The Warning: PBS' Frontline

Alan Greenspan who loved Ayn Rand... who said "I'm for complete economic freedom...I am for the complete separation of the state and the economic system."... sooooo.. how did that work for everyone the past 2 years?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Alan Greenspan, Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin

"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?"

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

"It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience."

The vast right-wing conspiracy is back

Scaife and Newsmax, Partners in Pondering a Coup?
Some of Bill Clinton's most unhinged foes are flinging wild charges at Obama. This time, they're better organized

Joe Conason, Salon.com

Oct. 05, 2009

Wearily familiar as he is with the "vast right-wing conspiracy," Bill Clinton says the network that sought to destroy him and his wife, Hillary, remains malignant as ever, yet lacks the might of a decade ago. "It's not as strong as it was, because America's changed," he told David Gregory on "Meet the Press." "But it's as virulent as it was."

Whether Clinton is correct about the current condition of his old adversaries can best be measured by the passage or wreckage of healthcare reform and the outcome of next year's congressional midterm elections -- the same early milestones that marked the beginning of Clinton's tumultuous White House tenure. Perhaps Barack Obama will be saved by political demography and decent intentions, as the former president tried to assure Gregory; perhaps he and his administration will prove less vulnerable to intrigue and propaganda and less flawed than their predecessors.

What Obama should anticipate -- indeed, what he is already encountering -- is a cascade of slurs, threats and rhetorical violence that reanimates all of the worst themes of the bad old days. That wave will inevitably damage the president and his hopes for change, even if the majority of Americans is less receptive to right-wing messages than they once were. The greasy machinery once used to grind Clinton down has grown larger and more sophisticated by orders of magnitude, from Fox News Channel (which did not exist during his first term) to all of the conservative digital outlets that enable echoing and organizing on a truly vast scale.

The negative mythologizing of Obama bears a remarkable resemblance in tone and style if not precisely in content to the attacks on Clinton. "It's like when they accused me of murder, and all that stuff they did," said the former president -- presumably a reference to the wilder fantasies circulated in conservative publications about Obama, from the forged Kenyan birth certificates to the president's supposed plans to inflict corruption, homosexual radicals and Muslim jihad on innocent Americans. While some of the current themes mimic those deployed against Clinton, there are generational differences and the obvious fact that Obama is not just notionally "the first black president." That status evokes a special animus on the far right, of course -- although Clinton at least had earned the lifelong hatred of his most dedicated enemy, "Justice Jim" Johnson of Arkansas, for fighting segregation and racism in Arkansas.

Back when videotapes still had to be circulated by mail order, the Clinton-hunters did a brisk business with "The Clinton Chronicles," a "documentary" alleging that as governor of Arkansas he oversaw an enormous, unchecked racketeering enterprise that encompassed international bank fraud, cocaine smuggling and multiple murders, facilitated by a kind of backwoods dictatorship. Nothing resembling that remarkable work of extremist art, once promoted by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, has appeared so far in the crusade against Obama -- but that doesn't mean nothing is in the works. Many of the same organizations and operatives behind the original Clinton smears are still active and some have amassed considerable wealth and influence over the intervening decade.

The signs of a resurgent right-wing smear industry, and the role that would be played by the old VRWC in the Obama era, first became clear toward the end of last year's historic election. Suddenly in the final months of the campaign, long after conservatives had despaired of another Swift-boat triumph, a curious outfit called the National Republican Trust PAC emerged from the shadows with two exceptionally nasty independent commercials -- and millions of dollars to spend airing them. Between the end of September and Election Day, the mysterious NRT PAC raised and spent enough money to qualify as the single largest non-party purchaser of airtime in the 2008 election.

Using a photo of Mohammed Atta, the first NRT ad connected Obama to the 9/11 hijackers with the false claim that he wanted to permit illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses. FactCheck.org described that ad as "one of the sleaziest false TV ads of the campaign." The second ad attempted to remind voters about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at the Chicago church where the Obama family worshiped, whose black nationalist sermons caused them to break with him during the presidential campaign. The script criticized Obama for failing to protest Wright's sermons sooner and warned that the Democrat was "too radical" and "too risky."

These blunt instruments of political warfare were less interesting than their creators. The executive director of NRT PAC, responsible for the production of those ads, was Scott Wheeler -- who had worked, years before, on the making of "The Clinton Chronicles," according to reporter Murray Waas. Behind Wheeler was the mastermind of the NRT PAC and one of the central figures in the anti-Clinton network of the '90s: Christopher Ruddy.

Now editor and publisher of Newsmax, the enormously successful right-wing magazine and Web site, Ruddy was the journalist who spun the most fanciful theories about the death of Clinton White House lawyer Vince Foster. Working at the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, owned by billionaire and avowed Clinton foe Richard Mellon Scaife, Ruddy popularized the canard that Foster had not committed suicide, as determined by five official investigations, but more likely had been murdered -- possibly to cover up corruption in the Whitewater land deal or because of an illicit affair with Hillary Rodham Clinton or both.

Beyond spreading paranoia about the Foster tragedy, Ruddy and Scaife both played central roles in the distribution of nearly half a million copies of "The Clinton Chronicles" and other covert machinations against the Clinton White House –- most notably the "Arkansas Project," a $2.4 million scheme to dig up or invent crimes by the president and first lady, with assistance from several unsavory characters, including die-hard segregationist Jim Johnson, a couple of private detectives and a bait-shop owner.

Ten years later, life has changed for Ruddy and Scaife. They're partners in Newsmax, based in West Palm Beach, Fla., and now the largest conservative publication in the country, both online and off. With 130,000 print subscribers its circulation is nearly twice as large as the Weekly Standard, and with nearly 4 million unique monthly visitors to Newsmax.com, it is larger than the Drudge Report. According to Forbes, which profiled Newsmax last spring, the low-budget site and its affiliates brought in nearly $30 million last year. More important than its profits is its sway over conservative readers.

Newsmax is a muscular media presence with influence across the right from Rush Limbaugh and all his radio imitators to Fox News Channel and beyond. Ruddy was among the most insistent endorsers of the Obama birth certificate myth, playing much the same role he once did during the Vince Foster affair. He has assiduously promoted the "tea party" movement and the "socialism" meme. When Newsmax published an essay by an obscure former newsman that seemed to urge a military coup against Obama last week (and then removed it), the reverberations were felt across the political spectrum. Every day the site blasts forth a barrage of supposed Obama scandals and embarrassments to be amplified by Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the panoply of talk radio and cable megaphones, knowing that by sheer volume, some of it will stick.

Combining the propaganda power of Newsmax with the spending power of the NRT PAC, the once-laughable Ruddy could become a formidable player in the 2010 midterm elections -– and the fate of the Obama administration.

As Clinton himself pointed out, the same forces that wanted to defeat and destroy his administration have predictably mobilized against Obama. For the moment, however, those forces cannot muster the same kind of concerted attack that almost brought Clinton down. They may still have Scaife's money but they have no independent counsel, like the partisan zealot Kenneth Starr. They have no scandal-mongering allies in the mainstream media, like the late William Safire of the New York Times. They have no congressional majority, and nobody like Newt Gingrich to build and lead one -- at least not yet.

Yet while the Republican right struggles for credibility, leaving Obama with breathing space, he and his aides ought to reconsider their scornful and high-handed attitude toward the progressive wing of their own party. They might just lose the Democratic majority next year and find themselves facing the sharp end of a series of congressional investigations or worse. If and when that happens, as Clinton could remind them, the progressives will be their only reliable allies.

-- By Joe Conaso

Mr. Bush and the Pardon Power

NY Times Editorial

With the Bush administration drawing to a close, it is presidential pardon season. Presidents have become increasingly shameless about issuing pardons to insulate political cronies from prosecution, even to protect themselves. We hope President Bush will not abuse the pardon power by putting his appointees, political supporters or friends above the law.

The Constitution gives the president sweeping authority to grant pardons. The founders intended for presidents to use this power as an “act of grace” or to promote the public welfare. It was never intended to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for people close to the president who stretched, bent or broke the law.

The three most recent presidents have used it in just that way. George H. W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams and others involved in the Iran-contra scandal. Had they been prosecuted, Mr. Bush’s own actions might have come under scrutiny.

Bill Clinton, in his final hours in office, pardoned Marc Rich, whose ex-wife contributed heavily to his presidential library; his brother, Roger Clinton; his former housing and urban development secretary, Henry Cisneros; and Susan McDougal, an old friend and a key figure in the Whitewater scandal.

President Bush has issued one troubling commutation, of I. Lewis Libby’s 30-month prison sentence. Mr. Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice in the Valerie Wilson leak investigation.

This week, Mr. Bush granted 14 pardons and commuted two prison sentences, none for high-profile defendants. He has until Jan. 20, however, to grant more. And his record of stonewalling inquiries into his administration’s legally questionable behavior — the torture policy that led to the Abu Ghraib nightmare; illegal wiretapping; the politically motivated firing of federal attorneys — justify concern that he may be considering pardoning officials involved in those misdeeds.

The framers envisioned that presidents would be discouraged from misusing the pardon power by the threat of impeachment. But it is a fairly empty threat when they issue pardons in their final days in office.

The main check on misuse of 11th-hour pardons is the verdict of history. Mr. Bush will be leaving office with extraordinarily low approval ratings. If he wants to try to reclaim his reputation, he can start by not abusing the pardon power on his way out the door.

Measure Those Drapes: Our Presidential Candidates SHOULD Have Their Cabinets Selected

By now, both candidates should be deep into preparations for the responsibilities one of them is about to take on.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A16, Washington Post editorial

WE WRITE today in praise of drape-measuring. Early preparation for a presidential transition is essential to a successful launch of any presidency, and this transition will be more challenging -- more perilous -- than any in decades. It will be the first transfer of government since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, presenting America's enemies with a tempting moment of potential vulnerability. It arrives in the midst of a financial crisis and two wars. Any new president must scramble to produce a budget shortly after taking office; this president also will have to assume management of the $700 billion (and counting) financial bailout.

The candidates are understandably reluctant to discuss the transition for fear of appearing presumptuous. Indeed, Sen. John McCain has been deriding Sen. Barack Obama for "measuring the drapes" in the Oval Office. The fact of the matter, however, is that both candidates have engaged in transition planning, Mr. Obama in what appears to be a more systematic and detailed way than Mr. McCain. This is grounds for praise, not carping. As Clay Johnson, who launched George W. Bush's transition planning in spring 2000, wrote in a recent article for Public Administration Review, "It is irresponsible for anybody who could be president not to prepare to govern effectively from day one." Exhibit A in how not to handle the transition is Bill Clinton, whose dawdling on filling his Cabinet and naming his White House staff contributed to the early stumbles of his presidency.

Mr. Johnson and other transition experts believe the new president should announce his chief of staff within a few days of the election and, by Thanksgiving, name his key White House, economic, national security and foreign policy officials. That will be a daunting task; no recent president-elect has followed so ambitious a timetable. As Patricia McGinnis of the Council for Excellence in Government testified last month, of the 400 Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions that require Senate confirmation, "No more than 25 . . . have ever been confirmed within three months of any new Administration and only half within six months." Having Cabinet secretaries in place does not help much if they are home alone at their departments without confirmed deputies to assist them.

There are grounds for hope that the process will be speedier this time. A 2004 law gives candidates the opportunity to submit the names of transition planners for quick security clearances, "completed by the day after the election, to the extent practicable." In addition, the president-elect may submit, the day after the election, "the names of prospective nominees for high-level security positions for the cabinet and sub-cabinet." The Bush administration appears committed to assisting in a smooth transition at a difficult time; President Bush recently signed an executive order creating a Presidential Transition Coordinating Council to oversee the handoff.

The Senate has a responsibility to act swiftly and without partisan considerations. The Sept. 11 commission recommended that it change its rules to require a vote to confirm or reject national security nominees within 30 days of their nomination at the start of a new administration; lawmakers chose not to adopt that recommendation, but they should live up to its spirit in dealing with economic as well as national security positions. A report by the Congressional Research Service found that the longest lag, however, has involved getting nominations to the Senate in the first place; of 31 positions in the Bush administration that would have been subject to the 30-day deadline, 22 were confirmed within that span, four were holdovers from the Clinton administration and just five took longer than the allotted time. Yet it took an average of 65 days for Mr. Bush to submit his nominations, and even longer, 90 days, for Mr. Clinton. Getting background checks done quickly is critical. But the country will be better off if the winner of next week's election has a firm idea now of whom he would like in key positions.

Cool Hand Paul

By MAUREEN DOWD
Paul Newman taught me how to peel a cucumber.

My eating habits were so bad for many years that I didn’t actually know the intricacies of making a salad. So when the man who has made $250 million for charity with Newman’s Own dressings and sauces asked me to help him make a salad in 1986, while I was writing a profile of him for The Times Magazine, I mangled my cucumber so thoroughly that he snatched it away and showed me how to do it.

At a moment when America feels angry and betrayed, when our leaders have forfeited our trust and jeopardized our future, we lost an American icon who stood for traits that have been in short supply in the Bush administration: shrewdness, humility, decency, generosity, class.

When I asked W. in 1999 if he identified with any literary heroes, he said no, but he was drawn to Paul Newman’s defiance in “Cool Hand Luke.”

The Texan cast himself as an anti-hero and rebel. But as president, he knew how to strut only in photo-ops, not when actual calamities loomed or hit.

Newman was a rare liberal who loved the label; he made it onto Nixon’s enemies list for supporting Eugene McCarthy’s anti-Vietnam run. In 1997, I called him when he began writing a bit for The Nation (where he was an investor). He ranted about right-wingers “popping out of rat holes” but also faulted the Clintons.

“Everything is about what’s winnable, not about the morality of the issues,” he told me. In politics, as in racing cars, he said: “You can do anything if you are prepared to deal with the consequences.”

I was nervous the first time I met the star, because he’d been a teenage crush — along with William F. Buckley Jr. (I loved Buckley’s sesquipedalian dexterity — a lost art in the anti-intellectual conservative set of W. and Sarah Palin.)

We met at a restaurant on the Upper East Side, where he proceeded to interview me.

Newman: “What do you know about nuclear disarmament?”

Dowd: “Ummm.”

Newman: “How can you justify The Times’s editorial position on the moratorium?”

Dowd: “Ummm.”

He was deeply uncomfortable at getting adulation for playacting, acknowledging that “there’s something very corrupting about being an actor. It places a terrible premium on appearance.”

With a Butch Cassidy grin, he told me that he pictured his epitaph being: “Here lies Paul Newman, who died a failure because his eyes turned brown.”

He did not want to talk about his movies; he wanted to talk throw-weights. He liked Bach and Budweiser and playing goofy practical jokes. (Once, when we were driving, he began high-speed bumping the car in front of us, driven by his friend.) He was bored by fashion and embarrassed by women who brazenly flirted with him or asked him to take off his sunglasses to show his blue eyes.

Once, when he was handing out punch at a Westport charity event, a dowager asked him to stir her drink with his finger.

“I’d be glad to,” Newman replied, “but I just took it out of a cyanide bottle.”

He recalled how utterly flummoxed he was the time a stunning call girl approached him on Fifth Avenue and offered to dispense with her fee.

“You want to send her off with something classy and stylish, the way Cary Grant would, or Clint Eastwood,” he said. “You think, how would Hombre handle this? And when this woman came up to me — the guy who played Hud — what comes through? Laurel and Hardy. Both of them.”

He said he was not like his sultry, flamboyant characters: “You don’t always have Tennessee Williams around to write glorious lines for you.”

He and his wife were reputed to have one of the happiest marriages in Hollywood, but the outspoken Joanne Woodward admitted that it took a lot of therapy to cope with the fact that, even though she got an Oscar first, he was able to stay a leading man for four decades. She told a magazine that she was always “uncomfortable and even angry” that “Paul was so much bigger than I was ... Because he was living my fantasy” to be a star.

She would not talk to me for The Times’s profile that her husband did to promote “The Color of Money” — even just on the topic of his role as the director of five movies that she had starred in. She said she did interviews only solo or jointly with him — not about him. That byzantine deal reflected the rivalry that threaded through their romance.

He said that he appreciated her, as he looked around his elegant Fifth Avenue apartment, observing dryly: “If anyone had ever told me 20 years ago I’d be sitting in a room with peach walls, I would have told them to take a nap in a urinal.”

Is She a Trojan Rabbit?

by Maureen Dowd, NY Times Op-Ed Columnist
Washington, May 11, 2008

Now Barack Obama faces a true dilemma: how best to punish Hillary Clinton.

After 15 months of fighting her off, as she veered wildly from bully to victim, as she brandished any ice pick at hand, whether racial, sexual, mathematical or marital (in the form of her Vesuvian husband), Obama must decide the most efficacious means of doing to Hillary what she has been trying to do to him: putting her in her place.

Her last resort is to continue to press the “Psssst — he’s a black man” tactic. She insisted to USAToday, after the North Carolina and Indiana slide, that she has a broader base, citing an Associated Press article “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

So how does Obama repay Hillary for running a campaign designed both to unman him and brand him as an unelectable black? Is the most ingenious way to turn the screw by not choosing her as his running mate, or by choosing her?

It is, verily, a sticky wicket.

One top Hillary supporter who is black warns that, despite the giddy dreams of some punch-drunk Democrats, a fusion ticket could backfire because “Americans can’t handle too much change at once.”

But should Obama ignore that caution and appease Hillary fans by putting her on the ticket?

As president, he could announce that, because Dick Cheney abused the powers of his office so grievously, taking the title “Vice” literally, he intends to shrink the vice presidency back to its “bucket of warm spit” Constitutional prerogatives — presiding over the Senate and taking over if the president goes under anesthesia.

He might also neglect to give Bill (whose acronym would be SLOTUS, Second Lad of the United States) full White House access.

Aside from the delight Bill would get from living at the Naval Observatory and having a huge telescope to window-peep with, there wouldn’t be much joy in Hillaryland.

The lady-in-waiting would be surrounded by Obama disciples who disdained her for fighting dirty. And she would be miserable holding up the train of the young prince who usurped her dream, derailing the post-nup she had with Bill to trade places.

As de facto veep for Bill, she had enough leverage over him, due to his shenanigans, to co-opt huge chunks of policy and personnel decisions.

But in a return engagement with Obama at the top, could she really wake up every day in the back seat and wish him well, or would she just be plotting? (Fourteen vice presidents have ascended, after all.) Wouldn’t she be, in Monty Python parlance, the Trojan Rabbit behind the gates?

On a positive note, maybe she could bring back all that stuff she pilfered on her way out.

Obama’s other option, laid out by Teddy Kennedy on Friday, is to go with someone who wouldn’t be a big dark cloud over his sunshiny new politics.

Teddy told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that Obama should choose a partner “in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.”

That would be smart for another reason: Hillary has a strange, unnerving effect on Obama, and whenever he is around her, he’s unable to do his best. Probably, it’s because she’s furious, always shaking his hand off her arm, ignoring him, giving him the evil eye and emasculating him, and the Golden One is not used to such rough treatment.

In the last few days, as Hillary has deflated and Obama and the Democrats have dashed for daylight, he has been more like his old self, flashing his all-is-right-with-the-world smile on the cover of Time, joshing and charming Democrats and Republicans as he wooed superdelegates on the House floor, taking on James Carville for insulting his manhood.

“James Carville is well known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he’s talking about,” he told Terry Moran on “Nightline.”

Obama will never be at his best around Hillary; she drains him of his magical powers. She’s Jane Jinx to him. It’s a similar syndrome to the one Katharine Hepburn’s star athlete and her supercilious fiancé have in “Pat and Mike.”

The fiancé is always belittling Hepburn, so whenever he’s in the stands, her tennis and golf go kerflooey. Finally, her manager, played by Spencer Tracy, asks the fiancé to stay away from big matches, explaining, “You are the wrong jockey for this chick.”

“You know, except when you’re around, we got a very valuable piece of property here,” he says, later adding, “When you’re around, she’s no good, she’s dead, see?”

The best way Obama can punish Hillary is to reward himself. He’s no good around her, see?

Seeds of Destruction

May 10, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

By BOB HERBERT, NY Times

The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.

Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd.
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Mrs. Clinton.

There is, indeed. There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way — any way — back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train.

He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!

The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.

(Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton’s White House quest, told The Daily News: “I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)

But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

I don’t know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people — or most working-class white people — are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites.

The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president — and they made a complete and utter hash of that historic moment. Having survived the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, you might have thought the Clintons would be on their best behavior.

Instead, a huge scandal erupted when it became known that Mrs. Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, had lobbied the president on behalf of criminals who then received presidential pardons or a sentence commutation from Mr. Clinton.

Tony Rodham helped get a pardon for a Tennessee couple that had hired him as a consultant and paid or loaned him hundreds of thousands of dollars. Over the protests of the Justice Department, President Clinton pardoned the couple, Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, who had been convicted of bank fraud in Alabama.

Hugh Rodham was paid $400,000 to lobby for a pardon of Almon Glenn Braswell, who had been convicted of mail fraud and perjury, and for the release from prison of Carlos Vignali, a drug trafficker who was convicted and imprisoned for conspiring to sell 800 pounds of cocaine. Sure enough, in his last hours in office (when he issued a blizzard of pardons, many of them controversial), President Clinton agreed to the pardon for Braswell and the sentence commutation for Vignali.

Hugh Rodham reportedly returned the money after the scandal became public and was an enormous political liability for the Clintons.

Both Clintons professed to be ignorant of anything improper or untoward regarding the pardons. Once, when asked specifically if she had talked with a deputy White House counsel about pardons, Mrs. Clinton said: “People would hand me envelopes. I would just pass them on. You know, I would not have any reason to look into them.”

It wasn’t just the pardons that sullied the Clintons’ exit from the White House. They took furniture and rugs from the White House collection that had to be returned. And they received $86,000 in gifts during the president’s last year in office, including clothing (a pantsuit, a leather jacket), flatware, carpeting, and so on.

In response to the outcry over that, they decided to repay the value of the gifts.

So class is not a Clinton forte.

But it’s one thing to lack class and a sense of grace, quite another to deliberately try and wreck the presidential prospects of your party’s likely nominee — and to do it in a way that has the potential to undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.

Barack Obama, Reverend Wright, and My Iron Man Suit

Chronicle and John Diaz for the chance to write the essay this video is based on. I've been a supporter of Sen, Barack Obama for President for 17 months, and one large reason is that he's like me. We share the same August 4th birthday, and have walked similar paths of racial discovery. Both of us have carved out our niche as individuals able to walk in different circles and still be ourselves. That's not easy; it comes as those around you tell you what they think your "place" in life should be; it's no wonder that I felt violated by Rev. Jeremiah Wright's National Press Club speech, as much as Senator Obama did.

Pastor Wright made me put on my Iron Man Suit again.

Judgment Day looms for Hillary Clinton the wrecker, London Times

They endorse Barack for hope, but fear that Hillary will play on our fears as Bush did.

From The Sunday Times of London
April 20, 2008 Andrew Sullivan

Even after all the hype, this Tuesday’s vote in Pennsylvania will be a watershed primary election. This isn’t because it could determine whether Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues on its brutal, nihilistic path towards the destruction of the most promising figure in the Democratic party since Kennedy.

It isn’t because it’s been an age since the last primary vote and every nasty toxin in American culture has been drawn to the surface by the Clinton poultice. It isn’t even because Pennsylvania is an indisputably important and large state that any Democrat needs to win in November.

It is because the Clintons have turned Pennsylvania into a microcosm of what they think the general election will be in November. And the Clintons are running as the Rove Republicans. If they fail to destroy Barack Obama as effectively as Karl Rove – Bush’s master of the dark arts – destroyed Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004, with tactics just as brutal but even more personal, then they will have driven American politics to a critical point. They will have shown that the paradigm that has reigned in US politics for at least two decades has been shattered.

That’s what is being tested this coming week. It may be the most important vote in America until the final one in November.

For a month now, Obama has been pummelled by a Democrat in ways I have never witnessed in a primary campaign. Senator Hillary Clinton has directly argued that he is less qualified to be commander-in-chief than the Republican nominee, John McCain. She has said that she doesn’t know for sure that he is not a secret Muslim. She has said his choice of church is unacceptable to her. She has said he deliberately wants many Americans to continue scraping by without health insurance.

Her campaign has insinuated that he was once a drug dealer. Her husband has equated him with the rabble-rousing preacher Jesse Jackson. The Clintons have publicly associated Obama with domestic terrorist William Ayers, with the militant Palestinian group Hamas, and with antisemitic demagogue Louis Farrakhan. And what is remarkable about all this is that most of it was not done by surrogates, but by a former president of the United States against a senator in his own party, and directly by Clinton herself. Every time you think: “Nah, they won’t go there, will they?” – they do.

Right now, in Pennsylvania, Clinton is running only negative advertisements designed to exploit Obama’s gaffe a fortnight ago, when he described some rural Pennsylvanians as bitter, and as “clinging” to some traditional identities because they feel left out of economic and social change. It was a stupid offhand comment, easily misinterpreted, and Obama deserved a hit.

But this is what the Clintons’ actual advertisement says, voiced by several unidentified Pennsylvanians: “I was very insulted by Barack Obama.” “It shows how out of touch Barack Obama is.” “The good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Barack Obama said.”

This is a swing state. For the Clintons baldly to coopt exactly the kind of antielitist rhetoric used to marginalise Democrats by Republicans for three decades is to take the campaign warfare to a whole new level of earth-scorching.

For good measure, the ABC News debate last Wednesday night could have been crafted by Rove. For the first three-quarters of an hour, every conceivable personal attack on Obama was aired by the moderators, including former Clinton protege, George Stephanopoulos.

Obama was asked if his failure to wear an American flag lapel pin at all times was a sign that he didn’t really love America. He was asked if he was an elitist. He was asked if he secretly condoned domestic terrorism, on the grounds that an old 1960s Weather Underground radical had sponsored a fundraiser for him. He was asked whether his former pastor, an ex-marine, was a patriot. And on each occasion, Clinton jumped in to exploit the attacks by the ABC moderators. It was so brutal and unrelenting that you almost looked away.

Obama, moreover, wilted. He didn’t punch back. He seemed completely exhausted, drained, almost detached. I’ve seen him this way before, but never before 10m viewers in prime time. It was his worst performance yet.
In one debate, all the tactics deployed by Republicans since Lee Atwater ran George Bush Sr’s guns-and-flags-and-taxes campaign in 1988 were unloaded on the rookie. Clinton grinned. The next day, her husband said she “did great”. There was almost a liberated sense in the Clinton camp that, finally, they had been able to do to a Democrat what Republicans had done to them for the past two decades: insinuate treason, lack of patriotism, elitist snobbery, countercultural deviance, and every other red-blue hot-button meme that could stroke some electoral erogenous zone somewhere.

Not since the Clintons ran radio ads in 1996, bragging that they had defended American values from homosexuals, had the adoption of pure Republican tactics been so obvious. And this time, it was against a Democrat.

This, the Clintonites tell us, is what the Republicans will do to Obama this autumn. So we’re only showing you! The strategy is to persuade super-delegates that only the Clinton brand can withstand Rove-style attacks, and so foment a revolution before or at the convention to dislodge the candidate with the most pledged delegates and the greatest number of popular votes.

They are, of course, only doing this for the sake of their party, their country and the world. That the tactic also correlates with the Clintons’ recapturing control of a party that was finally moving past them is pure coincidence.

And that’s why Tuesday will be so instructive. Hillary Clinton should win Pennsylvania easily. She had a 20-point lead until relatively recently. And if the Clintons are right about their classic Atwater-Rove tactics, she will win by double-digits after throwing the kitchen sink, the boiler, the couch and the septic tank at her opponent.

However, if Obama keeps her lead to single digits, if he goes on to win in North Carolina and Indiana, if the momentum of the race does not change, something else will be shown.

It will show that the crisis America is in now has made the kind of tactics of the past two decades moot. It will show that the issues of the Iraq occupation, the teetering economy, the unsustainable debt, the collapsing dollar, the constitutional disarray and the moral collapse of the torture programme are now more salient than cultural identity. It will show that the voters actually want to debate something more than lapel pins and who is or is not a secret Muslim or patriot. It will show we are in a new era.

Maybe we’re not. Maybe the old politics and the old patterns have one more turn of the screw to go. Maybe the Clintons are right. And that’s the beauty of democracy. On Tuesday, we will go a long way towards finding out.

Was Bill Stumping for Obama Ahead of Time?

Hillary Clinton: To Bosnia and Back Again

(A note from Greetings: I was checking my "cookies" as I always do on my regular computer. However, I don't do it as much on my laptop.. a Mac. What I found was... from all of my visits to the candidates' sites... only one put tracking cookies on my computer. HillaryClinton.com . If we get that from her campaign, what will her Presidency bring? Do watch the Jed Report below... both funny and scary.)

From The Jed Report
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/bosnia-and-back.html#disqus_thread


Presenting the newest production from The Jed Report -- Bosnia and Back Again, the story of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. AMERICAblog declares it is "the most spectacular display of sniper fire since Tuzla." Senator Clinton plays herself in a performance The Field calls "a paid political ad for John McCain." Watch the trailer now:



The story behind Bosnia and Back Again:

A few days ago, MasterSitsu, a member of the Daily Kos community, sent me an e-mail. His subject line: "OMG I hit the video goldmine." He wasn't kidding -- he had found unbroadcast footage of Hillary Clinton from a 1992 interview on 60 Minutes. MasterSitsu suggested a video highlighting the stark contrast between her rhetoric then and her actions now, and I took his idea and ran with it.

I'd been wanting to put together a video that would serve as a bookend to Hillary in Tuzla: The Story of Bosnian Sniper Fire, but until MasterSitsu sent me the 60 Minutes footage, I hadn't felt like I had enough material to make a strong video.

Another person who helped find a key piece of video for Bosnia and Back Again is Carthage -- who found Clinton's cookies and teas comment.

One interesting side note: the 60 Minutes interview from which the outtakes were pulled was aired after the Superbowl in January 1992 shortly before the New Hampshire primary. At the time, a variety of scandals including charges of marital infidelity threatened to destroy the Clinton campaign, but in this interview the Clintons managed to get his campaign back on track, ultimately sending him to the White House. (None of the outtake footage directly deals with any of the scandals. We're not the business of doing Ken Starr's work here at The Jed Report.)

Hillary unable to answer CAFTA/Colombian ties

Hillary unable to answer questions about CAFTA and Colombian ties to her administration and husband

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyuSYzCqXPQ

The Clinton-Colombia Connection

Did Clinton know that Mark Penn was selling out Colombia's labor movement?

(From Greetings:) The Wall Street Journal wrote, what I felt was a biased editorial on the Mark Penn/Colombian government representation scandal. (As a working American, I couldn't call it any less.

I felt that this op-ed in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, written by the legal counsel to the United Steelworkers (albeit as an individual and not a representative of the union), expressed succinctly the problems with Penn having represented Colombia, Colombia presenting Bill Clinton an award while simultaneously endorsing Senator Clinton and expressing doubts about Senator Obama, and all of the fallout from that - as well as that government's history of ties to "hit squads" on union activists. This Op-Ed should be in front of every working person and journalist in PA and the U.S., as well as as many voters as possible. This is only an excerpt. Click on the link below for the full content. Very well laid out. I don't see this as attacking, but as presenting facts as to who Senator Clinton has running things for her and possible situations that have arisen and will arise from it in the future. It also addressed the Wall Street Journal I mention. I will be adding it to my blog and sending it to any journalists I know.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008 By Daniel Kovalik

(Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer who lives in Highland Park (dkovalik@usw.org). He also works as counsel for the United Steelworkers but this article reflects his personal views.)

For years, Colombia has been the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists. More than 2,300 were killed there since 1991, including 17 in the first three months of this year, according to Colombia's well-respected Semana magazine.

Four of this year's victims were murdered over a four-day period after a spokesman for President Alvaro Uribe characterized a nonviolent march they helped to organize as being "convened" by the Marxist FARC guerillas who have battled the government for decades. Such a characterization, while untrue, is a well-known signal for right-wing paramilitary groups aligned with the government to attack its political opponents.

In the five years of Mr. Uribe's tenure, more than 955 civilians have been murdered directly by the government's soldiers, as well -- a 65 percent increase over the prior five-year period.

Among these also have been union leaders.

As a result of this unprecedented violence against the labor movement, and in light of Mr. Uribe's aggressive anti-union legislation and decrees, fewer than 1 percent of Colombia's workers have the right to bargain collectively with their employers for decent wages or working conditions. This is the lowest level in the Western Hemisphere and a quarter of what it was in Colombia 10 years ago.

Given Mr. Uribe's horrible record on worker and human rights, the U.S. labor movement has joined Colombia's trade unionists in opposing the proposed Free Trade Agreement with Colombia, which would reward Colombia with special trade preferences.

It is against this backdrop that the controversy has arisen over the revelation that Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's now-departed chief campaign adviser, met with Colombian officials in Washington, D.C., last week to plot strategy for gaining passage of the Colombia trade agreement -- even though Mrs. Clinton has claimed for some time to be adamantly opposed to it. President Bush on Monday sent the agreement to Congress for ratification.

While Mr. Penn resigned as chief strategist for the Clinton campaign over the weekend -- after having been fired by the Colombian government -- he remains an adviser. And it is now clear that for more than a year, he had been working simultaneously for the Clinton campaign and the Colombian government, having signed a one-year contract with Colombia last March to help it win passage of the free trade agreement.

As one commentator noted, Mr. Penn's firm had "set up a campaign-style operation to respond immediately to any critical news about Colombia." And in June 2007, while Mr. Penn was advising both the Colombian government and the Clinton campaign, President Uribe came to Washington to lobby for the trade agreement.

During that visit, Mr. Uribe awarded a "Colombia is passion" award "for believing in our country and encouraging others to do the same" to former President Bill Clinton. As the Associated Press reported at the time, the award was given to Mr. Clinton "for his efforts to reverse the country's image for violence and drugs." In other words, Mr. Clinton was awarded for doing the same kind of public relations work for Colombia as Mr. Penn.

All of this makes it more than just a coincidence that Mr. Uribe last week publicly expressed his concern about the prospects of a Barack Obama presidency, effectively endorsing Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Uribe's visit to Washington followed that of a government delegation led by his vice president, Francisco Santos, last May that also was advised by Mr. Penn. Mr. Santos' main mission was to convince members of Congress that the former head of Colombia's FBI (the DAS) had nothing to do with providing paramilitary groups with a hit list of unionists. This turned out to be a lie. As the Miami Herald reported after the Santos delegation left Washington, Mr. Uribe's own attorney general had investigated the allegation and concluded that the head of the DAS had indeed provided the paramilitaries with names of union targets.

What all this means is that Mrs. Clinton's chief adviser had been working aggressively against the U.S. labor movement in its efforts to prevent passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and discover the truth about those responsible for the killing of trade unionists in Colombia.

That Mrs. Clinton, at a minimum, ignored Mr. Penn's role in such mendacious lobbying efforts for a year should be of great concern to those concerned about labor and human rights and who worry about her bona fides on union issues. Even more worrying is the prospect that while Mrs. Clinton says publicly she is against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, she may have knowingly allowed Mr. Penn to give a wink and a nod to the Colombian government to allay any concern it might have about her public position should she become president.

There is some evidence to support this scenario. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Colombian embassy was uncertain as to whether Mr. Penn was working with Colombian officials in his personal capacity or on behalf of the Clinton campaign. It might be that he was doing both.

Not So Superdelegates

Note from Greetings: So this is STILL how the Democratic Party chooses its candidate? The entire country can vote for a candidate, but if the other candidate has friends in local and state offices, then they can receive their votes and win the nomination? Get with it, Democrats, if you want to "be the party of the people" (and not the machine), and if you want to finally win another Presidential election. And if your delegates go other than your state votes, people, then you can hold your local officals who acted as "superdelegates" responsible in your next local election. (Now I know what happened to my first vote as a young voter... it was ignored by the Democratic Party.) Believe it or not, not the only party I always vote for. I'm more an "accountability" person and a populist who believes that the average working person deserves to be heard by both parties.

by Ari Berman, The Nation magazine

The Democratic primary contest is shaping up to be the closest since 1984. The campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are preparing for a delegate battle. If the race goes down to the wire, an elite contingent of superdelegates--unpledged party operatives and elected officials not chosen by primary voters--could play a decisive role, even though most voters don't know they exist. How could the Democratic Party be so, well, undemocratic?

Rewind to the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which showcased the undue influence of the party's old guard. Big-city bosses like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley handed the nomination to Hubert Humphrey, despite Humphrey's support for a deeply unpopular war and the fact that he hadn't won a single primary. As Rick Perlstein recounts in his forthcoming book, Nixonland, Eugene McCarthy won 79 percent of the vote in the Pennsylvania primary but got less than 20 percent of the state's delegates at the convention. The rest were picked by the party machine. The will of the voters was ignored at the convention, and protesters on the streets outside it were met with clubsand tear gas.

