RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Paul Krugman: "It would be much easier, of course, for Democrats to draw a line if Mr. Obama would do his part. But all indications are that the party will have to look elsewhere for the leadership it needs."

Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)

Freezing Out Hope

Paul Krugman, The New York Times

03 December 10

After the Democratic "shellacking" in the midterm elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?

On Monday, we got the answer: he announced a pay freeze for federal workers. This was an announcement that had it all. It was transparently cynical; it was trivial in scale, but misguided in direction; and by making the announcement, Mr. Obama effectively conceded the policy argument to the very people who are seeking - successfully, it seems - to destroy him.

So I guess we are, in fact, seeing what Mr. Obama is made of.

go to original article your social media marketing partner


-36 # Brad Sandler 2010-12-03 12:36
OK, now we know. Paul Krugman doesn't care about the American economy, or the American system of capitalism. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that Federal workers are sucking our hard earned tax dollars almost directly from our pockets. Every single one of them eats caviar, prime rib, and lobster every night. Bought at specialty stores by their (undocumented) servents. I for one think that President Bush, I mean Obama, should have cut their pay instead of freezing it. And then Krugman openly admits he want to increase taxes on the most productive Americans. Now they won't have enough money to pay our meager wages anymore. That would be a disaster. Good thing there will be no unemployment gifts from those that are still working so we will have an incentive to work side by side with undocumented laborers for whatever the rich that are left can afford to pay us.
+14 # Joe Grinnan 2010-12-03 13:06
OK, this is a put on, a send up of a right wing nut case. Right?
+24 # Brad Sandler 2010-12-03 13:42
Yes, its a put on.

Sometimes sarcasm is the only way I can cope with their insanity.

Sorry if anyone thought I was serious, but it appeared obvious to me when I wrote it.
+11 # Ken Hall 2010-12-03 19:12
Brad, there are many right wing nut jobs that could have (and probably did) write almost exactly your words in some cruel and uncompassionate screed, and they were sincere. Rush Limpass probable stated this word for word in one of his mindless rants. So don't be surprised that some people might take you seriously. There is a large part of the US electorate that can't put 2 and 2 together and come up with the correct mathematical answer.
+7 # Robert Hodge 2010-12-03 21:24
While I noted the sarcasm of the comment relatively soon, it DID take just a quick read back to confirm it. Additionally I must concur with the subsequent commentaries, that some of the readers with, shall we say, "short sighted ideologies" who might view the initial post as truth, have expressed broadly the notion of Obama as a "Career Criminal"! (I know!, WHAT "career"?) The transference of "career" from bushco to Obama without skipping a beat, leads me to conclude that we are dealing with VERY short sighted people, and it behooves us to be VERY CLEAR with our opinions with regard to just who we are referring to... In other words... bush: "Career" criminal - Obama: not - (yet).
+3 # Mikal H. 2010-12-04 20:39
President Obama continues the unconscionable war (occupation) in Iraq and revved up the war in Afghanistan, so yes, he IS a criminal. I doubt he will get the chance to be a career criminal.
+20 # Robert Thomas 2010-12-03 13:10
I loved your cynical Meriken exceptionalism rant. How many jobs did those Bush tax cuts create? ZERO. He's the only President in U.S. history who can claim that. ZERO JOB GROWTH. And now when Corporations are reporting record profits still no job growth. If you can't see the greed that's destroying this country then your head must be so high up your arse to be able to pull it out.
+10 # Brad Sandler 2010-12-03 13:48
It was a joke.

And my head is not now, nor has it ever been, up my arse, nor anyone else's arse.
+4 # Robert Hodge 2010-12-03 21:27
I think he was well aware of the "joke". I believe his "you" reference with regard to the "greed that's destroying..." was the plural "you" and not directly attributable to 'you' personally. "You" meaning "us/we".

The perils of language! Especially given the lack of emotion being attached....
+6 # genierae 2010-12-04 08:29
Yes, the tone is lost here, and when we post tongue-in-cheek comments, we sometimes get a lot of flack. Maybe we should write "Just kidding" at the end of the comment.
+5 # RealM5 2010-12-03 13:15
It may not be obvious but this post has to be completely facetious.
+7 # Saje Williams 2010-12-03 14:56
It was the line "Every single one of them..." that did it for me. At this point I knew it was sarcasm, but no one remotely sane could believe this.
+2 # Brad Sandler 2010-12-03 16:06
That was why I put it there, Thanks.

Its scary (based on the negative votes) how many people believed it was real. Are the righties that far over the edge?
+4 # Austin Loomis 2010-12-04 10:36
Quoting Brad Sandler:
Its scary (based on the negative votes) how many people believed it was real. Are the righties that far over the edge?


This has been another inciting exstallment of "Snappy Answers to Sane People's Questions".
+8 # Bob R. 2010-12-03 16:51
Had me fooled. It's exactly the way they sound.
-2 # Tim Nissen 2010-12-07 09:41
I am more disappointed in Mr. Krugman than I am in Mr. Obama, who the harder job. I too am disappointed in our failure to end irrational tax cuts for the rich. But unlike Mr. Krugman I see I do not lay this failure at Mr. Obama's feet, but at the feet of an electorate too apathetic and ignorant to give Mr. Obama the legislative majorities he needs to accomplish liberal objectives.
+1 # rf 2010-12-09 06:51
Love it!
-11 # HeidiStevenson 2010-12-03 12:36
I was a great fan of Krugman. His insight and predictions seemed spot-on. But over the last year, something has become apparent about his views. In the end, Krugman is a member of the establishment. Certainly, he's a proud liberal. Sadly, though, he can't seem to separate himself from the realities of this time. Democrats are nothing better than Republicans lite - going in the same direction, just a tad more slowly (p'rhaps). So, he sees Obama as a fool, not what he is: a sellout to the real powers-that-be.

Worse, he accepts the basic tenet of capitalism, that growth is good, that it defines a healthy economic system. As long as he does that, he lives in an artificial world, one that has seemed real for a long time, but must ultimately collapse because it's based on the fraud that a healthy economy must continuously grow.

It's sad, but Krugman is a part of the system, one who confuses even himself with the idea that he's a liberal. But, he never considers the real costs of capitalism - the people around the world whose lives are devastated for US profits, the environments utterly destroyed, the climate change.

Krugman supports a failed system.
+19 # Brad Sandler 2010-12-03 13:00

Capitalism fails only when it is left unchecked and as the universal solution to all economic and social concerns. There is not now, nor has there ever been an invisible hand. We form governments to be the hand and modify the excesses of Captalism. Socialism serves as mechanism to help counteract the excess. Both economic models work, when they are used in concert and are regularly reviewed and revised to current conditions. That is the role of a goverment. Too far to the left it becomes Communism, too far to the right it becomes Facism. Both are inherently an autocratic non-democratic economic/politi cal system. We are leaning way, way too close to Facism right now. Paul Krugman may not tack quite as much to the left as you would like, but he does understand the advantage of a dual economic system.
+5 # HeidiStevenson 2010-12-03 14:15
Brad, I cannot agree. The basic assumption of capitalism, that growth defines success, must fail. Growth cannot go on indefinitely in any system. If it cannot function without it, then it holds the seeds of its own destruction.

My issue with Krugman has nothing to do with whether he believes in socialism. It has nothing to do with left and right. It has everything to do with his acceptance of an economic system that must ultimately fail, and makes judgements on the political situation using the wrong frame of reference.

I'll stay away from the subject of socialism, as it wasn't the point of the discussion.
+3 # Brad Sandler 2010-12-03 16:03
Fair enough, lets address growth alone.

You are probably correct that there is a finite end to growth, but can you, or anyone else tell me how big is too big?

I am not sure that growth necessarily defines success. In fact, I would say you have it backwards. First, you define success, then, you build a system to achieve it.

But that being said, I do agree that using growth as a criteria for success is doomed to failure.

Just to get back to my original post. I advocate a mixed economic system where the system ias designed to achieve a stable economic environment managed by a political structure that implements policy toward that goal. I believe Proffesor Krugman would not disagree. And until we know all the limits, growth is a tool for achieving that end.
+2 # pbbrodie 2010-12-03 16:36
So, if we accept what you say at face value, what system do you propose to use to replace regulated capitalism? If you were to sit down with Mr. Krugman, what would you tell him to support to replace the capitalist system?
+4 # HeidiStevenson 2010-12-04 04:35
The presumption that the person pointing out a flaw is then obligated to find the solution is flawed thinking. It is not necessary to validate the truth of the flaw by offering a solution. Indeed, discussion of the pros or cons of that purported solution merely redirects the discussion away from the topic.

To reiterate my points:

The inherent flaw of capitalism, the seed of its destruction - along with the destruction of everything around it, as it turns out - is its definition of profits as the singular purpose, coupled with growth as a necessary adjunct.

If Krugman were as important as so many think he is, he'd be grappling with that. But he isn't. He's supporting a system that is now clearly not viable, a system that has brought about the situation that he's complaining of. He supports what the Fed is doing, for crying out loud! He still supports the Democrats, as if there's a real difference between them and Republicans.
+4 # BradFromSalem 2010-12-04 10:27

You make some excellant points, but I think you are missing the point. How much growth is too much growth? For that matter what is growth? I am not being facetious. I am serious, because until we know the end of the road, how do we know when to stop?
+2 # Dan Cullen 2010-12-05 13:54
Quoting HeidiStevenson:
Brad, I cannot agree. The basic assumption of capitalism, that growth defines success, must fail. Growth cannot go on indefinitely in any system. If it cannot function without it, then it holds the seeds of its own destruction.

My issue with Krugman has nothing to do with whether he believes in socialism. It has nothing to do with left and right. It has everything to do with his acceptance of an economic system that must ultimately fail, and makes judgements on the political situation using the wrong frame of reference.

I'll stay away from the subject of socialism, as it wasn't the point of the discussion.

Can't there be a sustainable capitalism?
+3 # genierae 2010-12-04 08:52
Ms. Stevenson: I agree that capitalism, as a top priority, does not work. Growth is good to a point, but after that point, efficiency is increasingly sacrificed. I offer a personal example: AT&T used to be a well-run, customer-orient ed company, but now that it has become a behemoth, it has lost its ability to satisfy its customers. I became so frustrated at its indifference to my complaints that I switched recently to a local phone/internet company, where I can talk to local people. Growth (greed) has gotten in the way of good service, with these huge corporations, and until the common good is placed before profits, capitalism will continue to cause much misery.

Another point: Walmart has grown to such an extent that it has pushed out most of the smaller, local chain stores, that give customers more product variety, and better customer service. Too much growth takes away from consumer choices, and that is never a good thing.
+1 # tomo 2010-12-04 20:08
Heidi: I've been reading Herman Daly (University of Maryland) a lot lately. He agrees with you that a basic problem is that we've uncritically equated improvement with growth. He's trying to work out a notion of "development" that is distinct from the notion of "growth." But Daly will still say (as I think Krugman is in part saying lately) that INEQUALITY of income and wealth at the magnitude we see today is also in need of correction. Investment in a stimulus package, paid for partly by an increase in taxes on the very wealthy, could do a lot to put money in greater circulation than it is now. Even if you don't like the idea of "growth" perhaps you can buy into the notion that an economy in which money is circulating more freely would be a better economy.
+4 # dale Johnson 2010-12-03 12:40
Yes, another face of Obama Bust.
+9 # Yakpsyche 2010-12-03 13:10
Sad, sad, sad state of the USA.
+13 # Jane Gilgun 2010-12-03 13:17
I think this is a great column. I supported Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. She had withstood many years of attack on her character and on her beliefs. She stood and watched as many people tried to destroy her husband. She had toughened up through all of the attacks and still wanted to be president. She was the right person at the right time for me. I was concerned that Barack Obama had not experienced years of attack on his personhood, his beliefs, and his policies. I did not think he could stand up to the barrage of degradation. I supported Obama once he got the nomination. I am sorry that I was right that he cannot stand up to those who don't play fair. I can't believe that he still expects a dialogue from those people. Paul Krugman has nailed some significant points about our president. Stand up to them or stand down, Mr. President.
+10 # Ryan Langemeyer 2010-12-03 14:31
Jane... please... have you read the State Department cables (released by Wikileaks) from Hillary? She and her husband are equal partners in the charade that is "democracy" in this country. They ALL serve their masters that occupy the top 1%. Obama and Clinton are part of the team. They are getting rich by betraying the country. Please do not try to rehabilitate Hillary. She is a lost cause.
+7 # Alexander Corbluth 2010-12-03 15:49
Jane Gilgun shares my view and sentiments. She and Paul Krugman are right.

President Obama, Stand up to them or step down!
-2 # AliceW 2010-12-03 16:41
Well said. I was a Clinton supporter as well and have wondered many times over the last few months how things would be different if Hillary had won the nomination (which she would have if Edwards wasn't in Iowa). I'd love to hear what people think.
-3 # Sharon Toji 2010-12-04 01:12
When Obama got the nomination, even though I worked very hard for him, I actually cried. Hillary Clinton knows how to fight back. On top of that, through her White House experience, I believe she would have been able to do the nuts and bolts work of government much better. Obama should have agreed to be her VP, and I think after one or two terms he would have been ready to be an effective president. However, the Obamas (not the Clintons), are the most ambitious people in politics, and didn't want to wait "their turn."

As for the Wikileaks, give me a break. If he was able to leak the diplomatic traffic from other countries, you would find that ours is probably mild in comparison. It seems to me most of the conversation is pretty much what you would expect from people talking among themselves trying to figure out what to do about world problems. It's pretty innocuous. The main damage is from posting it all over the world and embarrassing our allies -- not from the conversations themselves, which were meant to be private.
+6 # genierae 2010-12-04 08:58
I think that Hillary Clinton has a lot of good qualities, but she is a hawk, and that puts her off my list as presidential material. Anyone who promotes war with Iran is not thinking clearly, and cannot be the one to lead this country to peace.
+3 # Dan Cullen 2010-12-05 13:58
How would Hillary be different? The problem with Obama is that he is too Clintonesque. Just look at her position on the diplomatic Wikileaks fiasco. She's calling for Assange's head when she should be glad that all the cards are now on the diplomatic least on our end.
+17 # bjw 2010-12-03 13:21
Those were my thoughts as well when I heard about the freeze....anoth er un-stimulus move putting another large segment of the economy in a mood to scale back on everything except saving for a not- so- bright future. I cannot see this helping the recovery or impressing anyone favorably. His supporters are getting lumps of coal in their stockings while the super rich get shiny new playthings.
+17 # Barbara Humphrey 2010-12-03 13:24
I have not ended by love affair with Paul Krugman, and only wish he could find a way into the White House as a policy adviser. He is right on--if Obama caves on tax cuts for the wealthy, it is time for Dems to find a new leader or a new party. I have already started looking around.
+17 # Sandra 2010-12-03 13:43
I had a moment of clarity last week. I came to the conclusion that Obama is a Wall Street tool and never intended to fulfill the promise of "change we can believe in". He lied about where his campaign funding came from, he lied about supporting a public option and it seems he lied about the tax cuts. As I remember, he was going to do something about that fist off. Then he said it would be best to let them expire. Now he says we need to accept this as a compromise. A compromise to what? The only people he fights against are the people who got him elected in the first place. I'm done with him.
-3 # Phil Bowler 2010-12-03 17:17
Sandra, I'm sorry that you're disappointed with the President. You mentioned that he "is a Wall Street Tool and never intended to fulfill the promise of "change we can believe in"." Wasn't there a bill of Wall Street Reform that he pushed for passage that was passed? Do you think Wall Street's in love with the President for this? Didn't we get a Health Care Bill, the first in our History? Didn't he promise to responsibly wind down the war in Iraq and troops have left Iraq? Didn't he say he would begin to deal with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" within his first term in office? I've heard and read that he's against extending the Bush Tax Cuts but, was willing to work out a compromise with the Republicans so long as it didn't go against a core principal - give tax relief to the Middle-class. I don't see him rushing to accept the Republican plan. We'll have to wait and see the final out come on this. In the meantime, let us not rush to judgement because the President acts with class and dignity rather than jump in the mach - pit to slug it out with opponents much to the chagrin of pugilists.
+9 # ME Browning 2010-12-03 20:17
I share Sandra's view. Maybe we haven't been getting the straight dope in the news these past two years. With the vast majority of media outlets owned by corporate war-profiteers, and government oversight a quaint thing of the past, I'll be the first to concede the possibility. But back in 2008, I heard a very different voice in candidate Barack Obama than I hear in this president. Yes, he's done some good things. But time after time, he has caved to those who promised to undo him. Obama's penchant for repeated compromise in the face of willful obstruction is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement with Adolf Hitler. I supported candidate Obama with my hard-earned money and my hard-won vote. But unless President Obama stands up to the Republican thugs in Congress and on Wall Street, and soon, he won't have my vote in 2012.
+7 # Dan Fletcher 2010-12-04 02:00
Phil, what you are saying, to put it kindly, is a load of crap. The Wall Street Reform bill might as well have been written by Wall Street. The Health Care Bill is an utter travesty that won't save the consumer a penny and will leave many millions uncovered. He absolutely did not wind down the war in Iraq. Our mercenaries outnumber our troops now and that is the only substantial difference and the door has been opened for future extensions. As for "Don't Tell Don't Ask", dealing with that is almost a no brainer. Why would he even begin to entertain any compromise on the Bush tax cut bill in any manner what so ever? If he does he has abdicated his last chance to salvage any chance for credibility and will lose his base forever. His freeze on Federal salaries: will he ever quit throwing people to the wolves in order to appease the Republinazi's? If he had any integrity at all, why would he sacrifice these people for absolutely nothing, and I do mean nothing at all. As for his "class and dignity" he can just shove it. I want a street fighter in the White House and not a wimp. Shades of Neville Chamberlaine! He should refrain from any thought of ever holding public office again.
+7 # True Progressive 2010-12-03 13:59
Isn't it time that Progressives start a dump Obama in '12 movement? Like NOW, the sooner the better to serve notice on that jellyfish that we need a leader, not a sop or a punching bag for the right.
+13 # sewsjill 2010-12-03 14:04
"Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake." he is spreaking of me, a "once-fervent supporter", and that is said the past-tense..... .......I keep waiting for the announcement from the White House that Obama has changed parties and is now a republican, he might as well state what has become obvious. This kind of lame action will NOT get my vote in 2012.
+8 # Tyrone 2010-12-03 14:23
Karl Rove must be laughing his ass off. Time for a new political party.
+11 # giraffe 2010-12-03 14:37
I think it's up to Congress - There are Reps and Senators "speaking" up -

Some are not being defensive - and we need to be ON THE OFFENSIVE. As long as Obama goes to Afghanistan or wherever and does not SUPPORT or OFFER compromise with the R's - maybe we can survive without his "leadership"

Personally, I wonder if his life has been threatened because we are seeing a different FACE since 11/2/2010 in his rhetoric. Any thoughts?
+8 # LM 2010-12-03 17:02
I wonder too, if his or family members' lives have been threatened.
We all better take to the streets before it's too late. Let's unite behind the banner of restoring and increasing regulations and laws that monitor and control corporate greed and power.
Don't you agree that that should be the main goal of progressives and the left?
+2 # ME Browning 2010-12-06 12:42
If you're the President of the United States, threats are a part of the game. If Obama is cowed by such threats, and if it clouds or changes his judgment on behalf of the country, you should never have run for public office in the first place.
+6 # genierae 2010-12-04 09:09
giraffe: I also wonder at the about-face of such a passionate man. He seems to almost be a different person, and his capitulation to Republicans is inexplicable. It may be that the office of President of the United States has been taken over by corporate elites, and he is held hostage by a shadow government. This is a very real possibility, and if its true, our government may be beyond recovery. Its time for a grass-roots revolution to take our country back, one community at a time.
+13 # NLM 2010-12-03 14:39
As a supporter of Obama since the beginning I am continually disappointed with his "compromises" He has given up and if he doesn't FIGHT for the repeal of the tax for the wealthy, he has betrayed everyone. Nothing will be accomplished from this time forward! This is a devastating time for our democracy. Another LEADER is needed. We are on the road to fascism ....and will the representatives ever vote themselves a tax cut??
+15 # Mountaingal 2010-12-03 14:48
Its time, people to either go to the streets or accept the oligarchy. For all the Bush years, and now the 2 Obama years, nothing has changed, has indeed gotten worse. For me, it is the failure of the Obama government to seek prosecution of those who subverted our Constitution and morality with policies of torture. Its is the failure to tax the megaRich. It is the failure of Obama to bring home the troops within 2 years. It is the failure of cancelling DADT. It is the failure to provide Universal Health Care or real cost reductions in exisiting health care, instead mandidating the "purchase" of health care insurance (if we could afford it, we would already have it, duh!). There are very few voices remaining to speak the truth: Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, Rachel Madow, Chalmers Johnson, Daniel Elsberg. But here is the catch: if its really our country, not theirs (the Oligarchy) why are we not in the streets? Apparently, we are more afraid of them than they are of us. Apparently, we deserve the government we have. Prague, anyone?
+6 # sweetsali 2010-12-03 16:52
There is another choice...and they're called Progressives! Granted, they're still a part of the Democratic party but from what I see of Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln, we might as well be Republican! I love it Mtngal...I hope all who read this pay attention to those few voices and get on board with Media Matters...I'm not ready for Prague...or Moscow. Sali
+9 # Bill Hart 2010-12-03 18:25
True Progressive, I'm in complete agreement with you. In the last two years I've donated over a thousand dollars (I'm a retiree, so that's quite a bit to me) to Democratic causes, not counting all of the hours my wife and I campaigned door to door for candidate Obama,) but I've made my last contribution to the Democratic party for the forseeable future.

The next contribution I make to a Democratic cause will be to Obama's Democratic primary opponent (run Hillary, run). Obama's torn his drawers as far as I'm concerned. His unilateral decision to screw the Federal employees on their pay raises for the next two years was the final straw.

Obama's upcoming, cowardly capitulation to the Neo-Fascist Republicons on the issue of doing away with the tax cuts for the already filthy rich will just be the final confirmation of the rightness of my decision.
+11 # JenX 2010-12-03 19:34
Dennis Kucinich for Prez, Alan Grayson for VP and Elizabeth Warren can have Rham's old job... just for starters.

It's time we start supporting those rare people who have been the torch bearers of the common people for so long.
+3 # Dan Cullen 2010-12-05 14:01
Quoting JenX:
Dennis Kucinich for Prez, Alan Grayson for VP and Elizabeth Warren can have Rham's old job... just for starters.

It's time we start supporting those rare people who have been the torch bearers of the common people for so long.

Hear Hear!!!
+11 # Edward 2010-12-03 19:40
Thanks, all of you for saying my thoughts on how I was a 100% Obama supporter to "what a phoney". Over half of our tax dollars to to the Military and Obama not only lied to us about getting out of the mideast, he has increased the number of troops in many countries in Central and So America. Ike was right, he warned us about the Military/Indust rail Complex. The two of them, with the help of our media, owns this country. If I was younger, I would move to Canada, New Zealand, or Austraila
+3 # genierae 2010-12-04 09:25
Edward: I share your frustration with President Obama, but I don't think that he deliberately lied to us. I think that he was sincere with his campaign promises, but once he took office, he found that running for president was a lot easier than being president. I think that the Presidency of this country has been compromised to the point that no one can do it well. We have a government that no longer belongs to its people; it has become a for-profit business, one that is failing, and nearly bankrupt.
+5 # Pat Edwards 2010-12-04 01:59
Bill Hart (and others),
With sadness, I agree with you. The powerful hopefulness of Obama's early speeches literally brought me to tears, but now I can no longer support even my local district Democratic agenda. I send my "citizenship" checks directly to Progressive heroes like Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold.
What else can we do?
Well, right now I'm convinced that the Next Best Step is to vigorously (and financially !) support PUBLIC CITIZEN's campaign for a Constitutional Amendment to strip corporations of their rights of "personhood" (!!) and (as per the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling) to spend unlimited funds in our elections. Please check this out at: THANKS!
+6 # Todd Williams 2010-12-04 07:50
As an old hippie, over the past two years I've started farming and raising chickens and stashing cash. I have my own well and live off the grid as much as I can. I suggest everybody get their act together because there's a high probability the proverbial shit will hit the fan. I'm self employed, own my own land and now am preparing to install solar power. I'm not paranoid, but have just seen to much crap go down in this country over the past two or three years to start me remembering the early 1970's. I'm not saying to disengage from politics, just do a little quiet planning for what may be a very grim future. As we used to say "Power To The people, Right On!"
+2 # eldoryder 2010-12-04 08:18
I was a Hillary delegate, not an Obama supporter. In the end, when he got the nomination, I supported him, with (now proven) misgivings.

Perhaps the best observation I've ever heard is "If Hillary gave Obama ONE ball, then they'd BOTH have a pair!"

Hillary had eight years to see how Republicans operate with a Democrat in the White House. She suffered personal attacks as the First Lady that would have flattened an average person. She would NOT have been "rolled" by the Republicans as Obama has, if she had won the nomination.

Now, I hold out just ONE hope.....that if Obama is given one more chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, he nominates Hillary.

That action alone will validate his Presidency for me.
+5 # Austin Loomis 2010-12-04 10:51
Quoting eldoryder:
Hillary had eight years to see how Republicans operate with a Democrat in the White House. She suffered personal attacks as the First Lady that would have flattened an average person. She would NOT have been "rolled" by the Republicans as Obama has, if she had won the nomination.

You may be right about that. At the very least, we've seen that the Repugnican spokesentities are right when they say Obama lacked the experience to be President. If he'd finished his Senate term, he'd have been closer to learning what Hillary learned before she even ran for the Senate.

Chicago politics are, I'm given to understand, roughly as corrupt as the Repugnican noise machine says they are, but at the end of the day, the Democrat [sic] solons of Cook County recognize the need to trade favors, to do what you can for your district and let others do for theirs. That attitude simply does not exist on the national level in today's Repugnican Party. The Democrat [sic] Party is seen, no matter how far to the right they tack, as Communist homosexual God-haters who must be wiped out like the disease they are.
+4 # tomo 2010-12-04 19:48
Sir Paul--a noble and gentle spirit-- has finally come around: Obama doesn't intend to do the things he was elected to do. When, in 2008. I was campaigning for him, two of my most impressively alert friends told me it was all smoke-and-mirro rs. They did not think he was a closet-Muslim, or--alternative ly--a socialist. They thought he was an unredeemable opportunist--wh o would say anything to get elected. They were right. Obama is despised by the Republicans--fo r the things he said in his campaign; and he is despised by the Democrats--for the things he said in his campaign.
+3 # Alina M. Lopez Marin 2010-12-05 14:47
Hillary would have been worse. She should tend her resignation at the State Department. I understand why she is so afraid of Wikileaks.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.