Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean
- The Elephant in the Room: Militarism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Eight More Years?
For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the ultimate American dream is eight more years. Yet how do you think they would react to having dozens of partisans at their rallies sporting large signs calling for EIGHT MORE YEARS, EIGHT MORE YEARS?
Don't you have the feeling that they would cringe at such public displays of their fervent ambition which the New York Times described as a "truly two-for-the-price-of-one" presidential race? It might remind voters to remember or examine the real Clinton record in that peaceful decade of missed opportunities and not be swayed by the sugarcoating version that the glib former president emits at many campaign stops.
The 1990's were the first decade without the spectre of the Soviet Union. There was supposed to be a "peace dividend" that would reduce the vast, bloated military budget and redirect public funds to repair or expand our public works or infrastructure.
Inaugurated in January 1993, with a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton sent a small job-creating proposal to upgrade public facilities. He also made some motions for campaign finance reform which he promised during his campaign when running against incumbent George H.W. Bush and candidate Ross Perot.
A double withdrawal followed when the Congressional Republicans started roaring about big spending Democrats and after House Speaker Tom Foley and Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell, told Clinton at a White House meeting to forget about legislation to diminish the power of organized money in elections.
That set the stage for how Washington politicians sized up Clinton. He was seen as devoid of modest political courage, a blurrer of differences with the Republican opposition party and anything but the decisive transforming leader he promised to be was he to win the election. He proceeded, instead, to take credit for developments with which he had very little to do with such as the economic growth propelled by the huge technology dot.com boom.
Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, he neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.
A brainy White House assistant to Mr. Clinton told me in 1997 that the only real achievement his boss could take credit for was passage of legislation allowing 12 weeks family leave, without pay.
There are changes both the Clinton Administration actively championed that further entrenched corporate power over our economy and government during the decade. He pushed through Congress the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that represented the greatest surrender in our history of local, state and national sovereignty to an autocratic, secretive system of transnational governance. This system subordinated workers, consumers and the environment to the supremacy of globalized commerce.
That was just for starters. Between 1996 and 2000, he drove legislation through Congress that concentrated more power in the hands of giant agribusiness, large telecommunications companies and the biggest jackpot-opening the doors to gigantic mergers in the financial industry. The latter so-called "financial modernization law" sowed the permissive seeds for taking vast financial risks with other peoples' money (ie. pensioners and investors) that is now shaking the economy to recession.
The man who pulled off this demolition of regulatory experience from the lessons of the Great Depression was Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who went to work for Citigroup-the main pusher of this oligopolistic coup-just before the bill passed and made himself $40 million for a few months of consulting in that same year.
Bill Clinton's presidential resume was full of favors for the rich and powerful. Corporate welfare subsidies, handouts and giveaways flourished, including subsidizing the Big Three Auto companies for a phony research partnership while indicating there would be no new fuel efficiency regulations while he was President.
His regulatory agencies were anesthetized. The veteran watchdog for Public Citizen of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, said that safety was the worst under Clinton in his twenty nine years of oversight.
The auto safety agency (NHTSA) abandoned its regulatory oath of office and became a consulting firm to the auto industry. Other agencies were similarly asleep-in job safety (OSHA) railroads, household product safety, antitrust, and corporate crime law enforcement.
By reappointing avid Republican Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Clinton assured no attention would be paid to the visible precursors of what is now the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Mr. Greenspan, declined to use his regulatory authority and repeatedly showed that he almost never saw a risky financial instrument he couldn't justify.
Mr. Clinton was so fearful of taking on Orrin Hatch, the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that he cleared most judicial appointments with the Utah Senator. He even failed to put forth the nomination of sub-cabinet level official, Peter Edelman, whose credentials were superb to the federal appeals court.
Mr. Edelman resigned on September 12th, 1996. In a memo to his staff, he said, "I have devoted the last 30-plus years to doing whatever I could to help in reducing poverty in America. I believe the recently enacted welfare bill goes in the opposite direction."
Excoriated by the noted author and columnist, Anthony Lewis, for his dismal record on civil liberties, the man from Hope set the stage for the Bush demolition of this pillar of our democracy.
To justify his invasion of Iraq, Bush regularly referred in 2002-2003 to Clinton's bombing of Iraq and making "regime change" explicit U.S. policy.
But it was Clinton's insistence on UN-backed economic sanctions in contrast to just military embargos, against Iraq, during his term in office. These sanctions on civilians, a task force of leading American physicians estimated, took half a million Iraqi children's lives.
Who can forget CBS's Sixty Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl's tour through Baghdad's denuded hospitals filled with crying, dying children? She then interviewed Mr. Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeline Albright and asked whether these sanctions were worth it. Secretary Albright answered in the affirmative.
Bill Clinton is generally viewed as one smart politician, having been twice elected the President, helped by lackluster Robert Dole, having survived the Lewinsky sex scandal, lying under oath about sex, and impeachment. When is it all about himself, he is cunningly smart.
But during his two-term triangulating Presidency, he wasn't smart enough to avoid losing his Party's control over Congress, or many state legislatures and Governorships.
It has always been all about him, Now he sees another admission ticket to the White House through his wife, Hillary Clinton. EIGHT MORE YEARS without a mobilized, demanding participating citizenry is just that-EIGHT MORE YEARS. It's small wonder that the editors of Fortune Magazine headlined an article last June with the title, "Who Business is Betting On?" Their answer, of course, was Hillary Clinton.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


177 Comments so far
Show AllA real serious issue here, ___ scary.
Strange, the MOST serious issue to EVER face humanity, is the rapid ice melt in Anarctica and no one bothers to read the article.
It is the economic system stupid, and they all support it.
Ralph Nader did a lot of very good things. The best thing Ralph Nader has done in a long time, __ is endorse John Edwards.
C'mon Ralph. Run again. So we can take votes from that lying bitch Hillary.
He told you who he is votng for Jess, that takes votes from Hillary.
Hey, Tom Phagan. I've got an old Corvair.
Want to buy it? Never goes under 70 mph.
gerix January 26th, 2008 3:25 pm I refer you to this link...
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
Anyone that says Ralph Nader's opinion is worthless is because he's a "spoiler" and he "gave us bush" really needs to get their head on straight.
Almost a million registered Democrats voted Republican while barely any registered Republicans voted Democrat. It was close to 30,000 Dems or more who voted for Bush in Flordia. Even if you discount the fact that Katherlne Harris stole the election, the 500 votes needed would have been covered by every other alternative party. Anyone blaming the socialist candidate?
The Democratic Party have taken a play out of the playbook of their friends across aisle and smeared Nader instead of taking responsibility for running such a weak campaign and chosing not have any principles themselves.
Your boy Gore would not have been much better. We'd just be running our empire more subtly and we would have collapsed it just would have taken long. Nader is right, there is no difference between the two parties. One will just fall faster than the other. Think for yourselves and don't listen too those idiots in the Dem party.
Kristina 40
Please don't vote for a Republican. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to scrawl Dennis Kucinich's name on the Diebold machine with a jumbo Sharpie pen and then set myself on fire.
Ralph: I didn't need the reminder, but thanks for brining it up again.
Like BeForKids, if Hillary is the Dimms candidate, I will NOT vote for her under any circumstances. I will write in Kucinich or vote Green. The Dimms are a lost cause. They're done. Stick a fork in 'em......
Hey Vox, the Sharpie is good. I'm not too sure about the fire thing. I think we're gonna need you for the revolution. Can you rethink that fire thing?
Thank, Ralph. Now please run on a ticket with Bloomberg so we can have another eight years of Republican disaster.
Okay Nader, you really really really messed us up by taking the election away from the man who is now a nobel prize winner instead. You still happen to be right some of the time.
Will Democrats finally vote to change politics? Place your vote and read some fiery commentary, for whatever it's worth, at
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/26/152022/853/812/443635
3 good pieces on the Democratic Primary today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26wills.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column
I think you're probably hot enough Kristina,__ forget the fire act and vote for John Edwards.
I'd pay money to listen to a Cynthia McKinney v Ralph Nader debate between candidates for the Green Party nomination. That would be so much sweeter than listening to the Evilcrats throw race cards at each other while debating who sucks up to corporate power more than the other.
If you like Republican rule, just vote Democrat. Same $#!^, but just with a different face. If you keep voting for evil, even the very slightly lessor variety, then all you'll get is evil. If you don't build an alternative to the Evilcrats, then all you'll ever be presented on a ballot will be a choice between evil and a very slightly lessor evil.
Of course the Evilcrats are upset. This article does such a fine job of exposing the facts that even when a Democrat is President, we still just get evil that's backing and promoting the corporate takeover of our nation.
If you want something different, build something different.
The owners of the US only keep Nader around because they are pretty sure he will never win election to important office. If it ever looked like he would win something, or put a significant halt to the main agenda, he would be terminated. Same way for any independent runner for presendential appointment or popular front runner for party nomination. Planning for death by media assassination or real assassination would be afoot. The money junta that runs the US of I would not have it any other way.
ah, but what about a nader/mckinney or mckinney/nader ticket? either way, i will not vote for hillary clinton and I will not vote for any democrat who does not do the right thing by the american people.
Thanks Ralph! Nailed it again!
Rebel Farmer: The Dimms are a lost cause. BINGO!
hey gerix: what about the republicans who gave money to kerry and gore? are you going to criticize them? you're pathetic ... and a fool.
Ralph Nader is an American hero and a virtuous human being. I wish he had not remained outside the gates, but instead had stormed the Democratic Party and taken it into a new direction, like the NeoCons did with the Republican Party.
But he didn't, and we are left with what we can get. The voters have spoken in this blind democracy, and even Democratic ones have left Kucinich out in the cold. They have left Gravel out in the cold. They are leaving Edwards out in the cold. And in the General Election, when Repukelicans and Indies can vote, I really believe Barak Hussein Obama, who is only a Lieberman-Democrat anyway so what difference, would lose big time.
So what does that leave? Another Repukelican or Hillary. We can dream that the people will wise up and vote Kucinich, or Gravel, or even Edwards. But it isn't going to happen. And the Repukelicans are so very evil and stupid and blackhearted and divisive and moneygrubbing and warmongering and corpo-fascist, that I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary as the only one standing that may beat them, and is somewhat better at least. And hopefully she will be a better president than I expect.
And Ralph, don't you say again that the respective candidates are tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. We have learned the hard way that you were way wrong on that one!
Mr Nader. I find your comments refreshing as though I may not always agree with your outlook you are well informed, intelligent and considerate of all the facts.
I would ask you your opinion of Mr. Obama. After seeing his wife talk I have high hopes for him. I do believe he is, to his core a good individual. Would he not make a good leader?
My other question is. Perhaps it is George W. Bush who has created false hopes in America, false hopes in what a President
can really accomplish? We criticize the President for his broadening of the executive powers, and yet remain wide-eyed at the thought of our "own" version of the president enjoying those same powers.
The basis of the article is about Bill Clinton and his chief accomodator, Hillary, who never paused in support of his outlandish, insincere, manipulitive, deceitful, and trangulating ways. William Greider of the Nation also lashes out at the Clinton kool-aid cult and calls them as it is:
"We are sure to see more of Mr. Bill's intrusions because the former president is pathological about preserving his own place in the spotlight. He can't stand it when he is not the story and, one way or another, he will make himself the story."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=274075
The Republicans are going to win again, unless we coalesce around a candidate that will unite progressives and liberals, whites and blacks, poor and middle class, north and south, and conservative middle America and coastal America. That man is John Edwards.
"Nadar hogwash, meant to add nothing to the discourse. Ralph, if it weren't for your ego we probably wouldn't be in war now, New Orleans would be a long way to recovery..." yadda yadda, gasbag bullshit, and generally more of the same Democratic Party blather.
All these Democratic cheerleaders who have crystal balls should open up shop with the card sharks and street hustlers, because that's exactly what they are.
You folks who are spamming Nader (and by inference, those who voted for him) as spoilers, are really the dumbest fucks. Do you realize how much enmity you create? Do you think folks who voted for Nader and other non-Democrats are going to be swayed by your pathetic ill-logic? Or are you merely Republican proxies? Wouldn't be the first time.
07/09/04 San Francisco Chronicle
"Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep pocketed republicans an analysis of federal records show.
Those writing checks to the Bush Cheney campaign have also "bundled' contributions, gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, a practice he has criticized in the past."
Worse than this are the investments he has in weapons manufacturers, and invested money he has which is directly helping with the genocide in Darfur. I detailed these in a previous thread but got no, I mean zero, response to those delineated facts.
And when he was turned away from commenting at a debate recenty, that was going to be as a (paid) pundit for Fox News.
Any thoughts on these things other than name-calling?
I had a corvair, years ago. On a rainy day I braked around a corner and since it was a very heavy car and all the weight was in the back it immediately lost traction on the front wheels and skid into the driver side of an oncoming car, crumpling its front fender. If I had been going only slightly faster it probably would have killed the driver.
Without a complete redesign--weight redistribution, antilock brakes, etc.--corvairs could never have been made safe.
Fastest g/d car I've ever had, and the most dangerous. Unsafe at any speed.
Moonraven,
I normally enjoy your riffs, but "90% of the people who post on CD regularly watch Fox news".??? What hat did you pull that ridiculous figure from? And from a realistic point of view, how, beside some extraordinary type of cyber telepathy could you possibly know what anyone watches, much less 90% of the people posting on this site?
pbk,
Forget it, she's gone south on us, literally.
Thanks Ralph. I'm proud of my vote for you back in 2000. I wish I had a real candidate to vote for in 2008. Things don't look good.
Don't know about this election will probably stay home. The systems broken and completly rigged from the diebold voting machines to the corporate owned media to the lobbyist bought candidates. I don't want to legitimize a broken system. Participating in voting I'm afraid would be giving my consent to this mess.
Good thoughts, well said Ralph Nader. You often go on a lot about the inconsequential stuff that can;t help too much but this time your correct. However, how will this message reach the ignorant public who thinks that the Messiah returns? Nothing you say here will stop this corporate election fiasco. Ralph, use it elsewhere and tell the world of American voting women who simply want one of their kind. I would vote for a woman but not this one.
__
Hi Ralph always great to hear from a true American hero in these times of great despair for all freedom loving, liberty loving, peace loving people worldwide. I agree the democratic party is far from perfect which is one of the reasons I voted for you 3 out of the 4 times you ran for the presidency.
I agree totally with your assessment of Clinton's presidency. But compared with the tens of thousands of high crimes committed by the current Nazi administration it appears fairly benign. In my opinion the Nazi terrorist of the bush administration/republican party must be stopped soon or it will be too late. It may; like global warming already be too late and I will never vote for any republican ever again. And as soon as a viable alternative to the current Democratic Party emerges I will vote for that party.
However, with the incredible propaganda machine by the WMD's ,War Mongering Ducebags ,.aka MSM, how can we possibly get 50,000,000 people out of their Lazy Boys?
Thank you for all you've tried to do to help make our country a country where all (99.99) Americans would have been proud to live in. Unfortunately we all know who the .01 percent of freedom hating, liberty hating, Nazis are and what they control.
It's no comfort to know the record of the Clinton DLC Democratic party, but Ralph lays it out well. I'd just add Clinton's environmental policy to the ugly list. All he did was sign an order to support a reduction in arsenic levels in drinking water. Clinton waited till the very last days of his eight years to sign it and then it was promptly overturned by incoming Bush.
Furious Dem supporters need to check the record. You look like fools when you post against Ralph. The record shows that it might just as well have been Poppy Bush during the Clinton years - the policies were the same!
If there's no one to support, that's cold comfort. But the public needs to wake up about this two-party thing. Don't vote for candidates with a record of letting the people down. And by the way, that includes Edwards with his past war support. An apology is too easy, and too late.
Thanks Ralph for your 30,000 votes in florida just what W needed to start the worst administration of 8yrs any comment on that smart move????
The War on Cooperate
We made lot's of headway tin 2008
We declared war on cooperate
The green backs were floating on an ocean of slime
with non entity persons pushing their bottom line
We closed yellow ribbons and colored them green
so the war machine would never be lean
as debt's and the DOW rose above the mean
The dick of all dicks threatened the button of doom
while the have's and the have mores bunkered in tombs
The apple pie sky puffed like turds from on high
while the pursuit of happiness just said goodbye
Say ; 'Where did we come from
and when will we go?'
COMarc January 26th, 2008 4:54 pm
"I'd pay money to listen to a Cynthia McKinney v Ralph Nader debate between candidates for the Green Party nomination."
You can watch one for free:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKHr-azwtso&feature=related
To hell with Nader! All he is is the left wing of the Republican party. While he talks about the D's, he, as always, offers NO solutions.
All Nader, and his MASSIVE EGO, has given us is Bush!
He has ZERO crediblity within the labor and wider movements due to his gigantic ego and his disruption of any united approch to defeating the ultra-right. I dislike the Clintons, but on their worse day, assholes that they are, they've not brought down on regular folks the misery that Bush and ultra-right have done. Nader needs to crawl back into his hole and leave the rest of society alone. For his egotism and his disuity, I, like everyone I know in the labor mvoement, detest him!
As Sid Hatfield said to the Felts gun thug; "I wouldn't piss on him if his heart was on fire!
"Eight More Years"?
Well, from the looks of it right now, we will likely have "eight more tears" of Bushism, since Obama swamped the South Carolina primary and Edwards came in a distant third. We will likely end up with either McCain or Romney as our next preident and we all better hope it's Romney and not McCain.
I'm not surprised Edwards did so badly there in his home state, it is self evident that most of the voters in America are not well informed due to our sorry-ass MSN. That's precicely why we have Bush as a president.
I voted for Nader in '96 and campaigned and voted for Nader in 2000.
I was a 3rd grade teacher in an inner city school when the Clintons' welfare reform bill was signed into law and I knew what that was going to do to the kids I loved, so there was no way I could in good conscience vote for the man after that.
Joe Lieberman a heartbeat from the Presidency? Vote Nader.
The relationship between the Democrats and the Republicans is very well explained by a story my friend Peter Camejo used to tell on the stump in 2004.
"The Republicans want to cut wages by 10%. They call for a 20% wage cut. Then the Democrats come out and say, 'We are the friend of the worker. We only want to cut wages by 10%.'
"Then the Republicans say, 'You've got a deal!' And wages are cut by 10%."
Madeline Albright the star of the Clinton Adminstration,
like Billary, she has investments in the Middle East, try google with her name and the middle east.
What Ralph is not telling us is Bill Clinton's connections with Dubai Ports where Billy was a consultant for the take over of our Eastern Ports by Dubai Ports for a $1,000,000 Fee, the Story that Edwards and Obama are scared to talk about..
The story about how Billary is owed some $20,000,000
for his investment in Dubai Ports, the company that is helping the Arabs along with the Bush family Corporation, the "Carlyle Group", in the purchase of our defense plants. Are they all scared of the Clintons?
Edwards and Obama should quit the race as incompetents.
yes, Ralph. Good point. We should re-elect the republicans instead of those awful democrats. Great idea. You did it last time, good to see you're on the campaign trail again.
The Republican candidates have all promised to keep the war going indefinitely, so we don't need to worry about having years of no war like we had under Clinton. And you know the Republicans won't reinstate the "roadless rules" to protect wilderness that Clinton put through, so we won't have to worry about that. We you on their side, Ralph, Republicans are almost insured victory. KUGW.
Why do you all keep wringing your hands. America is terminal. It's over we lost this country some time ago. We wont be getting it back. Sorry,take up a hobby. Stay in touch with your family. Forget politics it's over!
"Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep pocketed republicans an analysis of federal records show.
Those writing checks to the Bush Cheney campaign have also "bundled' contributions, gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, a practice he has criticized in the past."
And I have posted proof that this was either A. False, or B. Done purposely by Republicans to discredit him and as an election calculation against Gore.
Quit flogging a dead horse and maybe people would respond to you.
Why don't all the anti-Nader whiners complain about Bill Clinton? It was Slick Willie's sleazy affair with Monica Lewinsky that gave Bush an opening for his "honor and integrity" schtick. Without that, Bush would have had nothing to campaign on.
Why don't they complain about the lackluster campaign that Al Gore ran? The election wouldn't have been close if Gore campaigned like he actually wanted to be President.
Whey don't they complain about the Congressional Democrats who have handed the country lock, stock, and barrel over to Bush since 2000?
Answer: Clinton, Gore, and their pals in Congress have that letter "D" after their name. Ralph Nader doesn't.
unionguy January 26th, 2008 7:42 pm
"To hell with Nader! All he is is the left wing of the Republican party. While he talks about the D's, he, as always, offers NO solutions.
All Nader, and his MASSIVE EGO, has given us is Bush!"
Yeah, and the Democrats and Republicans run for office purely out of their love for America. Sure.
Do you mean Bush won becuse Bill had a BJ?
You know what, I do believe you are right. It sure did get the evangilicals steamed up.
to gerix and her ilk !
I have two words for you JOE LIEBERMAN
In 2000 Liberman was the VP of choice of Al Gore ( bore or whore as you would have it ),If you recall it was Gore who won the election but he walked away without a fight!!! could it be that he understood that his time in office would have been limited as the Zionists would have been shall we say glad to have their pal Joe in place to start all the wars that this monster to the right of GW would have instigated for the sake of another country !!!!!
Now it might be beneficial for some of you to remember this history as it seems to be repeating itself.
Isn't it funny that McCain was thought to have become a non contender in the 08 race until a certain Joe Lieberman threw his support behind said McCain and suddenly lots of money came his way .
For the Nader bashing progressives here - how about a different & more pragmatic strategy this time? Let us give a republicans a win in '08, instead of prolonging the republican-democratic-republican 8-year cycles for ever.
That way, the Reps would obliterate the Dems in another 8 years (instead of of a "pragmatic" compromise voting for Demms putting them on oxygen), with the Reps' true colors releaved more flagrantly among the masses. At that point, the independents & greens would have a very favorable political environment to work with & win.
Perhaps after 8 years of Hillary we'll get 8 years of Laura Bush.
Given outward appearances, we seem to be a monarchical/republic hybrid.
The damage you caused to our nation by aiding the Bush team theft of the 2000 election-- which led to the unprecedented destruction caused by this reckless, unfit, & arrogant president-- eclipses any positive accomplishments you might have ever made.
You folks who are crying - saying that Nader caused Gore to lose are out of touch with reality.
Three facts you're overlooking:
1)Most of the Nader supporters would not have voted in that election at all - without Mr. Nader. They would have stayed at home had he not run.
2)The Bush regime cheated - Gore got more votes and Bush got fewer than told the public. The "election" was fixed.
3) Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court who halted the recount.