Please
Dear Goddess… no, No, NO… NOT HILLARY!!!
“The most
recent Washington Post-ABC News poll tested Clinton against other
possible Democratic candidates and found 73 percent saying they favored her for
the nomination. She had the backing of 74 percent of liberals, men, non-whites
and those with college degrees. She had the support of 73 percent of moderates,
women, whites and those without college degrees.”
–
Washington Post, For Democrats looking to post-Obama era, how populist a
future? 2-15-14
By
J.M. Hamilton (2-16-14)
It’s telling.
My 28 year old
niece, we’ll call her Brooke, supports Mme. Hillary Clinton for
President. Brooke just picked up her M.B.A. from Texas A&M, has held
a well paying job for six years, and is about to buy her first home.
Brooke is smart, not married, very hard working, and is discovering her
political leanings. Her “leanings” are decidedly liberal, and she loves Real Time with Bill Maher.
Brooke hails from San Antonio, and in an otherwise sea of political red, Brooke
is consistent with her national demographic, and where San Antonio is headed,
politically. That is very much like her sister city 75 miles to the
north, Austin, very liberal.
Texting each
other, I had to remind Brooke that Mrs. Clinton isn’t liberal, and neither was
the Clinton administration. Sure, it started out liberal enough, but Mr.
Clinton decided to a make a deal with the devil, and
hired none other than the most rabid reactionary’s (Republican Senator Jesse
Helms) campaign advisor, to gain re-election in 1996. Chameleon like,
the Clintons have been playing ball with the Wall Street cartel, and the
plutocracy ever since, just like today’s core Democratic Party. The
reality is today’s Democratic Party is positively Clintonian, and about as
right wing as they come (see
President Obama). Today’s Democratic Party has out “republicaned” the
Republicans in catering to the wealthy, monopolies and cartels, and
the military industrial and intelligence complex (or MIIC).
In short,
today’s Democratic Party is where the GOP was about fifty years ago; that is
before the Republican Party became unstable,
irrational (attacking Senator McCain?), hooked on Ayn Rand, and grew dependent
upon a septua- & octogenarian religious right for a political base.
For Brooke, and
all young liberals out there, here’s a friendly reminder of just some of what
went down during the Clinton years:
1)
Clinton’s Treasury Secretary was Mr. Robert Rubin, Chairman of Citigroup and
Goldman Sachs Alum, and a huge proponent of financial deregulation. The
very same financial deregulation that took down the U.S. and her economy in
2008. President Clinton called Mr. Rubin the greatest Treasury
Secretary since “Alexander Hamilton.”
2)
Mr. Rubin, and his deputy, Mr. Lawrence Summers, not only played a key role in
abolishing/repealing the Glass-Steagell Act, (which turned Wall Street into a
casino, in which banks wagered with the public’s money) but they both sponsored
and supported the deregulation of the derivatives and swaps market. This
unregulated market was a direct contributor to the 2008 financial crisis.
3)
Only after the fact did the laissez faire – Mr. Rubin, acknowledge
the important role government had to play in financial markets, when he stated
in a Newsweek
article: “the market-based model must be combined with strong and
effective government, nationally and transnationally, to deal with critical
challenges that markets won't adequately address." Sounds like Mr.
Rubin has gone liberal.
4)
Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Mr. Rubin, and Mr. Summers, both shouted down Ms.
Brooksley Born, Chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission… who
felt that derivatives and swaps should be regulated and controlled.
5)
The
derivatives and swaps market, unregulated during the Clinton years, is used
to leverage up businesses and banks, often with off balance sheet transactions,
to squeeze out profits but at the cost of tremendous leverage/risk to industry,
banks, taxpayers, and the national economy. Today, the swaps and
derivatives markets is grossly under-collateralized and worth hundreds of
trillions in notional value. None other than Mr.
Warren Buffett calls swaps and derivatives “financial weapons of mass
destruction.”
6)
Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan (an Ayn Rand devotee), was
re-appointed by President Clinton, and Mr. Greenspan flooded the economy with
money, which was a direct contributor to the housing bubble and the financial
crisis in 2008.
7)
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed during the Clinton years, which through a
“complimentary
activities provision,”allowed banks to corner markets in commodities, and
elevate the cost of living for all Americans.
8)
One of President Clinton’s achievements was the passage of NAFTA (or North
American Free Trade Agreement), an agreement – like other free trade agreements
- that was ultimately responsible for shipping hundreds of thousands of
U.S. jobs offshore.
9)
President
Clinton’s well known affair with Monica Lewinsky, also coincided with
convenient distractions in U.S. foreign policy, in what some have called a
classic “wag the dog” strategy.
10)
The nation breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Clintons left the
White House, Mr. Clinton having narrowly escaped impeachment for lying about
his affair to special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr.
While Mrs.
Clinton is obviously not Mr. Clinton, and vice versa, is
there any doubt that she played a key role in the Clinton administration’s
policies? Her politics, since leaving the White House, reveal little
doubt. Like the Democratic Party itself, her politics and policies are
purely Clintonian (that is to say conservative and pro-plutocracy), from supporting a
dubious war in Iraq, to her unquestioned
support for the MIIC.
It’s
equally telling, when the GOP waxes nostalgic for the Clinton years; and
more telling still when General
Petraeus endorses the former First Lady.
Sure the GOP
misses bubba, a loveable rogue from Arkansas. If I’m truly honest with
myself, J.M.H. has noted and praised
Mr. Clinton’s balanced budgets and his pro-business tilt. But the
Clintons have become synonymous with political empire, scandal, and maintenance
of the status quo. A status quo which places political intrigue,
wealth, and senior citizens, over the nation’s fiscal health, the average
citizen's welfare, and the nation's youth.
Would we expect
anything less from a President Hillary Clinton?
And just
because Mr. Clinton is now 67, does it mean that the White House staff would be
any safer? Between Viagra and testosterone injections, and
the fact that senior citizens are as randy, if not randier, than teens… if
anything, the government might have to a build a wall between #42 and White
House employees.
All
kidding aside, Liberals think outside the box. They defy the
status quo and the establishment, like President Richard Nixon (Republican)
signing EPA, Clean Air Act, and OSHA legislation, or President Johnson
(Democrat) signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These men knew when they
signed these acts/legislation, that they were pissing off both the
establishment and their political base. When President Johnson signed
Civil Rights legislation, he was said to have quipped that the Democratic Party
just lost the South for decades.
At a time when
the nation is mired in Clintonian politics, when money buys those in power,
when the divide between the “haves and the have nots” is greater than ever,
when the NSA does an electronic “procto exam” on every U.S. citizen, when
Federal spending is subsidized by the Federal Reserve's printing presses… would
a Madame President Clinton really rein any of the nation’s problems in?
I understand my
niece wanting to see a woman President. If Brooke wants to see a true
liberal enter the White House, someone who will defy the establishment and
upset the status quo, and address the nation’s problems, than this is what a
liberal looks like:
(Photo from the
Washington Post)
If we want real
change, we should respectfully bag the ultimate insider, and draft the Senator
from Massachusetts.
Copyright
JM Hamilton Publishing 2014
P.S.
J.M.H. believes the 22nd Amendment prohibits Mrs. Clinton from running for
President, yet again. Having,
arguably, served the nation already for two consecutive terms in the White
House, Mrs. Clinton should not be allowed to run again. Her candidacy
is unconstitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment