Moving Hillary Clinton to the Left

Dear Friends,

There are two interesting articles at Time.com by Rana Foroochar.  One is entitled "How Elizabeth Warren is Yanking Hillary Clinton to the Left" (here) and another entitled, "This Could be Hillary Clinton's Economic Policy" (here).  MSNBC also published an article by Alex Seitz-Weld and Suzy Khimm entitled "Is this Hillary Clinton's Economic Policy" (here).  Both the articles about Secretary Clinton's economic policy discuss a recent report by the Center For American Progress, a pro-Clinton think tank.

Interestingly enough in the last weeks during which there have been terrorist attacks in Nigeria by Boko Haram, terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish community in Paris, Republican congressional efforts to make cuts in Social Security, Republican congressional efforts to push the Keystone XL Pipeline, the initiation of an inquiry by the International Criminal Court into potential war crimes in the most recent Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the Republican efforts to dilute the impact of the Dodd-Frank regulations on Wall Street, Hillary Clinton has been completely absent from the news and has only made one public statement.  That statement was in the form of a tweet. "Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong.  Better for Congress to focus on jobs and wages for middle class families."

First, it is clear that Secretary Clinton is steering clear from taking a position on anything that is or may be in the future controversial.  The national media and virtually all politicians are refusing to talk about the terrorist attacks by Boka Haram or the victims of the latest violence between Israel and Palestine, even though in both cases far more innocent people were killed.  I cannot help but think that the lack of outrage in the United States and other western countries over the deaths of innocent Nigerians and Palestinians has a lot to do with the otherness attached to those people.  How can you explain the incredible difference in response to those atrocities and what just happened in Paris?  In any case, that is a question too hot for Secretary Clinton to deal with.

Of course the issues of freedom of speech raised by the attack on Charlie Hebdo raise a lot of difficult questions as well.  Secretary Clinton,  a hawk who voted for the Iraq war and for the Patriot Act twice and a member of the Obama administration that has attacked freedom of the press with a vigour normally only seen in Republican administrations, has not been a strong advocate for freedom of expression and would have great difficulty navigating the difficult issues raised by the recent Paris attacks to say nothing of the crack down on freedom of expression following the Charlie Hebdo attack.

I am actually surprised that she has not made a statement condemning the opening of an investigation by the International Criminal Court into the latest Israeli/Palestinian violence.  Normally she defends Israel regardless of what it has done.  I am at a loss to explain her silence on this issue although one might posit that there are more and more Democrats that want to hold both the Palestinians and the Israelis responsible for their violent actions, so perhaps she thinks her silence will not offend anybody.

Of course, Secretary Clinton is maintaining her silence on the Keystone XL Pipeline.  This issue is a symbolic one pitting the environment against short term profits for giant oil companies.  Secretary Clinton's ties to big business and Wall Street make it difficult if not impossible for her to oppose the pipeline.  I should note she has not commented on the fact that 2014 was the warmest year on record either.

Secretary Clinton chose, as her only public comment, to tweet about the Republican efforts to dilute the regulations imposed on Wall Street by the Dodd-Frank legislation.  Her comment was limited to a tweet and hence could not contain any real substance.  What a perfect way to try to walk the fine line between her Wall Street backers and Elizabeth Warren.

It is the issue of Secretary Clinton's closeness to Wall Street that made the articles about a report by the Center for American Progress, a think tank full of friends of Hillary and Bill, so interesting to me.   The two articles about the report cited above were clear about the ties of the think tank to the Clintons and their advisors and the fine line that the report walks to not offend Wall Street while trying to sound like Elizabeth Warren.  The report was written by a group of Clinton loyalists lead by Larry Summers.  This group are deregulators and people that supported NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements.  They share in the blame for the great recession and the ever increasing gap in wealth and income in the United States.  In light of the popularity of Elizabeth Warren, they and Secretary Clinton are trying to reinvent themselves as populists.

I am not yet convinced that Secretary Clinton can actually reinvent herself as a populist and true liberal.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Hillary Clinton and Wall Street - Antonio Weiss

Dear Friends,

Secretary Clinton's close ties to Wall Street pose a very difficult issue for me.  Since her ties to Wall Street are many and varied, I will discuss them in several blogs.  This one will focus on President Obama's nomination of Antonio Weiss as Under Secretary for Domestic Finance.  As a result of the efforts of Senators Warren, Durbin and Sanders; Move-on.org and other liberal groups and Independent Community Bankers of America, Mr. Weiss's nomination has become a controversial one with many people and groups making their views known.  Secretary Clinton has not commented publicly on President Obama's nomination of Mr. Weiss.  Unfortunately, her lack of public comment is consistent with how she is handling all important issues that are in the public's eye today.  Since I see the case against Mr. Weiss's nomination as being very strong, I think that Secretary Clinton's failure to speak out is clear evidence of her unwavering support of Wall Street.

Senator Warren's criticism of Mr. Weiss's nomination focuses on three main issues.  She sets forth her case against the nomination in a piece in The Huffington Post (here).  The first is that Mr. Weiss is not qualified for the job.  Mr. Weiss has spent years doing international mergers and acquisitions.  The job is for domestic finance.  Just because Mr. Weiss is good at international mergers does not mean that he would be good at dealing with domestic finance policy matters.  The second issue is Mr. Weiss's involvement in the Burger King tax inversion merger with Tim Horton's.  A merger that moved Burger King from an American corporation to a Canadian corporation greatly reducing Burger King's US tax bill.  The third is the constant revolving door between Wall Street and the government.  The influence of Wall Street on Congress might be better described as the control of Congress by Wall Street.  The push is to put a Wall Street person into every power position in the government regardless of qualifications.  In addition, Mr. Weiss is receiving a golden parachute from Lazard for going into government service of over $20 million.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Elizabeth Warren

Dear Friends,

I just read a report (here) that President Obama is going to nominate someone other than Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Elizabeth Warren had the idea for this agency, fought tirelessly for it, has gotten everything going, and is the perfect person for the job.  Yet President Obama is not going to nominate her because he will have a fight to get her approved by the Senate because the Republicans will filibuster.  I am sure that he will argue that the agency needs a head and that Elizabeth Warren could not get approved by the Senate, etc.  It is very likely that anybody who is qualified for the job that is nominated to this position will face an uphill battle in the Senate because of the Republicans.  President Obama has not figured out that they will oppose anything that he suggests.

So while it may be that Elizabeth Warren would face a Republican filibuster, you don't just give in - you fight for what you believe in and show the world how bad the Republicans are.  The fact is that President Obama is unwilling to fight for anything that I as a liberal think is important.  It is actually impossible to tell whether he does not like fights or he does not believe in the core values of the Democratic Party.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal