
", which it describes as "a series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign
Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was
President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the
Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the
Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank."
While the
underlying story in this specific case involves the alleged kickbacks received by the
Clinton Foundation from the Russian government-controlled "Uranium One", a story which
has been profiled previously by the NYT, and about which Wikileaks adds that "as Russian
interests gradually took control of Uranium One
millions of dollars were donated to
the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the
deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer.
Although Mrs Clinton had an
agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton
Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly
disclosed by the Clintons",
what caught our attention is an email from Tony
Carr,
a Research Director at
Hillary for America
, in which he lay outs hundreds of excerpts from the heretofore
missing transcripts of Hillary Clinton's infamous Wall Street speeches, with an emphasis
on those which should be flagged as they may be damaging to Hillary.
But first, here are the greatest hits as conveniently flagged by the Clinton Campaign
itself on page one of the 80 page addendum dubbed "
awkward"
Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The
Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That
My Husband And I Now Enjoy."
"And I am not taking a position on any policy,
but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over
the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing
up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father
loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle
class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We
had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money,
didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far
removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my
husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at
Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
When A Questioner At Goldman Sachs Said She Raised Money For Hillary
Clinton In 2008, Hillary Clinton Joked "You Are The Smartest People
."
"PARTICIPANT: Secretary, Ann Chow from Houston, Texas. I have had the honor to
raise money for you when you were running for president in Texas. MS. CLINTON: You
are the smartest people. PARTICIPANT: I think you actually called me on my cell
phone, too. I talked to you afterwards." [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo
Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
Hillary Clinton Joked That If Lloyd Blankfein Wanted To Run For Office, He
Should "Would Leave Goldman Sachs And Start Running A Soup Kitchen Somewhere
.
" "MR. BLANKFEIN: I'm saying for myself. MS. CLINTON: If you were going
to run here is what I would tell you to do -- MR. BLANKFEIN: Very
hypothetical. MS. CLINTON: I think you would leave Goldman Sachs and start running a
soup kitchen somewhere. MR. BLANKFEIN: For one thing the stock would go
up. MS. CLINTON: Then you could be a legend in your own time both when you were
there and when you left." [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference,
6/4/13]
Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman
Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked "He Increased Our Budget."
"SECRETARY
CLINTON: Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a
little bit more about the builders and the innovators who you've gathered. Some of
you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess, in this very same
position. And he came back and was just thrilled by- MR. BLANKFEIN: He increased
our budget. SECRETARY CLINTON: Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN: Yes. That's why
we -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. I think he-I think he encouraged you to
grow it a little, too. But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I've
been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about a lot of things."
[Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted
To Have Handheld Devices."
"You know, when Colin Powell showed up as
Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have
computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have
handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new
environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I
can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton
Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
Clinton Joked It's "Risky" For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To
Futures Markets
Given Her Past Whitewater Scandal. "Now, it's always a
little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures
markets because -- there's a few knowing laughs -- many years ago, I actually traded
in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it was before computers were
invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates
who traded in pork bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I
invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a hundred thousand. And then
my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to
figure out anything having to do with trading other than trading time with my
daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought that would be
the end of it." [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Jordan Was Threatened Because
"They Can't Possibly
Vet All Those Refugees So They Don't Know If, You Know, Jihadists Are Coming In Along
With Legitimate Refugees."
"So I think you're right to have gone to the
places that you visited because there's a discussion going on now across the region
to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by
extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan
because it's on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they
can't possibly vet all those refugees so they don't know if, you know, jihadists are
coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason." [Jewish
United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And
Open Markets.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and
open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as
we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
[05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
* * *
Here is the full email by Carrk as of January 25, 2016 laying out all the potentially
delicate issues that the Clinton campaign would wish to avoid from emerging. One thing
to note: as Michael Tracey points out, the
Hillary campaign had all the transcripts
at her disposal all along, despite repeated deflection.
Perhaps as a result of this
leak she will now release the full transcripts for the "proper context."
Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some
highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub
with Policy.
Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The Middle
Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband
And I Now Enjoy."
"And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think
there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that
the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean,
were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about
big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had
good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know,
one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So
I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived
and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't
forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY
Clinton: "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room
Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least.
So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position."
CLINTON: You just have to
sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the
public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and
that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of
our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and
working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors,
Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against
Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward
called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept
going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always
has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's
watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then
people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private
position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to
know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal,
you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that
renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going
to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing
Council, 4/24/13]
CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL
REASONS
Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For
The Crisis "Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really
Politicizing What Happened."
"That was one of the reasons that I started
traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the
United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an
oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there's
a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really
politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all
sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time. And I
think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects
institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort
this out, and that came later." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium,
10/24/13]
* * *
Clinton: "Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That
Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us."
"Now, it's
important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and
that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the
men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely
on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true,
if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all
of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are
issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to
deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market
economy and a democracy." [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL
STREET
Clinton Said Financial Reform "Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself."
"Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the
excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn't
want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure
out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire
nationhood. Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from
the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time
where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal.
And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job." [Clinton
Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
* * *
Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said "The People
That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry."
"I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you
know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the
agreements that are being reached. There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is
bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what
works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who
work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's
so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so
quickly, in nano seconds basically. We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the
world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just
for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade." [Goldman
Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING
Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For
Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before
Handing Over Campaign Contributions.
"Secondly, running for office in our
country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is
probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides
of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who
should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who
were really playing chicken with our whole economy." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative
Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
* * *
Clinton: "It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising A
Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You Because Your
Opponent Will Have Their Supporters."
"So our system is, in many ways, more
difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and
I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think
they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I
guess, you're out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think
that it's something -- I would like -- you know, obviously as somebody who has been
through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's very distracting
from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to
be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign -- I lose
track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last
campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all
of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of
free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme
Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of in the wild west, and,
you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount
of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have
their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even harder
now." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL,
1/6/14]
CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR
Clinton: As Senator, "I Represented And Worked With" So Many On Wall Street
And "Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper" But Still Called For
Closing Carried Interest Loophole.
In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd
in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, "When I was a Senator from New York, I represented
and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance.
But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to
prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing
CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis,
because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a
well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about
early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over
complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of
said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since." [Hillary
Clinton's Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]
* * *
Clinton On Wall Street: "I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close Together
After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown, And A Lot Of Respect For The Work You Do And The People
Who Do It."
"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what
would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way
forward with those two important decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all
of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11
to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it,
but I do -- I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the
economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they
had repercussions throughout the world." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments
Symposium, 10/24/13]
CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE
Hillary Clinton Said There Was "A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful
And/Or Complicated Lives," Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks.
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said,
you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he
had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune, is you
go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But,
you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a
bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the
divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It
just becomes very onerous and unnecessary." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators
Summit, 10/29/13]
CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE
Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be
"Moderate."
"URSULA BURNS: Interesting. Democrats? SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh,
long, definitely. URSULA BURNS: Republicans? SECRETARY CLINTON: Unfortunately, at the
time, short. URSULA BURNS: Okay. We'll go back to questions. SECRETARY CLINTON: We
need two parties. URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties. SECRETARY CLINTON: Two
sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties." [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox,
3/18/14]
* * *
Clinton: "Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To
Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth.
It's A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is
To Then Take That Agreement If You Don't Believe That You're Going To Be Able To Move
The Other Side."
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this may be borne more out of hope
than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles -- and I know you heard from
Erskine earlier today -- put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain
spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a
three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting
in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans
and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I
think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard
to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that you're going to be able
to move the other side. And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So
you've got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that's the
sine qua non of any kind of agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on
revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened.
We are slowly returning to growth. It's not as much or as fast as many of us would like
to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our European friends, and we're
beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the '08 crisis.
[Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]
* * *
Clinton: "The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were Right…
You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And You Have To Have
Growth."
CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big
elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you
got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues,
and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do
that. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]
CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES
Clinton: "At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than Once
An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had. And That Was True Across
The U.S. Government."
CLINTON: But, at the State Department we were attacked
every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had.
And that was true across the U.S. government. And we knew it was going on when I would
go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on
the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they're trying
to find out not just about what we do in our government. They're trying to find out
about what a lot of companies do and they were going after the personal emails of people
who worked in the State Department. So it's not like the only government in the world
that is doing anything is the United States. But, the United States compared to a
number of our competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of
safeguards, any kind of checks and balances. They may in many respects need to be
strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections
embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or
unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not
only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a
hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken
refuge in Russia under Putin's authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show and
says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says, well, from one
intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh, thank you so much. I mean,
really, I don't know. I have a hard time following it. [Clinton Speech At UConn,
4/23/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton: "When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against
The Rules To Let Most -- Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A
Blackberry."
"I mean, let's face it, our government is woefully, woefully
behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology. When I got to the
State Department, it was still against the rules to let most -- or let all Foreign
Service Officers have access to a Blackberry. You couldn't have desktop computers when
Colin Powell was there. Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and
using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government." [Hillary
Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton: "We Couldn't Take Our Computers, We Couldn't Take Our
Personal Devices" Off The Plane In China And Russia.
"I mean, probably the most
frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we're the only people in
the world trying to figure out what's going on. I mean, every time I went to countries
like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn't take our computers, we couldn't take our
personal devices, we couldn't take anything off the plane because they're so good, they
would penetrate them in a minute, less, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries
out, we'd leave them on the plane." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
* * *
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted To
Have Handheld Devices."
"You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of
State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their
desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I
mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by
technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change
if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global
Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can't Bring Your Phone And Computer When
Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put them In A
Special Box.
"And anybody who has ever traveled in other countries, some of
which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and China, you know that you can't bring
your phones and your computers. And if you do, good luck. I mean, we would not only
take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in
special boxes. Now, we didn't do that because we thought it would be fun to tell
somebody about. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be
totally vulnerable. So it's not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how
many people are involved in it. It's what's the purpose of it, what is being collected,
and how can it be used. And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about
this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because
you're sophisticated enough to know that it's not just, do it, don't do it. We have to
have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have
to have a way of sharing it." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Lamented How Far Behind The State Department Was In
Technology, Saying "People Were Not Even Allowed To Use Mobile Devices Because Of
Security Issues."
"Personally, having, you know, lived and worked in the White
House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of State, there has traditionally
been a great pool of very talented, hard-working people. And just as I was saying about
the credit market, our personnel policies haven't kept up with the changes necessary in
government. We have a lot of difficulties in getting-when I got to the State
Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was embarrassing. And, you know,
people were not even allowed to use mobile devices because of security issues and cost
issues, and we really had to try to push into the last part of the 20
th
Century in order to get people functioning in 2009 and '10." [Goldman Sachs Builders And
Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE
Clinton: "So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course It
Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes Opposing Reasons…"
"So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important
on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is
not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put
us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked
more closely together. And that's what I would like to see us do." [Remarks at
tinePublic, 6/18/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open
Trade And Open Markets.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open
trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and
sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the
hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We
Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade.
"Secondly, I
think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current
circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty
surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but
businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for governments to do
but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist,
protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to
see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X
or president Y but a consistent one." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 32]
CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER
Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems "Can Get Costs Down," And "Is
As Good Or Better On Primary Care," But "They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times."
"If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for
example, they have mixed systems. They don't have just a single-payer system, but they
have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the
single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down
because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or
better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you
know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here." [Hillary
Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13]
* * *
Clinton Cited President Johnson's Success In Establishing Medicare And
Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada.
"You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any
kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing
shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for
employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to
employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market
there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model
continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the
employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s
we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until
President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued
as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were
eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between
the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor
people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry
Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the
employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go
anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's administration we worked
very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political
realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try
anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the
employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in
getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still have primarily
an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So
we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare,
both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are
working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't
provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We've
made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it
before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what
we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to
see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call
the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we do have
Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you
tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political
and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning
period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm
hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of
legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard
look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable
universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For
tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]
* * *
Below is the full 80 page documents of "speech flags" in Hillary speeches:
"... What struck me was not so much Clinton's statements about letting Wall Street regulate Wall Street, the fact that she is "out of touch" with Main Street, or her favorable comments about single payer (very ironic given how she has not advocated for this publicly). No, what struck me is that she is NOT a leader. ..."
"... No, Clinton is many things, but not a leader. She is revealed as the perfect tool for the elite. Occasionally piping up to express some concern, but so distanced and entrenched in the establishment that she will never do anything of consequence for working Americans. ..."
"... I didn't even read the stuff about the blackberries and computer nonsense. She is incompetent with technology, doesn't understand digital security and is dangerously arrogant about her ignorance. Stipulated. ..."
What struck me was not so much Clinton's statements about letting Wall Street regulate Wall Street,
the fact that she is "out of touch" with Main Street, or her favorable comments about single payer (very
ironic given how she has not advocated for this publicly). No, what struck me is that she is NOT a leader.
Opposed to Citizens United?
… it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest
at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of
in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge
amount of money.
Sorta like, "Meh! This stinks, but this is how the world works so I'm gonna go raise me some cash."
A Forceful Champion of Wall Street Reform?
I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also
was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from
Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential.
So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating
derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort
of said, no, that makes sense.
Really? She called for reinstatement of Glass-Steagall? I don't remember her anywhere near the scene
of the crime in '06/07. She (may have) made a few comments here and there but never took any real action
or was serious about meaningful reform. Still isn't.
And then there is this gem.
We need two parties. .. Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.
A Model of Two Sensible, Pragmatic Parties Working Together: Simpson-Bowles
Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated
and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate
revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that.
Oh, no, we aren't! Not when "figuring it out" means following neoliberal dogma to extract more from
labor and give more and more and more to the 1%.
No, Clinton is many things, but not a leader. She is revealed as the perfect tool for the
elite. Occasionally piping up to express some concern, but so distanced and entrenched in the establishment
that she will never do anything of consequence for working Americans.
I didn't even read the stuff about the blackberries and computer nonsense. She is incompetent
with technology, doesn't understand digital security and is dangerously arrogant about her ignorance.
Stipulated.
She comes across as either naive or duplicitous, re Latin America "coming
out of 2 decades of doing well," but now having to deal with disruption and
regime change.
"... Krugman is such a deplorable hack. I know we are supposed to accept bribe-taking politicians and the economy run by looting robber barons. But can't we even have a goddamn fourth estate? ..."
"... The way Krugman murders journalism ethics by outright campaigning for one of the most corrupt politicians in American history is outrageous. Barfing up her disgusting campaign memes verbatim as if he's coordinating his columns with her war room. ..."
"... If you're a scientist you would know that economics does not remotely resemble a science. One familiar with the history of math and science will notice that their development (based on discovered facts) forms a tree-like structure. One discovery branches out to more discoveries. The growth is therefore exponential. ..."
Sure...Krugman will occasionally pay lip service to green energy.
The problem is that 'liberal' economists tend to keep separate silos for green energy and infrastructure.
Question is, why do they refuse to connect the dots between climate change mitigation, green
energy, fiscal stimulus, and lots of jobs? And why do they prioritize more road and bridges, which
will only make climate change worse?
Krugman is an abhorrent neoliberal hack (as well as Hillary stooge).
Who actually understand very little about climate change clearly being non-specialist without
any training of physics and geophysics. He is a second rate neoclassical economist with penchant
for mathiness (and a very talented writer).
The key question here is Clinton warmongering and the threat of nuclear war with Russia. Washington
neocon chichenhawks became recently realty crazy. Obama looks completely important and does not
control anything.
I think this is more immediate threat then climate change.
Oil depletion (which already started and will be in full force in a couple of decades) might
take care about climate change as period of "cheap oil" (aka "oil age") probably will last less
then 100 years and as such is just a blip in Earth history.
End of cheap oil also might lead to natural shrinking of human population -- another factor
in the global climate change and a threat to natural ecosystems.
Hillary is the fracking Queen. Claiming she's a champion of the environment is as ridiculous portraying
Donald Trump a feminist.
Obomba is another pretender on the environment. The Paris Agreement commits to absolutely nothing
but more talk at a future time. China signed on and is still keeping its commitment to do absolutely
nothing to reduce emissions until 2030. (By the time the West has exported the lion share of its
emissions to the country in a pointless GHG emissions shell game; emission per capita have skyrocketed
since 2002! a 25% increase!)
Krugman is such a deplorable hack. I know we are supposed to accept bribe-taking politicians
and the economy run by looting robber barons. But can't we even have a goddamn fourth estate?
The way Krugman murders journalism ethics by outright campaigning for one of the most corrupt
politicians in American history is outrageous. Barfing up her disgusting campaign memes verbatim
as if he's coordinating his columns with her war room.
So to all the pretend liberals out there who offer the people nothing more than more corruption,
lies, war-profiteering and public trust liquidation: you deserve Trump. And I pray that you get
him. (After him, a New Deal; and the 'me generation,' the Void.)
If you're a scientist you would know that economics does not remotely resemble a science.
One familiar with the history of math and science will notice that their development (based on
discovered facts) forms a tree-like structure. One discovery branches out to more discoveries.
The growth is therefore exponential.
Economic history does not follow this pattern.
With science there are paradigm shifts that occur with groundbreaking discoveries like the
theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. The Friedmanian paradigm shift was founded on jettisoning
all the enormously successful work Keynes accomplished and digging up failed 19th century ideology,
repeating disastrous history.
Even psychology follows the pattern. Although it began with a lot of unsubstantiated Aristotelian
philosophizing, it was a starting point from which a significant body of definite knowledge and
medical treatments developed. A real social science. (Not perfect. It was recently discovered
that about 50% of published psychological experiments were not reproducible.)
As an anthropologist you should know about cliques and group-think. Have an inkling of how
corruption could gradually develop and spread among upper-echelon cliques to the point where the
government, the economy, the courts and the news media become captured by the upper class. Understand
how cowards would rather look the other way than take a stand and deal with it: "see no evil,
hear no evil, speak no evil."
As an anthropologist, I can assert with confidence that you are babbling about things you do not
really understand at all. I have issues with a lot of economics, but you are completely incoherent.
Completely incoherent? Then it should be easy enough for you to tear apart what I wrote. It was
certainly easy enough for me to tear into Krugman's crass political pandering. But all you got
is lame generalizations. Stock insults that could be said about anything.
What issues do you have with "a lot of economics?" I bet you can't come up with anything. Come
on. Out with it! Say something intelligent about anything, if you are at all capable, Mr. Dick.
I have yet to read anything from you that indicates you have any knowledge about anything.
It is Dr. Dick, since I have a Ph.D. If you ever read the comments on this blog, you would know
full well what those issues are, since I have raised them here many times. For a start the assumption
of "rational actors" (only partially true), the assumption of economic maximization (people maximize
many different things which affect their economic choices), and the assumption of "rational markets"
(this ignores pervasive information assymetry and active deceit).
In my continued talks with people who insist that voting for Clinton is the
only choice because TRUMP, I just got I would rather have war with Russia than
Putin deciding American policy because the President owes him money.
After I decimated that one by asking if everyone in Congress owes Putin as
well, I continued by noting that Congress is also a stumbling block if ACA was
really their only concern.
That they better figure out how to move to a country with a real health care
system or give up being an artist and find a better paying job with employer
provided insurance because the idea that Clinton has some magic method of
preventing it from dying is a fantasy.
The President cannot unilaterally do anything to stop insurance companies
from dropping out and no legislation saving it is going to pass in a Congress
where one or both of the Houses have Republican majorities. Sure she might stop
them from cutting their subsidy, but even with Clinton they have a couple of
years at most before they are royally screwed. Especially since Clinton's
Democratic Party is not bothering to try to fight every race in an attempt to
get the House, and even have grabbed money from the state parties for her
campaign.
Every once in a while I get a little annoyed with people who want to accuse
me of not being realistic and believing in unicorns when it is beyond clear
that they are dreaming.
I should note that they also pulled out the SCOTUS canard. I have to thank
Clinton for picking Kaine since just quoting his record as Governor pretty much
destroys the idea that she picks liberals.
Maybe instead of Al Gore, Michael Moore should hit the stump with Clinton
to work the crowd and sign people up to MoveOn.org membership since it will
be needed to defend Hillary in her up-coming impeachment trial in the
Republican Senate. It will bring back memories as we relive the Clinton
years all over again. And while the oxygen gets sucked out policy discussion
from Hillary's impeachment, she can get to work on Grand Bargain and finally
privatize SS and maybe no-fly zone & WW3, too. With so much stuff like that
going on, people should be sufficiently distracted from from their
shittacular healthcare, declining wages, and student loaners lurking in
basements as the number of states experiencing Obamacare "collapse" go from
current 4-7 to who knows … 10-20 or so.
"... I think Trump may be the one and only person to increase the likelihood the US will still be an independent country in ten years. ..."
"... Trump may have some issues, but at least he psychologically identifies with the US. Most US elites think of themselves as world citizens and really couldn't care less if the US becomes like the DRC. ..."
"... Univision's lead owner is Hillary's largest contributor, the Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban: ..."
"... This convenient FCC rule change hands them a nice exit strategy. Not convinced to contribute to the Clinton Foundation yet? They make magic happen. ..."
There is a real risk the media will be wholly foreign owned very soon. The FCC under Pres.
Obama eliminated the rule on foreign ownership. This, the TPP, and giving up internet control
are of a piece.
I think Trump may be the one and only person to increase the likelihood the US will still
be an independent country in ten years. With Clinton we may end up losing our sovereignty
by 2020. Trump may have some issues, but at least he psychologically identifies with the US.
Most US elites think of themselves as world citizens and really couldn't care less if the US becomes
like the DRC.
I trust Trump's instincts much more than Hillary's. The continued existence of an independent
US will be very, very important for the world to have any degree of pluralism. Any global hegemony
is likely to be unpleasant for most people.
Grupo Televisa, a Mexican company with a minority stake in the Spanish-language station
Univision, might now be able to increase its ownership.
Univision's lead owner is Hillary's largest contributor, the Israeli-American media mogul
Haim Saban:
On June 27, 2006, Saban Capital Group led a group of investors bidding for Univision
Communications, the largest Spanish-language media company in the United States.
Other investors in the Saban-led group were Texas Pacific Group of Fort Worth, Texas and
Thomas H. Lee Partners. The group was successful in acquiring Univision with a bid valued at
$13.7 billion.
This convenient FCC rule change hands them a nice exit strategy. Not convinced to contribute
to the Clinton Foundation yet? They make magic happen.
There is a real risk the media will be wholly foreign owned very soon. The
FCC under Pres. Obama eliminated the rule on foreign ownership. This, the TPP,
and giving up internet control are of a piece.
I think Trump may be the one and only person to increase the likelihood the
US will still be an independent country in ten years. With Clinton we may end
up losing our sovereignty by 2020. Trump may have some issues, but at least he
psychologically identifies with the US. Most US elites think of themselves as
world citizens and really couldn't care less if the US becomes like the DRC. I
trust Trump's instincts much more than Hillary's. The continued existence of an
independent US will be very, very important for the world to have any degree of
pluralism. Any global hegemony is likely to be unpleasant for most people.
Grupo Televisa, a Mexican company with a minority stake in the
Spanish-language station Univision, might now be able to increase its
ownership.
Univision's lead owner is Hillary's largest contributor, the
Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban:
On June 27, 2006, Saban Capital Group led a group of investors bidding
for Univision Communications, the largest Spanish-language media company
in the United States.
Other investors in the Saban-led group were Texas Pacific Group of
Fort Worth, Texas and Thomas H. Lee Partners. The group was successful in
acquiring Univision with a bid valued at $13.7 billion.
This convenient FCC rule change hands them a nice exit strategy.
Convinced to contribute to the Clinton Foundation yet?
They make magic
happen.
RE: Debate Night Message: The Markets Are Afraid of Donald Trump
[ Justin Wolfers convincingly argues that Wall Street's darling in this election is Hillary Clinton
and not Donald Trump although that was probably an unintended consequence of making his case without
reading between his own line.]
Wall Street fears a Trump presidency. Stocks may lose 10 to 12 percent of their value if he wins
the November election, and there may be a broader economic downturn.
These conclusions arise from close analysis of financial markets during Monday's presidential
debate, which provides a fascinating case study of the complex interconnections between American
politics and economics. The market's judgment stands in sharp opposition to Donald J. Trump's claims
that his presidency would be good for business.
Decoding these market signals is no easy task because it is difficult to disentangle correlation
from causation. Ideally we would observe stock prices in parallel universes with identical economic
conditions, with a single exception: In one, Mr. Trump has a good shot at becoming president, while
in the other, his chances are low.
Monday's presidential debate provided a rough approximation of this experiment. At 9 p.m., before
the debate began, the betting markets gave Mr. Trump a 35 percent chance of becoming president. Two
hours later, after the debate, we had entered the parallel universe in which economic conditions
were the same, but Mr. Trump's chances had fallen a tad below 30 percent...
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl,
Ron... , -1
"The stock market has forecast nine of the last five recessions." Paul Samuelson (1966), quoted
in: John C Bluedorn et al. Do Asset Price Drops Foreshadow Recessions? (2013), p. 4
[Of course the real question is how well do the betting markets predict the stock market? The
only question actually answered was "Who do you love?"]
"... Right now, the SYSTEM(establishment) is rigged favoring Hillary. Trump is no saint but unpredictable as perceived by deep state and the MSM. What more damage he can do compared to Bush, Obama or the Hilabama. At least he is challenging the status quo and the establishment, unlike any other candidates in the past! ..."
"... I am vacillating about whom to vote. Bernie would have been my choice. Now Trump vote by default is a protest vote, against the rigged system. Not the best choice but I am fed up with status quo. It needs a jolt and now, only Trump can do that. ..."
"... Paul Ryan went on record that if Trump is elected they'll just ignore him and further the agenda hammered out for them by their Kochtopus overlords. Which is exactly what I have expected would be the case all along. This isn't a damned game, but the more I hear the more it seems that's how it's being viewed, as if the final winner has no real-world relevance. ..."
"... Amen. These so-called "best and brightest" like Clinton and Obama are not only morally bankrupt, the awful truth is they are also obviously poorly informed and self-evidently not very bright either. Obama could, in fact, be almost the definition of the "empty suit". ..."
"... I no longer entertain any such illusions, Hilary and Obama know full well what the consequences of their actions are, all the way from Yemen to Minnesota health insurers. Obama is working toward a sexy retirement golfing with billionaires and raising funds for his Library, as for Hilary, her lust for pure unbridled power for its own sake knows no bounds. From the hallowed halls of Goldman Sachs to the board room at Monsanto, Hilary knows *precisely* where she can get the funds to satisfy her blood and power lusts. ..."
"... Well, her leaked audio fits in with her new plan to give all those "basement dwellers" something to do – that National Service Reserve thing…… But yea, all you stupid millennials – get off the couch and vote for Hillary because she told you to!! And then get off her lawn! ..."
"... Beyond a tone-deafness in self-expression that's astonishing for an experienced politician (even if she did not expect the statement to become public), I find it amazing that there is not even a hint of the thought, "well, maybe there's something about our economy that we need to adjust." ..."
"... Maybe not super generous, but the U.S. medical system already costs more than single payer, so there is more than that going on than just "can't afford it". I have often though the citizens of an empire must be kept in abject poverty, so they don't get to questioning the empire thing (maybe they learned from Vietnam). ..."
"... As Hillary derides those who think we ought to be more like Scandinavia, with free college, free national health care, what she isn't making clear is that America the nation is paying more military money than most of the rest of the world combined. In her mindset, we are the Global Police, and if that $791 billion of military spending reduces us to recession, unaffordable college, unaffordable medical care, and a few dozen people owning over half of all the assets in a nation of 300 million, well that's the price of being the Good Guys. ..."
"... What this tells me about Hillary is she thinks the economy is fine, thinks the current economic policies and trade deals are fine, and has no intention of changing anything. For her, the current economic situation is the best of all possible worlds. ..."
"... Not to mention selling cluster bombs and white phosphorus to the same Saudi despots who use them against Yemeni civilians with the US's assistance. 10s of thousands have been killed and there is a dreadful famine affecting hundreds of thousands. ..."
"... But Trump called a woman fat, so he is the evil one. ..."
About that hacked audio, I suddenly saw it all over youtube last night on various progressive
channels from around midnight on. Well, here is a primary source! 2 minutes of Hillary explaining
that Bernie supporters are basement dwelling barista losers without futures who are too naive
to understand how politics really work. And she confirms she's center-right, in case anyone was
fooled by her recent ostensible leftness:
...Right now, the SYSTEM(establishment) is rigged favoring Hillary. Trump is no saint but
unpredictable as perceived by deep state and the MSM. What more damage he can do compared to Bush,
Obama or the Hilabama. At least he is challenging the status quo and the establishment, unlike
any other candidates in the past!
I am vacillating about whom to vote. Bernie would have been my choice. Now Trump vote by
default is a protest vote, against the rigged system. Not the best choice but I am fed up with
status quo. It needs a jolt and now, only Trump can do that.
A vote for Greens is not a vote for Hillary. A vote for the Green candidate is a vote for the
Green candidate.
The GOP should have vetted someone who wasn't a buffoon and who wasn't going to treat minority
populations with disdain and use their pain as a tool. In much the same way that the Democratic
Party shouldn't have ignored the pain of average Americans and rigged their primary for Hillary.
You're entitled to your own strategy for how to vote, however be gracious enough to let others
have that same courtesy.
The GOPs idea of 'vetting' was the usual one this go-round: They gave a lot of media attention
to the crazies like Rubio and Cruz and Trump. The way it always worked before was the media would
then focus on the 'grown-up' or the 'serious' candidate. In this case it was JEB!
The problem was Trump went off the reservation talking about things the Republican base actually
cares about. And stole a lot of Bernie's thunder since Bernie had a long list of no-go issues
(we can rail against the banks but can't actually do anything about them)
It didn't help that JEB! so obviously didn't want the job. Maybe because he can see the trainwreck
coming down the pike. For the same reason Trump ended the debate by shouting about the bubble
economy. (When it wasn't his turn, natch)
"…vote for Greens not worthless. If they average 5% of the vote nationwide they will get
matching funds in 2020. Please consider this and also spread the word."
And by 2020, if the Republicans gain control of all three branches of government, those "matching
funds" will be a memory. I know I'm going to catch flack for this, but in the sense that too many
of the younger voters have had an all but nonexistent education in political science, history
and civics, Clinton is at least right on that score. I've seen it too often-and been attacked
for trying to point out that election fraud and party corruption are not what we should
be focused on now when the future of the republic is in jeopardy.
How any intelligent human being can say, much less believe, that allowing Trump to be elected
will "teach the Democrats" anything is beyond my comprehension. After all, it's not as if anything
that happens after that will affect them in any discernible way. It will be the poor and the elderly
and the people of color who'll bear the weight of a GOP-owned government.
Paul Ryan went on record that if Trump is elected they'll just ignore him and further the
agenda hammered out for them by their Kochtopus overlords. Which is exactly what I have expected
would be the case all along. This isn't a damned game, but the more I hear the more it seems that's
how it's being viewed, as if the final winner has no real-world relevance.
In a rush to judgment, I decided Clinton did not understand ACA when she said its problems
could be addressed with incremental changes. Nice to have proof this is one more area the self
proclaimed policy wonk is unaware of the details of the policy and its effects.
Don't confuse her awareness with her propaganda talking points. She is perfectly aware of what
ACA is for and she is glad. Does she want us to share her awareness? No.
I agree she understands its true purpose. Where I differ is that I don't for a moment belief
that either Clinton or Obama have a clue what is really in that law or what its true effect would
be over time. I think it of it this way – both of them understood the true purpose of overthrowing
Qaddafi, neither of them or the architects of that strategy began to understand that it would
not just continue to destabilize the region it would destabilize Europe.
Do you think either of them recognized that forcing people to buy garbage insurance with no
health care attached in order to entrench insurance companies was going to significantly help
their opponents? Endanger Clinton's election? Or that it might not last long enough for the opening
of the Obama library because the sheer weight of it was unsustainable?
True, they don't care, but it also shows how stupid not caring is.
I don't think they cared if it helped their "opponents." Remaining in power is less important
than the payout afterwards – I think they just don't think in the long term because the short
term is good enough for their purposes.
Amen. These so-called "best and brightest" like Clinton and Obama are not only morally
bankrupt, the awful truth is they are also obviously poorly informed and self-evidently not very
bright either. Obama could, in fact, be almost the definition of the "empty suit".
Look at who goes onto the success track out of the Ivies, if it isn't legacy offspring dimbulbs
like Chelsea, it's frequently superficially articulate suck-ups who can be trusted to faithfully
and unquestioningly follow orders and has almost an inverse relationship with objective merit
of the sort we are sold.
I was ahead of the curve and saw that the fix was in before Obama's inauguration, boy that
was an unpopular stance. Then I went through a long internal debate: is he stupid or is he evil?
I chose "stupid" for quite a while, giving the benefit of the doubt, I just *wanted to believe*
that Lucy would not pull the football away at the last minute this time around.
I no longer entertain any such illusions, Hilary and Obama know full well what the consequences
of their actions are, all the way from Yemen to Minnesota health insurers. Obama is working toward
a sexy retirement golfing with billionaires and raising funds for his Library, as for Hilary,
her lust for pure unbridled power for its own sake knows no bounds. From the hallowed halls of
Goldman Sachs to the board room at Monsanto, Hilary knows *precisely* where she can get the funds
to satisfy her blood and power lusts.
Funny how that leaked in a week where Clinton, and the Obamas were busy explaining political
reality according to the usual suspects to those same basement dwellers. You know the one where
any vote not for Clinton was automatically the same as voting for Trump, and voters couldn't really
do that because Hillary was not perfect. But now we have proof that Clinton isn't just "not perfect"
she isn't even interested in the concerns of those voters the entitled turds were lecturing.
Well according to Hillary and Obama a vote for Jill Stein is the same as a vote against Hillary.
Then that means that a vote for Trump is like two votes against Hillary! Think about it.
Well, her leaked audio fits in with her new plan to give all those "basement dwellers"
something to do – that National Service Reserve thing……
But yea, all you stupid millennials – get off the couch and vote for Hillary because she told
you to!! And then get off her lawn!
Uh I don't even see what is so bad about anything she says at least in the clip (maybe I'm
missing some larger context). Otherwise much ado about nothing. Look I'm not a fan of Hillary's
policies, it's unlikely I'd vote for Hillary but … really … mountains out of molehills. It's like
Trump's comment about how it might be a 400 pound person who hacked the DNC and suddenly it's
a fat person's rights issue or something, and frankly his statement was more offensive than this,
only in context it was a common throwaway nerd stereotype in the face of Hillary falsely blaming
a nuclear power.
But no not everyone who has been in an election or more knows any history is bewildered. When
times are bad the choice is always go left or go right. And go right always ends in disaster,
but if going left is blocked, it's exactly what people will do even so. The way to avoid that
it to keep the left alive, but the ruling class will risk the hard right over going left every
time.
Free health care of course is not "going as far as Scandinavia" but is what every developed
country on earth has pretty much except the U.S.. So yes it's offensive if one imagined Hillary
was for single payer, but did anyone seriously think this? It is not like she has campaigned on
it.
OK, if you don't see it, you don't see it. Just take my word for it then: whatever slim chance
Hillary had to win just went out the window. Other than that it's not a big deal.
After all we've (1%) done? for those educated? basement living? baristas?!!
Each one of those is problematic (based on memes mocking millenials) not to mention she's doing
it in a room of 1%ers. The rich flat out mocking the people they victimize is not going to go
over well. Her statements are worse than Rmoney's 47% garbage. MSM can ignore it, which takes
care of half the citizenry but the other half is on-line.
Beyond a tone-deafness in self-expression that's astonishing for an experienced politician
(even if she did not expect the statement to become public), I find it amazing that there is not
even a hint of the thought, "well, maybe there's something about our economy that we need to adjust."
It's clear that the only adjustment HRC feels necessary is citizens' expectations of their
future in the USA. This person is not fit for public service at any level. I hope every voter
who's thinking of voting for her listens carefully to exactly what she said here and ponders what
it reveals about her assessment of the challenges we face.
It's unclear what people just don't understand about Scandinavia. Higher taxes? Yea it's true
people might balk at Scandinavian level taxes, however at the actual point in the continuum the
U.S. actually exists in, I think a lot of people would trade higher taxes for the benefits of
a welfare state (not dealing with insurance companies, not facing poverty in old age – and hey
paid sick time and paid 6 week vacations).
When I was in the insurance biz I met a Swedish woman who was an up and coming exec in the
company. She had been a school teacher in Sweden and had moved to the U.S. to earn more and pay
less taxes. Her plan, once she had made her pile, was to move back to Sweden explaining, "because
I would never want to be old in America."
What Americans don't understand about Scandinavia is that those countries don't have a bloated
military – or any military really – to protect their 'exorbitant privilege'.
An Empire cannot be a welfare state, and vice versa.
Maybe not super generous, but the U.S. medical system already costs more than single payer,
so there is more than that going on than just "can't afford it". I have often though the citizens
of an empire must be kept in abject poverty, so they don't get to questioning the empire thing
(maybe they learned from Vietnam).
An Empire's priorities are usually not with the welfare and general well-being of its citizenry.
In fact its population can best be kept in a precarious state in order to lower labor costs,
limit social demands and, or course, fill the lower military ranks.
Quite a revealing mindset on Hillary's part. Reminds me of Romney dismissing 47% of the population
as free riders.
As Hillary derides those who think we ought to be more like Scandinavia, with free college,
free national health care, what she isn't making clear is that America the nation is paying more
military money than most of the rest of the world combined. In her mindset, we are the Global
Police, and if that $791 billion of military spending reduces us to recession, unaffordable college,
unaffordable medical care, and a few dozen people owning over half of all the assets in a nation
of 300 million, well that's the price of being the Good Guys.
This brings up a new (old) definition of nationalism; the simple idea that you take care of
your own people and infrastructure first, and that your military expenses are only for defensive
purposes - not for establishing 800+ military bases all over the world, and dividing the entire
globe into theaters of war. That's what our military and political leaders have done, following
the wishes of the very, very few ultra wealthy who make billions every year off this system.
A nation, any nation, has no more precious and priceless resource than the minds of its young
people. The health and wellbeing of its young people. Where do they think the citizens of coming
decades are going to come from? Some other country?
America the nation is dying because America's Empire is pulling up the floorboards and chopping
up the furniture to feed the flames of endless wars around the world, wars which accomplish nothing
for America but poverty of its citizens. We need voters and political leaders who will stand against
America's Empire, who will dismantle it and return our attention to becoming a leading nation
among nations, not Number One in arms sales, not Number One in blood spilled, not Number One in
war crimes.
wow…… clueless in bubble-land. So a bad economy for most (since 2008 at least) and poor job
prospects for most is a matter of "mind set" ? Oh, if only the young did positive thinking. That
would fix everything.
What this tells me about Hillary is she thinks the economy is fine, thinks the current
economic policies and trade deals are fine, and has no intention of changing anything. For her,
the current economic situation is the best of all possible worlds. If people can't find decent
jobs it's their own fault.
Her audio clip sounds like Mitt Romney's 47 percent comment: "And so my job is not to worry
about those people - I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and
care for their lives." – Romney
"What this tells me about Hillary is she thinks the economy is fine, thinks the current economic
policies and trade deals are fine, and has no intention of changing anything. For her, the current
economic situation is the best of all possible worlds."
This is why the concept of a Buy Nothing Month in October is being mentioned as a means of
passive protest. No discretionary purchases. Cash only for essentials to hammer Wells Fargo and
the credit card tapeworms in the economy.
Most people are already down to essentials, and those who aren't likely agree with Hillary
or don't see why they should suffer more for a very tenuous possibility of doing mild harm to
their tormentors.
Poor, brave Hillary - trapped between the Deplorables and the Basement Dwellers (presumably
on their way to becoming the Morlocks and the Eloi). What I find hysterical is the way she depicts
herself as the sane one in a world gone mad.
It's appalling that Hillary and her media toadies are playing up the fact that Trump called
women fat, while that same media completely ignores that Hillary took money from Saudi Arabia
to send America to war against Libya.
Seriously, in the entire history of the human race has there ever, ever been a more singularly
corrupt act than to take money from a foreign power to send your own nation to war against some
other nation? And all we hear about is that Trump called women fat! These people are out of their
minds.
Not to mention selling cluster bombs and white phosphorus to the same Saudi despots who
use them against Yemeni civilians with the US's assistance. 10s of thousands have been killed
and there is a dreadful famine affecting hundreds of thousands.
But Trump called a woman fat, so he is the evil one.
The famine is affecting millions. Yemen is enduring the worst humanitarian crisis on the
planet. That is a war for Saudi Arabia to flex its muscle against Iran and shiites to counteract
their economic weakness from oil price declines. No one has any real geopolitical interest there.
Only Trump brings attention to Yemen on the campaign trail. Not the media, and definitely not
Clinton who gleefully increased weapons sales to Saudi Arabia while she was at State.
The Obama/Hilary government in action. Anyone voting for a continuation is complicit.
So yes, you can have a president who did not call someone "fat"….but be sure and keep a photo
of the Yemeni girl with her arms blown off on your bedside table to remind you the price you paid
for that crucial advantage.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL
Re: Syria, Yemen, Honduras, Poland, Ukraine, Brazil et alia ad nauseam.
What we need is an American Anti-Imperialist League, it should have a former president, a titan
of industry, and a famous celebrity as founding members.
Oh, look, we had one already, with Grover Cleveland, Andrew Carnegie, and Mark Twain:
"... Hey get that straight, NBC paid her Six Hundred Thousand a year for the years she was there. And I apologize I was under the impression that her contract was allowed to lapse, but it was renewed once. They really were paying her for nothing after the first year… ..."
"... You and your son might want to think about the fact that extended families living together has been historically and still is the norm for many. My son works in the building trades and doesn't make enough money to buy a house in our neighborhood. He has been living with me for several years and our relationship is very good. ..."
About that hacked audio, I suddenly saw it all over youtube last night on various progressive
channels from around midnight on. Well, here is a primary source! 2 minutes of Hillary explaining
that Bernie supporters are basement dwelling barista losers without futures who are too naive to
understand how politics really work. And she confirms she's center-right, in case anyone was fooled
by her recent ostensible leftness:
Our son is one of those recent grads Hillary disdains. He has just picked up his third slightly
above minimum wage part time job. He has had two interviews in his chosen field only to be told at
the end of each the companies were 'just looking' at the job field prospects and did not actually
have an open job available…. he has applied for a number of generic type jobs that just require a
college degree as well… to no response so far. He is personalble, bright and according to the managers
at his part time jobs he was a great interviewee…
He has severe kidney stone issues that require hospitalization and stents about once a year –
often for ten day stays and so we have chosen to pay for a Cadillac policy for him ourselves so he
gets the quality care he needs ( no the ACA was useless – he tried) . He is embarrassed we have to
do this for him… He spends every bit of his meager pay paying off his small student loan debt so he can at least get
that burden off and keeping his ancient little car in repair. He refused to allow us to help him
pay his loans and or buy him a better car. He lives at home and feels terrible about it – and so
is constantly doing all the home work he can during the few hours between his jobs to 'make up' for
needing our help. Friends go out to dinner and movies sports games etc and have stopped asking him
because he usually does not have the money …. So….. He is on his way to depression I think…. all that work in college. He has a solid 3.4 GPA and a 3.7
GPA in his field.and he is willing to move anywhere immediately and would not mind a job that entailed
a lot of travel…. But I guess Hillary just thinks he is some unmotivated stupid despite all that….
I know a vote for Stein is totally useless but other that leaving it blank I have no options here.
This country is tanking….I cannot believe this is happening to my son. Spouse and I walked out of
college with a 3.1 and 3.0 gpas directly into decent paying career jobs and an upward trajectory
that continues to this day… he is smarter and works harder than either of us ever have frankly….
Meanwhile Chelsea (who "doesn't care about being rich" or whatever nonsense she spouted) is grifted
into a $500K/year do-nothing job at NBC, marries a hedge fund manager, and flies in private jets.
And her mom and dad make $300,000 for one hour speeches.
Hey get that straight, NBC paid her Six Hundred Thousand a year for the years she was there.
And I apologize I was under the impression that her contract was allowed to lapse, but it was
renewed once. They really were paying her for nothing after the first year…
And don't forget the various Boards she serves on, mostly Clinton entities.
You and your son might want to think about the fact that extended families living together
has been historically and still is the norm for many. My son works in the building trades and
doesn't make enough money to buy a house in our neighborhood. He has been living with me for several
years and our relationship is very good. I am the son of a man who abandoned his own children,
which perhaps accounts for my finding our arrangement particularly gratifying and take great pleasure
in his company as well as that of his friends and lovers.
brilliant son in college, nothing out there at all except 711 jobs. the store he works and
was on shift at got robbed twice on consecutive nights and i had to ask him to stop going there
for his safety.
it is sad sad sad how the future of the kids is being destroyed. the 0.01% have "arranged"
sinecures for their kids and they dont care about our kids. Go into debt to get an education no
one seems to need to pay overpaid professors and administrators at the university, and then carry
that around your neck all your life.
I hope your son does find what he's looking for. I'm worried for my own children and what they
will do too.
What strikes me the most about stories like yours is how much luck factors into things. Graduating
into a recession is horrible. Decisions that made sense 4 years prior to graduation suddenly seem
irresponsible when the day comes to leave college.
So much of my own career has benefitted from being in the right place at the right time, and
I could only have been at this place at that time because I graduated when I did. Sure, I've hustled
and taken advantage of opportunities too. I've always been willing to get dirty and do the things
other people weren't willing to do. But the fact is that I was in a position to do all of that
because of many things that had nothing to do with how hard I worked, how smart I was, or what
degrees I had. If I had been born a year later, graduated a year earlier, chosen a slightly different
discipline… so many things would be different for me now. It's one reason why I don't complain
too much about taxes.
"... I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar principle, even if disagreeing on the content. ..."
"... I actually find it easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment. ..."
"... In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist appeal despite years of petty demagoguery. ..."
"... I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time. ..."
"... Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of government policy. ..."
"... Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy disaster. ..."
"... She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an exercise. ..."
"... Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush. ..."
"... aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much carried the neocons water. ..."
"... in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for the war. ..."
"... She may well believe that, but if so it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama. ..."
"... No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes. ..."
"... Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get "bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS. ..."
"... And it won't impede her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota. ..."
"... The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others' believe the opposite. ..."
"... Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over, cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past. ..."
"... We begin from the assumption that Clinton is standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as evidence of that. ..."
"... the Democratic Party was once the party of the working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since. ..."
"... In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning, and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the world. ..."
"... A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing! ..."
Against a background anxiety surrounding a
sense that things are not working. The old ideologies are not working, every
thing has to change and we hate much of the change we do see creeping up. The
conservative party serves up a wrecking ball. The reform party serves up the
status quo warmed over. ("Intelligent surge") We fear change. We fear the
continuation of the status quo and the degeneration the status quo promises to
continue.
Yan
09.27.16 at 5:46 pm
"On the other hand, there's a not so small current in American politics that
would hear that, that Trump didn't pay his taxes, and think, with him, that he
was indeed smart for having outsmarted the system. …This is a nation of conmen
(and women)…"
I think this is right but misleading, since the voters who
probably liked that comment don't see themselves as conmen out for a quick
buck, but as victims gaming a rigged system. They think taxes are an injustice,
and that they're John Dillinger fighting for their rightful earnings against
the thieving IRS.
This is generally important for understanding Trump voters: for all their
quirks, at bottom they are, like most Americans, very strongly motivated by a
skewed notion of fairness: they think others are cutting in line, getting a
handout, getting special rights and favors.
I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even
when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of
fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar
principle, even if disagreeing on the content.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 6:20 pm
Watching British Labour Party politics from afar is like seeing Democratic
Party politics in a fun house mirror. One thing that is writ in primary colors
and big block letters in the Labour Party struggle is the tension between the
new class and everyone else seeking protection from the globalizing plutocracy
and whose only ideological models are anachronisms.
I actually find it
easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope
in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes
and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a
standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between
the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on
that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment.
In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy
stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the
Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats
even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist
appeal despite years of petty demagoguery.
I think Trumps policies frequently look like a generic Republicans because he
didn't enter this election as a serious candidate, and now that he's the actual
nominee he's been scrambling to come up with any policies at all. So he's
copying from the party that nominated him.
His campaign has always been very ad hoc. Look at his "make Mexico pay for
the wall" thing. He clearly just threw that out there as bluster, then when it
went viral cobbled together a pseudo plan to make it sound plausible.
His line on taxes was perfect, unfortunately. On taxes, for a lot of people
the question is whether he behaved legally. If you can legally not pay taxes
but you do anyway, you're a chump. Can anyone who does their own taxes honestly
say that they've chosen to NOT take an exemption or deduction for which they
were qualified? I can't.
The people who feel this way may wish it wasn't legal for Trump to do this.
But as far as condemning him for it assuming it WAS legal… maybe they can drum
up some generic resentment of the rich, or tell themselves that he probably
broke the law somewhere, somehow, but that's about it. They're not going to
adopt a principled belief that he should pay taxes he doesn't have to pay. And
if Democrats push on this there's no shortage of "rich democrat does lawful but
resentment inducing rich-guy thing" stories that can be used as a smokescreen.
Now… are Trumps taxes actually on the level? Probably not. I suppose the IRS
will tell us eventually, after the election. It's not like Trump will release
them in the meantime.
Other than that Hillary Clinton won but it won't matter because
conservatives live in a creepy little bubble where HRC is a shadowy murderess
who assassinates her rivals and must be kept from the throne at all costs.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 6:28 pm
I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican
politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to
consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time.
Just recently he
said he'd allow over the counter contraception. He tried to Savage war hero
John McCain because he'd been captured. He hasn't just thrown away the dog
whistle, he is willing to jetison any part of the ideology he finds
inconvenient.
Watson Ladd
09.27.16 at 6:51 pm
Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he
on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think
the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the
candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past
candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of
government policy.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 7:06 pm
Omega Centauri @ 21
Listening to Trump has a way of casting his audience into
the same position as the dogs in a Gary Larson
Far Side
cartoon, where
the dogs only hear a few words they are hungry to hear.
Clinton's patter seems more conventionally structured, but its highlights
are righteous self-regard, well past its sell-by date.
There is no coherence (beyond class interest) to Trump. He is a socially
isolated Billionaire who is lazy, inattentive, arrogant . . . but put him in
front of an audience and he will talk randomly until he finds a laugh or
applause.
Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies
of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also
makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy
disaster.
She will win the election, but after that . . . things are unlikely to go
well.
People make the observation that both have high negatives. But, beneath
those high negatives, each has pursued coalition-building strategies almost
guaranteed to narrow their respective bases of support below a majority
threshold.
Why isn't Clinton saying "Trump is a more reckless, less coherent George W.
Bush"
She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the
left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an
exercise.
politicalfootball
09.27.16 at 7:46 pm
I wouldn't read too much into HRCs apparent decision not to tar Trump with
Bush.
That's a charge that simply wouldn't stick. Trump has quite
persuasively separated himself from the Bushes - and vice versa.
Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And
Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own
vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush.
I would be curious for Bruce to explain anything that Hillary has actually
done
to get Bush's vote. Seems to me she continues to run to the left.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 8:33 pm
I'm not Bruce, but
aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much
carried the neocons water.
But, I think its mainly that the Bushes see
Trump as crazy beyond the pale, and Clinton as a somewhat steady hand. Also
in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian
adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for
the war.
JimV
09.27.16 at 8:56 pm
I agree with Bruce Wilder than HRC doesn't want to offend Republicans
unnecessarily. He seems to see it as a character flaw, and maybe it is, but it
could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a lot
of bitter Republican enemies. And I think it is the polite way to behave even
with those with whom you disagree, but I won't lobby for that motive here.
If
Trump avoided taxes legally and that is a smart, enviable thing to do, why
doesn't he release his tax information to show how smart he was? Why is he
really hiding the information? Inquiring campaign adds will want to know, if
people can't figure that out for themselves.
Ideology: I like the ideology that climate science is not a hoax, that
universal health insurance is a good thing with more work needed on it, and
some other parts of HRC's agenda that do not seem to be the current ideology
(in power).
"Smart surge": that was another palpable hit by Bruce Wilder (along with
"no-fly zone in Syria"). Ouch. (I'm not being sarcastic, if it is difficult to
tell.) I'm going to write her a letter opposing that. She's sent me a couple
letters, so I should have her return address. I think I haven't recycled the
last one yet.
Layman
09.27.16 at 9:25 pm
"…it could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a
lot of bitter Republican enemies."
She may well believe that, but if so
it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will
treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama.
There's no obvious
incentive for them to do anything else, and the base think she's a murderer and
traitor.
No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a
primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes.
marku52
09.27.16 at 9:46 pm
Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since
her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub
House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been
to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she
threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get
"bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS.
And it won't impede
her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota.
A Trump presidency would be hated by all parties to the duo-gopoly, and
would be stymied at everything.
The point about not paying tax is on point, I think. I wrote something yonks
ago about Berlusconi and 'patrimonial populism' – the idea being that
Berlusconi was seen as both the figurehead of the nihilistic "screw politics"
crowd and a national sugar daddy, dishing out favours from the national budget
in just the same way that he lobbed sweeteners to business partners. One
Italian commentator spotted a graffito that called on Berlusconi to abolish
speed limits – "Silvio, let us speed on the autostrada!" Because you knew
he
would, and if you voted for him, hey, maybe he'd let you do it too.
(Berlusconi hasn't been in government for a while, but he was Prime Minister
for ten years in total between 1994 and 2011. He's still involved in three
court cases relating to corruption and fraud, and has been found guilty in
another; he served a sentence of house arrest and community service. He will be
80 on Thursday.)
kidneystones
09.27.16 at 10:05 pm
The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT
community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share
HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound
reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others'
believe the opposite.
derrida derider
09.27.16 at 11:17 pm
The best way to assess how a national TV debate went is to watch the whole
thing with the sound turned off. Swing voters are almost by definition the
least interested watchers who will just not care about coherence, patter,
policy, ideology, etc because they don't just don't care about politics much.
Subconscious impressions, mainly set by body language with perhaps the odd
striking expression, are what persuades or dissuades them.
ZM 09.27.16 at 11:24 pm @ 45:
'This is a paper by Paul Gilding on a war time mobilisation response,
although he isn't connected to the Democrats I don't think: WAR. What Is It
Good For? WWII Economic Mobilisation An Analogy For Climate Action
http://media.wix.com/ugd/148cb0_1bfd229f6638410f8fcf230e12b1e285.pdf
'
I criticized the war metaphor before, mostly on literary or stylistic grounds,
but having seen this publication, I feel it is necessary to offer as well a
practical consideration, out of character as that may be. War metaphors and
models appeal to many people because a good-sized war, especially in our era,
appears as an existential crisis, and in properly organized wartime all
dissidence and discussion are swept away by the power of necessity, harnessed
by great leaders and experts. It is a paradise of authority.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:25 am
@ 52 "My main takeaway from the debate is that it finally refuted any notion
that Trump has any idea what he's doing."
What markers did Trump provide that are significantly different from any of
the ravings that propelled him past a stable of extremely well-funded and
politically-skilled GOP politicians?
The fact that a rodeo clown like Trump is even on the same stage as HRC
suggests that whatever his perceived defects here, Trump commands the
attention, affection, and respect of almost as many Americans, perhaps more,
than the candidate of Goldman-Sachs.
Trump is not going to 'win' any of the debates. Trump is marketing the Trump
brand on the biggest stage possible. What actually takes place on stage is
negligible in a world where superficiality is much more important than
substance.
What will happen is that Trump is going to remind the audience that Hillary
does indeed sound very clever and well-grounded. Then, he'll catalogue the
questions: 'How can HRC credibly claim not to know what the initial 'C' means
on a classified document?' etc.
The most recent good poll I saw on HRC identified the voters' principal
concerns with HRC: Syria, Libya, emails – in short, her judgment and her
honesty.
Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over,
cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to
convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past.
As others have noted, the Dukakis title doesn't make any sense to me at all.
She's done.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:30 am
And then there's the health issue (the one that can't be wished away).
The Arizona Republic, Arizona's biggest newspaper (Phoenix), just endorsed
Clinton for President, the first time it has endorsed a Democrat in its
126-year history.
Glen Tomkins
09.28.16 at 1:56 pm
Rich,
"…that no one is really pushing these propaganda lines on people."
That's the very thing, isn't it? That's what US politics has gotten too.
There is a very conventional approach to a national campaign that dictates that
you do messaging, which means that you carefully avoid saying anything with any
public policy entailments. Having the candidate say anything of this sort is
especially to be avoided, because that ties the campaign most concretely to
specifics, and specific public policy your side advocates can be fitted into a
different, hostile, theoretical frame by the other side. Yet candidates have to
say things, it's expected. So they have refined a method that avoids
propagandizing for anything in terms more concrete than "Make America Great
Again", or "Stronger Together", both of which are brilliant at hinting at
whatever good thing you might want them to mean, without pushing any actual
policy.
In that silence from the campaigns themselves step all of the sorts of
sophisticated people such as those of us in the CT commentariat. The media rise
no higher on the intellectual food chain than the attempt to fill the silence
with theorizing about campaigns as horse races, who's winning and why. We here
at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in theories about the actual
supposed subject of politics, public policy. But at all levels of this effort,
we theorize because we are of the species Homo theoreticus, and we must have
theories. The more sophisticated we are the more we need them. We fill the
silence by propagandizing on a DIY, freebie basis.
Not that any of this is new. Swift told us all about it in Tale of a Tub,
the oracle of our age. Think of this campaign as a tub bobbing on the waves.
Worry it as you will, and it just moves to the next wave.
Glen Tomkins: "We here at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in
theories about the actual supposed subject of politics, public policy."
Does
not fit the observables. These theories are not about public policy and are not
good on any theoretical level (even if you consider this goodness to be
possible if it is decoupled from fact and is purely a matter of internal
consistency).
Almost all of these "theories" are based on a simple three-step;
1. HRC is the lesser evil.
2. I can't stand voting for someone purely as the lesser evil: my ego
requires that I affirmatively support someone.
3. Therefore the lesser evil is really kind of good and anyone against it is
bad.
As usual, I find a lot of discussion here about worlds totally unlike the one
that I live in.
We begin from the assumption that Clinton is
standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as
evidence of that.
Um… people.. she was Secretary of State. Can we really
think of no reason she might favor an agreement that includes the US and east
Asia, but not China, other than subservience to international capital? Can we
think of no reason a Secretary of State might want to encourage fracking in
Bulgaria other than anticipated future contributions from the oil and gas
industry? (Hint: Russia is monopoly supplier of natural gas to Europe, and not
shy about reminding them of that.)
In this imaginary world,
the Democratic Party was once the party of the
working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they
abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In
actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and
he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since.
In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning,
and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from
Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the
world.
Um.. people… destruction has been raining down on Syria for years
now. There have been 400,000 people killed, and, as you may have noticed, a
whole lot of refugees. The left doesn't seem to be overly concerned about this,
other than bitterly oppose any attempts to use military force to do anything
about it.
A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing!
If Obama
had carried out his threat over the "red line" by striking at the Syrian air
force, it would have saved many, many lives, but that would be imperialism.
Possibly people at CT, even Americans, have gotten used to thinking of
politics in parliamentary terms, in which platforms actually have some
practical effect, and winning means winning a legislative majority. (That's the
only way a Sanders candidacy would have made sense.) As you know, though, the
US doesn't work that way, and so the question is what can get done. If Clinton
is able to actually carry out the things she is talking about – an increase in
the minimum wage, paid family leave, increased infrastructure spending -- it
will make a much bigger difference in people's lives than bringing back
Glass-Steagall would.
likbez
09.28.16
at 4:45 pm
@80
Rich,
This "HRC is the lesser evil" is a very questionable line of thinking that
is not supported by the facts.
How Hillary can be a lesser evil if by any reasonable standard she is a war
criminal. War criminal like absolute zero is an absolute evil. You just can't
go lower.
Trump might be a crook, but he still did not committed any war crimes. Yet.
Dunno if this has been posted here but this is part 3: "The following is adapted from the new
book Superpredator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America .
The Evictor-in-Chief
Bill Clinton's crime policies left many poor people with only two options: prison, or homelessness.
by Nathan J. Robinson
"... Informative to follow the link and get more of what Trump said and what Clinton waffles upon.
League of Conservation Voters is a DNC front. ..."
"... Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV! ..."
"... She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK. ..."
Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV!
She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK.
"... While Dems throw younger voters under the bus, they are cozying up to "W"–quite literally. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806509/Photo-Michelle-Obama-George-W-Bush-hugging-edited.html ..."
"... A whole generation of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton? ..."
"... I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me. It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one). ..."
"... You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning. ..."
One thing I never see discussed in the media is the effect of the sorry Clinton/Lewinsky/Impeachment
episode on millennials. As a parent of school kids in the suburbs at that time I can tell you
that I and other parents were none too pleased to see the presidents sexual infidelities on the
evening news and headlined in the paper for all youngsters to see (and emulate?).
A whole generation
of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior
was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton?
Jomo–We don't see anything about Billy's former indiscretions in the news anymore.
They'd rather the millennials forget about it.
That's all been carefully swept back into a little box gathering dust in the corner.
How convenient.
'Look over there! It's a Trump!'.
Distractions, distractions…
I lost all respect for Hellary (not that I had much, to begin with) when she 'stood by her
man' following the Monica incident.
She would have impressed me had she planted her foot up his a** all the way up to her cankles,
instead.
I've no doubt part of the 'bargain' of her staying by his side was to get her into the WH.
I've thought that since it happened. Call me Nostradamus.
I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me.
It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one).
Michelle was the only one I had any respect for… now… POOF like Keyser Soze that respect is
gone.
You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning.
"... The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ..."
"... People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt relevant ..."
"... Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years. ..."
"... Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow as they seem. ..."
"... Why the young don't like Hillary? Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP. ..."
"... She is clearly a liar & has track record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has. ..."
"... The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats especially older ones voting against their own interests. ..."
"... I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain. ..."
"... When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see how Clinton can win unless she cheats. ..."
"... So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at. ..."
"... Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation. ..."
"... That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video clip too. ..."
"... Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate. ..."
"... Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly, eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them. ..."
"Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American
voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant
ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory. Many liberal pundits seem unimpressed
by this idea perhaps because it suggests that votes must be earned in a democracy, but it does
have the benefit of the evidence."
And
"The Clinton campaign might be forgiven for imagining these voters would "come home" had it
not spent the weeks since the Democratic Convention fundraising and playing Bush administration
endorsement bingo. The trouble is not that young people are insufficiently familiar with the neoconservative
horror show of their own childhoods. The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support
does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ."
And
"There are only so many times one can insist that young voters capitulate to a political party's
sole demand-vote for us!-in exchange for nothing."
I would suggest the ideological differences extend past the 38 age barrier, but
1. People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt
relevant
2. No one under 38 voted for Bill Clinton. The youth haven't twisted themselves into voting for
that ass in the first place. Even then Bill's 1996 campaign when he failed to crack 50% against
Mumbly Joe was marked by record low minority turnout, just what is being worried about now. Gee.
3. Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when
fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years.
Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow
as they seem.
Why the young don't like Hillary?
Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she
wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP.
She is pro fracking, pushing it overseas & once in office will promote it here. She is a corporatist bankster & won't release Goldman speeches. We have no jobs, no prospects, large amount of school
debt & must come of age during the second great depression. She is clearly a liar & has track
record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has.
The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats
especially older ones voting against their own interests.
Obama enjoys a relative popularity with young people despite being a disaster.
My guess is, that after twelve years of Reagan and Bush, any Democrat was a relief. Unfortunately,
so many in the Democratic Party and in the commentariat came of age during that time, so they
just assume that this is the way that it has to be.
Actually, no, Clinton did not look like a good option in 1992, and certainly wasn't my choice
in the primary. Even then there were a lot of people who only got talked into voting for him in
November on the lesser evil principle, regretted it, and did not vote for him again in 1996.
Plus they turned Ross Perot into a crazy loon because he kept attacking nafta, which was a
big deal at the time, effectively making it a more "manageable" two person race.
Hmmm…….Now that I think about it, that sounds kind of familiar.
Katniss–Looking back, I think when I voted for Ross Perot that was the last time I voted for
someone I actually wanted, rather than just voting the LOTE.
Bernie was the only candidate since I've actually wanted to win. I'm heartsick and mad as hell
he's not in the running.
BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how DWS beat Tim Canova in FL after all the dirty dealings
about DWS came out? More manipulation at the polls?
This is definitely true of my parents (both barely pre-boomers). After watching McGovern flop,
then Carter flail, they both assumed the Clintons were the best a liberal could hope for in this
country. Also my mother admired Hillary for being an unapologetic career woman when, especially
in the South, this was still controversial.
Indeed, having grown up in the age of Reagan and George HW, I basically agreed with them in
the 90s, even though I hoped more would be possible at some point. It wasn't until the financial
crisis (and, importantly, beginning to read NC!) that I began to realize how toxic the Clinton
legacy really was. Also, as a grad student, I was teaching lots of millennials and began to realize
how genuinely screwed they were by what we now all call the neoliberal (and neocon) era.
I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has
changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on
the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain.
When I told "older" people I would vote for Bernie, now Trump to shake things up-all I got
was a lecture. Clinton's will protect wall street & 401ks. And I think there is a lot of fear
about moving away from the token/chosen candidates.
When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox
news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone
loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see
how Clinton can win unless she cheats.
In Philly last time around they had 53 precincts that were without a single non-Obama vote.
Not one. The Black Panthers at the door shooed out the Republican observers and the magic happened,
this time around it will be much easier. And then we might end up with hanging chads on steroids,
with an 8-person Supreme Court that should be a fun-fest.
So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at.
Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly
puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's
chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate.
Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly,
eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
"Elizabeth Warren Tells Hillary Clinton Not To Hire Wall Street Donors" [
International
Business Times
]. At the Center for American Progress:
"I know that personnel is policy," she told the group. "But let me be
clear - when we talk about personnel, we don't mean advisors who just pay
lip service to Hillary's bold agenda [irony, surely?], coupled with a
sigh, a knowing glance, and a twiddling of thumbs until it's time for the
next swing through the revolving door, serving government then going back
to the very same industries they regulate. We don't mean Citigroup or
Morgan Stanley or BlackRock getting to choose who runs the economy in
this country so they can capture our government."
This,
before
November 8! They must be gritting their teeth in
Brooklyn, as Warren underlines her status as a party baron once more.
"The Clinton Global Initiative wraps up its 12th and final annual meeting
Wednesday amid intense scrutiny about the access its donors received while
Hillary Clinton was the nation's top diplomat" [
McClatchy
].
So I guess they're closing out the fund? And the payouts will come over the
course of a future Clinton administration….
Our endorsement is rooted in respect
for her intellect, experience and courage. ...
In any normal election year, we'd compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the
issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise
in a race where one candidate - our choice, Hillary Clinton - has a record of service and a raft
of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his
plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent
editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern
American history.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton
supporters. We're aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs.
Clinton - because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate
who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent
and a political system that seems broken. ...
2008 Crisis Deepened the Ties Between Clintons and Goldman Sachs
http://nyti.ms/2cLHnuY
NYT - NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and SUSANNE CRAIG - Sep 24
A blue-ribbon commission had just excoriated Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks for
fueling the financial crisis. Prosecutors were investigating whether Goldman had misled investors.
The company was a whipping boy for politicians looking to lay blame for the crash.
But in spring of 2011, Lloyd C. Blankfein, leading one of the nation's most reviled companies,
found himself onstage with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the nation's most admired
public figures at the time. And Mrs. Clinton had come to praise Goldman Sachs.
