RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Privacy Tools: How to Block Online Tracking Print
Sunday, 06 July 2014 14:10

Chen writes: "There are a few ways to combat online tracking - although none can block some of the more sophisticated tracking techniques, such as 'fingerprinting' and 'onboarding.' Here are three tools that block the most common trackers."

 (photo: Maksim Kabakou/Shutterstock.com)
(photo: Maksim Kabakou/Shutterstock.com)


Privacy Tools: How to Block Online Tracking

By Hanqing Chen, ProPublica

06 July 14

 

Many companies track your behavior and request information about you without explicitly asking for your permission. Here’s how to combat the trackers.

any sites (including ProPublica) track user behavior using a variety of invisible third-party software. This means any time you visit a web page, you're likely sharing data about your online habits, from clicks to views or social shares, whether you realize it or not. But there are a few ways to combat online tracking – although none can block some of the more sophisticated tracking techniques, such as 'fingerprinting' and 'onboarding.' Here are three tools that block the most common trackers.

Ghostery

Featuring an ever-growing database of over 1,900 tracking entities, Ghostery's browser add-on can detect online trackers as you browse specific pages.

On each website, Ghostery displays a list of entities tracking data from that site in the upper right corner of the screen. Although it shows you all the trackers it detects, Ghostery does not block them by default. You must visit the settings page to block individual trackers or block all trackers.

If you don't mind being tracked by the third parties on a particular website, you can "whitelist" the site using the extension's dashboard.

Ghostery users are encouraged to opt in to Ghostrank, a service that sends anonymous information to a Ghostery server about where and how users encounter trackers. Ghostery is a for-profit company that analyzes the Ghostrank information and sells it to companies that want to manage their tracking businesses.

Ghostery is maintained by a team of analysts who keep the list of trackers up to date, according to Andy Kahl, Ghostery's Senior Director of Transparency.

Ghostery's add-on is available for most widely-used browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari. It's also available for mobile devices on iOS and Firefox Android.

Disconnect

The Disconnect tracker add-on takes a user-friendly approach of blocking trackers by default, but allowing requests that it considers to be necessary for loading content.

Full disclosure: Disconnect gave ProPublica $7,759.54 last year in donations from its users and expects to contribute another $1,500 after featuring us as a Charity of the Month for May 2014.

Disconnect detects trackers based on the number of requests they've made for your information, and displays them in one of four categories: advertising, analytics, social and content. Users can re-enable a tracker or whitelist a website from the dashboard in the upper right hand corner of the Web browser.

The extension also features a nifty visualization of all of the requests surrounding the page you're on, with a graph of each third-party request connected to the current page, and a rundown of web resources saved by disabling trackers, like bandwidth and browsing speed.

Disconnect maintains its database of trackers by crawling popular websites for third-party requests, then categorizing those requests by type, according to co-founder Casey Oppenheim. The Disconnect database is open source, unlike Ghostery's library of trackers.

Disconnect also provides a separate browser extension that allows you to search anonymously on engines including Google, Bing, Blecko and DuckDuckGo. Disconnect routes your search queries through their own servers, so Google, for example, would effectively see and store your search as a request from Disconnect instead of you.

Disconnect also lets users view ratings for each website's privacy policies in nine color-coded icons designed to correspond to a variety of privacy concerns, from the expected collection and use of data according to the site's privacy policy, to SSL encryption and HeartBleed vulnerability. So far, Disconnect has evaluated and assigned icons to over 5,000 websites.

The site's own privacy policy promises never to collect IP addresses or any personal info except for the email addresses of users who sign up for their (opt-in) newsletter.

Disconnect tracking and security extensions are currently available for Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera. The service also provides tracker-blocking options for iOS devices with its Disconnect Kids app. Disconnect's tracker-blocking code and database are available on Github.

Privacy Badger

This tracker-blocking tool is a new project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and uses an algorithm to "learn" which social or ad networks are tracking you over time.

That means the tool takes awhile to get going. It initially allows third-party trackers until it detects patterns in third-party requests. Then it will start automatically blocking what it considers "non-consensual invasions of people's privacy," according to its FAQ.

EFF decided to use an algorithm over a compiled filter list of trackers to make the extension harder to circumvent.

"Blocking algorithmically…is more responsive and is able to better protect users from all trackers, not just the ones we have identified as a problem," Cooper Quintin, a technologist working with EFF, wrote in an email.

Users can manually adjust blocking by using sliders that control access to their data in three levels: Completely blocking all requests from third-parties, blocking cookies from third-parties, and unblocking third party requests.

By default, the Privacy Badger will whitelist domains that it believes are necessary for web functionality. Those domains will automatically be blocked from leaving cookies, but will not be blocked completely unless the setting is manually adjusted, according to its FAQ.

Like Ghostery and Disconnect, users can also manually "whitelist" any site by disabling Privacy Badger on it.

In an interesting twist, Privacy Badger will allow trackers to unblock themselves if they post a privacy policy that honors users' "Do Not Track" requests. Currently, only a few tracking companies have agreed to not track users who check the "Do Not Track" button in their Web browsers.

Privacy Badger is available for Google Chrome and Firefox. A list for its "whitelisted" sites are available on Github along with the code for the extensions.

A note on methods for flagging trackers

If you install all three or any number of these add-ons concurrently, you will notice that they often detect a different number of trackers on any given page. That's because each service classifies tracking slightly differently.

Ghostery displays individual trackers per page based on its own database. Meanwhile, Disconnect displays the total number of requests made by detected trackers. And Privacy Badger flags third-party domains, not the number of requests made by those domains.

What do you use to keep yourself from being tracked online? Let us know in the comments section.

Looking for ways to make your web experience more secure from the Privacy Tools series? Read more on encrypting your files and messages, masking your location, safely browsing the web, taking data out of the hands of data brokers, and building better passwords.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | An Insider's View of Nixon's 'Treason' Print
Sunday, 06 July 2014 12:35

Parry writes: "Tom Charles Huston, the national security aide assigned by President Richard Nixon to investigate what President Lyndon Johnson knew about why the Vietnam peace talks failed in 1968, concluded that Nixon was personally behind a secret Republican scheme to sabotage those negotiations whose collapse cleared the way to his narrow victory – and to four more years of war."

Richard M. Nixon. (photo: AP)
Richard M. Nixon. (photo: AP)


An Insider's View of Nixon's 'Treason'

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

06 July 14

 

om Charles Huston, the national security aide assigned by President Richard Nixon to investigate what President Lyndon Johnson knew about why the Vietnam peace talks failed in 1968, concluded that Nixon was personally behind a secret Republican scheme to sabotage those negotiations whose collapse cleared the way to his narrow victory – and to four more years of war.

“Over the years as I’ve studied it, I’ve concluded that there was no doubt that Nixon was – would have been directly involved, that it’s not something that anybody would’ve undertaken on their own,” Huston said in an oral history done for the Nixon presidential library in 2008 and recently released in partially redacted form.

Huston, who is best known for the 1970 Huston Plan to expand spying on the anti-Vietnam War movement, said he was assigned the peace-talk investigation after Nixon took office because Nixon was told by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that President Johnson had learned of Nixon’s sabotage through national security wiretaps.

Those wiretaps had revealed that Nixon’s campaign was promising South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu a better deal if he boycotted the Paris peace talks, which Thieu did in the days before the U.S. presidential election in 1968.

“I think clearly there was no doubt that the Nixon campaign was aggressively trying to keep President Thieu from agreeing,” Huston said in his oral history [To see the transcripts, click here and here.]

Johnson’s failure to achieve a breakthrough stalled a late surge by Vice President Hubert Humphrey and enabled Nixon to prevail in one of the closest elections in U.S. history. Nixon then expanded the war with heavier strategic bombing over Indochina and with an invasion of Cambodia before winding down U.S. troop levels by 1973.

In those Nixon years, a million more Vietnamese were estimated to have died along with an additional 20,763 U.S. dead and 111,230 wounded. The war also bitterly divided the United States, often turning parents against their own children.

Hoover’s Double Game

According to Huston, Hoover briefed Nixon on his potential vulnerability regarding Johnson’s wiretap evidence even before Nixon took office. “That goes back to the meeting that Nixon had with Hoover at the Pierre Hotel in New York after the election, at which Nixon made it clear to Hoover that he was going to reappoint him, which is what Hoover wanted.

“But, you know, Hoover was a piece of work. I mean, at the same time that pursuant to instructions from Lyndon Johnson he’s got his agents scurrying all over the damn Southwest, you know, trying to dig up dirt on the vice president-elect [Spiro Agnew for his purported role in the peace-talk sabotage], [Hoover]‘s sitting with the President-elect and telling him that Johnson had bugged his airplane during the ’68 campaign,” a specific claim that was apparently false but something that Nixon appears to have believed.

Faced with uncertainty about exactly what evidence Johnson had, Nixon ordered up a review of what was in the files, including whatever obstacles that the peace talks had encountered, an area that Huston felt required examining the issue of Republican obstruction, including contacts between Nixon campaign operative Anna Chennault and senior South Vietnamese officials.

“I wasn’t really asked specifically to address Chennault, but you couldn’t really look at [Johnson's] bombing halt and the politics of the bombing halt without — at least in my judgment, without looking at what Johnson was looking at,” Huston said. “What Johnson was looking at was this perception that the Nixon campaign was doing whatever it could to sabotage his efforts to achieve a bombing halt.”

Huston found that nearly all the national security files at the White House had been packed up and shipped to the Johnson presidential library in Austin, Texas, so Huston began piecing together the material from records recovered from the FBI and other federal agencies. According to the National Archives, Nixon, as the sitting president, would have had relatively easy access to the material shipped to Austin if he had wanted it.

The X-Envelope

But Johnson had taken no chances that Nixon’s team might recover the file containing the evidence on what Johnson called Nixon’s “treason.” As Johnson was leaving the White House in January 1969, he ordered his national security aide Walt Rostow to take that file and keep it in his personal possession. Rostow labeled the file “The X-Envelope,” although it has since become known to Johnson archivists as the “X-File.”

Describing his investigation, Huston said he eventually “got so frustrated … because I knew I wasn’t getting all of the information that would allow me to really understand what had happened in Paris. And so I decided to go out and start bird-dogging on my own,” reaching out to other federal agencies.

Huston said “there is no question” that the Nixon campaign approached senior South Vietnamese officials with promises of a better deal if they stayed away from the Paris peace talks.

“Clearly, [campaign manager John] Mitchell was directly involved. Mitchell was meeting with her [Chennault], and, you know, the question, was the candidate himself directly involved, and, you know, my conclusion is that there is no evidence that I found, nor that anyone else has found that I can determine, that I regard as credible, that would confirm the fact that Nixon was directly involved.

“I think my understanding of the way in which — having been in the ’68 campaign, and my understanding of the way that campaign was run, it’s inconceivable to me that John Mitchell would be running around, you know, passing messages to the South Vietnamese government, et cetera, on his own initiative.”

Though Huston reported to Nixon that the Johnson people apparently lacked a “smoking gun” that personally implicated him in the scheme, the whereabouts of the missing evidence and exactly what it showed remained a pressing concern to Nixon and his inner circle, especially in June 1971 when major American newspapers began publishing the leaked Pentagon Papers. That report revealed the deceptions that had pervaded the Vietnam conflict from its post-World War II origins through 1967, covering mostly Democratic lies.

A Dangerous Sequel

But Nixon knew what few others did, that there was the potential for a devastating sequel, the story of how the Nixon campaign had torpedoed peace talks that could have ended the war. Given the intensity of anti-war sentiment in 1971, such a revelation could have had explosive and unforeseeable consequences, conceivably even impeachment and certainly threatening Nixon’s reelection in 1972.

Huston had come to believe that a detailed report on the failed Paris peace talks, possibly containing the evidence of the Republican sabotage, had ended up at the Brookings Institution, then regarded as a liberal think tank housing many of Nixon’s top critics.

“I send [White House chief of staff H.R. “Bob”] Haldeman a memo and I said, basically, ‘You’re not going to believe this.’ Here I’ve spent all these months, I’ve been chasing all over the God-dang’d government try to get everybody to give me bits and pieces and trying to do this job that you told me to do, and the God-dang’d Brookings Institution is sitting over here with a God-dang’d multi-volume report that I don’t have. And if Brookings can get the damn thing, I don’t see any reason why I can’t get it.”

According to Brookings officials and U.S. government archivists, Huston appears to have been wrong in his conclusions about the existence of such a “multi-volume report” hidden at Brookings, but his memo would have historical repercussions because it became the focus of a frantic Oval Office meeting on June 17, 1971, as Nixon and his top aides were assessing their own exposure as the Pentagon Papers filled the front pages of the New York Times.

Blow the Safe

Nixon summoned Haldeman and national security advisor Henry Kissinger into the Oval Office and – as Nixon’s own recording devices whirred softly – pleaded with them again to locate the missing file. “Do we have it?” Nixon asked Haldeman. “I’ve asked for it. You said you didn’t have it.”

Haldeman: “We can’t find it.”

Kissinger: “We have nothing here, Mr. President.”

Nixon: “Well, damnit, I asked for that because I need it.”

Kissinger: “But Bob and I have been trying to put the damn thing together.”

Haldeman: “We have a basic history in constructing our own, but there is a file on it.”

Nixon: “Where?”

Haldeman: “Huston swears to God that there’s a file on it and it’s at Brookings.”

Nixon: “Bob? Bob? Now do you remember Huston’s plan [for White House-sponsored break-ins as part of domestic counter-intelligence operations]? Implement it.”

Kissinger: “Now Brookings has no right to have classified documents.”

Nixon: “I want it implemented. … Goddamnit, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”

Haldeman: “They may very well have cleaned them by now, but this thing, you need to –“

Kissinger: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Brookings had the files.”

Haldeman: “My point is Johnson knows that those files are around. He doesn’t know for sure that we don’t have them around.”

But Johnson did know that the key file documenting Nixon’s peace-talk sabotage was safely out of Nixon’s reach, entrusted to his former national security advisor Walt Rostow.

Forming the Burglars

On June 30, 1971, Nixon again berated Haldeman about the need to break into Brookings and “take it [the file] out.” Nixon even suggested using former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt to conduct the Brookings break-in.

“You talk to Hunt,” Nixon told Haldeman. “I want the break-in. Hell, they do that. You’re to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in. … Just go in and take it. Go in around 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock.”

Haldeman: “Make an inspection of the safe.”

Nixon: “That’s right. You go in to inspect the safe. I mean, clean it up.”

For reasons that remain unclear, it appears that the Brookings break-in never took place – although Brookings officials say an attempted break-in was made – but Nixon’s desperation to locate Johnson’s peace-talk evidence was an important link in the chain of events that led to the creation of Nixon’s burglary unit under Hunt’s supervision. Hunt later oversaw the two Watergate break-ins in May and June of 1972.

While it’s possible that Nixon was still searching for the evidence about his Vietnam-peace sabotage when the Watergate break-ins occurred nearly a year later, it’s generally believed that the burglary was more broadly focused, seeking any information that might have an impact on Nixon’s re-election, either defensively or offensively.

As it turned out, Nixon’s burglars were nabbed inside the Watergate complex during their second break-in at the Democratic National Committee on June 17, 1972, exactly one year after Nixon’s tirade to Haldeman and Kissinger about the need to blow the safe at the Brookings Institution in pursuit of the missing Vietnam peace-talk file.

Ironically, too, Johnson and Rostow had no intention of exposing Nixon’s dirty secret regarding LBJ’s Vietnam peace talks, presumably for the same reasons that they kept their mouths shut back in 1968, out of a benighted belief that revealing Nixon’s actions might somehow not be “good for the country.” [For details, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]

The Scandal Grows

In November 1972, despite the growing scandal over the Watergate break-in, Nixon handily won reelection, crushing Sen. George McGovern, Nixon’s preferred opponent. Nixon then reached out to Johnson seeking his help in squelching Democratic-led investigations of the Watergate affair and slyly noting that Johnson had ordered wiretaps of Nixon’s campaign in 1968.

Johnson reacted angrily to the overture, refusing to cooperate. On Jan. 20, 1973, Nixon was sworn in for his second term. On Jan. 22, 1973, Johnson died of a heart attack.

In the weeks that followed Nixon’s Inauguration and Johnson’s death, the scandal over the Watergate cover-up grew more serious, creeping ever closer to the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Rostow struggled to decide what he should do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.”

On May 14, 1973, in a three-page “memorandum for the record,” Rostow summarized what was in “The ‘X’ Envelope” and provided a chronology for the events in fall 1968. Rostow reflected, too, on what effect LBJ’s public silence then may have had on the unfolding Watergate scandal.

“I am inclined to believe the Republican operation in 1968 relates in two ways to the Watergate affair of 1972,” Rostow wrote. He noted, first, that Nixon’s operatives may have judged that their “enterprise with the South Vietnamese” – in frustrating Johnson’s last-ditch peace initiative – had secured Nixon his narrow margin of victory over Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

“Second, they got away with it,” Rostow wrote. “Despite considerable press commentary after the election, the matter was never investigated fully. Thus, as the same men faced the election in 1972, there was nothing in their previous experience with an operation of doubtful propriety (or, even, legality) to warn them off, and there were memories of how close an election could get and the possible utility of pressing to the limit – and beyond.” [To read Rostow’s memo, click here, here and here.]

Tie to Watergate

What Rostow didn’t know was that there was a third – and more direct – connection between the missing file and Watergate. Nixon’s fear about the evidence in the file surfacing as a follow-up to the Pentagon Papers was Nixon’s motive for creating Hunt’s burglary team in the first place.

Rostow apparently struggled with what to do with the file for the next month as the Watergate scandal expanded. On June 25, 1973, fired White House counsel John Dean delivered his blockbuster Senate testimony, claiming that Nixon got involved in the cover-up within days of the June 1972 burglary at the Democratic National Committee. Dean also asserted that Watergate was just part of a years-long program of political espionage directed by Nixon’s White House.

The very next day, as headlines of Dean’s testimony filled the nation’s newspapers, Rostow reached his conclusion about what to do with “The ‘X’ Envelope.” In longhand, he wrote a “Top Secret” note which read, “To be opened by the Director, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, not earlier than fifty (50) years from this date June 26, 1973.”

In other words, Rostow intended this missing link of American history to stay missing for another half century. In a typed cover letter to LBJ Library director Harry Middleton, Rostow wrote: “Sealed in the attached envelope is a file President Johnson asked me to hold personally because of its sensitive nature. In case of his death, the material was to be consigned to the LBJ Library under conditions I judged to be appropriate. …

“After fifty years the Director of the LBJ Library (or whomever may inherit his responsibilities, should the administrative structure of the National Archives change) may, alone, open this file. … If he believes the material it contains should not be opened for research [at that time], I would wish him empowered to re-close the file for another fifty years when the procedure outlined above should be repeated.”

Ultimately, however, the LBJ Library didn’t wait that long. After a little more than two decades, on July 22, 1994, the envelope was opened and the archivists began the long process of declassifying the contents.

Yet, by withholding the file on Nixon’s “treason,” Johnson and Rostow allowed for incomplete and distorted histories of the Vietnam War and Watergate to take shape – and for Nixon and his Republican cohorts to escape the full opprobrium that they deserved.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton? Print
Sunday, 06 July 2014 11:39

Heilbrunn writes: "Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy."

Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)


Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?

By Jacob Heilbrunn, The New York Times

06 July 14

 

fter nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement’s interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.

Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.

To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons — Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle — are permanently buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would “be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline.”

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Glenn Greenwald on the Surveillance State and Orwell's Dystopian Future Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27633"><span class="small">Sonali Kolhatkar, Truthdig</span></a>   
Sunday, 06 July 2014 08:04

Kolhatkar writes: "Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald, best known for his reporting on the U.S. surveillance state, told me that in the year since he first met whistle-blower Edward Snowden, he went back and re-read Orwell’s dystopian novel '1984.'"

