Tuesday night, prior to counting the first NH vote,
the pundits pretty much had Hillary Clinton on life support. She
won..not by a landslide, but she clearly beat
Obama and wiped the street with John Edwards.
Whatever you think of Hillary and her politics, one
thing is abundantly clear; she is riding on the coattails of her
husbands eight years as President. A good yardstick of what will happen
under a Clinton44 reign can be read in those ancient tea leaves of
Clinton42’s era. My point-of-view is that, as progressives, with Bill
Clinton we were in the frying pan and the heat was on high. We then
jumped into the fire with the election of George Bush..but I
digress.David Morris dissects the first Clinton’s time in office very
well this week in an
Alternet article. I also tear into the Clinton’s, the
DCCC and the Clinton’s personal democratic PAC known as the DLC
here.
Bill Clinton, with the flourish of his pen, changed
the course of all telecommunications. He signed into law the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act allowed a free-for-all to take
place with the blessings of the federal government, and I might
add..without one iota of oversight or public hearings on the massive
changes that would take place. Within three years, we went from having
13 Teleco’s down to 5 huge conglomerates that control everything. The
FCC lost control of the public airwaves as well thanks to the Teleco Act
of ‘96. Two corporations, Infinity and Clear Channel sucked up a
majority of the radio stations and consequently killed roughly 1100 of
them in the process that didn’t ‘perform well’ if you believe the two
corporations. Clear Channel is all about the Benjamin’s and its
crystal clear if you read the series of articles at
Salon by Eric Boehlert. Check out this quote from a
Buzzflash writeup about the giant conglomeration that
owns anything and everything regarding advertising and music:
It’s no coincidence that Clear Channel executives
Tom Hicks and L. Lowry Mays have contributed tens of thousands of
dollars to Bush’s gubernatorial and presidential campaign coffers. Or
that Clear Channel gave $119,370 in “soft money” to Republicans in
2001-2002, this on top of the $82,850 it gave in 2000. (Democrats, meanwhile,
got $25,000 in soft money in that same three-year period.) Or that Clear
Channel stations have been known to pull
radio ads criticizing Republicans.
It isn’t a stretch to say our airwaves are controlled
by Republican interests and continue to be since News Corp. is in the
process of selling off some of it’s holdings to another
Republican-loving conglomerate, Oak Hill Capital Partners.
The Financial Services Modernization Act was a real
gem as well. Enacted in 1999, this sucker deregulated the banking and
investment industry. This opened the door to the creation of the ‘hedge
fund’ which we all know is not regulated in the slightest and is the
most crooked investment scenario ever created with many cases of
manipulation and down right illegal price-fixing.
Can you say Enron? I knew you could..From the Alternet
writeup:
Wholesale electricity deregulation began under
George H.W. Bush, but Clinton worked relentlessly to extend it and bring
it to the retail level. We forget that Ken Lay, the founder of Enron and
the driving force behind electricity deregulation was a friend of and
mentor to Clinton as well as George W. Bush. Enron gave $420,000 to
Clinton’s party over three years and donated $100,000 to his
inauguration festivities.
Clinton’s appointees on the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) aggressively deregulated the electric grid
system, even refusing to step in when Enron and other electricity
traders’ manipulation of prices drove California to the edge of
bankruptcy.
This brings us to NAFTA, one of the proudest moments
in the Clinton administration. Never mind that his own party
didn’t buy into his bullshit, Clinton still pushed hard to get the
legislation, started by Bush41, passed by the Congress. The North
American Free Trade Agreement was and is a nightmare, not only for
America but for Mexico. Free trade isn’t free, and someone has to pay
the piper. In this case the high price for free trade has been paid by
lost American jobs, an even wider gap between the top one percent and
the rest of us, toxic imports from China and a lower standard of living
for the Mexicans that actually stayed in their own country.
Sandra Polaski of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
points out “that Mexican manufacturing is increasingly based on a
production model in which component parts are imported, then processed
or assembled and then re-exported. In the maquiladora sector, which
accounts for most exports, 97 percent of components are imported; only 3
percent are produced in Mexico. The spillover effect of such operations
on the broader economy is very limited.”- in other words, it’s non-friggin-existent.
In
another piece, Ms. Polanski tell us- “that
globalization revealed and exacerbated-rather than created-the unequal
distribution of U.S. economic gains over the last three decades. Polaski
further contends that reform of domestic labor laws, the tax system, and
international economic policy are the policy tools needed to reverse
stagnating incomes and the erosion of job security, health care, and
pension plans. These policy changes would also sustain domestic demand
in the U.S. Economy.”
With all the rhetoric about illegal immigration, why
isn’t’ anyone placing the blame squarely where it belongs; on NAFTA.
Since NAFTA came into being, the wages of Mexicans have stagnated.
Actually Mexico wages have taken a downward turn, there by forcing those
same people NAFTA was supposed to help, to flood over our
southern borders. From 1993 to 2003, worker productivity in Mexico rose
by 60 percent. In the same period, real Mexican wages declined
by 5 percent.
As my final word on NAFTA, lets review the vote:
In the
House, two-thirds of House Republicans voted in favor
while 60 percent of House Democrats voted against.In the
Senate, Republicans voted 4-1 in favor while a slim
majority of Democrats voted against. Seems to me the 60 percent of the
House Democrats knew what they were doing..the rest just went along for
the ride on the Clinton coattails, as did the Democrats that voted in
the Senate. The reason NAFTA passed my dear reader was the Republicans
voted en mass for it. A nice vote of confidence for a Democratic
President from his own party? I think not..
So, in closing, I really don’t want to hear how great
Bill Clinton was for America and the Democratic Party. He did more to
further the cause of the Republican agenda than any Democratic
President before him. Do we, as progressives, really want his wife,
Hillary Clinton, to keep that momentum going?
I don’t. I want a female President..just not
this female.
Hillary Takes New Hampshire From
betmo for life's
journey
after
weathering misogynistic remarks and taunts from
rethuglicans and
democrats alike, hill comes back and
takes new hampshire. i don't intend to vote for her
but as a woman, i am making an appeal to other women---
and men, to stand against the sexism and misogyny that
is being thrown unfairly her way. let her defend her
stand on the issues- she shouldn't have to defend her
gender in the 21st century.
New Hampshire Exit Polls
and Religion
From
Ron Chusid for Liberal Values
The exit polls from
New
Hampshire show many trends, such as increased
support for Obama with greater education, higher income,
younger age, and lack of party affiliation. unlike in
Iowa, Clinton won among women, possibly aided by the
video of her
showing
emotion the day before the vote. With Obama often
discussing faith in the campaign, the questions on
religion are also of interest.
Obama beat Clinton decisively, by 45% to 29% among
those reporting no religious affiliation. Obama also led
Clinton more narrowly by a 39% to 35% margin among those
who never attend church services, but also led among
those who attend weekly. Those who attend church less
than once a week favored Clinton.
The lead among those who attend church frequently
isn’t surprising in light of Obama’s personal religious
views. These numbers show that not only doesn’t Obama
alienate the non-religious, but that he receives their
support. This might simply be a consequence of the
demographics Obama otherwise attracts, but it might also
be due to his statements in defense of separation of
church and state. Many who are not religious do not
believe that the religion of a candidate matters but
have gained increased respect for the importance of
separation of church and state as the principle has come
under attack in recent years.
Obama spoke about separation of church and state
during the
CNN/YouTube debate. He also discussed this during an
interview with CBN in July, Obama said:
For my friends on the right, I think it would be
helpful to remember the critical role that the
separation of church and state has played in
preserving not only our democracy but also our
religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during
our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil
libertarians who were the most effective champions
of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted
minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who
didn’t want the established churches to impose their
views on folks who were getting happy out in the
fields and teaching the scripture to slaves.
It was the forbearers of Evangelicals who were
the most adamant about not mingling government with
religious, because they didn’t want state-sponsored
religion hindering their ability to practice their
faith as they understood it. Given this fact, I
think that the right might worry a bit more about
the dangers of sectarianism.
Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a
Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a
Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation,
and a nation of non-believers.
We should acknowledge
this and realize that when we’re formulating
policies from the state house to the Senate floor to
the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our
reasoning into values that are accessible to every
one of our citizens, not just members of our own
faith community.
There’s one other set of numbers which I found of
particular significance as they might show why the polls
released over the weekend were wrong. The exit polls
show that 39% of Clinton supporters and 36% of Obama
supporters decided who to vote for on the day of the
primary. The polls might have been accurate on the day
they were taken, but they were just a snap shot in an
extremely fluid race.
Did Tears Win New
Hampshire for Hillary Clinton?
From
Christopher for
From the
Left
With 100%
of the
precincts
reporting in
the Granite
State, one
fact
emerged: the
lack of
gender
fortunes
Hillary
Clinton suffered in
Iowa,
completely
reversed in
New
Hampshire.
Hillary
Clinton, the
predicted loser
by every
pollster in
the country,
won a
staggering
57% of
female vote.
Two
events may’ve
wooed women
voters in
the Granite
State:
1.
During
last
Saturday’s
ABC’s
Democratic
Debate, Clinton
said her
feelings
had
been hurt
after being moderator,
Charles
Gibson
said she
wasn’t
likeable.
2.
Hillary’s
tears. Her
emotional
performance
—
whether
real or
contrived,
may’ve
created
a
groundswell
of
sympathy
for
Clinton
among women
voters.
If true,
the
question now
becomes, can
a female
candidate
for
president build
a national
campaign, based
not on her
positions on
the issues,
but by
playing the
sympathy
card?
Know a blog that
deserves to be featured on the Blog World Report? Contact Robert.
You got
egg on
your
face,
you big
disgrace
From
Robert
Rouse
for
Left of
Centrist
Boy did I get it wrong - then again, I was relying on nearly every other pundit in the free world.
Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in New Hampshire and she did it with the help of Women voters. What can I say, most of the women I know are suckers for a sad story and Hillary Clinton’s verklempt moment at her little coffee clutch must have done the trick. I can just hear women all over the country: “Oh, that poor woman. Being beat down by those men. I don’t care what her politics are, I’m gonna vote for her. Besides, a little emotion is just what this country needs.”
I agree that we could all do with a little more emotion and a lot less buffoonery, but I’m still not convinced that Hillary is the right thing. So she was the president’s wife. Big hairy ass deal. Using that line of logic Yoko Ono should be able to produce some of the best music the world has ever heard.
But no, the women turned out en masse to help Hillary Clinton get over her public display of depression. For the Obama campaign, empathy for Hillary was like Kryptonite. Our only hope now is that black voters will do the same for Obama that women did for Hillary. There is still a lot of time left in this campaign and Obama has enough money to breeze through February 5. Perhaps wins in South Carolina, Nevada and maybe even Florida will do the trick.
The media
based on polls
predicted an
Obama smash. I
heard some
pundits say
Obama was going
to win by 15
points.
But again the
pollsters and
the pundits were
wrong.
Now everyone
is trying to
spin it. Some
are saying it's
the boomer women
touched by
Hillary's show
of emotion and
pissed off at
the
establishment
for castigating
Hillary for a
few tears that
paved the way
for her victory.
Others are
saying it was
Obama's poor
showing in the
debate. Some are
blaming Edwards
for attacking
Hillary over her
so-called
emotional
display.
Still others
are spinning it
saying that New
Hampshire's
'fierce
independence'
prevented them
from 'coronating'
Obama. In other
words, they
voted against
Obama out of
spite simply
because they
didn't want
there to be a
clear front
runner so soon.
Another
theory floated
by Rachel Maddow
based on a
discussion at
talkingpointsmemo.com
was that Chris
Mathews swayed
the vote toward
Hillary.
Some are
saying it was
closet racism
that drove the
vote to Hillary.
You see, in Iowa
the caucuses are
public. Everyone
gets to see how
you vote. But in
New Hampshire
you go behind a
curtain and some
are suggesting
racism reared
its ugly head.
I find it
interesting that
the media who
once wrote off
the Obama and
Edwards
campaigns as DOA
and proclaimed
Hillary the Shoe
In candidate
then flipped
after Iowa and
over-projected
an Obama
victory.
Anything short
of Obama winning
by 10 points
would be counted
as a Hillary
victory due to
the media
changing the
bar. The bar was
initially set
for Hillary.
After Iowa, the
bar was
re-calibrated
and set even
higher for
Obama.
I have to
wonder, if
Hillary had won
Iowa with Obama
coming in
second, would
the pundits then
be saying New
Hampshire was a
victory for
Obama since he
came within a
few percentage
points of her?
I for one am
sick of all the
theories and the
pundits. 6
months ago they
were ready to
give this thing
to Hillary. Iowa
happened and
they coronated
Obama the next
President. Now
that Hillary won
New Hampshire
they are ready
to declare her
the 'shoe in'
candidate and
the 'come back
kid'.
Let The
People Vote.
We've got a
long way to go
and I have no
doubt that from
here until the
convention the
pundits and the
pollsters will
continue to get
it wrong.
As Jon
Stewart and The
Daily Show would
say this truly
is The Cluster
F*ck To The
White House.
Obama's Appeal:
Generational
Shift Needed
From Jen Clark for
Little Country
Lost
I need to admit something. I have the
overwhelming urge to believe in Barack Obama. The cynic
in me, after 7 years of the Bush Administration, knows
that this may be naive. Is any politician that has
succeeded in this system capable of really turning it
around? I'm not sure. But out of any of the candidates
that have a chance to win this year, I think Barack
Obama has the biggest chance of actually being able to
shift the country's direction. The reason is largely
generational.
I was born in 1982. Most of what I know about the 50's,
60's, and 70's (the decades I associate with my parents,
and therefore the Boomer generation) I learned about on
TV and in school textbooks. People tend to have wildly
varying opinions on the Boomer generation, but one thing
I think everyone can agree on is that Boomers are
fascinating.
The 50's was the era of
I Love Lucy,
when men controlled their women and the world was
focused in black in white, in just about every way. Our
parents were around the same age as little Ricky, and
back then, the world was segregated by color of skin and
gender. For the well-to-do white people, especially the
men, the 50's sure seemed like a hell of a set up.
But then in the 60's, during our parent's teenage years,
some people realized that the superiority of one group
over the others was wrong and they started fighting for
equality. This seems to be when the big split happened.
There was a divide created between the people that
wanted equality and those that didn't. Those that didn't
want equality were the group of people that enjoyed the
way society was structured in the 1950s and who wanted
to keep it that way.
The people that wanted a more equal societal structure
got JFK elected at the beginning of the decade. Then, on
November 22, 1963, JFK was assassinated. It was a
horrible national tragedy, the 9/11 of their generation.
But just as 9/11 is turning out to be so much more than
a terrorist attack, something terrible happened on that
day which I can't believe is limited to the loss of the
President. I'm starting to think that the JFK
assassination was the real launch of the coup. Up until
recently, I thought that the big shift from democracy
and equality to corporatism and extreme division of
wealth was the election of George W. Bush. But then I
did these things:
Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein
Watched The Good
Shepherd
Watched JFK
Wrote
this post.
I'm afraid to say this (and I mean that quite
literally), but I'm starting to think that the group
that has control of our government and society (a group
I call "The Club", for lack of a better term), were able
to take over the country, in part, by creating the CIA.
I guess I always just assumed that the CIA was natural
section of our government, but upon some non-school book
reading, I have realized that couldn't be further from
the truth. The CIA, everything about it, has been some
sneaky shit since its creation. Two years after its
initial roll-out, when the spotlight had moved off the
new agency, the
laws
governing the agency were altered so that the the
people running the CIA would have no meaningful
"civilian" oversight (when I say 'civilian', think
regular, non-"Club member" human being). The amendments
ensured that instead of having to disclose its budget to
the public like every other big government department,
the CIA would be allowed to keep their budget a secret.
The CIA would also be able to accept money from other
departments without reporting the transaction, opening
the door for all other government departments (i.e.
Defense, Justice, State) to take advantage of the CIA's
legal secrecy. Then the members of the CIA were given
legal permission to omit the following things from their
records and therefore keep secret from the public and/or
any investigators their:
Names
Officials
Salaries
Titles
Number of persons the CIA employs
The Organizational structure
Functions of the CIA
So what do United States citizens get to know about this
agency we pay for if we don't know who is in the CIA or
what the CIA does, you may ask? Well, damn near nothing.
This shady business has only been going on since 1949.
In the early 1960s, the secretive group found itself in
mortal danger when
JFK took
on the CIA. The biggest moves that pissed off the
CIA were when Kennedy didn't provide the air support the
CIA requested for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and
many of the CIA members participating in the invasion
were captured or killed. After that humiliation, Kennedy
then fired the director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and
his chief deputy, Charles Cabell for screwing up the
operation. JFK also said he planned to "smash the CIA
into a thousand pieces".
Then, bam! JFK gets popped. Allen Dulles, the guy
Kennedy had publicly humiliated and fired, was allowed
to sit on the Warren Commission, the group that
published the widely debunked "official" story of the
JFK assassination.
It was around this time, when the people who should be
investigated starting getting positions as
investigators, that I think we started to lose the rule
of law.
The Shock Doctrine, picks up the story from there. The
70's, the time of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, were
also a time of a political dark skies in the country.
The individual Boomers either fought in or against a war
they couldn't understand. Over 58,000 Americans would
die in Vietnam, but their enemies weren't Nazi's. They
were Asian farmers and hunter/gatherers. What were they
fighting for? It's a question that would push the two
groups, those that wanted equality and those that
didn't, even further away from each other into their
separate corners.
In the 80's and 90's, our parents had their babies
(where I come into the picture). With the threat of
being sent to the Vietnam war over, they just wanted to
live their lives. Man, were the Boomers awesome parents!
Growing up in the 80's and 90's, in hindsight, was so
cool. With relative peace in the world and doting
parents, us kids were able to focus on our schoolwork,
sports, and social lives. Our parents worked hard and
prided themselves on being able to give us everything we
would need...tutors, sports training, cool toys, ect...
so that their little angels could excel at anything and
everything, if we cared to. Our parents showered us with
support and pride and told us we could accomplish
anything if we just believed in ourselves and worked
hard. And if that didn't work out so well, we were told
it's OK because each one of us was special in our own
way. We believed our parents with all our hearts. Why
wouldn't we? We've turned out to be an independent and
confident group of people as a result.
Unfortunately, childhood couldn't last forever and we
turned 18. I'm in the high school class of 2000. It
amazes me how dramatically the world changed the moment
I became an adult.
I'm not going to get into any of the details of what has
happened here since the turn of the century. We all know
this part of the story all too well. Let's just say that
the news became more serious, and it stopped being just
another TV show. Events that we either read about in
school books, heard about from our parents, or had seen
on TV were suddenly coming back to haunt us. My
generation was slapped in the face with the reality that
we were the ones that would suffer the consequences of
decisions we had no say in, decisions we never even
thought to pay attention to. Like the frog that doesn't
realize that he's dying in boiling water because the
increase was so gradual, the country has been
fundamentally shifted, going back to the 1960s. Our
generation came late to the party. We probably have a
better gage of how hot the water really is and likely
have some new ideas about how to stir the pot (ideas
which might not occur to the frogs that are used to the
temperature where it's at). Eventually, it will be up to
us to solve these problems, because (let's face facts)
the Boomers can't rule forever. But doesn't now seem
like a good time for this story to be continued by us
kids?
I think the reason so many Boomers are resistant to this
idea of allowing the next generation to take over is
that the battle between the people who wanted equality
and the people wanted to keep their good thing going
appears to have been won by the greedy. I think some
Boomers may consider this reality a failure, and they
want to keep fighting until they win.
But the thing is, while the Boomers were struggling and
fighting amongst each other, us kids were kicking back
and watching our crazy parents duke it out. We've
listened to the best arguments of both sides of the
Boomer battle, and something you may not realize about
the next few generations is that we have learned a lot
from you. We've learned that fighting amongst each other
is going to get us nowhere good. We've learned that left
vs. right is an inferior argument to right vs. wrong.
We've learned that the best way to beat a system is to
change it from within. These are lessons we have learned
by watching you guys fight the best way you knew how.
Let us build on that and move forward.
I want to believe in Barack Obama because I think
he can bring about this kind of generational shift, a
much-needed major shock to the system. Its a move that,
just by nature, cannot be accomplished by Hillary
Clinton or John Edwards. They are brilliant players in
an old game. Barack Obama when he speaks is talking
about not just changing healthcare, or the rules that
govern corporations. He's talking about changing the
whole damn thing. How we run our country. How we lead
our lives. He doesn't give us many specifics, but I'm OK
with that because he's giving us his big picture view of
what he thinks the United States can and should be. I
like the picture he paints. I want to help him make it
happen.