Monday, January 18, 2016

Trouble On Hemlock Hill

The rich are different from you and me. Their money has done a number on their basic cognitive functions.

You and I went to bed last night thinking that Bernie Sanders had clocked Hillary Clinton but good in their latest corporate-sponsored party debate.

You and I got up this morning and were stunned to learn in the New York Times that Hillary Clinton had "won" the debate simply by wrapping herself in the mantle of her erstwhile nemesis, Barack Obama, and obliquely accusing Senator Sanders of causing the Charleston Massacre by virtue of his vote for an arcane loophole in the tepid gun laws of our blood-soaked violent nation. The Times did not note that Charleston was the venue of the debate, and that she is forecast to win in South Carolina by pandering to the Black vote.

Still, the establishment elites are panicking. They thought that their money and scheduling would control this election. They forgot to repeal our voting rights. Their inverted totalitarianism -- the system in which oligarchs rule through social oppression, propaganda from a consolidated media, and the most extreme wealth inequality the world has ever known -- has been subverted by the masses of people and turned right upside the head.

To paraphrase Mehitabel the Cat, there's life in the old democratic girl yet. The plebeian chiggers are burrowing under the sensitive skin of the plutocrats. The proletarian fleas are nipping at the ankles of the elites.

Paul Krugman, economics pundit of the Gray Lady, has abandoned all pretense at intellectual honesty as well as the last vestige of his alleged liberal conscience by openly embracing the lies of Chelsea Clinton -- lies which claim that Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, immediately stripping millions of their medical coverage, and  throwing the election to the Republicans in the process.

Chelsea has been the deserving target of such cliches as "a chip off the old block" and the "apple doesn't fall from the tree." But a more apt metaphor might be that she, Krugman and the whole panoply of elites from the Council on Foreign Relations and other plutocrat-funded think tanks are the little white umbelliform flowers of the poison Hemlock. They cling to the parent plant like dessicated parasites before finally drifting downwards, burrowing into the wasteland, creating their own dense fetid clumps, and crowding out all the potentially nutritious herbage in the process.



The grazing creatures that actually survive ingesting Hemlock become both immune and addicted to it, and keep coming back for more, despite the awful taste and the stench. 

 Krugman's job is to create docile herds of carefully inbred cattle who become mildly intoxicated, but personally unharmed, by the poison of neoliberalism. The herds prefer vitamin-rich fodder, of course, but they can be taught to make do on noxious weeds. 

Once a proponent of single payer, Krugman now shamelessly claims that true universal health insurance in the United States would be just as "kludgey" as the 2,000-plus page Affordable Care Act; he apparently hasn't read the 13 pages that constitute the Canadian medical care system. He obviously has never had to choose between paying the rent and filling a prescription. He is a blatant shill preaching the free market gospel from high atop his perch on Hemlock Hill.

My published response to his dreck:
Hillary Clinton will most likely grab this influential column to further curb the enthusiasm of voters with their pipe dreams of nobody ever going bankrupt just because they get sick. She, and the corporate media, and high finance and predatory insurance (paying her hundreds of millions in speaking fees and "donations"), will do their utmost to kill the hopes of the millions of Americans hanging on by a thread, who despite the ACA, must still choose between medicine and food.
After all, as Gilens and Page have established, the rich get what they want. And what they want is to get richer and more powerful at the expense of everyone else.
Krugman blandly observes that in the current pathocracy, single payer would be a tough sell. After all, the GOP's idea of helping people is not only the repeal of Obamacare. It's the postmodern eugenics project now underway in Flint, Michigan, and in other blighted places throughout this greatest, most exceptional, most unequal country on earth.
The first step is to get the big money out. Bernie himself says this won't happen without a people's revolution. We need to pick up where Occupy left off -- before it was squashed by the same neoliberal state that informs us that universal health care is impossible. Just because they say so.

But guess what? All the cold water in the world, thrown by "experts" on the "Bern" of a resurgent bottom-up democracy, will not put out the flames.
It's Martin Luther King Day. And we still have a dream.
Nobody will ever accuse Paul Krugman of being a champion of economic and social justice, that's for sure. But this latest column was a new low, even for him.

Even the centrist Washington Post sounds progressive today, compared to Krugman and the Times. Most pundits are declaring Sanders the winner, albeit "narrowly."

The usually mainstream Chris Cillizza, for example, raved: "More than anything he said, though, it was the passion and disruption that Sanders oozed from every pore over the two hours that should push Democrats on the fence about the race into his camp. Sanders effectively positioned himself as the anti-status-quo candidate, a very good position to have in this electoral environment."

Contrast this to the anal-retentive New York Times piece by Hillary Clinton publicists Amy Chozick and Patrick Healy: "Clinton Seizes on Policy Shifts by Sanders" is the slanted headline, which immediately sets the stage for Bernie's role as a "shifty" guy vanquished by Hillary of Arc. 

Among the derogatory phraseology used to describe Sanders: "anti-political", "appearing frustrated at times" by Hemlock Hill's tactics, and prone to testy "eye-rolling and sighing". His fans were termed "restless" --  which in Times-speak can only be defined as being a tad unhinged.

The Times went through the motions of "fact-checking" the debate, seemingly surprised to learn that Sanders' figure of 29 million uninsured Americans is, in fact, true. But, but, but.... Obamacare is supposed to be universal health care! Say it ain't so, Bernie!

One toxic whopper by Hemlock Hill about the reign of Belladonna Bill that should have been fact-checked, and wasn't, was this cubic zirconium she palmed off as the Hope Diamond:
 .. I’m going to have the very best advisers that I can possibly have, and when it comes to the economy and what was accomplished under my husband’s leadership and the ’90s — especially when it came to raising incomes for everybody and lifting more people out of poverty than at any time in recent history — you bet.
I’m going to ask for his ideas, I’m going ask for his advice, and I’m going use him as a goodwill emissary to go around the country to find the best ideas we’ve got, because I do believe, as he said, everything that’s wrong with America has been solved somewhere in America.
We just have to do more of it, and we have to reach out, especially into poor communities and communities of color, to give more people their own chance to get ahead.
Through their repeal of FDR's Aid to Families With Dependent Children, Hill and  Bill did more to condemn women (mainly women of color) to lives of grinding poverty than any Republican administration or congress could ever have done on their own. That this reality was not immediately apparent during the booming 90s of the bubble economy and reckless financial deregulation was pure serendipitous timing. Not until the Bush years would it be revealed that the Clinton years of "prosperity" were based on inflated stock prices, manipulation and outright fraud. When the Clintons left the White House, the gap between rich and poor was already greater than it was when they began their co-presidency in 1992.

During the Clinton reign, as pointed out by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, the incomes of the wealthiest 1% increased by nearly 100%, while that of the bottom 99% increased by only 20%. The repeal of Glass-Steagall (described as "modernization") sent the Clintons' banker buddies on a rampage, fueling a bubble as they gambled with customer deposits and used some of the ill-gotten, untaxed surplus to reward Hillary and Bill's family foundation and campaign coffers as well as those of their neoliberal political cohort.

Money begat power begat more money begat more power in an endless closed corrupt feedback loop. And Hillary and Bill are avid to "do more of it." They've been ever on the lookout for the growing number of American and global waste spaces on which to infest neoliberal umbelliform life-forms.

Until along came master weeder Bernie Sanders, riding on the coattails of the never-moribund Occupy movement.

The elites are tearing out their hair even as the populist gardeners are tearing out whole clumps of invasive political hemlock by the deep, grasping, corrupt roots.  
  

27 comments:

Nasreen Iqbal said...

Someday, the Democrats are going to go through the sort of purging of the insiders that the Republicans are trying to do right now.

I look forward to that.

When in the world is the Clinton era finally going to end?

Jay–Ottawa said...

I witnessed the debate like a soccer fan. (Because NBC broadcast it free over the internet and I don’t subscribe to cable.) I mean I was kind of hoarse after two hours of screaming for or against something going on down on the field.

The officials––at first Lester the Boomer and later What's Her Name, the wife of Alan Greenspan–– committed almost as many fouls as Clinton. Before Sanders could address many an issue they posed, he had to spend time correcting the sly falsehoods nested within the questions themselves. On top of that, it sure seemed like they were throwing curves (or whatever the soccer equivalent) and screwballs at Sanders too damn often, then lobbing softballs at Clinton so she could brag, falsely, about her great achievements for the poor (tell it to the welfare moms, honey), her healthcare plans back in '93 (to enrich the health insurance giants), and her great record of accomplishments (make that non-accomplishments over a million miles of frequent flyer miles) as Secretary of State. Was the world of diplomacy really better after she stepped down? The mess got messier, which Sanders should have called out to the referee and the rest of us.

Not a word about Bengazi or her rule-breaking email evasions. She was allowed to drone on and on about her sterling accomplishments as Secretary of State and her friendly, not so friendly handling of Vladimir Putin, sometimes in Syria sometimes in Ukraine. UGHAAAAAAA! (Sorry.)

Bernie was not up to his best form. He seemed a little off on his timing and precision. He was frustrated, and showed it too much, but I blame NBC and the DNC for those rules keeping him from scoring more often. He's further hobbled because he just can't bring himself to say anything more shaming about Clinton's forked tongue than (on the gun issue challenge) she was "disingenuous." Good grief, Sanders, 75% of the audience doesn't know what that word means.

Then there was that pounding music through the many intermissions, accompanied by questionable replays of passages in the debate, accompanied by visuals on the screen asking profound questions, like "How tall is Gov. O'Malley?"

Karen's hope, mentioned recently, that Sanders would cease his repeating every so often, "Now I respect Secretary Clinton… dah, da, dah, da, dah," was dashed at least three times by my count. I howled until the neighbors banged the walls. Bernie can't be serious; but if he is, we have another problem, Houston. And, please, Bernie, stop placing laurels slavishly on the brow of Obama. And work up a tight reply to Hillary's "don't start over from square one with healthcare; just improve the ACA." AAGHAAAAAA!

But at least Sanders is still in there slugging on MSM. He's still setting fires. He did, more or less directly, accuse Clinton of being owned by Wall Street. He got a little help from O'Malley, poor guy, who seems confined to the sidelines. Can we get these two to develop better team play, no matter how dishonest the referees, to knock Clinton off her comfortable perch continually preening herself while spouting her facile distortions of the record?

Where's Rocky Balboa? I hear he's into coaching at ringside now. Bernie needs him. To hell with the niceties of soccer and baseball. I want to see a fight in the ring or a cage next time. A clear knockout after lots of knockdowns by Bernie, a knockout the Times won't be able to reinterpret like scorecards handed up by uncertain judges to declare Hillary the winner on points.

Nasreen Iqbal said...

Jay: he is doing better with taking on Clinton than he was before.

When I saw him speak here in Houston a few months back, he didn't even say her name.

Pearl said...

Thank you Karen for your brilliant column and response to Krugman. I had trouble sleeping last night after watching the exposure of a dangerous alien force via Hillary Clinton, twist truth until it bled. Poor Bernie, trying to warn us of what is in store should a vampire win the presidency (and I am not speaking of Trump here)and continue the slow destruction of what is left of the nation.
And then listening to CNN pundits accept Hillary's win of the debate plus other reporters as well without even being aware of Bernie's desperate dire warnings was frightening beyond words.
Now, reading the readers' responses to Krugman is a hopeful sign but will they be run over and chopped up by the Clinton machine as well?
It was not a war between two people fighting for the presidency, it was the exposure of what is happening to my birth country represented by reason vs. true evil.
Our only hope is that the people keep on revolting against what Hillary represents and support Bernie's agenda. I have my fingers crossed and holding my breath and wondering about Trump's role in it all.
I can only add that as far as health care, I am fortunate beyond words to live in Canada where I depend more and more on such support as I age and so wrote to Bernie attesting that the system works and to keep fighting for us on all fronts.

Pearl said...

Jay: Your comment about Sanders not in best form is questionable. Yes, he looked tired, trying to get messages of truth out between attacks but what he said was clear and I think effective to those with open minds. Exhibiting his frustration was a good indication of how serious and dangerous the situation is and showed a warrior who was and will fight to his last breath. I think that message resounded even better than if he was more perfect like Queen Hillary and showed the damage she was possible of doing to her rivals. He was very human and even those supporting Hillary had good words about him. I wish he was younger but he is the best we have now and just hope he is not physically damaged by the stress involved. If I were his wife I would be worried about his health as I am sure Jane is.

Pearl said...



From the Washington Post


The Daily 202: Bernie Sanders won the Democratic debate, say pundits and social media http://wpo.st/5ed41

Pearl said...


World's 62 richest as wealthy as poorest half, report says | Fox News | http://fxn.ws/1ZHsJe9

annenigma said...

Hillary is such a liberated woman that she freely hopped back and forth between Obama's coattails and Bill's. She even inflated her resume to claim her 'work' as First Lady, as if that was a job rather than a title. She had the nerve to criticize Bernie for merely seeking a primary challenger to Obama in 2011 when she actually challenged Obama in the primary in 2008.

Obama was definitely wrong about one thing - Hillary is NOT likable enough. She came across as shrill and strident, having a pissed off look during most of the debate. She wouldn't even shake Bernie's hand at the end, keeping her back to him as she shook others' hands and exited the stage.

Bernie did well, especially when he was feisty and took charge of the stage instead of letting the moderators keep cutting him off as in previous debates, but I wish he'd stick to his guns. He lets Hillary push him to modify a position, then she attacks him when he does. He should have just continued to say that legislation is complex and he seriously deliberates the possible inadvertent consequences (Hello, pro-Iraq Hillary!), and sometimes compromise has to be reached to make gradual headway. She is ok with gradual headway with the ACA but not with gun control. She's strangely not for any kind of gun control after the guns leave our shores though, no matter how many children are killed.

Bernie also needs to vigorously defend his self-described label of democratic SOCIALIST. You can bet Hillary is going to go for the juggler on that one soon "He's not even a Democrat! Bernie Sanders is a Socialist!" He deflected last night rather than firmly stating that he is not a member of any socialist party but he does vote to support those great Democratic socialist programs such as Medicare, Social Security, public parks and highways, military, libraries, etc.

That socialist question was the only time his voice cracked heavily from stress. He needs to learn quickly how to turn every question and issue around to shine the spotlight onto corporations and the wealthy, and implicitly on Hillary, the representative of Wall Street. He has to go for broke. No more hedging to stay in Hillary's good graces in case she wins. If she does win, he should retire and form a Social Democrats party. I mean, is he leading a Political Revolution or isn't he? It should be clear from the near-unanimous support of Hillary by the Democratic Establishment that they are not interested in a movement to restore government of, by, and for the people but simply to maintain the status quo.

Back to socialism - Why doesn't he point out that corporations are the biggest supporters of socialism when the subsidies and bailouts benefit them? More importantly, why doesn't he point out that their refusal to pay a living wage shifts the costs to us for their workers' Food Stamps and health insurance in order to keep more profits for themselves? This is a 'Fight For the Soul of Democracy' Bernie! Write that down and repeat it every chance you get!

Oh, Bernie... Please warn Americans that when the wealthy are done front-loading their employee expenses onto the public dole, they'll pay their politicians to privatize those services, back-ending those profits for themselves while sheltering them from taxes. We're being herded to the edge of the cliff with the ACA before they stampede us over the edge with costs and end up harvesting our bodies for profit. Will Bernie put up the fight of his life to save us and Democracy from Capitalist zombies?

I still don't see how the Powers-That-Be in our Inverted Totalitarian system will actually allow us to successfully choose our own President ever again, unless it coincides with their choice. There's too much money and power at risk to leave it up to the ignorant riffraff. That said, we must try. Thankfully, we're not as naive or ignorant as we were 8 years ago, thanks and no thanks to their 'Mr. Exceptional', Barack Obama.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Pearl, I hear you about his age. Can't tell you how often last night I wanted to take his blood pressure. Must take a lot to light up his face in that shade of red. How can a man his age keep this up till November? Then saddle up for a rougher ride lasting 8 years? He's the oldest guy ever to get this close to being POTUS, if he goes the distance. We shouldn't say that too loud, because another 100 million voters out there may begin to have the same thoughts. All the more reason for him and us to think hard about his running mate.

Pearl said...

Annenigma and others: do send your concerns and suggestions to Bernie. I do so regularly and am thanked by the people who receive the e-mails. They want to know how Bernie is doing and I am sure inform Bernie of reactions to his appearances. Just put up Bernie's name on your e-mail going out and it will automatically put his email address on it. You have many good suggestions and if Bernie had more time during these stupid debate time rules he could add many items to his comments.

I think unencumbered by his vampire competitor, he will speak more freely in the next weeks and months to people in various states. And even though reports seemed to favor Hillary, there was definite criticism going her way. I think her 'using' Obama to lean on now especially after their ugly fight for the presidency has not escaped notice among other biased and inaccurate comments.

Pearl said...

Jay: Maybe Hillary is increasing the attacks hoping he will succumb and leave the way clear for her. Maybe it is just as well there will be no more debates.

annenigma said...

Pearl, I believe there are two more debates but they occur after the primaries have started. That was obviously done to try to keep Bernie from getting a couple of early wins under his belt which would give him enormous momentum.

In my usual brazen way, I sent this email to Bernie's campaign today:


A Fight For the Soul of Democracy

PLEASE deliver this message to Bernie Sanders.

I believe the Political Revolution should be fine tuned and defined to be a 'Fight For the Soul of Democracy'. This is a riff off the words spoken by Bernie himself during the debates when he mentioned that the fight for the soul of Islam is not our fight. This one IS our fight, and this brief phrase names and defines what our Political Revolution is about - a restoration of government of, by, and for the people before it perishes from the Earth. We're perilously close.

Any day now Hillary and the Republicans are going to slap a label of 'socialist revolutionary' on Bernie and it will take a heavy toll. I believe this will help to neutralize that.

Btw, 'For the Common Good' sounds better to some of us than 'A Future to Believe In', but you probably already paid good money to the pros for that slogan.

I'm standing by to join in and help, but only after I see our Political Revolution aptly named before it gets named and defined for us.

Pearl said...



Interesting article from CNN.



How the media missed Bernie Sanders @CNNPolitics http://cnn.it/23aCVeC

Meredith NYC said...


So famous liberal Krugman,on our most important newspaper, proves he’s really a centrist. In our warped spectrum that would translate to right wing in EU social democracies. The Gilens/Page study is right that our laws mostly reflect interests of the elites, with our weak and co-opted opposition. Let’s start talking about Citizens United—both the S. Court decision and the need for true united citizens.

See Gawker article -- Krugman gets 250,000/ year to work at the City University of NY Institute for the Study of Inequality. Inequality! What are they getting for their money? And he doesn’t even have to teach. Says even he was surprised at his duties being so light. His Nobel is enuff prestige for them. Cuny is a public university.

Krugman is following Larry Summers statement to Sen Warren in her book---that you have to choose—will you be in the in crowd thus influential or the out crowd, thus marginalized? The conscience of a liberal is lining up with the power structure of our next president.

But critical reader comments to K’s column show his excuses to oppose Sanders h/c reform ideas are transparent.

And economist Krugman ignores these Times reports:

Upshot article with hundreds of comments--- “Even Insured Can Face Crushing Medical Debt.”
Plus a report that people are dropping out due to high premiums.
Plus that the insured who thought their hospital doctor was in their network are shocked by outrageous bills.

When prestigious liberals use cleverly worded arguments to rationalize inequality, it may do us more damage than the frankly extremist Gop.

Here are some comparison figures to throw at Krugman, Hillary and the Gop. Stats are from commenter Socrates to Gail Collins recent column. Don’t know the source.

1. America spends 17% of GDP on healthcare while civilized countries spend 10-12% with better overall outcomes.

2. An MRI costs $138 in Switzerland, $350 in Australia and $1,145 in the US.

3. A hospital stay costs $481 a day in Spain, $1,308 a day in Australia and $4,293 a day in the US.

4. Giving birth costs $2,251 in Spain, $6,623 in Australia and $10,002 in the US.

The Times Fact Check did say Hillary was inaccurate that health costs are the lowest in 50 years. Said it’s only the rate of increase that’s slowed. Repeated by a W. Post pundit on MSNBC.

Msnbc Chris Hayes show pundits seemed to buy in to the warnings of higher taxes for the m. class with Sanders health care plan. They ignored that taxes from a national pool of millions would be more affordable than high premiums/ deductibles in a for profit h/c system.
Keep that a secret, despite tons of evidence from abroad and Canada.


Meredith NYC said...

Pearl---
Thanks for link to CNN article re media coverage of Sanders. Their articles differ from their TV stance.

Also re Krugman’s column on h/c---here’s samples of comments from people who’d lived in Europe (another planet) US liberals ignore this, so only from comments do we get this contrast.

Bookmanjb Munich 20 hours ago

..... It's too bad we have to be satisfied with a kludge.

Here in Germany, to where I moved with my family 11 years ago to start a now-thriving small business, we never cease to be amazed at how well a modified single-payer system works.

I say modified because here they have what could be termed a private option; you can buy health insurance from private companies if you wish (and in fact, I do for myself and my daughter, although my wife is publicly insured).

The whole thing just works. Doctors and health insurance execs earn upper middle-class incomes and a few become wealthy; the quality of care--at least in my experience--is superior to that available in the US; everybody pays in, so it is incredibly cheap; and did I mention that there are NO deductibles!?!

The main reason it works so well is that the implicit goal is the best available care for the largest number of people, which is demonstrably NOT the goal of the US health care system.

1184Recommended


An American Anthropogist in Germany Goettingen 17 hours ago

I also live in Germany, Boomanjib, and I can confirm that the medical system here is vastly superior. I was diagnosed with a very serious (terminal, but slowly progressing) illness just six months after arriving. I spent 4 nights in the hospital and underwent all kinds of tests before my condition was diagnosed. It's a rare one.

The total cost to me: €40. That was at the rate of €10 per night, for my hospital room. The tests cost me nothing. In the US, even with the pretty good insurance I had, the copays would have wiped me out.

But I have to disagree with you that US residents "have to be satisfied with a kludge." That's Hillary's argument, and Krugman has inexplicably bought it.

Bernie's plan is to expand the one really cost effective program we've got: Medicare. (That was something Krugman used to think was a good idea, but that was before Clinton was against it.)

It will take several cycles for the Democrats to win enough seats to make it happen, but they won't win enough seats without a good platform to run on. Medicare for all (or at least all who want it—those who prefer private insurance can keep it) is a winning argument.

Keep hitting Republicans with that, and the Dems WILL re-take Congress. Unfortunately, that's an argument Clinton won't (or can't) make. Not after collecting millions of $$ in "speaking fees" from the for-profit insurance industry.

John Q N.Y., N.Y. 11 hours ago

But given the overwhelming success of the German health care system, not to mention the systems in other developed countries, should Professor Krugman have been so negative? Couldn’t Uncle Sam simply make single-payer available? Gradually, wouldn’t people switch to it? Then wouldn’t the drug and insurance PACs eventually be left holding the money bag?

Frank Santa Monica, CA 10 hours ago

"The main reason [the German health care system) works so well is that the implicit goal is the best available care for the largest number of people, which is demonstrably NOT the goal of the US health care system."

Amen! The goal of the US health "care" system is to ensure that investors don't lose out on an opportunity to profit from your misfortune in the event that you become ill and or injured.

Dave Newlans 9 hours ago

The same thing in Canada without the private option. You need to see a doctor you call them and go. You show your card and they treat you.

The last time I heard of a medical bankruptcy was NEVER.

I have in the last 5 years had a colonoscopy, cataract surgery and a CAT scan--I paid nothing either before or after.

Tim Berry said...

Great essay on the "centrists" and you've got Krugman and his buddy Chait pegged.

Ruminating Pearl said...

I think what is becoming obvious about the battle between Hillary and Bernie is that people who did not take Bernie seriously are in some kind of shock because to them, his message does not make any sense. And they try to brush it away with deteriorating methodology.

I believe that Hillary represents the past and is battling an old struggle with the same unworkable methods and promises.. Bernie although older than her, has always looked forward to the future and like MLK, had a dream. It takes a man in touch with history to see the road ahead and that is why he appeals so well to the imagination of the physically young and we older ones who keep a rendezvous with our young dreams.

It is a fascinating event to watch and be part of as it touches events in our lives that connect to what we are seeing and hearing. Even when Bernie is shouting and rumpled with his thoughts and feelings written on his face, it resonates among his followers and that is what the Clintonites fear. It is that real sense of connection going on they cannot comprehend.

Of course in a grotesque way, that is why Trump is moving ahead with Ms.Palin on board.

Pearl said...




A nytimes article about the secrecy ratings of her e-mails today




http://nyti.ms/1UatvK3

Pearl said...



Another nytimes article today on how the story of her e-mail usage has changed.



http://nyti.ms/1ksAxxP

Pearl said...

Karen and fellow Sardonickyites: I find it especially interesting that these two articles quoted in my comments above which may not be helping Hillary have appeared today in the nytimes along with a comment printed about the problems that her supporters are having in dealing with the information involving these two articles.

Do you feel that this is an important issue that is destined to have some effect on voters' choices? Do you feel there is enough information to derail things more for Hillary especially when appearing in the nytimes today? I wonder about their decision and purpose to do so.

Pearl said...


And this as well today in the NYtimes.



’90s Scandals Weigh on Clinton’s Support Among Women

By AMY CHOZICK 5:00 AM ET

Women are struggling to reconcile Hillary Clinton’s leadership on women’s issues with her past involvement in her husband’s efforts to fend off accusations of sexual misconduct.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Pearl, you'll want to read Robert Scheer's detailing how, in the last debate, Hillary blamed Bernie for Clinton crimes.

Do not read the comments, however, where some responders lay out Bernie's long record in support of empire.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_blames_bernie_for_an_old_clintonite_hustle_rotten_shame_20160119

Pearl said...

Jay: Yes I just saw that article and recorded it to read it all. I wonder if all these lies and deliberate misinformation by Hillary will come home to haunt her and why I was surprised by the articles listed in the NYtimes today which do not help her cause if taken seriously. I try to find reports on these events in the foreign press without much luck but truthdig does a good job.

It gets more and more interesting and am anxious to hear reports of Bernie's progress in Iowa.
Thanks for your information and do send anything else of interest along for all of us stressed out souls to hang on to.

Valerie said...

I know I am late coming to the conversation but I just wanted to write and say how great the essay and follow up commentary have been on this particular thread.

I must admit that I didn't take Bernie to seriously at first. Not because I don't agree with his message - I do - but because I had given up on the Liberals in America. As Bernie has gained support, I find myself becoming excited and hopeful that FINALLY people have had enough. I know that I changed my registration from Independent to Democrat so that I can vote in the Primary this year.

Annenigma, I have to say that your comment on this particular thread has been one of your best ever. I think you have really nailed it. I wonder if Bernie, when he started, just hoped to get important issues and a truly progressive point of view into the public arena. But his message has resonated with the Liberal Intelligencia - which seems to be larger than I had thought - and I actually think he has a shot at winning the Democratic nomination.

I think we can expect that Hillary will get nasty and run a campaign of misinformation from here on out. Hopefully, Bernie will be able to counter this by addressing both his and her record. Bernie needs a quick answer on the gun control issue - so he can pound away at the fact that under Obama most of the Middle Class is either under-insured or still can't afford to go it alone on buying health insurance. He also has to keep on reiterating that, just as with Obama, Hillary is too close to Wall Street and like her husband, will continue to allow the too big to fail banks exist. I don't understand why Bernie didn't bring this up in the debate. The too big to fail banks are even bigger than before and Dodd-Frank has done nothing to break them up. Furthermore, the risky trading is still going on.

By the way, Yves Smith has a good article on Naked Capitalism on Larry Summers dishonest attack on Bernie over his comment on throwing a fire wall between investment and commercial banking. She gives a very coherent history and then goes into her analysis.

Carol S. said...

Yet another lovely and perfect expression of reason, Karen.

As to Bernie, I interpret his message as debated subtly and succinctly with a wit that appeals to the scores of young and old people. His passion is so intense as to wear anyone out, and that's why he is loved so much and why people are afraid for him.

Warmonger Hillary is so antagonistic, and in my opinion, illogical as well as dishonest.

Commenters on the NYT, etc., talk about her foreign policy skill and knowledge.

Today I heard an American formerly held hostage in Iran say when Hillary was Secretary of State she invoked fear each time they heard she was going to talk to leaders there. Her diplomatic tactic was to scream at them to let the hostages free, so they all naturally prepared for a few extra months of captivity.

Pearl said...

Wolf Blitzer to Hillary Clinton this afternoon: Do you feel America is ready for a Socialist President? No correction made.

This must be truly dangerous because I just read that Bernie Sanders has run an ad including a song "America" by Simon and Garfunkel. What are we coming to?!!

Fasten your set belts, friends.

Anonymous said...

This is a very nice article. People focus on Glass-Steagall but the more pernicious was the derivatives regulation. Clinton henchmen Summers, Rubin and Greenspan ridiculed Born and the hearings were ugly. They did not want regulation. Unrevealed at the time Rubin was negotiating his Citibank contract and delivering on derivatives raised his value. Derivatives were a large part of the collapse. Brooksley Born has received the Profiles in Courage Award for standing up to the cabal which has been discredited.

Your take on Krugman is right on the money. He has gone completely Democratic establishment and has given up his prestige as an authentic economist.