Outgoing presidents like to “tie up loose ends” and place their ideological stamp on all sorts of governmental regulations and programs. Clinton did it. So did many of his predecessors. Often times, these last minute regulatory efforts take place in the final days or hours of an outgoing presidents term. But because new or revised regulations have a specific path they must take before becoming active, incoming presidents can sometimes halt or even negate these plans. It isn’t uncommon. In fact, when W took office, he ordered a halt to all of Clinton’s last minute regulations that had not yet been published in the federal register.

Hoping to avoid a halt to his own last minute regulations, the Bush administration got the ball rolling early, hoping to have over 90 new or revised regulations on the books before Obama can take the oath of office.  So what’s the problem? Isn’t Bush just doing what many previous outgoing presidents have done? Well, yes…and no.

Where Clinton’s end of term regulations sought to strengthen enviromental policy or help create more parity with regards to publically funded aid programs, it seems that Bush’s regulatory efforts do the exact opposite, and may also add to an already overburdened national treasury.

Some of the changes Bush seeks to stamp in cement before he departs include:

CIVIL LILBERTIES: Expanded F.B.I. guidelines that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

ENVIRONMENT: Weakening the Endangered Species Act even further; rules that weaken clean air and water standards; opening even more federal lands for gas and oil exploration. Also, easing restrictions on mountaintop mining, removing mining restrictions near the Grand Canyon and easing rules on power plant emissions.

ABORTION RIGHTS: New regulations aimed at further limiting women’s access to abortion, contraceptives and information about their reproductive health care options.

ECONOMIC: Restored tax breaks for banks that take big losses on bad loans inherited through acquisitions. Now that this change is in the works, JPMorgan Chase and others are planning to use their bailout funds for mergers and acquisitions, transactions that will be greatly enhanced by the new tax subsidy.

Bush’s last minute regulations are really more DEREGULATIONS aimed at rewarding those remaining loyalist in corporate America. And if we’ve learned nothing from this whole economic crisis, it’s that when Republicans DEREGULATE it doesn’t bode well for John and Jane America.

Bush wants to leave his mark, but he seems to not understain that what he’s already left (and apparently wants to leave more of) is a big ugly stain. Apparently not content with being the least popular president AND the worst president in US history, Bush wants to make sure he can still screw things up when he’s out clearing brush at the ranch. With an economy in ruins, a military stretched to the breaking point, and an international reputation in tatters, Bush has already tied the hands of his successor to a great degree. But it just doesn’t seem to be enough for the Decider.

Some presidents want to be remembered for the good things they do. Sadly for America, George W. Bush has never done anything good in his life. So if we’re going to remember him for his failures, it seems that he wants to be sure to leave us plenty to ruminate on.

Barack Obama has a tough road ahead of him. So do we all.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Bush, ever the tough guy, took little time in labeling North Korea as a terrorist state, blacklisting them from international trade and aid and further isolating the reclusive regime-all in an effort to force the hand of Kim Jong-Il to give up his nukes. Yet instead of capitulating after admitting they had been ignoring the 1994 agreement, North Korea put their nuclear program on the fast track and out in the open, and finalized the process by detonating a nuclear device during the reign of George W. Bush. Arguably, while Clinton may have had the wool pulled over his eyes to North Korea’s true intent regarding its nuclear program, Bush watched whit eyes wide open as they advanced from a nuclear wannabe to a nuclear power. Indeed, it is perhaps the openly belligerent attitude of Bush that may have increased the North Korean nuclear timeline.

Yet now that North Korea has returned to the table to continue talks about their program, Bush has done a complete 180 degree turnabout, removed them from a US list of terrorist states, and approved aid to that country. And what has North Korea done to deserve this reward? Turns out that they haven’t done much at all. They’ve released details on some of their nuclear activities and programs and they blew up a building. And this after stalling for years. But the evidence that they intend to stop their nuclear program is no stronger now than it was after the 1994 agreement was signed, and yet Team Bush acts like its solved a major crisis in Asia.

The Clinton agreement was based on trust, and it turned out that trusting the regime in North Korea was not a wise choice. Without verification, that trust was misplaced and North Korea continued to work on their nuclear program while accepting the gifts that came with the agreement to stop those actions. The Bush doctrine in North Korea has been to end all US aid and brand the nation a rogue terror state. Remember that under Clinton, North Korea was still a fledgling nuclear hopeful working at a slow pace. Under Bush, their nuclear efforts were expanded and accelerated and they finally got a working nuclear bomb. Under Bush, North Korea got the power they wanted. And under Bush, they have used this power to get what they wanted-US aid, removal from the list of terrorist states. In return, they have provided relatively little and we have no evidence they have stopped anything.

Bush may claim that his “tough guy” approach actually got North Korea to come back to the table for talks. I dismiss this. Bush’s “tough guy” mentality just gave North Korea the push to finish their bomb project. Now that they have a nuclear weapon, they hold more cards than ever before, and Bush, trying to eke some success out of his mangled tenure somewhere, is ready to call it a day and claim Mission Accomplished.  But when it comes to North Korea, or any reclusive regime, what we know and what we think we know are always going to be very different things. And what they say and what they do will be too.

Clinton’s path of engagement didn’t stop the North Korean nuclear program, but it slowed it up while trying to open the country through humanitarian assistance. Bush’s path of belligerence brought to the world an uptick in North Korean nuclear program development and a nuclear armed North Korea, and now he is giving them humanitarian aid too. Pretending that his agreement is more valid, more enforceable, and more effective than the 1994 agreement is laughable at best.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

After the Great Depression and the stock market collapse of 1929, government eventually (under a Democratic president) managed to rein in the worst abuses of the private sector, and particularly the financial sectors, through regulation. Regulation that worked to protect the little guy, Joe and Jane American, while ensuring that businesses could still operate and make a profit. And low and behold, those regulations created a nation that had the highest levels of education, the highest levels of prosperity among citizens and companies, and the highest levels of innovation in the history of the modern world. But for the money-hungry power brokers and executives, that wasn’t good enough; they wanted more money and fewer rules. And so they began to lobby our supposed public servants to change the rules.

Between the late 1930’s and the early 1970’s, government regulations afforded working class Americans a way to buy a home, have safe foods and medicines, and even to save for a rainy day. It was unlikely that a serious illness could drive you from your home due to bankruptcy. It was next to unheard of for a family to be foreclosed on due to shady mortgage finances. Regulations and government agencies designed to benefit the working poor saw to it that people could find a piece of the American dream without having to sacrifice their childrens future or become indentured to the banks and corporations.

After World War II, until the late 1970s, the system work. The savings-and-loan industry was highly regulated by the federal government, with a mission to take people’s deposits and then provide loans for the sole purpose of helping people buy homes to live in. Washington insured those loans through the FDIC, provided mortgage discounts through FHA and the Veterans Administration, created a secondary mortgage market to guarantee a steady flow of capital, and required S&Ls to make predictable 30-year fixed loans. The result was a steady increase in homeownership and few foreclosures. –The American Prospect

But then came the era of Civil Rights, and it was discovered that even these regulations weren’t offering the American Dream to all citizens. The FHA, along with private lenders, were found to be discriminating against people of color in their lending practices so Congress had to act. And they did so by outlawing discrimination in lending. More regulation, passed in the spirit of fairness for all, only pissed off the money brokers.

And so began the push from the financial industry, and then every other industry under the sun, to eliminate or reduce those very regulations that made the American economy the envy of the world and the American people among the most prosperous. 

The American government, both Democrats and Republicans, have helped usher in this era of messy economics hand in hand, but the greater damage has been done under Republican administrations beholden to corporate financial largess through campaign contributions and other assorted financial goodies. The S & L crisis of the 1980’s was a direct result of government abolishing interest rate caps, opening the door to sub-prime lending practices. (An interesting note about that particular messy political era- Both John McCain (the GOP presidential nominee) and Neil Bush (the current presidents brother) were up to their eyeballs in fudiciary fiascoes during the S & L bail-outs, but we have such a short memory in this country don’t we?) The result was an intensive run-up of paper wealth, which became actual wealth in the hands of a few top CEO’s and financiers. Oh, and politicians too.

The deregulation of banking led to merger mania, with banks and S&Ls gobbling each other up and making loans to finance shopping malls, golf courses, office buildings, and condo projects that had no financial logic other than a quick-buck profit. When the dust settled in the late 1980s, hundreds of S&Ls and banks had gone under, billions of dollars of commercial loans were useless, and the federal government was left to bail out the depositors whose money the speculators had put at risk. –The American Prospect

So much for a benevolent government looking out for the little guy. And it only got worse. With the evaporation of serious financial regulation, creative money managers invented all sorts of risky schemes and unleashed them on the less-than-saavy American public.

Under Ronald Reagan, the Patron Saint of Greedy Douchebags, government interest in regulating financial markets withered away to next to nothing. Government agencies like the FHA were all but discarded, leaving unscrupulous lenders to fill the gap. The first George Bush was not only complicit in letting this massive shift of governmental responsibility, he continued it while his sons profitted from one bad business deal after another.

The S & L bail-out cost American taxpayers billions of dollars while those at the top got little more than a slap on the wrist to think about while they counted their ill-got gains.

An eight year stint with a Democrat in the White House did little to change the tide. Although the Clinton era is widely viewed as one of economic boom, the reality is that the rise of bad lending practices really took root in the 1990’s under his watch, and continued gutting of many New Deal era regulations during the 1990’s set the stage for the unbridled greed and ultimate collapse we now live with.

The sub-prime mess, the huge risks taken by hedge funds, and the conflicts of interest that led to Enron and kindred scandals, are all the consequences of serial bouts of financial deregulation. Since the 1970s, in the name of free-market efficiency, Congress and presidents of both parties repealed key protections put in place by the New Deal. But the main effect has been to engineer windfall profits for financial insiders, replace real productive innovation with financial engineering, shift wealth from families to corporations, and put the entire American economy at ever greater risk. -The American Prospect

It would be nice to put most of the blame on the current Idiot in Charge, George W. Bush, but it just can’t be done. This era of compounding deregulation is as bi-partisan as it gets. But Georgie Boy managed to accelerate the concept to a new degree and under his watch, deregulation has enjoyed a Blitzkreig that would have made Goering proud. Where previous administrations and Congresses seemed content to limit the deregulation to the financial sector, Bush has presided over widespread deregulation of most government agencies, and especially those who’s task was to help the little guy get a leg up. The FDA, USDA, FEMA, FHA are just the tip of the iceburg. Compound this reality to the massive privatization of services once handled by government employees, services now handed out under no-bid contracts and hardly scrutinized by government accountability teams, and you can see that the conservative War on Good Government has achieved a remarkable success, at least in terms of shafting the citizens of this country and creating financial havoc the world over.

Yet it could be that the tide is finally turning…again. Enraged by the scandals of energy manipulation and loose accounting standards discovered when Enron blew apart (led by yet another Bush buddy), Americans began to pull the wool off their eyes a little at a time. Not nearly enough or fast enough to spot the shady dealings underwriting the entire mortgage industry, but enough to get politicians to start rethinking regulation policy. And that is a good thing.

And so is this. As federal prosecutors begin to haul those who practised the worst kinds of predatory financing and deceptive investment schemes, it is time for lawmakers to rekindle the idea that consumers need protection from the worst excesses of capitalism-the very kinds of excesses that too often find life wihtout a watchdog agency at their backs.

Alan Greenspan, the former Fed Chief who presided over what may well become the most serious financial crisis in modern times, once noted that it was a “collectivist” myth the idea that businessmen, left to their own devices, “would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities and shoddy buildings.”On the contrary, he declared, “it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.” – TheNewsTribune.com

Right Alan. Unless of course there are no consequences to their actions and no government willing to end them. Especially when the government aids and abets their shady, unscrupulous, and definitely immoral ways.

This crisis isn’t over, in fact, it’s only really beginning. And it’s worldwide again, just like in the 1930’s. Only this time, in addition to a financial quagmire, we have an urgent energy crisis that is spiking costs of everything under the sun, a formidable environmental challenge that is creating food shortages and natural disasters of ever increasing destructive power, and several unending wars of ideology that do little more than make things worse for average people all over the world.

But the politicians and CEO’s are still raking in the dough, so I guess everything is fine after all. I mean, who really gives a shit about the rest of us? We’re just supposed to shut up and take it, right?

(Articles used for background include: Deregulation fueled mortgage fiasco, The Conservative Origins of the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis, The Bubble Economy, The Dangers of Deregulation, and Hundreds Indicted In Mortgage Fraud Probe. )

(Cross posted at Bring It On!) 

Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she’s open to the possibility of being Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate, a Democratic party aide said. Clinton, who appears on the verge of losing the Democratic presidential nomination to Obama, made the comment in a conference call with fellow members of New York’s congressional delegation, the aide said. The party aide quoted Clinton as saying, when asked about being Obama’s running mate: “I am open to it.”

So after months of degrading Obama’s qualifications to be president, Hillary is all set to play second fiddle? I don’t think so friends.

Those who feel that the party needs to “heal” after a bitter primary process may have a point. But having an Obama/Clinton ticket isn’t the way to do it. Frankly, I think the party is going to “heal” just fine. Hillary supporters abandoning the Democratic party and voting for McCain will probably be as numerous as the number of Hollywood stars who really did move to Canada afte Bush was reseated in 2004. The stakes of a third Bush term, including more potential Supreme Court appointments and an ongoing war mentality that would occur under McCain are enough to bring even the most rumpled Hillarycrats back to reality.

Obama will rally the party back together while courting independents and moderate conservatives who have tired of the Bush Presidential Plan. But they won’t join him with Hillary on the ticket, that much is sure. And frankly, Obama doesn’t need Hillary in the number 2 spot to win. In fact, having her as his vice-president would only serve to devalue his own presidency. The Clinton political machine would no doubt work to subtly undermine Obama in order to boost Hillary’s own chances for another run. Oh, and another thing, HIllary’s RFK reference makes her an uncomfortable person to be in line behind Barack. Not that she’d do anything like that, but still…

But truth be told, when it comes to their take on government, Obama and Hillary are worlds apart. Hillary is still stuck in that “What Can I Make Government Do For You” mentality while Obama has moved forward to “What Can We Do With Our Government.” These points of view may well be diametrically opposed to each other, and the last thing we need is discord in the top slots.

No, I don’t think Obama should tap Hillary for the VP position. Maybe there’s a place for her somewhere in his administration. Or better yet, she can remain in the Senate, doing her best for the poeple of New York and America by helping to pass a truly progressive agenda brought forth by the Obama Administration.

(cross psoted at Bring It On!)

CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL CONFIRMS RUMORS

According to an anonymous Clinton campaign official, Mrs. Clinton feels she has a better chance of realizing her lifelong dream to become president of the United States by switching parties now. Once the pre-ordained Democratic nominee, a string of primary losses to Obama have put the Clinton campaign into a downward spiral.

“She sees the writing on the wall. Clearly, this isn’t her husband’s Democratic
Party anymore,” said the campaign official. “If we’ve learned anything over the
past few years, it’s that sometimes experienced politicians have to do
courageous things in order to continue to help America. Joe Lieberman did it in
2006. Hillary is doing it now.”

SUPPORTERS STAND FIRM, OPPONENTS INDIFFERENT

Some Clinton supporters think the move is brilliant, and will continue to support Hillary no matter what ticket she’s on.

“I think it’s brilliant, “ said Nancy Bigbee of Westchester, Vermont. “McCain’s
like, what, 75 years old or something? She’ll probably be president in no time
this way.”

And that nugget may well hold some gold in it. McCain’s health hasn’t been much of an issue in this campaign, but he is 70 years old, and would be the oldest president ever sworn in to a first term if elected. A bitter Democratic primary season has battered Mrs. Clinton among her former party, making it a long shot for her to get the nomination at this point. This is likely her best shot now at getting back into the White House.

Obama supporters have mixed feelings about the announcement, being somewhat happy that the bitter in-fighting will finally end, but mostly being indifferent, having stopped listening to Clinton months ago.

WEEKS IN THE MAKING

Rumors of a possible Clinton party switch have been circling Washington recently following Sen. Clinton’s media appearances with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Richard Mellon Scaife, a vociferously staunch opponent of Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, for years. Even Ann Coulter loves her. Democrats have been not so quietly rumbling about what they saw as her attempts to cozy up to the “vast right wing conspiracy” she once railed against. Senator Clinton’s own recent comments also seem to have been quietly laying the groundwork for just such a tactic. Earlier last month she repeated on several talk shows that both she and Senator McCain had the lifetime of dedicated experience needed to run this country, something her former Democratic opponent Barack Obama didn’t have. In fact, up until today’s announcement, Senator Clinton had been Senator McCain’s best campaigner, with her repeated attempts to derail the Obama campaign.

“All of the dirty tricks of the last few weeks, from the NAFTA frame-up against
Obama in Ohio to the subtly drawn out race issues and Reverend Wright
associations to the sublimation of the primary rules in Florida and Michigan-
all these things and more have been part of the Clinton campaign’s efforts to
divide the Democratic party and bring some votes over to a McCain-Clinton
ticket,” said the unnamed Clinton campaign official.

When asked about the timing of the announcement, coming on the heels of Senator Clinton’s steadfast refusal to leave the Democratic race before the end of the primary season, this same official noted that, “April is clearly the time to strike. We know what we’re doing here. We’re not a bunch of fools.”

WIN-WIN FOR GOP?

But what does a McCain-Clinton ticket hold for Republicans? For starters, Hillary Clinton began her political life as a Barry Goldwater disciple, the former Arizona Republican and presidential candidate in 1964. Long embraced by the more conservative Republicans, Hillary’s early associations with Goldwater’s brand of politics probably runs deep in her own political psyche, proving her to be a Republican at heart. It’s not just coincidence that McCain also hails from Arizona.

But more than just her conservative underpinnings, Clinton brings to the GOP ticket that tough, but feminine touch that’s been missing all these years- like Margaret Thatcher did for Britain’s Conservative party in the 1980’s. Conventional wisdom holds that Republicans, especially women, wouldn’t vote for Clinton come hell or high water, but that truth probably won’t hold at the ballot box. During her husband’s Oval Office infidelities, Mrs. Clinton stood by her man to the end. While derided at the time for by many women’s groups, then First-Lady Clinton unknowingly started a trend that has been seen all too often these last seven years during GOP prominence. For every Congressman convicted of taking bribes there’s been a wife by their side. For every GOP sex scandal (from cruising for page boys to soliciting in the airport bathroom) there’s been a tightly smiling GOP wife by her man. These women credit Hillary for their strength almost as much as they do their faith. Clearly Clinton can hold her own with this demographic at the polls. And that’s one area McCain clearly needs help with.

Hillary also shows promise that she is willing to carry on with some of the more popular Bush policies like the War in Iraq, by giving life to the falsehood that she had to dodge sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia while serving as First Lady. Such inspired untruth telling shows she’s not only ready, but also willing to say anything to get her point across. This is the kind of trait Republicans love in there politicians-the power to change reality to fit the situation at hand.

Both Clinton and McCain bill themselves as Bi-Partisan leaders and they’ve proven this much. Both reached across the aisle to support the Iraq War. Both supported the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill brought forth by Senator McCain and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before they opposed it. Both supported Bush’s No Child Left Behind program too, and still support it generally despite its high costs to states, narrowed curriculum geared towards testing, and less than stellar results. In these and many other issues, Hillary Clinton and John McCain seem to make the perfect political couplet in generations.

LAST, BEST SHOT AT WHITE HOUSE

But the bottom line is that Hillary Clinton has had her sights set on the presidency for decades. It is her life long dream and from her point of view, this year was supposed to be “her” year. She’d hoped to take the prize under the Democrats banner, if only to tie the double-shot secured by the Bush clan. But with Barack Obama clearly the popular choice among registered Democratic voters, and among many Independents too, Mrs. Clinton is realist enough to know that her only ride back to Pennsylvania Avenue is in the back seat of John McCain’s limo- and faced with the prospect of losing it all, a short stint as VP looks pretty good to her now.

The announcement, scheduled for release on April 1, 2008, also noted that both Senators McCain and Clinton would be unreachable for comment for most of the day, as they will be coordi
nating their campaign strategies for the next phase of the campaign.

(cross-posted at Bring It On!)

“I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to
say.“He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of
experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put
forth a speech he made in 2002.” – Hillary
Clinton before the Texas and Ohio primaries.

And with that comment, Hillary Clinton proclaimed to the nation that if she can’t have the presidential nomination then the whole Democratic party might as well just vote Republican, because if the choice ends up being between McCain and Obama, well then Hillary thinks that four more years of Bush-like policies are A-OK for America.

Sounds like Hillary has Joe Lieberman for an advisor. If the Democrats don’t give you what is obviously rightfully yours to take, then the hell with them! Better to side with the law-breaking, torture loving, warmongering, Bush GOP than actually listen to the people of this country when they tell you that they prefer someone else for the top job.

Of course, when Hillary makes statements like the one above, it only highlights why so many Democrats-and so many Americans of all political flavors-have thrown their support behind Barack Obama. We don’t want a president who thinks that decades of experience in a crooked political system is a plus. We don’t want another president who refuses to acknowledge the reality of a situation, who thinks that she should just get her way because, by golly, it’s her turn and she’s due. We don’t want another imperialistic attitude sitting in the Oval Office, pretending that things will only be better with her in charge, that no one else (save the opposition party nominee) can quite handle the task. We don’t want another presidential election that boils down to a choice between bad and worse. And this time, we actually have a chance to change those dynamics by giving the nomination to Obama.

But for Hillary the equation is a different one altogether. For Hillary, the question isn’t who can better help to end corruption in government or who can give America back her reputation in the world or even who will inspire Americans to get back to building a better country and world. Nope, for Hillary the only question is “How can I win this thing?” And in answering that question, she shows that for her, winning is the only thing that matters.

Debate after debate has proven to voters that on many domestic issues, both Clinton and Obama share similar goals, varying mostly in the details of policy than in the necessity of movement. But under the surface is where the differences lie, and voters have figured out that where Obama seeks to empower us all, Hillary simply seeks power for its own sake-and for her own sense of personal destiny.

Since falling behind Obama in the delegate count, Hillary has pulled out all the stops to paint Obama as unprepared for the task of being president, hoping that by highlighting his so-called “inexperience” that voters will flock under her banner. It simply hasn’t worked. Even her primary victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island were slim victories and weren’t enough to even narrow the gap in the delegate count. But what Hillary seems to ignore at this stage of the game is the fact that many, many Republicans are less than satisfied with McCain as their nominee. These GOPers are now watching the Democratic race and asking themselves a serious question-could they vote for a Democrat? For many, if the candidate is Hillary the answer in a resounding “NO.” But if it is Obama, there are many who will jump ship and vote for a Democrat. At least they would if the vote was held today. But if Hillary-who they will never vote for in the general election-continues to portray Obama as a weak choice for Democrats, she is also hurting him for the general election and giving McCain a better shot of winning the prize. For someone who claims to despise the Bush Administration, stumping (even discreetly) for the GOP nominee who puts forth ambitions not so unlike those of Bush seems an odd way of telling voters that they should pick you. Especially Democratic voters who would rather sit in a pit of vipers than give the White House to another Bush-like contender.

Michael Gerson said it well in this Washington Post article:

“Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the
nomination — and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of
Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions
within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected
superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an
inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.”

Indeed. And what a presidential path to victory that is.

But as she keeps on campaigning against Obama, she keeps highlighting her own presidential unworthiness by trying to paint Obama as some untested, incapable hack who showed up at the last minute and fooled us all into taking away what was and should be hers and hers alone.
Like when she tried to throw light on a land purchase Obama made. Obama acknowledged that the deal was a bad idea and has taken responsibility for his actions. He’s not denying the mistake, not battling to have records hidden. And yet for Hillary Clinton, years were spent examining a little land deal called Whitewater, years which she fought and fought to keep the whole thing under wraps.

And this whole “experience” thing is a real laugh too, especially if you look back to the 1992 campaign of her husband. Bill Clinton was so overmatched by the senior George Bush when it came to government service and experience that the Clinton’s had to portray his candidacy around a different theme- something they called “change.” Funny how what seemed such a good idea in 1992 (and was a good idea by the way) is now some kind of harbinger of failure if Obama wins the nomination. And let’s be real here- Hillary isn’t all that much more “experienced” at being president that anyone else who has never been president.

And then there is Hillary’s tendency towards secrecy. In a move that likely inspired Dick Cheney’s own energy meetings, Hillary has yet to fully release the documents related to her own health care meetings in the early 1990’s. She has yet to release her income tax returns even though Obama has done so and even though when running for Senate in 2000 she screamed about how her opponent didn’t release his returns. A small bit of hypocrisy that reveals a lot about the candidate herself.

And now her latest flop is with regards to the Florida and Michigan primaries-she “won” both events, despite a pledge not to campaign and now wants those delegates added to her tally. Of course, she and all the other candidates knew well in advance that those states’ delegates were not going to count because of some disagreement with the DNC and the stat Democratic parties. Obama (and the others still in the race at the time) followed the rules and stayed out of the states, in Michigan no name but Hillary even appeared on the ballot. But now that she is losing what is rightfully hers, she wants to change the game and get those delegates in. Tell me again how Hillary would be a different, better president that Bush? After all, lying and cheating and ignoring the rules doesn’t seem to have made this country a better place in the last eight years.

And for goodness sakes, I’m not
even mentioning her many corporate ties that make her incapable of legislating purely for her constituents, or her support for the war in Iraq, or her willingness to ignore the massive abuses of law perpetrated by Team Bush.

All grace and honorable when she was the presumed “inevitable” nominee, Hillary Clinton coming in second isn’t such a noble character. I suspect though that this is a more true representation of who Hillary Clinton really is, and of who she would be as president of this country.

And these are just some more reasons why I support Barack Obama.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

To say that world opinion of America has degraded under the hand of George W. Bush may be an understatement, but I’m not going to belabor that point today. Suffice it to say that Bush has undermined our national reputation even among our allies during his tenure, both with his belligerance and his policies, and his concerted lack of curiosoty and ability reality haven’t helped things much either. Where this country used to be viewed as a beacon of hope, promise, and freedom by the nations of the world, the United States today is viewed with skepticism by many, with scorn by many more. Instead of a country that helps, we’re perceived as a country that takes and pushes its way through the global arena. Rule of Law? Not under this president. America may still be king in terms of brute force, but our prestige is sorely bruised, and declining world opinion makes it harder for America to lead the way towards a better world future. The damage Bush has done to America at home has been grave. But the damage he has done to America abroad has probably been even worse for this country.

American tend to discount the thoughts and concerns of the rest of the world in most everything we do. Hell, throw down a world map and most Americans probably couldn’t find more than half a dozen foreign countries without computerized assistance. So it’s only natural that when electing our president we think only about what a person offers us here at home, completely discounting the importance of what that person could offer us around the world.

The truth of the matter is that the American president sets the tone for how every other country will act towards American inspired goals and ideas. The world knows that America has the might to make happen the things it wants to make happen, but it isn’t might that shows leadership. True leadership relies on both might and the ability to gather partners around a common goal. And while might may force others to the table, albeit with a sour taste in their mouths, true statesmanship allows the participants to sit at the table both eager to listen and willing to participate in our goals, not out of fear of retribution but out of eagerness to forge a better path.

Which bring me around to the point of this post. World opinion surrounding the current U.S. presidential elections shows excitement about the possibility of Barack Obama becoming our next president. Like many Americans, Obama is perceived as a chance to change not just the direction of American politics and policies but the face of America in general. To many abroad, McCain looks a lot like Bush, with his continued support for the Iraq War and the broader Bush War on Terrorism and all its faulty premises to his Cold War mentality towards foes and U.S. foreign strategy in a world that has moved on. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is hardly viewed as the groundbreaking candidate abroad, especially in areas of concern like the Middle East. Remember that during her husbands reign of power, attacks in Iraq continued the war of the first President Bush. She carries the baggage of Bill Clinton’s presidency around with her whether she wants to or not, and despite her husbands popularity in general, not all things “Clinton” are viewed favorably around the globe.

But in Obama, non-Americans see a glimmer of hope that under his leadership America could not only regain her standing as a right and honorable nation among the world community, but that she could again assume a leadership role in solving world problems like global climate change, energy diversity, and a path towards global prosperity and peace. But don’t take my word for it. Read what people are saying themselves…

From Australia:

He’s (Obama) cosmopolitan, he offers a fresh framework for conceptualising global issues, and he is a defence against fundamentalist Christianity in the US.
This quote from an older Australian male living in Sydney is a good example of the symbolism surrounding the Obama “nomination”: “I think Barack Obama represents the best hope for a world entering a dangerous state of confrontation between Islam and Christianity. Obama is a Christian but he had Muslim parents and grew up in the world’s most populous Islamic nation, Indonesia …”

From England:

For the rest of us the Obama campaign is more than about mere American domestic politics. That moment on a freezing January day in Washington when a black man and his family stand on the steps of the Capitol to take the presidential oath will be flashed up all over the world. The wordless message to young black people from New York to Nairobi, Johannesburg to Brixton will be of a whole new world of personal possibilities. America’s sense of itself will be redeemed. The way that the world sees it will be transformed.

From Russia:

After presenting the question to nearly 50 Russians, the answer is clear: one hundred percent of our not-so-random sampling said Senator Barack Obama is their first choice. The reasons are varied. Some of Russia Blog’s Russian friends have had great experiences in the U.S., and they genuinely believe that the first-term junior senator from Illinois is a leader who is capable of bringing positive change to America. They like Mr. Obama’s goal of withdrawing the troops from Iraq and agree with his health care and education policies. Other Russians are more concerned about Russia, and don’t like the anti-Putin rhetoric of Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton. (It is important to remember that Vladimir Putin still enjoys nearly 80 percent approval rating, and most Russians view themselves as enjoying more freedom and wealth today than ever before in their country’s thousand-year history.)

Russians have been keeping their savings in U.S. currency for over a decade. Some Russians believe that America’s aggressive foreign policy, negative image abroad, and high military spending contributed to the weakening of the dollar. Whether there is a defensible correlation or not, even if Mr. Obama spends more federal budget money on healthcare and education, the Russians in our informal poll hope that withdrawal from Iraq and increased “friendliness” of the United States abroad will help to strengthen the U.S. currency.

From France:

In an informal poll of the French Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution. Their members are descendants of French aristocrats who fought in the American Revolution. They are about as conservative a group as you can find in France, and yet they all preferred Obama. And they are not alone. The French as a whole say Obama is their favorite candidate. He has caught their imagination with his image and soaring oratory. When they talk about him, they almost always mention Kennedy. Even French Socialists, who chose a woman to run as their candidate in France’s presidential election last year, prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton by a slight margin.

And Iran:

“…the whispers of a Democratic candidate winning the US presidential
election could soften the dark and frozen atmosphere in Iran. Iran’s current president – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – was elected two years ago to face the foreign threat of having Iran considered a part of the ‘axis of evil’. Two years ago, Iran could have been attacked any moment, and a person was chosen to counter the foreign pressure. If the foreign threat diminishes, a slow democratic movement can go forward. Obama’s ideas on foreign affairs and Iran make reformists happy… maybe some do not know but peace and dialogue is like poison for a group whose political existence relies on violence and war.”

Now I’ll happily grant that these few glimpses into the minds of others across the globe do not equate to some kind of wholesale international support for Barack Obama, but if these are the average thoughts of average people across the globe then the international outlook for America with Obama at the helm could be promising.

As important as what a candidate can do for Americans at home is what can a candidate bring to America from abroad. Obama hasn’t the international political experience that Hillary has, but he has more practical international experience borne out of living in several foreign countries. Obama hasn’t the “war toughness” of McCain, but he has a more mature concept of when and how to use the power of the sword. Obama brings a face of hope (that a black man can become president in a country born from prejudice and slavery); he brings youthfulness (compared to the 72 year old McCain and the 60 year old Clinton); he offers infectuous ambition (challenging average citizens to help colve national and international problems); and he brings the message that in a new world, we must sometimes cast off the oppressive bonds that create gridlock, especially when we’ve been bound up so long we barely recognize the chains for what they are.

How the world perceives America is directly related to how they see our president. Right now, we are the bully in the playground and foreign attitudes towards us and our policies are very low. As important to solving our national and international problems is the face of our leader. Electing Obama will go a long way towards repairing American prestige abroad. That’s something that McCain and Hillary can’t do, not so long as they cling to the old way of governing-which they seem very likely to do.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

It’s no secret here that I am an Obama supporter. It’s his message that has energized me, in no small part because his message is so similar to the one I laid out when I began political blogging in 2005. Long before I even knew about Barack Obama I began writing about a different kind of politics- one where the power lay with the people and not with big corporations and special interest donors; one where politicians worked for the good of the citizens and not for the good of their benefactors or personal spoils; and one where government policies were crafted on sound principals of the greater good and executed with efficiency and common sense. Of course these weren’t new concepts when I wrote them and they’re not new concepts today, but when was the last time a serious politician not only espoused the rhetoric of political change but had the moxie to actually make it happen, to make it a central theme of a presidential campaign in such a visible and believable way? Not since Thomas Jefferson has a president offered such a stark choice for voters in determining what path their country will take. Jefferson’s grand change for American politics happened when he busted down the door of the new American aristocratic ruling class and delivered our government into the hands of the common man. Prior to Jefferson, political kingmaking and policy crafting was the exclusive domain of the upper classes, and the common man was thought too ignorant and/or too incapable of having a hand in political affairs. Jefferson abhored that idea, found it too similar to the monarch system of government this country fought so hard to divest itself of. Jefferson brought the common man into politics, and thus brought a bit more democracy in to this Democratic Republic of ours.

Of course, over 200 years later, Jefferson’s political revolution has paled, and too often seems little more than a charicature of itself today. Substitute today’s lobbyists and corporations for yesteryears well-bred and high-born, and the government we have been languishing under isn’t so different from where we began. We still have all the trappings of a democratic government-people vote after all- but none of the benefits of a government that truly governs for the betterment of its people. And the reason is simple- the average person still thinks that voting is enough, that personal involvement beyond casting a ballot is a waste of time, and our politicians and government reinforce this perception at every turn.

But Americans can see clearly now the failure that occurs when government is left to run amok, led for generations by self-serving ideologues, and finally handed over to a man-child whose best trick is to break the china and shove the shards under someone else’s carpet with a smirk on his face. We see that decades of citizen inattention and corporate dominance has created a wave of disastrous proportions coming on all fronts- a debilitating economic crisis, shattered health care and ineffective education programs, false security ploys that do little more than waste money, a splintered and wounded defense capability– the broken bits are littered everywhere. Americans can see that change is needed. In Barack Obama, Americans are seeing that change is possible.

So let’s say that Obama wins the democratic nomination, wins the general election, and in January 2009 he is sworn in as the next president of the United States. Let’s say that he wins the election by a comfortable margin and has what would be considered widespread support among American voters. Let’s say that he rides into the White House with his banner of CHANGE waving in the wind, right under the American flag. What happens then?

Time for the reality check folks, because no matter how much I support Barack Obama and no matter how much I agree with his premise of change coming from the people of this country, from involving them and listening to them and acting to make their lives work a little bit better each day, I know in my heart of heart that the first two years of an Obama presidency will look a lot like they do now. In fact, aside from my hope that President Obama would put a quick and decisive end to the Iraq quagmire, I don’t expect much in the way of real-world political change from Washington D.C. until 2011 at the earliest.

The reason for this is pretty simple, but is probably missed by a huge number of voters. Because despite eight years of contrary actions, our president does not legally have brute power to do as he sees fit whenever he sees fit. Only in extreme circumstances (like in a government run by ideologues and selfish power brokers- or in a dictatorship) does a man like George W. Bush manage to reinvent the powers of the presidency and have his minions fall into lock step behind him. In normal, LAWFUL, administrations, the real power of government lies in the legislature, and the president is just the person who sets the tone, and guides the direction of government as the people see fit.

Obama is setting the tone now. The tone is change. The tone is getting corporations out of government and getting real people back inside. The tone is an end to wasteful spending and harmful policies. The tone is an end of cronyism and outsourcing and payback politics. And the people are responding to this new tone in politics. We want to trust our leaders again. We want to know that our hard earned dollars aren’t making the rich richer while we struggle to make ends meet. We want to have a say in how our taxes are used. And we want to reclaim our reputation in the world.

But even though this election could bring us new leadership in the legislature too, the attention and energy is all focused on who will be the next president. If the next president ends up being John Mccain or Hillary Clinton then the congressional seats up for grabs won’t really matter. Neither of those candidates have real plans to try to change the system of governing. They are both so entrenched in the status quo that they can’t even see why it has become so rotten. But if Obama wins the presidency, those who sit on Capitol Hill will be the conduit or the barrier to real change. And as few voters are considering the reality of the situation, a President Obama will be facing the same corrupted politicians, the same moneyed lobbyists, the same pay-to-play political culture for at least two more years.

Serious political watchers understand this, and critics of all things democratic are probably chomping at the bit for an Obama presidency, built on the mantra of change, that will likely produce little real change in the business of politics for at least two years. I can imagine the pundits now, ready to tear apart the concept of real political change by claiming that the campaign rhetoric was nothing but chump chat if Washington continues on as usual, as it is likely to do. But in looking ahead to this particular future, one can on
ly hope that both the voters and a President Obama will use the first two years to plant the seeds of change, nurture them with care, and help them sprout into full fledged flowers of reality when the 2011 mid-terms come around.

As President, I expect Obama to immediately work to end the Iraq war and begin to repair this nations damaged reputation in the world. I would expect Obama to rescind the most vile parts of the Bush years- ending officially sanctioned torture, ending the most divisive aspects of partisanship, ending political policies that are shaped on evangelical, end-times philosophies. But I would also expect Obama to continue speaking about the things that have propelled him to the lead in this primary campaing. I expect him to continue to implore the people to seek power in government by ousting those who cling to the status quo of our dirty politics. I would expect a President Obama to issue a call for a legislature filled with people who believe that the politics of today are over, that a new day in America can only come when the Congresspeople and Senators finally discard the power-partisan politics, the high money campaigns or else get discarded themselves.

Change can come, it really can. But electing Barack Obama as our next president is just the first step towards change. We can’t just give the man the job and expect he can single-handidly change the corrupt culture in DC. We have to take the next step for him. We have to give him a legislature that will embrace a new day in American politics. We need to give him people who will fight for their constituents instead of their corporate donors. We need to elect a congress and senate who also embraces the power of change through people.

People may not be seeing this yet. Right now, the euphoria surrounds the possibility of a people’s president. And that’s all well and good. After all, we have to start somewhere, and electing a person who actually believes that change is possible, necessary, and achievable through the involvement of real people is a great place to start.

Just remember that Obama alone won’t be enough. We need to take the next step. It’d be nice to think that the steps would happen together, that not only would we elect a president commited to really fixing the worst parts of government but that we’d elect legislators who see things that way too. But in this I am realistic.

Barack Obama is just one man with a shared vision of a better America, a different America. We need him to be the next president if we ever want to move in a new direction. But we also must recognize that in order for him to succeed, in order for us all to succeed in changing the way our country works, we need to fill the halls of Congress with people who also will work for change. We don’t have these people there now. We won’t have enough of them there in 2009. But we have time to find them- people of all political stripes who care more about really helping America and Americans than they do about buttressing their resumes and bank accounts-and we have to elect them. Because with a president committed to changing the American government AND a congress that actually listens to the people, this country can once again be a leader in solving our own and the worlds problems without making things worse than when they started.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

I’ve got an idea though, and it’s something that I’ve said before. There is a fundamental difference between the campaign of Clinton and Obama, but you have to listen carefully to really hear it. It’s not so much in their policy ideas- both want to help average Americans with health care and the economy; they both talk about developing energy independence and protecting the environment; they both talk about schools and jobs and retirement concerns. And with some minor detail differences, it’s tough to distinguish one message from the other. But there is an overriding difference, and that difference could make all the difference in the world.

The difference is simple- in speech after speech, Clinton’s main focus is what she will do for you. Take a look at her pre-State of the Union remarks today and you will find a whole lot of “I believe this” and “I will do that.” Clinton is so ensconced in the politics of one doing it all for the many that she is missing the driving force behind the Obama candidacy, and the force that is energizing voters in ways not seen in decades. That force is the simple inclusion of us all.

Obama, after his win in South Carollina took some time to thank supporters and stump for the next big contest. Take a peek– notice the almost near absense of the word “I”? Instead, Obama talks about what WE can do, things WE can fix, change WE can make. Obama knows that America is tired of the special interests that tie politicians to corporations, leaving out the American people. We are tired of politics that make the politician and their sinuous ties to corporate money the most important piece of the puzzle. We are finished with the pay to play mentality that all of DC is immersed in. We are ready for a real change, and Obama alone is talking the talk that puts average Americans at the front of that change.

Look, I’m no fool. I know that the kind of change Obama presents won’t magically occur when Obama take the oath of office. That would be but the start. Once elected, he would still face the same intransigent system he is railing against. But is he used his office effectively, and the bully pulpit as well, he could ask the American people to continue the change they began and turn out all the politicians who won’t evolve. He could energize the voters to put new people in place who would feel the need to change the corruption so endemic to our national politics. And to do that, he needs all of us- the “we” he speaks of so much.

Change will not come to American politics unless American voters fight for it and toss the bums out who insist on keeping things as they are. Hillary Clinton’s campaign focus on herself and her abilities is just more of the same- big brother politics that say Americans can’t handle the tasks of government without the “pro’s” running the show. Well Hillary- we’ve seen how badly the “pro’s” have screwed things up. It’s time for a change. And Obama is the only one offering the kind of change we really want and need. The difference between old politics and new politics is easy to spot when you know what to look for. See if you can tell the difference yourself…

From Hillary:

“If you will stand with me, if you here in Connecticut will support me on
February 5th, I promise you that I will get up every single day and wage a
winning campaign against whomever the Republicans nominate.I’ve been up against
Republicans for a very long time now. I was thinking the other day, wouldn’t it
be nice if they just announced that they were embarrassed about what happened to
the country and they weren’t going to run for the White House again? Somehow I
don’t think that is going to happen. I think we will have to wage a vigorous and
winning campaign. Since I have been on the receiving end of their incoming fire
for all of these years and much to their dismay, I am still standing here, I
think I know how to take us to victory in November.”

From Obama:

“Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave
this great state with a new wind at our backs, and we take this journey across
this great country, a country we love, with the message we’ve carried from the
plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the
South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were
down, that out of many we are one, that while we breathe we will hope, and where
we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can’t,
we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American
people in three simple words: Yes, we can. “

Now ask yourself this question: Do you want a government that views you as a partner or one that views you as a dependent. Because that is the real difference between these two candidates. And that is what you need to think about.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For the last year, the MSM has been non-stop in promoting its version of the general election: Clinton vs. Guiliani. Sure, other candidates have gotten their face time and exposure, but by and large, ever since they announced their candidacies, Clinton and Guiliani have “been the ones to beat,” at least so far as the media has been concerned. In Iowa at least, the media and the people are not necessarily of the same mind.

Selecting Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in their primary caucus, Iowa pushed Clinton into 3rd place on the Democrat side of things and Guiliani down to 6th, after Ron Paul even, on the Republican ticket. Perhaps the days of media crowned politicians may finally be coming to an end? Too early to tell, but the signs from Iowa are encouraging.

For Democrats, Iowans chose Obama with 38% of the votes, followed by Edwards with 30% and Hillary with 29%. Republicans gave Huckabee a similar margin with 34% of the votes over Romney’s 25% and McCain and Thompson tying with 13% each.

These returns hold some promise for me personally. Promise in that Americans are finally seeming to come out of their self-induced apathy and are taking an active role in their government. If the 2006 mid-term elections were meant to be a wake-up call to the GOP and the president, then 2008 may well be a wake-up call to all the politicians. Clearly voters are less than happy with the path taken by the Democratic majority in Congress, at least as unhappy as with the GOP led debacle of the last 6 years. Their demand for change has gone unheard and unmet by the politicians and this primary makes it more clear than ever that status quo doesn’t cut it anymore.

Clinton and Guiliani are of the same mold as all the leadership in place now. Obama, Edwards, Huckabee and Romney at least appear to Iowans to show promise of a new direction for America, and voters of both parties are grabbing at that chance.

I like Obama and Edwards, much more than I do Clinton. So from a liberal perspective, I agree with Iowans tonight. And while I think that Huckabee is too religiously oriented for my taste, the last time we had an Arkansan in the White House, things weren’t all that bad.

Of course, one primary does not make a nomination, but already Dodd and Biden are throwing in the towel, and more are sure to follow in the coming days and weeks. The battle is just beginning, and with New Hampshire just ahead, this thing is wide open. But I’m glad to see that the first official contest wasn’t a coronation of media frontrunners or politicians who think they are entitled to and deserve the top job just because “it’s their turn and they’ve earned it.”

(cross posted at Bring It On!)