I think you're actually on to something interesting. Not the wrangling over Clinton being good and Obama being evil, but the point about neolib and neoconservatives linking up at the end.

Have you read "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman? His book--the parts I could get through scared me with his rah rah attitude toward globalization. Pardon the personal story, but I work right now (as a temp worker no less) for an accounting firm that now ships any project over forty minutes to India. The pressure to offshore has gotten so intense that in February because our hours are supposedly too low (it was only the 7th when this came up apparently) that upper management is thinking of making anyone in design or word processing (where I work) write an explanation of why we did NOT ship something to India. In effect, I would have to give an excuse for doing actual work. Meanwhile I sit all day at my desk reading these threads because my work is being done in India. Apparently I'm not permitted to do my own work at work.

So what do we do with a world like this? Economic growth for a few has clearly not created economic growth for everyone (in fact, there has been considerable growth of the gap betwen rich and poor). When I heard Paul Krugman on the radio, I thought, now this guy makes sense. But then I brought his book back from the library, and it seems too nostalgic to me. I would like a return to Democratic values, but I'm not sure that he takes into account the ways in which the world has changed since the prosperity of the fifties and sixties. Globalization is here--but I'm not rah rah like Friedman (it helps doesn't it that he's from an extremely exclusive economic tax bracket). But what, realistically do we do about it?

If you are arguing for Clinton, how do you deal with her unapologetic ties to Mark Penn who is part of the new wealth/anti-labor movement? I don't see Obama as being perfect, and I see a large margin for disappointment, because of his corporate ties. But position wise what makes you think that Hillary is handling this issue better?

And where do you fall in the Krugman/Freidman gap of varying degrees of liberals....

Just wondering.

It's interesting that you give us insight into the discussions from Europe. I can understand why Colin Powell is reviled there and in many places, will always continue to be.

But I can tell you why some liberals don't blame him as severely as you do for his place in the war picture. Primarily because he left the Bush administration--he, according to several books about the administration, regrets his part in the fiasco. He was never in Bush's inner circle of decision makers. Those were the men we call in the U.S. chicken hawks....meaning that in their generation they were too chicken-hearted to serve in the military forces, but that they are "hawks" meaning strongly pro-war now. The chicken hawks Bush, Cheny, Rove, etc. decided and set the course. Powell was brought into it and his reputation suffers because he was the "face" of Bush at the U.N. I agree with you that he bears some responsibility for his actions--at least as much as anyone else.

But I suppose that his stance of shame--the idea that he left the administration, has not sought the spotlight, and apparently when he was close to the white house dared to criticize Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld (which was why he got pushed out). Yes, he made a bad decision, and the information he used to make that decision is not completely clear--but at least he did not continue to support or lend credence to the lies. Colin Powell is seen by many liberals as the only one with any sense of decency because at least he seems ashamed of his actions, which is more than one can say for the rest of his colleagues in the white house.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

"People I know attended a huge rally in Dublin, protesting against the invasion of Iraq and I didn't go. It beggars belief that a man of such reputation and rank could address the UN persuading world leaders that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. "

You have a valid point. I remember watching Powell's speech on television and I believed him as much as I could believe him....I didn't trust Bush so I still went to anti-war rallies. But I remember thinking that Powell at least would tell the truth.

You're correct that he shouldn't be excused. And you're correct that excusing Powell's actions regarding the war and not Hillary's vote (which she gave her caveats about at the time) would be inexcusable.

Do you think that if the Clintons came back to power that there could be some restoration of respect that is, as you say, at its bedrock now? (I don't worry about "innocence" because America never should be seen as innocent....have you read about how Kissinger made Laos the most bombed country in the world after the Congress passed legislation limiting his options in bombing the Vietnamese people?)

Still, I wondering how Europeans feel right now about the Clintons. And I'll tell you that whatever happens in the Democratic race, that I can't imagine a senator like McCain could ever help our reputation around the world since he seems committed to "winning" in Iraq (I'm not sure what "winning" consists of--building permanent bases? Watching more soldiers and civilians die every month. It's shameful). And he is also a temperamental hothead who some commentators liken to "Bush on steroids." Nice, hmmm?