dagblog - Comments for "Oops, She Did it Again"

Re: Glass-Steagall, I don't

Michael Maiello — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 02:09:45 +0000

In reply to Okay, you give her guns - for

Re: Glass-Steagall, I don't think that would do anything to stop a Goldman-Sachs from fraudulently packaging poisonous assets or illegally repossessing non-defaulted homes.

It wouldn't. Glass Steagall was not bad regulation, by any means, but it was also not necessary. There are trade-offs.

Okay, you give her guns - for

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 23:11:32 +0000

In reply to You write:

Okay, you give her guns - for TPP it's an "okay but late & hypocritical". Re: prisons, you ignored my evaluation of how much money, how little effect.

China got permanent MFN under George W Bush, Dec 2001, but it's a bit confusing as Clinton signed a Permanent status in 2000 tied to WTO accession. Why China shouldn't have permanent normal trade relations?

Re: WalMart you can read about her progressive activities on the board here.

Re: NAFTA, the left has a hard-on about it, but it was mostly jobs to China that affected our manufacturing sector, and it's hard to see how with LG and Panasonic having trouble surviving in TVs, how we were going to keep making TVs in the US. The real negative effect of NAFTA was on Mexican farmers, but I don't think that's what you want to hear criticism on.

Re: Glass-Steagall, I don't think that would do anything to stop a Goldman-Sachs from fraudulently packaging poisonous assets or illegally repossessing non-defaulted homes. She's advocated other measures to address issues, and opposes "too big to fail". It took Grayson's digging in the House to find out how many trillions the Fed was funneling to Wall Street banks - that wasn't the fault of Glass Steagall either. Nor was the over-exuberant housing bubble that was obviously in the making 10 years, nor the steady growth of corrupt power within Fannie May.

Re: the Patriot Act, it passed the Senate 98-1. Yeah, she could have fought the crappy renewal 5 years later.

Re: Iraq, she voted for inspections - were you against inspections? did you ever offer another plan for bringing Hussein to the table? If you're so concerned about Human Rights in China, what are your concerns about Human Rights in Iraq, and what active policies do you support? Do you agree with Hans Blix who up to Jan 2003 thought Hussein had a hidden weapons program? Did you consider Iraq a threat to Israel or any other Mideast state?

Re: Syria, people kept predicting our "hot war" in Ukraine - didn't happen. I have bigger criticisms on SYrian and Libyan and Afghan and Iraqi policy than no-fly zones.

Sheesh, let's go:

Michael Maiello — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 23:00:04 +0000

In reply to You write:

Sheesh, let's go:

1) Her very close relationship with corporate America - dating back at least to her years as a Walmart Board member in the 1980s who, by all accounts, never once criticized the corporations ultra anti-union/worker policies.

The Clinton's were close with Robertson Stephens, the banker who brought Wal-Mart public. She was a highly qualified board member between 1986 and 1992, a time when we were actively debating the effects of globalization. She was also on the board there at a time where Wal-Mart was a huge contributor to the Arkansas economy. Did she do wrong by her home at the time?

2) Her refusal to criticize NAFTA.

Opinions on NAFTA differ. There are benefits, you know.

3) Her opposition to a new Glass-Steagall.

Glass Steagall is not the only way to regulate the financial sector. Europe never had Glass Steagall. Glass Steagall was not brilliant regulation and while I happen to see its virtues, it is not necessary. You can regulate the financial sector in other ways. Clinton's proposed adjustment of the capital gains tax schedule might be more beneficial. That and a good Fed chair would do wonders.

4) Her support of permanent MFN status for China.

Let's be real here... we trade with bad actors. Some are worse than China. Saudi Arabia is an ally, even! Our relationships with other countries will always be fraught. Sanders is very pro-Israel from a pro-Palestinian perspective.

5) Her vote for the Patriot Act.

Yeah. Fair enough. A lot of people voted for that. I'd love to disqualify them all from future politics but, come on...

6) Her vote for the disastrous war with Iraq.

Yeah. Fair enough. A lot of people voted for that. I'd love to disqualify them all from future politics but, come on...

7) Her current support for a "no-fly" zone over Syria which might well lead to a hot war with Russia.

Or... not? Very complex situation here, don't you think? Is Russia supporting Assad against ISIS? Are we against both Assad and ISIS? Is this entirely the kind of thing where it would be better to have Clinton at State than running for President in order to deal with it later? Let's not be glib?

You write:

HSG — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 22:27:42 +0000

In reply to You've spent an in inordinate

You write:

1) I say "Bernie good Hillary bad" on everything. In fact, I specifically note in this blog that Hillary's position on guns is better than Bernie's. I also have praised Clinton here for coming out against TPP and for her recent announcement that she will no longer take money from the private prison industry.

2) "China's been MFN since Carter." This is true but does not in any way obviate my criticism of Clinton for supporting making permanent said status. One of the last decisions by Bill Clinton was to sign into law permanent normal relations with China - a decision that Hillary called for while she was engaged in her first campaign for New York Senator.

You call me a cherry-picker but you trot out the same old (and I mean old) examples of Clinton's support for poor, working, and middle-income people. You ignore, inter alia, or minimize: 1) Her very close relationship with corporate America - dating back at least to her years as a Walmart Board member in the 1980s who, by all accounts, never once criticized the corporations ultra anti-union/worker policies. 2) Her refusal to criticize NAFTA. 3) Her opposition to a new Glass-Steagall. 4) Her support of permanent MFN status for China. 5) Her vote for the Patriot Act. 6) Her vote for the disastrous war with Iraq. 7) Her current support for a "no-fly" zone over Syria which might well lead to a hot war with Russia.

Okay, that's enough or I'll bore Ramona to tears with another laundry list.

You've spent an in inordinate

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 17:19:16 +0000

In reply to I have spent an inordinate

You've spent an in inordinate amount of time distorting Hillary's record. The nasty bit tossing in her feminist backers as just elitist members of the 1% concerned only about their stock portfolios was a new low. Yeah, Hillary's record with rural poverty and women's issues was only to bolster elitist 1% cred. Trying to pass universal health care or SCHIP must have been just corporate gifts. Bernie good, Hillary bad, whatevers. I got a laugh out of Most Favored Nation status for China -I suspect you're not even familiar with what it is, or that China's been MFN since Carter in 1980 as have most countries.

Why are you asking for a

Michael Maiello — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 16:41:42 +0000

In reply to I have spent an inordinate

Why are you asking for a primary reason for not supporting Sanders, rather than for reasons that Clinton supporters are happy with their candidate? When you phrase the question the way you do it carries the connotation, intended or not, that going all in for Bernie should be the default position. Hillary's supporters can make their decision without referencing Sanders at all.

I have spent an inordinate

HSG — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 15:34:00 +0000

In reply to I do think we can debate this

I have spent an inordinate amount of time directly comparing Hillary's and Bernie's records and thereby shown (I think) that Bernie is far more consistently progressive. Here's an example. Here's another. I have also described, with nary a word about Hillary, the Bernie Sanders rally I attended. Pretty much every blog I write about the Democratic primary candidates is chock full of specific facts on the two main candidates.

This blog, which apparently upsets lots of people, is on a very important matter - namely Hillary's use of coded and sometimes not-so-coded language to slice and dice what should be a united Democratic electorate - both in this election cycle and in 2008. I made a similar point here. I believe Democratic Presidential candidates should work to unite poor, working, and middle-income Americans, not try to divide us along racial, and until recently sexual orientation lines. Don't you?

I have focused on her dishonest claim that her private email server setup was allowed even though it contravened Federal regulations since it did not preserve her records at the State Department. I believe Presidential candidates should tell the truth and follow federal regulations. Don't you?

If you believe that I am wrong and the facts, and well-supported arguments, that I have adduced in Bernie's favor are not dispositive, that is fine. But don't claim that I'm not writing about Bernie or comparing the two. This is exactly what I've been doing.

Regarding the claim that I'm distracting when I bring up 1-percenters - nothing is further from the truth. The point I'm making is that the economic interests of the great majority of Americans are very different than those of the 1%. Throughout his career, Bernie Sanders (like 1-percenter FDR and LBJ) has focused on making life better for the 99%. Hillary Clinton has not. That is the primary reason I support Sanders. What is the primary reason you don't?

I do think we can debate this

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 14:26:41 +0000

In reply to The gun issue is one that I

I do think we can debate this issue as well Mike. And there are others of course, but I think Clinton and Bernie agree on most things, but this is the one issue they differ greatly on. We are never having that debate here with Bernie supporters because all they want to do is write about how she is worse than Beelzebub and in fact she will murder you in your sleep.. etc and so on.

I would really love to get into the handgun issue, because it differs no-where. No one hunts with handguns unless you're hunting people, so in fact there is no significant difference between rural and urban when it comes to handguns. Culture, like you suggested in your TPM article can be changed just like we did with cigarettes. I really liked that article by the way, it was a great idea. And I've started using your idea.

And yea, pot should be legal, it is here and boy has Washington State taken in some amazing sums of tax money!

It's just frustrating that every Bernie blog is not about Bernie but about the terrible evil Clinton. She isn't terrible and she isn't evil, and I'm sick of that argument. I mean would Hal taint Roosevelt with the one percenter charge? Because he was one, and yet did very good things for regular people.

Well, she had significantly

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 07:36:58 +0000

In reply to She made the argument that

Well, she had significantly broader appeal to Whites and Hispanics, winning 56% and 64% respectively, but certainly (and unsurprisingly) not to blacks where she garnered only 15%. That she only got 52% of females is more surprising.

Green (1st) shows the percentage of the candidate's total base the category represents (without respect to Asians and "others", as explained below). Blue (2nd) shows what percentage of the category each candidate garnered relative to the other.

Hillary's males Obama's males

6,859 38.1% 43.6% 8,857 45.7% 56.4%

Hillary's females Obama's females

11,166 61.9% 51.5% 10,520 54.3% 48.5%

Hillary's Whites Obama's Whites

13,617 79.1% 56.0% 10,688 59.7% 44.0%

Hillary's Blacks Obama's Blacks

1,002 5.8% 14.9% 5,741 32.1% 85.1%

Hillary's Hispanics Obama's Hispanics

2,589 15.1% 63.7% 1,472 8.2% 36.3%

The gun issue is one that I

Michael Maiello — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 00:57:50 +0000

In reply to SMH.. You are not helping

The gun issue is one that I think we could actually debate. I'm from New Mexico. Same situation as Montana. There are a lot of guns. There are accidental shootings and other shootings that go along with widespread gun ownership. There is also a legitimate argument about rural spaces, culture, rights and why the rules in NYC don't necessarily apply in a town without a city 60 miles in its circumference.

But we're not having that debate here. Bernie is right, of course. Pot should be legalized. If he manages to get that through the Senate, I doubt President Clinton will stand in his way. This could work out for all of us!