David Sirota - The Democrats' Class War

[pberq]

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/the-democrats-class-war.html

For all the hype about generational and gender wars in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, we have a class war on our hands. And incredibly, corporate America's preferred candidate is winning the poorer "us" versus the wealthier "them" — a potentially decisive trend with the contest now moving to working-class bastions like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In most states, polls show Hillary Clinton is beating Barack Obama among voters making $50,000 a year or less — many of whom say the economy is their top concern. Yes, the New York senator who appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business's candidate is winning economically insecure, lower-income communities over the Illinois senator who grew up as an organizer helping those communities combat unemployment. This absurd phenomenon is a product of both message and bias.

Obama has let Clinton characterize the 1990s as a nirvana, rather than a time that sowed the seeds of our current troubles. He barely criticizes the Clinton administration for championing job-killing trade agreements. He does not question that same administration's role in deregulating the financial industry and thereby intensifying today's boom-bust catastrophes. And he rarely points out what McClatchy Newspapers reported this week: that Clinton spent most of her career at a law firm "where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards," including Wal-Mart's.

Obama hasn't touched any of this for two reasons.

First, his campaign relies on corporate donations. Though Obama certainly is less industry-owned than Clinton, the Washington Post noted last spring that he was the top recipient of Wall Street contributions. That cash is hush money, contingent on candidates silencing their populist rhetoric.

But while this pressure to keep quiet affects all politicians, it is especially intense against black leaders.

(more at link. . .)

[Jim Sagle]

1. Your link is messed up.

Try http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/09/6945/

[pberq]

4. thanks for the link

The other one was provided in Sirota's email list.

[jaybeat]

2. Yup. Corporate campaign bankrollers

They won't stand for uppity women, and especially not uppity black folk.

:puke:

[Windy]

3. very insightful. I've been pointing out here that Clinton brought us NAFTA

the ramifications of NAFTA took years to cultivate. People don't understand that. We have lost the manufacturing base of this country to china, india, etc., not to mention the tech sector. The tech bubble was the mechanism by which those 20,000,000 jobs were created under Clinton. Those went bye bye with the burst and outsourcing.

The only jobs created in this country now are service sector and retail jobs. While there will always be a demand for medical profession position, those aren't market dependent.

Clinton was no friend to the middle class.

People just don't look deep enough to realize this.

[pberq]

5. Exactly

Both Kucinich and Edwards (and maybe other former candidates) talked about the disaster of NAFTA

[stimbox]

6. Gravel still talks about NAFTA.

He wants to make major structural changes to NAFTA or repeal it all together.

[ixion]

7. and continued/escalated the so-called 'war' on drugs

which paved the way for the so-called 'war' on terror.

[MasonJar]

8. Excuse me for disagreeing with you, David, but the Clinton years were

a time of great prosperity for the average Joe. Millions of jobs were created, not shipped overseas. Universal health care was a priority stopped by the GOPer Congress. A surplus was garnered by not starting wars of aggression. It is totally disgraceful that now certain dems who want Obama attempt to help him win by denigrating our greatest progressive president, who had his heart open to every person, not just the rich. The world at large appreciates the greatness of heart of Bill Clinton, but his own party is now villifying him, which is worse in my book than all the lies spread by the Newt Gingriches. Now after 8 years it is the liberals of the Democratic Party who have decided to smear President Clinton; they have taken over where the Pugs left off. It is fine to prefer Obama, but Obama is correct to not try to win on the back of the disparagement of a fellow democrat, one who stood up to the most hate ever slung at any sitting president and DID IT FOR HIS FELLOW MAN. For shame to all of you who think that this is appropriate. Obama is too smart to to take that tack. It would not only be improper, but in the end self-defeating.

[Skittles]

10. THANK YOU

I am getting sick of the revisionist history too

[Doctor_J]

9. Sirota's way off on this one

"Obama has let Clinton characterize the 1990s as a nirvana, rather than a time that sowed the seeds of our current troubles. He barely criticizes the Clinton administration for championing job-killing trade agreements. He does not question that same administration's role in deregulating the financial industry and thereby intensifying today's boom-bust catastrophes."

First of all, the current debacle has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. It is completely the result of the fact that we have CRIMINALS in the White House, and the RepubliCON Congress let them get away with everything up to and including murder for 6 years. Second, Obama bashing Big Dog's presidency will accomplish nothing.

Yeesh - focus, people. The enemy is McCain and the entire GOP, period.

[nealmhughes]

15. No, there are several enemies of working America. The corporate masters are part of the problem.

Lip service to "progress" is precisely that: it is nothing but hot air and a waste of otherwise good oxygen being expended into C02.

One can have a tornado strike, a house fire, and an overflowing creek occur simultaneously, and that is what is happening in working America.

To where can one run? The house is aflame, but going into the basement to save oneself from the wind may kill you from the smoke, if not the rising water in the basement from the flood.

Working America faces three concurrent catastrophes: war, tyranny in the Executive Department and boardrooms, as well as destruction of our manufacturing base. Congress has enabled all of these by their action or lack thereof.

Where do we start? Does one issue trump the others?

[groovedaddy]

16. It's unfortunate that it takes a catastrophe to galvanize the labor movement

NAFTA & GATT are proof positive that some Democrats had abandonded the labor movement. Where is labor to go? Certainly not to the Republicans, who hate labor unions with a passion. Labor needs to be heavily involved in primaries to make sure that Dem candidates are elected who support the labor movement. Some Dems have a very non-chalant attitude toward labor - that "where else you gonna go" attitude. That needs to end.

[BridgeTheGap]

11. Clinton the most progressive president EVER? Come on now...

I voted for him both times but to make the claim that NAFTA & GATT were good for our country is way off base.
I have to assume that anyone making that assertion is not in the working class.
The hispanics who have crossed the boarder illegally have done so out of desperation generated by NAFTA's undercutting of traditional agriculture in Mexico.
Go into the states who have been ravaged by free trade agreements and talk to working people if you want to understand how they (we) see it.
Clinton's signing of the media deregulation law was a slap in the face to Democrats and one that opened the door for a compliant media with Bush.
The Anti-Terrorism law encroached on our Consitutional rights and Clinton signed it.
Clearly, Clinton was head and shoulders over what we have in the White House now BUT that is more an indication of how bad things have gotten and not an indication of Clinton's caliber as president.

[ihavenobias]

12. Exactly!

Also, how much of the prosperity was due directly to Clinton approved policy? And let's not forget that the tech boom was a HUGE boon at the time.

[BridgeTheGap]

13. How much do Presidents effect the economy?

Summary

When it comes to the economy, presidents are at the mercy of the business cycle. Often their fortune (or misfortune) with the economy depends on what happened in the previous administration. There are tools to influence the business cycle, but the President has almost no control over them. At least in economic terms, the most powerful person in the United States is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
More: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-presidentsresponsible.htm

I think Bush has demonstrated how to wreck an economy through war spending (making his friends richer) BUT the real intent may be to sink the Federal Government.

[underpants]

14. Kick any Sirota article

:kick: