Hillary Goes Anti-Corporate
I thought it was significant that Hillary's message in her victory speech upon her comeback surge was decidely anti-corporate power, making the issue not just about "change" but about where the problem is coming from:
The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you.
The reality is that when Democrats win when they actually appeal to working class voters. They are usually too enmeshed in the web of their corporate donors and consultants to make this winning appeal, but when they get desperate-- as Hillary now is -- they actually deliver that winning message.
It will be interesting to see how Obama responds if he ends up with Hillary and Edwards to his left on an anti-corporate power message?
The GOP has a thing they call "catch and release" where they let a legislator vote against one of their bills so he can demonstrate "independence", as long as his vote won't affect the outcome.
This was a catch and release moment for Clinton. There is no sign that her populist words will translate into any sort of meaningful policy. I'm not saying that she is a corporatist the way the Republicans are, just that big business holds the reins in both parties and the degree of flexibility that the Dems will have when elected won't be as much as people desire.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 9, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. What a joke.
And what's going on with TPM anyways?
Was it acquired by GE or Disney recently, and now going to support the "anti-corporate" candidate to go and pass more media deregulation to allow for greater media consolidation, just as the Clintons did in the 90s.
It sure sounds like it, becasue that is the same crap as CNN & MSNBC are pumping.
Josh is calling Hillary's victory a stunning comeback from behind? She was ahead for a year, by double digits, and "behind" in an erratic swing of last minute voters, for all of what, 2 days? Is Josh drinking the MSM kool-aid or what? Huffington is getting the facts right about the trend.
Larry Johnson, "registered Republican and Bush donor" and former CIA, now contracting, shilling for Hillary on the front page, and Josh quoting him extensively. WTF? That is exactly the kind of editorial conservatism and "balance" people are sick of in the MSM.
Now the Labor Guy is posting about how Hillary is the anti-corporate candidate. Excuse me? How about discussing the Clinton record on NAFTA, deregulation, and 8 straight years of corporate give aways, and that Hillary chose, of all possible companies, WALMARTs board to sit on, and worked for Rose, one of the oldest and most establishment of law firms, who are vehemently anti-labor. Or that she dodged a vote on the Bankruptcy Bill, which was laid in preparation for the coming housing bubble collapse, and recession. Or that aside from a little "catch and relaese" tokenism, she hasn't done squat for the middle class in seven years in the Senate, and has just been biding her time for a Presidential run.
The anti-corporate candidate? Is up down? Have people completely lost their minds? Is this still TPM or MSM?
January 9, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe the Dem candidates when they start telling us how they'll end the government programs like OPIC that facilitate, aid and abet Corporations sending jobs over seas, and also telling me how they're going to close down those Corporate mail drops in the Caribbean used to avoid paying taxes, to mention just two.
January 9, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary will be criticised for having Bill's corporate agenda.
SHE DOES NOT
Things have gotten much worse under "W" with scandal after scandal since Bill's last day in office 8 years ago.
Bill himself would NOW reverse many of the decisions he made if he were running.Times have changed in 8 years.
Hillary will fight for the truly beleagured and shrinking US middle class.
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com
January 9, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doc,
Hillary Clinton has been a senator for seven years now. Perhaps you could provide some specific examples of Senator Clinton's legislative attempts to reverse her husband's attacks on working people.
January 9, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don
Good Question.
I will study her specific legislative record once more as NY senator and get back to you.
Thanks
Rick Lippin
January 9, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Follow-up on some of Hillary's issues as a Senator-
-original co-sponsor and strong supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a measure that would create a fair and level playing field between workers and employers and promote the economic growth of the American middle class.
-help create the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) during the Clinton Administration, which today provides health insurance for six million children. In New York alone, almost 400,000 children benefit from CHIP every month.
- reintroduced the Kinship Caregiver Support Act in 2007. This bill provides subsidized guardianship by giving states the option to use their Title IV-E funds to provide payments to kinship caregivers.
-Reintroduces Legislation to Link Congressional Pay Raises to Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage
-Senator Clinton, Representative Tubbs Jones Announce Reintroduction of Major Election Reform Bill
Dr. Rick Lippin
January 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doc,
The subject, which you raised, is Bill Clinton's "corporate agenda", which you claim he would now reverse if he could. You have provided information on some of Hillary Clinton's legislative activities which are apparently completely independent of Bill Clinton's "corporate agenda". There is no evidence that Senator Clinton has tried to reverse any of her husband's attacks on working people (like NAFTA).
I guess what you're saying is that while "Bill himself would now reverse many of the decisions he made if he were running", his wife doesn't feel that any of his attacks on working people (like NAFTA) should be reversed. So, in fact, Hillary DOES support Bill's old corporate agenda and doesn't want to change it. Is that a correct diagnosis? Or does she not support it and not want to change it?
Perhaps if you offered more detail on Bill Clinton's corporate agenda and the portions of it that he wants reversed, we could confront Hillary with specific questions regarding her support of the corporate agenda.
January 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try but it is still early. I believe both Bill (if he could) and Hillary will reverse some of the mistakes Bill made during 1992-2000 given the results we have witnessed.
Rick Lippin
January 9, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to hear Clinton supporters have "hope" too. Personally, I think hope should be based on more than a delusion or lip service to issues.
Look at the Clinton policy record, private resume, and their personal bios. It's corporate establishment, through and through.
January 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doc,
from your blog:
. . the Internet, which is still the “wild west”, with few if any controls on quality of information
See, Doc, that's not true. The Internet, and this blog in particular, has an automatic BS filter, which puts it way above print media. For example, when someone claims, as you did, that Hillary does not have a corporate agenda, and furthermore that Bill Clinton would now reverse his corporate agenda if he could, that person can be asked to provide the evidence and when that proof is not forthcoming the quality of the initial evidence is put into question for all to see.
So the Internet obviously does have controls on quality -- witness the fact that your claims about Hillary not having a corporate agenda are now in the dumpster.
January 9, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don--
The problem is that, during the Bush years, there wasn't much point to introducing legilattion aimed at reducing the power of corporate America. They owned the administration
What I don't know is just how far HRC would go in fighting corporate interests if elected president. But her health care proposal is very encouraging. (It's as anti-corporate as Edwards'--which is to say that they both understand that corporate interests are the major obstacle to real heatlh care reform.)
January 9, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the problem with Washington insiders is how think tanks, foundations, and universities have become one with the establishment. That exchange can be beneficial, but it can also be incestuous.
One of the trustees of the Century Foundation, who Mahar works for, is Christopher Edley who was special counsel to Bill Clinton, and who is married to Maria Echaveste, who was also a Clinton adviser. Whether that means anything I don't know. But it's part of a general problem that one never knows how much "bleed" there is between independence and influence.
***
On the other hand, another trustee is Ted Sorensen! JFK's speech writer and adviser, and lifelong progressive, who wrote "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
He recently wrote in the Guardian UK, "Barack Obama is the political heir to my former boss (JFK)" and AFAIK has no connection to Obama.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theodore_sorensen/2007/07/obama_the_next_jfk.html
January 10, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
OH sure. It was all the Republican's fault. The Clintons were totally immune to the corruption and laissez faire ideology of Wall Street during the 80s and 90s after the Reagan Revolution.
January 10, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The mandate killed "Hillary Care" in the 90's.
As a result of the mandate, and the inherent political unpalatability and fear they inspire, insurance companies attacked that weak spot and Hillary Care was DOA. Her plan was so botched, it killed the 90's momentum for reform for over a decade.
Hillary is doing it again. Mahar is saying she must be anti-corporate, becasue of her rhetoric. Mahar is ignoring the Clintons' actual record and bio. Mahar is saying the promises sound great. All that is a repeat of Hillary Care in the 90s. What's Bush say about not getting fooled again?
Mandates are a proven poison pill.
That's why Obama is against them, and not going the easy route of just promising the moon and a lot of populist lip service. Obama has a bio of community work and reform already. He's a pragmatist and can build a large coalition to pass meaningful reform.
January 10, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like was said already, "catch and release."
Notice every time Bill and Hillary do some token work for progressive causes, it fails, or is so weak as to be almost meaningless.
By comparison, the big things they pass, that they really get out there and twist arms for, like NAFTA, Deregulation of everything from media markets to energy markets, are totally give aways to corporate interests.
January 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about naive and a fairy tale.
First of all, she's campaigning largely on Bill's time in the WH, which was characterized by DLC token social liberalism (abortion and guns for example) with laissez faire supply side economics. Basically Reaganomics with a little social liberalism.
Bill now claims he would reverse himself on pretty much all his economic record. Oh great. Great experience. But why did he make those mistakes in the first place, and is he capable of fixing them? No. Because his ideology will always be to suck up to corporate donors and he's always been a sucker for their laissez faire arguments. And they're his political base, they're his donors and power brokers. They own the Clintons.
Secondly, her votes in the senate have all been triangulated and reflect the same old DLC crap. That's why she voted for Iraq, why she voted for PATRIOT and why she skipped a vote on the Bankruptcy Bill, which was one of the most important progressive issues for her to take a stance on. She hasn't really done anything in Congress in her seven years for the middle-class, or taken any strong progressive stances.
Which is understandable, since it was the DLC types who got her elected in NY, and who are backing her campaign now. Part of the problem of having a machine, is you have to be a machine. And the Clintons have only their machine. Progressive in the House and Senate revile them. For their pet projects, the Clintons will have to go to the DLC, corporate well.
In her personal biography, Hillary was always the more Republican between them. Hillary was an upper class, Republican, laissez faire conservative. She was a Goldwater Girl. What was Goldwater for? Laissez faire and the upwards accumulation of wealth. He campaigned on repealing the New Deal.
Hillary discovered liberalism at university, in that she discovered feminism at Wellesley. But economically she's always been a Goldwater Girl. and continues to be.
She sat on the board of WALMART for six years, at the time when they were rabidly anti-union and a big benefactor of global sweatshop labor, and notoriously sexist as well! Of all companies, WALMART for heavens sake.
The other big item on her resume is her work for Rose Law Firm, after Bill was elected AG, and then Governor, of Arkansas, where they're based. Rose is the third oldest law form in the country, and oldest in the region. It's the epitome of a corporate establishment firm, and represented WAL-MART and TYSON foods during her time there, as well as media companies and basically all that is the elites and the establishment. Not surprisingly, they are also one of the most anti-labor firms in America.
January 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards staying in the campaign will continue to have positive benefits for the Dem platform and issues. A big thanks to him for driving the campaign issues.
January 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Where would these campaigns be had it not been for Edwards?
January 9, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gon, do us a favor and go back and look at Edwards record in the Senate. You'll find he voted with Trent Lott more than Ted Kennedy. He's slightly more progressive than Barry Goldwater.
Have you noticed every time he's pressed on his China trade vote or the bankruptcy bill or the war vote, he always "regrets his vote"? He called his No Child Left Behind vote "the biggest mistake of my Senate career". How many strikes are you going to give this phony?
Add to this a massive compound he calls home, complete with tennis courts and guest houses, and you realize this is just another slick-talking politician whose words have no substance to them.
January 9, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that you Karl?
You gonna work South Carolina again?
January 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brook,
If you please, indicate to me which of the candidates... Obama or Clinton lives in public housing or a tiny, cramped or even humble living space? I'm sure since they are very likely struggling financially that must be the case right?
Criticism on policy is always valid. Criticizing someone's home?
Grow up, please. If that were the basis of selecting Presidents we never would have had FDR or JFK.
January 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lot of typing and no substance. oleeb.
January 9, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It speaks to authenticity. Edwards is taking up the global warming mantle, dissing nuclear energy and anything basically non-green. Okay, fine, but when you use 30x the average monthly kilowatt hours and tell me i need to change my lightbulbs, it becomes an issue with me. I'm not sure you're really walking the walk at that point. Your lifestyle has got to line up with your message to a certain degree. Neither Clinton or Obama live in such conspicuous style.
So, you couple that with a very unremarkable Senate career, and I get the picture of Edwards as a very good campaigner but not much of a real progressive.
January 9, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ridiculous to expect any Presidential candidate to live the "national average" and that's kind of absurd to even suggest. The average person isn't doing all they're doing. Duh.
For example, Gore has to fly a lot, to give talks on reducing global warming. But his giving those talks are tremendously important. And he buys carbon offsets to try and make himself as carbon neutral as possible.
Is Gore doing a good thing by flying a lot to attend international conferences on climate change? Yes. He's doing something to help fix the problem.
Is someone driving a HUMMER everyday to commute, for no other reason except they think it's cool and makes feel powerful, a good thing? No. That's just small mindedness.
January 9, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore also owns 4 homes around the country. Is that a good thing? Is that green? You're telling me he needs these homes to get the green message out?
January 10, 2008 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is rhetorical dodging, by taking the wrong inference from an argument. John Edwards is not saying we have to be personally virtuous. He is arguing for policies and incentives that promote the use patterns we want. I don't remember hearing him or Gore saying we have to individually solve the country's problems. It is the conservative position that this should be personal, not government policy.
How does the argument in favor of government action get turned around to it being inconsistent due to its proponent not being personally virtuous? Why does one advocate have to exhibit a pointless Quixotic campaign before the main argument will be heard?
When Warren Buffet points out the unfairness of him paying tax at a lower rate than his secretary, some folks would suggest he go ahead and put his money where his mouth is, and pony up.
Except that it would make him a chump to pay at a rate no one else in his position has to. Energy and carbon questions are not an issue of personal moral virtue.
January 10, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Total green energy is a long way off. Governments can't turn off all the coal-fired plants. Conservation is going to have to be a part of the equation.
For example, cutting 20 miles weekly from our car mileage (which wouldn't hurt anybody much) would give back over 100,000 gallons of gasoline to the market every week. That's a huge impact. I believe the American people would make the conscious effort to do this -- but we don't have a leader inside or outside Washington even bringing it up. I'm obviously disappointed in Gore and Bush on this issue, because one does nothing -- the other focuses on solutions that are years or decades away.
January 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am saving money and carbon and burning unwanted calories by keeping my thermostat at 60. It's also more natural and healthy overall to live in the weather instead of hermetic climate control. But that's not solving the problem, if it is viewed as a national problem.
It should be viewed as such since it has long-term risks to stay as we are, and long-term advantages to change direction without waiting for others to get a jump on the market. It's like the fact that lighter cars would be better, but as long as many use stiff, heavy SUVs the "virtuous" driver is an idiot or a brave fool if he drives a lightweight.
Wrong to say totally green is a long way off unles you mean politically. Technologically there is no problem, although there are changeover issues.
Also wrong to say government's can't turn off all coal plants, except to the extent they are weak governments. Certainly true that I can't on my own, or Gore on his own, or Edwards.
It is true that conservation is needed, but it is not necessary for us all to freeze or sit in the dark. We can reduce the amount of wasted enery at nearly zero cost in many areas. Here's one: 200 gigawatts of energy going up our factory and coal plant smokestacks. Roughly the equivalent of that many power plants, it could be recovered at small cost by installing heat exchangers on those stacks. See WOWEnergies of Texas.
January 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lol. I do that too. Always have weights and stuff within reach.
Though, not sure it's a good basis for policy. I think my fat geek friend likes a nice warm room, and about 20 appliances on at any given time. What he needs is a tax credit for cheaper solar arrays.
January 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was making the point that personal virtue was not sufficient, or even necessary, for changing our energy use.
Since 60 feels damn cold when you're tired, I have a personal warm space, i.e. space heater. I don't try to heat the room, only me. The increased electric is less than the saved gas, since I'm not trying to do the whole job.
Here's the needed synergy: homeowner has electric storage capacity, as well as generation. He sees his usage patterns as easily as noticing whether the car has gas or if he's running low on beer. With home generation, one has incentives to maximise its usefulness so one switches over to more efficient (and likely DC) appliances. He also looks for energy-losers like air leaks, so insulation is improved.
I think the current issue of Scientific American has a good roundup of the entirely achievable solar economy.
January 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
i used to work for Air and Water Tech in NJ and heat exchangers do work. In fact, the Superfund money was supposed to be used for these kinds of technologies to be installed. Sadly, well over half of Superfund was wasted on endless studies and lawyers filing lawsuits. I always respect your opinion, Tom, but I've just got grave doubts that the current political players can get it done.
We need a JFK go to the moon moment, when a President announces our intention to make us energy-independent within 5 years as a nation. John McCain is promising a Manahattan Project on energy, and I've always admired him, but he's not going to get enough support to win, and no other candidate is committing to this kind of aggressive agenda.
January 10, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not the one who traded Hope, Arkansas for Westchester County.
January 9, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, one-note Nathan, as predictable as night following day.
In point of fact, there is virtually nothing, nothing, that separates either the rhetoric or reality betweeen Obama and Hillary on this issue.
Here's Obama's speech last night:
So the idea that Hillary Clinton out-demagogued Obama on the issue of corporate power and that was why she won is just total nonsense. You're a union guy - why did the culinary workers just endorse Obama if it's Hillary that's going to fight the evil corporations?
And while anti-corporate demagoguery may appeal in some quarters during the primary season, it is an absolute proven loser of a strategy in the general election. Both Al Gore and John Kerry ran on anti-corporate platforms (how many times did Kerry say we was against "Benedict Arnold CEOs" or something like that) - and please spare me how Gore actually won etc. The point is it shouldn't have even been close.
January 9, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
History lesson for Brad:
Gore rose from way behind in the polls from nowhere when he adopted anticorporate themes, to a point where only the Supreme Court could keep him from the Presidency.
Kerry's supposed anticorporatism was weak tea - he used "Benedict Arnold corporations" until questioned on it in a debate, when he realized he had nothing to back it up and never mentioned it again.
January 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
History lesson for TIVO, and some other memory challenged posters:
Neither Gore nor Kerry ran a Progressive platform. Or even close. There was a little tokenism at best. The advice since the 90's from the Clintons and DLC has been that progressivism and populism are dead; that Dems have to support Reaganomics, Milton Friedman lite, supply side nonsense. Which has to be one of the most cynical and inept political strategies in American history, and a big part of why Dems keep losing. Not that their corporate donors mind. (Bill won in large part due to Reagan/Bush fatigue, Bush being a really lousy candidate who had PO'ed his base with taxes, and Clinton being charismatic.)
***
Whenever Gore or Kerry tried Progressive tokenism, they just shot themselves in the foot.
Gore had debated Perot on NAFTA. Gore and the Clintons of course being for it, which progressive Dems, indies, and even some mainstreet Republicans never forgot or forgave. And everybody knew the DLC were all about deregulation and corporate give-aways. Gore couldn't run as a progressive becasue he never was one. He's good on the environment and tech, but a Progressive? Never.
Kerry is just too wealthy and buffoonish and has a long record of Senate votes to hang around his neck. He's been in the senate all through the supply-side era and had way too many compromised votes. Kerry could never have run as a progressive.
Gore came back, barely, when he stopped being a punching bag. Kerry never woke up, let alone came back.
January 10, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right and wrong about Gore. True - he had no record of being an anticorporate crusader and you're right for pointing out his disgusting televised debate with Perot over NAFTA. Nonetheless, in 2000, he was going nowhere until he pulled out the anticorporate card, which was a big part of erasing his deficit against Bush to the point that most people here would admit he actually won the election but for certain irregularities we all understand. The point being, he was able to play the populist card effectively.
Kerry was a much different story. He tried to play the populist card until he fell apart like a cheap suit as soon as a media man questioned him in a debate. There wasn't a populist bone in John Kerry's body. There was one in Gore's although no one would argue Gore's populism wasn't at least a little suspect.
And that, coming back to Newman's point, was Newman's point. Democrats do best when they run on populist themes. Better yet, if they walk the walk.
January 10, 2008 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're mistaking correlation with causation on an issue where you'd like it to be so. The larger shift was simply due to Gore fighting back a bit, and some attacks were being debunked, too late. We agree Kerry was uncharismatic and spent too much time in a regressive Senate.
And yes, Dems absolutely should be Progressives and have to walk the walk. But they also have to be smart about it too.
Obama has, does, and is.
Rhetoric alone won't sell, otherwise Edwards would be leading now, and have gotten the nomination in 2004.
The Clinton's DLC was against populism, which was valid only to the extent that Woodie Guthrie songs won't cut it. However, the DLC was too ideologically close to Milton Friedman, and instead of fine tuning message, they turned about completely for laissez faire, hence NAFTA and such.
While it may not seem like it sometimes, especially among less educated voters and with MSM coverage, we're on the cusp of an era of complete realignment of traditional policy platforms, of finding a new balance between simplistic populism and simplistic laissez faire.
We're going into an era which will be much more like the Asian and European balance between market regulation and encouragement of vigorous competition. Government support of industries that create jobs and prosperity, but with that comes regulation and protections of the public interest. Pro-trade, but with some common sense protections. Etc. We're heading towards an era of nuance. Our economy and quality of life will keep stumbling until we find that balance.
But, until the nuances of this new reality become understood in commonplace terms, politicians will have a hard sell, and have to be educators and have charisma to bring people to issues.
On the other hand, the longer we go without leadership, and the longer vested interests remain entrenched, the greater the likelihood we learn things the hard way, and we're already heading into recession.
January 10, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
January 10, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
January 10, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, good enough. You do have something in the quiver besides ad hominem. When you drop that, you're worth talking to and have something to say. I'm still not buying everything you have to say:
No, I'm not! Gore's fightback in 2000 WAS a populistic fightback - for ordinary folk, against corporations. Not William Jennings Bryan, but populistc enough. And it worked. It raised his poll numbers to where victory was within grasp, if not actually won. Doesn't mean he's a populist, but able to play the card.
I'm talking about something much more specific than a lack of charisma. I have a specific moment in mind. For awhile Kerry used the line "Benedict Arnold corporations outsourcing jobs" until, in one of the debates with Bush, MacNeil or was it Lehrer called his bluff and said something like "Oh come on Senator, what are you really going to do about it?" Kerry had NO answer to the question, he slunk away from it and never went near the line again. Unlike Gore he had no clue about how to play the populist card. (Aside - I bet you're not all that thrilled by his Obama endorsement today - big deal).
I don't deny that a progressive pol needs to be smart about populism. Edwards has played the theme hard, and may even be sincere about it, but after hearing two identical "concession" speeches that play the same tear-jerking theme about the same individual victims of insurance companies, I've heard enough. This dog will not hunt. Let's call it trial lawyer populism. There's nothing wrong with being a trial lawyer (and I'm still not happy with Obama's raising that GOP talking point) but still there's a difference between a populist and a trial lawyer trying to be a populist. One's about the people taking matters into their own hands; the other is doing something nice for the little guy. There's a difference. His speeches sound like trial closing statements for the jury. It's about a lawyer trying to do something for some people who've been wronged. Peasants with pitchforks it ain't .
The Clintons, of course, have a track record of having run on populist themes and later screwing the base once they got in, with NAFTA, etc. I'm not as sure as you are that they're evil. I think their problem is more tragic. It's their hubris. I think Bill Clinton really thought he'd convinced Wall Street of his bona fides with NAFTA and they'd let him pull off health care and be a hero. It was stupidity more than venality. He probably could have withheld his support for NAFTA until the price of Health Care reform was passed, and at least gotten something for it. The hope of another Clinton Administration would be that they've learned from their mistakes. I'd like to think so, but I don't really believe it.
With Obama you have promise and no track record. I see some hubris there too. He seems to think he has this unique power to bring all the parties to the table and make them see reason, by the sheer force of his magnetic personality. That's probably not true. Clearly, his themes are selling better than Edwards' so in that sense, you're right, he's smarter. I'm repelled by his rhetoric that indicates he can just glide over the fitghts of the nineties. As Barney Frank said the other day, the only way to avoid these fights was to give in. What will Obama do if sweet reason fails? It isn't clear.
All these candidates have flaws. I'm don't see how you can be so passionately for Obama. He doesn't seem to strongly represent the politics you say you are for, but then again, I have no ax to grind with any of these guys. I figure that any of them offer a 15-20% chance of favoably surprising me, but all I really expect from any of them is a respite from the worst of Bush.
January 10, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think Kerry and Gore ran on anti-corporate platforms I think you need to look again. Either that or assess what that means. They may have made tepid rhetorical statements about corporations, but nothing that would constitute "anti-corporate" at all.
Had either Kerry or Gore run vigorously on a platform condemning the rapacious and in some cases criminal manipulation of our system of government and our economy the races wouldn't have been close enough for the Republicans to steal. The fundamental issue in American politics for the past 20 years has been whether or not the people will allow corporations to continue to call all the shots to the detriment of the citizens and to the environment and for the bulk of that time Democrats have either been meek in their opposition to, silent about or league with the corporations.
January 9, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a complete and total fantasy. That sort of message has NEVER worked in American politics at the national level because the proportion of people who think like that is just too small. You need to get out more, because I suspect you're trapped in a liberal bubble.
Like many liberals, you assume that because there are more middle class and poor people in this country than rich people, that populism should have wide appeal. After all, don't these people know how much they're getting screwed by the evil corporations? Sorry, but it just has never worked that way. That is especially true when populism is combined with anger and humorlessness, which seems to be a common occurence.
Liberals who think that the key to electoral success is populism need to ask themselves why all the candidates who are making populism the centerpiece of their campaigns are trailing badly and the candidates who are the least populist are winning.
January 9, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Populism won in Iowa. Much too soon to say it won't play well in 2008. After all, we still have Herbert Hoover in the Oval Office.
January 9, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not populism won in Iowa - I disagree, but won't argue - it still doesn't mean it can carry a national election. As I have said, that has never happened.
January 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It only has to be decisive in a few swing states.
January 9, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
delete
January 9, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad,
The only angry, humorless sentiment I am aware of on this thread is coming from you.
Your presumption of my or any liberals beliefs are absurdly unique to you. If you were aware of much history you would find that populism as you use the term has found great success in certain parts of the country at different times and in different forms. Nationally, it has won the day before as well, particularly in the form of Congressional majorities during the New Deal. In short, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry you don't like it if people suggest championing the interests of the average American (what you call populism) is a good idea, but let's be honest and just say that's the case instead of pretending you have a solid point.
January 9, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Liberals who think that the key to electoral success is populism need to ask themselves why all the candidates who are making populism the centerpiece of their campaigns are trailing badly and the candidates who are the least populist are winning."
This could have something to do with the derogatory special-interest-MSM coverage of such candidates,and the unequal coverage of candidates who make populism the center of their campaign. And in the case of Edwards--who take no money from lobbies--it could have to do with less money.
"Like many liberals, you assume that because there are more middle class and poor people in this country than rich people, that populism should have wide appeal. After all, don't these people know how much they're getting screwed by the evil corporations? Sorry, but it just has never worked that way. "
And experts advised Bill Gates that people would never want a computer for home use. (the fact that something didn't happen in the past is no assurance it won't happen in the future).
January 9, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad,
You should read some of Truman's and FDR's speaches, sit down and do a rethink. Maybe the modern language we use to talk about it needs a retooling but people aren't dumb, they know if you are a sell out or not. They knew Bush was a sell out and shrugged. That is not going to happen this year, in either party.
The little guy is mad as hell and he ain't gonna take it anymore.
January 10, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad:
You write (with a hint of cynicism perhaps? :)):
"You're a union guy - why did the culinary workers just endorse Obama if it's Hillary that's going to fight the evil corporations?"
Because American labor unions get less credit than they deserve for being democratic and responsive to their membership. In this case, if the Culinary Workers have indeed endorsed Obama as anticipated, then it is an example of the Executive Board responding to what it perceives to be the wishes of its particular membership. And that is what democracy and accountability is all about.
Bruce
Postscript: The culinary workers out in Nevada announced their endorsement of Senator Obama today.
January 9, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was his point, that they endorsed Obama, and not Hillary.
Sure, Hillary is talking populism, now. She was all for the Bill Clinton "experience" when Biden said she was experiece, and Obama was change. She stood there beaming.
Now, she's changed. She's changier by the minute.
But her and Bill's entire life is pro-corporate.
Their power brokers and machine is all stocked with lobyists, DLC'ers, and corporate interests.
This isn't something new. Real progressives in the Democratic party have said this about the Clintons, for over a decade. Christ, even Ross Perot knew they were phonies, and debated them against NAFTA.
January 9, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, on Sunday you complained that John Edwards wasn't good to his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth because she was overweight. As I wrote yesterday, no matter how many posts you write your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. I am frankly shocked that anyone on this website would pay any attention to you, without even getting into the fact that your attempt to dominate these threads with endless comments is obnoxious.
I think you are a fool at best, and a cruel fool at that. And I think Barack Obama would be embarassed to have someone like you write on his behalf. I will posit that Barack Obama has nothing but respect for the relationship that John and Elizabeth have.
January 9, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, that's not what I said. Nice try on the spin though.
I said in a nut shell Edwards and Elizabeth do have a great and loving relationship, and the netroots know that. But that he doesn't demonstrate that publicly through affection. Which is not a comment on his character, but on his political skills and perceptions. People like to see graciousness in candidates who they'll elect to serve them. Edwards lacks graciousness, and is all attack, in a big way.
Which is fine for court rooms, not for elected officials. Also, that under cuts the notion he'll be an asset to Obama or a teammate Obama would want.
And while we're trading insults, I know from her posts, that bslev, and the people she sides with, lack respect for the truth or honest discussion, and are some of the most rightward posters here.
January 9, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik You are ruining these threads and, if management has the guts and wishes to be consistent with its treatment towards a less popular blogger who didn't run with the herd like you do, it will take action. But that's up to management. To show the world what you actually wrote about John and Elizabeth, I quote your garbage below and provide a link thereto. In particular, on January 6, 2008, you wrote:
And one little thing that always bugged me. Maybe it's just me and a personal thing, but I noticed his wife is a bit overweight, and Edwards is pretty fit/handsome, and I've never seen them really affectionate on stage together. Which for personal reasons bugged me. I have seen her kind of step into his shadow while he steps in front of her. Now, I'm sure they love and respect each other and are a team. Her work online is awesome. But if there is anyone Edwards is willing to share the spotlight with, and be a big enough person to put before himself, showing some sincere public graciousness and humility towards, it should at least be his own wife. And a man who doesn't do that with heart, (or for that matter a woman) will never be top notch imo.
http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/06/its_obamas_to_lose_and_he_wont#comment-326026
Now, because I have the balls to admit when I am wrong, you do say above that you believe John and Elizabeth "love and respect" each other. But if you think that excuses the trash that you wrote above, you just have no clue. And anyone who backs you has no clue either. Progressive? Liberal? Baloney.
On another topic, they used to count the number of posts from someone with unpopular zionist views who did what you are doing here and some would even comment on his accented writing. He was banned, and you remain. What a joke. And anyone who thinks you have elevated these discussions is also a joke and a phoney.
I don't spin kozmik. I write what I think. I wrote a post about accountability in the labor movement, and then I updated that comment with a fact that,to my knowledge, had not yet been confirmed on here (that Obama obtained an important endorsement in Nevada). Now why would I report that endorsement, and also write that the endorsement showed that the union was being responsive to the views of the membership, if my game was spin against Senator Obama?
You are almost single-handedly destroying any opportunity for real, good faith discourse to take place about the election. And that is really too bad.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
P.S. And one more thing: you slander me and accuse me of stifling honest debate and being one of the more right wing folks on here. Prove it. I challenge you. Point to my right-wing commentary on this election, and if you can't show some balls and take it back.
January 10, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
That whole defense of Edwards routine is pretty phony. It was clear what I meant, and your spinning it is just playing the provocateur.
And I stand by it: Edwards has always been a populist and his stump speech has resonated, especially with the net-roots, which is also where Elizabeth works.
But, politically, in terms of broader appeal, and building a sense of trust and empathy, he's always been lousy. And while some people may keep insisting how much they like him, the indisputable fact remains that he's not been a front runner or even close.
He has problems in his voting record which create ambiguity, which allows "likability" issues to become prevalent.
He's too aggressive and angry for a political candidate. He has facial tics, licks his lips, and has other weird habits which continually undercut his message. throughout 2004 he was always flipping his hair and running fingers through it. He comes off as hyper ambitious, and perhaps self serving, especially considering his wealth. All of which makes it EASY to attack him as vain.
Edwards' big problem, in a nut shell, is people don't know whether he's the real deal, or an ambulance chaser.
And to top it off, he's not affectionate with his slightly overweight wife, who also has cancer and he's still running, and who has worked for his campaign tirelessly, and who always steps into his shadow in public events. Which is certainly NOT helping his image as an egotist or helping make the argument he has political skills.
Tip to Edwards: put Elizabeth forward and let her take a bow, and show some humility! People would like to see there is at least one side of Edwards not constantly attacking. Show a little graciousness.
On substantive matters, show some cool in the debates and slow down to make some substantive policy arguments. Lay off the personal story all the time. People want fight, not rabies.
January 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Kerry lost becasue he was a weak candidate. also, becasue he was so rich, and such a phony, he absolutely scuttled any chance of him being taken seriously as a progressive. Kerry could turn people off mom and apple pie if he campaigned on it.
Which I have to point out, is just another way in which the Dems, for the last 40 years, always seem to find a way to bungle progressive reforms or anything for the middle class. Just like how Republicans always seem to bungle getting Roe vs Wade overturned, or any of the stuff their middle class base is for.
Neither party has accomplished much, if anything, for their working class base in the last few decades. In fact, we've seen a constant erosion of quality of life and real wages while corporate profits, war, and social strife climb.
Corporate interests have had no problem with either party. They want legislation like deregulation, NAFTA, eroding the environmental standards, military spending increases on big ticket items, media consolidation, whatever, and both parties step and fetch it.
January 9, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no disagreements with your basically realistic populist analysis here.
What I don't see is how you get from here to what seems to me your starry-eyed faith endlessly expressed all over this site this week that Obama and only Obama is sure to walk the populist walk -- when he won't even deign to talk the populist talk.
I don't have much faith in Hillary, in Obama, or even in Edwards to do this. I'd vote for any of them on the offchance they might not disappoint me (15%-20%) as compared with the GOP (0%).
January 9, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they mean what they say, Edwards, Obama and Clinton now have created an opportunity to do something far more important than their own candidacies or a trip to the oval office --and they should take it. They could get together right now and form an unstoppable and brilliant coalition around this excessive corporate influence elephant.
I’m betting more candidates might join them. Then a few brave folks in Congress would join their coalition. Perhaps it would not be long before anyone who wanted to keep their job as a "representative of the People" would have to jump on board.
They could tell more of the truth and lead a movement for constitutional reform on the issue of money in campaigns, or they could inform the public of other solutions they come up with to create real, meaningful change and fix our broken government.
I'm betting any brave souls on the forefront of such a movement would become the most beloved center of power this country has ever known--regardless of who took what office.
How much more inspiring and useful would something like this honorable path be for them--and Americans-- than more of a campaign or presidency that requires them to hedge, twist, and turn their shining hopes into mediocre results at best?
January 9, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
delete
January 9, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This country frightened me when they watched Jay Leno---who trailed David Lettermaqn in the ratings the first couple of years or so---decided to copy his techniques---badly, i thought---and passed him up in the ratings.
I don't know who it is that likes jay better than dave---just like i do not know who is voting for hillary, and why.
But it is real, and it remains scary to me.
January 9, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can Hillary take away corporate power if she is busy taking their money? She is the top beneficiary of money from the drug companies, of all the candidates, Dem or Repub. She is the top receiver of lobbyist money. So now she's had a conversion experience?? No she would betray us, just like her husband did. These are the candidates from Walmart remember, with Hillary on the Walmart board. This is the candidate who has Mark Penn, corporate union buster for strategist. Ever heard the saying, "You can judge a person by the company they keep."
January 9, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
My highest hopes (above) aside, Hillary should expect skepticism after so many months of acting as though the very corporate-influence-elephant that's proving such a danger to our country isn't even in the room.
I agree that Obama may just paint himself to the right of both Hillary and Edwards on this issue--though he's been sounding much stronger on special interests since Edwards’ message took hold and he came in second in Iowa.
Obama has almost approached the lobbying issue as though the Constitution already granted large corporate interests disproportionate influence in our government of the people.
Between the lines, Obama seems to say "but don't worry, I won't give them ALL the seats at the table that belongs to the people;you won’t have to put up with absolutely anything they want at the expense of the country." This makes it seem he's not as hopeful as he says.
After the Edwards upset in Iowa, I pictured both Obama and Hillary sitting at campaign strategy tables with those corporate interests that donated to their campaigns saying "well, Edwards took no donations from lobbyists, he let the corporate influence cat way out of the bag, and with very little money, he’s mobilized an awful lot of people on this issue. We’ll lose votes to him if we don’t address it more strongly, too.” Then I pictured the big donors saying, “say what you have to say to get elected, but keep it under control and don’t start a train we can’t stop with the electorate.” (wink/nod)
January 9, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Logico, you are totally full of shit.
Obama doesn't have any federal lobbyists on his staff, and his donor base from the beginning has been disproportionately small donors. He's getting some big donors, now, but not the corporate bucks, and never has. Hillary has been attempting to oppo-research him, and dig up one or two people, such as the recent example of a state lobbyist in NH, who was co-chair of NH, but who actually has a long record as a strong progressive.
By comparison, Hillary has always been the corporate candidate, as was Bill. Their campaign leaders are all big lobbyists and people with long ties to corporate donors. As was pointed out in this thread, Mark Penn her campaign manager and longtime Clinton ally, is a notorious union buster and all around sleaze.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/06/16/hillary_and_mark_penn/
January 9, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Chicago Tribune story is just one of many that lists some of Obama's big donors (and it's an article from as far back as July):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070725obama,1,5894874.story
It is very cool that Obama has gotten so many small donations, and the media and Chicago Tribune are full of spin, but they usually throw in some facts that can be checked. Let's deal in facts.
Agreed that Hillary is much worse on this issue. And I never said Obama had federal lobbyists on his staff; those were your words.
January 9, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bullshit.
Your intent to slag Obama with a lot of innuendo and spin was pretty clear in the above post.
And you're still doing it, with a hit piece from the Chicago Tribune, which is one of the most rabidly economic conservative papers int he nation, with laissez faire and supply side as their self declared editorial goal. What, the NY Post didn't have a hit-piece on Obama? Or would that be a little too obvious?
I notice you've only been here for 19 weeks, and much of your small posting history is also to slag Obama. Your very first post was to "praise" Obama for his campaign finance reforms and small donor base, and then insinuate he'd be a crook in office.
Your type always pop out of the woodwork around elections don't you. What do you do the rest of the year? Telemarketing and leaflets? Does your family know what you do? They must be proud.
January 9, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any weapons in your quiver BUT the ad hominem attack?
Look, I live in Chicago, I know what a piece of crap the Trib is, but exactly which of the allegations in that story do you think is untrue? Fairly solidly researched, if you ask me. And it does point out:
Not exactly pro-Hillary, I wouldn't say.
The facts alleged in this story are verifiable apart from your general take on the Tribune. Will you be all over a Trib piece that gushes over Obama? It wouldn't be at all hard to find such a story. Will that story be disqualified by considering the source as well?
And, finally, kozmik, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of your forensic shtick of "proving" that various opponents must be paid trolls by their posting patterns. Just try that crap on me. I've been posting here much longer than you have.
Here's my conspiracy theory, kozmik. It's you who is actually a mole of the Clinton campaign paid to come in here and stir up a lot of shit by making Obama look bad through your association with him. Ridiculous? Sure, but no more ridiculous than the crap you spew here dozens of times a day.
Do you REALLY think you're helping Obama?
January 9, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you? Do you have anything but rating abuse and fluff? I'm posting on the issues and records.
Regarding the Chicago Tribune, it's a hatchet piece. Cherry picked garbage without any context or balance.
It was produced by a paper whose editorial policy is totally pro-corporate laissez fair and supply side. It has supported every Republican presidential candidate. It opposed Obama's ethics and finance reforms in Illinois.
Here's a tip: if you want to get information on campaign finance reform and ethics, don't get your information from sources whose policy is to undermine those reforms.
January 9, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the statements in the Tribune article are issues. They are not refuted by the general editorial positions of the Tribune. They are not even refuted if you can prove the author is anti-Obama. You as much as called a guy a troll for quoting from the Tribune. Ad hominem, all the way.
Establishment shills? Where do you get that? Which candidate do you think I'm shilling for? I've been all over the Clinton triangulation and NAFTA since you were in diapers.
I've posted pro-Obama stuff and anti-Obama stuff. I call it as I see it. And what I see you doing is at best a naive and misguided attempt to portray Obama as a knight in shining armor without flaws. Obama may yet prove to be a good candidate, or a bad one, and nothing is lost by allowing his flaws to be vented as much as anyone else's.
Your definition of logic is skewed. "Clinton's worse" doesn't excuse Obama's flaws. Frankly I see much more similarity between the two than I'd like to.
January 9, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not that crazy about the Daily Kos, but Kos nails it here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/9/93912/04225/727/433534
You need to read it, and think it over for a day or two before you post.
January 9, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
sheesh, let me sum up your last 50 or so comments for ya, you can take a break from the excess stimulants or something.
Kozmik in short:
I have the truth, the light and the way.
(Everything I write is fact, everything anyone else says or writes is spin.)
Obama is god, your only means to salvation.
(He is perfect in every way, pure goodness, free of sin.)
Beware of the evil false prophets, liars, trolls and whores.
(Everyone that has something good to say about another candidate, or something to say that puts the slightest shadow over our god Obama, is either delusional and needs to be converted and baptized, and to go forth and spread the word, or is an agent of the devil being paid by another campaign. On second thought, it would probably be better if everyone else just shut up and listen to me because none of you are capable of anything of sufficient caliber.)
January 10, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, Hillary is the Senator from New York State. Wall Street, Banking and other financial firms are crucial to the New York State. It would be irresponsible of her, and Schumer, not to be supportive of the businesses that make many of the most progressive programs in New York possible.
Second, Democrat win when they oppose corporations? Which Democrats have done any winning but Carter and Clinton? Both of them were centrist Southerners who hardly opposed corporations.
Lasstly, Hillary apparently did best among working class and middle class Democrats just as she does very well in the less well off regions of Upstate New York.
People who recognize that growing the economy along with a more equitable distribution of the benefits is even more important than an us vs. them campaign.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 9, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but you're not making any sense to me Daniel.
Are you defending corporate whoredom or opposed to it?
Do you believe that corporate fat cats are serving the best interests of the people?
Thanks for elaborating.
January 9, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attacking the source of most people's jobs and inomes, as well as the place most people invest their IRAs and 401ks is stupid. CEO pay is an outrage espeically when compared with that of fellow employees of the same corporation. However, to believe that attacking corporations will do anything but harm the economy and lose elections is very unpersuasive.
This is a world in which capital can be moved across borders in minutes. We need neither the Bush approach of letting anything go and favoring those who "clip coupons" over those who work nor those who treat coporations and other business people as the enemy.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 9, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is acceptable corporate behavior and unacceptable and it is legitimate for the governments of the world to decide what they will and will not accept. To do otherwise is to live immorally.
Can we honestly look at the last 8 years and conclude that the American government needs to remain as permissive has it has been to private business interests?
The market is amoral; we must never forget that. Real business people don't, only the shills they have on payroll prattle on about the moral glory of the 'free' market. It ain't free and it doesn't love you like the heavenly father.
January 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
Romney is your guy.
January 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. No kidding.
January 9, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel, thanks for explaining your support for trickle-down economics in support of Hillary Clinton.
Yes, we must continue the Clinton deregulation of markets as they did in the 90's for their corporate donors, so that great entrepreneurs like Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling (also big Clinton donors) can create "new paradigms" in business and elevate the middle-class via their wealth creation and trickle down. Think of all the jobs ENRON created.
Suuuure.
Or perhaps we need more telecom deregulation, as the Clintons lobbied for int he 90s, so Disney, GE, and FOX can acquire more media outlets, and all that wealth generation can trickle down to the middle class, not to mention the improvement we'll see in the news, arts, entertainments and culture.
riiight.
Maybe we need more copyright protections, and stiffer laws against teenagers downloading mp3's, as the Clintons passed in the 90s, so that media companies can continue their duopoly collusion and stranglehold on the entertainment industry, becasue they're generating so much wealth and jobs and elevating our culture. And now they're hoping to become gate keepers on the Internet, for the public good of course. The same media moguls and lobbyists who have always backed the Clintons, and who own most of the news media.
Sure pal.
January 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd also point out what a BS fear tactic that is. The notion that we're powerless before corporate interests, so we better know our place.
BS!
In reality, global corporate interests are utterly at the whim of government policy. There is no global corporation that can afford not to do business in America, or who wants to balk the government and be hit with audits, tarrifs, regulation, or policies to otherwise make their life difficult.
That's why for example, Europe told Microsoft it's practice were anti-competitive, and it had to stop some bundling and and other anti-competitive practices. MS appealed in court, lost, and have been beaten. They're not divesting from Europe. They still need to sell there. In any game of tit for tat, MS or any corporation will lose. So, they're not trying to pull as much shit in Europe anymore as they get away with here.
Our problem isn't a lack of power. It's that our governemnt won't use it's power for thr the good of the middle-class, becasue they're too corrupted and bought out from decades of lobbyists and laissez faire ideology being popularized to fight the Cold War. Even much of the Democrats and pretty much all the Republicans bought into trickle down economics.
And the Clintons are the epitome of DLC corruption in the Democratic party.
If we don't change things, really reverse the supply-side economics and corruption, the American middle class is going down the toilet. We're headed for a recession, and if the politics stay the same could go even to something like the Great Depression. We're already in another Gilded Age. People need to wake up and take back their governemnt.
January 9, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Daniel. I don’t think people are attacking the source of most people’s jobs, incomes or investments that won't badly damage our country. I know many who are thinking more along the following lines:
Just a few examples because I’m short on time:
1. I know some people understand that we’d have even MORE JOBS (and ones that are actually sustainable) if government corruption didn’t mean that we subsidize oil companies with taxpayer money when those companies are making record profits. Why? Because then maybe we would put that money toward creating substantial incentives for new renewable energy BUSINESSES to innovate and revolutionize the world’s energy use (and as a bonus we’d also be addressing global warming, etc.). Newsflash: oil’s going to run out.
2.I know many who are thinking that we should not use the taxpayer’s money in the treasury for unnecessary wars, but instead we should use it to create a first-rate education system so that the next generation can compete in a globalized world and have MORE jobs and HIGHER incomes.
3. I think many would prefer that our Congress does not betray majority or local opinion and allow large corporate interests to override our democracy when we choose to preserve a few places like the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (rather than allow a company to demolish it and leave us with an expensive mess long after they’ve taken their profits and short-term jobs and gone)
4.I think many would prefer that companies that create toxic waste sites not be able to then claim bankruptcy and leave the taxpayers with the enourmous clean-up bill.
5. I think many would prefer that people who hire undocumented (or illegal) workers have the decency to provide those workers with healthcare so struggling Americans who can barely afford their own healthcare don’t have to foot the bill.
6. I think people are talking about the fact that we don’t have anything like a free market when our government agrees NOT to allow taxpayer-funded, government-run programs like medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on their prices.
7. How many jobs did you say a bridge to nowhere in Alaska would create?
January 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last week, I took note of "The Economic Scene," the Wednesday column by Dave Leonhart in The New York Times. He was comparing the positions of the Democratic candidates. He found them reasonably close, reasonably liberal, and drastically distinct from those of the GOP candidates. I found this comforting, since I have given all sorts of reasons to fear Clinton's lack of leadership on issues. I posted that again today in response to Jim Sleeper. However, while I took her evasions to mean she might not have the guts to lead, I never bought into the Hillary haters here who think she's RINO.
He also said that Obama, aside from a health care plan that truly is not universal, was otherwise closer to some radical departures from the free market mainstream. Since he's taken some hits here for empty rhetoric, that heartened me, too.
Today Leonhart turns to the Republicans. He thankfully notes just how far from populism and from his sympathetic rep Huckabee's tax plan is. He calls Giuliani and Romney a continuation of Bush economics, Huckabee a much more radical reverse Robin Hood. He also sees some history of compromise in McCain, for which I guess one can be grateful. But mostly he leaves me thinking as ever that they're all pretty daft.
My advice is ever is to get excited about Edwards (or whoever you prefer) but otherwise calm down and stop thinking it's a statement of radicalism or democracy to promise you'll sit things out if [your message here] wins the nomination. I think Clinton is a coward, but I don't think she's lying, so thanks to Nathan for mentioning it.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 9, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats will go after corporations, but they won't go after the Trial Lawyers -- who represent the reason we can't get meaningful tax reform and drive insurers out of states. Some states are now down to one or two health insurance carriers.
There can be no sacred cows in the health reform package. The Trial Lawyers have to be reined in.
January 9, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop it!
You're scaring the kids with that EVIL TRIAL LAWYERS talk Karl!
Where have I heard that line before?
Oh, yeah, during the Bush campaign!
January 9, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry to scare, but the prospect of a trial lawyer like Edwards as President should scare us all. Obama is the only logical choice. He's the only one whose lifestyle actually matches his rhetoric.
January 9, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the trial lawyer hating Republicans needed someone to run for the Senate seat being vacated in Florida by Democrat Bob Graham guess who they picked????
Um, ex Bush Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, TRIAL LAWYER Mel Martinez
heh heh heh
January 10, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right Wing BS.
Its the 'radical' enviornmentalists that are the problem, and the unions.
January 9, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
study the recent history of health insurance in Alabama, before you call this BS. For that matter, ask any doctor you care to speak with about the burden of malpractice insurance. John Kerry is the only Democrat I know that has acknowledged this problem.
Tort reform has got to be a part of any health care reform, folks. Insurance companies and pharmaceuticals are only part of the problem.
January 9, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alabama isn't exactly the national model for healthcare.
January 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got a better idea.
Look at states who have already passed "tort reform" laws years ago and you'll see the only result was higher profits for insurance companies.
Do your research and come back.
You may the next one to need an evil "trial lawyer."
I mean, it's sooo bad that Edwards sued the hell out of a company that was criminally negligent.
Who do you think represents the commoner?
It ain't the highly paid corporate lawyers!
Now, who do you think files the most "frivolous lawsuits?"
If you guessed corporate lawyers then you win a gold star!
January 10, 2008 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
BrookD said:
Sure, and I'll ask Grover Norquist about the burden of taxes too.
January 10, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh My GOD! Those rotten trial lawyers!
Why, they are destroying the Democratic Party with their stalwart support for our candidates at the local, state, and federal level. It must be them who are standing in the way of meaningful tax reform and they are responsible for driving insurers out of the states!!!! Of course, that's it!
If Brook's objections to trial lawyers were any clearer I'd say they were coming straight from the RNC. Well done! We should get all our stuff out of the Republican playbook don't ya think?
January 9, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
as i said, John Kerry agrees with me. This is a very complex puzzle and every peice that contributes to the costs of health care have to be considered. We've got to stop thinking in terms of what is a left and right position and examine the problem objectively.
January 9, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last I heard about Illinois, premiums were up but not in proportion to jury awards. Should we limit constitutional and common law rights because insurance companies are getting away with stealing?
Because malpractice insurance is not optional in any realistic sense, it ought to be regulated, or at least re-insured by the state.
It is not torts that need reform, it is jury selection. "Unbiased" juries tend to be ignorant juries, and easily swayed by paid testimony.
January 9, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
it actually is regulated by insurance commissions, but like health insurance premiums, states are afraid of cracking down too hard. Carriers always threaten to leave states and in some cases have done so. Once they start pulling out, the companies left can raise rates with impunity.
You're right -- if you've got a good one, your attorney will end up with a hand-picked jury he's already packed with sympathizers. He's already half-way to a big payout.
January 9, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't say that I am a Edward's fan, I have serious issues with his hair for one thing, but, more important perhaps, like Hillary and Obama, he just doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for actually running the country.
What I do like about him is his populist rhetoric, although when push would come to shove I imagine it would all turn out to be hot air.
Look, I live and work in Spain, which only recently joined the ranks of top world economies, however we have an excellent public health system. Any one who lives here never has to worry for one minute of their lives about not getting the best possible, state of the art treatment because of being poor, or have to worry about his savings being wiped out or his children's education sacrificed because of a catastrophic illness. I say this because I cannot take it for granted that in the United States, which is much richer than Spain, so many Americans die for lack of proper treatment.
Frankly I don't think any President can get a public health system like Spain's out of the US system... I think that (I am perfectly serious here) the only thing that would finally do it would be a nationwide, call out the national guard, general strike. Massive sit ins of the elderly and children, fire hoses, broken heads... A real movement.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 9, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think that (I am perfectly serious here) the only thing that would finally do it would be a nationwide, call out the national guard, general strike. Massive sit ins of the elderly and children, fire hoses, broken heads... A real movement."
Not a bad idea at all David!
January 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We haven't managed our pension and medicare fund as well as the Europeans, which is why they're in a lot better shape than we are fiscally.
What is the per capita spending on health care in Spain? We just announced 2 trill here this week, but we've also got 300 million people.
January 9, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has a lot of money because she has wooed the big players in the major financial center of her home state of NY. You can't fault her for that. It is only logical. However she can't claim to be fully independent of that influence. Or if she does you know she is lying. I don't see that as being much different from Bush and the oil companies. Practically speaking Hillary can't turn on her backers. She may as well put a gun to her head. In the end this is less about Hillary than it is about our corrupt system of campaign finance. You cannot make an objective argument that the system is not corrupt. Hillary is a product of that system and may well become our next president because of it. Her railing against it is disingenous at best.
January 9, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found the speeches of all three candidates last night very interesting in that they echoed the same themes far more than ever before. Edwards is the only one who has consistently been talking about all those shared points all along. This is an indication of what an important factor Edwards' candidacy is. While the buzzword is change, the fundamental change that people want is to see the corporate powers reigned back in as they once were and to put the people back in the driver's seat. Had Edwards not been making this point clearly and consistently now for over a year, we wouldn't have seen what we saw last night when it comes to pointing out who is to blame for the mess in Washington and therefore, who we must fight regardless of who the nominee is.
January 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
taking back our country is another campaign buzz phrase just like change. It comes up every 4 years.
You really can't go by the words of any candidate trolling for votes. I guage their deeds and actions with much more weight. Edwards, unfortunately, comes up short. Paul Wellstone -- he is not!
January 9, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should see somebody about that attitude you've got Brook. You'll feel better.
January 9, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
My attitude is the same as John Kerry's -- a man who knows John Edwards a lot better than you do. Obama!!!!
January 10, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reality is that when Democrats win when they actually appeal to working class voters.
Excuse me, but huh? Why did Hillary do so well against Edwards among working class voters in NH then? There is no one who has been more anti-corporate than Edwards the last 4(!) years.
January 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm personally all for reining or at least limiting the power and access to government that corporations appear to have in this country. If that's bad for "business" so be it but I don't see that as an attack on corporation - I see it as making them play by some rules. It needs to be done to ensure our system runs as intended and that the people (who the last time I checked were still supposed to be who the government is supposed to serve) are taken care of fairly.
Aside from that, maybe we need a new vocabulary when discussing what kinds of economic changes need to be made (anti-corporate and middle class come to mind). I think maybe it's time for us to reevaluate our economy and our economic classes (middle class in particular). It strikes me that the term middle class is archaic and not applicable today in the manner in which it is being used. The times are vastly different now as is our economy.
Virtually gone is industry. Industry towns. The entire world in which the middle class existed. It's gone isn't it? People are more mobile. Jobs provide less in terms of health coverage and retirement. Personal debt is now essentially mandatory (schooling, cars, homes, mountains of insurance, etc.). Many people will never ever own their homes. Many of the "jobs" out there are not terrible rewarding personally or financially nor are they terrible secure. I think we should sit down and redefine this new class of Americans more clearly and more honestly. Middle class seems like a box marked assorted that we throw everyone into that doesn't fit into the rich or the poor (and the bar for the poor is sinisterly moved to ridiculous levels in order to put more people into the middle class box.
I guess I see there being two issues here - first there's corporate access to government and then there's the need to honestly look at the current American population in it's modern existence in order to make more informed and effective economic policy.
January 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And btw, I don't think we need new terminology so much as we just need to have the national discussion about these issues, what went wrong, and what needs fixing.
A lot of people basically get it, and tragically, a lot more people will be getting it soon.
January 9, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we agree but I still think the terminology is important in order to understand who is impacted but what & how much so that we can attain understanding.
Middle class brings images of a bygone era too often romanticized. For example unions where key to the welfare of the middle class then but now are openly scorned without a second thought and misunderstood by those in fields or jobs without them. How can one still be "important" while the other deemed bad? Many people have forgotten what the middle class really was (it wasn't all roses - or in today's world home theaters & SUVs).
Anti-corporate has been painted (and not always unjustly) as fanatical. Fanatics have been given the podium to diminish the threat and garble the message. Corporations buying politicians in order to gain a market advantage isn't new but it's still wrong. That isn't anti-corporate but it's often painted as such. Free markets don't mean no rules, it's rule that make for stable healthy markets.
If the language used doesn't reflect the times accurately but leads to mistrust or misunderstanding before we even begin, our chances are needlessly diminished, that's all I'm saying.
January 9, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the long term it's better for business. Much better. Look at how well European and Asian companies are doing, where they all have more regulation.
The laissez faire notion of abolishing regulation, and markets running efficiently and rationally by self policing, is such an absurd fairy tale. It's as realistic as abolishing professional police forces, or a professional military, and expecting that communities and nations would be "self correcting" via neighborhood watches and soldiers of fortune like Blackwater.
I never met a Libertarian or anti-Government type who wasn't as dumb and ideologically zealous as any Communist. And that's the crap the Clintons fell head over heels for.
Look at the results of the siren song of deregulation and unfettered capitalism under Reagan, HWBush, Clinton, and then GW Bush.
For one example take energy market deregulation, accounting deregulation, and general erosion of rules and protections that produced ENRON. Merrill Lynch were in on the scam, as were their accountants Arthur Anderson.
That's the same thing that happened in the Gilded Age: greed took over as rules were relaxed, cannibalism started, then the whole rotted system collapsed.
January 9, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink