Run, Al, RUN!
Posted by Brian Bell at October 12, 2007 07:33 AMI am glad you pointed out that murdoch/newscorp global warming initiative.....
He has been heavily influenced by his "moderate thinking" sons....they will take their father's company into a different direction....MYSPACE, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.....
I hope they sell FOX news....he only own 48% with no freedom to dictate what can be broadcasted...
Posted by mp at October 12, 2007 07:59 AM
Eriposte,
Thanks for using my quote as a foil to Mary’s. I would however, argue that there are differences in how I perceive the way Al Gore interacts with corporatist forces and the way Hillary does. Keep in mind that, during the 2000 election, Gore was being advised by many of the entrenched, “Democrat” advisors. He also was one of the founders of the despicable DLC, which I imagine he regrets, now. He took horrible advice and lost. He’s smart. He CAN learn from his experiences, distrust their motives and yet still work with those who have power.
Hillary has succeeded by following the “advice” of the corporate lobbyists who also function as political advisors. She, and her husband, are very comfortable swimming with the somewhat incestuous school of Washington Insiders. They seem to be comfortable with the Clintons.
The pustulent canker on the lips of (small-d) democracy is the influence of money on every aspect of politics. We have already descended to a Neogolden Age of ultra wealth, shrinking middle class and increasing poverty. Certain forces, clearly at work in Washington, aim to keep it that way. My beef with the Clintons and make no mistake, they ARE a team, as promised back in 1992; with one you get the other, is that they are now firmly entrenched in that mindset.
I will stipulate that, on social issues, Hillary is a bona fide liberal/progressive/good guy, whatever. She is vastly preferable to any of the Republicans, be it the Loathsome, Reptilian Rudy-9/11, brain-dead McCain or back flipping Mitt. I will vote Hillary in the general if I have to. I’m hoping I have a much better choice. Someone who has nearly a lifelong record of being prescient, intelligent, tireless and best of all, smart! Al Gore has been burned! I believe that he has learned deep, searing lessons about the way money and power are intertwined. And I also believe he thinks we MUST do better. I just don’t get that impression from Hillary.
A book about presidential performances in recent years, by Robert Pollin, Contours of Descent: U.S. Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity makes the point, Clinton era prosperity was built on the deregulation of financial markets, increasing corporate profitability rooted in weakened labor bargaining power, speculation, and the spectacular stock market bubble that led to sharply increased upper-class consumption and an investment boom. This is an argument with which I largely agree.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was one of the most egregious examples, It’s led to the widespread degradation of news organizations, to be replaced by profit center, “infotainment” circuses and outright propaganda panderers, like Drudge, Rush and Co.
Bill Clinton worked with the Republicans in Congress to craft, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which opened the door to closer coordination between banks, insurance companies and even to allow Wal-Mart to operate in quasi-bank fashion. A jaundiced view of the act can be found here (Warning! Socialist website!) Or, if you prefer a different perspective, here the difference is, they like it. We have since been graced with another financial meltdown that will certainly be bailed out with taxpayer dollars.
During the Clinton era, unions continued to lose ground. Benign neglect is the phrase that comes to mind. We got NAFTA instead, for which Clinton fiercely fought, over the objections of most of organized labor and Democrats in Congress.
Hillary has surrounded herself with the same advisors her husband had. Mark Penn, Sandy Berger!, Martin Indyk!, Richard Holbrooke and Madeline Albright, to name a few; the same ones advising her when she voted to authorize the use of force by the obviously, war-intent president. That is also why her vote on the "Sense of the Senate" that the Senate should declare a branch of the Iranian government a terrorist organization IS both disastrous and misguided. DICK Cheney does not need much of a fig leaf to act against our interests. More of that good advice, I suppose.
Many on this site may wish to believe that, through some magical fashion, President H. Clinton will be significantly different than President W. J. Clinton and will fight the corruption in the Beltway bubble like Herakles flushing the Augean stables. I find that very unlikely. I do believe that given his experience, Al Gore can accomplish much more, so the juxtapositions of our two statements in your piece are not as dichotomous as you may have believed.
I hate to rain on this parade but Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate. He said nothing as Bill Clinton bombed Iraq and Yugoslavia and aided Islamic extermists and drug runners in the Balkans. His global warming crusade will likely be a boon to large corporations that supply the "solutions" as well as make it more expensive to compete with them.
I am begining to think that the commentary here is more about electing Democrats - any Democrat than with change.
Posted by skeptic at October 12, 2007 08:31 AMPlease skeptic, tell us who it is that is going to affect this mythic "change' of which you speak?
Posted by snark at October 12, 2007 08:38 AMtell us who it is that is going to affect this mythic "change'
Posted by iamcoyote at October 12, 2007 08:56 AMCh-ch-ch-ch-changes!
Coyote, should we start an online petition? Bowie for President.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 12, 2007 11:04 AMJeff, you may be on to something there...
Posted by iamcoyote at October 12, 2007 11:17 AMHappy Aniversary Bill and Hillary!
DemNJ, you forgot Michael O'Haloran(sp) of the NYTimes 'the surge is working' fame, he's her foreign policy advisor.
Posted by peter at October 12, 2007 12:48 PMOn Murdoch being honorable and keeping his promises: Hitler was nice to his dogs (until he killed them with cyanide in the bunker as the Soviets were closing in).
Posted by kaleidescope at October 12, 2007 05:45 PMDeminNewJ,
I really enjoy well-argued comments like yours because it challenges me to make a more compelling case for what I'm advocating. Thanks for taking the time to write this response.
I am not able to respond to all these points right this minute, but let me make some quick observations.
You said:
Keep in mind that, during the 2000 election, Gore was being advised by many of the entrenched, “Democrat” advisors. He also was one of the founders of the despicable DLC, which I imagine he regrets, now. He took horrible advice and lost.
I'm no fan of the DLC, but can we stop making the mistake of saying "Gore lost"? He won, and that was in spite of his poor advisors. That said, Election 2000 was much more complex than your soundbite. For example, Gore was almost universally despised and hated by the media. Journalistic malpractice against him was rampant and he never ever fought back and in this, he departed significantly from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who knew that you had to fight back against the frauds in the media and did so. So, Gore's unfortunate passivity in the face of the media's relentless fakery against him cannot be attributed to something Clintonian. If anything, I think Hillary in the same position would have fought back. Additionally, Gore decided to avoid Clinton and didn't really maximize the benefits from the booming Clinton-Gore years. Now, I do agree with you in part. The advisors who dominated his campaign and some of those who surround the Clintons had and have poor judgment - but you are oversimplifying the issue by blaming it all on advisors.
You said:
Hillary has succeeded by following the “advice” of the corporate lobbyists who also function as political advisors. She, and her husband, are very comfortable swimming with the somewhat incestuous school of Washington Insiders. They seem to be comfortable with the Clintons.
Again, you are making a statement without context. I do not approve of Hillary Clinton's dalliances with corporate lobbyists but look at her voting record. Her voting record rivals that of Obama and Edwards and is substantially progressive. On the one hand you give Gore credit for being independent even if he mingles with insiders; on the other, Hillary Clinton's demonstrated history of voting substantially progressive despite her links to lobbyists is being ignored.
You said:
Someone who has nearly a lifelong record of being prescient, intelligent, tireless and best of all, smart! Al Gore has been burned! I believe that he has learned deep, searing lessons about the way money and power are intertwined. And I also believe he thinks we MUST do better. I just don’t get that impression from Hillary.
And Hillary has not been scarred and burnt and hasn't learnt from that?! Come on! Now, I can accept your judgment that it is possible to find, in Gore (or even Edwards), a candidate who is more aggressive in communicating progressive values and an inspiring vision. So, if it is your view that you would rather support, say, Gore or Edwards over Hillary, in the primary, I certainly respect that judgment. All I ask is that you don't dismiss Hillary by merely paying attention to her advisors or lobbyist or business connections but ignoring her voting record.
You also talk about the internet bubble and some of the flawed laws that were passed during the Clinton-Gore administration. You give credit to Gore for realizing he was wrong, but don't seem to want to give any credit to Hillary, who may have likewise just been wrong, given the era they were in - an era marked by a booming economy when anything seemed possible. You talk about NAFTA and the weakening of labor unions without pointing out Hillary's subsequent no vote on CAFTA and her strong voting record based on labor union scores. My point is that you assume that Gore alone figured out that he was wrong and corrected himself and you don't want to give any credit to Hillary, just because she doesn't come out full throated on some of the issues that Gore has. I can understand if you believe Gore is a better progressive leader - and he may very well be - but that doesn't mean Hillary learnt nothing and is merely repeating what was done in the Clinton years. As for her war votes, I would like to return to it in a future post to examine her record more closely.
You said:
Many on this site may wish to believe that, through some magical fashion, President H. Clinton will be significantly different than President W. J. Clinton and will fight the corruption in the Beltway bubble like Herakles flushing the Augean stables. I find that very unlikely. I do believe that given his experience, Al Gore can accomplish much more, so the juxtapositions of our two statements in your piece are not as dichotomous as you may have believed.
I am not arguing that Clinton is better than or as good as Gore. Gore may very well be a more progressive President than Clinton - I don't know. Presidents don't make laws - Congress does. So, it is not just in the hands of the President when it comes to how progressive the country becomes. Unless the President has a good working relationship with Congress, all the rhetoric may mean nothing. The point of this post is that reflexive reactions to Hillary's actions or links to lobbyists or business interests reflect a bias that does not give her benefit of doubt based on her voting record.
Posted by eriposte at October 12, 2007 06:19 PMEriposte,
You seem to miss the point that just 5 or 6 key votes the wrong way (the neocon way) during her illustrious Senate tenure did enough damage to this country and the entire world that anything and everything else she may have said or done is pretty much inconsequential to anyone with a progressive world viewpoint.
Averaging 20 or 100 votes and telling me she is within a standard deviation of Obama or Edwards is really laughable. What, I should consider the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot ActS (plural) outliers?
Posted by Tampa Student at October 12, 2007 06:46 PMThe point of this post is that reflexive reactions to Hillary's actions or links to lobbyists or business interests reflect a bias that does not give her benefit of doubt based on her voting record.
Fair points and I will agree that Hillary probably HAS learned form her (and Bill's) mistakes. And, if you'll remember, I never even implied that Hillary is not progressive and the bulk of her votes indeed reflect that liberal viewpoint. I also made the point that, what I feel to be the greatest challenge to our democracy and our institutional integrity is the corrosive influence of money as political speech and the relentless need to raise it constantly.
The fact that Hillary is the largest beneficiary of pharmaceutical lobbyist money, one of the largest of insurance lobbyist money, has a close adviser who is a spokesman for AIPAC and has the same, to me, misguided foreign policy advisers who've been proven wrong in the past, are valid criticism of the influence, in critical votes, such as retroactive telecom immunity about to be decided, that could compromise her good and progressive voting record.
Money and advisers DO talk. A few bad votes, even amongst many good ones can still damage our increasingly fragile economy. My point about Gore is that he is NO LONGER part of the poisonous, K Street crowd and so might be better able to follow his heart, not his fundraisers.
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 12, 2007 06:50 PMDeminNJ,
I understand. As I said in my post, the people you hang out with can be an influence on you if you are unprincipled. Time will tell how Hillary turns out.
Tampa Student,
What I have little patience for is blind repetition of talking points about Democrats without caring about facts, numbers, history or nuance.
In any case, Edwards voted for the same Iraq resolution that Hillary did. Edwards also voted for the Patriot Act. In fact:
--------
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/04/a_handy_chart_of_hillarys_and_edwards_votes_on_iraq.php
... While both were initially supporters of granting President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, John Edwards was actually to the right of Hillary for some time. Edwards voted against liberal efforts to: Limit the war authority for just one year, after which the President would have had to seek it again; Call for tax increases to pay for the war effort; Force the creation of a report on the possible manipulation of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War. On those votes, Hillary voted the more liberal position.
.....
----------
Hillary may not have the most progressive voting record on Iraq, but she's also not the caricature she's made out to be.
Posted by eriposte at October 12, 2007 08:47 PMEriposte,
The point about Edwards is fair and I hold him to the same rigorous standard that I am holding Ms. Clinton now. But, Hillary has a whole lot more people making excuses for her and she is most definitely NOT a 'victim' of disinformation by any stretch of the imagination:
Hillary dodged a vote on the Anti-Consumer Bankruptcy Bill (at the peak of the predatory lending..er..real estate 'bubble') while her clone DLC 'New Democrats' were walking in lock-step with Republicans getting it passed. I keep returning to that bill because it is one of the VERY FEW pieces of legislation that enjoyed 'broad bi-partisan support' and had NOT A DAMN THING to do with September 11th, "Homeland Security", "The Global War on Terror", or Iraq. Democrats have no 'political cover' and their usual excuse of making concessions to avoid being labeled 'weak' by Republicans doesn't wash in this particular case. They had a 'free shot' to prove their allegiance -- and they did precisely what their convictions drove them to do: they sided with large Corporations vs. the American Public (consumers) right in the midst of a 'crisis' of Predatory Lending and Usury (at a point when the U.S. Dollar was falling like a rock vs foreign currencies to boot). NOTE: it wasn't called a crisis then, it only 'became' a 'credit crisis' late in the cycle (after the bill was safely passed) when it became evident that the public was beginning to default and it was time for the Federal government to bailout lenders with Public Funds.
The Democrats voted with the Neocons for the worst of the worst Neoliberal Foreign AND Domestic policies since 2001, which was really only an escalation of what had been going on in D.C. since 'Bubba' came into office in '92-'93. Its not 'tactics', its not 'fear', its not 'incompetence'; its the fact that the Democratic Party leadership has adopted Neoliberalism (corporatism) as its core philosophy.
THAT is why Hillary (and Obama, et.al.) should not be embraced by any informed Progressive.
Posted by Tampa Student at October 13, 2007 12:09 AMTampa Student,
I am sorry but your information is wrong. She didn't dodge the vote at all - she was in hospital on March 10, 2005 because of her husband's surgery. Prior to March 10, 2005, she voted to sustain a filibuster of the Bill and voted for numerous amendments to reduce the draconian measures in the Bill.
For example she voted for:
a) An amendment to "Require Greater Disclosure by Credit Card Companies to Consumers on the Consequences of Making Only Minimum Payments"
b) An amendment to "Exempt from Means Test in Bankruptcy Bill Debtors Whose Financial Dilemmas were Caused by Serious Medical Conditions"
c) An amendment to "Protect the Homes of Persons Filing for Bankruptcy Due to High Medical Bills"
d) An amendment to "Exempt from Means Test in Bankruptcy Bill Debtors Whose Economic Distress was Caused by their Role as Caregivers to Ill or Disabled Family Members"
e) An amendment to "Amendment to Exempt from Means Test in Bankruptcy Bill Debtors Whose Financial Distress was Caused by Identity Theft"
f) An amendment to "Amendment to Prohibit Predatory Lenders from Collecting from Persons Declaring Bankruptcy"
g) An amendment "that would have removed from the bill provisions relating to small businesses that declare bankruptcy"
h) An amendment to "clarify that a key provision of S. 256 would "not apply to debtors who go into bankruptcy court whose incomes fall below the median level.""
i) An amendment to "Alter Federal Bankruptcy Rules to Require Bankruptcy Judges to Take Circumstances into Account When a Credit Card Company Has Issued Too Many Credit Cards to an Individual Who is Under 21 and Who is Employed Below the Poverty Level."
j) An amendment to "Make Several Changes to Republican-Sponsored Bill to Alter Federal Bankruptcy Rules Designed to Ease the Burden of Bankruptcy Filings on Children and Families."
The amendments were defeated by the GOP majority and a few terrible Democratic Senators (http://allspinzone.blogspot.com/2005/03/bankruptcy-bill-moves-forward.html) switched sides to prevent the filibuster from continuing. The only time Hillary voted for a version of the Bankruptcy Bill was in 2001 but she completely changed her stance later on and tried to defeat the terrible version in 2005. (Incidentally, she was a key force in the defeat/veto of the Bankruptcy Bill during the Clinton administration).
Posted by eriposte at October 13, 2007 09:47 AMI'm not sure why the link doesn't show up (some stupid bug in the system I think), but the data and quotes in my comment above are all from Progressive Punch.
Posted by eriposte at October 13, 2007 09:49 AMThe thread is stale, but here is a link from the DLC website to an article dated 1998 where they are calling for 'the need' for 'bankruptcy reform'. Old news from Hillary's DLC. So I suppose that since Bubba was recovering from surgery, we give her 'the benefit' of the doubt that she wouldn't have stopped the filibuster?
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2647&kaid=103&subid=110.
A 'compromise' on 'bankruptcy reform' right in the middle of a predatory lending bubble. Those 'evil' Democrats you mention were DLC centrists, by the way. In other words, 'New Democrats' who may very easily have favored the filibuster to provide themselves with political cover. Voting for ammendments citing exemptions for predatory lending means nothing in a country where the definition of 'predatory lending' DOES NOT INCLUDE ARM'S on $200K condos sold to people making $10.00 an hour with nothing down and in a nation where low FICO Credit Scores are being used by employers to deny people JOBS.
Posted by Tampa Student at October 13, 2007 02:51 PMThe real point I am trying to make is that Hillary herself has never embraced a stance of opposition vs. either DLC dogma or Corporate interests. She insists that if we 'compromise' with the minority of corporate plutocrats that really drive D.C. policy that we can still have peace, jobs, public education, energy independence, healthcare and other progressive interests that enjoy broad support amongst average citizens.
Its not going to happen...and it never has in the past.
Posted by Tampa Student at October 13, 2007 06:52 PM