"Bill Clinton offers essentially the same belief system as both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, one in which private industry runs the government through payoffs to ex-officials, and government returns the favor through bailouts. If Americans are ever going to grapple with the power of banks over their lives, they are going to have to come to grips with the real track record of their leaders, including Bill Clinton. And it isn’t pretty. And until people like Bill Clinton can be compensated in ways that aren’t obviously corrupting, and their track records honestly assessed, elections will continue to be unimportant, simple popular ratification of an increasingly authoritarian creditor state."
The above quote is from Matt Stoller's article "Clinton's no liberal hero":
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/14/clintons_no_liberal_hero/
Showing posts with label Democratic Leadership Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Leadership Council. Show all posts
Friday, September 14, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Will vote for Obama again--but with reservations.
In 2012, we're faced with a clear choice between two Presidential candidates.
Either vote for the flawed incumbent or vote for the even-more-flawed challenger who wants (among other things) to take American women back to the no-choice patriarchal era of the past.
Regarding Barack Obama, it's quite likely we're in for another four years just like the first term.
In the September issue of HARPER'S, there's a must-read article by Thomas Frank on "Obama in the desert of centrism." And it says things that most of the blind-faith Obama supporters don't want to read/hear.
Here are a few quotes from the article:
"...President Obama has pursued government secrecy to a degree even the Bush administration never dared, and that he has arrogated to himself the right to kill American citizens overseas who have not been convicted of any crime. President Obama likes (or used to like) to extend the hand of kindness to the nation's bankers: "Help me help you," he implored them back in 2009. When he decided to go populist and snarl at the One Percent, he took care to dispatch an emissary to New York to let the finance industry know he didn't mean it. (Just as he didn't mean it when he badmouthed NAFTA or promised to revisit the Patriot Act.)"
"For the Obama years to be terminated [if he loses because of GOP attacks on him as a "socialist"] on such grounds would furnish future historians with vast deposits of irony. The president is a man whose every instinct is conciliatory. He is not merely a casual seeker of bipartisan consensus; he is an intellectually committed believer in it. He simply cannot imagine a dispute in which one antagonist is right and the other is wrong. No, there is always something honorable about both sides, some concession to be made by each. His presidency has been one long quest for a "grand bargain," as he has sometimes put it, between red and blue."
"What Barack Obama has saved [referring to the financial crisis] is a bankrupt elite that by all rights should have met its end back in 2009. He came to the White House amid circumstances similar to those of 1933, but proceeded to rule like Herbert Hoover. Today the banks are as big as ever, and he has done precious little about it. The regulatory system is falling apart, and he is too idelogically demure to tell us why. Organized labor is crumbling, and he has done almost nothing to help it recover. Meanwhile, the people who told us that finance was king, that the "new economy" changed all the rules, that we didn't really need a strong supervisory state--those people are still riding high, still making their pronouncements from the heights of the op-ed page and the executive branch."
Nonetheless, I will go into the voting booth in November and mark my ballot for Obama's re-election. If a Romney administration comes to power, it will be with truly dire consequences for the nation and the world. Better to stay with a President who has scored a few mild victories in spite of willful GOP obstructionism--even if the notions of Hope and Change are little more than campaign promises that, like most, remain undelivered upon.
Either vote for the flawed incumbent or vote for the even-more-flawed challenger who wants (among other things) to take American women back to the no-choice patriarchal era of the past.
Regarding Barack Obama, it's quite likely we're in for another four years just like the first term.
In the September issue of HARPER'S, there's a must-read article by Thomas Frank on "Obama in the desert of centrism." And it says things that most of the blind-faith Obama supporters don't want to read/hear.
Here are a few quotes from the article:
"...President Obama has pursued government secrecy to a degree even the Bush administration never dared, and that he has arrogated to himself the right to kill American citizens overseas who have not been convicted of any crime. President Obama likes (or used to like) to extend the hand of kindness to the nation's bankers: "Help me help you," he implored them back in 2009. When he decided to go populist and snarl at the One Percent, he took care to dispatch an emissary to New York to let the finance industry know he didn't mean it. (Just as he didn't mean it when he badmouthed NAFTA or promised to revisit the Patriot Act.)"
"For the Obama years to be terminated [if he loses because of GOP attacks on him as a "socialist"] on such grounds would furnish future historians with vast deposits of irony. The president is a man whose every instinct is conciliatory. He is not merely a casual seeker of bipartisan consensus; he is an intellectually committed believer in it. He simply cannot imagine a dispute in which one antagonist is right and the other is wrong. No, there is always something honorable about both sides, some concession to be made by each. His presidency has been one long quest for a "grand bargain," as he has sometimes put it, between red and blue."
"What Barack Obama has saved [referring to the financial crisis] is a bankrupt elite that by all rights should have met its end back in 2009. He came to the White House amid circumstances similar to those of 1933, but proceeded to rule like Herbert Hoover. Today the banks are as big as ever, and he has done precious little about it. The regulatory system is falling apart, and he is too idelogically demure to tell us why. Organized labor is crumbling, and he has done almost nothing to help it recover. Meanwhile, the people who told us that finance was king, that the "new economy" changed all the rules, that we didn't really need a strong supervisory state--those people are still riding high, still making their pronouncements from the heights of the op-ed page and the executive branch."
Nonetheless, I will go into the voting booth in November and mark my ballot for Obama's re-election. If a Romney administration comes to power, it will be with truly dire consequences for the nation and the world. Better to stay with a President who has scored a few mild victories in spite of willful GOP obstructionism--even if the notions of Hope and Change are little more than campaign promises that, like most, remain undelivered upon.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Wisdom from Matt Taibbi that won't be listened to/heeded by most people on the Left.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-doesnt-want-a-progressive-deficit-deal-20110711
Two key passages from Taibbi's blog post:
"The blindness of the DLC-era [the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council] "Third Way" Democratic Party continues to be an astounding thing. For more than a decade now they have been clinging to the idea that the path to electoral success is social liberalism plus... laissez-faire economics – in other words, get Wall Street and corporate America to fund your campaigns, and get minorities, pro-choice and gay marriage activists (who will always frightened into loyalty by the Tea Party/Christian loonies on the other side) to march at your rallies and vote every November."
and
"I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc. That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism, and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."
Two key passages from Taibbi's blog post:
"The blindness of the DLC-era [the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council] "Third Way" Democratic Party continues to be an astounding thing. For more than a decade now they have been clinging to the idea that the path to electoral success is social liberalism plus... laissez-faire economics – in other words, get Wall Street and corporate America to fund your campaigns, and get minorities, pro-choice and gay marriage activists (who will always frightened into loyalty by the Tea Party/Christian loonies on the other side) to march at your rallies and vote every November."
and
"I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc. That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism, and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."
Monday, March 22, 2010
Recommending Kevin Baker's article "The Vanishing Liberal" in April's issue of HARPER'S.
Worth buying HARPER'S at the newsstand (or subscribing online) for this article, subtitled "How the Left Learned to Be Helpless."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/04/0082894
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/04/0082894
Saturday, January 16, 2010
London GUARDIAN article assesses Obama one year into Presidency.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/jan/16/gary-younge-obama-first-year
Although the article linked above has an unnecessarily dumb-edgy "Even Charles Manson could beat him" tagline, it has some sobering assessments of Year One of the Obama presidential term as the White House and the Democratic Party plan to metaphorically go over Niagra Falls in a barrel to ensure that the Massachusetts senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy doesn't go to a Republican. As the media is drumbeating, this could be the (gasp!) end of the health-industry-friendly health care plan--and possibly the beginning of Obama being forced to do Clinton-esque soccer-mom pandering (plus more capitulation to Republicans) for his remaining three years in office.
Take a look at this passage in particular (highlighting by me):
"Many on America's left are also disgruntled with Obama. They believe the healthcare reform, without a public option, will be inadequate, that the war in Afghanistan will unravel, the stimulus bill was insufficient to kick-start the economy and that his economic team is being run by Wall Street. But unlike the right they have so far failed to turn their disillusionment into a potent political force."
If the Tuesday Senate replacement election doesn't go Obama and the Democratic Party's way, it's safe to say that the sort-of-left in this country will opt more for depressive rationalization of the "oh, he had too much to contend with from the Bush years" instead of organizing for meaningful Change that benefits people who won't cash corporate paychecks during their lifetimes.
Although the article linked above has an unnecessarily dumb-edgy "Even Charles Manson could beat him" tagline, it has some sobering assessments of Year One of the Obama presidential term as the White House and the Democratic Party plan to metaphorically go over Niagra Falls in a barrel to ensure that the Massachusetts senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy doesn't go to a Republican. As the media is drumbeating, this could be the (gasp!) end of the health-industry-friendly health care plan--and possibly the beginning of Obama being forced to do Clinton-esque soccer-mom pandering (plus more capitulation to Republicans) for his remaining three years in office.
Take a look at this passage in particular (highlighting by me):
"Many on America's left are also disgruntled with Obama. They believe the healthcare reform, without a public option, will be inadequate, that the war in Afghanistan will unravel, the stimulus bill was insufficient to kick-start the economy and that his economic team is being run by Wall Street. But unlike the right they have so far failed to turn their disillusionment into a potent political force."
If the Tuesday Senate replacement election doesn't go Obama and the Democratic Party's way, it's safe to say that the sort-of-left in this country will opt more for depressive rationalization of the "oh, he had too much to contend with from the Bush years" instead of organizing for meaningful Change that benefits people who won't cash corporate paychecks during their lifetimes.
Friday, October 30, 2009
More great political commentary from Matt Taibbi
From the October 22nd entry ("Elizabeth Warren For President") on Matt Taibbi's blog http://taibbi.rssoundingboard.com, here's an excerpt (the boldface is provided by me):
I’m personally of the opinion that our main problem lay with the fact that the Democratic Party as currently constituted is more afraid of losing the financial support of Wall Street and the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry than it is of losing progressive voters. In fact, I think I’ve put that wrong, because it implies that the Democratic Party pushes the agenda of industry insiders out of fear. That is a misread of the situation, I think.
I think they prefer those people to their voters. I think they feel more comfortable with them. I heard a story recently from a Democratic Party operative who tells me that certain members of one of the president’s cabinet departments only got wind of how hard it is out there for ordinary people to pay their bills when they invited in a major corporation to give them a presentation about their financial outlook for the holiday season — and through that report found out that this company’s prospective customers were spending less because large numbers of them had been laid off, or had huge medical bills, or had maxed out their credit, and so on.
Letters from customers, survey answers and such, were read to the cabinet group. And they were shocked. This is how they find out about the economic reality of this country — accidentally, from a major campaign contributor! That’s how out of touch these people are.
I’m personally of the opinion that our main problem lay with the fact that the Democratic Party as currently constituted is more afraid of losing the financial support of Wall Street and the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry than it is of losing progressive voters. In fact, I think I’ve put that wrong, because it implies that the Democratic Party pushes the agenda of industry insiders out of fear. That is a misread of the situation, I think.
I think they prefer those people to their voters. I think they feel more comfortable with them. I heard a story recently from a Democratic Party operative who tells me that certain members of one of the president’s cabinet departments only got wind of how hard it is out there for ordinary people to pay their bills when they invited in a major corporation to give them a presentation about their financial outlook for the holiday season — and through that report found out that this company’s prospective customers were spending less because large numbers of them had been laid off, or had huge medical bills, or had maxed out their credit, and so on.
Letters from customers, survey answers and such, were read to the cabinet group. And they were shocked. This is how they find out about the economic reality of this country — accidentally, from a major campaign contributor! That’s how out of touch these people are.
Friday, July 3, 2009
For better or worse, Al Franken is a Clinton Democrat.
Link to Salon.com article by Clinton water-carrier Joe Conason--
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/07/03/al_franken/?source=newsletter
Link to fawning article by NEWSWEEK's Howard Fineman--
http://www.newsweek.com/id/204904
Now the question is--can Franken find sufficient common ground with the small amount of progressivism displayed by Obama or will he be another tool of the too-centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/07/03/al_franken/?source=newsletter
Link to fawning article by NEWSWEEK's Howard Fineman--
http://www.newsweek.com/id/204904
Now the question is--can Franken find sufficient common ground with the small amount of progressivism displayed by Obama or will he be another tool of the too-centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Joe Conason: advocating Bush officials pardon for telling "truth" about torture.
Joe Conason's been a reliable water-carrier for the Clintons over the past two decades--as well as a megaphone for whatever the centrist Democratic Leadership Council is espousing. Here's a link to Conason's recent Salon.com column where he expresses disdain for Patrick Leahy's concept of a "truth and reconciliation" commission where Bush officials would speak openly about the culture of rendition/torture/aggressive "interrogations" of the past eight years; Conason would rather see President Obama emulate Gerald Ford and offer pardons to the Bushies--provided they'll tell the truth: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/02/13/leahy_commission/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)