Maureen Dowd, "Trade Winds Blow Ill for Hillary": How Hillary Turned the US Into a Banana Republic

There was a time in my professional life when I spent much time in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where money could buy anything and the rule of law was non-existent. I always thought that these countries were some 50 or so years behind the United States in their evolution as constitutional democracies. Hillary, however, has proven me wrong. Even in America today, money and power can apparently insulate you from scrutiny.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trade Winds Blow Ill for Hillary," Maureen Dowd notes Hillary's flip-flops on the issue of Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership. Observing that "we have to play this silly game with her, as she dances and ducks, undermining President Obama by siding with Nancy Pelosi after Pelosi filleted the trade deal on the House floor," Dowd caustically writes:

"CNN reported that Hillary had enthusiastically promoted the trade pact 45 times as secretary of state."

Declaring that "the greater danger for [Hillary] is in looking disingenuous," Dowd concludes:

"Surprisingly, I received a fund-raising letter recently. Hillary Rodham Clinton was in large letters on the upper lefthand side of the envelope and above my address was the typed message: 'Maureen, this is our moment . . . are you with me?'

Not at the moment."

"Not at the moment"? How about never? The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the least of it. Should American voters simply ignore Uranium One and the suggestions of influence peddling that this embarrassment raised?

Should Americans forget how the Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, a country which whips and imprisons women who have been gang-raped, and from banks convicted of conspiring to rig currency valuations?

And what about her use of a personal server while secretary of state and her subsequent erasure of 30,000 emails?

When do Americans wake up and just say no? Or will $2.5 billion in campaign funds prevent this from ever happening?

David Brooks, "The Democratic Tea Party": Brooks Writes-Off US Manufacturing

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Democratic Tea Party," David Brooks comes out in favor of Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership. Brooks writes:

"There’s an argument over what trade agreements do to workers in the nation’s rich countries, but there is no question they have a positive impact on people in the poorer ones.

. . . .

Democrats point out that some workers have been hurt by trade deals. And that’s true. Most manufacturing job losses have been caused by technological improvements.

But those manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back. The best way forward is to increase the number of high-quality jobs in the service sector. The Pacific trade deal would help."

Hey, David, don't you think that before Congress approves the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the effect on American workers should be known? True, economics is not an exact science, but if the Trans-Pacific Partnership has the potential to harm American workers, shouldn't that damage be carefully delineated?

And what's this nonsense about writing off American manufacturing and manufacturing jobs? American (and Israeli) hi-tech should be allowed to revive American manufacturing with attendant growth in employment.

This time, House Democrats (and Hillary - it hurts me to say it) got it right.

Paul Krugman, "Democrats Being Democrats": Where Were the African-Americans at Roosevelt Island?

Informing us that "centrist" voters "don't exist" and that "Democrats are adopting ideas that work and rejecting ideas that don’t, whereas Republicans are doing the opposite," Paul Krugman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Democrats Being Democrats," would have us know that Democrats no longer seem afraid "to endorse clearly progressive positions." Krugman's explanation for this phenomenon:

"Part of the answer is that Democrats, despite defeats in midterm elections, believe — rightly or wrongly — that the political wind is at their backs. Growing ethnic diversity is producing what should be a more favorable electorate; growing tolerance is turning social issues, once a source of Republican strength, into a Democratic advantage instead."

"Growing ethnic diversity"? Interesting.

Krugman's conclusion:

"Of course, changes in ideology matter only to the extent that they can influence policy. And while the electoral odds probably favor Mrs. Clinton, and Democrats could retake the Senate, they have very little chance of retaking the House. So changes in the Democratic Party may take a while to change America as a whole. But something important is happening, and in the long run it will matter a great deal."

My response to Paul: Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

As was observed on MSNBC's Weekends with Alex Witt on Saturday:

ALEX SEITZ-WALD: It was a pretty enthusiastic crowd. There was, however, an overflow area behind the stage that didn't really get filled. Campaign officials say that was just a precautionary measure in case they needed more room. You know, I'd say a largely enthusiastic crowd, but they were not overwhelmed.

RICHARD LIU: And she was saying how she was going after the everyday American. But those who were maybe watching the background and who was there in the crowd, they didn't seem to reflect necessarily the everyday American per se, in terms of looking at diversity and those who were there, but, of course, that's just what we saw on the camera. What did you see there on the ground?

JOY REID: Yes, it was a predominantly white crowd. . . . I guess if you look at the Democratic Party as a whole, was this crowd as diverse as the party? No, it was not. . . . I would say on the diversity side, they were on the low end here.

Not enough African-Americans? Indeed. Moreover, without the African-American vote, Hillary is in trouble.

Can Obama help in this regard? Possibly. On the other hand, why should he, given Hillary's recently announced opposition to Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership, and if there is anyone who is unwilling to forget a grudge, it is the president. Just ask Bibi . . .

Maureen Dowd, "Flickering Greatness": The Price of Narcissism

"Thanks to the service and sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over. The war in Afghanistan is winding down. Al Qaeda has been decimated. Osama bin Laden is dead."

- President Obama, Campaign Event, Green Bay, Wisconsin, November 1, 2012

Well, at least bin Laden is dead.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Flickering Greatness," Maureen Dowd observes that Obama's "future reputation is mortgaged to past neglect." Noting the disdainful response of House Democrats to Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership, Dowd writes:

"The Democrats — even most of the Congressional Black Caucus, which Obama courted agressively [sic] and which has been protective of him — showed their allegience [sic] to themselves, their principles and their labor allies, and not to their aloof president."

Dowd proceeds to explain Obama's disaster in Iraq (yes, I know - this particular debacle did not originate with Obama):

"So Obama failed to keep his foot on the throat of our Shiite puppets, who balked at leaving an American troop presence there, with immunity, and who treated the Sunnis badly to punish them for the decades when Saddam treated the Shiites badly.

Many Sunnis, including Saddam’s former fighters put out of work by the American viceroy Paul Bremer, felt exposed and unprotected and joined up with Al Qaeda and ISIS."

And regarding the president's decision to send 450 more trainers to what is left of this country, Dowd concludes:

"It appears to be a sad, symbolic move by a country and president fed up with endless war and at wit’s end about how to combat the most murderous terrorists on the face of the earth. If we drowned in quicksand going full-bore for a dozen years beside Iraqi soldiers who did not want to fight, what good will 450 more American trainers do?

A lame duck sending sitting ducks to lily pads is not a pretty sight."

Lily pads? As long as those lily pads are not overrun by an ISIS onslaught on Baghdad, placing American soldiers in captivity. You will recall that when Obama ran off to the links after decrying the beheading of James Foley, it didn't add to his luster.

But what Maureen seems to forget is that it's not just Iraq that has unwound while the first invertebrate to occupy the Oval Office dithered. Libya, Yemen and Syria are now also home to some of the world's most notorious terrorist organization, and Lebanon hangs in the balance. Meanwhile, Obama appears determined to provide Iran with a nuclear arsenal, no matter what concessions need be made.

My goodness, the price that America has been forced to pay by a young narcissist consumed by his own wit.

David Ignatius, "Time for candidate Clinton to step up on trade": Actually, It's Time for Her to Step Down

Yet another "remarkable" opinion piece from David Ignatius today. In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Time for candidate Clinton to step up on trade," Ignatius would have us know:

"What does Hillary Clinton believe about the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Iran nuclear deal? You would assume that she’s supportive because she helped get both agreements started. But she has been a study in reticence — a trimmer checking the political winds, rather than a leader.

. . . .

Clinton should put away the waffle iron when it comes to the Iran deal, too. As secretary of state, she launched the secret channel in Oman that passed the message that Iran could enrich uranium if it agreed to tight controls on its nuclear program. Her experience with such secret diplomacy is one reason she’s a compelling candidate. But she has been stinting in her comments so far about the Iran pact.

. . . .

But it’s Clinton’s rope-a-dope approach to the TPP that deserves most attention, because it highlights her vulnerability as a candidate. Her caution conveys the sense that she’s running because she wants to get elected, rather than as the exponent of a set of beliefs. Critics have argued that Clinton, similarly, sought to play by a special set of rules in her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state and in the Clinton Foundation’s harvest of contributions from foreigners."

Yup, she should be answering questions about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Iran nuclear deal, her private email server, and donations from foreigners to the Clinton Foundation. But she won't. What you don't know can't hurt her, and Hillary has decided upon a campaign of silence.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos gave the Clinton Foundation $50,000? Oops, make that $75,000, but no mention of this transgression in Ignatius's essay. "What difference does it make" that Stephanopoulos asked Peter Schweizer, who wrote "Clinton Cash," if he had a "partisan interest" during an interview three weeks ago?

You see, this "compelling candidate" should step down, not up, and put an end to her $2.5 billion presidential campaign, but fat chance of that happening. We live in a world gone rotten.

Robert Kagan, "Clinton’s cowardice on trade": The Silent Campaign

In a guest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Clinton’s cowardice on trade," Robert Kagan, an Obama-friendly Brookings Institution senior fellow, takes Hillary to task for refusing to back the president on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Kagan writes:

"As secretary of state, Clinton said and did all the right things. She supported the TPP wholeheartedly, for reasons economic and strategic. This was not a matter of loyalty to Obama.

. . . .

Yet now, when the trade agreement hangs in the balance, when the all-important question of 'trade promotion authority' was voted on in the Senate, Clinton has been silent, or worse, has quietly indicated her concerns about the agreement.

. . . .

Is that the kind of leadership she proposes to offer us? For a candidate who as yet faces no primary challenge, to cower in the face of possible criticism from the irresponsible wing of her party gives little assurance that she has what it takes to lead the nation in the very difficult years ahead."

Robert, in case you didn't notice, it's not just the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Hillary is not taking questions. She is running a campaign of silence.

"Is that the kind of leadership she proposes to offer us?" Yes. And according to the polls, she might just be elected president anyway.

Paul Krugman, "Race, Class and Neglect": Provide Training for Which Jobs?

Let's take a trip back in time, four months to be precise. In a January 4, 2015 New York Times op-ed entitled "Presidents and the Economy," Paul Krugman concluded:

"So is the president responsible for the accelerating recovery? No. Can we nonetheless say that we’re doing better than we would be if the other party held the White House? Yes. Do those who were blaming Mr. Obama for all our economic ills now look like knaves and fools? Yes, they do. And that’s because they are."

Ah yes, an "accelerating recovery." How sweet it all looked back then!

But now, fast forward to the present. As reported yesterday in a CNNMoney article entitled "America's capsizing economy: Can it right the ship?" by By Patrick Gillespie:

"April was rough all around. It started with news that the economy only added 126,000 jobs in March, and previous months of job gains were revised down. Retail sales for March arrived in mid-April and they were sluggish.

Then last week we learned that America's economic growth was next to nothing, a mere 0.2% in the first quarter. Maybe the worst news about the growth: Businesses haven't been investing in themselves this year.

The newest projections for economic growth published by the Atlanta Fed show this spring could be disappointing too -- less than 1%."

Or stated in the vernacular, the US economy sucks, which bring us to the rioting in Baltimore. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Race, Class and Neglect," Paul Krugman today writes:

"[T]he riots in Baltimore, destructive as they are, have served at least one useful purpose: drawing attention to the grotesque inequalities that poison the lives of too many Americans.

. . . .

Lagging wages — actually declining in real terms for half of working men — and work instability have been followed by sharp declines in marriage, rising births out of wedlock, and more.

. . . .

The poor don’t need lectures on morality, they need more resources — which we can afford to provide — and better economic opportunities, which we can also afford to provide through everything from training and subsidies to higher minimum wages. Baltimore, and America, don’t have to be as unjust as they are."

It's a 55-minute drive from the White House to Baltimore. Obama didn't bother to undertake the journey.

Cure the malaise with training, subsidies and higher minimum wages? US manufacturing is almost certain to be harmed by Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership with an anticipated decline in the wages of non-college-educated workers. And this leads to my next question: Which jobs should persons living in America's inner cities be trained for? Go ahead and tell us, Paul! I'm all ears!

Thomas Friedman, "On Trade: Obama Right, Critics Wrong": Obama to Explain "How Any Workers Who Are Harmed Will Be Cushioned

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "On Trade: Obama Right, Critics Wrong," Thomas Friedman goes to bat for Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (Tom "leave[s] it to the president" to explain "how any [US]workers who are harmed can be cushioned"). Tom's explanation - this time - for his sycophantic support of the president:

"Because these deals are not just about who sets the rules. They’re about whether we’ll have a rule-based world at all. We’re at a very plastic moment in global affairs — much like after World War II. China is trying to unilaterally rewrite the rules. Russia is trying to unilaterally break the rules and parts of both the Arab world and Africa have lost all their rules and are disintegrating into states of nature. The globe is increasingly dividing between the World of Order and the World of Disorder."

Ah yes, a "rule-based world" in which Hillary and Bill have one set of rules, and all other Americans have another.

Sweet!