Despite the backroom double-dealing, supporters of McCarthy and Robert Kennedy were able to pass a rule at the convention mandating a study of how the party picked its nominee. This rather innocuous effort, initially led by Iowa Governor Harold Hughes, a popular liberal reformer, led to the McGovern Commission, whose 1970 report, Mandate for Reform, led to a sweeping revision of party politics, which greatly expanded the number of primaries and ensured that convention delegates were roughly proportional to primary vote results; drastically reduced the power of party officials to serve as delegates and dictate the choice of nominee; and mandated a greater role for rising forces within the party--young people, women, minorities. The new rules helped catapult two dark horses to the nomination, McGovern himself in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976.

By 1980 the party establishment had seen enough. It struck back with a commission of its own, led by North Carolina Governor James Hunt. It returned power to elected officials and party regulars--the superdelegates, who will make up about 20 percent of the 4,049 delegates at the Democratic convention.

They include all Democratic members of Congress and every governor, but roughly half of them are Democratic National Committee officials elected by state parties, who range from top party operatives to local city council members. Key interests in the party, like labor groups, can also name superdelegates. According to political scientist Rhodes Cook, superdelegates were created as a "firewall to blunt any party outsider that built up a head of steam inthe primaries.

"That's what happened in 1984, when Senator Gary Hart launched an insurgent challenge to front-runner Walter Mondale. Hart won sixteen state primaries and caucuses to Mondale's ten, and barely lost the popular vote. Yet Mondale locked up virtually all the party's 700 or so superdelegates even before the primary began. Hart likely would have lost anyway, but the superdelegates sealed his defeat. "I got almost none of them, because [Mondale] was considered inevitable," Hart told me.

The obvious beneficiary of the superdelegates this time around is another establishment favorite, Hillary Clinton. Before Super Tuesday,Obama had sixty-three pledged delegates, compared with Clinton'sforty-eight. But as we went to press Clinton had a huge advantage in superdelegates, 184 to ninety-five, according to CNN.

"Many of thesuperdelegates were in and out of the Clinton White House, invited to dinners, have received contributions from Clinton allies," says Hart,who has endorsed Obama. "There will be pressure brought to bear to cashin those chips." Clinton has a wealth of contacts to tap, in the party and in her campaign. There's the former President himself, of course, and Clinton'scampaign chair, Terry McAuliffe, who ran the DNC from 2001 to 2005, and a top Clinton surrogate, Harold Ickes, who serves on the DNC's influential rules committee.

The Clintons are working hard to bring the large bloc of uncommitted superdelegates into the senator's camp. "I know Hillary is calling superdelegates regularly, which is a smartplay," says Art Torres, California Democratic Party chair. Interviews with superdelegates in Alabama, California, Colorado and Massachusetts--a random sample of February 5 states--illustrate this close attention. After Ramona Martinez, a Denver city councilwoman, switched her support from Bill Richardson to Clinton,she received immediate thank-you calls from McAuliffe and Clinton adviser Ann Lewis. In Alabama "Hillary would get the majority of the superdelegates," predicts state party chair Joe Turnham. "A lot ofit is longstanding relationships. People go back to the 1980s with Bill Clinton, when he first came to Alabama."

There's often a disconnect between the choices of rank-and-file Democrats and the preferences of superdelegates. In Colorado, Martinez admits, "Obama has a lot more troops on the ground." Obama is expected to do well in Alabama, whose African-American population matches SouthCarolina's. Even so, the Obama campaign argues that the tally among superdelegates is closer than reported in the media--and that the so-called uncommitted delegates lean his way. "Bill and Hillary got what they could," says a senior Obama campaign adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They picked the low- to-midhanging fruit. The rest of the superdelegates remain neutral or undecided and may be resistant to theClinton pull.

"There's disagreement within the party about how many of the 400-plus uncommitted superdelegates have yet to make up their minds."There's a lot of people claiming to be undecided," says Pomona,California, mayor Norma Torres, a superdelegate who backs Obama. "I think by now they've decided, but they don't want to say. "Superdelegates are notoriously fickle, and can swap candidates at anytime. Before the 2004 Iowa caucuses, for example, Howard Dean enjoyed acommanding lead among superdelegates. But after his disappointing third-place finish, they jumped ship, rallying around the eventualnominee, John Kerry.

The same thing could happen to Clinton if Obama wins enough primaries and establishment support. And with John Edwards out of the race, he could advise his superdelegates to switch their allegiance, presumably to Obama.

No matter what happens with the superdelegates this year, it's unsettling to have a large bloc of party officials who are not answerable to the party's electorate. "I certainly think their influence should be curtailed," Hart says. In 1988 Jesse Jackson won the primary in Puerto Rico over Michael Dukakis. Yet a month later, Puerto Rico's governor instructed his fifty-one delegates to back Dukakis. "This is clearly machine politics," Jackson wrote then, "and should have nothing to do with the 1988 campaign."

The 2008 campaign has again exposed the undemocratic influence of the superdelegate elite. But just as the activists of '68 pushed aside the party bosses, forty years later voters can demand that the party's nominee reflect their choice.

If you like this article, please consider subscribing to The Nation atspecial discounted rates. You can order online athttps://ssl.thenation.com/sumo/EMAILARTLINK