The State Department, Mrs. Clinton announced that day in an auditorium in its Foggy Bottom
headquarters, would throw its weight behind a Goldman philanthropic initiative aimed at encouraging
female entrepreneurs around the world - a program Goldman viewed as central to rehabilitating
its reputation.
Mrs. Clinton's blessing - an important public seal of approval for Goldman at a time when it
had few defenders in Washington - underscored a long-running relationship between one of the country's
most powerful financial firms and one of its most famous political families. Over 20-plus years,
Goldman provided the Clintons with some of their most influential advisers, millions of dollars
in campaign contributions and speaking fees, and financial support for the family foundation's
charitable programs.
And in the wake of the worst crash since the Great Depression, as the firm fended off investigations
and criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike, the Clintons drew Goldman only closer. Bill
Clinton publicly defended the company and leased office space from Goldman for his foundation.
Mrs. Clinton, after leaving the State Department, earned $675,000 to deliver three speeches at
Goldman events, where she reassured executives that they had an important role to play in the
nation's recovery.
The four years between the end of the financial crisis and the start of Mrs. Clinton's second
White House bid revealed a family that viewed Wall Street's elite as friends and collaborators
even as the public viewed them with suspicion and scorn. ...
So these people think it is a big deal for the Sec of State to appear at a dinner with GS where
the bank starts a program to help women in business throughout the world.
10,000 Women is a program organized by Goldman Sachs with the goal of helping to grow local
economies by providing business education, mentoring and networking, and access to capital to
underserved women entrepreneurs globally. ...
I know about the program. A local charity group I do a little work for has partnered with it.
My question was doe the writers in that Times article mention the program?
If not, it is just another in a long series of attacks on the Clintons with little basis in
fact. I am not a big fan of either of them, but this treatment is beyond the pale.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
The NYT board like Mrs. Clinton has no idea about providing for the common defense.
Experience that could not remember nor take responsibility for safeguarding information that
could damage US well being...........
Nor remember the most basic requirements for filing public records.
Now the idea that Hillary can beat Trump looks pretty questionable. Probably
corrupt honchos at DNC now realized that by sinking Sanders they sunk the Party.
Notable quotes:
"... "The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action, 1952 ..."
"... Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate 'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our third party… the Up Yours party! ..."
"... Trump's support sure looks like a big middle finger salute to the party establishment more than anything else. ..."
"... You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and the Grey Lady's fish wrap. ..."
"... - Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump How shameless is that? ..."
"... I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux Nooz Lite like the plague. ..."
"... It's now owned by the corporations anyway. ..."
"... Post owner Jeff Bezos was rated "Worst boss in the world" by the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation), ..."
"... Amazon was awarded a $16.5 million contract with the State Department the last year Clinton ran it. ..."
"... The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
"... Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state." When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of what the psychologists call projection. ..."
"... That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring of power." ..."
"... murdering people a central tenet of one's life? ..."
"... Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses, it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls, nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan, which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant (which itself is interesting). ..."
"... Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward. She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all! ..."
"... Banner ad from the HC campaign on my email site today "Stand with Hillary to fight Trump." ..."
Yesterday was one of those days when there was a settlement.
"It is a pity that Wall Street, with its ability to control all the wealth
of the nation and to hire the best law brains in the country, has not produced
some statesmen, some men who could see the dangers of bigness and of the
concentration of the control of wealth. Instead of working to meet the situation,
they are still employing the best law brains to serve greed and self-interest.
People can only stand so much and one of these days there will be a settlement."
– Senator Harry S. Truman, Congressional Record, 1937
"The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman,
Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic
Action, 1952
Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate
'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since
the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not
party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our
third party… the Up Yours party!
You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but
Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders
has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and
the Grey Lady's fish wrap.
Here is similar grossly biased "reporting": On The Hill's home page today
there is an article link:
Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump
Sanders also tops Trump in a hypothetical general election matchup.
From the article itself:
Democrat Hillary Clinton would defeat Republican presidential rival
Donald Trump by double digits in a hypothetical general election matchup,
according to a poll released Wednesday.
Clinton would edge out Trump by 13 points in a one-on-one
vote, 51 percent to 38 percent , in the latest NBC News/Wall
Street Journal survey.
Trump, the controversial GOP front-runner, would lose even more soundly
to Bernie Sanders should the Independent Vermont senator secure the
Democratic nomination.
Sanders bests Trump by 18 points, 55 to 37 percent.
Sanders picked up a surprise win over Clinton in Michigan on
Tuesday, though Clinton expanded her overall delegate lead.
I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz
station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux
Nooz Lite like the plague. A lot of their stenographers also work for
Fox (really). It's a pointless exercise in futility to waste my valuable
time and brain cells listen to Faux Nooz National Propaganda Radio.
NPR here in san diego said it was a win for hill because she got more delegates
when missippi and michigan are added together…
...Comments re sanders
not having congressional support are actually even more true with trump,
he will face considerable obstruction, while clinton will take the reins
from obama on the fly and drive the buggy full tilt down the road to neo
libbercon utopia
...Capitalism is essentially the same as every other social system since
the dawn of civilisation.
The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure
Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work;
the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper,
leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure.
The nature of the Leisure Class, to which the benefits of every system
accrue, was studied over 100 years ago.
"The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions",
by Thorstein Veblen.
(The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight. It was written a long time
ago but much of it is as true today as it was then. This is the source of
the term conspicuous consumption.)
We still have our leisure class in the UK, the Aristocracy, and they
have been doing very little for centuries.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all
provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone else doing all the
work.
Feudalism – exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism – exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends
and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
All this was much easier to see in Capitalism's earlier days.
Malthus and Ricardo never saw those at the bottom rising out of a bare
subsistence living. This was the way it had always been and always would
be, the benefits of the system only accrue to those at the top.
It was very obvious to Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed
to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained
in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is
supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy
who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money.
But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords,
no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Like most classical economists he differentiated between "earned" and
"unearned" wealth and noted how the wealthy maintained themselves in idleness
and luxury via "unearned", rentier income from their land and capital.
We can no longer see the difference between the productive side of the
economy and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side. This is probably
why inequality is rising so fast, the mechanisms by which the system looks
after those at the top are now hidden from us.
In the 19th Century things were still very obvious.
1) Those at the top were very wealthy
2) Those lower down lived in grinding poverty, paid just enough to keep
them alive to work with as little time off as possible.
3) Slavery
4) Child Labour
Immense wealth at the top with nothing trickling down, just like today.
This is what Capitalism maximized for profit looks like.
Labour costs are reduced to the absolute minimum to maximise profit.
The beginnings of regulation to deal with the wealthy UK businessman
seeking to maximise profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
The function of the system is still laid bare.
The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative
and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury
and leisure.
The majority only got a larger slice of the pie through organised Labour
movements.
By the 1920s, mass production techniques had improved to such an extent
that relatively wealthy consumers were required to purchase all the output
the system could produce and extensive advertising was required to manufacture
demand for the chronic over-supply the Capitalist system could produce.
They knew that if wealth concentrated too much there would not be enough
demand.
Of course the Capitalists could never find it in themselves to raise
wages and it took the New Deal and Keynesian thinking to usher in the consumer
society.
In the 1950s, when Capitalism had healthy competition, it was essential
that the Capitalist system could demonstrate that it was better than the
competition.
The US was able to demonstrate the superior lifestyle it offered to its
average citizens.
Now the competition has gone, the US middle class is being wiped out.
The US is going third world, with just rich and poor and no middle class.
Raw Capitalism can only return Capitalism to its true state where there
is little demand and those at the bottom live a life of bare subsistence.
Capitalism is a very old system designed to maintain an upper, Leisure,
class. The mechanisms by which parasitic, rentier, "unearned", income are
obtained need to kept to an absolute minimum by whatever means necessary
(legislation, taxation, etc ..)
Michael Hudson's book "Killing the Host" illustrates these problems very
well.
When you realise the true nature of Capitalism, you know why some kind
of redistribution is necessary and strong progressive taxation is the only
way a consumer society can ever be kept functioning. The Capitalists never
seem to recognise that employees are the consumers that buy their products
and services and are very reluctant to raise wages to keep the whole system
going.
A good quote from John Kenneth Galbraith's book "The Affluent Society",
which in turn comes from Marx.
"The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything
except matters pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is
not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably down the path
to his own destruction"
Marx made some mistakes but he got quite a lot right.
Jeez, no one told me that global employees are the global consumers.
So as we all increase profits by cutting labour costs we are effectively
cutting our own throats.
You got it.
Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United
Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that
little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build
walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists
were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state."
When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of
what the psychologists call projection.
That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality
to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to
it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from
republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment
is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring
of power."
Really, this is one of Earth's oldest taboos, and yet it has become cool
to flaunt your not-caring-about it like that is some badge of honor, and
better qualifies you for office. How about if say kindness, and honesty,
and "first, do no harm," were exalted into the same high positions? Everything
would be flipped on its head, and in my opinion, we'd be a lot better for
it. It's not silly.
I was in the bag for Bernie from day one, but I like to look ahead and
see what I'm getting myself into. My own expectations of B. Obama were quite
low in 2008 but he managed to underperform them (while the Republicans came
through in grand style).
So what does a thoughtful person see ahead with a President Bernie? Can
we cast a clear eye? How does this play out?
I'm thinking of looking to possible comparisons to previous (J. Carter,
'76) and current (J. Corbyn across the pond, in progress) cases of, well,
political outsider from the left end up at the head of the table (and maybe
some similar qualities of temperament), and what happened then.
If memory serves (and please set me straight if it doesn't) Carter, always
something of a loner, had a hard time getting traction with Congress, as
well as considerably confusion and derision from the (nascent, burgeoning)
neo-con right that came after, and from within his own party, and the press.
I believe I see a similar overall pattern (again, correct me) for Corbyn,
only more so: press is skeptical to derisive, and Labor is still procession
what it all really means for them (how much of this is sheer denial of inevitable
transformation and how much is stubborn inertial durability is not clear
to me). Lessons here might serve not only to anticipate some obvious pitfalls,
but perhaps to sidestep (or even strategically use) some of them.
A Bernie presidency would represent a huge challenge for the Dem establishment,
not completely different from what the Republican party is going through
but with different specifics (and also a later start). Without a continuing
and active grassroots network (writing, marching, contributing, putting
up candidates, etc), I think Bernie would be dead in the water come 2017.
And accepting a largely negative reaction from business, how much will be
a unified front, and what kind of internecine squabbling could take place?
Can a post-presidential grassroots activist network flip Congress in
two years (it took the Tea Party 4-6)? I don't think Sanders has a second
term without significant success in his first? The stakes are even higher;
2020 is a census year, as in: redistricting time.
Also, the disenfranchised usually get hit the hardest when systems shift
gears (for example, loss of some good policies in the ACA rollout, not to
mention the website). Given a hostile business front that will try to punish
the vulnerable, what is the blowback on a $15 minimum wage.
Thoughts? Links? Take your time, no rush (yet). Lambert?
Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses,
it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource
the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do
things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that
they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls,
nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan,
which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless
one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant
(which itself is interesting).
For example, to pick on the YouGov poll that underestimated younger voter
support for Sanders. It was conducted a week ago, and the poll found that
1/3 of Dem primary voters had not firmly decided on their candidate at that
time. YouGov also included a sample that was 30% for those under 45, whereas
exit polling from CNN suggests actual turnout for those under 45 was more
like 45%. And it gave a 32 point advantage to Sanders in the under 30 crowd,
whereas CNN's exit poll suggested an actual spread of more like 62 points.
When things go as expected, the various assumptions and simplifications
hold. But that very bias makes it virtually impossible to predict discontinuous
change, since by definition, that is assumed away by the modeling.
But isn't the takeaway there that she lost the independents in large
numbers? How does she win a general election without young voters and independents?
My guess is she would pivot in her usual clumsy manner away from the more
left-leaning positions she's been pushed to take, and go back to her comfort
zone as a center-right Rockefeller-style Republican with a (D) after her
name.
I am less concerned that she is screwed than that the Dem establishment
would rather screw us all over in order to protect their comfortable positions
in the power structure.
Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward.
She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat
would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all!
Independents have been breaking hard for Sanders (not just in Michigan).
In CNN's exit polling, for example, in SC – a state Clinton won by a huge
margin – Sanders still actually won voters under 30 (by 8 points) and Independents
(by 7 points). Go to a state that was competitive, like Massachusetts, and
it's a 30 point spread for voters under 30 and a 33 point spread on Independents.
CNN didn't even do exit polling in places like Minnesota and Kansas. In
Oklahoma, Sanders won under 30 voters by 65 points and Independents by 48.
"... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
"... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
"... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
"... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
"... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
"... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
"... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
"... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she
has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of
the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.
... ... ...
Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap
dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.
...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is
"partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that
Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.
HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for
prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain
to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope
the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the
Democratic nominee.
"Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were
the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more
generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral
trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in
a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed
extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion
project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions
on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.
Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy
in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean
Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies
and beyond.
Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly
chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi
government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would
be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"
The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's
political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated
blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy,
as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the
Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they
were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what
should be the public sphere of our government.
Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their
official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying
attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public
that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because
they are illegal.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer
of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public
is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable.
Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He
lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her
past points to her making it worse.
The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill,
grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal
drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with
many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am
not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way
election time.
Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's
running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she
will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one
to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they
were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm
a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote
a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for
the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate
another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look,
for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?
care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's
not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social
issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as
well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left
at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that
way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.
I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then
so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.
I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will
not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will
vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for
grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily
carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card
to justify their vote.
Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern
states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the
Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only
one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.
The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up
an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security
and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.
That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers
and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and
economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers
in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail
recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small
percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of
doing business.
"... Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security, while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on an assembly line or as a waiter. ..."
"... Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great. If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now. ..."
"... He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections ..."
"... Never heard of this parasite, so thanks for the heads up. I'm sure HRC will find some very useful role for him in her admin. ..."
"... BlackRock is a blight. Ugh. Just gets worse by the day. ..."
"... Don't count out Jamie, nor Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State. ..."
"... Some role too for Samantha Powers. Ugh. ..."
"... The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say, "I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to any of a hundred reasons. ..."
"... Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump. ..."
Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security,
while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business
executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on
an assembly line or as a waiter.
Yes, I know this is Dayen's quote and not Yves'.
But I'm disturbed every time I see this argument about "desk work" vs
"manual labor" WRT working longer. Its true of course but fails to recognize
that many who sit behind desks are also being forced out of their jobs (and
yes, this includes "business executives" too) well before 65, have little
chance of being hired for anything else and thus don't really have a choice
to work longer. Unless you're part of the super elite you're not much better
off than the manual laborer when it comes to staying employed past your
mid to late fifties, let alone your mid to late sixties.
I'm extremely lucky (and know it and am grateful) to have what is viewed
as a "desk job" as I approach my golden years. I am able to and plan to
keep working possibly into my early '70s. Why? Well for one thing: because
I can. For another, to save as much as possible just in case. Child of Depression
Era parents, yadda yadda. And if I can pass on something to my nieces and
nephews… well good.
The problem as I see it is not so much that I am able to continue working
into my 70s but that my ability to do so, combined with that sinking feeling
that I really should and need to due to current circumstances, is that I
am preventing someone younger from ascending the ladder. And at this time,
someone would definitely be hired or promoted to take my place.
Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this
stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great.
If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire
sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now.
Can't find the details but I think I recall some startling tid bits about
W.T. Grant advising Reagan's commission on overhauling military retirement
pay (part of which was greatly increasing allowances for food clothing and
housing that were not included in retirement pay calculations). We had the
odd situations of retirees that retired early enough (grandfathered, I think),
that got higher retirement pay (based on 50% of base pay which, for them,
was a far higher percentage of their total pay) than those of us who retired
later, at higher total pay, but a lower percentage of base pay, such that
the earlier retirees cost of living raises outpaced our keeping up with
inflation).
After the deed was done, I thought I heard that only four or five W.T.
Grant employees that had built up substantial seniority that would have
provided healthy retirement pay were able to remain employed until they
reached 65 years of age (and that they were essentially senior executives
at or near the top).
The more common case seemed to be like my friend's father, a master of
many trades, seemingly a most effective employee in any position assigned,
as well as being a well regarded President of the Lions Club and active
in other civic minded organizations, promoted into a management position
at Uniroyal, seemingly to exempt him from union protection. They found his
capabilities "inadequate" at 17.5 years, just when he would have started
accumulating substantial retirement benefits.
He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business
after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me
of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always
persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections
(in my case, the once great Kodak).
The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing
that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say,
"I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later
she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to
any of a hundred reasons.
Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested
in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could
actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and
the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump.
If you are implying that Hillary Clinton supports the center left, you have
clearly not been paying attention her entire career, or to the careers of those
with whom she has surrounded herself. Even with today's ridiculously shifted
Overton window, there is nothing "left" about being an oligarch or a war criminal.
Can't speak for NC as a whole, but in my opinion, NC writers are criticizing
the person likely to win the election. These issues of corruption need to be
hashed out and handled well before inauguration.
Perhaps NC is providing a bit of balance, given the rest of the MSM has about
11 anti-Trump pieces for every 2 anti-HRC ones?
And having browsed through the FBI interview notes with Clinton, her defence against serious wrongdoing
is that she is a mixture of forgetful and incompetent. Is this really the best the Dems can do?
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe
others want to chime in):
– Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
– More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
– Globalist trade deals that enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over
national sovereignty, environmental and worker protection, and self-determination
– America's national business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate
donors to tax-exempt foundations
– Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of candidate and election coverage
– Health care system reform designed to benefit entrenched insurance providers
over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.
"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has run an unusually cheap
campaign in part by not paying at least 10 top staffers, consultants and
advisers, some of whom are no longer with the campaign, according to a
review of federal campaign finance filings" [
Reuters
].
"[N]ot compensating top people in a presidential campaign is a departure
from campaign finance norms." Hirohito Award candidate, there.
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143
million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best
showing of her campaign, her team said Thursday" [
Agence
France Presse
]. Ka-ching. And not doubling down. Squaring down.
"... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return.
We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.
..."
"... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our
condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did
things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
"... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's
are screwed for a long time. ..."
"... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas
to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks
it down quite succinctly:
Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not
like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.
Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no
other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given
them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in
return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our
best interests.
...
I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served
two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially,
politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young
people working more?
I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many
will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump
this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things
work themselves out to see what the result will be
What is amazing is that such column was published is such a sycophantic for Hillary and openly anti-Trump
rag as NYT. In foreign policy Hillary is the second incarnation of Cheney... Neocons rules NYT coverage
of Presidential race and, of course, they all favor Hillary. Of course chances that some on neocons
who so enthusiastically support her, crossing Party lines are drafted, get M16 and send to kill brown
people for Wall Street interests now is close to zero. Everything is outsourced now. But still, it is
simply amazing that even a lonely voice against neocon campaign of demonization of Trump got published
in NYT ...
MSM shilling for Hillary is simply overwhelming, so why this was in NYT is a mystery to me. But
this article of Maureen Dowd in on spot. Simply amazing how she manage to publish it !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens. ..."
"... Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile. ..."
"... Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000. ..."
"... Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss." ..."
"... The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America. ..."
"... Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary. ..."
"... The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted." ..."
"... Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights? ..."
"... Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS ..."
"... Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone. ..."
"... You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky. ..."
"... "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war." ..."
"... Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL! ..."
"... Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec... ..."
"... "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all." ..."
"... We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve." ..."
"... The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations. ..."
"... It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama. ..."
"... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies... ..."
"... All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. ..."
"... Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.) ..."
"... There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist. ..."
"... America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down. ..."
"... While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society. ..."
"... I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. ..."
"... We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). ..."
"... This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board. ..."
"... The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html ..."
"... HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now. ..."
"... By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away. ..."
"... She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon. ..."
"... The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl. ..."
All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can't rally behind their flawed candidate is
crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit
strategies, is getting old. They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval
Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with
hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger
and hawk it up - unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.
The Republicans have their candidate: It's Hillary. They can't go with Donald Trump. He's too
volatile and unhinged. The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be counted on to
do the normal political things, not the abnormal haywire things. Trump's propounding could drag us
into war, plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand tiny bits.
Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all?
Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and
got rid of those pesky welfare queens.
Pushing her Midwestern Methodist roots, taking advantage of primogeniture, Hillary often seems
more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates
before he jumped the turnstile.
Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6
million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive
Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy
charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared
to his $19,000.
Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain
and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing
Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms.
Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney
campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James
Kirchick,
keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the
abyss."
She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican
women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim
recesses of a Playboy bunny club.
The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and
CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture
methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained
death squads in Latin America.
Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort
of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary.
Hillary has written that Kissinger is an "idealistic" friend whose counsel she valued as secretary
of state, drawing a rebuke from Bernie Sanders during the primaries: "I'm proud to say Henry Kissinger
is not my friend."
The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the
Trump sharknado. But as
David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon
to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee
has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted."
And
Isaac Chotiner wrote in Slate, "The prospect of Kissinger having influence in a Clinton White
House is downright scary."
Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible.
What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights?
Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive
taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the
founders of ISIS. And he still blindly follows his ego, failing to understand the fundamentals
of a campaign. "I don't know that we need to get out the vote," he told Fox News Thursday. "I think
people that really wanna vote are gonna get out and they're gonna vote for Trump."
Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals.
Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to
the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history,
don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.
You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the
Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner,
your fabrications have to be more sneaky.
As
Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, "the candidate in the race most like George
W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican
nominee."
And that's how Republicans prefer their crazy - not like Trump, but like Cheney.
JohnNJ, New jersey August 14, 2016
For me, this is her strongest point:
"You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day
of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war."
There are still people who believe her excuse that she only voted for authorization, blah,
blah, blah.
Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding
themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD
under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL!
Red_Dog , Denver CO August 14, 2016
Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What
Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank
says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec...
"America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within
that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come
November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns,
but as the greatest moderate of them all."
And great populist uprising of our times will be gone --- probably for many years.
FDR Liberal , Sparks, NV August 14, 2016
Spot on column Ms. Dowd.
As Americans we are to blame that these two major party candidates are the only viable ones
seeking the presidency. Yes, fellow citizens we are to blame because in the end we are the ones
that voted for them in various primaries and caucuses. And if you didn't attend a caucus or vote
in a primary, you are also part of problem.
In short, it is not the media's fault, nor is it the top .1%, 1% or 10% fault, nor your kids'
fault, nor your parents' fault, nor your neighbors' fault, etc.
It is our fault because we did this together. Yes, we managed y to select a narcissist, xenophobe,
anti-Muslim, racist, misogynist, and dare I say buffoon to the GOP ticket.
We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible
flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations
America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve."
Martin Brod, NYC August 14, 2016
The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser
evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary
Clinton.
The Green Party and Libertarian parties provide sane alternatives to the two most distrusted
candidates of the major parties. As debate participants they
would offer an alternative to evil at a time when the planets count-down clock is racing to mid-night.
pathenry, berkeley August 14, 2016
Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give
Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free
hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create
a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the
CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations.
If the negotiations fail, give stingers to our "vetted allies". Who will those stingers be
used against? Russia. At least the ones not smuggled to Brussels. And then there is the plan being
bandied about by our best and brightest to organize, arm and lead our "vetted allies" in attacks
on Russian bases in Syria. A Bay of Pigs in the desert. A dime to a dollar, Clinton is supportive
of these plans.
All of this is dangerous brinksmanship which is how you go to war.
Mike A. , East Providence, RI August 14, 2016
The second Pulitzer quality piece from the NYT op-ed columnists in less than a month (see Charles
Blow's "Incandescent With Rage" for the first).
heinrich zwahlen , brooklyn August 14, 2016
It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect
Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats
and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama.
For real progressives it's useless to vote for her and high time to start a new party. Cultural
issues are not the main issues that pain America, it's all about the money stupid.
JohnD, New York August 14, 2016
... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know
how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies...
Lee Elliott , Rochester August 14, 2016
You've written the most depressing column I've read lately. All the things you say about
Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his
insane desire to invade Iraq. But it was that vote kept her from being president in 2008.
Perhaps that will convince her to keep the establishment a little more at arm's length. When there
is no other behind for them to kiss, then you can afford to be a little hard to get.
As for Trump, he is proving to be too much like Ross Perot. He looks great at first but begins
to fade when his underlying lunacy begins to bubble to the surface.
Speaking of Perot, I find it an interesting coincidence that Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton
will depend on the ravings of an apparent lunatic in order to get elected.
citizen vox, San Francisco August 14, 2016
Why the vitriol against Dowd? Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his
direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest
between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today.
We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing
arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.)
Last week's article on how Hillary came to love money was horrifying; because Bill lost a Governor's
race, Hillary felt so insecure she called all her wealthy friends for donations. Huh?! Two Harvard
trained lawyers asking for financial help?! And never getting enough money to feel secure?! GIVE
ME A BREAK (to coin a phrase).
There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons
are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist.
If readers bemoan anything, let it be that the populist movement of the Dem party was put down
by the Dem establishment. We have a choice between a crazy candidate of no particular persuasion
and a cold, calculating Republican. How discouraging.
Thanks, Maureen Dowd.
Chris, Louisville August 14, 2016
Maureen please don't ever give up on Hillary bashing. It needs to be done before someone accidentally
elects her as President. She is most like Angela Merkel of Germany. Take a look what's happening
there. That is enough never to vote for Hillary.
Susan e, AZ August 14, 2016
I recall the outrage I, a peace loving liberal who despised W and Cheney, felt while watching
the made for TV "shock and awe" invasion of Iraq. I recall how the"liberal Democrats" who supported
that disaster with a vote for the IRW could never quite bring themselves to admit their mistake
- and I realized that many, like Hillary, didn't feel it was a mistake. Not really. It was necessary
for their political careers.
For me, its not a vote for Hillary, its a vote for a candidate that sees killing innocent people
in Syria (or Libya, or Gaza, etc.) as the only way to be viewed as a serious candidate for CIC.
I'm old enough to remember another endless war, as the old Vietnam anti-war ballad went: "I ain't
gonna vote for war no more."
John, Switzerland August 14, 2016
Maureen Dowd is not being nasty, but rather accurate. It is nasty to support and start wars
throughout the ME. It is nasty to say (on mic) "We came, we saw, he died" referring to the gruesome
torture-murder of Qaddafi.
Will Hillary start a war against Syria? Yes or no? That is the the "six trillion dollar" question.
Socrates , is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ August 13, 2016
It's hard to a find a good liberal in these United States, not because there's anything wrong
with liberalism or progressivism, but because Americans have been taught, hypnotized and beaten
by a powerfully insidious and filthy rich right-wing to think that liberalism, progressivism and
socialism is a form of fatal cancer.
America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three
of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were
gunned down.
While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's
liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing
shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits
of their economic parasitism with society.
The end result is that political liberals are forced to triangulate for their survival in right-wing
America, and you wind up with Presidents like Bill Clinton and (soon) Hillary Clinton who know
how to survive in a pool of right-wing knives, assassins and psychopaths lurking everywhere representing
Grand Old Profit.
... ... ...
Dotconnector, New York August 14, 2016
The trickery deep within the dark art of Clintonism is triangulation. By breeding a nominal
Democratic donkey with a de facto Republican elephant, what you get is a corporatist chameleon.
There's precious little solace in knowing that this cynical political hybrid is only slightly
less risky than Trumpenstein.
And the fact that Henry Kissinger still has a seat at the table ought to chill the spine of
anyone who considers human lives -- those of U.S. service members and foreign noncombatants alike
-- to have greater value than pawns in a global chess game.
Bj, is a trusted commenter Washington,dc August 13, 2016
I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles
of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step
with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017.
They didn't succeed with Bill. And they were chomping at the bit to try to impeach Obama
over his use of executive orders and his decision not to defend an early same sex marriage case.
They are just waiting for inauguration to start this process all over again - another circus and
waste of taxpayer money.
petey tonei, Massachusetts August 14, 2016
Two party system is not enough for a country this big, with such a wide spectrum of political
beliefs. We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having
a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of
views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent
my choice (Bernie does). Heard on NPR just today from on the ground reporters in Terre Haute,
Indiana, the bellwether of presidential elections, the 2 names that were most heard were Trump
and Bernie Sanders, not Hillary. Sadly, Bernie is not even the nominee but he truly represents
the guts, soul of mid America
Schrodinger, is a trusted commenter Northern California August 14, 2016
This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder
in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her
own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board.
What about Ms Dowd herself? Of the four columns she wrote before the vote on October 11th,
2002, only two mentioned the war vote, and one of those was mostly about Hillary. Dowd said of
Hillary that, "Whatever doubts she may have privately about the war, she is not articulating her
angst as loudly as some of her Democratic colleagues. She knows that any woman who hopes to be
elected president cannot have love beads in her jewelry case."
In her column 'Culture war with B-2's', Dowd comes out as mildly anti-war. "Don't feel bad
if you have the uneasy feeling that you're being steamrolled", Dowd writes, "You are not alone."
Fourteen years later that column still looks good, and I link to it at the bottom. However, Dowd
could and should have done a lot more. I don't think that anybody who draws a paycheck from the
New York Times has a right to get on their high horse and lecture Hillary about her vote. They
ignored the antiwar protests just like they ignored Bernie Sanders' large crowds.
Karen Garcia , is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY August 13, 2016
HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot
pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and
openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving
CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now.
By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her
own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither
their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand
Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American
workers) here we come. Bombs away.
With three months to go before this grotesque circus ends, Trump is giving every indication
that he wants out, getting more reckless by the day. And that's a good thing, because with her
rise in the polls, Hillary will now have to do more on the stump than inform us she is not Trump.
She'll have to ditch the fear factor. She'll have to start sending emails and Tweets with something
other than "OMG! Did you hear what Trump just said?!?" on them to convince voters.
She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats
running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon.
The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl.
"... But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats. ..."
"... The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally." ..."
"... Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support. ..."
"... The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them. ..."
"... The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests." ..."
"... When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections. ..."
"... She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond. ..."
"... The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." ..."
"... However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC." ..."
"... When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
"... Citizens United ..."
"... So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election. ..."
"... The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda." ..."
"... When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley . ..."
"... and where she will be ..."
"... Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary. ..."
"... Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base. ..."
"... The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary." ..."
"... In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms." ..."
A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their relationship with the
financial institutions that fund their campaigns was unthinkable in past presidential debates.
Such a discussion falls way outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political
discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the
Democratic
debate in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was forced to
defend her financial relationship with Wall Street
numerous times on network television.
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed.
Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has largely been to adopt
similar language and policy positions as her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is
trying to minimize the differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The differences
among us," she said of her opponents at the
Iowa debate , "pale in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."
But the party's latest generation of
"New Democrats" - self-described
"moderates" who
are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have
noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the
hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, "
Ready for the
New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama
chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently
argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats.
This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's
Ruth Marcus describes it , is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way, there was the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill Daley, there was Hillary Clinton -
a key member of the
DLC's leadership team during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks
progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential movement to, as
The American Prospect describes
it , "reinvent the [Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and
a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an important part of Clinton's
record, and she owes it to primary voters to answer for it.
But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely guided by the ideas
of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985 , the group sought to transform the party by pushing it
to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.
Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less
radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic
issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001
article in The American Prospect
. "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks,
feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization
had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive
council, Dreyfuss reported
, was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries.
A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all
of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions
and the grassroots for support.
The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The New York Times
reported
that during that era "the Democratic Leadership Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence
continued into the post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt
and countless others all
lent their names in support of the organization. The DLC and its think tank, the
Progressive Policy Institute (PPI),
were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of
policy papers , op-eds
and declarations
in their numerous publications.
"It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said Mark Schmitt, a staffer
for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before
there were a lot of organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved and
to be in the same room with important people."
The DLC's prescribed Third Way also
found a home on Downing
Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC,
adopted its strategies and lent
his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the
Third Way ,
he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied
by state control, high taxation and producer interests."
As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to remain committed to
these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to
the political centre ground, warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state'
despite the global financial crisis,"
according to the Financial Times , which noted that the left-wing base of his party has rejected
his centrist leanings. "His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as
well as his free-market leanings - have made him a
hate figure among the most leftwing Labour activists."
Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat
When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became
a major player for the DLC, serving as a
prominent member of
the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at
conferences
on multiple occasions
and serving as
chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big
business and the Democrats.
More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray
herself as a crusader for family values when she
introduced legislation to ban violent video games and
flag burning in 2005.
She also
adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on
terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of
many of the now infamous
documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically
increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.
The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition
to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a
similar role against
Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as
"The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."
However, the DLC's influence eventually
waned
. A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive
voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So,
when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his
name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator.
"You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in
the DLC," he wrote when
pressed by the magazine
. "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."
The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss
in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability.
And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council
shuttered
its doors .
When the DLC closed, it records were
acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting
repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding
members. In September 2015, the foundation
hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power . Amazingly,
O'Malley provided a
favorable
blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic
success today."
The 2016 Election and New Democrats
The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016
primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon
to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green,
cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently
told the Guardian .
Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing
a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other
organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an
interview with Politico .
His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy
Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same
Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.
New Democrats' guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.
Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really
about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's
board of trustees is almost
entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens
United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests
have more influence over the political process than ever before.
"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.
So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing
New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who
works for a hedge fund and is on the
board of trustees for Third Way
was also President Obama's
White House chief of
staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's
direction in the 2016 election.
The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back
against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper,
"Ready for the
New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper
falsely
argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite
voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value
of today's populist agenda."
The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and implementing a single-payer
health-care system directly, making
faulty
claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the "singular focus on income
inequality" because its "actual impact on the middle class may be small."
"Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political moment," said Richard
Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in a
rebuttal
to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one day Americans can stop paying
the price for their ill-conceived, corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."
Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore these efforts at their
own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas, Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue
attention in the mainstream media. For instance, The Washington Post
devoted 913 words to Third Way's new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in
the Democratic Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan Cowan to
attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not socialists," he said. This tone is the
status quo for New Democrats in the media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick
to defend Clinton.
When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives, The Wall Street Journal
quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her. "The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody
who ever worked in the financial sector is ridiculous,"
he said .
"The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?
Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise anyone. She has been an
ally for years. And while they have expressed concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident,
as
the Post reported , that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance,
her recent opposition to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is
supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.
"Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be , but given the necessities
of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially," New Democratic
Coalition chairman Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin)
told the Guardian (emphasis added).
Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom
you will likely vote.
If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere, progressives probably
should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al From
told the Guardian : "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that she can't get herself
back on course in the general [election] and when she is governing."
Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend political capital on
the very populist ideas she is now embracing.
"When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back on them," said the
New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to work on many of these issues if she is elected."
Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Truthout that his group's
emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate responsive to the issues important to what he calls
the
"Warren wing" of the party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hasn't endorsed
a candidate in the race as of now.
"It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the candidates address the issues
we care about," Green said, citing debt-free education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting
Black Lives Matter as key issues.
Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia
It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of Clinton: They fully
expect that soon she will be the only thing standing between them and some candidate from the "Republican
clown car," as Green described the GOP field.
But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or apologizing for Clinton's
very recent and troubling record is another. Too many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful
partisan amnesia and are accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for
decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed
Clinton advisers told The New York Times.
Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who
has
endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always
been
wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record
aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic
nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support.
He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term
"Netroots" in
support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was
leading in the polls during the primary.
Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who
attacked him
for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally
by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and
Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas
described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for
Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his
candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.
Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely
not come again soon.
Yet Moulitsas recently
endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported
Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was
"crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton,
the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of
his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan
reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely
critical
of Clinton. Now, he is helping her
do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.
Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with
her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean,
it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story
asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller
Republican,"
said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment
is shared by many Vermonters, on both the
left
and
right .
But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such
as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of
Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns
for an establishment
DC paper and is a
major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more
friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her.
Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming
for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to
decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements
he has made for many years. Many on
his own blog are skeptical.
But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's record is simply
fear. They are afraid of a Republican president, and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President
Trump - or Carson or Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely understandable.
But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the general election, should she win the nomination,
that does not mean her record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important
to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.
The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"
The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's
record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece
"Stop Hillary."
In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon"
as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these
great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only
antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general,
flattering terms."
Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about, including her long career
as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent memory, however, progressives actually have some
leverage to make her answer for this record.
Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street
support, her
dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her
vote for war in Iraq . She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.
Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions.
But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton - or any major
establishment politician - to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon. Copyright,
Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .
Michael Corcoran
is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for The Boston Globe, The Nation,
The Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow
him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3 .
"... her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos, one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself. ..."
...She is, after all, a favorite of the giant banks, the CEOs and hedge funds she now was castigating.
Between 2009 and 2014, Clinton's list of top 20 donors starts out with Citigroup and includes JPMorgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, whose chief Lloyd Blankfein has
invested in Clinton's son-in-law's boutique hedge
fund. These donors are, as the website Truthout's
William Rivers Pitt notes, "the ones who gamed the
system by buying politicians like her and then proceeded to burn the economy down to dust and ash
while making a financial killing in the process."
They're also among the deep-pocket outfits that paid
for speeches and appearances by Hillary or Bill Clinton to the tune of more than $125 million
since they left the White House in 2001. It could hardly escape some in that crowd on Roosevelt Island,
catching a glimpse of the towers of power and might across the river: Can we really expect someone
so deeply tethered to the financial and business class – who moves so often and so easily among its
swells – to fight hard to check their predatory appetites, dismantle their control of Congress, and
stand up for the working people who are their prey?
Consider the two Canadian banks with financial
ties to the Keystone XL pipeline that fully or partially paid for eight speeches by Hillary Clinton.
Or her $3.2 million in lecture fees from the tech
sector. Or the
more than $2.5 million in paid speeches for companies and groups lobbying for fast-track trade.
According to TIME magazine and the Center for
Responsive Politics, in 2014, "Almost half of the money from Hillary Clinton's speaking engagements
came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time… In all,
the corporations and trade groups that Clinton spoke to in 2014 spent $72.5 million lobbying Congress
that same year."
Then look at
David Sirota's recent reporting for the International Business Times, especially the
revelation that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, her department "approved $165 billion
worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation,
according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data… nearly double
the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department
during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term."
Those nations include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar,
each of which "gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the
department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil
liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."
Further, American defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed who sold those arms and their delivery
systems also shelled out heavily to the $2 billion Clinton
Foundation and the Clinton family. According to Sirota, "In all, governments and corporations
involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million
and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments
to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation
publishes only a rough range of individual contributors' donations, making a more precise accounting
impossible."
The Washington Postreports that among the approximately 200,000 contributors there have
also been donations from many other countries and corporations, overseas and domestic business leaders,
the odious Blackwater Training Center, and even Rupert Murdoch of celebrity phone hacking fame.
Meredith McGehee, policy director of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, told David Sirota:
"The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the
Clintons was to give to this foundation."
We pause here to note: All of these donations were apparently legal, and as others have written,
at least we know who was doling out the cash, in contrast to those anonymous sources secretly channeling
millions in "dark money" to the chosen candidates of the super rich.
... ... ..
We see "exactly Washington's problem" in how, during the 1990s, Bill Clinton became the willing
agent of Wall Street's push to deregulate, a collaboration that enriched the bankers but eventually
cost millions of Americans their homes, jobs, and pensions.
Thanks to documents that came to light last year
(one even has a handwritten note attached that reads: "Please eat this paper after you have read
this."), we understand more clearly how a small coterie of insiders maneuvered to get President Clinton
to support repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act that had long protected depositors from
being victimized by bank speculators gambling with their savings. Repeal led to a wave of Wall Street
mergers.
As you can read in stories by Dan Roberts in
The Guardianand
Pam and Russ Martens online, the ringleader of the effort was Secretary of the Treasury Robert
Rubin, who breathlessly persuaded the president to sign the repeal and soon left office to join Citigroup,
the bank that turned out to be the primary beneficiary of the deal. When it overreached and collapsed,
Citigroup received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of U.S. finance. Rubin, meanwhile,
earned $126 million from the bank over ten years.
According to
The New York Times, Rubin "remains a crucial kingmaker in Democratic policy circles" and,
as an adviser to the Clintons, "will play an essential role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign
for president…"
Hillary Clinton, as a young Methodist growing up in Park Ridge, Illinois, was weaned on the social
ethics of John Wesley, a founder of Methodism and a courageous champion of the poor and needy; we
have her word for it and the witness of others. "Do all the good you can," the Methodist saying goes,
"in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever
you can."
But over time, Hillary Clinton achieved superstar status among Washington's acculturated class
– that swollen colony of permanent denizens of our capital who may have come from the hinterlands
but can hardly resist the seductive ways of a new and different culture in which the prevailing mindset
is: It's important to do good but more important to do well.
Lawrence Lessig believes she is an unlikely reformer – "which is precisely why she might be a
particularly effective one." But her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture
of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos,
one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself.
... ... ...
Sep_Arch • 9 months ago
The Clinton foundation is basically a money-laundering operation for an influence-peddling scam.
When Hillary is President, just as when she was Senator and Secretary of State, she will base
her decisions mostly on what will put more money into her family's pockets. After all, they are
hobnobbing with billionaires now. She will tell herself she is "pro-business" and being "realistic"
as she guts the middle class and puts all of her power behind the TPP, big corporations, and Wall
Street. And too many liberals will remain deaf, dumb and blind....
Guest Reader • a year ago
I will not be supporting Clinton either because of the financial interests behind her. Also because
of the record of the Democrats on many issues over the years, a group she has been deeply with
... so this is not entirely about Clinton herself, but even Obama, you could say, since the two
were fairly similar policy-wise, and now we've had eight years of this already.
I don't want more of the same. Plus, her campaign is based on this mythology that the country
is doing so much better, economically, and nothing could be further from the truth. This mythology
being pushed, because she running for office following a Democrat's administration, and one in
which she has been part of.
Again, to me, this is about domestic economics. I am deeply disappointed and exhausted by the
health care dispute. We should have an improved expanded Medicare for all, and, with dental and
vision, like any other developed nation.
We should NOT be going into more of these so-called "free" trade agreements. They are destroying
the standard of living for Americans, hitting people at the bottom the hardest.
vallehombre • a year ago
The current system allows a range of only two possibilities in electoral choices - between the
far right and the farther right.
HRC is channeling Goldwater via PNAC and then some while Sanders is Eisenhower light at best,
trying to catch some Huey Long soundbites on the way by. Yet we are supposed to act as if any
of this is news.
The allowed candidates are products of the state of our disappearing Republic and citizens
have been so effectively conditioned to accept our situation that we stumble to our destruction
as meekly compliant as the folks of an earlier generation shuiffled weeping into gas chambers.
There is no perspective presented here or anywhere other than that of our self identified elites
for the simple reason it has become the sole ethos of our existence. To fault a single person,
HRC in this case, for promoting arms sales and profiting personally from them ignores the structure
of the entire system, the anticipated "benefits" almost every citizens has come to expect as a
natural right (if not divinely ordained) and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little
more than a long, drawn out narcissistic display of communal suicide.
If it is true people create the government they deserve, or maybe accept, then the choice between
the far right and the farther right more accurately reflect the state of our nation than we care
or dare to admit.
oneski > vallehombre • a year ago
... and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little more than a long, drawn out narcissistic
display of communal suicide.
Quite the diagnosis! And there's the added bonus of enriching the lives of others whilst attempting
to postpone the inevitable.
The Swiss own one of the world's largest food companies and the world's largest elevator company.
It's a safe bet both their customers are easy to identify.
falken751 • a year ago
This is what is coming in this country politicians, better get ready for it, especially Clinton
and her Republican buddies. We don't need or want and millionaire politicians like her and her
husband.
"A massive and growing anti-austerity movement will take to the streets of London on Saturday,
June 20, with demonstrators demanding "an alternative to austerity and to policies that only benefit
those at the top."
Tens of thousands are expected to march from the Bank of England to Parliament Square on Saturday,
protesting the conservative government's "nasty, destructive cuts to the things ordinary people
care about-the [National Health Service], the welfare state, education and public services."
Organized by The People's Assembly-a politically unaffiliated national campaign against austerity-the
demonstration comes in the wake of UK elections in early May that saw the Conservative (Tory)
Party seizing the majority of Parliamentary seats and Prime Minister David Cameron sweeping back
to power."
Get ready politicians, and watch your backs.
Bassy Kims of Yesteryear • a year ago
The utter sellout of the Democratic Party over these last decades is entirely responsible for
the harrowing slide of the USA to the Right. The Republican flavor of bacon isn't even worth mentioning,
as those meatpuppets sold their souls many decades ago.
The rape of the poor and the middle class, the Neocon wars, the offshoring... all the worst
things in this nation stem directly from our betrayal by the Democratic Party. The upcoming passage
of the TPP, blacked out all across the MSM and across most of the alternative media, is proof
positive of this.
The sellout of the Democratic Party, and how we must respond to that sellout, must be the root
of any article on our oppression, and any article on how to respond to our national rape. Step
One is raising the consciousness of the DNC's rubes. They must understand their betrayal in order
to rise above it, and to consider alternatives such as Jill Stein, alternatives such as work stoppages
and demonstrations. Otherwise, there is no hope for America - none at all.
Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME • a year ago
All this is blatantly obvious and yet there are still so many Americans who remain clueless and
believe she has their interests at heart because they are gullible enough to believe her incredibly
empty campaign rhetoric. Well, there's the willful ignorance, coupled with the unbelievable shallowness
of basing her single qualification for the Oval Office on the type of genitalia she has, or on
name recognition alone, or the very telling amount of favoritism she gets in the CORPORATE media
and their need to vote for "the winning candidate," regardless of values and priorities. If a
voter wants genuine effort and concern in championing middle class causes, there is Bernie Sanders.
His voting record and history go back 30 years and it didn't just get completely revamped by focus
groups for the up-coming election. Simple logic should alert voters to Hillary, Inc.'s loyalties.
Why is it that in spite of all of Hillary's new-found list of concerns in her "populist" rhetoric
(which seem to only come about after Bernie Sanders speaks to them) her long list of Wall Street
campaign financiers still choose her as their favorite choice in the election? Could it be she
is only saying these things to pander for votes, with no intention of keeping any promises after
the election (just like Obama did)? To the corporate funders of her campaign it's just the cost
of doing business. They spend a few million on her and get billions back when she wins the White
House. It's a great return on investment, but just like Obama, the voters will always come a distant
second to Wall Street demands. This is NOT how you fix things in Washington. This is how you guarantee
"business as usual."
Avatar Ken • a year ago
"Can she really stand above the cesspool that is Washington - filled not with criminals but with
decent people inside a corrupted system trying to do what they think is good"
What a fcuking load of shite! They´re predominantly a load of rapacious, venal sociopaths who
should be in one of the prisions they love to build to house the poor. And Killary´s at the top
of the heap.
Popillius > pgathome1 • a year ago
I have no illusions about HRC - I loathe some of her positions. As for you boyz who fell for BHO
(in spite of his neoliberalism being on full display) - you haven't learned a thing. You are going
to honestly swallow that somebody heard that somebody heard from somebody in their "inner circle"
that Bill Clinton said that about his wife? What evidence do you have that is true? Do you not
see the mountains of ratfucking garbage out there about the Clintons? Their policies aside - which
can absolutely be loathesome - you are going to go online and breathlessly assert that you heard
someone heard that someone close to the Clintons said that? No wonder you fell for BHO so hard.
Sarah Jackson • a year ago
Democrats are in a lying frenzy, just as much so as the other faithful party. Moyers doesn't really
have anything left to say of any value unless it too is a lie of sorts. As an example, he revises
the obliteration of New Deal regulation by implying the President was mislead into doing so. No,
that's not what happened. And we don't have a Democracy. But when we don't live in a Democracy,
it is the news media's role to produce something less than honest. We're supposed to forget Sirota
was a part of AIPAC, and Moyers was part of an administration that served corporations dedicated
to genocide.
"... The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with its persistent advocacy for people over corporations. ..."
"... a leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street "theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he predicts she'll be known as "Mrs. Wall Street" if elected. ..."
"... These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing its agenda. ..."
"... "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist and author Noam Chomsky , "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ..."
"... Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security - but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under her watch the system will stay rigged. ..."
The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not
that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power
anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission
as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and
they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to
understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of
corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with
its persistent advocacy for people over corporations.
Clinton, who once
served on the board of Walmart, the gold standard of predatory corporatism,
is so tight with corporate power that she's now making efforts to downplay her
relationships.
CNBC reports that she is postponing fundraisers with Wall Street
executives, no doubt concerned that voters are awakening to the toxic influence
of corporations on politics and government. Already in the awkward position of
explaining
six-figure checks from Wall Street firms for speaking engagements and
large charitable donations from major banks, Clinton realizes that she must
try to distance herself from her corporate benefactors.
And the fat cats fully understand. "Don't expect folks on Wall Street to be
offended that Clinton is distancing herself from them,"
CNBC reports. "In fact, they see it as smart politics and they understand
that Wall Street banks are deeply unpopular."
Indeed, everyone knows the game, and few are worried that Clinton - whose
son-in-law is a former Goldman Sachs executive who now runs a hedge fund -
is any kind of threat to the power structure. This explains why a
leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street
"theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he
predicts she'll be known as
"Mrs. Wall Street" if elected.
These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary
voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power
has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing
its agenda. And the fiction is propagated with impressive expertise, as
moderate, corporate-friendly Democrats are portrayed in the mainstream media as
"flaming liberals." Even though Barack Obama, for example, filled his
administration with Wall Street veterans and stalwarts after his election in
2008 - including Tim Geithner, Michael Froman, Larry Summers and a host of
others - he is frequently described as a liberal not just by those
on the right, but even in
mainstream media.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist
and author
Noam Chomsky, "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but
allow very lively debate within that spectrum."...
This is what has happened during the centrist Obama administration, which
bailed out Wall Street without prosecuting even one executive responsible for
bringing about the 2008 economic collapse. It also happened in the centrist
administration of Bill Clinton, who was attacked by conservatives as an
"extreme liberal" while doing little to earn the designation. The Clinton
administration, with vocal support from the first lady, deregulated
telecommunications and the financial sector, pushed hard for passage of the
North American Free Trade Agreement - a tremendous gift to corporate interests
and a major blow to the working class - and passed legislation on
crime and welfare that was anything but liberal.
Such is the role that corporate America wants Hillary Clinton to play today.
Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a
hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the
left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve
Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security
- but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate
oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under
her watch the system will stay rigged.<
Digging deep into Hillary's connections to Wall Street, Abby Martin reveals how the Clintons' multi-million-dollar
political machine operates.
This episode chronicles the Clintons' rise to power in the '90s on
a right-wing agenda; the Clinton Foundation's revolving door with Gulf state monarchies, corporations
and the world's biggest financial institutions; and the establishment of the hyper-aggressive "Hillary
Doctrine" while secretary of state.
Learn the essential facts about the great danger she poses, and why she's the US Empire's choice
for its next CEO.
"... You're confusing the left with Democrats. One of the clarifying things about this year is how clear it is that's not true. ..."
"... There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their completed ballot counted as they had marked it. ..."
"... Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances. ..."
And again, everyone is just pretending that the monumental election fraud that just occurred
is completely irrelevant. I'm mystified as to why. To me, it's a national catastrophe that a party
can simply suspend democracy completely, flip machine counts, deregister or reregister hundreds
of thousands of Bernie voters (and yes, it was very specifically Bernie voters), subtract votes
during the count and add them to Clinton in real time–and everyone accepts this as entirely legitimate?
Doesn't the complete cancellation of democracy by a dynastic family bother anyone??? Why even
vote?
Today's reminder that the Democratic Party (which, as Lambert points out below, is NOT the
same as "the left") did not nominate an Iraq War supporter through any kind of democratic process.
There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally
vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird
times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were
prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their
completed ballot counted as they had marked it.
My question is why should a progressive vote for Hillary Clinton?
If a progressive wants to show the strength of her movement and also the number of folks who
represent her values, a progressive would vote for Stein.
Perhaps it could be argued that if a certain progressive lives in a swing state, she should
consider voting for Clinton to prevent Trump from taking office, but that is no most progressive
voters.
But, in general, a progressive voting for a candidate such as Clinton who is so actively courting
big money and establishment Republicans. . .that would dilute and weaken the progressive presence
in my view.
Now that HRC released her taxes can we expect the transcripts, too? Hillary Clinton has been looking into releasing her transcripts for paid speeches to Wall St.
and other special interests for 189 days http://iwilllookintoit.com/
Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he
made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances.
They got to Bernie somehow. Cf the scene in Godfather II where the mobster sees his Sicilian relative sitting in the back
of the room and changes his story.
That's very good. We're getting a lot of stories like this, including from our own #SlayTheSmaugs.
At some point, I'd like to aggregate them. Readers, do you know of any other field reports from Philly?
"... Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. ..."
"... Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform . Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism , and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful , which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. ..."
"... On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism. ..."
"... Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase. ..."
"... the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal ..."
"... GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency ..."
"... The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type. ..."
"... She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the " Queen of Chaos ." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism ..."
"... Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money ) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around. ..."
...Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States
will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing.
We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand
for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?
Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The quote refers to the 1990s,
and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished
Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing.
He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably
by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential
campaign season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the execution of Ricky
Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but
he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas.
As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures.
She used the terrible expression
"superpredators," supported
the crime bill and made a
hash of health
insurance reform. Liza Featherstone
talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism, and she links her critique to class themes, which
is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the
rights of all women.
Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women
is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she
sided with the rich and powerful, which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street.
The really important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich can campaign
as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed
the hypocrisy of the situation in arguing that "Hillary
Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote."
On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war
hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated
for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died,"
she said and laughed loudly.
This cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind after the intervention,
something President Obama calls a "shit
show" and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow elite "feminist"
Madeleine Albright
declaring that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it.
Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims
she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not
released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism.
... ... ...
Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations
in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In his book Listen, Liberal,
Thomas Frank tells the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed was
Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. Frank, who is genuinely worried
about rising inequality in the United States and racial justice, suggests that elite feminism
is worried about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about working-class women who
have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive
talk, but never really walked the progressive walk.
It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, but for the symbol
not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman president does not improve the lot of the majority
of women, then what is the good of a symbol?
Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused
to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died"
Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel
or erase.
...the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth
idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other
to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up.
Noam Chomsky argues that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency,
for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary
Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type.
So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her Republicanism is
closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal
issues that have now reached a kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business,
Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use
progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen
of Chaos." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election
will be made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent.
In his book The Deep State, Mike Lofgren
quotes H.L. Mencken,
who gave away what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of practical politics
is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at this creation of
hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can outdo them and out-Republicanize them.
I think Ike would not like her; she might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed,
Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book,
Dark Money) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote
for Hillary this time around.
... ... ...
Pierre Guerlain is a professor
of American studies at Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.
No progressives worth their name would vote for Hillary. Betrayal of Sanders made the choice
more difficult, but still there no alternative. Clinton "No passaran!". Also "Clinton proved capable
of coming to an agreement with Sanders. He received good money,
bought a new house, published a book, and joined with Clinton, calling on his supporters to vote
for her"...
Crappy slogans like "hold
her feet to the fire" are lies. Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over
and over. Hillary is dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and will behave as such as soon as she get
into office. You can view her iether as (more jingoistic) Obama II or (equally reckless) Bush III.
If she wins, the next opportunity to check her neoliberal leaning will
be only during the next Persidential election.
Notable quotes:
"... ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values. ..."
"... It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
"... She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign - Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
"... The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies. ..."
"... It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it. ..."
"... TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. ..."
"... Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool… ..."
"... One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. ..."
"... The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more. ..."
"... You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh). ..."
"... Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power. ..."
"... merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? ..."
"... Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class. ..."
"... The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants. ..."
...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic
voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street
banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any
number of issues that touch core progressives values.
... ... ...
Becky Bond on the Challenge to Clinton Supporters
...Bond looks at what the primary has wrought, and issues this challenge to activists who helped
defeat Sanders: You broke it, you bought it. Will you now take charge in the fight to hold Clinton
accountable? Or will you hang back (enjoying the fruits) and let others take the lead? ("Enjoying
the fruits" is my addition. As one attendee noted, the Democratic Convention this year seemed very
much like "a jobs fair.")
Bond says this, writing in
The Hill (my emphasis):
Progressive Clinton supporters: You broke it, you bought it
It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to
take the lead on holding her accountable.
With Donald Trump tanking in the polls, there's room for progressives to simultaneously
crush his bid for the presidency while holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on the TPP
.
And yet:
She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign - Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's
time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on
holding her accountable.
... ... ...
Bond has more on Salazar and why both he and Tim Kaine are a "tell," a signal of things to come
from Hillary Clinton: "The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing
the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have
enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies."
It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single
time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in
any sense that a normal person understands it.
This is the evil behind the lie of calling these
"trade" agreements and putting the focus on "jobs." TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before
them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute
Settlement (ISDS) provisions.
That's what's at stake; not jobs. The jobs will be lost to automation
anyway; they are never coming back. The TPP et al legal straight jackets do not sell out jobs,
that's already been done. No, what these phony trade agreements do is foreclose any hope of achieving
functioning democracies. Please start saying so!
I miss-typed above. Of course I meant TPP and not ttp.
Yes, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., certainly killed jobs. However, those jobs are not coming back
to these shores. In the higher wage countries, "good" jobs - in manufacturing and in many "knowledge"
and "service" sectors - as well as unskilled jobs, are being or have been replaced with automated
means and methods.
Just a few examples: automobile assemblers; retail cashiers; secretaries; steelworkers; highway
toll collectors; gas station attendants. ETC. Here's what's happened so far just in terms of Great
Lakes freighters:
"The wheelman stood behind Captain Ross, clutching a surprisingly tiny, computerized steering
wheel. He wore driving gloves and turned the Equinox every few seconds in whatever direction the
captain told him to. The wheel, computer monitors and what looked like a server farm filling the
wheelhouse are indicative of changes in the shipping industry. Twenty years ago, it took 35 crew
members to run a laker. The Equinox operates with 16, only a handful of whom are on duty at once."
TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not trade, and only very incidentally, jobs. The rulers
of the universe vastly prefer paying no wages to paying low wages, and whatever can be automated,
will be, eventually in low-wage countries as well as here and in Europe. A great deal of this
has already happened and it will continue. Only 5 sections of the TPP even deal with trade–that's
out of 29. Don't take this on my authority; Public Citizen is the gold standard of analysis regarding
these so-called "trade" agreements.
It took the OverClass several decades to send all those jobs away from our shores. It would
take several decades to bring those jobs back to our shores. But it could be done within a context
of militant belligerent protectionism.
Americans are smart enough to make spoons, knives and forks. We used to make them. We could
make them again. The only obstacles are contrived and artificial political-economic and policy
obstacles. Apply a different Market Forcefield to the American Market, and the actors within that
market would act differently over the several decades to come.
One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US
succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS.
Tariffs are necessary. They protect your industries while at the same time bringing in a lot of
revenue.
The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a
sovereign
nation any more.
The first round of industrial revolution automation substituted machines for human/horse mechanical
exertion. We reached "peak horse" around 1900, and the move to low-wage/low-regulation states
was just a step on the global race to the bottom. You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb
of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on
the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh).
Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the
race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance
that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power.
Will the rise of the machines lead to abundance for all, or merely infinite wealth and power
for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? TPP and it's ilk may be the last chance for we the
people to have any say in it.
Manufacturing
is in decline due to Reagan's tax cuts and low investment. Globalization and Technologization
is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class.
@Squirrel – Labor costs, as you say, are a driving force; they are not the only one.
Notice that the products you mentioned are all large heavy items. In these cases the transportation
costs are high enough that the companies want their production to be close to their final market.
The lower cost of labor elsewhere is not enough to compensate for the higher shipping costs from
those locations. In addition, the wage gap between the US and other places has narrowed over the
past 20 years, mostly due to the ongoing suppression of wage gains in the US. Your examples are
exceptions that do not falsify the original premise that a huge amount of manufacturing has moved
to lower wage locations. And those moves are still ongoing, e.g., Carrier moving to Mexico.
The cost of manufactured goods has not fallen because the labor savings is going to profit
and executive compensation, not reduced prices.
The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually
highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants.
"... Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times - but with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns, Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative. ..."
"... "I did not work on TPP," she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. "I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would 'be the gold standard.' But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative…State Department cables… show that her agency - including her top aides - were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations over the trade deal. The cables from 2009 and 2010, which were among a trove of documents disclosed by the website WikiLeaks, also show that the Clinton-run State Department advised the U.S. Trade Representative's office on how to negotiate the deal with foreign government officials." ..."
"... HRC has been trying to convince the gullible (and there are clearly a few here) that the donor class paid her 225K a pop because she's committed to working against the deals favored by globalists. ..."
"... The 'Trump is a racist who will deport 11 million undocumented foreign nationals' fiction must, at the very least, explain why 1/5 Hispanics support the candidate. ..."
"... evidently 1/5 Hispanics separate rhetoric from reality. ..."
"... Sanders offered the prospect of real change to voters sick of the same old. HRC is offering fables ..."
"... Trump will not be able to produce the solutions he's promising, but he's promising solutions that people do want, which is why HRC is suddenly making Trump/Sanders themes a centerpiece of her campaign. There will be no holding HRC to account. We know this. T above is entirely correct. HRC is a known factor. ..."
"... With Trump as president there will be intense scrutiny of his every action and he'll be hammered on all sides daily. This seems to me far, far better than handing a blank check to a highly secretive career client of the donor class who enjoys the full protection of a self-censoring (for the most part) fifth estate and indulged by zombies ready to scream 'racist' or 'atheist' at any candidate who might actually challenge her authority. ..."
Aug 13, 2015 from David Sirota rabid Republican spin-meister
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday attempted to distance herself
from the controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. During her
tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times - but
with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns,
Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative.
"I did not work on TPP," she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose
the pact. "I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would 'be the gold standard.'
But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative…State Department cables…
show that her agency - including her top aides - were deeply involved in the diplomatic deliberations
over the trade deal. The cables from 2009 and 2010, which were among a trove of documents disclosed
by the website WikiLeaks, also show that the Clinton-run State Department advised the U.S. Trade
Representative's office on how to negotiate the deal with foreign government officials."
The donor class invest immense sums to write laws and regulations, not just in the US, but
in many nations. The list of examples is endless and includes big pharma and the banks participating
in the crafting of the Affordable Care Act and the bank bailout. Both Sanders and Trump agree
on this point, whatever their other differences may be.
HRC has been trying to convince the gullible (and there are clearly a few here) that the
donor class paid her 225K a pop because she's committed to working against the deals favored by
globalists.
Every moment wasted on 'did I tell you about my racist daddy, racist relatives, racist co-workers?
' is time and energy wasted. That would be bad enough, but the level of discourse is frankly so
base and lacking in nuance as to be both worthless and corrosive.
The 'Trump is a racist who will deport 11 million undocumented foreign nationals' fiction
must, at the very least, explain why 1/5 Hispanics support the candidate. Trump is a race-baiting
vulgarian buffoon who routinely uses offensive slurs to control the news cycle. Some supporters
believe he goes too far, others are delighted to watch liberal heads explode. But evidently 1/5
Hispanics separate rhetoric from reality.
To the outside observer, Detroit and Chicago do not look like success stories. I visited both
cities in the 70's and they weren't exactly shining cities on the hill, then. In the four decades
since, conditions for many have actually declined. Large parts of large cities and states controlled
by Democrats fail entirely to provide basic education and safety to the people who need both most.
Sanders offered the prospect of real change to voters sick of the same old. HRC is offering
fables, in much the same way Trump is. As I've stated repeatedly, Trump will not be able
to produce the solutions he's promising, but he's promising solutions that people do want, which
is why HRC is suddenly making Trump/Sanders themes a centerpiece of her campaign. There will be
no holding HRC to account. We know this. T above is entirely correct. HRC is a known factor.
With Trump as president there will be intense scrutiny of his every action and he'll be
hammered on all sides daily. This seems to me far, far better than handing a blank check to a
highly secretive career client of the donor class who enjoys the full protection of a self-censoring
(for the most part) fifth estate and indulged by zombies ready to scream 'racist' or 'atheist'
at any candidate who might actually challenge her authority.
James Simons and Kenneth Griffin were the world's top two hedge fund managers in 2015. Each made
$1.7 billion last year alone, and have used their massive wealth to bankroll the campaigns of Hillary
Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, the Guardian reported.
Simons is the 50th richest person in the world, according to Forbes. The mathematician has made an
estimated $15.5 billion as CEO of the Renaissance Technologies hedge fund, and is individually richer
than many countries.
Employees at his hedge fund, primarily right-wing co-CEO Bob Mercer, donated $13 million to support
Ted Cruz's failed presidential campaign. Since then, donations from employees at Renaissance Technologies
have gone to Hillary Clinton.
Simons has pumped more than $2 million into Clinton's campaign to date. And his family office,
Euclidean Capital, has poured more than $7 million into supporting Clinton, the Guardian noted.
Many other financial executives have joined Simons in funding Clinton. Powerful figures on Wall
Street who formerly backed failed Republican candidates have instead thrown their weight behind the
Democratic presidential front-runner, hoping she can defeat presumed GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Kenneth Griffin, the other top hedge fund manager in 2015, is the founder and CEO of Citadel.
He has an estimated $7.5 billion, making him the richest man in Illinois.
Big business loves bribing the Clintons. They get great returns on investment. In the last forty
years the Clintons have received over three billion from big money interests. Cenk Uygur, host of
the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network
of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved
the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.
The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family's charitable foundation
reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.
Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974
congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton's 2016 White House run,
which has already drawn $110 million in support. "*
Hillary Clinton is competing for the nomination of a party whose progressive base thinks, with considerable
justification, that her husband is to blame for letting Wall Street run amok-and that Barack Obama,
under whom she served, did too little to rein in the bankers who torpedoed the global economy. On
top of that, she faces a competitor who says what the people actually think: that the system is rigged,
that big banks should be restrained, and that people should go to jail.
So she has no choice but
to try to appear tough on Wall Street-but she has to do that without simply jettisoning twenty-five
years of "New Democrat" friendliness to business and without alienating the financial industry donors
she is counting on. So the "plan"
she announced yesterday has two messages. On the one hand, she wants to show that she has the right
approach to taming Wall Street. Unfortunately, it's just more of the same: another two dozen or so
regulatory tweaks, mainly of the arcane variety, that will produce more of the massive, loophole-ridden
rules that Dodd-Frank gave us.
Or, that could be the point. Her second message is a promise to the financial industry that, instead
of real structural reforms, she will continue the technocratic incrementalism of the Geithner era-which
has left the megabanks more or less the way they were on the eve of the financial crisis. Maybe,
for her base, that's a feature, not a bug.
William K. Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One,…http://billmoyers.com/guest/william-k-black/
He developed the concept of "control fraud"-frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses the
entity as a "weapon,"
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
http://michael-hudson.com/
http://michael-hudson.com/2015/09/killing-the-host-the-book/
The Table of Contents is as follows:
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy
Introduction: The Twelve Themes of this Book
The Parasite, the Host, and Control of the Economy's Brain
I. From the Enlightenment to Neo-Rentier Economies
II. Wall Street as Central Planner
III. Austerity as a Privatization Grab
IV. There Is An Alternative
William K. Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One,…http://billmoyers.com/guest/william-k-black/
He developed the concept of "control fraud"-frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses the entity as a "weapon,"