Letters to the Editor
-
@ keepingitstraight
Well said.
Yet another thing I've never understood about Clinton's appeal.
One of her chief strengths is her wonkery. Fair enough.
But I've yet to see an actual argument for how that qualifies her to be president rather than, I don't know, head of a task force or something.
Obviously a president needs to be sufficiently wonkish to follow the basic contours of competing proposals, but beyond that, it seems to me the position calls for the kind of guidance ("that vision thing") you suggest.
-
The Reason Barry Will Never Make it into the White House has Nothing to do with his Economic Plan, Skeedaddling outta Iraq or Rev Wright, et cetera - But EVERYTHING to do with the Sincerity of his Anti-War Groupies
UTNE MAGAZINE: (July-August 2007) . . a Progressive Voice for Progressive Times.
"RENT-a-PROTESTER"
"If you can't seem to lure the True Believers to your sit-in, fear not: German website Erento.com, a Craigslist-style rental marketplace for such items as horse-drawn carriages and chicken-plucking machines, now also offers "Protestors For Hire."
"According to SPIEGEL ONLINE (18 Jan 07), the website provides profiles of the 300-odd available 'Demonstrators,', such as;
"Steffen (6 feet 2 inches tall, 'athletic') and Manuela (green eyes, 'very long' hair), as well as their geographic locations."
"These sign wavers and slogan chanters typically charge $188 for a six-hour shift, although Demonstrators are free to negotiate ($$) their own prices." ( !!! )
"And while Steffen and Manuela may not have a personal passion for your cause, Progressives will be relieved to hear that, as far as the demonstrators are concerned, certain protests -- involving Neo-Nazis or promoting discrimination, for instance, are strictly taboo."
[And May j. maynard k. , bless his butts, Rest in Peace]
-
from salon march 21st.
Mar. 21, 2008 | Funny thing -- the home page of the Wall Street Journal makes no mention of a speech Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., gave in Boston on Thursday, calling for Congress to consider morphing the Federal Reserve into a beefed-up "financial services risk regulator." You might think that a major new regulatory initiative mooted by the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee would be newsworthy, but not, apparently, to the Journal. The Financial Times, which has dutifully provided a forum for Frank's evolving thoughts on the financial crisis since last summer, has the scoop.
-
Institutions
It has been said over and again that there is very little real political difference between Clinton and Obama. There is a big difference.
The most powerful institutions in our world today are not governments they are corporations. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech. Unless and until the Supreme Court revisits this radical decision we cannot take the corporate money out of our politics. Any law that attempts to limit the money corporations can spend to influence our laws and policies will be struck down using this precedent. Corporations are not people. The word "corporation" does not appear anywhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have mastered the art of using corporate money as their political tools. That is the how NAFTA and Welfare Reform came to be. This money has corrupted them, as well as most of our representatives of both parties. We all need to examine our religions; how we believe what we believe. Realizing not one politician has explained the above is the primary example of how powerful this corrupt system is. It is no mystery how we came to this. One bad Supreme Court decision, referenced over and over put us where we are.
Will Obama change this? I have no idea, but I am positive another round of the Clintons and the DLC will not.
-
Changing Horses Mid-Stream
I think you omitted mention of Clinton's proposal to address this issue with the help of, among others, Alan Greenspan.
Greenspan bears a great deal of responsibility for the current crisis as you yourself have pointed out, although I don't think he killed Friedmanism, I think it committed suicide. Her inclusion of him as a potential fix reminds me of George W. Bush's arguments for re-election in 2004. It is further troubling given Bill Clinton's considerable neo-liberal credentials both domestically and internationally.
It is reassuring to hear that a candidate is questioning the economic philosophy responsible for this mess. While such a tactic opens himself up to attacks that his plans are vague and "just words", it is a brave tactic to speak not of his plans but of his believes and motivations.
Obama's approach to many of the challenges facing America seems increasingly comparable to FDR and the New Deal. Bipartisanship has come to mean agreeing on specific legislation or acquiescing to the Republican party, but in the age of the New Deal it meant backing solutions that worked regardless of ideology.
-
WTF?!
Tucker Bounds, McCain campaign spokesman issued the following statement on Mr. Obama’s speech: "No amount of rhetoric can hide Senator Obama’s clear record of embracing the liberal tax and spend, big government policies that hit hardworking American families at a time when they’re most vulnerable, and are certain to move America backward."
Yeah, because the conservative cut and spend, big government policies of the last seven years that McCain supports have been a freakin' fiesta for hardworking American families, right Tucker?
At least with a tax-and-spend liberal you have the chance to balance the budget and actually PAY for what you SPEND FOR, instead of just pawning it off as debt to foreign nations or a tax certain to hit our kids and grandkids.
A few more statements like this and it doesn't matter who the Dems name and how many convention votes it takes. The Dems will mop the floor with this bilge.
OK, strike that given recent history ... The Dems SHOULD mop the floor with this bilge.
-
let's see......
Bill Clinton gave us the best economy since WWII and Greenspan was there.
George W. Bush has given us the worst economy since WWII and Greenspan is not there.
Maybe the economic destruction has come from Bush and not Greenspan.
-
@ Jayman
"Will Obama change this? I have no idea, but I am positive another round of the Clintons and the DLC will not."
Well said.
I think a lot of people who toss around the epithet "obamabot" and sarcastically reference "the savior," etc., fail to realize that many of us have precisely this perspective. Obama's promise seems boundless. He may fail, he may succeed.
But the more salient point is the one you make here, which is why, in my view of "moving forward," the Clintons should be factored out of the equation.