Glenn Greenwald speaks to the media after arriving at John F. Kennedy International Airport. (photo: AP)
Glenn Greenwald speaks to the media after arriving at John F. Kennedy International Airport. (photo: AP)


Glenn Greenwald on the Surveillance State and Orwell's Dystopian Future

By Sonali Kolhatkar, TruthDig

06 July 14

 

There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate, they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
—“1984,” George Orwell

nvestigative journalist Glenn Greenwald, best known for his reporting on the U.S. surveillance state, told me that in the year since he first met whistle-blower Edward Snowden, he went back and re-read Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”

In an interview on Uprising, Greenwald said that what surprised him the most about re-reading the ominous story was that “I had always remembered the ubiquity of the surveillance [in ‘1984’], which was we had a monitor in every single room of every home constantly watching every single person. So, a lot of people said, [our world is] not like ‘1984’ because not every single one of our emails is being read and or every one of our calls are being listened to because nobody could possibly be doing all that.” But, as Greenwald rightly pointed out, in Orwell’s world, “nobody actually knew whether they were being watched at all times. In fact they didn’t know if they were ever being watched.”

In essence said Greenwald, “The key to the social control was the possibility that they could be watched at any time.” Although we have no evidence that the Obama administration is engaging in any organized form of social control in our real world, the most dangerous possible outcome of the U.S. surveillance state is a dampening of dissent because of the mere possibility that the government is watching our every move.

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Elizabeth Warren Brings Populism Down South. Is Hillary Paying Attention? Print
Saturday, 05 July 2014 14:45

Eskow writes: "Intentionally or not, Warren's invitation sends a message. A Southern campaign asked a Massachusetts progressive (and a Harvard professor, no less!) to campaign for it in a close-fought race with one of the country's leading conservatives."

Is Elizabeth Warren's message the one than can save the Democrats in the south? (photo: AP)
Is Elizabeth Warren's message the one than can save the Democrats in the south? (photo: AP)


Elizabeth Warren Brings Populism Down South. Is Hillary Paying Attention?

By Richard Eskow, Campaign For America's Future

05 July 14

 

ell, now, this is interesting. Sen. Elizabeth Warren went to Kentucky to campaign for Allison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic Secretary of State who’s looking to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Louisville Courier-Journal reported that “a wide range of people from college students to people in their 80s attended the event at (the University of Louisville), billed as a college affordability rally.”

“I’m a little surprised to be here,” said Warren, “partly because I’m a little surprised to be in the United States Senate. I am the daughter of a janitor and I ended up in the United States Senate. America is truly a great place.”

Intentionally or not, Warren’s invitation sends a message. A Southern campaign asked a Massachusetts progressive (and a Harvard professor, no less!) to campaign for it in a close-fought race with one of the country’s leading conservatives.

Remember, we’re talking about Rand Paul country here. Some smart people have clearly concluded that progressive economic populism is a winning strategy in the South.

Warren made several appearances in Kentucky. A veteran South Carolina politician found that unsurprising, saying of Warren: “She is against the corporate monoliths that the average blue-collar Southern [finds] anathema.”

The Grimes campaign knows what it’s doing. Despite having been dismissed as being too young and too liberal to pose a serious threat to the powerful and well-known incumbent, Grimes has pulled close to McConnell in most polling. (Some polls even show her in the lead.)

Grimes has assembled a talented and high-priced team of consultants, including top Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. We can be sure the decision to invite Warren wasn’t made lightly, but was the product of careful research and polling. The Grimes team clearly concluded that Warren’s brand of anti-Wall Street, pro-Main Street populism was a winning message.

They were undoubtedly helped to reach that conclusion by last month’s polling, funded by Americans for Tax Fairness, which showed that a large majority of Kentucky voters support Grimes’ position on closing corporate tax loopholes to fund a new bridge project. McConnell opposes closing the loopholes.

Grimes’ campaign has emphasized both generational and gender shifts, emphasizing the fact that she will represent millennials and women – and will defend these constituencies from the economic attacks McConnell has led in the Senate. But identity politics alone won’t cut it if you’re peddling the same-old-same-old as an economic message. Warren’s messaging is clearly populist in both tone and substance. To these ends, Warren and Grimes emphasized Warren’s proposal to provide student debt relief at the “college affordability rally.”

And while she’s careful not to portray herself as a dissident in her own party, Warren’s pitch runs directly against the pro-corporate, Wall Street “centrist” line that has governed national Democratic politics since Bill Clinton’s ascendancy in 1992.

Warren’s recent editorial on “the Citigroup clique” highlighted the differences in her economic approach. She wrote about a single poorly-managed institution – one that has benefited greatly from Federal government actions – which has been linked to an outsized share of Democratic economic appointees. As Warren notes, “three of the last four Treasury secretaries under Democratic presidents have had Citigroup affiliations before or after their Treasury service.”

While Warren’s editorial concentrated on Obama appointments, observations like these are also a rebuke to the Wall Street-friendly Clinton administration.

Positions like these put Warren’s brand of populism squarely at odds with her party’s corporate-friendly leadership. So do her uncompromising position on the need to end Wall Street’s exploitation of ordinary Americans and her call to expand, not cut, Social Security benefits.

What should Democrats in Washington take away from Warren’s visit to Kentucky? In addition to demonstrating that populism sells everywhere, it’s also a clear sign that the discredited “Third Way” agenda of corporate Democrats – an agenda that has dominated the national party for more than two decades – doesn’t sell.

After all, they’re not inviting Rep. Steny Hoyer to Louisville.

And what does it tell Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ presumptive nominee-by-acclamation for 2016? It demonstrates Bill’s old-fashioned triangulation – the means by which the Democratic Party moved itself toward the corporate right – has passed its sell-by date, even in Bill’s native South.

This move could also help Hillary and her advisers understand why there was so much blowback from her “we’re not rich” comments. As Robert Reich wrote recently, people were really questioning “whether all that income from big corporations and Wall Street put (the Clintons) on the side of the privileged and powerful, rather than on the side of ordinary Americans.”

When politicians amass great wealth from private corporations it makes people wonder about them– who their friends are, who influences their thinking, and who they’ll be looking out for should they regain power.

As Elizabeth Warren said recently, “people don’t have to wonder who side I’m on.” It’s incumbent upon any Democrat running for office, from Hillary Clinton on down, to make their own loyalties equally clear.

Which side are you on? That age-old line may sound divisive to today’s Washington ears, but it reflects today’s fundamental economic reality: policies which have consistently favored the few can no longer provide security or opportunity for the many.

Progressive populism isn’t a divisive political strategy. It’s a rational response to the world in 2014.

Which side are you on? That’s a question people will be asking all their politicians from now on, implicitly or explicitly. As Reich notes, a recent Pew poll found that “even 69 percent of young conservative-leaning voters agree the system favors the powerful.”

All across the country, across racial and class divides, and from left to right on the political spectrum, people want to know if their leaders support them in a struggle for an equitable economy. Americans understand that, in Warren’s words, “the game is rigged” – politically, economically, even in the halls of justice. They want to know if candidates are willing to help un-rig it.

This isn’t 1992, or even 1999. Times changed when Wall Street greed broke the back of the middle class and wounded the economy. Political reality changed when people realized that their wealth has been redirected upward for decades, that the promise of a good life and the opportunity for advancement had been eroded beyond sustainability for most Americans.

Alison Lundergan Grimes is reportedly close to the Clintons, and Bill is said to have helped her win the nomination. But her invitation to Elizabeth Warren strategy suggests that she and her advisors recognize this new political reality.

The national party should, too. Democrats who persist in their old triangulating ways will soon find themselves out of touch – economically, generationally, and geographically. Old ways, as the Neil Young song says, can be a ball and chain.

It’s unclear yet whether Grimes can pull off an upset victory. But she clearly has a shot, thanks to a feisty and populist-themed campaign. She is sending the country a message with her choices, including her choice of advocates.

Warren spent the weekend in Kentucky, but she already has new travel plans. She’s been invited to speak on behalf of another Democratic candidate – in West Virginia.

Which raises a question for the Clinton team and other Democrats in Washington: Are you paying attention?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 Next > End >>

Page 2794 of 3432

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.

RSNRSN