Clinton is dangerous because he thinks he knows what he clearly doesn’t know. His judgment is poor on many levels and as we learn more about what he and his administration pushed the more we connect the dots. This guy did much more harm to the US economy, it turns out, than is godfather - Ronald Reagan.

Obama has always been a Bill Clinton protege. Again, it’s the blind smart asses leading the blind smart asses.

@johncp: “...but Clinton gave us the best economy in decades…”

And he did that, in the short term only, by handing control of the economy and government over to Wall Street by repealing Glass-Steagall and ratifying NAFTA.  He helped create the “too big to fail” banks, and helped send jobs out of the U.S en masse.  These were crucial blunders.  We now have giant banks running things.  Great.  He helped do it.

By johncp, July 13 at 1:21 am

But of course actions and outcomes are what matter to the extent that we can control outcomes.

But using Ralph Nader as a person who only speaks and has not acted to match…is way off base. He has acted with solid outcomes where he has been positioned to do so. He has not been elected so we’ll never know how he would or could match words to action and outcomes.

Nader has never been elected because he is not fully of the system. And so like a stranger in town he cannot be mayor. No doubt that if he were elected he would find himself in a strange land with enemies on all sides with knives. It would be more spectical then anything else (of course reality could alter this view). I think what some would prefer is that Mr. Nader be given during at least one of his attempts at running a place at the debates. It would have changed the conversation.

In my opinion the problem with the USA are very deeply systemic and it seems unlikely that any PERSON will change that within the system. What we have contrived is an unsustainable world. It made some sense one hundred and fifty years ago when the world and the Earth’s resources appeared endless. Now we are at an end and we are squabbling over debt ceilings, all an invention of our imaginations. A monetary system that is kaput, an economics that has od’s on growth and is in the crashing lane. We all know about the crazed endless wars.

So while I’ll join in, say in a sane world Mr. Feingold could give O a run for his money and continue to play out the game. BUT the Party is Clearly OVER. It this is the beginning of what could be an ugly demise.

Apparently, there’s no way of persuading disillusioned Obama supporters, who continue to begrudingly defend him, to face reality.  They ask, “how can Obama concede so easily to republican demands, and how can he continue the worse republican and Bush politics?”  The problem is, that merely “calling yourself” a democrat means absolutely nothing.  Merely defending democratic and populist goals and principles, with noble and rhetorically moving “speeches,” also proves nothing, absolutely nothing.  Yet our electorate continues to fall for this nonsense.  Obama is a republican, pure and simple.  I don’t give a damn what he calls himself.
This gives the lie to Nader’s hopelessly failing approach to politics.  Nader’s rhetoric is uplifting.  But, in the absence of the responsibilities that you face when actually winning the presidency, it’s empty and meaningless.  Leadership is demonstrated in courageous and principled “acts,” not in speeches, not in intricate theorizing, not in abstruse, armchair political philosophising that Nader is so good at.  Our country is full of political philosophers, but courageous politicians, able to take the bruising that comes with fighting an irrational opponent, and win in the bargain, are almost nonexistant.  Nader argued, deceitfully, that we foolishly continued to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” because he took it for granted that he was perfect, because he was so smart.  But what would have happened if by some inconceivable miracle, Nader had been elected.  How would he have dealt with the realities of politics in this country?  Nader didn’t solely “cause” Gore’s loss, but only a mathematical imbecile thinks that Nader didn’t “contribute” to Gore’s loss.  Because of our voting folly, because so many of us were hypnotized by the “lesser of two evils” bullshit, we ended up with the worst of two evils, and we repeated this when we allowed the same adolescent crap to help elect Obama over Hillary.  Some Obamaphiles say that their man proved something important when he beat Hillary, forgetting that “how” you win is more important than “that” you win.  Obama won with immense corporate favoritism over Hillary, and immense corporate money (a million dollars from Goldman-Sachs), immense support in his favor from an essentially conservative TV media, and a huge number of republican votes that came his way in some States where the certified McCain victory in the primarites, left republicans free to (crossover)vote for the Dem candidate of their choice.  Those republicans were delighted to have the opportunity to help disable Hillary and give the election to a so-called democrat that clearly sided with them.  The Clinton haters obsess over Clinton’s mistakes, hoping, in the face of many secret Clinton supporters too naive and cowardly to defend the former president, to bring him down (good luck), but Clinton gave us the best economy in decades, a world essentially free of much U.S. involvement in war, a surplus, and 22,000,000 jobs, and this, while he faced a trumped up, preposterous, impeachment and constant vicious attacks from the lunatic republican right.  Obama, by comparison, looks anemic, schoolboyish, in over his head.  His vaunted gigantic intellect, seems more like that of an average, young, college law professor.  Clinton haters make much of the fact that, at the conclusion of the stupid impeachment, Clinton lost his license to practic law in Arkansas, whereas I see it as further and clear proof of his strength.

@the worm: “Obama does
not represent me or my interests, and I will not vote for him in 2012.”

Sir or Madam, your Truthdig handle is a misnomer. 

Minimally (and I’m not two-party guy) this President needs to be primaried. Who?

The best Dem out there that could give Obama a run for his money is Russ Feingold. I say let’s get a movement going around someone with spine.

Obama in any case has got to go.

Here’s what I want Obama to do:
Stop compromising. Say, “The Republicans have refused to compromise again and again. The Country can no longer stand to be black-mailed to protect a privileged few.  As of this point the Republicans need to do what’s right or I am going to start the process of deciding what we will and will not spend money on.  I’m going to start by freezing all expenditures in Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. If this isn’t enough, I will freeze expenditures in Republican districts in Minnesota, Florida, North Dakota, Arizona, Indiana, and Arkansas.  Voters have put these people in office who want major cuts in the budget. I am going to start by having those voters be the first to pay for those cuts. Run recall elections and put in better people and I’ll reconsider. “

And stick by it. Make it clear that it’s ALWAYS been politics, always been the Jacksonian Spoils System, and he’s just no longer pretending.

But Obama will never do this.  Reid is too chicken-hearted to back him and Pelosi’s only a little better.

From this round, the Republicans have all they need:

      “Democrats Put Social Security and Medicare Down for Cuts!”

Look, Im a Democrat. But this President is not a Democrat. I dont know what he
thinks he is; Im tired of trying to figure his motives; I dont care. Obama does
not represent me or my interests, and I will not vote for him in 2012.

Some in my party - yes, Im a Democrat - want Obama to “lead”. Well, I dont.

Here’s what Obama has done when he “leads”:

1. On the Debt and Fair Taxes: 72 percent of us support raising taxes on the
rich including 68 percent of Independents and 54 percent of Republicans -
Washington Post-ABC poll Washington Post-ABC poll, Spring 201. Obama twice
‘bargained’ to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy – first with McConnell
and the second time with Boehner.

2. On the Financial Bailout: Over 70% of us opposed the bailout. Obama
accelerated it with two Bush carryovers - Geithner & Bernanke.

3. On Health Care: 72% of us supported “a government administered insurance
plan - something like Medicare for those under 65—that would compete for
customers with private insurers.” Obama supported a private-sector, for-profit
health insurance ‘reform’ providing insurance companies fabulous guaranteed
profits & burdening ‘customers’ with costly coverage.in the form of hundreds of
millions of new ‘mandated customers’.

4. On Wars in the Middle East: 64% of us opposed expanding the war in
Afghanistan and wanted to disentangle from Bush-era ‘War on Terror’ and
‘preventive war’ policies. When Obama leaves office there will more troops
involved in this than when he began the recent ‘draw down’.

So, no, I dont want Obama “to lead”.

Some in my party want Obama to “negotiate”, but Obama twice ‘negotiated’
extensions of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - once with McConnell and
again, a second time, with Boehner. Obama ‘negotiated’ health insurance
reform for the private sector insurance companies, leaving the middle class to
eat dirt. He ‘negotiated’ a hands-off policy on financial industry leaders, so
they could keep the ‘bonuses’ - made up primarily of taxpayer dollars.

So, no, I dont want Obama “to negotiate”.

I want Obama to be defeated in the 2012 Democratic Primary. He has given our
party a very bad name, and Im ready to work against him and ready to work for
a real Democrat.

I just can’t believe this lesser of two evils crap. The best thing that can happen is to get a staunch right-wing Republican in there if change is what we want.

There was more fight when GW Bush was in than now. Now it’s just Reaganomics with a D. Let’s get the real thing in there and fight like hell.

O has got to go!

Judging by some of the stuff I see coming across the wire, if Mr. O touches Social Security or Medicare he is going to have a lot more trouble with his own party than with the Republicans.  Democrats have been seeing nothing but retreat and surrender since they dutifully elected a Democratic Congress in 2006.  I could be wrong, but I don’t think another backward step is going to be accepted.

If Medicare and social security cuts are viable for Obama, then he is even more a fool than progressives though he was after he caved on tax cuts for the rich.

If we can’t get a Democrat with more backbone than Obama, we are sunk as a representative government.

If you have noticed, he is completely ignoring the will of the majority, something we would expect from a fascist leader, and I say fascist because his support is going to big business rather than the people.

This morning on CNN Rep. Price cited Norquist, though not directly Norquist’s
infamous statement concerning drowning government in a bathtub.

A good idea, actually, but not for reasons neo-cons offer up. Their interest is only profits, nothing more, no matter their claims—creating jobs, blah, blah, all of it pure nonsense since not based in any historical evidence or other kind of factual evidence.

The stimulus was far too small and I seem to recall Obama saying so at some point.

Pols of both parties couch all their proposals in claimed concern for lower classes, spoken of as “the American people.” Neither party members mean what they say but for a few exceptional members the likes of Sanders and Kucinich. Someone said the financial system is responsible for 40% of GDP, meaning not other industry from manufacturing to service.

No wonder the top one percent is in possession of so much wealth.

This pretend fight over the debt ceiling is two-fold in intent: ensuring the value of the buck on behalf of Wall Street and otherwise diverting from what really ails: government itself hand-in-hand with big (and petite) biz.

True, Repubs started it with their anality regarding the debt ceiling. (Fromm noted that America is anal in general. He was right, we’re a particularly gluttonous bunch.)

Conason might be right, though not in the case of the aptly named Price, who talked the same ole line.

Obviously, as Ian Masters keeps noting day after day, the problem—to the degree there is any—is one of revenue and not spending, except for spending by the wealthy to wage war on the lower orders—whether waged financially on U.S. and European citizens or waged by dropping bombs on citizens of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, et al. The war is the same class
war across the globe, only the weapons differ.

Of course the debt ceiling does have to be raised—every time. There’s no option until polities gets serious about throwing out the bums once and for all and then taking back what was always labor’s and not Wall Street’s.

We could all stand to slim down in more ways than one, if only for the sake of the planet, which includes humanity and other plant and animal life. Well, we Americans a lot more than, say,
Afghans or Bolivians. We’re the real pigs, while Wall Street is far more concerned for the P.I.G.S., even more so than for U.S. debt. No doubt Wall Street would also like to see the end of so little as remnants of socialism in Europe.

Wall Street is bent on total rule and governments everywhere are ever happier to oblige, while they’re also engaged in pandering for votes (in so-called “democracies”) by promising yet more tax cuts.

To the extent there is a problem, they created it. We call that, “lunacy,” or more kindly, “neurosis.”

President Boehner is behaving in typically childish fashion, while Veep Cantor does the same. Finally, these people are so ideologically divorced from reality daily lived by the rest of us and so egoistic, it’s actually becoming difficult to find a language to accommodate what they say and do.

The monumental system looks to be crumbling at long last, though not fast enough. It’s very, very ugly and will get worse. Obama is STILL talking about the American Dream!

Just listening to the President, who at least knows SS isn’t the problem, but “It is part of the package.” Say what? (There is no rational answer, only an ideological one.)

The matter won’t be pretend forever, though it is currently. There’s only one solution (other than revolution), the same proposed by Keynes almost 100 years ago. Except that won’t work when government refuses to raise revenue by hitting up those who got it to spare and then some. And who was it who recently extended the Bush tax cuts? All of ‘em, actually.

President Boehner and his Veep, Cantor are still getting what they want, as are still spineless Dems who mostly want the same for themselves and their own (or same) crowd of crony-backers.

What a bunch of Democratic apologetic rhetoric.  Explain how a $4T plan over ten
years is a plan that will actually be worked.  A ten year plan involves at least five
Congress’.  What Congress actually feels obligated to abide by any prior
congressional action?  That is why the Defense budget gets so out of whack. One
Congress won’t obligate another.  Reductions in the deficit and the budget need
actionable directions within the next two years with no option for redress.  Start by
cutting defense by 10%, deleting the Department’s of Energy and Education.