Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’
- ACTA: The International Treaty You've Never Heard of That Could Affect Internet Freedom
- Military Intervention vs. Maritime Union Power
- Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage “Settlement”
- Shades of an American Kristallnacht?
- How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’
- Could Ecuador Be the Most Radical and Exciting Place on Earth?
- The Washington-Wall Street Revolving Door Just Keeps Spinning Along
- Ten Steps for Radical Revolution in the US
- Obama to Use Pension Funds of Ordinary Americans to Pay for Bank Mortgage “Settlement”
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Faux Populism Sounds Like Bill Clinton
I’ll admit it: Listening to Barack Obama, I am ready to enlist in his campaign against the feed-the-rich Republicans ... until I recall that I once responded in the same way to Bill Clinton’s faux populism. And then I get angry because betrayal by the “good guys” for whom I have ended up voting has become the norm.
Yes, betrayal, because if Obama meant what he said in Tuesday’s State of the Union address about holding the financial industry responsible for its scams, why did he appoint the old Clinton crowd that had legalized those scams to the top economic posts in his administration? Why did he hire Timothy Geithner, who has turned the Treasury Department into a concierge service for Wall Street tycoons?
Why hasn’t he pushed for a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, which Clinton’s deregulation reversed? Does the president really believe that the Dodd-Frank slap-on-the-wrist sellout represents “new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like this never happens again”? Can he name one single too-big-to-fail banking monstrosity that has been reduced in size on his watch instead of encouraged to grow ever larger by Treasury and Fed bailouts and interest-free money?
When Obama declared Tuesday evening “no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas,” wasn’t he aware that Jeffrey Immelt, the man he appointed to head his jobs council, is the most egregious offender? Immelt, the CEO of GE, heads a company with most of its workers employed in foreign countries, a corporation that makes 82 percent of its profit abroad and has paid no U.S. taxes in the past three years.
It was also a bit bizarre for Obama to celebrate Steve Jobs as a model entrepreneur when the manufacturing jobs that the late Apple CEO created are in the same China that elsewhere in his speech the president sought to scapegoat for America’s problems. Apple, in its latest report on the subject, takes pride in attempting to limit the company’s overseas suppliers to a maximum workweek of 60 hours for their horribly exploited employees. Isn’t it weird to be chauvinistically China baiting when that country carries much of our debt?
If he doesn’t know that, he should check out the record of Lawrence Summers, the man he picked to guide his economic program and who had been rewarded with the presidency of Harvard after having engineered Clinton’s deregulatory deal with Wall Street.
That is the real legacy of the Clinton years, and it is no surprise that GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich has been campaigning on his rightful share of it. The international trade agreements that exported good U.S. jobs, the radical financial deregulation that unleashed Wall Street greed, and the free market zealotry of then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who was reappointed by Clinton, were all part of a deal Clinton made with Gingrich, House speaker at that time.
As Gingrich put it in the first Republican debate in South Carolina: “As speaker ... working with President Bill Clinton, we passed a very Reagan-like program, less regulation, lower taxes.” Even the 15 percent tax break that Mitt Romney exploited for his carryover private equity income was a result of the unholy Clinton-Gingrich alliance. Both principals of that alliance were pimps for the financial industry, and that includes Freddie Mac, the for-profit stock-traded housing agency that Clinton coddled while it stoked the Ponzi scheme in housing and that rewarded the former speaker with $1.6 million to $1.8 million in consulting fees.
There were, finally, some bold words in Obama’s speech about helping beleaguered homeowners, but they ring hollow given this administration’s efforts to broker a sweetheart deal between the leading banks and the state attorneys general that would see the banks fined only a pittance for their responsibility in the mortgage meltdown. Obama could have had success demanding mortgage relief if he had made that a condition for bailing out the banks. Now the banksters know he’s firing blanks, and they are placing their bets on their more reliable Republican allies to prevent any significant demand for helping homeowners with their underwater mortgages.
Of course, Romney, Obama’s most likely opponent in the general election, will never challenge the Wall Street hold on Washington, since he is the personification of the vulture capitalism that is the true cause of America’s decline. Obama should shine in comparison with his Republican challenger, but there is little in his State of the Union speech to suggest he will chart a much-needed new course in his second term.
95 Comments so far
Show AllNeither Robert Scheer nor Barack Obama is fit to lick Bill Clinton's boots.
Note that Obama hired only the BAD Clinton advisers. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, reduced the size of the military, and Clinton presided over the longest period of sustained econmic growth in U.S. history and left office tied with FDR as most popular President of the 20th century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku3Ry293tSA
Excuse me...
I note that the deregulation that has blown up in our faces was signed by Bill Clinton. I note that the disaterous trade policies were pushed by Bill Clinton. Gutting the social safety net, as well, as if the Clinton bubble would never burst, would that welfare was still a right.
Clinton built a marble monument to FDR as he took a cleaver to the New Deal.
To glorify Clinton is to glorify outsourcing, which began the decimation and dismantling of the US manufacturing base. Clinton sold us down the river. He opened the door for Bush, who came after him. At the end of Clinton's term there was a recession. Got to admit, though, Clinton made us feel good about being screwed. FDR, he was not!
If Bill Clinton refused to sign the Republican's bill repealing Glass-Stegall most, if not all of the economic disaster is avoided.
Clinton was a great leader ???? I am laughing too hard to even attempt to rebut this. Clinton was a better horse trader than Obama is- to bad he traded away the house...
All the follow-on comments to the original post are dead on.
It may have been technically a Republican bill, but repeal of Glass-Steagall was advocated by Clinton's Treasury Secretary Rubin long before the actual passage. It was kind of a textbook case illustrating the nature of the duopoly. Of course, Clinton was also an advocate of corporate globalization in the form of sovereigny-sapping trade agreements, telecommunications deregulation, etc. He substantially advanced the "new world order" that Obama wants us to consider a done deal.
Perry Logan comes in here regularly with virtually the same post as if he has learned nothing at all. Maybe he thinks his function is to remind us (through comments to his posts) what a tool of corporate wealth Clinton was.
Rubin could have talked till he was blue in the face, but this bill was pushed thru the Senate by Phil Gramm, he wrote it, he got Leach on board and I'm sure you are aware of which bank paid the freight. But you are correct, this was a great demonstration of bi-partisanship in Washington at the end.....lucky us!
Rubin, working with Larry Summers, actually requested a bill to repeal Glass-Steagall (although they didn't get it immediately.) I would call that bi-partisanship from beginning to end. Citigroup and other concerns lobbied extensively for the bill and were rewarded, of course, by the corporate duopoly in the form of a bill written in a Republican-controlled Congress. (Rubin was rewarded, too.) It was all quite cozy.
I''m just trying to ease Perry into the real world, but am not hopeful of the results. The participation of the Clinton administration in the repeal of Glass-Steagall can't be shrugged off.
Good comment, as are several here.
Glass-Stegall was veto proof. Personally I liked Clinton, he was slick and very sharp on his feet, so to speak, lol.
As for the article, fine, if people don't like Obama, vote for the winner of the Republican race, Gingrich or Romney, and see how much everyone likes that alternative.
We don't have to vote for twiddle dum or twiddle dumber. Let's end the two party strangle hold on our electoral system. Wake up and read the ballot. There are other candidates and with what we are being offered so far this year I am thinking of writing in my dog's name.
If we continue to vote Democrats out of fear of Republicans, the Democrats will never change. It is imperative that we show them we are tired of their weaknesses and collaboration with the plutocracy. Don't withhold your vote! If you don't vote, they won't care. Voting 3rd party will get their attention like a swift kick to the 'nads. Will that get a Republican in office? Probably...but it might get them to finally notice that the people aren't satisfied at all. We survived 8 years of W, we can last 4 from anyone else. And yes, I voted for Nader because he was the best candidate in 2000, just like I voted for Anderson in 1980. Quit voting for your fears.
You got that right ! How long will Dems continue this insane practice ? VOTE 3rd Party.
Gramm Leech Bliley was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority ... as Bill Clinton proudly expressed when he signed the bill into law. He called it a historic achievement.
Oh look! A Clintonista, and I thought they'd gone extinct.
Oh, give me a break!! Obama's false populism is just like Clinton's because they are both brought to us by the same crowd of big boys who are running this nation. We went for Obama because he is black and we thought a black man would understand the situation with the working people of this nation. Same with Clinton. He was put forward because he was (forgive me for saying this but I am one of this group) poor white trash. He was from Arkansas and his father was a drunk and he was raised by a single mother. We thought such a guy would understand conditions for the working people. WRONG! Both these guys were selected at an early age to be a puppet of the 1%. Smart young men they were sent to good schools and trained for their role as someone working hard against terrible forces to allow the working people to have a good standard of living. But in fact they both serve the guys that paid their way into the dance.
Both of these puppets followed a bush that we all hated and wanted to get rid of and even to impeach. After years under the bush we trusted this new young intelligent man and gave them free rein. We were so pleased that a Democrat was elected, (understand that most Americans think the two corporate parties are in opposition to each other -- when the truth is they are joined at the neck---one gross body with two heads) that we did not rise up when Clinton get NAFTA passed. And banking deregulation. And the end of welfare. Perry says 'Clinton presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth is U.S. history" but the damage he did to our economy was not seen until after he left the White House. It took the corporations a few years to set up the factories off shore and move our jobs out of our nation. When Obama came in it was the smoothest transition of administrations in history. Seamless move. All bushie's programs continued and expanded.
I think the guy "licking Bill Clinton's boots" is Perry logan.
I agree with you on everything you've said. Let's not forget that the so called longest period of sustained growth during the Clinton presidency was at least partly due to the Y2K boom (bubble) and the dot com bubble. Clinton didn't have much of a boom during his first four years and he lucked out because the Repigs put up a phony loser candidate when he ran for his second term.
Obama/Clinton - total frauds......period.
Yes, Obama's State of Union Address was a simply a campaign commercial for Obama. He hopes the Left forgets his reneged promises and dissapointments as he makes more promises that for the most part wouldn't kick in til 2013 or later if ever but was more startling, but not surprising, was his uninhibited display of support for policies of the Right and neocons. Those policies, unlike those of the Left, will most likely be achieved. In other words, it is apparent Obama still takes for granted the Left's vote as he throws them empty promises and gives to the Right to get their support.
Scheer's litany is a wonderful summary of all the half promises that will never be fulfilled, the recitation of Ills that will never be addresses, and the obvious lies that was the SOTU (or SOTE, as one commenter suggested).
I thought that the XL decision and the ostensible telling of Ehud Barak and the Yahoo to back off the saber rattling were bones thrown to progressives to bamboozle them into voting for him again. In the SOTU, he out rattled the Likudniks and has a pen on the ready to sign the YL Pipeline revision right after the election. Enjoy your SS and Medicare while they last folks, Obama seems hell bent on dismantling everything that was cobbled together during the New Deal.
Also, what rock did this Perry logan, Clinton (either one, you pick 'em) shill crawl out from under with his pathetic attempt to rewrite a bit of history.
Obama & Clinton (both of 'em) - The best Republicans the Democrats ever fielded.
Yes Robert,
Bill Clinton was a right bastard. And feelings of betrayal can color one's viewpoint.
But Crikeys,
Obama is no Bill Clinton, and that's a shame…
The United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996 was the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Congress over funding for Medicare, education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget. The government shut down after Clinton vetoed the spending bill the Republican Party-controlled Congress sent him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996
Obama is top demagogue: he lies, manipulates, says one thing but does another, reneges on promises, mitigates and compromises endlessly, concedes, negotiates secretively, talks a good game but does very little, and so on: by now, he should have no credibility left.
Exactly. Who would believe anything Obama said now? It's not logical. It's a con. Again.
Let's see...Clinton-Iraq sanctions that hurt thousands. Outsourcing. More tax breaks for rich.
Obummer-Escallated illegal wars, gave a bunch of money to crooks. hmmm oh and continues tax breaks while signing NDAA...hmm
And Callaghan...your continual use of the word hippie is tacky and off putting. Do you have anything beneficial to say? Or are you one of those right wing surfers who gets off on saying dumb things.
Stonepig
Well said because it turns out, for the most part, that the hippies were right and that the policies of people like Obama, who is on record as stating that he is not a believer of what took place in the 1960s, have been wrong and immoral.
Capitalism is by nature vicious, brutal, extractive, destructive. If you love your iPad, you must remember who made it, under what conditions, and who got paid for it. It's servants are clever dissemblers (liars) and tricksters. Bravo to Scheer for undermining one of them.
Obama's speeches don't mean jack-squat, as far as I'm concerned. If his voting for the FISA Bill, and the people that he's surrounded himself with are any indication, he sold his voting base down the river a long time ago.
Like Clinton, Obama made an awful lot of people feel good about being sold down the river.
It has taken Scheer a long time to see he's been betrayed, but at least he's finally seen it.
Next we can expect the usual comment from a Democratic Party shill, maybe a MoveOn volunteer, warning if we don't vote for Obama, then Noot will be president.
No doubt some will be frightened into that, but until Americans realize real political power works outside party politics, nothing will change. Real change will come, as it always has, through the politics of social movements and ideology.
The New Deal came about not through kindness but because of intense fear that unless something was thrown to the working class it might go communist. It was a growing minority of fed-up voters who "threw their votes away" by voting for 3rd-party candidates (socialist and communist candidates who had no chance of winning) that frightened party politicians enough to bring change.
If 10 or 15 million voters refuse to vote for either party's presidential candidate in the coming election it will do far more good then voting for Obama out of fear of Republicans.
Maybe Scheer is starting to see this. Given his S. California connection he must know how massive farm-labor strikes in the Imperial and San Joaquin valleys in the '30s helped FDR discover a social consciousness.
Excellent summary, GollyGee, of how we the people got ourselves to the point where the Dims and GOP are nothing more than a tag team pandering to their corporate owners.
When the number of socialist candidates appearing on ballots diminished during the 1970s the corproations and the politicians they own started systematically dismantling the New Deal and the middle class it created.
Stop wasting your vote on Dims and the GOP and start voting as far left as possible if you want to reverse the advance of corporate control of government..
As usual the comments are Much more accurate and historically based than the underlying article.
NICE post!
Golly,
I doubt Scheer has quite wised up yet. Have no cash to put down but I'd bet Scheer will vote for Obama again--you know, lesser of two evils, what other choice was there, and the rest of the BS.
Don't forget the other meme - the supreme court appointment where BO would appoint left wing judges vs. the Repigs. Ha! Ha!
for such a smart guy - who apparently knows he's being scammed - i just don't understand how mr scheer is so perplexed about the obummer psyop
that obummer is like the scum bag clinton is obvious - slick willie as he is known destroyed unions, destroyed welfare for single moms and did in the workers with nafta
as newt says - clinton passed lots of republican legislation
obummer's sotu was such a psychotic vision - hypocritical to its core - that i found myself pining to watch another republican debate instead, their version of the political reality show is more entertaining
mr scheer ignores obummer's war mantra
more wars - more freedom and democracy crap...
obummer is pushing hard for a "settlement" for wall street - they pay a pittance and all their crimes go away. he is pressuring the state attorney's to accept this settlement which is a crime in and of itself
obummer does not, nor ever has, cared about anyone but himself
he turned his back on amerikan workers, amerikan health care reform, turned his back on blacks and has instead embraced the psychopathic bankster terrorists/mic who together do so much death and murder to this world
just like clinton before him - scheer is right about that
i think obummer is looking at the gop primary and thinking he is a shoe in for another term and he is probably right
the bankster terrorists must be tingling all over...
Funny, while the (R) elite has lost control of its base, the (D)s are lemmings. Obama is the Pied Piper of the Potomac. He plays a magic flute and the party faithful dance to the tune. Are (R)s more evolved than (D)s? How can that be?
In 2008, Hillary and Obama only differed on two points. Obama was going to take a serious look at repealing NAFTA and Obama was for single payer. Hillary just had more class. Obama was just a bigger liar.
It is election time again and Obama is in full liar mode. I do not believe a word he says and did not watch the State of the Union. Obama and Romney are the same. Gingrich is dangerous.
I'm glad someone see's where the real danger is. The republican establishment is scared to death Newt is going to get the nomination. And for good reason.
The good thing is he would blow their cozy nest in Washington apart.
The bad thing's are what he would blow apart right along with these sleezebags.
A vote Third party becomes a vote for Newt, thats the sad fact. We really will have to choose betwen the lesser of two evils. If Romney gets it, as has been pointed out above, there is really little difference between Obama and Romney.
Wonderful summary by Robert Scheer but nothing much new. The concluding sentence is a little mystifying:
"Obama should shine in comparison with his Republican challenger, but there is little in his State of the Union speech to suggest he will chart a much-needed new course in his second term."
Isn't Obama going to shine a bit against Romney ONLY because he's telling even bigger lies about his economic policies?
It's hard to imagine a more meaningless choice than between Obama and Romney-- although it will be the job of the corporate punditocracy to make them seem as different as baboons and giant fruit bats. They will bark and hiss at each other accordingly but it is all part of the Spectacle.
http://libcom.org/library/society-of-the-spectacle-debord
In truth, there were far greater differences between Alexei Kosygin and Alexander Brezhnev within the Soviet Communist Party than between Obama and Romney.
Kosygin, for example, opposed both the Czech invasion of 68 and the invasion of Afghanistan to prop up a pro-Soviet government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Kosygin
What does it tell you about the state of Amerikan Demokracy under the banksters and corporate overlords when your choice, in regard to all major economic and empire policies, amounts to One Party rule?
You left someone out. How does Obama look in comparison with Newt? If he wins Florida or even comes in a close second, all bets are off on Romney's inevitability.
Close second for Newt and he is done. Florida is winner-take-all. Newt will become destroyer only if he cannot take Florida. Newt is going to come out really strong and obnoxious in this debate. I assume Romney knows this and is prepared to get down and dirty with the Newt. It's no prisoners and no tomorrow. The next debate is a month away and Mitt has the money. I love political theater and will be watching tonight.
Time is now to call Newt the scum that he is to his face. Newt is BSing Floridians about a base on the moon knowing that after the first of the year budget cuts take effect that will ground NASA and grama. When Newt takes US to war in Iran there will be no money for his phony Star Trek adventure. We will see Tuesday just how stupid the people of Florida are?
Well...my stupid is hanging out! I had forgotten that Florida was a winner take all state, thanks for the head slap. :)
It will indeed be political theater tonight and I hope Romney is better than he has been. I think you are right. Gloves are off. The danger is, these aren't the people of Florida but the republican conservative base and my fear is they see Newt as representing them far better than Romney. In other words giving the republican establishment the finger as they did in S.C.
You hit the bull's eye, for Newt there is no tomorrow.
"Well...my stupid is hanging out! I had forgotten that Florida was a winner take all state, thanks for the head slap. :)" -- wish I had the balls to be so openly humble... almost arrogantly so. LOL -- wish we would see more of it.
How stupid is Florida? This is the state with all those retired people who voted in Rick Scott for governor, Rick Scotts company was found guilty and paid the largest Medicare fraud fine in history, but these stupid asses voted him into the governors office.
It might be worthwhile to remind ourselves constantly; how reliable is the vote COUNTING process?
It's hard to be arrogant when you are stupid enough to forget something like that. I'd like to say it was just that my lightning fast, highly intellectual mind that overwhelmed my slow fingers, but the truth is that it was just a bite from the stupid bug.
I hope you don't see too much more of it from me.
Speaking of spectacle I read a book on the fall of the roman empire and came across these nuggets:
"the eternal city was filled with the comings and goings of impotent men - senators, magistrates, bustling administrators of all kinds - performing meaningless duties. Augustus, while seizing all power, had wisely left in place all the trappings of democracy. The empty show that resulted only emphasized the more the importance of HOW things were done - since no one wanted to avert to the vanity of WHAT was being done"
words ringing true in todays world of corporate rule of our legislature, supreme court and executive branches of government.
At this point anyone paying attention has to acknowledge that the democrats and republicans are the SAME! There is NO DIFFERENCE between the parties when it comes to the bankrupting of our nation and the continuance of endless war and EMPIRE.
The lessons from the Fall Of the Roman Empire has gone unheeded.
Unfortunately, Augustus' Rome lurched on for four centuries.
Don't ask so many embarrassing questions. If you keep asking them we might reach the conclusion that the Obama who is running for a second term is as insincere and likely to dissapoint us as the Obama of the first term. Now is the time to get behind this mask of president to keep an even uglier personage from gaining power. To think that we could ever have a person in the position of the presidentcy who had any shade of integrity left is just too much to ask of our political system. However they run, they will always serve the monied interests who brought them to power, so let's just be contented to vote for the kinder face who says he is on our side. That's all the choice we get.
Thank you, tammons, for stating, in unvarnished terms, the TRUE meaning of "lesser-evil" voting--and why people should reject it as a degrading spectacle.
It is amazing how easy it is to con people into voting for someone as corrupt as Obama and to make people think that this admirer of Reagan is actually a progressive because he has now cynically adopted populist rhetoric as we head into the 2012 election campaign. Apart from rhetoric there is nothing progressive about Obama and the democratic party. He is raising big money as we speak from the worst exploiters representing the one percent and the stench coming out of Washington has never been worse but the liberal sheep have been successfully duped into believing that Obama is like Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt which is patently ridiculous. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
Absolutely dead on except for the last sentence. The American people aren't nearly as stupid as either side would like to believe.
The problem is who else do you vote for? Romney or Newt? NOT happening. So we are left with the creature you described so perfectly.