Five Years Late

Prosecutor.  Member, state House of Representatives.   State auditor.  United States Senator.

And in January of 2008, with such a breadth of political and fiscal experience, Claire McCaskill of Missouri endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President, though she

called Clinton "a smart woman...a strong leader" and acknowledged that she had faced strong pressure from her women's group allies to support the former first lady, or at least stay neutral. But she added, it's"important we look forward" and said of her decision, "I feel very strongly about it." The senator said it was her 18-year-old daughter, an Obama supporter, who ultimately urged her off the fence.

Back then, the Senator exclaimed

A lot of people talk about his ability to give a great speech. And there’s no question that he is truly gifted by God with an ability to speak to people in a way that touches them.  To me, that is the whip cream in the cherry. To me, this is a man who has incredible intellectual heft, he’s a very smart guy with a wide soul who is not afraid to figure out a new and different way to tackle problems.

That "new and different way to tackle problems" apparently referred to the continuation of the bank bailout, No Child Left Behind, drone attacks and spying on the American people.  Even President Obama's signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, fails on this count, having built on a plan earlier proposed by the Heritage Foundation and bearing a resemblance to the health care program implemented in Massachusetts by Governor Mitt Romney.

Four years ago, McCaskill believed Barack Obama was God's chosen candidate.  But apparently taking cues from her daughter was too deliberative a process.  On Saturday, the Washington Post reported

Sen. Claire McCaskill endorsed an outside political group encouraging Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president in 2016, saying it was important for Democrats to build a groundswell of support for the former secretary of state.

The Missouri Democrat’s support of the Ready for Hillary PAC on Tuesday marked the first time a member of Congress has endorsed the group. The organization does not have official ties to the former first lady, but it’s trying to lay the foundation for another Clinton campaign.

It is now 38-39 months before the Democratic National Convention and over 32 months before the Missouri primary is tentatively scheduled to take place.  And Claire McCaskill has decided that the likes of Andrew Cuomo, Martin O'Malley, and Mark Warner are not worthy to succeed such a glorious president as Barack Obama.  Nor does Joe Biden, the individual selected by the man who sent a tingle up McCaskill's leg in 2008, quite measure up.

It's too late for Claire McCaskill to rectify the mistake she made in 2008, endorsing a seemingly liberal Senator who became a center-right president and betrayed the principles of his supporters while craving the approval of Republicans.  And that is unlikely her motivation for endorsing a candidate who is not yet even a candidate, for there is a similarity to her decision in 2008.

As in her endorsement of Senator Obama, she has made a sexy choice without apparent regard for what the individual stands for.  One- but apparently not Senator McCaskill- may wonder what Hillary Clinton believes about comprehensive immigration reform, availability of the morning after pill, the FISA court, stimulus spending for an under-achieving economy, the drug war, destruction of Medicare, Medicaid, and public education by "reformers" tax incentives for corporations bringing jobs back from abroad, dissolving huge financial institutions, agriculture policy (especially in light of a potential reduction in food stamps), or even U.S. intervention in Syria.  We don't know, because the former Secretary of State is not yet a candidate.  Nor is it likely that the Missouri senator know, either.

Five years ago, Claire McCaskill opted for the guy who could "make history" (and to whom God singularly gave the gift of eloquence).  Now, she apparently lusts for election of the first female President.  Hopefully, if Mrs. Clinton runs, is nominated, and is elected, that presidency will turn out far better than this one has.


Share |

A Minor Objection From Obama


No doubt you've read about, or heard, President Obama's brutal attack on Bain Capital and the free enterprise system when he defended his campaign's comments about the aforementioned company.   Obama explained

The reason why this is relevant to the campaign is that my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be president is his business experience. He's not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts. He's saying, I'm a business guy, and I know how to fix it, and this is his business.

And when you're president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off, and how are we paying for their retraining. Your job is to think about how those communities can start creating new clusters so they can attract new businesses. Your job as president is to think about how do we set up an equitable tax system so that everybody's paying their fair share, that allows us then to invest in science, and technology, and infrastructure, all of which are going to help us grow.

And so if your main argument for how to grow the economy is "I knew how to make a lot of money for investors," then you're missing what this job is about. It doesn't mean you weren't good at private equity. But that's not what my job is as president.

My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now, 20 years from now.

If that wasn't vicious enough, the Socialist-in-Chief later reiterated

My view of private equity is it is set up to maximize profits.   And that's a healthy part of the free market. That's part of the role of a lot of business people. That's not unique to private equity.      I think there are folks who do good work in that area, and there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries.

Democratic (the identification here used very loosely) Senator Mark Warner of Virginia echoed the President's statement, remarking (according to Talking Points Memo)

Bain Capital was a very successful business.     I think they got a good return for their investors. That is what they were supposed to do. I think when you’re in public life, though, what you’ve got is a different time horizon. The notion that everything in government is exactly the same way that it is in business, they’re different time horizons when you’ve got to invest for the long haul, when you actually do the kind of early stage investing, whether in preschool, whether it’s in K-12, whether infrastructure, that doesn’t pay back quarter to quarter.

Warner spokesman Kevin Hall told TPM there is, as the latter put it, "no daylight" on the issue between his boss and Obama.

Of course there isn't.   Warner, unoficially a Blue Dog Democrat, one thought to be interested in the 2016 presidential nomination, could hardly have been offended by the President's endorsement of rapacious corporate practices.

And endorse Bain Capital he did.    The problem, according to Obama, isn't the debt the private equity firm routinely created for the companies it took over.    Nor is it the individuals fired so as to finance the debt, nor the salaries reduced and the pensions often eliminated for the workers who remained.    And it certainly isn't the millions Mitt Romney and the Board of Directors scooped up as they were destroying companies.

No, none of that.    It is, well, simply not the place of a President to make millions.   That is better left to companies like Bain, which apparently provide a socially worthwhile service to the country.    Romney, in this framework is among those "folks who do good work in that area" who "identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries.  

It was kind of President Obama to vouch for his opponent's efficiency and effectiveness.Obama differs only in noting that Mitt Romney and other heads of Bain perform a different function, assume a different role, than does the President of the United States.  

Still, Mitt Romney wasn't satisfied.   Responding to the President's remarks, the presumptive GOP nominee issued a statement maintaining

President Obama confirmed today that he will continue his attacks on the free enterprise system, which Mayor Booker and other leading Democrats have spoken out against....

So Barack Obama nods and winks at Wall Street, assuring the 1% that Mitt Romney and the type of firm he headed are (in 1960s lingo) just Swell.   Neat.    Cool.   We don't wish any offense- looting is merely not what a President does.    Then Romney accuses Obama of attacking the "free enterprise system," an odd description of marauders periodically destroying companies while reaping millions, assisted by government subsidy (video below).

Admittedly, it's a little difficult for President Obama to be terribly critical of Mitt Romney when he himself is raising dough from private equity executives.      Still, Romney's extreme response- slamming an opponent for "attack(ing)" free enterprise when the latter is defending it- suggests that mild, tepid questioning of the opposition will get the Obama campaign nowhere.    It must respond in kind, and slamming politicians who became multimillionaires on the carcasses of American companies would be a good place to start.







Share |