We'll never claim to be fair and balanced, just honest and trustworthy
January 9, 2008

HILLARY TAKES NEW HAMPSHIRE

The Clinton era..was it really that good for America?
From Dusty for It's My Right to Be Left of the Center and The Sirens Chronicles

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.

The Plank also reviews the exit polls.

Did Tears Win New Hampshire for Hillary Clinton?
From Christopher for From the Left

cryinghill.jpg

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.

Sorry, but you need flash to view this video


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 Women’s empathy toward other women can be like kryptonite to a manbe 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 Comeback Kid
From Polishifter for Pissed on Politics

Hillary_No_Country.jpg

She's the comeback kid...

Against all odds...

She is woman hear her roar...

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.

It's a Done Deal
Posted by Karen at
Namaste'

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.

Click here to comment on this BWR