Rats leaving is not good news if you're stuck on the ship

[arendt]

GD-P is busy discussing what to do when the American ship of state makes port, i.e., after the staged or non-existent election of 08. Too bad the ship will be sunk - by attacking Iran - long before then.

The neocon gang and their privatized Blackwater army constitute a pirate society that preys on democracies everywhere. They are a bunch of criminals and perverts who live outside the law, by the pirate's code: "Alberto - he fell behind". They might as well run up the Jolly Roger and be done with it. They have already pillaged the ship of state of the United States. Is is a burning hulk of wreckage, and so is its economy. The sub-prime meltdown is a spread of torpedos below the financial waterline.

Without the illusion that our pyramid of credit is backed by some real assets, the financial conmen have nothing left to loot. They already stole the valuables (stocks,cash), the cargo, the cannons(the privatized military), the engines(the factories sent to China), and the fittings(every bit of property and infrastructure they could privatize). So, now they are going to send the hulk to the bottom to eliminate the witnesses and to send a message of ferociousness to future victims. They are taking the loot to China and India, where local pirates are polluting China's new chance at prosperity into an early grave.

----

The spate of resignations and disclosures about the Bush Gang and the GOP pervert and crook elite gives me no comfort. The resignations are voluntary; they are without penalty; they change nothing, as the new appointees are just as bad or worse. Enough of the Democrats have proven themselves either phony, Blue Dog/DLC knaves or impotent media-intimidated fools to prove that its still a GOP Congress. That has been obvious ever since the first Iraq Funding vote. There will be no impeachment. Subpoenas will not be enforced. The Dems will continue to cave-in on war funding, domestic spying, and the police state.

The media are disgusting, unwatchable, nauseating. They beat up on brain-damaged twelve year olds. They lock everything into this rigged Permanent Campaign. The pro-GOP/DLC, anti-progressive bias is blatant, libelous. Kucinich is disappeared. Edwards is serially mugged. Al Gore is trashed for winning a Nobel - just a warning shot, Al. But, Hillary is anointed. Watching the money and the media shift from the GOP to the DLC is like watching an agent take over a body in "The Matrix". (Is Rahm Agent Smith?) Meanwhile, Romney lies and smears without penalty. Giuliani's vile and criminal associates and disgusting family history are ignored. And, the GOP candidates taking positions that, if carried out, would be war crimes is not even remarked upon.

Finally, all of this campaign "news" is nothing but distraction, served up with a side-order of anti-Iran agitprop. Anyone with access to real news knows that the attack on Iran is coming. Darth Cheney will have his black day. Bush has nothing to lose.

Is there no group of the American so-called elites who cares about their country? Are they all China-bound pirates saying "Goodbye, suckers. Thanks for all the loot."

WARNING: A historical reference is coming. :sarcasm:

Now I know how Charles Degaulle felt. The ruthless enemy advancing with innovative tactics and insidious propaganda; my own army led by outdated hacks and paralyzed by a fifth column of sympathizers for authoritarian rule. Its time to prepare for an American government in exile; because it looks like the American version of Vichy will have the "hero in better times" figurehead Marshall Hillary Petain at its helm.

[msongs]

1. yawn, another day another anti-democrat post nt

[arendt]

2. yawn. Another DLC = Democratic Party lie. n/t

[ribrepin]

16. Democrat? Hmmm

[5X]

36. Blinders much? n/t

[earth mom]

50. Yawn. Just another DINO posting on DU. nt

[burythehatchet]

76. witty and insightful

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. Wow! I agree with your summation of the big picture. nt

[arendt]

4. Thanks for getting it. The DLC wing doesn't believe in the big picture. Just in "winning". n/t

[robinlynne]

7. agreed.

[Totally Committed]

45. I agree with you.

arendt is one of my favorite DU-ers, and almost never fails to hit the nail squarely on the head.

This is another awesome post, and expresses just what he said in this thread elsewhere: The DLC "wing" of the Democratic Party only cares about "winning". The thing is... when they don't, they collude, enable, and emulate the other side in hopes they will keep some "power". Power = $$$$, after all.

TC

[dickbearton]

62. We are confronted with the rise of the Corporate State...

The question is: how can we disassemble it?

[Greyhound]

70. It really only takes one thing; The People's realization that they have all the power

and the (insert your favorite name here, government, corporatists, fascists, etc.) have none. Once that realization happens, everything else is relatively easy.

Corporations are legal fictions and possession is all that matters. Never forget that shareholders possess nothing but a scrap of paper or an entry in a database.
:kick: & R

[liberalla]

91. Ok, then the next question is

How do we get The People to realize they have all the power?

[rabies1]

95. They can't arrest every single person.

Painful as it is, I think we (ALL of us) as a crowd need to act together. Cross the picket line or participate in the die-in. The media will have to listen. Though no one wants to go to jail and it's a difficult action, solidarity may be the only way.
We haven't got the billions to fight in newspapers (push it to the back page or if they'd even print it), corporations are out of control. I'm wondering what choice we really have to make ourselves heard and get our country back.

[Greyhound]

110. At a certain point the number of people that become uncomfortable will reach

a critical mass. We're not there yet, but we're well on our way. I'm guessing the number needed is about 60 million, or 20% of the population. It's not a matter of getting The People to realize it, that was a poor choice of phrase, they will come to the realization, or not, by simply seeing what has become of their lives.

Once the flock decides it will not play their game anymore, the whole things rapidly collapses and the next spark sets it off. We're well beyond the possibility of changing things from the inside through the existing system.

[peacetalksforall]

92. Start with the stockholders.

[The Wielding Truth]

107. No profits on war. That means no more tax dollars for private

industries. Then scrap NAFTA and the Patriot Act. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and Habeas Corpus and hold all profiteers accountable through a national consciences and responsibility trial.

That should be enough to start things off.:think:

[arendt]

102. Love your icon! I might change! n/t

[femrap]

5. k and r.....

Thanks...I get it.

