MUST READ: 'Elizabeth Warren Infiltrates The Clinton Borg' - HuffPo

[WillyT]

Elizabeth Warren Infiltrates The Clinton Borg
Zach Carter - HuffPo
Posted: 11/19/2014 9:52 pm EST Updated: 3 hours ago

<snip>

WASHINGTON -- Democrats still don't know what to do about the Clinton years.

That wouldn't be a big deal if President Bill Clinton's legacy didn't cut to the heart of the Democratic Party's biggest internal rift since the 1980s: Its relationship with Wall Street, and with it, the Democratic economic worldview. Or if the party weren't shaking off a bruising midterm election dominated by the economy. Or if Democrats weren't gearing up for a 2016 presidential cycle in which a woman whose last name is Clinton is already playing a starring role.

But as Democrats regroup, even the Center for American Progress -- D.C.'s bastion of Clintonism -- can't seem to sort out the 1990s. On Wednesday, CAP hosted its annual "Making Progress" policy conference, giving a platform to a slate of up-and-coming Democratic politicians, and an opportunity for a few mega-donors to share the stage with a few of the party's old hands. CAP isn't just another think-tank. It's the chief policy incubator for both the Clintons and the Obama administration (otherwise known as the Democratic establishment), and its major events are a guide to where the party is headed.

On a host of issues, Democrats seem united. Access to education, criminal justice reform, curbing carbon pollution, and moral legitimacy in foreign policy were all addressed without controversy from the well-heeled, invitation-only crowd.

But the economy was a different story. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) riveted the crowd with an address about the New Deal's central accomplishments: Reining in Wall Street, investing in education, infrastructure and scientific research.

"We made these investments as a country," Warren said. "We said we're gonna have tough rules in place, a level playing field, and then we're gonna invest in building the future. And here's the deal. It worked. It worked for half a century. You take a look at the numbers, and GDP just keeps going up year over year over year. But but here's the key. At the same time, median family income, that family right in the middle -- income just kept going up the same. In other words, as our country got richer, our families got richer. And as our families got richer, our country got richer."

Until, of course, the GOP ruined everything, she said...


<snip>

Much More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/elizabeth-warren-clinton-cap_n_6188584.html

[Warpy]

1. Wealth and income inequality took off under Clinton

Wages also rose by the last 2 years of his administration, so the sting wasn't as bad. If you looked at the distributions of wealth and income, you knew the news was going to get bad and stay bad for a very long time. The golden goose was being strangled by the plutocracy's greed.

Clinton did do serious damage by not fighting the Republican excesses with his veto pen, forcing them to try to override it. The dismantling of Glass-Steagall was vulnerable to a veto, although Gramm would probably have kept trying to ram it through in one disguise or another, probably as a rider attached to a military bill. I think history will likely judge him as a weakling.

[gcomeau]

12. No, it took off under Reagan.

It just kept right on going under Clinton because all the damaging changes Reagan implemented weren't rolled back.

[Warpy]

17. Look at the largest peaks on the end.

One was the second half of Clinton's presidency. The following was the second half of Stupid's.

The peak from 1980-88 was modest in comparison.

[gcomeau]

18. I did.

The slope of the 80-88 spike is almost identical to that of the other two spikes. And the only reason there are spikes instead of just a steady upward progression the entire time is that it's interrupted by great big hits to the stock market.

[merrily]

27. Oh, come on now. And why do you suppose they weren't rolled back?

I guess things like NAFTA, ending "welfare as we know it" and repeal of Glass Steagall had no impact at all on wealth disparity in the US?

Aside from multinational economic collapse in 2008, that is.

[gcomeau]

40. Oh come on now what???

I said it took off under Reagan. You didn't argue the point.

I said it continued under Clinton because those policies weren't reversed. You spent your whole post agreeing with me. So what exactly is the "Oh, come on now" for?

[merrily]

42. Dude, if you thought my post did nothing but agree with you, you didn't read it.

[gcomeau]

45. Oh I read it.

I saw you spending a whole lot of time arguing with, apparently, your imaginary friend. you just didn't argue with anything *I actually wrote*.

I wrote a grand total of 2 things.

1. It took off under Reagan.
2. It kept going under Clinton because Reagan's changes were not reversed.



You wrote not one word that challenged either statement. You instead spent the entire time harping at me about how... ummm... Clinton didn't substantively go against Reagan's economic policy direction. Which is what I had already said so figuring out why you think I needed it explained to me is confounding.

[merrily]

46. Sorry you are that easily confounded.

[gcomeau]

47. Yes, all it takes is rants directed at me for no reason.

Which is, indeed, easily done. As you demonstrated.

[LawDeeDah]

2. Elizabeth the Beloved.

[LawDeeDah]

3. Peace and Prosperity for the well to do:

Some conservatives do, in fact, claim Clinton as one of their own. Clinton pushed through the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal negotiated by President George H.W. Bush. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) still celebrates Clinton's welfare reform (although anti-poverty experts bemoan its effects during the Great Recession). He raised taxes, early in his administration, but instead of devoting the increased revenue to fund liberal investments, he paid down debt to appease Wall Street.

And for Democratic populists, Clinton's cardinal sins were two acts of Wall Street deregulation. In 1999, Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall's separation between traditional banking and high-flying securities trading. And in 2000, he signed a bill exempting newfangled contracts called derivatives from securities rules [fuck] and anti-gambling restrictions.

Both are widely cited as causes of the 2008 crisis. But at CAP's conference on Wednesday, former Clinton and Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling wasn't having any of it.

Bill is no Democrat. It irks me to no end when he gets lauded here like some hero just because he can do his O Shucks, lil ole me wedged into his usually pro-wealth speeches.

[whathehell]

4. I agree one hundred percent..

"Bill is no Democrat" Nope, and neither is Obama, in my view.

I like Obama, personally, but I see him as more of a liberal/moderate Republican.

[LawDeeDah]

5. Hillary takes money from Wall Street for her pretty speeches

and daughter Chelsea got a cushy, very well paying job in Wall Street.

To Bill and fam.
Just a little thankyou note. We appreciate how you helped us scam enormous amounts of money from the pleebs.
Love, Wall

Bribery, payoffs! pishaw! That's ridiculous!

[whathehell]

10. I'm with you.

[Odin2005]

23. The fact that Chelsea married a Bankster tells me everything I need to know about the Clintons.

[Robbins]

15. The truth Is

There are 3 wings of democratic party

Liberal-real Democrats

moderate-good on some things bad on others

Centrist-DINO's-Democrat in Name Only

Obama Is moderate-good on some things bad on others.I say this as one who supported him In primarys In 2008 and in general In 2008 and 2012.I am liberal.He is moderate

Both Clintons are Centrist

Imagine what FDR would think of Democratic party today.

Even Truman and JFK are ultra Liberals compared to Clintons.

Truman made tough decsions and was right.JFK ran on medicare.Reagan went around and attacked the propsal as Taking away freedom.Yeah JFK cut takes but it affected all americans.Kennedy went against military during cuban missile crisis.Could you imagine Clintons or Obama not rushing to go into cuba as the military wanted.

Kennedy federal national guard is something obama or clinton would never do.In 1960's there were dems who seemed concerned about civil rights.We may have Black president but he would act like JFK did.

[merrily]

28. I would say there is a continuum, more so than three wings. And the Clintons are center right,

with Bill having been mistaken for a populist.

[Odin2005]

21. Obama himself said that 50 years ago he would be an "Eisenhower Republican".

[whathehell]

25. I know..

Unfortunately, I agree with Thom Hartmann when he says PB9 is presently more conservative than Eiisenhower was at that time.

[merrily]

29. Obama said in the 1980s (Reagan era), he would have been considered a moderate Republican

I never heard the Eisenhower statement.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. His cardinal sins don't stop there either

In addition to welfare reform (sic), how about NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act of 1996?

Of course, rest assured, his wife is a different type of politician entirely. She's the one who co-sponsored legislation to criminalize flag-burning and attended meetings of a cultish group of fundamentalist DC power brokers called the Fellowship, aka "The Family."

[LawDeeDah]

8. We know why she gets money for speeches to Wall Streeters.

Just blatant, plain in the face of every American or anyone who has lost so much because of those fucking WS thieves and their enablers.
Hillary or Bill a progressive? Not even close, no chance. They are so much closer to Republican in more than one way.

[Robbins]

16. I agree with you

NAFTA as well as all free trade deals are great killing to middle class In my oporion.

Welfare reform hurt a lot of single mothers.

Deregulation he signed helped lead us into 2008 economic meltdown.

You will never convince me Hillary Is a liberal.Just because the MSM says that doesn't make it true.

[hedgehog]

6. Wait a minute, much as i tend to agree with your post,

I need to get ready for the responses:




Ok, go ahead!

[WillyT]

14. LOL !!!

[Not Sure]

9. Here's the thing:

If you want those Clinton-era deregulating giveaway to the rich policies, why are you even wasting your time with the Democratic Party? Just vote for the Republicans.

Democrats: you can't have it both ways. If you want to be the party of the Wall Street thieves, you're not going to be the party of everyone else. At least the damn Republicans are honest in who they go to bed with.

Obama has been on the correct side of several social issues. On everything else, he's been a pretty satisfying Republican. Republicans know this. They aren't ashamed to be seen voting for one of their own. That's why when Democrats run from the success of their party, from their ideals, they lose. If there was a way to make Republicans ashamed of their party, we'd win without having to cave on these economic issues. Until then, I'll just have to hold my nose to vote for the Wall Street puppet on the left over the Wall Street puppet on the right.

[KJG52]

11. The Clinton meme, "fiscally conservative/socially liberal," or the DLC/New Democrat/3rd Way line,

is the definition of a Rockefeller Republican, the neither fish nor fowl politics that Republicans rebelled against in 1964 with the Goldwater candidacy for President and the rise of the current Republican Party. Clinton was a disaster for the poor and working class, trivialized and set back race as an issue and presided over the destruction of most of the rules that had restrained the banksters and plutocrats for two generations. Yet we entertain the coronation of his most ardent supporter, Hillary, to what end? To complete the job that her husband started, the end of a party of the left in the United States... definitely! It is time for a new rebellion against this same type of politics... It is time to restrain the plunderers of our country's people, now!

[Fearless]

13. No one seems to be disagreeing... Very telling...

Especially for DU. Maybe everyone is finally seeing the light.

[RiverLover]

19. k & r!!!

[Odin2005]

20. I think the 1992 Election was a loss for real liberals.

Clinton's election legitimized the takeover of the Democratic Party by Big Finance and their DLC patsies. it was a freak accident that the '92 election had a strong Independent (Perot) who took a lot of votes away from Poppy and split the conservative vote.

[whathehell]

26. Agreed, absolutely.

[merrily]

33. Yep. People tend not to mention Perot, who was a factor in both 1992 and 1996.

Between them, Roosevelt and Truman won an astonishing five Presidential elections in a row and had Democrats winning House and Senate seats for decades.

DLC founding member Clinton, helped by Perot, won before most voters had heard of the DLC or were aware of any schism in the Party (Many still are not.)

DLC founding member Gore lost (or won, depending on your perspective), but not by a landslide, either way, shall we say.

DLC founding member Lieberman couldn't make it deep into the primary.

Senate New Democrat Caucus founding member, Kerry lost.

Obama, who did not mention his New Democrat status until after the election and ran to DLC founding member Hillary's left won the primary and the general.

Still, the New Democrats took over the Party. And the Party seldom, if ever, has done worse than it did in 2010 and this month.

Yet, we are told again and again, that the only electible Democrats are New Democrats. Go figure.

[Odin2005]

43. Yep, in 1992 the DLC took Clinton's freak victory as a mandate...

...and we have been paying for it for 22 years now.

[merrily]

44. Not only the DLC, but the Democratic Party.

Of course, we don't know if they really took it as a mandate or if it was convenient to pretend it was a mandate.

I've seen Democrats being in a bind that Republicans don't have to contend with. Republicans, well, modern Republicans, anyway, never campaigned on being populist. They were unabashedly the party of the wealthy and defended the wealthy against all comers. And got poor Republicans to do the same.

Because of their history, Democrats cannot be that open. So, it's much easier to say that you are a leftist, but have to be like a republican to be elected.

[brooklynite]

22. Elizabeth Warren: I hope Hillary Clinton runs for president

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 — the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat, who some have speculated could seek the Oval Office herself.

"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

[msanthrope]

24. Don't bring facts into this. nt

[merrily]

31. Every fact is not dispositive.

[merrily]

30. So? What did you expect a new Democratic Senator to say about the Clinton furor

the Party has been fanning for years?

Besides, if Warren does truly want Hillary to be President, Warren is "merely wrong" and no one I know of claimed Warren is infallible.

[brooklynite]

32. I expect Warren to speak honesty, because I've been told she's not just another politician...

Was I misinformed?

[merrily]

34. Good. Then go with the "not infallible" alternative in my post.

BTW, who said Warren's signing the letter was dishonest?

Those conditions--every female signing--years of strategists and pundits saying no Democrat was even going to challenge Hillary in a primary, if she chose to run, you really expected a new Senator to buck that or be considered dishonest? LMAO.

[brooklynite]

35. The implication is that she was too weak/scared to stand up to the other Senators...

....and this her co-signing the letter to Clinton wasn't authentic. (I've seen this excuse here several times.)

And if she's fallible enough (your word) to think Clinton would be a great President, what does that say about her ability to be President?

[merrily]

36. My Reply 34 to you already covered that "point."

[aspirant]

37. Will Warren vote for President Bernie?

When Bernie wins the primary, do you think Warren will be forced to take a blood oath to vote for him?

[brooklynite]

38. The only people who've emphatically stated they wouldn't vote....

....for the Democratic nominee are the anti-Hillary people.

So, that would leave Warren out, wouldn't it?

[aspirant]

39. Still waiting

Which dem websites were proclaiming not voting for Obama in the 2008 elections by Hillary supporters?

When Warren votes for President Bernie will she be on the right side then, with or without the letter?

[WillyT]

41. Kick !!!

[KoKo]

48. Recommend...