In article
<e9f3cb69-ad6f-4b3b-b1c2-7b7656c76ece@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
blue_collar_worker <GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 13, 9:50 am, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> CLINTON CAMPAIGN CRUMBLES AT LAST; OBAMA NEEDS BLUE-COLLAR WHITE VOTE
>>
>> By Bill Gallagher
>>
>> DETROIT -- She is a woman. She is a white woman. She is a manly white
woman.
>> In her desperate quest for the presidency, Sen. Hillary Clinton's
campaign
>> ramped up gender, race and machismo as the factors she wants the
Democrats
>> to consider in selecting the party's nominee.
>>
>> Watching Clinton's campaign melting is an ugly sight. Her ruthless
tactics
>> are deplorable and divisive, not just for the party, but for the nation
as
>> well. As the reality of her failure sets in, and with Sen. Barack Obama
now
>> snatching the lead among superdelegates, Clinton has sounded slightly
more
>> conciliatory, but only after firing off a few more vile volleys at her
>> rival.
>>
>> After Obama pulled off an impressive victory in the North Carolina
primary
>> and Clinton eked out a narrow victory in Indiana -- with Rush
Limbaugh's
>> "ditto heads" providing the margin of her victory at his urging --
Clinton
>> provided post-election analysis that certainly pleased Rush and his
>> right-wing chorus.
>>
>> Clinton told USA Today that, in spite of Obama's lead in the popular
vote
>> and number of state victories, she has "a much broader base to build a
>> winning coalition." If she left it at that, her remarks could be
written off
>> as innocuous political spin.
>>
>> But then Clinton plunged into a graceless, destructive message that
>> contained disturbing class and racial overtones. She cited and twisted
an
>> Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among
working,
>> hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how
whites
>> in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. There
is a
>> pattern emerging here."
>>
>> The pattern is Clinton's willingness to say just about anything to
advance
>> her bleak chances of snaring the nomination from Obama. And if that
means
>> exploiting racial divisions, so be it. Sen. Clinton is essentially
saying
>> the black guy can't win and only she can.
>>
>> New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote, "The Clintons have been
trying
>> to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white
voters
>> and superdelegates for the longest time. It's a grotesque insult to
>> African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and
Hillary
>> over the years."
>>
>> Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who is black and a longtime Hillary
supporter,
>> told New York's Daily News, "I can't believe Senator Clinton would say
>> anything that dumb."
>>
>> Clinton's poisonous rhetoric magnifies the racial fault lines in
American
>> politics and she deliberately attempts to wreck any hopes Obama, the
>> Democrats' likely nominee, has of winning in November. She is wallowing
in
>> the swamp mud of racial politics and social regression.
>>
>> Richard Nixon used code words to disguise his race baiting -- his
"Southern
>> strategy," his support for "states' rights" and "law and order." George
H.W.
>> Bush used the Willie Horton ad -- a TV spot with the face of a black
man
>> convicted of raping and killing a white woman while on parole -- in a
less
>> subtle racially divisive message.
>>
>> Clinton doesn't bother with code words or unspoken messages. She's more
like
>> the late Alabama governor George Wallace when he was on the
presidential
>> stump. Wallace would say in effect, "I'm the white guy and all you
white
>> guys should vote for me." Clinton's racial argument insults white
voters,
>> suggesting they are unwilling to give a black candidate a chance.
>>
>> Clinton still has substantial support from women voters, but her
campaign
>> tactics have eroded even that support. She still has feminists like
Gloria
>> Feldt, the former president of Planned Parenthood, who told the AP as
>> Clinton's campaign sinks, "We are in danger of never having another
campaign
>> election where people will say women can determine the outcome."
>>
>> Balderdash!
>>
>> Many feminists still don't grasp the notion that many voters reject
Clinton,
>> not because she is a woman, but because they don't like her positions
and
>> don't trust her. Ellen Bravo, a feminist author and advocate for
working
>> women, is supporting Obama.
>>
>> She told the AP she faults Clinton's vote to support the war in Iraq
and
>> believes Obama is more committed to grassroots political movements.
Bravo
>> felt the sting of pro-Clinton feminists.
>>
>> "I felt it was an ultimatum -- vote for Hillary Clinton or you're
betraying
>> the women's movement," Bravo said. She added that the hamhanded tactics
>> don't work.
>>
>> "It's very self-defeating and alienating, particularity younger women
who,
>> regardless of who they support, don't like to be told 'Do this, Do
that.'"
>>
>> Ariel Garfinkel, a student at Mount Holyoke College, wrote in a
political
>> blog that she and many other young feminists were offended by Clinton's
>> attempt to capitalize on racial divisions.
>>
>> "The pattern of old-style politics and adherence to un-feminist
values,"
>> Garfinkel argued, "is part and parcel of the campaign Hillary Clinton
has
>> run. In this race, Barack Obama is the true feminist."
>>
>> Many of Hillary's supporters make repeated and often crude references
to her
>> having more testosterone than Obama, claiming she is tougher, manlier.
She
>> buttresses that position with the bellicose words she uses about the
U.S.
>> role in the world.
>>
>> In his new book, "Wiser in Battle," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former
U.S.
>> military commander in Iraq, says the war in Iraq is "a nightmare with
no end
>> in sight." Sanchez describes a teleconference with military leaders and
>> President George W. Bush during the Battle of Fallujah in 2004.
>>
>> Sanchez writes Bush bellowed, "If somebody tries to stop the march to
>> democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than
>> hell!" After the pep rally, Bush, as is his custom, probably returned
to
>> playing video games.
>>
>> We need a president with more brains and less machismo. Clinton's ploy
to
>> demonstrate that she's tougher than any of the boys has backfired.
>>
>> She might have done better offering a gentler, more feminine hand to
the
>> world instead of playing the thug and pledging to "obliterate" Iran.
>>
>> Clinton has succeeded in positioning herself as the champion of the
>> blue-collar worker, while trying to convince people Obama is somehow an
>> elite child of privilege. Even by Clinton standards, that is a
monumental
>> deception.
>>
>> In Clinton's standard stump speech, she calls for more financial help
for
>> college students. It's troubling that she never mentions that she was
>> fortunate to have a relatively well-to-do father who paid for her
pricey
>> tuition at Wellesley College and Yale Law School.
>>
>> She never had to take out a college loan or work summer jobs to pay for
>> college as Obama did. Yet Clinton tries to paint Obama -- who spent
most of
>> his life in a single-parent, financially struggling household -- as out
of
>> touch with "hardworking Americans."
>>
>> Clinton's own money has kept her campaign alive. In recent weeks, she's
lent
>> $6.4 million to her campaign as she struggles to find some way to hold
on to
>> hope of winning the nomination.
>>
>> As she said last week, "I'm staying in this race until there's a
nominee."
>>
>> I take her at her word and expect she will look for any way to wrestle
the
>> nomination from Obama. She may try to further rip the party apart by
>> pressing to change the rules and permit the seating of the unsanctioned
>> Florida and Michigan delegations.
>>
>> And she may look for new ways to chip at Obama. The Clintons, once so
>> confident of a grand restoration, are in foul moods facing the prospect
of
>> defeat.
>>
>> Hillary's campaign -- rooted in her name, money and influence and an
>> arrogant sense of entitlement -- failed to roll over Obama as she
expected.
>> Who knows how the drama will end?
>>
>> Clinton as a vice presidential candidate is still a possibility. Dick
Cheney
>> has certainly inflated the importance of the office, and Clinton hardly
>> wants to return to the Senate, where so many of her colleagues, who
know her
>> so well, support Obama.
>>
>> But Clinton's campaign-trail behavior is diminishing her chances for a
place
>> on the ticket. One thing is certain: Hillary Clinton will not, as Dylan
>> Thomas wrote, "go gentle into that good night."
>>
>> --
>> NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not
>> always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such
material
>> available to advance understanding of
>> political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues. I
>> believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
>> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
>> Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
>>
>> "A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over,
their
>> spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore
their
>> government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we
are
>> suffering deeply in spirit,
>> and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous
public
>> debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
>> patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of
winning
>> back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles
are at
>> stake."
>> -Thomas Jefferson
>
>Clinton is correct, but she can't give the full report. She his
>hamstrung with the fear of being labeled a racist. Many smart people
>are crunching numbers and analyzing the data to prove Obama cannot win
>the general election. Obama's win so far is because he won the caucus
>states. Only 17 pledged delegates came from the electoral process.
>90 percent of his winning number of pledged delegates came from
>caucuses. Caucuses do not parallel the general election. If Hillary
>loses the nomination, the Republicans have to find a good VP candidate
>and McCain is in.
You made it sound like Hillary Clinton was an innocent, disinterested
bystander who was simply making an astute observation of a phenomenon
which had arisen naturally without her active participation.
In fact, about the only thing that is correct about Hillary is that
she and Bill Clinton understood that there is a large segment of
unsophisticated voters in this society who can be easily manipulated
and deceived by racial and class division tactics and they seized the
opportunity for their own selfish gain.
They poisoned the well and a sizable number of our voting population
drank from it.
That's the reason why Bill Gallagher was so mad in his indictment of
the Clintons. You being a paid shill for the Clinton campaign is
trying to do damage control to Gallagher's piece by spinning the act
of poisoning as if it were a cool-headed scientist's laboratory
experiment. It ain't!
The only way now America will be saved is for enough American voters
to recognize what is at stake at this election and act accordingly.
lo yeeOn
========
Iraq war hits U.S. economy: Nobel winner
By Daniel Trotta Sun Mar 2, 10:03 AM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic
slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery, Nobel-winning economist
Joseph Stiglitz says.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government is severely underestimating the cost of
the war, Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes write in their book, "The
Three Trillion Dollar War" (W.W. Norton), due to be published on
Monday.
The nearly 5-year-old war, once billed as virtually paying for itself
through increased Iraqi oil exports, has cost the U.S. Treasury $845
billion directly.
"It used to be thought that wars are good for the economy. No economist
really believes that anymore," Stiglitz said in an interview.
Stiglitz and Bilmes argue the true costs are at least $3 trillion under
what they call an ultraconservative estimate, and could surpass the
cost of World War Two, which they put at $5 trillion after adjusting
for inflation.
The direct costs exclude interest on the debt raised to fund the war,
health care costs for veterans coming home, and replacing the destroyed
hardware and degraded operational capacity caused by the war.
In addition, there are costs not accounted for in the budget such as
rising oil prices and social and macroeconomic costs, which the book
details.
To illustrate how the money could be spent elsewhere, Bilmes cited the
annual U.S. budget for autism research -- $108 million -- which is
spent every four hours in Iraq. A trillion dollars could have hired 15
million additional public school teachers for a year or provided 43
million students with four-year scholarships to public universities,
the book says.
Stiglitz and Bilmes say they were excessively conservative in
calculating the $3 trillion figure, overcompensating for their bias in
having opposed the war.
'FLOODING THE ECONOMY'
Asked if the war has contributed to the U.S. slowdown, Stiglitz said,
"Very much so."
"To offset that depressing effect, the Fed has flooded the economy with
liquidity and the regulators looked the other way when very imprudent
lending was going up," Stiglitz said. "We were living on borrowed money
and borrowed time and eventually a day of reckoning had to come, and it
has now come."
The war has also altered how the United States has reacted to its
current economic troubles, he said.
"When America's financial institutions had a problem, they had to turn
to the sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East for recapitalization,
for the bailout," he said.
"The reason was obvious. The war had led to high oil prices. The war
had meant that America had to borrow more money. There weren't sources
of liquid funds in the United States. The sources of the liquid funds
were in the Middle East," he said.
Bilmes, a former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the
U.S. Customs Department, said the war also limited options for the $168
billion stimulus package signed into law by President George W. Bush on
February 13.
"We really had very little wiggle room in order to pass this because of
the fact that we're spending $16 billion a month on Iraq and
Afghanistan," Bilmes said. "Actually the country could have used a
larger fiscal stimulus but there is (no) cash to accommodate it."
The authors said they were surprised by the hidden costs their research
found, citing, for example, what they called the underreporting of
casualty figures by the Pentagon.
The official Pentagon figure of nearly 30,000 wounded in action fails
to account for an addition 40,000 service members who have required
medical attention for non-combat injuries or illness, Bilmes said. She
based her conclusion on official Defense Department data from a
restricted Web site.
(Editing by Philip Barbara)
|
