Hillary Clinton Second Wave Feminists Wipe Out On The Third Wave

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-steinem-albright-and-clinton-don%e2%80%99t-get-about-millennial-women/ar-BBpks2o?li=BBnbfcL

The headline to this op-ed piece is misleading. Read down to the lower half of the article and it’s clear the female writer is trying to push two points: 1. Liberal millennial women are voting for Bernie Sanders because they’re too young to know better. 2. Liberal millennial women are ungrateful little brats for failing to respect the holy feminist trio of Clinton, Albright, and Steinem. If it wasn’t for them, your major goal in life would be to have “Mrs.” in front of your name.

And then, there’s this: “The more likely explanation, however, is that young liberal women, like their male counterparts, are attracted to the cool old guy because he’s promising a dream in which the rich have less and the poor have more. Robin Hood is so awesome.”

So all of you liberal millennial women are backsliding. You’re all Maid Marian hoping that someday you will become Mrs. Robin Hood in a May-November marriage.

And to think that the Washington Post was once the paper that exposed Richard M. Nixon and the Watergate scandal. It’s as out of touch with today’s young women as Clinton, Albright, and Steinem (although to her credit, Steinem has walked back her statements, claiming she “misspoke”).

So, do you agree? Are you closing the door on the feminist holy trio because you’ve forgotten they opened it? Or is it because both age and time diminish and tarnish even the strongest (to some) idols?

“But they’re missing the bigger point that had these older women not cut a path for others to enter and expect to be treated fairly in the workplace and elsewhere, these same young women would, indeed, be following the boys in hopes of inserting an “r” between the “M” and the “s” in their titles, as their predecessors had to.”

Or is it as simple as that while third wave feminists appreciate the trailblazing of the second wave feminists, they don’t appreciate the condescending attitudes of members of that much older generation currently raining down on them?

 

Advertisements

Bill Clinton: Big Dog? Big Phony

Bill Clinton. Big Dog. The guy the Democrats trot out every national convention time to rah rah the electorate to a fever pitch to bring the Democratic presidential nominee on home!

Big dog? Big phony. The only thing big about Bill is the stick he keeps trying to bash Bernie Sanders over the head with.

This morning I again heard on the radio the corporate media fiction of Clinton’s “Age of Prosperity” in the 90s. Yes, it was prosperous for some, unless you were poor. If you were lower-working class or among the poor there was little if any prosperity for you.  The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the Republican bill which Clinton signed into law took care of that. It penalized poor children for living with their dysfunctional parent(s).  It forced people with no hope of finding a job to look for work or be removed from the cash grant after two years while a portion of any of the income they might be able to earn or receive was allocated to the child(ren) to further reduce their cash grant. After five years on welfare whether the parent(s) had found work or not the family timed out on welfare entirely.

The Food Stamps program (run by the USDA partly on behalf of agribusiness to sell more crops to sell more food) was slashed by over $20 billion dollars. The AFDC budget was $14 billion—less than 1% of the federal budget. Meanwhile, military spending was increased by about $60 billion over a six-year period, a time when we weren’t officially at war with anybody.  SSI eligibility for children was restricted.  LEGAL immigrants had their eligibility for programs greatly restricted and their benefits cut.

But while the those living in poverty were pushed into living in abject poverty, the rest of us were prospering, right? For some. For awhile. The Bill Clinton Golden Age of Prosperity sat atop the twin dotcom and real estate bubbles and balanced by some fancy shmancy bookkeeping that moved selected Accounts Payable ledger items off the Clinton books and onto the books of the next presidential administration. Yes, Dubya did fine in massively escalating the federal budget on his own but Bill did help his future best buddy along that path.

Yes, it sure was the Age of Prosperity alright, but all that prosperity was paid with credit cards and the bills started to come due in the 2nd financial quarter of 2007. You see, during Bill’s Age of Prosperity he sneaked a couple of things through: repeal of Glass-Steagall and the successful kibosh of the regulation of the sale of derivatives of which—if you saw “The Big Short” credit default swaps played a big part.

So here’s all these stock traders and stockholders becoming prosperous during the 90s but then the strangest stuff started to happen in 2007. Banks started to fail. Brokerage houses started to fail. Mortgage lenders started to fail. A whole lot of prosperous people lost their investments, lost their retirement savings, lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their families, lost their lives.

The Republicans came up with a plan to save it all called TARP. They came up with at near the end of Dubya’s term. Obama replaced Bush but on the first round of voting Senate Democrats stuck to their principles and voted it down. They became unstuck on the second vote and passed it with Obama signing into law in 2009. The problem with TARP was handled was similar to what happens on a baseball sandlot. Kids line up and wait to see which team captain will chose them. The team captain sticks with his favorite players and tries to give the lesser players to the other team. This is what happened with TARP. Obama chose his favorites: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, AIG. The lesser players not chosen: Bear Stearns, Shearson Lehman Brothers, Wachovia Bank, Countrywide, among others didn’t get to play at all because there was no other team to play for.  They had to take their bats and balls and thousands of employees and millions of customers and clients and walk away.

This is reality. This is fact. This is not the Camelot-like “Age of Prosperity” that the Clintons, the Democratic Party (especially the DNC), and the corporate media is attempting to have you still believe. When the lie becomes truth, then what is the truth?

So I will not join in on the Big Dog rah rah stuff. I will not speaking glowingly and nostalgically of the Bill Clinton Golden Age of Prosperity. Too much water has flowed under that bridge. The same floodwater that swept all that “prosperity” away for good. At least it worked out for the poor.  As Janis once sang, “when you got nothin’ you got nothin’ to lose”.

The Hillary Problem

I’m going on record with this prediction: The Republicans will win the White House and retain control of Congress in 2016. OK, let me back up for a moment. If the Democrats run Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee, the Republicans will win the White House and retain control of Congress in 2016.

There have been a number of news stories about the number of makeovers (just about a story for every makeover) that Hillary Clinton’s public persona is being put through, written by Washington Post columnists who tended to practice their pro-Democratic punditry on the all liberal shows which no longer populate MSNBC. In fact, it sheds itself of Rachel and Lawrence (are there any other liberals still left on air?) it will complete its conversion to right wing TV programming by renaming itself Kit, which is a baby Fox. But I digress. Two examples of the ongoing search to find a Hillary Clinton who will click with more than her current voter base.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-inept-bloated-clinton-campaign/ar-AAectUA?li=BBieRxq

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-show-more-humor-and-heart-aides-say.html?_r=0

All of this punditry claiming she’s the front runner because she’s 30 points about of Bernie Sanders among Democrats and is the favorite among female Democratic voters is crap, for want of a better word I don’t want to use here. If anything she’s bleeding poll points and her handlers are looking ahead to looking back at 2008 all over again. If Clinton’s lead was so solid and formidable her handlers would not be tweaking her image so much in a frantic attempt to find something that clicks. So, this week Hillary is “funny” on the talk shows. You can see it on her face and hear it in her voice: “See? I’m being funny! Aren’t I being funny?” And now tough from the tough look on her face and her tough voice: “See? I’m tough! Aren’t I being tough?” And compassionate: “See the concern on my face? And don’t I sound concerned?”

It’s all image. Throughout all the funny, tough, and compassionate performances, not one word of substance has been issued through her mouth or through press releases. She wants to lower the cost of college for students and reduce the student loan debit load for borrowers. But how? “Aren’t I being compassionate?” is as specific as she gets. She’s talked about economic reform (“Aren’t I being tough?”)
while at the same time taking political contributions from corporations who benefit from the current economic policies.

It’s clear that she’s targeted being the first woman president for a long time, possibly before she met Bill. She attempted to share his presidency but she quickly distanced herself from him after Bill couldn’t get the Republican health insurance plan passed by Republicans. I would bet that his mishandling of his affair with Monica further increased that distance behind the scenes.

But apparently now she feels entitled to the presidency and that’s her problem because that’s exactly the way she comes across to liberals. Her supporters are trying to force feed her down the throat of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party using scare tactics to make the harsh medicine go down. “It’s Hillary or a Republican in the White House!”

But the Left isn’t swallowing it. Hence the ongoing efforts of her campaign managers to find a flavor of Hillary that will help the medicine go down. Because every flavor of Hillary tastes artificial. When you hear Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren talk you hear their authenticity, their commitment to their specific stances on issues and their proposed specific policies. Elizabeth Warren is engaging on talk shows, effortlessly being funny and serious by turns. Bernie talks tough because Bernie IS tough. His record on how he stands on issues along with his voting record speaks for itself.

