Clinton Trying To Break Party Rules….Again
Earlier this month, in the Michigan primary, Clinton, Kucinich and Dodd were the only candidates on the ballot. The other candidates voluntarily removed their names to abide by party rules. However, Clinton never responded to the party or the Michigan Secretary of State. Obviously, Clinton doesn’t want to follow the rules. The Michigan results show Clinton won, with no delegates assigned. Clinton won the vote against Kucinich, Dodd and Uncommitted, and only beat the uncommitted votes by about 90,000.
Michigan Primary: Clinton 328,151, Uncommitted 237,762 and the rest of the candidates 27924. That means 265,686 voted against Hillary.
Now, Clinton wants to break party rules even further and have those delegates reinstated, because she wants to lock down the nomination soon.
Since the uncommitted vote was such a large number, that tells me that many voters in Michigan had their heart and minds set on a different candidate. Therefore, Clinton should have no right to grab what is not hers.
In Florida, where none of the democratic candidates have campaigned, Clinton has announced “on to Florida”. Will she actually go there and campaign before next weeks primary? I don’t know. However, she is making it very clear that the democratic party rules do not apply to Hillary Clinton.
Clinton has now assigned the Party decision to strip the delegates from the Democratic Party to the other candidates. Another Bush tactic to distract and distort the truth.
- ROCK HILL, South Carolina (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton, in an about-face, said on Friday she wants the Democratic Party delegates in two states that were barred by the national party to be reinstated and counted in the race to determine the party’s U.S. presidential nominee.
- The national party eliminated the delegates from Michigan and Florida because the states broke party rules by holding primary voting contests before February 5. But just four days before Florida’s primary, Clinton said she wants the delegates reinstated.
- “I know other campaigns have tried to downplay the significance of these two states,” Clinton told reporters. “I think that is not a good strategy for Democrats or any of us who cares about the outcome of this election.”other Bush tactic of distract from the truth.
Clinton’s delegate grab, changing the rules as she goes, is shockingly similar to George Bush tactics. Whose party does Clinton belong to, anyway? The DNC made their rules and Hillary made her own.
Sphere: Related Content
January 27th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
[...] nytexan wrote an interesting post today on Clinton Trying To Break Party Rulesâ?¦.AgainHere’s a quick excerptHillary Clinton, in an about-face, said on Friday she wants the Democratic Party delegates in two states that were barred by the national party to be reinstated and counted in the race to determine the party’s US presidential nominee. … [...]
January 27th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
[...] nytexan wrote an interesting post today on Clinton Trying To Break Party Rulesâ?¦.AgainHere’s a quick excerptHillary Clinton, who has been touting change and wanting to move in a different direction than Bush, seems to have a Bush affliction for breaking the rules. Clinton, who earlier in the year went against party rules by not requesting her … [...]
January 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Never mind Hilary - what is it with Bill? One of the few men in this century to have made the quantam leap from politics to statecraft is prepared to risk his reputation and climb back into the gutter just to piggyback the missus into the White House?
OK, I’m a Brit so maybe I’ll never understand your system but does he not see the damage he is doing to his reputation and status as an elder statesman? Obviously not!
January 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Paul:
Bill is all about Bill and he wants to get back in the White House so bad that he will stop at nothing.
He is running the1990’s style politics and he just doesn’t get that we don’t want or like that. Bill is doing damage on many level and last nights win for Obama was a sign from the people that we will not accept the 1990’s and the status quo anymore.
January 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Nytexan,
I hear what you are saying but the best he can hope for is VP or Secretary of State - surely not good enough. Unless he is doing a Putin - you know - not allowed to be President again, let’s rewrite the constitution so I can be God under another name. Surely not!
(I seriously hope you are right about Obama. Don’t know about you guys but the rest of the world could do with a breath of fresh air)
Paul.
January 27th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Paul:
No, Bill Clinton is barred from being appointed to any position position in the cabinet. The best he can do is advise Hillary in private. Just the idea of getting back in the White House has Bill dizzy
Obama would be a gust of fresh air.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Nytexan,
This is interesting. Are you suggesting that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a puppet administration with Bill as the power behind the throne?
Here in Europe, we seem to be taking it for granted that, whoever wins the nomination, there will be a Democrat in the White House next year. I am not so sure. If the nomination process is not seen to be fair and transparent, the nominee could end up on the losing end of the general election.
Forgive me saying so as an outsider, but the idea that the most powerful person on the planet might turn out to be one of two Christian fundamentalsts or an elderly war hero who ‘does not understand economics’ does not exactly inspire confidence.
Paul.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
My respect for Bill Clinton has evaporated. Hillary is now appearing desperate. The same old political games and methods are being employed. Hopefully, the majority of voters are fed up and will refuse to rubber stamp these antics. Sen. Obama’s dignity is a refreshing change of pace.
January 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I can’t see how Hillary could possibly get those MI delegates. It’s not just that she wants the party to break their own rules. It’s that Obama and Edwards DID follow the rules. So the DNC, in a hotly contested race, is going to favor a candidate who ignored the DNC’s own rules, over candidates that respected them? I should think Edwards and Obama would have something to say about it.
January 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I think if a mantra emerged from South Carolina it is the one that goes, “The Clintons need to just go away.” A sense of entitlement does not make right and does not justify scorched-earth campaigning against someone with the temerity to stand in the way of “the inevitable.” The Clintons continue to show just how much they represent the old order of backroom, you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours politics that Senator Obama seeks to change. Please, Billary, just go away.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Paul:
“puppet administration with Bill as the power behind the throne”
Not exactly, Bill & Hill are both puppet masters. It would be Hillary’s Whit House but it would be a team behind doors. Which is what we do not want.
Oh and don’t worry there will not be a republican in the next White House. This will the year of the democrat
January 27th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
RoCal:
Bill is burning his bridges everywhere. His foundation is suffering, his credibility is gone and he is taking Hillary with him.
The days have past for the Bill & Hill style politics. BushCo has made sure of that.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
priscianus jr:
Agreed. I am surprised Edwards or Obama have not gone after Hillary on this. Maybe they are waiting for the DNC to smack Hillary first. Clinton is the epitome of arrogance.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Jim Burns:
It is sad to see the old guard fighting change. Both Hillary and Bill left South Carolina in the dust. Neither stayed to say thanks, good bye or give a real concession speech. Instead they said no big deal Jessie Jackson won here twice.
The arrogance of the Clintons is crystal clear.
“The Clintons need to just go away.” I fully agree. The 1990’s are over and the old guard is done.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:47 am
I agree that it’s too bad that Clinton started pushing for our delegates in Michigan and those in Florida to be seated only after winning Michigan’s rigged primary. However, she didn’t break any rules by not removing her name from the ballot. The DNC rules were that our delegates would not be counted. Additionally, the candidates promised the state parties in the four party-sanctioned early primary states not to campaign in Michigan or Florida. But nobody was asked to remove their name from the ballot. It seems that the other Democratic candidates made a strategic decision, since they thought that without campaigning here they had no chance of winning.
You can learn more about Michigan’s fiasco of a primary at http://WhoStoleMiVote.org/
January 28th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Once again, this European is confused. I can understand the anger at Hillary trying to get delegates reinstated in Michigan. I think I understand the annoyance about Michigan and Florida bringing their caucuses or primaries forward. What I do not understand is how the Democrats are able effectively to disenfranchise large numbers of Democrats in those states or how that can do anything but harm to the democratic process.
I was also struck by the recent attempt by Hillary in Nevada to prevent voting stations from operating at casinos on the Strip. Since she subsequently received considerable support from the latino vote in that state, she seems to have been trying to shoot herself in the foot. Anything, it seems, to restrict the voting base. Whatever happened to one person, one vote? It is fundamental to the democratic process.
I know this would be controversial but perhaps it is time your nation took a long hard look at the electoral college system. It is long winded and cumbersome and the outcome frequently does not reflect the result that would have come from the popular vote.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Scott:
I realize that it was a request of the DNC for all of the camdidates to remove their names from the ballots. Everyone complied but Clinton who never acknowledged the request, Kucinich who attempted but missed a signature and Dodd
“Every campaign made a pledge to the four early states to support the calendar created by the DNC.
Thanks for the link.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Paul:
Votes equals delegates and the candidate with the most delegates gets the nomination. Each state is assigned a certain number of delegates based on population. So Clinton’s want for Michigan and Florida are important. At the convention the candidates can choose to seat the Florida delegate but who those states delegates will go to are not clear until that time, Hillary wants them locked down now.
I wrote a post
“Voter, Pledged Delegates and Super Delegate ” that will explain our nominating system. The super delegates are the one that really need to go. They are the back room guys and gals.
The electoral college is separate and another mess which many want to go away.
Hillary was expecting to get the Nevada Culinary Union which is the largest in Nevada when they decided to endorse Obama that’s when all the fire works started.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Nytexan,
Thanks for that. I simply do not remember a US election which has so engaged the attention of European opinion. The better we understand the process, the easier it is to make sense of it.
Paul.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Yeah isn’t it rather convenient that Hillary now wants to have Michigan and Florida count. I suppose that maybe a few months ago she didn’t think that she would need either state. But now that Obama has won Iowa and South Carolina and took home more delegates from Nevada, I guess she’s changed her mind.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I don’t recall the DNC asking the candidates to remove their names at all, and I’ve never heard that from any news source (although I’ve read it in more than one blog). My understanding and recollection is that the other candidates simply decided to remove their names from our ballot because they thought they couldn’t win.
On the other hand, all of this is a little moot now that Clinton actually has broken the four state pledge and is campaigning in Florida. Frankly I’m glad; the prohibition on campaigning and refusal to seat our delegates it was foolish and anti-democratic, and I’m glad somebody’s standing up to it, even if it’s on very self-serving terms.
Paul, the key thing to understand about the primaries is that the parties are not a constitutional entity, and don’t have any obligation to choose their candidates in a democratic fashion; indeed, until the last 50 years they usually did not. Selecting a primary candidate is essentially no different than selecting the head of a private club; the club can select whomever it wants using whatever process it wants, and it can choose to listen to all, some, or none of its members. That’s why the DNC did nothing illegal by disenfranchising us and Florida.
Now, there’s a big difference between what they can do legally and what they should do. It is very hard for me to support a party that decides to use a non-democratic method for selecting their nominee. And since one person, one vote is a key component of a democratic process, the Democrats did not use a democratic method to select their nominee. I am still deciding what an appropriate reaction from a Michigan Democrat is.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Scott,
I entirely understand what you are saying but you need to see what this means to the wider world. Most of us should be reminded when our systems are shown to be less than perfect but the least we are entitled to expect is that our critics speak from a position of strength. If the US system is seen to be flawed, it raises the question of what right it has to lecture the rest of us.
Of course the position of Michigan Democrats is a special case but, over the wider spectrum, there will be those that find the ‘don’t we as we do, do as we say’ arguement a touch hard to swallow.
Paul.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
What an interesting intelligent thread as usual at BlueBloggin. Let me say a few things. WE have no right , no moral high ground what so ever to talk about Liberty and Democracy or even Human Rights as a “preacher ” to the world of Nations. Our History as a nation is sordid to put it mildly and i believe we are in fact now a rogue nation. (a super power, a legend in our deluded minds, u know the myth of “american exceptionalism) The electoral college is one of THE MOST anti democratic systems anywhere on earth. We are still rife with E- voting the uses PROpiratary software in our PUBLIC voting system. Something is ROTTEN in America, not Denmark…
Clinton is absolutely using the power of the MACHINE to advance her agenda for nothing short of dynasty. Let me further say that i would not care if she were the first out GAY female presidential candidate..people out there , thinking we are witnessing history by the “first female ” presidential candidate seriously NEED to look beyond , this historic benchmark. Look at the policies..take off the rose colored glasses and vote on more than something as superfiscial as gender. She can fight the republicans BECAUSE SHE IS ONE !
January 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
The Super delegate concept is something few political operative even talk about , the less or more obscure our electoral process is , the more the elitists prosper.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
OK, I have thus far been polite but maybe it is time to be blunt. What the hell is wrong with all the candidates putting their cards on the table and the entire nation goiing out to vote on a given day and getting the result they voted for? Not so difficult is it?
January 28th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Paul:
That would be great and that is what Americans want. However,the old guard doesn’t care much for the truth out and all cards on the table.
BTW:Feel free to speak you mind.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Scott:
Frankly I hope the Michigan and Florida delegates get seated however, rules are rules. Many states had the option to change their primary dates but understood the rules that were in place for one year. I have no problem with the DNC enforcing the rules. Breaking the rules has become expected behavior in this country and it’s about time we start playing by the rules.
Americans expect every country on this planet to play by the rules but it’s ok when we break them. I think those days are coming to a screeching halt.
“Clinton actually has broken the four state pledge and is campaigning in Florida”
This does not surprise me coming from Hillary.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
ProudP:
The Clintons have a huge machine and it is now breaking. The 1990’s are over and it is time to change.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Paul - I agree, democracy is about making hard compromises, and two factions of my party couldn’t even come to a compromise to protect a democratic primary process. If a Democrat wins the presidency in November, how will he or she be able to ask other groups that are much further apart to compromise to protect democracy with any authority? More importantly, how can the Democratic party be trusted to defend democratic principles if they aren’t even willing to use them in their primary process?
nytexan - I agree that the Michigan Democrats shouldn’t have broken the rules, but retaliating by disenfranchising our entire state is far too extreme. The DNC could have done many other things instead, the most effective being scheduling caucuses in Michigan and ignoring the state party altogether.
As far as the notion that “rules are rules,” historically strictly enforced and utterly capricious voting rules have been used to suppress the vote of many different groups. I don’t think there is any honor in supporting rules that everybody agrees are ill-conceived, and whose enforcement is disenfranchising voters.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Nytexan,
You are absolutely right about the old guard but that’s my point. Obama is not old guard. If you are right that most Americans want to elect their president by the popular vote, why does’t Obama come right out and say ‘put me in the White House this time and I will make electoral reform a key aim of my administration’?
Paul.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Paul:
Electoral reform is what many want but don’t understand. Voters are more worried about e-machine voting and having their vote count. That system needs to be tackled first. Which is what Edwards and Obama have talked about. However, with all of Bush’s failures so many more topics take over the discussion.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:50 am
I think McCain winning Florida changes the whole climate. He now goes forward to Super Tuesday with a good ‘following wind’. But that raises an interesting question. If Hilary wins the Democratic nomination, it would leave a presidential race between two establishment candidates from the old guard. I wonder what you think.
Could it be that a resurgent McCain might just push Democrats towards a ‘complete break from the past’ mentality and give Obama the impetus he needs?
Paul.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:53 am
By the way, what about Guiliani? How does a guy of his experience manage to get it so badly wrong?
Paul.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Giuliani? Very simple. The press spun Giuliani into a myth, and Giuliani, an unmitigated narcissist, of course believed that myth more than anyone. The reality, however, was a guy who at best had little positive appeal and at worst had many insurmountable negatives.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Thank you for tolerating a European viewpoint. It has been intersting and I appreciate your tolerance. I do, however, invite you to consider one final point. It is generally accepted in the civilised world - and in many places beyond - that medical care should be available at the point of need, regardless of cost and free of charge. It is fundamental to a civilised society. Address that and then - only then - lecture the rest of us on the nature of democracy.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Paul , speaking for myself, and being familiar the Bluebloggin..its not a question of tolorance , no dear one, its love and acceptance..many of us readers and commenters totally enjoy all the input , You have helped make this thread one of the best, and most vibrant !! And I thank you, and hope you will visit and contribute REGULARLY !!!
and yeah man, we in America are DELUDED BEYOND BELIEF ,about our health care system. (as a retired medical social worker) this really hits home for me. WE are profit mongers here. IT is beyond immoral to profit from human illness. SEE the movie SiCKO by Michael Moore (and yes i know he is fat..(an american joke, as he is dispised by the right as a truth teller) One of my dear friends is actually in the MOVIE. Our health care system is a disgrace. Europe and Canada puts us to shame. These “socialized and civilized health care system prove BEYOND A DOUBT , that people give care, do not become the “dreaded mythological welfare queens” on the contrary , they feel safe, they have time to heal and get right back into the work force. Here in ameriKa there is this notion that living on the dole is so damn great that every body just cannot wait for their “free lunch ” this is a horrendous LIE.
Not only that , but as humans , fact is most of us, want to ENJOY OUR WORK, participate in being creative and earn a decent living. Amerika uses a theory X systme of management which assumes the worst in people, vs. theory Y , that people want to do their best and given the proper tools with do just that. OUR health care system is based on nothing MORE THAN PURE GREED. And our poor are kept invisable.
The poor are basically told to DIE and DIE quick..the statistics prove this fact. We are a clinically delusional country regarding our own exceptionalism..There is NOTHING that some Capitalist will hesitate to profit off from, including water, and air. Its capitalism run amok , the only thing “socialist” about AmeriKa is the “welfare” Corporations recieve from Government give aways and tax loops.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Proudprogressive:
I saw the Michael Moore film and was very impressed (by the way, it matters not one jot that he is fat and he is piviledged to be American - is he a good film maker is the question and the answer is yes). What I saw recently were two heartbreaking newsbites. One was a guy who, thinking he had recovered from cancer, went self employed only to find he was still sick and married simply to get health insurance.
The other was a couple who were comfortably off but had a seriously ill child and found that their medical cover ended at 2 million USD and that ther was nothing more they could do except sell everything to pay the bills.
Contrast that with me. I relocated from the UK to Hungary two years ago and was taken seriously ill shortly afterwards.
I was told not to be concerned about money because the condition was serious, recovered and am here to tell the tale. The bills were taken care of because I had paid the contributions required - and that is the point. There are those who would say that I was incredibly lucky but actually that is not the case. I was part of a system which may, in the view of some, seem paternalistic or even - God help us - socialistic. But I am still here because, and only because, the system looks after you and asks the questions afterwards.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Paul that brings us right back to (s)hillary and her history during her husbands presidency of trying to improve health care…she is always saying look at her record ok..lets…now granted she had Newt Gingrich and a republican congress to deal with ,not to mention the cottage industry of clinton bashing (which is gearing up for another 4 yrs of prosparity should she )shudder,get the nomination. ) lordy how immature ameriKa looked to the rest of the globe,with slick willy’s scandal but i digress. Hillary in the course of her health care , fight has TOTALLY SOLD OUT - she will not fund , nor dismantle the profiteers..oh contrere..she is OWNED by big Pharma, and Insurance Companies NOW ! - so all her pretty talk is NOTHING BUT pretty talk…and will she blame the oppostition sure she will, that IS The republican play book…do what you say the opposition is doing WHILE DOING THE SAME DAMN thing yourself.
I am verY DEEPLY thankful you got the medical treatment your required in Hungary —– ( what a shock ! we americans didn’t know hungary had electricity !!! just kidding) Let it be a lesson to us all. AmeriKa in not even NUMBER TEN , let alone our jingoistic deluded cries of we are number one…..
Now realise i am not a knee jerk blame “america firster” as us patriots who dissent are frequently called by our media, I am just a person who thinks we can do better IF WE LOSE SOME OF OUR DELUSIONS. Get over the propaganda, regarding “socialism” and the virtures of Friedmanism (capitalism run amok, with no free market regulations) In short we as a country need to grow UP, and start to use our brains. Turn off our pablum media , and somehow get this country out of the hands of only the rich and powerful. WE really are a banana republic, we just have more gadgets.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Proudprogrssive,
We are drifting off the point and should start another thread to continue but, before that, I come back to my original point from way back.
I honestly do not understand how someone so highly regarded in the international community could risk that status by climing back into the gutter of politics. For the rest of us, Bill Clinton reached out and addressed important global issues. He was a significant figure in a resolution to the Northern Ireland situation. He presided over a period of exraordinary economic prosperity in the US. He could have been your Gorbachev or Mandela. But he seems to want to throw it all away.
Maybe he is right. Maybe he will see Hillary all the way to the White House. But what if he is wrong? What if she does not win the nomination, or worse yet, wins the nomination but loses the election. This is high risk by any standards.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Paul:
You are correct that McCain and Clinton represent the establishment which is why I think Obama will get the nomination. With Edwards leaving most of his supports are pro Obama and anti-Hillary.
Giuliani well let’s just say that “Americans Mayor” is America’s joke. He was the media darling for ratings and that’s all he had to offer. I full agree with priscianus jr.
Bill Clinton is actually showing everyone who he really is at the risk of his foundation.
I am very glad to have you participate in the conversation no matter what direction it took or topic changes. Conversation is always welcome and encouraged at BB.
BTW: Maybe I should open a thread for you and ProudProgressive to have varied and undefined conversations. It would be interesting and I know very though provoking.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
LOL …conversation , a bit of meandering , …thought processes…yeah i like it ! NO cookie cutter clone troopers here at BB. No special threads necessary nytexan but thanks ! Now if there were sandwiches and coffee on the meandering “special” thread..perhaps it could be a good thing. But count me in ONLY if there is FOOD….(for thought that is) Actually this thread has stayed remarkably on point. So many rules, sooo many the Clintons have broken ..my gawd we got a wide range. And american politics…holy moly.
*Now i could bring up , the antics of my cat….but i don’t recall doing that..and that would be seriously off topic. Paul its great to get a view from the outside looking in,it really really is !!! Its great to get everybody’s thoughts and views really.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
ProudP:
comments and meandering are free, sandwiches & coffee cost.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:04 am
Guys,
Thanks for the offer but I am in a different time zone. By the time you have your morning coffee, we are cracking the second bottle of Hungarian red
Paul.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Hi,
On the eve of Super Tuesday, I am struck by two things. The interest and enthusiasm for your elections in Europe is unprecedented. In part, I suspect that this is simply the understanding that the Bush era is coming to an end. Whatever his achievements in domestic affairs, I cannot recall a presidency that has been so offensive to European sensitivities.
More than that, I sense that we are looking to a sea change in American attitudes, a willingness to engage with the rest of the planet as opposed to assuming the right to run it. It is striking though that this enthusiasm is focused firmly on Obama. Personally, I am not persuaded that any of the candidates from either party are ready for that level of engagement. The cultural differences are simply too great (even the Russians do not put their miscreatants to death any more - barbaric by any standards!)
But anything would be a start. As it stands, the Atlantic seems wider, deeper and colder than at any time in my life. There seems to be little interest in the contest regarding wider foreign policy issues (Iraq and Afganistan being the obvious exceptions). It will be very interesting to see whether forign affairs becomes an issue in this election and where the candidates stand.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
PaulDrake:
Unprecedented indeed. The Bush era is coming to an end however, if Clinton is the democratic nominee and wins the White House we will again be stuck in the old thinking of the 2 family dynasty.
The democratic candidates where touching on foreign affairs at the beginging and then Bush screwed us again….the economy. Now all of our attention is focused on high gas prices, records house foreclosures, every grocery item is sky rocketing and unemployment at a records high.
So not only will the next president have to deal with the entire world who hates us, he.she will have to figure out how to get us out of this recession before things get worse.
BTY:Bush says we are not in a recession just a market slow down. What a putz.. In the even that word does not exist in England (to be polite) putz = jerk. There are more colorful translations of it .
February 5th, 2008 at 9:00 am
For once, I do not agree with you on two counts.
Firstly, the whole world does not hate you. There are 300 million regular guys out there we are really quite fond of. The people you elect into office - well that’s different.
Secondly, I am not sure that you can lay the blame for the current economic problems entirely at the door of the administration. The bottom line is that it was driven by issues related to real estate and, quite simply, too much money was made available to people who could not sustain payments in order to secure high interest repayments. These subprime mortgages were sold on to big US banks who were only too pleased to take the extra margins regardless of risk and subsequently sold on some of the risk to the global bank market.
Essentially, this is all about greed. High risk for the extra percentage point. Short of draconian regulation, it is hard to see what the administration could have done.
Cast your mind back to the last downturn and that was driven by the bursting of the dot com bubble. Again, vast sums were invested in something that was neither sustainable nor credible. Argue all you like about policy for resolving the problem but I suspect the causes are a little closer to the grass roots.