Repeal of Glass Steagall makes too much sense, Glass Steagall functioned for over sixty years, long enough for Greenspan to be surprised to learn that bankers are greedy. Our system is probably too corrupt to pass Glass Steagall until after the next financial collapse. Obama, Geithner, Bernanke, the Republicans in Congress and probably a majority of Democrats in Congress are laying the groundwork for that event.
Obama,Bush,Bernanke, Geithner and Paulson gave the alcoholics on Wall Street a liver transplant at taxpayer expense without forcing them to stop drinking. Since the world economony isn't as healthy as it was in pre derivative binge days, it won't take the investment bankers as long to destroy the economy next time.
I get it. People who worked to elect Obama shouldn't be upset that Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan because he said he would in his campaign. Obama said he would hold Wall Street accountable, help homeowners facing bankruptcy, end don't ask don't tell, close Guantanamo, restore the Constitution and enact national health care with a strong public option. Shame on those who missed the signals that those promises were just campaign rhetoric. Making fun of Tom Hayden for trying to steer between declaring Obama the enemy and acquiescing by silence is not useful.
Secretary of State Baker under the elder Bush temporarily suspended American loan guarantees to the Shamir government over expansion of West Bank settlements. If Obama won't pressure Honduras to reverse the coup, he will not stop expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. In Latin America and the Middle East Obama's rhetoric is an improvement over Bush's, but the final policy is remarkably similar. Obama insists more loudly than Bush that the United States is opposed to coups in Latin America and Israeli annexation of the West Bank, but so far Micheletti and Netanyahu know that the only consequence to defying the United States is official diplomatic disapproval.
The Republicans and Blue Cross Democrats who talk about the free market, competition, and selling insurance across state lines are unwilling to subject their insurance company sponsors to competition across state lines.
The only tactic that will affect Baucus, Landrieu,Conrad and the other Blue Cross Democrat is to run television ads pointing out that they are paid for by Insurance Companies and Pharmaceutical Companies.
A primary motivation for Blagojevich's appointment is his criminal trial. Blagojevich is helped in his coming criminal trial in two ways: Burris' appointment allows him to argue that he didn't sell the seat, he appointed the best man for the job and it helps him argue to African American jurors that they're after him for his politics. Harry Reid will fight for what he believes in if the Republican party and Washington Post promise to support him.
The writer nowhere mentions that Biden voted against confirmation of Thomas. The confirmation of Thomas is a sorry chapter in the history of America, but naming Joe Biden as the villain is a gross exaggeration. Biden as committee chairman had to avoid the problems Daniel Inouye had in the Oliver North hearings as appearing too partisan.
The Southern Christian Leadership Conference endorsed Thomas because he was black. Democratic Senators Dixon, Hollings, and Byrd demonstrated that they don't understand power when they voted to confirm Thomas. The corporate media ignored the fact that there were better qualified candidates for the Supreme Court in every town in America with a population of 10,000 or more. As I recall the Senator from Maryland produced a list of 1,000 lawyers better qualified than Thomas. The list could easily have included 10,000 names, but the New York Times, Washington Post, and Time Warner can never admit that the Emperor has no clothes. The Washington Democratic party aided and abetted Thomas' confirmation by refusing to fight his nomination to the D.C. Court of Appeals less than a year before his nomination. Joe Biden is guilty of belonging to the Washington Democratic Party, a party which retreats from Republican Presidents on principle, but he is not guilty of confirming Clarence Thomas.
Does Barack Obama consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Housing Rights Act of 1968 as among the "excesses" of the sixties and seventies? Medicare and Headstart were two sixties programs which have helped millions of Americans. All of these were passed by Lyndon Johnson. I can't remember any excesses of the seventies except for creation of the Environmental Protections Agency because Republicans or a nonpartisan Democrat were in power. Among the lesser known faults of the Reagan Administration was Reagan's far-sighted act of abolishing tax credits for solar power, trying to abolish the Legal Services Corporation which provides legal services to those who can't afford it,and subsidizing General Rios Montt's war of genocide against the Mayas in Guatemala. Would these be considered excesses of the eighties by Obama? Yes, Mr. Obama, Hillary was right that it matters who is President. His comments about Ronald Reagan are arguments to an Edwards supporter that it shouldn't be Obama.
This kind of article makes me forget why I don't support Hillary. Can someone who is attacked by New York Times and Washington Post "investigative" reporters be all bad even if they voted for Kyl-Lieberman? I bet Hillary knew who the President of Pakistan was way back when George Bush II was running for President.
Attacks on Axelrod looks like the Gotcha game of trivial pursuit played with such disastrous results for this country by Russert, CNN, the Washington Post and their supplicants in the Washington Democratic party. His fundamental criticism is correct - the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism and Jihadism all over the world, including Pakistan, and has distracted from trying to manage the mountain of problems which existed before 2003. Hillary Clinton's liberal empire strategy of promising to manage Bush's crusade more effectively is flawed substantively and politically, but in the Gotcha world Axelrod's tactical error is more important than Washington's strategic fiasco? It is this type of trivial pursuit which has given America George Bush. That said, it was bad judgment and worse manners to seek political advantage out of Benizair Bhutto's death before she is buried. As a nonsupporter of both Obama and Clinton, neither wins from this skirmish.
She voted for the war. She voted for Kyl- Lieberman. Bill Clinton did nothing to slow down the concentration of wealth and power in America. All of those are reasons I am not supporting her, but the attacks on her for "being too calculating" or "overly scripted" are Republican Party themes which will be used on all Democrats. Please stick to the issues.
Kit Seelye misrepresented Al Gore's quote on Love Canal and Love Story as part of the corporate media's narrative in 2000 that Gore was an untrustworthy braggart. New Hampshire High School students complained that she got the quote wrong; she issued a technical apology that managed to blame Gore. She altered his words so she could claim Gore said that he uncovered the Love Canal scandal. Since Ms. Seelye was a shill for Bush why should anyone take Seelye seriously except to learn what the corporate media wants the public to think about?
Hillary Clinton is repeating the propaganda of the the crackpot realists who invaded Iraq and have fueled more chaos and fanaticism in the Middle East with their war against Islam. You make workable arrangements with your enemies while opposing them. It takes a long time. You can't do this without talking to them. This process doesn't translate well to CNN soundbites. The policy of the Washington chattering classes is a rerun of Cold War tactics. The United States stopped talking seriously to Ho Chi Minh in 1946 and John Foster Dulles refused to shake the hand of Chou at Geneva in 1954. Not talking to "Red" China was counterproductive. Barack Obama is talking realpolitik, but that interferes with the
cartoon world of Washington. Bill Clinton isn't a true believer, but he missed an opportunity to normalize relations with Iran because Time Magazine and Rupert Murdoch would have attacked him. I doubt that Hillary can envision a diplomacy not approved by the ideologues and no-nothings in the corporate media. She isn't Bush-Cheney lite, but it is fair to say she is Bush I lite.
The Democratic Party leadership and House members have not learned the lessons of 2002 and 2004. Those who gave Bush a blank check on the war were attacked as unpatriotic, soft on Al Quaida, and were defeated. That's why we don't see Senator Carnahan, Senator Cleland,Senator Daschle and President Kerry. The fear of the Who lost China debate plagued Democrats in the sixties,seventies, and eighties. Washington Democrats have recycled that fear with the Who lost Iraq ghost. They don't believe that telling the truth works, even when the polls show that Americans have figured out that fighting as another militia in another country's civil war is senseless.
Mencken said that if a good newspaperman stayed too long in Washington his brain turned to mush. It happens to politicians who are not smart enough to realize that the Washington Post hasn't done anything decent since Watergate.