How Many Americans Understand Hillary?

A note of personal disgust to Hillary Clinton's remarks concerning NAFTA in the Boston Globe:

"With NAFTA, Bill and Hillary Clinton really stuck it to rural America, Mudcat told me, though in slightly more graphic terms. So when Clinton visited the Globe this week I asked her about that charge...Clinton, however, wasn't about to get into a hissing match with a Mudcat. 'I understand politics, so I understand making charges, but I don't think the evidence is there to support that,' she concluded." Scott Lehigh's column, Boston Globe, October 12, 2007

Is there anybody out there who would dare question that Hillary Clinton understands politics? I certainly do not. I have never, never heard, nor will I ever, ever say that the Clintons don't understand politics. Everybody on the planet knows they are the standard of measure in the practice of politics. So you just read her comment in the October 12 edition of The Boston Globe, "I don't think the evidence is there to support that." To highlight Hillary's impeccable understanding of politics, let's move back four days to her statement in USA Today for the supporting evidence (from the horse's mouth) on NAFTA's devastation to rural and blue-collar America.

"I think we do need to take a deep breath and figure out how we can make it (NAFTA) work for the greatest number of people," she told USA Today. Clinton said NAFTA's benefits have gone to the wealthy and cost jobs for working people. Susan Page, USA Today, October 8, 2007

First, it is callous and offensive to the many Americans who have been "sucking wind" due to Clinton trade policies for Hillary to tell them "to take a deep breath." Secondly, Hillary, you want more "supporting evidence" other than your own statement? Top-tier economists, many who were tricked on these ill-thought, ill-negotiated, ill-enforced, and erroneously presented to Congress trade treaties, are now taking a second look themselves. Former Clinton official and Berkeley economist Brad DeLong, Clinton Treasury secretary Larry Summers, Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson, and a former vice chair of the Fed, Princeton's Alan Blinder, have all voiced strong concerns. Blinder has gone so far as to argue that off shoring and outsourcing of American jobs could ship away as many as 40 million jobs in the next two decades.

The reason Hillary is distancing herself from the trade treaties, rather than continuing to talk about ridiculous "unintended consequences," is because she "understands politics" like nobody else. In the early primary states, Iowa and South Carolina have lost twice as many jobs to NAFTA than they gained, and in New Hampshire, they have lost two-and-a-half times more jobs than they gained. The bottom line is that the Clintons did a number on small-town rural America and blue-collared workers everywhere. To get in tight with the big boys, they brokered a deal to trade local economies, jobs, and benefits (code word: healthcare) for Wall Street dividends. I think the greatest verifier to the validity of that last statement is on the cover of Fortune back in July. The headline over a posed shot of Hillary says "BUSINESS LOVES HILLARY! WHO KNEW IT?" I'll tell you who knows it. Many, many rural and blue-collared Americans know it. That cover is a perfect illustration as to why Hillary can not win the general election and why the collateral damage to the down ticket of her toxic coat-tails could cost us Congress. The question is not whether Hillary "understands politics," but instead, how many of us understand Hillary.

Comments

[OtayPanky]

The proof is going to be in the pudding, for Mudcat and everyone else who despises Billary for her hypocrisy and double-dealing.

When the general election comes, Mudcat, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, and write in John Edwards name?

Or are you going to become one of the errant sheep brought back to the fold over the fear of a stacked SCOTUS?

That's a direct question, Mudcat. I'm asking you man to man...and I'd appreciate a direct answer.

[Pdubya]

Oh, I understand her. My Mom warned me about people like her.

[KevinHayden]

It's not just rural workers hurt by awful trade agreements. It's Americans everywhere outside of corporate boardrooms­.Republica­ns, independents and Democrats alike.

And all of it was warned about before the agreements were passed.

The evidence confirms that the people and groups who advocate for middle class workers were right from the beginning.

Yet too many workers believe Hilary can recreate the technological revolution that helped spur wage increases in the Nineties, a temporary economic shift that NAFTA and GATT continue to erode.

[milo9]

If she's elected just think of the cross-fire she'll encounter. Both right and left will be gunning for her if her policies are to be more of the same. She's going to need all the extra judicial powers that Bush is intent on bequeathing her.

[hugs4u]

She wont be elected because the left doesnt like her any better then the right does.

[plutorage]

We may find out to our dismay that politics is the ONLY thing Hilary understands well.

Has she ever done anything else??? No, and that is why she lacks understanding of the real world, the world her politics is meant to serve.

[wangmo]

Far more likely youll find out Hillary Clinton understands many things very well, including mothering a very lovely bright daughter and how to save her marriage under extraordinary circumstances, and how to maintain her dignity after 15 years of being the target of unrelenting witch hunts sponsored by the Neocon think tanks and financed to the tune of over $70M by Richard (the Wretched) Mellon-Scaife. And I'm quite sure if she were called upon to do it she could win the cookie baking contest with the Mormon lady. OH, BTW, guys who know her, really know her, say she's got a great sense of humor and is very warm hearted. People in this country are truly too stupid to realize there actually ARE women in America who are good woman, who have high IQs who can run a country very well, and a sense of humor, have dignity, have...oh the list of her good qualities go on and on. The point is much of our imbecilic public (thanks Ronnie for destroying the Educational system of America 35 years ago) feels threatened by a woman who is that lovely, talented, good, and brilliant, and dignified. She makes their Rush Limbaugh lives look as pathetic and stupid as they actually are. Rather than being inspired and uplifted by Hillary's example as they should be, they're the vicious little jealous people who want to tear her down. Sort of like that pack of Neocons led by Newt, Rush, Starr, et all, who were clearly felt masculinit­y-threaten­ed and intimidated by Bill Clinton's power and charisma. These little people get their sense of power by tearing down the finer people in our Country and I think its tiime for any Americans who aren't trolls and therefore can't help themselves, to step forward and disallow the abuse of the Finest any longer. Go get your nets up for Coulter, Malkin, Beck, Savage, and the rest of the truly psycho neocons who've got nothing but hate to add to the national dialogue.

[JustAnotherJoe]

Jobs exported? No benefits? Not competitive enough with workers who will do the same job for a whole lot less? It's not NAFTA's fault, it's public education's. More testing is needed. More accountabi­lity.(Repe­at ad infinitum until you believe it.)

[Henry]

Ahhhh...yo­u've got it!

[Doofus]

Actually, 'more testing' shows you where you
need to put more 'emphasis' (i.e. money) into
teaching. Unfortunately we have no more money
to use for that, so we'll just do more testing.

Testing is way easier than teaching, and way more profitable too.

[BeyondKen]

>Iowa and South Carolina have lost twice as many jobs to NAFTA..
I don't know about poor S. Carolina but the unemployment rate here in Iowa is 3.9% (Although it was lower during the Clinton Admin.)

>Kendo Nagasaki: Engineering Ph.D's are now retraining for jobs at McDonalds.
Tell them to move to Iowa. Engineers with a Bachelor's degree earn $55 an hour here.

[Horst]

Clinton not only gave us NAFTA but the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Hillary has to be one of the biggest hypocrites running...­.and that is really saying something.

[bobble]

Hillary loves H1B work visas too. Just this morning, my co-worker got laid off after 25 years of service. But the company is still hiring Indian workers at 20% less cost than American workers. There's your future people.

[Henry]

Dave:
You should present a little more sophistication in your write-down. Hillary? Now come on. The whole shootin match was for free trade. That includes Ronald Reagan right on the spectrum to Slick Willie.
You've got to realize that we live in a country that is by, for, and of big business. Don't kid yourself. China has been cheating under WTO rules. What has a republican congress or a republican prznit done? The answer is nada. And Hillary, she's going to step in an take the punch bowl away from fat cat republicans? Marshall Dillon was only a tv figure. Nobody is coming in to clean up this town.

[paige]

Henry, what you are saying is that there will be no middle class at all anymore? Roosevelt's new deal has successfully be overturned by the last several asses that occupied the White House?

[Henry]

Paige, I think the country is governed by the big biz fat-cats and our "elected" politicians are responsible to them. And...sinc­e they are a greedy lot, there is less there for the worker bees.
For example...­look at Goldman Sachs in our government­... Rubin, Paulson, Bolton (yikes) and look at the influence they have on China trade.

[JimR]

The New Deal? Wasn't the intent of the New Deal programs to help people get by during the Depression? The middle class didn't emerge till later, right? Around the Fifties?

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do think times are different now. We live in a global economy and the old rules don't apply. Aren't we all better served by focusing on how to make American goods and services more competitive?

[FearlessFreep]

"The whole shootin' match was for free trade."

Not Ross Perot.

[JimR]

"You can put a hog in the henhouse, but that don't mean you're gonna get eggs for breakfast. Am I makin' myself clear? Does that - will you please let me finish? Let me finish!

Now as I was sayin', the barn door's open, but the hay's still in the field. I think I've made my point, so let's move on."

[Swampfish]

The bottom line is that the Clintons did a number on small-town rural America and blue-collared workers everywhere. To get in tight with the big boys, they brokered a deal to trade local economies, jobs, and benefits (code word: healthcare) for Wall Street dividends.




********Gee I couldn't say it any better.And yet still apparently Americans are getting in line to vote for the same person (Clinton)who helped to send their jobs away.whoop­-dee-woo

[bobsmith]

"And yet still apparently Americans are getting in line to vote for the same person (Clinton)who helped to send their jobs away."

----

1. Not a single vote will be cast for some time yet.

2. I have yet to speak with a single Iowan who doesn't outright despise HRC, and I have asked others who say they haven't encountered a single person who supports her either. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but these polls cannot be right.

If people would ignore all this crap, and just go in and support whoever is most closely aligned with their personal interests, Kucinich would get the nomination. The polls exist to manipulate us into: 1) supporting perceived winners, or 2) voting "strategically" under the illusion that we're denying the nomination to a worse candidate. It's all a big con, and the populace falls for it every time.

Ignore the polls, support Kucinich, and let the chips fall where they may.

[MagisterLudi]

Re."have yet to speak with a single Iowan who doesn't outright despise HRC."
HmmmBob,
Des MoinesRegister: Clinton ahead with 29%, displacing Edwards, now at 23%, from the top spot. Obama is at 22%, Kucinch at 3 %

Bob is falling for classic "Don't believe your eyes, believe me" syndrome.

[richstue]

I do not trust Hillary. She takes her money from the same interests that Bush does and yet so many think she is the change needed at this time. I do not think so. We need radical change in this country and it wont come from someone wedded to the military industrial complex. She sells out the interests of working americans and then spins herself as pro working people. The experience of the average worker must be foreign to her. Under the current system we get the likes of Hillary. How many backroom deals has she agreed to already? I hope that a real progressive gets the nod. She can be exposed as a fake . Lets hope someone with something substantial comes forth and knocks her out of the front runner status.

[mcostello]

I do not trust the polls. Most of the center liberals I know don't like her, but feel that she is a juggernaut.
She is clearly a very disciplined campaigner, but she is doing the classic dance of talking populism, while quietly walking the corporate walk with a wink wink nudge nudge.
I am not fooled.

[rkrenke]

I agree with mcostello that the current polls are very deceiving. The Democrats I talk to understand what Hillary is all about - more of the same.

I do not believe she will make it through the primaries.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Engineering Ph.D's are now retraining for jobs at McDonalds.

Don't let Bill Gates, Tom Friedman and Chris Mathews con you that we need more.

[Doofus]

'"I think we do need to take a deep breath and
figure out how we can make it (NAFTA) work for
the greatest number of people," she told USA
Today. Clinton said NAFTA's benefits have gone
to the wealthy and cost jobs for working people.'

To be successful in America, you definitely need
to go and become something of a capitalist.
Start with some cattle futures, maybe, and
then become one of the 'wealthy'.

Make NAFTA & America work for you, so to speak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

[mcostello]

Doofus,
are you agreeing with her?
I would ask her: why do we need to "learn to live with NAFTA"? Does it really benefit America?
Watching Ken Burn's documentary on WWII makes one realize that what made us powerful was our manufacturing base.
The informatio­n/securiti­es economy is wonderfully lucrative, but do are we safe from a militarized, manufacturing country?
And that is only one way NAFTA fails us.

[Doofus]

Not quite aqreeing with her. America works
best for capitalists, so when all else fails,
become a capitalist. That's the hidden message
in everything the DLC (& the Repos) have to
tell US. No doubt Greenspan & the Libertarians
would also agree.

When it's cheaper to buy a box of nails from
China than to get them made here, we are going
to get them from China. That apparently will apply
to Abrams tanks at some point also.

If you don't have Free Trade, then what *do* you have?

No, I do not quite agree. I am totally bemused.

[leaglebob]

Or better yet understand politics? As in, anyone successful is corrupt and anyone not corrupt is an idealogue of some type or another not competent "in total" to lead America?

We might think "the gravity" of the Clintons is to support universal healthcare and kiddies but what will they decide to actually do? As in, one can assume their gravity is to support labor but they gave us NAFTA and their gravity is to use the military only as a last resort but she continues their funding and location in Iraq.

Is her ultimate aim even liberal any more? She is so triangulating and bought and paid for, we'll never know Hilliary.

Vote AGAINST ALL ENCUMBENTS.

[DocTwain]

Vote against all incumbents?

You're insane.

What about Kucinich?

Vote out the Blue Dogs and the DLC!

[leaglebob]

Given they are all encumbents, voting them all out means not much of a vote this year? But the long term effect of immediately returning these political profiteers could be very beneficial over a longer term.

Of all the candidates, yes Kucinich has the better actually held (might do something consistent with it) positions.

I am very much in favor of the cascading vote--eg 1st for Kucinich, 2nd for Edwards maybe even #3 for Ron Paul==then cascade them down until you get a majority winner. That way, voting for one minority prefered candidate doesn't elect the exact opposite from the other party. but we will NEVER see that popular will implemented.