[KoKo]

6. Pirates ALL.... a few with some conscience....but outnumbered by the rest.

K&R

[Froward69]

8. Where the money has gone

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03

select an industry...
insurance
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

[FREEWILL56]

75. Looks like Kucinich isn't on the take.

[loudsue]

9. Your post about sums it all up.

We're in deep shit.

:kick:

[Desertrose]

15. I agree, too....

:hi:Loudsue

:hug:
DR

[loudsue]

61. Hi there my friend!

:hi: Welcome back!! I've missed you! :hug:

[pa28]

10. In the 80's corporate raiders took over companies and hijacked their capital assets.

With Dick Cheney as their leader and example the same thing has happened to the U.S. government. They've stripped the treasury and cast aside the shell. Unfortunately this is not Eastern Airlines, this is the whole country we're talking about now.

I hope the public will reject Republicans for a generation based on the very real penalties they are now feeling but I honestly don't know if the country can be put back the way it was or restored to sound economic footing. As you pointed out, all the capital assets have been stripped and sold.

[annabanana]

59. .. or in mob parlance.. "busted out". . . . . . n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Cool! Then De Gaulle will return to America and slaughter all the leftists.

Sorry, but De Gaulle is a pretty controversial symbol to employ. He was distinguished during the brief war phase in 1940, but it's hard to find much else good to say about him. DeGaulle killed more members of the French resistence than he killed Nazis.

[arendt]

12. Any Frenchman will say he saved the Republic...

after Dien Bien Phu, Suez, and Algeria, the country was in total chaos - reeling from losing colonies. He demanded, and got, a brand new Constitution. He crushed the Secret Army (OAS).

The man was a leader. His country is the better for his leadership.

----

What is the source for your claim that "he killed more members of the Resistance
than he killed Nazis"? This is news to me.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Unable to document the statement, I will withdraw it as literal

and note that I have little sympathy for the communist resistance, as they were mostly Stalinists, and hardly heroes of the people. They did, however, shed most of the blood in occupied France and offer the most uncompromising resistance to the Nazis.

My attitudes are shaped somewhat by 1960s memories of seeing elderly leftists who had lost limbs fighting for France (at a time few French were doing any fighting and De Gaulle was esconsed in a radio studio outside the country) being beaten to the ground by the De Gaullist police during marches.

Many members of communist resistance cells were liquidated by free french in internecine actions within the confusion of operation Overlord, fighting for eventual political supremacy in France. Others were rounded up and arrested.

It may be hyperbole to lay the worst of it at De Gaulle's feet, but it is a damn sight less hyperbolic than your grotesque "Marshall Hillary Petain." Anyone who idolizes De Gaulle, one of the great figures of 20th century conservatism-with-a-human-face history, while calling Clinton a Nazi-collaborator has their political head up their political butt.

For pragmatic political reasons De Gaulle probably opposed the very worst of the clandestine anti-communist actions. It is difficult to say, what with history being written by the victos and all. I should be less dramatic. But I hope it is not controversial to say that a main mission of the Free French forces during the 1944 invasion of France was to shape France's political future by the elimination of troublesome leftist elements of the native French resistance by any means necessary.

As to whether modern French consider him the savior of their country... modern Americans say the same of Ronald Reagan. (or Douglas McArthur) As I am sure you are aware, France is tempermentally an amazingly right-wing country.

I was mostly noting the irony of De Gaulle as an anti-authoritarian figure. He opposed the Nazis because he was a nationalist, but was a distinctly right-wing figure and a poor model for American national reconstruction post-Bush. And, since he truly was the Ronald Reagan of France, a ludicrous example of something better than the dire curse of Hillary.

In fact, if you genuinely belive that Hillary is comparable to Petain then your political mindset is very similar in its perverse lack of perspective to the French anti-socialist attitude "Better Hitler than Blum." Blum was better than Hitler, and Hillary is a damn sight better than the republicans.

[arendt]

19. Thanks for the in-depth reply, it gives me a chance to clarify.

First, my analogy was strictly limited to the early years of the war, when the French
military failed and there was an immense amount of collaboration. I think that part
of the analogy is fair.

I don't think its fair for you to extend the analogy to cover every aspect of the man's
forty year career. Hell, between the Communist resistance and the OAS, the country
was in Civil War twice in twenty years. Plenty of mud to find there.

Why is "Marshall Hillary" so grotesque? The epithet "Vichy Dem" has been around for
years. Hillary, like Petain, is a "hero in times past" that would make a marvelous
figurehead for the continuation of corporate government in America. I myself think
the epithet "Loonie Left" for anyone to the left of Bill Clinton is grotesque. Bill Cliinton
was to the right of Richard Nixon. Alan Greenspan called him "the best Republican
president'.

I do not, by this analogy, call Clinton a "Nazi-collaborator". I DO call her a Corporate
Collaborator.

Where do you get that I called De Gaulle an anti-authoritarian figure? I cited his
role as a MILITARY commander on the losing side in a war. Then, I pointed out
his role in rescuing, by drastic means, a country in the midst of CIVIL WAR. Where,
in those statements do you get that I put him forward as "anti-authoritarian?

arendt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. Fair enough, up to a point.

You can say that equating someone with a man best remembered today as a Nazi-collaborator/enabler/ally/whatever is for the purpose of a very narrow historical point, but that is disingenuous.

If I said that Lance Armstrong supports progressive causes and that Armstrong and Hitler were both short in the testicle department one could fairly infer that my purpose was to generate heat, not light. (Like the delight on RW boards of pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian)

You are clearly an intelligent person... intelligent enough to know that the rhetorical effect of "Marshall Hillary Petain" is to identify Hillary's political views in some way with those of Hitler.

Hindenburg would be an equally sharp example of a past-hero over the hill placing himself in collaboration with Hitler out of a desire for relative domestic peace or national unity.

The phrase "Hindenburg Hillary" would, however, be so hyperbolic as to reach the point of falsity.

I'm not afraid of sharp language or Nazi comparisons... I have been calling moderate Republicans "Wiemar Republicans" for years.

But it would be nice to find some way to encapsulate your evident distaste for Hillary that does not tie her to the Third Reich.

[arendt]

32. Thanks for a most reasonable exchange. A refeshing change of pace.

In retrospect, the post would have stood on its own, without the historical analogy.
In that sense, it detracted from my post.

But, I do not think that the rhetorical effect of Petain is equal to that of Hitler.
If we go that way, WW2 is reduced to Hitler bad, Allies good (except Stalin, who
is good vs Hitler, but otherwise bad).

Petain was a super-annuated super-patriot. He was someone the French admired
and found tolerable. He also gave free rein to the Nazi collaborators in his own
government. What moral authority he had was squandered.

Is it not fair to say that Hillary is someone most non-politicized Democrats admire
and find tolerable? Is it not also fair to say that her corporate healthcare proposal
squandered whatever moral authority she might have had from her botched attempt
in 1993?

The morality of occupied countries and resistance movements is a gray area. In
some regards, occupied countries are countries without law. That is, when two
different sides claim their own law, anything goes. Witness Iraq today. So, I think
that the analogy of occupied France is perfectly germane to the situation in corporate-
occupied America today. We are in a gray area legally (Constituion ignored, and
Hillary is not exactly screaming for its restoration).

In fact, since Korea, all wars have been wars of occupation and resistance. I am
asking you to keep the focus on what goes on in occupied countries because I
think that's germane to the thread. Many here feel that the Democratic Party is
becoming occupied territory, with the DLC being the occupiers.

I understand that you will disagree with my assessment and valuation, just as I do
with yours. But, unlike some on this board, I will defend your right to your assessment.

arendt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

57. Tactical differences

With fascists, there's no point defeating their ideas because they don't care about ideas. All they know is winning and losing, so they must lose... at any cost. Including principles.

I believe, as a practical political judgment, that Hillary is the best candidate to beat them, and victory is a pre-condition to anything good. I expect a tough race, not a cake-walk where the "best" Dem can win.

If we could be allies with Uncle Joe Stalin, I can be allies with Hillary. So I dislike Hillary-schism because it pre-demoralizes people, while conceding that she's not my idealogical dream.

If you believe that someone else is tactically best to win in '08 then our only difference is analysis of tactical strengths.

[iaviate1]

69. Don't you get it?

Many of us think she is one of the THEM we like to talk about.

[arendt]

98. I must really think , re: alllies w Stalin, allies w Hillary. Seriously. Good historical anal. n/t

[cali]

24. Bravo.

I've gone head to head with this guy on several of his posts wherein he grotesquely indulges in the cheapest form of revisionist history. I've given up doing so, because it's pointless to deconstruct the lies. The true believers, largely ignorant of the facts, will inevitably be awed by the faux intellectuallism and enthusisatically join the choir.

Well done. You'll doubtless be put on ignore by the OP.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. "revisionist history" is apparently history you disagree with

The odd thing is that I think of you (Cali) as one of the even-handed posters I genrally agree with. (More revisionism on my part, I guess)

I did not withdraw my stamenet because it was false at heart, but because it is unverifiable. Similarly, I could say the the US killed more Vietnamese than Hitler killed Jews. You could demand proof, and I would admit that estimates of Vietnamese dead range from 3 million to 9 million. and that the certainty of my rhetoric was excessive. But the underlying point is still not without merit. The US killed an amazing number of Vietnamese, and De Gaulle was pretty ruthless with the French left throughout his career, and would thus not be an ideal hero to Clinton detrators who tend to be further left than Hillary supporters, and would presumably be even less enthusiastic about De Gaulle's history with the French left than the average person.

Like most of us, I genrally type off the top of my head in replies. If there are inaccuracies then that's what it is. I have a good record of responding rationaly to rational arguments, and withdrawing inadvertant errors. (I have no record of making advertant errors... whether it appears that way or not, I have never knowingly lied on DU, beyond white-lie politeness of exagrating my agreement with people who seem well-intentioned, even if I have quibbles with their stance.)

That is not to say I end up agreeing with everyone. Most debates here are not factual in nature. It is a fact that most Dems have been woefully insufficient in their opposition to the rise of proto-fascism in America. As to whether it is best to equate that as WWII collaboration is ultimately a value judgement. I can see both sides, but I favor cutting Dems some slack on the Hitler-front.

I think if you read this exchange you will find that the OP and I are talking about different aspects of the man and his career, with some hyperbole on both sides, but pretty much in line with the facts.

Also, you will find that much of WWII history is being revised all the time because most contemporaneous histories were written in the heat of propaganda wars and WWII era secrets of many nations are still being declassified.

My initial point was that De Gualle was a bad man in may ways and not the best symbol of resistence to the Clintons. The subsequnet point is that "Marshall Hillary Petain" is unwarranted as rhetoric and plays into a tendency to cast everything through the prism of WWII. Every aspect of WWII was hyperbolic and references to it tend to exagerate passions and positions.

Half of what is wrong with this country is seeing everything through the prism of WWII, the most singular event in human history and thus, an event whose lessons are often sui genris.

[cali]

29. No. I'm basing my

judgement on other posts by the OP. I shouldn't have tossed it off about this particular post, though I do think the characterization od De Gaulle was off.

You're quite correct that much of WWII history- and more than that- is being revised as primary sources come into the public purview, or are found.

I confess- and it reflects none too well on me- that I have an ax to grind with the OP, in large part because some of what he's written, I find truly offensive. Much of that is comprised of facile comparisons with Nazi Germany- including labeling people who don't agree with the OP, "good Germans".

I suggest you do a search and read some of the OP's other recent offerings, and make up your own mind.

Respectfully,

cali

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. I am an absolute IDIOT. My humble apologies

I thought your remarks were directed at me, not towards OP.

I read it that way because I stopped critical thinking at "this guy" because Arendt is presumably a nod to Hannah Arendt, so I think of the OP as female. (In that way we all put a face on familiar posters, however erroneously)

I guess you can disregard my reply. D'oh!

[cali]

33. LOL. The funny thing is that

your post was actually not off base as it was. Anyway, yes, it's a nod to Hannah Arendt but the poster's profile indicates that he is a he.
For certain reasons, which I suspect I don't need to elaborate on to you, arendt's writings, which are often met with great acclaim here, bother me, and at one point I attempted to deconstruct some of their more glaring fallacies. I was met with outrage by arendt and fans, and the usual toss outs; DLC, right wing dupe,apologist, and charmingly, Good German.

[arendt]

34. I see you are in an exchange with someone I ignore...

I will only ask that you stick to our conversation and how *I* am treating *you*.
The people I tend to ignore insist on raising the volume in order to avoid
serious debate.

I ask you to judge me by what I say to you, not by what others say about me (or
sound bite from what I said).

arendt

[Usrename]

39. I'm no history buff, but Hillary is certainly inhuman enough.

She threatens to cut off funding to the Iraqi government as a solution to the disaster over there.

Never, not once, have I heard her utter a single unkind word or threat about cutting off funds to Halliburton or Blackwater.

She is every bit a monster, if you ask me. On the day she made that threat, the citizens of Baghdad (who are the people that she was threatening) had been without running water for two months in the middle of a desert in summer. So she publicly threatens to cut off aid to their government, as if that would help! What kind of monster does that, while at the same time never mentioning the atrocities that Halliburton, Blackwater, and the CIA are committing over there.

She is a monster!

When did General De Gaulle ever say or do anything so hideous? Can you give an example?

[cali]

40. Please tell me this is parody.

Do you actually believe Hillary is a monster? Why not just call her verin and state she should be exterminated? Do you have any idea about the type of language your using and why it's so ugly?

And your post is full of- to put it kindly- misinformation.

[Usrename]

44. No, cali, that is really how I feel about the things she is saying.

And yes, cali, she really did say them, and I am not misinformed.

You may be though, if think I am making any of this up.

You are right about one thing though, it's ugly, really ugly.

[cali]

48. I provide links

you provide rhetoric. There's great irony in this exchange. I have a strong aversion to Clinton as a candidate, but the grotesque attacks like yours, can't stand unchallenged or a bit of decency and truth just fizzles away.

Provide quotes and links, and context.

[Usrename]

58. In the candidate forum at Soldier Field she threatened to cut off aid to Iraq.

snip>

MR. OLBERMANN: Thank you, Senator Biden.

Senator Clinton, what do we do in that hypothetical?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have a three-point plan to get out of Iraq, starting with redeploying our troops, but doing it responsibly and carefully, because as many of the veterans in this audience know, taking troops out can be just as dangerous as bringing them in. And we’ve got to get out of Iraq smarter than we got in.

Secondly, we’ve got to put more pressure on the Iraqi government, including withholding aid from them if they don’t begin to stabilize the country themselves. And thirdly, we need an intensive diplomatic effort, regionally and internationally.

But if it is a possibility that al Qaeda would stay in Iraq, I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run, as we currently are doing in Al Anbar province.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/us/politics/07demsforum.html?pagewanted=8&_r=1

This was on August 8 of this year, when there was no water in Baghdad for months. Internation news has more about the water shortages that our domestic news, surprise. Do you take my word for it, or can you research the water shortages yourself, if you need to understand more than that?

[cali]

60. That's it?? First off that quote does not back up your claim

There are hundreds of different funding streams. I doubt very much she was talking about cutting off direct humanatarian aid. She's not stupid. And please provide evidence that there ws NO water in Baghdad for months. It's my understanding that the number of hours that water flowed was something like 10 per day. Inconvenient and awful but hardly the same as NO water.

[Usrename]

73. You know, like Hillary says, words have consequences.

If you think she didn't mean it, then how do you excuse her saying it. There is no retraction on this. It is the way she believes.

Now, just because you don't believe the way she does, and I don't believe the way she does, doesn't mean that she doesn't believe it.

It's who she is - just watch her for a while and you'll see it. She is inhuman, if you ask me. Why do we another president like that?

Oh, and here ya go, some of the played down accounts reported in the main stream media. You should try to learn something and read some accounts from other news sources. It's way worse than the happy (yet inconvenient) place you are talking about.

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/137756-Baghdad+without+water+-+6+Million+People,+117+Degrees+And+No+Water

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL353846.htm

People have been getting sick from it.

Not sick of it, you uninformed know-it-all, they are getting sick FROM it. I'm sure there's lots of stuff about it in the DU archives somewhere, but the US media accounts of the suffering over there are bad enough, and they are whitewashed. I still can't believe that you believe in the OFFICIAL story line, that it's inconvenient to live in Baghdad.

No wonder you defend Hillary. I wish there was some way to shame you into reexamining you attitude. At least enough to take an honest look around.

[peacetalksforall]

96. Why don't you supply some links for your negations.?

[cali]

47. Here. Try and learn something:

<snip>
Is this going to affect the investigations that are going on? Because we have a lot of evidence about their misuse of government contracts and how they have cheated the American soldier, cheated the American taxpayer. They have taken money and not provided the services. So, does moving overseas mean that we won’t be able to pursue these investigations?
<snip>
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/clinton-on-haliburton-and-dubai/


and yes she's spoken out against Blackwater too. And the suffering of Iraqi civilians:

<snip>
With respect to violence within Iraq, although the charts tell part of the story, I don't think they tell the whole story. If you look at all of the evidence that's been presented, overall civilian deaths have risen. The number of car bombings is higher. May was the deadliest month in 2007 with 1,901 civilian deaths.

<snip>
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=282410

[Usrename]

56. Learn something? Like what exactly? Nothing new here.

Where is she threatening to cut off funding to Halliburton? She isn't, that's where.

And where does she threaten to cut off government funding of Blackwater? She doesn't, that's where.

Sorry, but your links are not very persuasive of anything, especially anything that would contradict what she said in Green Bay.

[bagrman]

66. some more history. I thought that Kusinch was the only deomcrat on the ticket.

A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. M olotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary W. Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary W. Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary W. Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary W. Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary W. Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary W. Clinton 9/2/2005





Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Usrename]

77. I still think Dennis is the only democrat on the ticket.

I sure wish I could convince myself that Hillary was speaking as a democratic socialist, but I don't think so. Yes, I am afraid.

(I'm bookmarking this post, it's so creepy.)

[whopis01]

89. Don't be afraid, be informed

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/clinton_quotes.htm

or post #88 in this chain....

[peacetalksforall]

97. I stand with you - afraid. Hated by the throughly brainwashed lemmings

and supported and promoted by corporate tv - people are taking sides - she is leading the polarization that existed in an earlier form and is constantly evolvng and morphing. Side against side. I could have excitedly voted for her in 2000. Since then, I've learned - she doesn't represent my values just as the DLC doesn't.

[Change has come]

80. Let's have some links.

Thanks! :hi:

[whopis01]

90. here you go:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/clinton_quotes.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

or post 88 in this chain....

[whopis01]

88. How about an accurate history instead?

Let's look at a few of the quotes that you feel should make us 'very afraid' of Senator Clinton, shall we?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

So, should we be afraid of taxes? Isn't this just what taxes are? I can only assume that this indicates that you do not support taxpayer funded systems such as welfare, social security, public education, interstate highways, etc.. In fact, this quote came when Hillary Clinton was addressing supporters at a fund raiser (supporters that had paid as much as $10,000 to attend) that some of the Bush tax cuts that favored the rich should be done away with.

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

Responsibility and shared prosperity is somehow undesirable whereas a government of the few, by the few and for the few is desirable? Out of curiosity, why did you choose to leave out the remainder of this quote? Oh, I think it must have been to remove any chance of it being understood in context, isn't that correct? Let's have a look at it:

It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

In this case, you have apparently misquoted Senator Clinton on purpose. Rather slick use of editorial notes to indicate that you were trying to maintain accuracy < the (We) and the '...' >, but they aren't quite in the right places, are they? A more accurate quote would have been: "We can't ... just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people". But if you had shown it that way, it would probably have made people wonder what was left out. You might think, we can't what? But you wouldn't want that that to get in the way of your point, would you?

Just to fill you in on what Senator Clinton thought we can't do: "we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and then the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that is poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on"

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

No compromise, no prisoners, no surrender, right? Having discussions and working to find solutions that benefit everyone is just not the way to go when instead we can have one group get everything they want and not have to build any consensus and never have to give up anything they want. I mean, as long as it is the group that we are in, right?

I do have to admit that you didn't really take this one out of context as much as the others. However I don't think it really seems the sort of quote that Mao Tse Dung, Hugo Chavez, or Kim Jong Il would have come up with, do you?

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

Has the free market system always succeeded in your opinion? Is there no need for regulation in industries? Not that this quote was really related to industry or economics though... It actually came from a discussion about reducing the frequency of abortions. A more complete context is as follows:

"We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make.

And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed."

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

God forbid that the big oil companies (the ones Clinton was referring to in this statement) should come under scrutiny, right? This quote came from a speech given after Katrina and was attacking the oil companies for profiteering from the event. She was calling for an inquiry by the FTC.


Now, with all of that said, I must add that I am not a big fan of Senator Clinton. She is not my choice for the nomination. However, misquotes and deception do not in any way aid the political process. Though I expect that you already understood that.

[Pooka Fey]

28. despite my French family saying this is WAY too much bullshit to merit a response

I call bullshit on your post.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. You are right. It was a rhetorically excessive way of saying De Gaulle was a rightwing hawk type

I should have said something much milder. De Gaulle was surely involved in purging leftist elements from the resistance, but I have no idea of the numbers.

The Free French had a primarily political mission while the US and UK carried most of the actual nazi-fighting in 1944 France, and the Free French did some stuff to leftist resistence cells that they wouldn't want in the newspaper.

And much of the myth of De Gaulle was created by the allies to minimize leftist influence in post war France. We developed him as the face of resistence, rather than other equally brave sincere people, because he was reliably anti-communist. We would drive the Nazis out of a town and then wait for De Gaulle to come in to lead the parade celebrating the "capture"... PR stuff to minimize the remarkable efforts of the leftist resistence fighters who had been operating in that town throughout the entire occupation.

It's not shock that motives are seldom clear and simple. I admire De Gaulle's actions in 1940 very much but De Gaulle is not a hero of mine, on balance.

[Pooka Fey]

54. Tête de con.

Signé, Charles.

[arendt]

35. Self-delete - I thought you were responding to me. Sorry. n/t

[cali]

37. Brilliant! The post you call bullshit on

isn't worth responding to, so you respond to it with the scathingly brilliant charge of bullshit.

I'd address your points, but as you didn't make any, but simply mendaciously through out the charge of bullshit, no one can.

[Usrename]

41. Um, someone did.

"I'd address your points, but as you didn't make any, but simply mendaciously through out the charge of bullshit, no one can."

The poster that he called bullshit on has offered an excuse for the bullshit. Go ahead and look. See this stuff isn't nearly as difficult as you make it out to be.

[cali]

49. Reread it- including his apology to me,

Are you really this challenged by the written word?

[Usrename]

74. Who apologized to you?

Are you still talking about the poster that called bullshit making it impossible, in your view, to respond?

I am not at all challenged by the written word, except in this case where there is one (too many) pronoun that leaves me wondering who it is that you think apologized to you, and for what.

[kineneb]

13. just looking at the economics- we are in deep trouble

never mind the politics. I believe in the "follow the money" theory of politics: find out who is going to make the most profit by a particular action.

The dollar is tanking: $1.40+ = 1 Euro. In 2002, when we were visiting Belgium, the dollar and Euro were even.

The sub-prime mess is only going to accelerate. Many of the resets do not happen until next year. How many US financial institutions will it take out?

The US cannot produce itself out of a depression/recession- all of the major manufacturers have moved offshore. We should ask ourselves: Do we actually make anything here anymore?

Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR: don't need to say much there. More public money subsidizing private companies.

The 2008 election will probably not change anything. Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee. The corporations own the government and the press. The people are meaningless, only profits count.

So, arendt, coming from a different viewpoint, I guess I have to agree.



-be sure to stock up on canned goods...at least you won't go hungry-

[arendt]

14. What's the shelf-life of canned goods?

And, what's the quality?

We tend to eat stuff as fresh and organic as we can get.

Its probably time to get an "allotment" and figure out how to grow our own food again.
I could bill myself as an "entreprenuer" - I have this new idea called "local production".

arendt

[puebloknot]

68. Sprouting! Yeah, that's it, if we want anything fresh.

[kineneb]

71. have a garden already

but the California foothills have a relatively short growing season- May 15 to Oct 15. I have a small winter greens garden, but not much else will grow once it gets cold. The rains have already started, so the only thing growing will be the weeds. The trade-off is that we have glorious spring wildflowers.

The area is somewhat isolated, so if manure hits ventilator, we may have difficulty obtaining some foods. On the other hand, the county has pears, wine grapes, strawberries (for local folks), cattle, and meat bison, not to mention lots of sheep and a quantity of odd critters- emus, pheasants and llamas. Historically, the area was fairly self-sufficient. Those in villages outside the (count them) two incorporated towns, are allowed to have farm animals: chickens, and surprisingly, pet goats. I have a pet chicken.

As to canned goods, as long as the can is not deformed, it is usually ok. Real shelf-life can be several years. Canned tomatoes can be really nice in the middle of winter, especially when one cannot afford "fresh" imported red "tennis balls".

Being near a volcano/faults, we probably should have a complete earthquake kit with food and water; I have yet to figure out where to store one.

[arendt]

99. I hear you about "tennis ball" tomatoes...

I used to live in NJ, and couldn't get a ripe tomato in August. I finally wound up growing
some Big Boys from seeds. But, we do use lots of Muir Glen organic canned tomatoes for sauces.

Have you thought about greenhouses. I have seen commercial farms where they plant the
plants in the ground, then construct a plastic sheet greenhouse over them to get through
cold weather. When it warms up, they take off the greenhouse and let the plants continue
to grow in the ground.

arendt

[cuke]

18. Still. I'd rather them off the boat, than on.

.

[The Count]

20. Someone posted about buying land in Panama if Hillary comes. Maybe it was Bush

maybe it wasn't - but it was posted on DU in all seriousness
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3600082#3602493
(# 85)

[arendt]

21. No offense, but I really don't want this thread tied to that one. n/t

[meganmonkey]

22. There is a lot of

simple truth in this. Great post.

K & R.

[L0oniX]

25. I knew I should have moved out when Bush got elected ...now it may too late.

Welcome to the war with Iran and national RfId (666) next May. Oh yea ...don't forget, we're at peak oil right now too.

:nuke:

[Pooka Fey]

26. An American government in exile is the most original and promising idea yet.

Great writing, great ideas. :-) K&R

[nashville_brook]

38. it's not that the rats are leaving, so much, as they are making a clean getaway

that's what really burns my nips. so what if Gonz, Rums, Rove, etc etc are "gone." they *got away.* that's not the same as being shown the door or indicted which was/is someone's responsibility if we are to continue calling this a "democracy."

[Usrename]

42. Yep, without impeachment they will all get pardons for their crimes.

They will be back, just like all the other criminals in this cabal.

[cali]

43. Actually that's incorrect.

Gonzo is under investigation by IG Fine and has hired a high power defense lawyer, George Terwilliger. Rove continues to be investigated by three committees and new information implicating him has recently been revealed. No, I don't know anything about any pursuit of Rumsfeld.

But I haven't a clue as to what you think the democrats should do. Evidently you think they should do nothing but focus on bringing these folks to justice. They have other obligations as well, and they are pursuing Rove, Gonzo and others. Yes, yes, I know it's not impeachment, but it's not complicity or doing nothing either.

Quite frankly, you seem to think the dems should rush out with rope and hang these people.

[Elspeth]

72. Cali, thanks for keeping this fine thread bumped

:)

[arendt]

104. LOL! An excellent way of looking at things. n/t

[Elspeth]

108. And it's always polite to thank the helpful

:)

[Whisp]

46. excellent post. recommended.

but I do have to agree with someone here that said the rats are not abandoning ship in fear, but running with their bags of money before the big fear takes a popular grip that may hurt their 'investments'.

[peacetalksforall]

100. You're right in a way - everything hinges on what is sufficient wealth

for them. They are gamblers. They want permanent control of the earth - above and below the ground and those critters who 'humanate' it. They must decide when enough is enough and then laminate themselves against courts and justice. The only way they can relax is to control it all. Signs indicate that they can't.

One of the biggest disappointments from all of this - is learning that most leaders of Europe, Canada, and others are 'in' with our leaders. I thought the leaders or the people of Europe would create a barrier - specifically over the planned and threatened bombing of Iran - we didn't know everything about the plan before, we vascillated on what could be justified, but now we know. It is morally and humanely wrong to let this happen again. We know too much. There is no ignorance now. The plan is rotten and against humanity and every religion and culture. People call it corporatism - makes it nearly sound admirable. Now we know what it is - raw and vile and unsustainable as it goes against hope and rights.

[The Doctor.]

51. Anyone good with Photoshop want a simple project?

How about an American flag with the Jolly Roger where the Star Field should be?

(I'd do it myself, but I suck with that stuff)

[juno jones]

63. Don't know where to find it

But I believe Mark Twain designed a similar flag during the Spanish-American War.

[The Doctor.]

82. Whatta shock.

No... not really.

But I never knew that. Thank you for giving me something to look for.

[D23MIURG23]

81. here is one I did with ms paint. crude but effective.

[The Doctor.]

83. That's it.

It's creepy, but thanks.


I think it's important... can you make it bigger?

[D23MIURG23]

84. This should be a better link I hope

[D23MIURG23]

85. Failure Fuhrer remix

[earth mom]

52. Great Post! Pirates, Mafia. Same Same. nt

[JFN1]

53. Excellent

Thanks for writing this - no one likes to hear the worst case scenario, but the worst case so often happens. I agree we're all pretty much screwed - going through the motions seems to make people feel better, but deep down, I think we all recognize, even if we vehemently deny it - the great American experiment has come off the rails...

[tom_paine]

55. K & R. Well said. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

64. K & R. A perfect summary. nt

[daninthemoon]

65. They are going to Dubai, not China. They merely sold us as slaves

to China.

[puebloknot]

67. "American government in exile." Oh where, oh where? Who would have us? nt

[Greyhound]

78. K & R

:kick:

[SlingBlade]

79. BUMP

[maxkeiser]

86. don't fret; go GULAG

don't dispair, hold you nose and buy up the stocks listed on gulagwealthfund.com
taser is going much higher as is corrections corp. of America...
the index is up 20% already this year, out pacing inflation - (the true rate of inflation, including food and energy now running at close to to 10%); also; buy gold and silver.. and ride out the storm.... the US won't hit bottom for many years.. so better to sit tight, buy gold and GULAG stocks...

[arendt]

103. Naomi Klein discusses how Israel's economy has soared after 911...

because they have the repressive (so-called anti-terrorist) technology that
corporatocracies everywhere need to subdue their increasingly restive populations.

Your post may be satire; but it is also reality.

arendt

[cachukis]

87. Good discussion.

DeGaulle was a politician.
Hillary is a politician.

Plant something you can eat.

Cachukis

[frogcycle]

93. Excellent post

I don't necessarily endorse every word, but the big picture is spot on.

Much like Gore uses the expression "tipping point" to allude to some point of no return wherein it becomes too late to have a serious impact on the climate crisis, there is/was a tipping point in the dissolution of the Great Experiment that was the United States' constitutional government. I think that point was either the SCOTUS decision in 2000 or else the seeming reelection of the cabal in 2004. But in reality it might have been the failure to keep C. Thomas off the bench years earlier, thus setting up the rubber-stamp SCOTUS that would have the audacity to interfere in state business in an election. Or the election of "Smilin' Jack" R. Reagan. Or the JFK assassination. Whatever - there is now a runaway train. As you describe, the pillaging and dismantling has been so thorough that there may actually be nothing left to "save."

While I support and applaud earnest efforts to elect people who believe in the America that once was, and would be ecstatic if that could make a difference, I don't have much hope. My local congressional district is a perfect example. There is a young man running for the seat hastert is vacating whom I find refreshing and right-minded. I'll try to help send him to DC, and I expect he will then be marginalized, chewed up and spit out. Unless we could send 435 of him all at once, it is like whistling in a windstorm.

No, I fear that history will some day chronicle The Rise and Fall of the United States, and this continent will be to the globe what Africa was during the colonial period. The new power base will be elsewhere (Halliburton figured that one out!)

It has been said many times that the US will never be conquered from without, but can be conquered from within.

You used France as an example; I do too. You are evidently a student of history and I expect quite familiar with the earlier turmoil in France, beginning in the late 1780's with as the trigger. To oversimplify, France was being run politically by three "estates" - the clergy, the nobility, and the peasants. The Third Estate realized that it was being misused and abused by the others and decided it would assume control. The result was years of civil war, the Reign of Terror, some 75 years of successive changes in the form of government.

To paraphrase John Edwards, you don't negotiate with these people, you fight them. We continue to be deluding ourselves in a Chamberlainesque avoidance of the truth. One day the US peasants, too, will storm the Bastille. I expect that is far in the future - many decades - and the intervening years will not be pretty.

Your allusion to an American government in exile is not at all far-fetched.

[arendt]

101. You have made me feel less alone...

I am a "big picture" guy. I can't do small stuff without a frame of reference.
The frame I am using right now is somewhere between Pottersville and
1980s South America. Corporations and thugs run our government.

How on earth did the richest country on earth fall so far so fast? I agree
with you that it has been going on for a long time.

IMHO, it began with the NSA act of 1947. HST was a country bumpkin compared
to FDR. He got taken to the cleaners by the WASP elite that set up the CIA.
(I loved that line Matt Damon had in "The Good Shepherd": "...we (the WASPs) have
America. The rest of you are just visiting.") Right away, they started overthrowing
elected democracies on the grounds that anyone who elected leftists of any stripe
was a danger.

If you don't think the same tactics that the CIA used against Iran, Guatamala,
Indonesia, Chile, etc have not been at work in the U.S. since the time of the
Kennedy/King assasinations, you haven't been paying attention.

All in all, it is a humbling lesson in how easy our current form of government
is to hijack if you are a corporate entity with billions to spend and decades to
accomplish your purpose. (That is why I have started a journal at Kos to discuss
Constitutional changes to defend against such internal subversion.)

Ever since FDR, there has been a "permanent private government" in the U.S.
These are the people who tried the Smedley Butler coup. These are the people
who were still villiffying Roosevelt in 1990. These are the people who paid to
turn my country into the world's biggest banana republic.

Pirates, Gangsters, Fanatics, Criminals. May they all rot in hell.

arendt

[BeHereNow]

105. "Pirates, Gangsters, Fanatics, Criminals. May they all rot in hell." AMEN

Once again, you have hit the nail squarely
with your literary hammer.
Thank you.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

106. Proud to give the 60th "recommend."

BHN

[frogcycle]

109. I have written several rants about the movement

starting about where you start. When Ike warned of the "militaryindustrial complex", he was not just blowing smoke. He KNEW.

I have called it "The Machine" and "The cabal" depending upon my mood when I start a rant. The important thing is to understand that it is real.

Nixon was supposed to be its first puppet leader, succeeding Ike who they just waited out. JFK temporarily upset that strategy, but LBJ was their guy through and through. The Great Society and civil rights advances were largely smokescreens to pacify the peasants while the war machine cranked up.

Nixon was resurrected and inserted to continue the process after LBJ, and was doing fine, except for screwing the pooch re: Watergate. So that caused a temporary blip with Carter's election, but they ridiculed him out of office, had a convenient Iran Hostages thing to hold against him, with a failed rescue due to malfunction of several helicopters (??) to ice it. So in came their boy Ronnie, then poppa, to proceed pretty much unchecked with deregulating everything, fighting social programs, funding "Star Wars"...

Poppa just didn't have Clinton's or Reagan's charisma(I never saw that in Reagan) and Clinton caused another blip. But they were ready, mounting the all-out campaign to harass in any way they could while grooming party boy by drying him out and inserting him as Texas Gov. Hillary was spot-on when she called it a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

There's 48 years of US presidential history in a nutshell. I agree that adding eight as a ramp-up during Ike makes sense.

=======================================================
But going back even further:

In actuality, the same battle has been raging since the Revolution. And the Revolution itself was part of the battle. It was less about personal freedom and more about freedom of business to make more profit, without the King siphoning off so much. The debate amongst the Founders over where the power should lie - the entire concept of "We the People" was radical, and many did not agree with it. The Bill of Rights was added by popular demand, over the objections of some. Washington refused to be named king (to his credit), and Jefferson and other early presidents were champions of the people vs. Hamilton's views of a highly-centralized industrialist-controlled economy and government. Over the several years after Jefferson, however, with people focused more on the rapid expansion (Florida, Louisiana Territory...) Hamiltonian philosophy crept back in. It was easier to "go west" than to fight for labor rights. When Jackson killed the Bank of the United States, it was because he *"thought Congress had not had the authority to create the Bank in the first place, but he also viewed the Bank as operating for the primary benefit of the upper classes at the expense of working people." Pretty much the same issue we have today with "special interest lobbyists." Jackson offended a whole lot of people who thought he was a rough peasant. You can just see them fluttering their lace handkerchiefs (then) or cutting employee benefits (now).

They had managed to gain a lot of clout despite that pesky Constitution, but Jackson gave them a setback. There was a lot of talk of secession and issues over states rights in the years before the Civil War, not over slavery per se, but over tariffs, and how they impacted businessmen in the North and farmers in the South. Nothing to do with people, everything to do with profit. While the abolitionist movement was what we would call populist, those opposing it were definitely what we would call corporatists. After the Civil War, with the industrial revolution and expansion west an era of booming big business led to the Robber Barons - the railroad and steel tycoons, the abuse of Chinese immigrants, etc. The late-19th century labor movement, particularly in coal mining, was a series of battles in this war that eventually created the American Middle Class. The Pinkertons and other private mercenary armies busting heads in labor disputes were the Blackwater of the day.

OK, so the labor strife settled down some, there was a brief period of relative calm and prosperity, as Ford started making autos for everyone. There may have been a perception in the boardrooms that maybe there was enough to go around. And the public was happy they could buy a car, so thought they could tolerate republican presidents. They kept electing them. Except for Grover Cleveland (twice) and Woodrow Wilson, it was solid republicans from 1877 until 1933. But greed is what it is, and by 1929 the corruption and financial manipulations under the Republicans Harding/Coolidge/Hoover led to the Great Depression, which ushered in FDR.

The "Progressive" Presidents? Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, FD Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter.

Not many out of 43, is it? One Republican: TR. He was a leader of Progressive Movement. The party quickly turned away from that once he was out of office. Oh, some of the others did good things here and there. I'd have to say NAFTA puts Clinton on the "other side", along with failure to re-regulate what Reagan screwed up. So while his head and heart may have been in the right place, the Machine was by then powerful enough to throttle him, and, well, another body part was in the wrong place. They pretty much took care of Kennedy and Carter too. And listen to Limbaugh's bragging that "we are doing something about" FDR's policies.

So there's the other 160 years, jammed into the same nutshell.

This country's history is one continuing battle for power between big business and "We the People"
And We the People are losing. We are losing BAD!. It is just about over.

It is naive to think "oh, they wouldn't do that" or "not in the USA." Bull! The people who want that power only tolerate the rabble. What Hamilton wanted then is what Cheney wants now. It is not a recent development. And you can't kill this hydra by cutting off a few of its heads.

The labor strife of the late-19th century killed people. The Civil Rights Movement killed people.
In those cases a subset of "We the People" stood up for all of "We the People". Now, not so much. It probably has to get a lot uglier before it gets better, because THE MACHINE read 1984 and realized that mind-manipulation and control of news media was essential if they were to put an end to those pesky uprisings.

* http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/bio/public/jackson.htm#Presidency

[arendt]

111. That is excellent. Have you posted it on its own? Or put it in your journal? n/t

[frogcycle]

112. Thanks. I have posted pieces of it off and on here and there

I just added it to my journal.

it's kind of like the song of the grey whales - it morphs. While driving to a Cubs game the other day I launched into a "why I am not a Hillary fan" tirade for my daughter - started with the revolution and just spouted forth for ten minutes or so. The conclusion was pretty much the summation of Clinton I used above - I like the guy, and he did a lot of good, but he still did not really tackle THE MACHINE, and he low-keyed Gore's climate issues. So I kind of concluded that Bill and Hill are "go along to get along" types rather than the "new revolutionary" like Jefferson or Jackson that we desperately need. Or maybe it was just their vulnerability to smear tactics that stifled them. Whatever. But who would that be? I say Biden, Edwards, Gore, and Kucinich all have the passion. Dodd gets it too, but I have never seen anything bordering on passion from him.
I have mixed emotions about Obama. I certainly like him, but fear he'd be lukewarm in the #1 spot. I'd really like to see them all teamed up, like Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, figuring out now how to fix it, the way they figured out then how to design it. Gore's "The Assault on Reason" is a textbook for part of what needs fixing.

I got a pretty good grade from her for my "American History in 15 minutes" lecture and she said I should write it up. Your post pushed my buttons and I just started pounding away. I really should credit Thom Hartman for a lot of it. He does a great job of tying what's happening today back to what happened before. It is actually quite amazing when you look at the entire 231 years in fast-forward. I love it when the candidates refer to the War on the Middle Class - Hartman must get a kick out of that.

I'm going to polish it up and add a section to my Algae Awards website for Commentary, and put it there. If you haven't seen it, click the link below. There's some good stuff there.

[lonestarnot]

94. So they are saying on Fixed Snooze.