Clinton knows that her voting record is a source of deep concern among liberals with her support of the Iraq invasion and her support of the USA PATRIOT Act and other right wing positions. As a Democratic U.S. senator she made a great Republican. And for that the Left doesn’t trust her and she knows that if she’s to not only snag the nomination and the election she’ll need the Left, Right, and Center of the Democratic Party along with all the Independents and disgruntled Republican voters she can muster.

But again, Hillary Clinton’s problem is one of lack of authenticity. Anyone other than her core supporters have no idea who she really is. And the person they think she is they don’t like or trust. She changes personas like she changes clothes for different political rallies, fundraisers, and interviews. It isn’t “Where In The World Is Carmen Santiago?” but “Who In The World Is Hillary Clinton?” If she and her managers can’t figure out who she is, how will people figure out which Hillary they want to vote for? They can’t and they won’t. That changes the actual threat to “If it’s Hillary there will be a Republican in the White House.” This is the reason the GOP very much wants to see Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign derailed. They never learned how to beat a populist Democratic candidate because they’ve never had to run against one. With Hillary, they’re looking at virtually one of their own. If you remember back to 2000 when Karl Rove derailed John McCain’s presidential campaign, the GOP definitely knows how to take out its own.

The Democrats Need A New Team, Not A Hero

So here we are in the middle of our postmortem after yesterday’s disaster yet some people are still not getting the reasons for what happened. I’ve already seen at least one person leap onto a soapbox promoting his chosen Democratic savior for 2016. This is the last thing we should be doing now.

The problem with this thinking is analogous to baseball. One losing team believes all it needs is a top slugger to turn it around. The successful team knows that a team of strong players in every position and a strong bench is what’s needed to win championships. To float one candidate’s name at this team shows the problem with the Democratic Party. If it refuses to learn the lessons of yesterday’s midterm elections, it will cease to even be relevant going forward from this point onward. Obama is the current big slugger and look at how well that’s worked out for us. Once your big slugger goes into a hitting slump he sinks the whole team if he’s the best and only big player they’ve got.

We don’t need ONE candidate to rally behind; we need a fundamental makeover of the Democratic Party in the way it chooses and runs candidates, and especially in how it communicates its message to the voters. We need to get liberal politicians with balls and vaginas of steel to stand up to the GOP, to refuse to approve right wing appointees to SCOTUS and to US District Courts, who will filibuster and otherwise refuse to vote for asinine legislation like budget compromises which create a “super congress” as well as the sequester which has proven to be a disaster for the poor and the middle class, politicians who will stand up to the NRA, ALEC, and people like the Kochs, who will stand up for women’s and for gay rights, and for immigration reform. We need a president who will not naively believe they can negotiate and compromise with Republicans while they are united in bringing down the presidency just because of the color and/or gender of the president. We need a president who will stare down the opposition with every Congressional Democrat standing behind him.

We need leadership at the top who will employ GOP and Fox-like tactics which hold up their politicians and policies to public ridicule, who can come up with simple one-line slogans and imagery to cement in even stupid voters’ heads that the GOP will surely lead them to ruin and the end of life as we know it, just like the GOP has successfully marketed the same thing about us to the voters.

So, right now the last thing we need is a Hillary or a Elizabeth or a Bernie in 2016. We need a real, actual, vital political party rebuilt from the bottom up which can engage and attract the millions of voters it lost after it decided to become Republican Light.

A home run slugger can’t win the ballgame if the team is losing and there’s no one on base.

The Only Thing Dead Broke Is Hillary Clinton’s Integrity, Part 2

My original commentary on Hillary Clinton’s integrity was supposed to be a one-shot but I’ve gotten such push back from some Democrats who are either overly-avid Hillary supporters or have been hired by her presidential campaign to stamp out negative Hillary comments all over the socialnetworksphere—or both—about my criticism of the Hillary Clinton’s claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House that it justifies a part 2, if only to humble these partisan guardians of Clintondom by waving the Clintons’ 2001 1040 tax return before their denying eyes.

This is a link to the Clinton’s 2001 federal income tax return: http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/clintontaxes/2001.pdf

Their TAXABLE income was $14,427,526.00. They paid $5,935,425.00 in taxes on that income. Simple math shows that they cleared $8.5 million. Anyone want to convince me that’s the income of a family that “dead broke”? And Hillary said they were “dead broke” when the left the White House but she didn’t say for HOW LONG, did she? Because they never were. I told you they were making millions in speech making fees, and there was $154,952.00 in wage income. And they had a $152,000 pension fund they drew income from for an total income $16,165,110.00. And we’re not even talking about travel and lodging charged to their various foundations. Please, anyone, defend this as “dead broke” from any perspective you choose, even the argument that their 2001 income was less than that for the years 2000 and 2002 (which I haven’t looked at yet). Those of you who are backing and defending Hillary Clinton are, in the words of Vin Scully, seeing her with your hearts and not with your eyes.

Anyone still want to argue the Semantics of the Rich and Famous? Why is it so important to many of you to believe totally in Hillary Clinton? Just because you view her as the Great Female Democratic Hope of 2016? Total wishful thinking on your part. If she keeps this up, just watch the growing backlash against her from the truly Liberal wing of the Democratic Party along with most Independent voters.

Hillary Clinton has lied about the Clinton non-flow of income for 2001. She finally says as she’s again running for president that her 2002 vote to authorize The Iraq War Resolution was a mistake, based on the intelligence she had at the time. But then, she now says this: “My lack of confidence in the Bush Administration went back to the fall of 2002, when it was boasting of ironclad intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. After weighing the evidence and seeking as many opinions as I could inside and outside the government, Democrats and Republicans alike, I voted to authorize military action in Iraq, if the diplomatic efforts, meaning the U.N. weapons inspections, failed.” She also wrote that she “made the best decision I could with the information I had…I feel I was totally briefed.” Except that she never consulted those who dissented with that report, including Florida Sen. Bob Graham, chair of the Senate intelligence committee who also opposed the war.

http://www.propublica.org/article/all-the-things-hillary-clintons-book-doesnt-say-about-iraq

Rewrite history much, Hillary?

The anticipated 2016 presidential matchup is tentatively predicted to be between Clinton and Jeb Bush. We all know that Jeb ALLEGEDLY stole the 2000 election for brother George in Florida. Some Democrats have boosted the GOP terrorist alert to Orange over the prospect that not voting for Hillary (should she get the nomination) is tantamount to electing Jeb Bush president. That scare tactic has GOP written all over it because George W. constantly used it when his approval numbers were dropping. So, Democrats are now being told who to vote for on the basis that our liar is more honest than their liar? That’s where the bar is set now? If some Democrats are afraid that some Republican will be elected president in 2016 then pushing Clinton on us will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The corporate media—including public broadcasting, is pushing the fiction that people now think that Republicans are better on the budget, healthcare, and national security. Sure, it’s a myth based on skewed right wing polling but that’s what the media is preaching all day, every day. The corporate media is utilizing the Nazi propaganda technique that is people hear the same lie repeated enough times they will come to accept it as the truth. There are a lot of independent voters out there who already distrust the Clintons and with that constant barrage of propaganda mixed in with Hillary Clinton’s own lies, they will vote for the Republican who runs against her if and when given the choice. The people who support Clinton now are so close to the subject of their adoration that they can’t see this entire picture, and they refuse to step back far enough to view it in its entirety.

The “dead broke” line was not merely a matter of viewing that financial condition from a wealthy perspective as if that expression is all relative; it was a downright, pandering lie, as I said earlier. Someone who sees herself in that manner or is selling herself in that matter is not someone I want seated in the Oval Office. We’ve had enough of those since 1981. I don’t want another Bush, another Clinton, or another Obama in the White House. I would just like, for once, a liberal running the country supported by a Democratic and fairly liberal majority in Congress. That is exactly what this country needs now.

Warner Worries Me

Just when I thought it was safe to be a Democrat again. Sen. John Warner (D-VA) goes and shoots himself, President Obama, and the Democratic Party in all their feet.

It was at the end of an interview on last night’s “All Things Considered” on NPR .  Over the course of the 5-minute interview he basically said things we Democrats want to hear, but for some reason he repeated the phrase “in uncharted territory” three times.  Maybe he thinks it’ll be the wild new catchphrase sweeping the nation.  But anyway, just when he was almost home free, when he could see the goalposts standing there free and open before him, he drops the ball and this bomb:

“…And then, yes, Democrats will have to give on entitlement reform, Republicans are going to have to give on revenues to tax reform…”

This is the NUMBER ONE reason why many liberals are about to give up on a Democratic Party controlled by corporatists like John Warner.  Obama floated the same junk on entitlements reform during the Republican-manufactured budget crisis that gave us the laughably inept and doomed Super Committee.  It was made clear in Liberal article after article and interview after interview that Social Security and Medicare benefits are NOT entitlements.  One can argue that SSI and Medicaid are but with those programs the problems are not with the recipients at all. The waste in Medicaid would be on the provider and prescription medicine costs side.  But guys like Warner, who at least twice flaunted his years of business experience, insist on pushing the “everyone has to tighten their belts” mantra. Everyone except for members of Congress who mandate that belts be tightened while loosening theirs.

So, with his vast years of business experience where Warner probably staffed out giving his employees the bad news that belt tightening lost them their jobs so his could remain loose and profitable.  You can’t run social services like you do a business.  So, Social Security recipients getting an annual COLA (sometimes) is still too costly for him? Still pushing the Chained-CPI, are we? Giving Medicare recipients an affordable fee schedule will throw the program into bankruptcy?  And again—THESE ARE NOT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS—THEY’RE EARNED BENEFITS.

I’m too cynical and realistic to believe that by “reform” Warner had in mind raising or altogether removing the FICA tax ceiling.  And while he’s at it, about eliminating entirely the Republican-manufactured Medicare Part D, which would reform both the donut hole and prohibition against the government negotiating drug prices out of existence.

Warner’s words feel me with free that once again the Democrats will compromise with the Republicans over both the budget and the debt ceiling over the backs of the elderly, the sick, and the poor.  The corporatist Democrats may have kept this bargaining chip fish on ice but it still stinks.

I’m a Liberal—Not A Progressive

I just found out today I had been kicked out of a “progressive” Facebook group. This illustrates why I consider myself a Liberal and not a progressive. Apparently, progressives believe that it is dangerous and divisive to criticize a Democratic president. Liberals believe calling a right of center Republican masquerading as a Democratic president is delusional. We believe that cherry picking the good things he’s done while ignoring the bad stuff makes no sense because to ignore all that bad stuff is to perpetuate electing people to the presidency who will do some good but also do some really bad stuff that’s going to hurt a lot of people for years to come.

Call me either an idealist or a naysayer, but I’m at the point where I want a president I can be truly proud of; a president who  puts people before banks, who is truly liberal and not only when it comes to certain social issues.  If we continue to stick to the party line and support Obama just because he’s a Democrat, then we’re doomed to repeat this error in 2014 if Hillary Clinton is elected.  What people like the administrator of the ‘progressive” group fail to take into consideration is that many people vote Republican because they see no difference between that candidate and the Democratic one,  or they took a leap of faith and voted for the Democrat in the last election and feel they got burned.

A great many people who call themselves conservatives would vote for a liberal candidate if that person could break down his stance on the issues so that people could clearly see how they would benefit.  Obama remains horribly inept at communication which is why so many people still oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act but readily support the different provisions that benefit them personally.  It’s why many people favor cutting entitlements spending until it’s explained to them that these are not entitlements and cutting the programs will hurt them in their senior years or when they get seriously ill.

Progressive group administrator, I’m not a “progressive” Democratic sheep and so, you’re right, I didn’t belong in your group.  I DON’T want Hillary in 2016. I don’t even want Michelle.  I want a president with true liberal bona fides who embraces and will fight for actual change. That person may not be a Democrat but from an entirely new coalition party.  I don’t want to again be forced to vote for someone who talks “change” but maintains business (literally) as usual. I don’t want “progressive” change in small increments, which is a definition of progressive.  I want as much change as a truly effective, powerful and competent president can push through Congress.  We saw that during the FDR and LBJ administrations.  This country is sick; it may be dying, and it needs a Liberal dose of medicine to cure it.