Kurlantzick: The Bourgeois Revolution

How the global middle class declared war on democracy

Dictatorship of the bourgeosie: Middle class “yellow-shirt” protesters were responsible for forcing Thailand’s elected government from power.

[ Very long, informative, thoughtful article. ]

spiegel.de on US financial crisis

Crisis Plunges US Middle Class into Poverty

spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,620754,00.html

German paper: ‘I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY’ [ Obama on financial crisis ]

[ Obama said ] “It is true, as my Italian friend has said, that the crisis began in the US. I take responsibility, even if I wasn’t even president at the time.” And he underscored how important it is for him “that we now genuinely make progress. Thank you.” Applause.

The others couldn’t believe their ears. Was that really a confession of guilt from the US? Was it a translation error, or at least an inaccuracy? Afterwards, this sentence fueled long discussions among the members of the German delegation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was so impressed by Obama’s statement that she rushed to tell her finance minister, Peer Steinbrück. Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso reacted immediately: The proposal to hold the next summit not in Japan, but rather in the US, is something that he no longer rejects, he says, “now that the US has shouldered responsibility.”

continue to read: 3 page article here

spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,617639,00.html

UK Telegraph: Obama rejects Normandy trip to avoid offending Germany

Barack Obama, concerned about offending Britain and Germany, rebuffed strenuous attempts by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France to persuade the new American president to make a trip to Normandy this week.

“It wasn’t going to happen,” said an American official in Washington. “We went through the motions to placate President Sarkozy but giving special treatment to France was not on our agenda. “During this trip, we wanted to maintain a balance between the British, German and France”. A White House spokesman in London declined to comment.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5096803/Barack-Obama-rejects-Normandy-trip-to-avoid-offending-Germany.html

UK Guardian: The question that flummoxed the great orator

[ I'm cutting Crace's snark, Obama's own words are bad enough. ]

Nick Robinson: "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?"

Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking

Barack Obama: "I, I, would say that, er ... pause  ... if you look at ... pause... the, the sources of this crisis ... pause ... the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . .pause  ... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... pause, close eyes. I think what is also true is that ... pause ... here in Great Britain ... pause ... here in continental Europe ... pause... around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ...pause... the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged ... pause So at this point, I'm less interested in ...pause... identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er ... pause ... drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think ... pause ... there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er ... pause  ... I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question

Litle: The AIG Connection – Far Worse Than You Think

[E]verything this administration has done, every last damn thing, has been favorable to one of Wall Street’s most entrenched interest groups: the bondholders.

The bondholders, the bondholders. It’s always been about them [....] to make sure that the connected financial interests in his Rolodex don’t lose their stakes, even in cases where they oh-so-richly deserve to.

This, by the way, is why the Obama administration ruled out the nationalization option for the banks from day one.

The cleanest option, and one we called for loudly in these pages – taking over the banks, throwing out current management, selling off the assets and starting over – was no-go because too many connected players would have taken a hit if their big bond positions went to zero. 

[ Too much good stuff to quote,  see the article and scroll down a couple of screens to the meat.

First see the excellent take from wbboei which I've inserted as a Comment to this post. ]

http://www.taipanpublishinggroup.com/taipan-daily-040309.html

EASY POST comment form at the bottom; no login, few comments so far.

UK Reuters: U.S. eases accounting rules as G20 acts

World leaders agreed on Thursday to tighten financial regulations and increase funding for poor nations, while a U.S. accounting body moved to ease rules for banks that forced billions of dollars of writedowns.

uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE5315IA20090402?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

UK Globe/Mail: Obama the big loser at the G20

He came looking for an international agreement to pursue stimulus measures, convinced that the approach he’s pursuing domestically is the way to end the global economic crisis. 

[....]

In the end, Mr. Obama had to give way - principally to French and German objections. Worse, from the American point of view, the stimulus that was agreed to at the meeting is particularly costly for U.S. taxpayers.

[....] 

 Barack Obama emerges as the big loser of this meeting - which is not an auspicious launching pad for the NATO meeting that begins tomorrow.

by Norman Spector

theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090402.WBSpector20090402123910/WBStory/WBSpector

NQ: [ No Bradley effect ]

Today the American Association for Public Opinion Research Ad Hoc Committee on the 2008 Presidential Primary Polling released a pdf report on the methodologies utilized by pollsters during the Democratic primaries. It is a long report, and a cursory analysis of it is available at Pollster.com.  [....]

And here is what their extensive and rigorous report found (pages 53-54):

Several compelling pieces of evidence suggest that the New Hampshire estimation errors were probably not caused by the “Bradley effect” – or the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent. A meta-analysis by Hopkins (2008) indicates that while the Bradley effect did undermine some state-level polls in previous decades, there is no evidence for such an effect in recent years.

UK Guardian: G20 protests: riot police clash with demonstrators

Much of the protesting, from an estimated 4,000 people in the financial centre of the capital, was peaceful, but some bloody skirmishes broke out as police tried to keep thousands of people in containment pens surrounding the Bank of England on Threadneedle Street.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/g20-summit-protests

Selected photos:

http://mountainsageblog.com/2009/04/01/g20-protests-erupt-in-london/

More photos and story here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/apr/01/g20-protest?picture=345344194

UK Daily Mail: Obama told a joke and Brown laughed...

The Daily Mail reported:

Allegedly the most charismatic politician in the world, Mr Obama was a disappointment. It sounded as though he had a blocked nose and so his lack of energy may have been a symptom of a cold. Jet lag, too. He probably wished he could have stayed in bed. 

He spoke slowly, in a meandering manner. Some might say that he was thoughtful and professorial. