hillaryclinton   4758

« earlier    

7 Reasons Why the Uranium One Scandal Won’t Go Away Seamus Bruner May 9, 2019 Updated: May 22, 2019
The Trump–Russia collusion narrative is officially dead, now that special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded there is no evidence of collusion.

With the cloud of the Mueller probe lifted, President Donald Trump can now go on the offensive with an attorney general who appears ready to drop the hammer on corruption in Washington. Moreover, Attorney General William Barr doesn’t appear to be intimidated by Democratic lawmakers who have already threatened him with impeachment and even incarceration.

Former President Barack Obama’s allies have lately claimed his term in office was “scandal-free,” a claim his critics find “laughable.” Abuses of power under the Obama administration ranged from drone-strike assassinations of U.S. citizens to the IRS’s targeting of conservatives. In fact, the Obama administration was a magnet for scandals. One of the largest—and perhaps least understood—involves the Russian takeover of Uranium One, a Canadian mining company with large uranium holdings in the United States.

The mainstream press has repeatedly declared the Russian purchase of Uranium One a “debunked conspiracy theory.” But it’s no theory, nor has it been debunked. The Uranium One deal was complicated and had many moving parts, which also explains why misinformation about it has spread widely.

It’s true that the Clinton Foundation received undisclosed millions from Uranium One stakeholders—such as the $2.35 million from board Chairman Ian Telfer. The Obama administration did allow the Russians to acquire domestic nuclear assets critical to U.S. national security. But minor inaccuracies in the soundbites have allowed self-appointed fact-checkers such as PolitiFact and Snopes to selectively “debunk” the larger story without critically examining the full set of facts.....
UraniumOneDeal  HillaryClinton  Russia  RussiaGate  RussianCollusion  BillClinton 
27 days ago by juandante
Zombie Neoliberalism | Dissent Magazine
"For someone who demands that Democrats return to the questions of class that once supposedly drove the party, Frank has a fraught relationship with the radical left. Perhaps it’s to be expected of someone who cut his political teeth in the decades when the idea of socialism was all but dead. His books are peppered with denigrations of communists past that feel particularly dated in a post–Cold War era where many of today’s Bernie Sanders supporters and new Democratic Socialists of America members scarcely remember the USSR. He often draws equivalencies between left and right, positioning himself, like any good New Dealer, as the compromise keeping the commies at bay—the only reasonable position between two wildly irrational poles. This leads, at times, to a curiously apolitical reading of politics, one that strikes an above-the-fray pose that ignores the realities of struggle.

Frank is sharper when he examines the Democratic establishment. Listen, Liberal is a biting diagnosis of the cult of smartness that has become liberalism’s fatal flaw. Given his own weakness for pretending to float above partisan conflict, the book is a self-critique as much as anything. In previous books he glanced at the failures of liberalism, only to return to pointing out how very bad the right is. When he notes today that “Nothing is more characteristic of the liberal class than its members’ sense of their own elevated goodness,” this is an unsubtle rebuke to his own earlier assumptions.

Criticizing the fetish for smartness within the liberal class (the term that he uses for what others have called the “professional-managerial class”) puts Frank in familiar territory. His skewering of tech-fetishists from the first dot-com era turns into a skillful reading of Obama’s turn toward Silicon Valley (and the fact that so many former Obama staffers have wound up there). The failure of the “knowledge economy” has been a subject of Frank’s since way back. There is, he notes, a difference of degree, not kind, between the Republican obsession with entrepreneurs and business and the “friendly and caring Democratic one, which promises to patch us up with job training and student loans.”

Since Trump’s win, Democratic strategists have doubled down on the idea that victory lies with Frank’s “well-graduated” professional class, the “Panera Breads” or the suburban voters of Chuck Schumer and Ed Rendell’s famed predictions that Democrats would make up any losses with blue-collar voters who defected to Trump by gaining ground in affluent suburbs. The most obvious problem with this strategy is that it does not approach a majority: only a third of the country has a bachelor’s degree, and only 12 percent an advanced degree beyond that. The other, and more significant, problem is that this assumption encourages a belief in meritocracy that is fundamentally anti-egalitarian, fostering contempt for those who haven’t pulled themselves up by their bootstraps—and Republicans already give us far too much of that.

Liberalism’s romance with meritocracy has also fostered an obsession with complexity for its own sake—a love of “wonky” solutions to problems that are somehow the only realistic way to do anything, even though they require a graduate degree in public policy just to comprehend. Politics by experts gives us a politics that only experts can understand. Complexity allows people to make things slightly better while mostly preserving the status quo and appearing to have Done Something Smart.

In Frank’s description of Hillary Clinton we see where all this leads: a feeling of goodness that replaces politics. This isn’t entirely fair, of course—for the millions of Clinton voters (and there were, we should remember, some 3 million more of them than Trump voters), one can assume that at least as many of them were motivated by her actual stated policy goals as Trump voters were by promises of jobs and a wall. Yet Clinton came up short in the key states that lost her the Electoral College as much because poor and working people stayed home than because of any sizable flip of the mythical “White Working Class,” those bitter non-degree-havers of the coastal media’s imagination, to Trump.

Feeling good about voting for Clinton because she was less crass than Trump—the campaign message that the Clinton campaign seemed to settle on—was not enough to inspire a winning majority at the polls. Feelings, Frank would agree, are no substitute for politics.


What is left of liberalism these days, then? Surveying the wreckage of the Democratic Party, one is tempted to answer: not much. On the other hand, the 2016 election (and the 2017 elections in the United Kingdom and France) show us the rise of a current presumed dead for decades. In the wake of the Bernie Sanders campaign, the United States has seen the awakening of socialist politics, breathing life into the kind of class talk that Frank has yearned for his entire career. It is important, then, that we take note of the limitations of longing for a vanished past, that we salvage the lessons from recent history that Frank offers in order to move forward.

Frank’s books presume that a return to the New Deal is the best we can hope for. His frequent invocations of FDR demonstrate the problems with Frank’s take on “culture.” Many New Deal programs, after all, excluded workers who were not white men, and while the best parts of the New Deal have resisted right-wing attempts to take them down, nostalgia for its peak is similar to that which motivates right-wing populism. It is the left’s version of “Make America Great Again.”

The echoes of Kansian arguments have returned to a left grappling with the best way to respond to Trump; some have forthrightly said that pandering to presumably cultural-reactionary Trump voters is necessary, that Democrats should discard “identity liberalism,” in Mark Lilla’s words. In Kansas, Frank wrote, “If basic economic issues are removed from the table . . . only the social issues remain to distinguish the parties.” But this is also true in reverse: when Trump ran to the left on trade, denouncing deals that Hillary Clinton had backed, few people were able to successfully explain why Trump’s racism and sexism made him, still, a bad deal for working people.

Frank demonstrates both liberalism’s promise and its limitations—which are also the limitations of Bernie Sanders and those who, in trying to defend the left against its more disingenuous critics, wind up casting the New Deal–state as the apotheosis of all possible politics rather than as one temporary phase in the class war.

For it is class war that we are in, whether we like it or not, and we will not win it with smartness or with better billionaires. It is a power struggle in which the right will aim to divide and conquer, to mobilize racism and sexism to maintain a hierarchy, and the center will attempt to smooth the roughest edges in order to hold onto its own power or, what’s worse, because it genuinely believes that there is still No Alternative.

“Liberalism,” Frank notes in The Wrecking Crew, “arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests.” In most of his books there is a brief acknowledgment of this kind of struggle—nods to what Kansas refers to as “decades of movement building, of bloody fights between strikers and state militias, of agitating, advocating, and thankless organizing.” We need that kind of fight once again, if we are to hope for things to get better.

John Feltner of Rexnord knew; he joined his union comrades on the picket line even as he was preparing to lose his own factory job. Feltner told me about his time at “union school,” held on the grounds of the great labor leader and five-time Socialist presidential candidate’s home, and how compared to Debs’s day, neither political party spoke to him.

We need to ensure that our politics are not just a welfare-state version of Make America Great Again, a kinder fetishizing of the industrial working class that leaves so-called “social issues” out of the picture. For that hope, we need to turn to the social movements of recent years, to the growth of the Movement for Black Lives and the promise of the Women’s March and particularly the Women’s Strike, to the activists sitting in and disrupting town halls to save healthcare and even improve it, as well as the burgeoning membership of socialist organizations and the rise of Chokwe Antar Lumumba in Jackson, Mississippi. The groundwork is being laid, but as Frank notes, no benevolent leader is going to bring us the change we need.

That is going to be up to all of us."
2017  neoliberalism  sarahjaffe  donaldtrump  thomasfrank  hillaryclinton  meritocracy  smartness  elitism  politics  us  elections  newdeal  economics  workingclass  class  classism  berniesanders  socialism  capitalism  chokweantarlumumba  liberlaism  unions  labor  activism  organizing  chokwelumumba 
5 weeks ago by robertogreco
Democrats Have Created an “Electability” Monster | The New Republic
"“Electability” is a crock of shit. It is defined, like political “moderation,” only in terms of opposition to things people want, but are told they can’t have, ranging from antiwar politics to left-wing economic populism to even the “cultural liberalism” that is seemingly the cornerstone of the modern Democratic Party. (Back in 2004, supporting civil unions, not even marriage, for same-sex couples was a threat to a Democrat’s perceived “electability.”) While the impulse to vote according to how you think a candidate would appeal to people who don’t share your priorities might make sense in theory, practice has revealed time and time again that no one involved in electoral politics—from the pundits down to the caucus-goers—has a clue who or what Americans will actually vote for. That was supposed to be, as the political scientist Masket says, the main lesson of Trump’s election.

But Democratic voters did not teach themselves to prioritize electability over their own actual concerns. They were trained to, over many years, by party figures who over-interpreted the loss of George McGovern, or who wanted to use the fear of McGovern to maintain their power over the Democratic candidate pipeline and nomination process. “Electability” is a way to get voters to carry out a contrary agenda—not their own—while convincing them they’re being “responsible.”

And now Democratic candidates and their most loyal voters are stuck in an absurd feedback loop. The politicians campaign and govern as if they themselves don’t believe a majority of voters prefer their agenda, signaling to their most loyal voters that they must vote not for what they want, but for what they imagine their more-conservative neighbors might want. But when voters in 2016 did exactly that, and nominated the candidate they were repeatedly told was most qualified to defeat Trump in the general election, they chose a person who went on to lose to him.

How are committed, pragmatic voters supposed to react when the person sold to them as not just the most “electable” person in this particular race, but among the most “electable” people in recent political history, loses a freak election to a preening, venal huckster who was treated as a great big joke for almost the entirety of the campaign?

If “electability” previously meant “the candidate most associated with the hawkish and business-friendly wing of the party,” it now seems to have become purely and nakedly demographic. Former Clinton voters are flocking to the various white men in the race, avoiding candidates they actually might like, because they see their own affinity for those candidates as a political liability.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a populist liberal PAC, polled its own members, asking why they supported their candidates of choice, and found basically an inverse relationship between which candidate’s supporters thought their pick would make the “best president” (Warren by a landslide) and which ones were motivated by their belief that their candidate is the most “electable” (Biden). As PCCC co-founder Adam Green put it: “Barely a majority of Biden’s own current supporters believe he would be the best Democratic president.”

Because of the way the “electability” question was framed in 2016, and the way it then backfired, it looks very much like the Democratic Party’s rank-and-file took from that election the lesson that “a smart and capable woman isn’t electable,” not that “an establishment fixture with a tremendous amount of political baggage who is also easily and convincingly portrayed as corrupt isn’t electable.” I’m guessing many of the people who worked very hard to elect Hillary Clinton president would like to see Warren win the Democratic nomination rather than Biden, but decades of party brass (aided by a political press that spends every single election cycle talking about the electorate like it’s still Nixon’s Silent Majority) leaning on “electability” arguments to kneecap outsider candidates is currently working against that outcome.

It is still easy to imagine the sort of Democrat who’d be happy to use the “electability” argument against a candidate like Warren. But when even someone like Harris—a member in good standing of the party establishment, a dedicated player of the “electability” game her entire career, a person whose campaign strategy from the outset seemed to be to rerun the Clinton campaign but without the Clinton baggage—struggles to gain traction with Democratic voters, it feels like the monster has turned on its creators.

Watching Joe Biden, a man who was already too out-of-step with the party and the country to win the nomination 12 years ago, claim the “electability” mantle only strengthens that feeling. No one really wants President Biden. It’s just that the “better things aren’t possible” caucus accidentally managed to convince some large portion of the Democratic electorate that they must hold their noses and vote for actively worse things.

Expecting voters to behave like pundits—asking people to vote for what expensive consultants and Sunday show guests imagine people like them might want instead of what they actually want—would be perverse even if it worked. But unless and until the Democratic electorate can be given license to support what it supports, each failure of the “electability” paradigm will only be taken as proof of the need to retreat further into learned helplessness.

If you’re not that excited to vote for Joe Biden, I promise you, your neighbor isn’t, either."
democrats  elections  politics  us  electability  kamalaharris  joebiden  hillaryclinton  berniesanders  petebuttigieg  corybooker  elizabethwarren  georgemcgovern  centrists  centrism 
6 weeks ago by robertogreco
Hillary Clinton Says She Is Not Running for President in 2020
Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and first lady who lost the White House to Donald J. Trump in 2016, said officially on Monday what has been unofficially clear for months: She is not running for president again in 2020.

“I’m not running,” Mrs. Clinton told a New York City television station, News 12. “But I’m going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe.”

Mrs. Clinton, the first woman to win a major-party nomination for president, remains a complicated figure for the Democratic Party as both a trailblazing female leader and also the candidate who was defeated by Mr. Trump.

Ahead of the 2020 election, she has been holding private meetings with many of the current and potential presidential candidates, including Senator Kamala Harris and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., as they sought counsel from her even before she formally ruled out another run.
hillaryclinton  usa  politics  election  democrats  from instapaper
march 2019 by jtyost2

« earlier    

related tags

#metoo  1%  1663  1966  1988  1998  1999  2000  2005  2006  2010  2012  2016  2016democraticprimary  2016election  2016electionfraud  2016nyclectionfraud  2016presidentialelection  2017  2018  2019  2020  aba  aclu  activism  adamschiff  afd  airbnb  alexandriaocasiocortez  alimony  ameliawarrentyagi  america  amnestyinternational  amychozick  amyklobuchar  analysis  andrewbreitbart  angelamerkel  anntodd  anthonybrown  aprilcookhawkins  arasagalarov  arizona  arneduncan  babybonds  baltimore  banking  bankruptcy  banks  barackobama  batsydefos  bencarson  benjealous  berniebros  berniesanders  billbrowder  billburton  billclinton  bitterclingers  book  books  brettkavanaugh  brexit  briahnagray  brucemann  bushcrimefamily  business  buzzfeed  california  campaign  campaigning  canada  capitalism  carltonlong  carterpage  catherinepugh  centrism  centrists  cfpb  change  chapter13  chapter7  charity  charlesfried  charlestisdale  charterschools  cherokee  chicago  childsupport  chokweantarlumumba  chokwelumumba  chrishayes  christophersteele  chuckrosenberg  citizens  civilrights  class  classism  clinton  clintoncampaign  cnn  colinkaepernick  colorofchange  columbia  column  compromise  congress  conservative_propaganda  conservativenutjobs  controversies  corettamckinney  corettascottking  corporations  corruption  corybooker  creditcards  crime  dailyshow  darrickhamilton  data  davechappelle  davidcayjohnston  daviddinkins  davidhogg  davidplouffee  dcleaks  deathpenalty  debt  deepstate  democracy  democraticparty  democrats  demographics  desinformación  devalpatrick  dmitrypeskov  dnc  dncorruption  doddfrank  donald  donaldtrump  dougwilder  dreamact  dredscott  dubuque  economicpatriotism  economics  economy  education  einerelhauge  electability  election  election2016  election2018  elections  electoralcollege  elite  elitism  elizabethwarren  emails  emmanuelsaez  ericgarcetti  ericholder  espionage  esquire  essay  establishment  europe  evangelicalism  fahrenheit119  families  family  fbi  finance  financialcrisis  findingyourroots  fivethirtyeight  flint-mi  foreignpolicy  foxnews  fredjealous  funding  gabrielzucman  gaymarriage  gender  georgelakoff  georgemcgovern  georgepapadopoulos  georgewbush  georgia  germany  gfc  gilgarcetti  globalisation  globalization  gloucester-virginia  gm  government  governmentfailure  governors  greatrecession  grit  guccifer  guilt  gwenstefani  gwu  habitatfohumanity  harvard  harvardlaw  harveyweinstein  hbcus  healthcare  heatherheyer  henrylouisgatesjr  henrypaulson  hillary  hispanic  history  hitler  howardschultz  hrc  idealism  identity  identitypolitics  illegal  ilyashapiro  immigration  impeachment  indenturedservants  indictment  inequality  inspectorgeneral  intelligence  interactive  intersectionalism  interviews  investigation  itsawonderfullife  jackgreenberg  jackholmes  jacksaul  jacksonadvocate  jamescomey  jamiedimon  jaywestbrook  jebbush  jeffjarvis  jeffsessions  jeffweaver  jeromecorsi  jessejackson  jimmycarter  jimwarren  joebiden  joekennedy  joelieberman  joewalsh  johnpodesta  johnstumpf  jonstewart  journalism  judithrussell  julianbond  june  justsaying  kamalaharris  kansas  kaporcapital  kathykantner  katiehalper  kellydittmar  kenstarr  kevinsieff  kkk  kompromat  kremlin  labor  lakehuron  larryhogan  larrystafford  lawfareblog  lawrencesummers  lawsuit  leeannewalters  leftists  legislation  liberation  liberlaism  libyanwar  lobbying  localmoosecafe  louisbrandeis  lovingvvirginia  lyft  ma-gov  ma-sen  malware  manafort  manchester-nh  mapping  maps  markets  markjosephstern  marthacoakley  maryland  maryschapiro  massachusetts  matthewyglesias  mccullohhomes  mckinsey  md-gov  media  mediabias  medicare  medicareforall  meritocracy  michaelbloomberg  michaelcohen  michaelflynn  michaelmasserman  michaelmoore  michigan  middleclass  midwest  midwives  migration  mikabrzezinski  milwaukee  minimumwage  mississippi  mitchmcconnell  monahannaatisha  money  monicalewinsky  mook  motherjones  movie  musicvideo  naacp  naomizewde  natalifoster  natashasarin  natesilver  natick-ma  nationalenquirer  nazis  neeratanden  neilbarofsky  neoliberalism  newdeal  newyorker  ntflix  nymag  nytimes  obama  obamaadministration  olegsolodukhin  opinion  organizing  oversight  oxford  pacificgrove-ca  parkland-fl  passports  paulmanafort  paydayloans  pennsylvania  peoplessummit  persistence  petebuttigieg  peterdaou  peterstrzok  philanthropy  pigeonly  podesta  policy  politics  polls  poverty  power  pragmatism  press  primaries  princeton  prison  privatization  privilege  progressive  psychology  ptsd  publicservice  putin  q  qanon  race  racism  raydialo  rebeccatraister  recovery  refugees  regulation  reparations  republicans  research  review  revolt  richardcordray  ricksnyder  rightwing  rightwingpopulism  robertmueller  robgoldstone  roger&me  rogerstone  rogertaney  roymoore  rttt  russia  russiagate  russiancollusion  rutgers  salmanrushdie  sandydarity  sanford-fl  sarahgrant  sarahjaffe  sarahkliff  scandal  schoolfunding  schools  scottbrown  scotus  seiu  senate  sexism  shame  sheilablair  shirleysherrod  siliconvalley  slate  slaves  smartness  socialism  society  starbucks  startups  states  statue  steeledossier  stevebannon  steventhrasher  steveschmidt  stonecliffwinery  strike  studentloans  students  study  summer  survey  systemicrisk  tarp  taxes  teacher  teachers  teaching  teresasullivan  texas  theatlantic  thenation  thomasfrank  timotheygeithner  toddzywicki  tomnides  tonyblair  townhall  trauma  trayvonmartin  treasury  trends  treybeck  trolling  trump  trumporganization  tuckercarlson  twitter  uber  uk  ukraine  uncertainty  unions  uraniumonedeal  us-pres  us  usa  utaustin  vanitagupta  vanityfair  vanjones  video  viktoryanukovich  violentliberals  vladimirputin  vladimirputing  voters  vox  vulture  wadehenderson  wallstreet  walmart  walshfreedom  washpost  wealth  wealthtax  wellsfargo  westvirginia  whisteblowers  wikileaks  wisconsin  women  workingclass  worstteam  wtf  youtube  zignallabs 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: