While Mitt Romney may have been the poster boy of those who ran a company that offshored jobs to China, it was Bill Clinton who ran the country that did (resulting in our current trade deficits). Clinton also repealed the Glass-Steagall law that deregulated the banks in 1999 (resulting in the housing bust and Great Recession). And good-ole Uncle Bill also lowered the capital gains tax rate in 1997 for the uber-rich (perpetuating the record high income and wealth inequality that we're experiencing today).
Since Bill Clinton granted permanent normal trade relations to China in 1998 and signed the NAFTA trade agreement in 1993, the labor force participation rate began its long decline (starting in April of 2000). And so, it's not a coincidence (or a great mystery as to why) that from the beginning of 2001 to the end of 2012 the U.S. has lost over 64,000 manufacturing firms — and millions of jobs — to offshoring. (And Obama isn't off the hook either, advocating for new trade deals that could hurt us even more, such as the TPP trade agreement).
Now American voters are poised to elect Bill Clinton's wife as our next President in 2016 to carry on the Clinton dynasty — and putting Bill back in the White House again. But of course, Hillary's backers have already said that she is NOT AT ALL like her husband. Oh really?
How exactly have "moderate" Democrats (aka "New Democrats" or "Third Way Democrats") like the Clintons been any less harmful than the Republicans when it comes to destroying the middle-class, just to benefit large corporations and the very wealthy? These Democrats (who supposedly care for the poor, the working-class and the middle-class) had Obama as President and controlled both chambers of Congress in 2009 and 2010. But they did very little to reign in (or prosecute) Wall Street for their crimes. And during this time they did absolutely NOTHING to reform the tax code while holding absolute power — nor did they raise the federal minimum wage (Obama was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2010 for two years in exchange for getting the Republicans to extend unemployment insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed. That alone should tell you something about the GOP.)
These "new" Democrats compromised on too many issues while pretending to "play nice" with the Republicans, rather than listening to the Progressive Democrats, who took a much stronger stand on issues that mostly benefited ordinary Americans, and not just catered to the super rich and big businesses. Progressives (who caucus with the Democrats) have constantly advocated for such things as raising the minimum wage, eliminating tax loopholes and raising the cap for Social Security. In 1952 Harry Truman said, "The people don't want a phony Democrat". But that's exactly what we have today. Many, just like the Republicans, right after leaving public office, go to work for the very corporate lobbyists who have been advocating against the interests of average American workers for decades.
These "moderate" Democrats only began complaining about stagnate wages, an unfair tax code, campaign finance reform, and corporate nefariousness only AFTER the Occupy Wall Street movement got started in September 2011. Yet those very Democrats had two years to fix what they are complaining about today. (Yes, they passed Obamacare, but couldn't they walk down a sidewalk and chew gum at the same time?)
Why do American voters consistently vote against their own best economic interests, by voting for people to enact laws that only hurts them in the pocket book ("I don't care if I ever get a pay raise again, just so long as birth control or gay marriage isn't allowed in my State!") It is this small minority of voters in gerrymandered congressional districts in Republican controlled States who have been using their religious beliefs to reek economic havoc on the rest of the country's citizens. For a very long time the GOP has successfully used "wedge issues" to conquer and divide the voters. As of lately, we have also seen many people trying to use generational warfare (pitting the young against the old) regarding Social Security.
If not a "progressive" Democrat like FDR (such as Elizabeth Warren) — that even a majority of Republicans had once voted for 4 times in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944 — then who will truly represent the interests of regular working people? And who will reign in the greed and corruption of corporate America? (Not Eric Holder under Obama, and certainly not Hillary Clinton).
Is this the very best we can hope for — a continuation of another political dynasty, by holding our noses (once again), and voting for Hillary Clinton — and only because she is the better of two evils when compared to a Republican or Tea Party candidate? (Who, like "moderate" Democrats, are pro-corporate, but are also anti-labor as well.)
Elizabeth Warren would be letting her country down (even if she lost in a primary election to Clinton) by not even considering running for President of the United States. At the very least, we could see her debate Clinton and get the message out for future progressive candidates. Just as those disenfranchised people living in those horrible gerrymandered States, by not running, Warren would be depriving millions of people from voting for a candidate that share her values — and forcing us to settle for "second best" again by voting for someone else — like Hillary Clinton. (I'd also vote for Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders — as either POTUS, or as Warren's VP).
But even among Republican voters, even with what they now know today about Mitt Romney's "vulture capitalism", many non-wealthy working-class GOP voters would still like to see him run again — despite the fact that he has been working directly against their own best economic interests for decades. (I can only say, "Fools, all." And Romney most likely thinks the same.)
American voters and the Democratic political machine should heed some advice from this post at CNN --- "Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton is a False Choice"
Competition within the party doesn't have to be a negative; Democrats could turn this to an advantage...It would be a mistake for Democrats to think that the entry of Warren, or a candidate similar to Warren, into the race would somehow create problems or even a "left-center" divide...The notion that dealing with economic inequality represents the "progressive" wing of the party as opposed to the mainstream is an extremely flawed way for Democrats to think of their party. Painting Warren's concerns as being to the left ignores how tackling these kinds of economic challenges have been at the heart of the Democratic Party for almost a century...It would be a mistake for Democrats to break off into opposing camps, with some tackling these so-called "leftward" issues and others sticking to the "center." A better bet, based on the record, would be to put these questions front and center in the primaries and see which candidate offers the best and most aggressive response to the challenges that have faced middle-class Americans in recent decades.
Earlier this month the Bill Moyers show released a vintage clip of Senator Elizabeth Warren appearing on the show in 2004. In the video, Warren talks about a meeting she had with then-first lady Hillary Clinton. Synopsis:
In the late 1990s, Congress was set to pass a bill that would make it much harder for working-class Americans to alleviate their debt by claiming bankruptcy. Banks and credit card companies had been pushing hard for the bill.
At the time, now-Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote an op-ed opposing the legislation, arguing the bill would disproportionately hurt single mothers. The first lady, Hillary Clinton, apparently read the piece, because Warren got a call from the White House asking if she'd meet with Clinton to discuss the bill.
After their conversation, Clinton got up and said, "Professor Warren, we've got to stop that awful bill." And stop the bill they did. The bankruptcy bill was the last one to cross President Bill Clinton's desk, and he vetoed it. (On the campaign trail for President in 2007, Hillary Clinton used the bill as evidence that she "fought the banks.")
But what Hillary Clinton didn't say was, when she joined the Senate in 2001, and when the bankruptcy bill came up again, Clinton the Senator did what Clinton the first lady opposed --- she voted for it.
Do we really want a pro-corporate flip-flopper running our country? Do we really want the plutocrats and oligarchs to have even more control over our democracy and daily lives? When the GOP talks about "freedom", they exclude the "economic freedom" that millions of working Americans lack, and who are struggling paycheck-to-paycheck just to get by on. What about their right to earn a real living wage, so that they'd have the freedom to live better lives and pursuit their happiness?
"I want Elizabeth Warren to run against Hillary Clinton — and win. She would absolutely be my preference above Hillary.”
And let's talk about character: Watch this parody at YouTube of Hillary Clinton showing great courage while under fire as she and her daughter Chelsea greeted the Bosnian delegation while dodging bullets. Will this be our new Commander-and-Chief in 2016? Ask a real Veteran what it's really like to be dodging bullets. (Actual footage of Clinton landing in Bosnia and commentary from CBS News.) If Elizabeth Warren ever ran for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Liz might be the only real bullet that Hillary Clinton would ever have to dodge in her entire life.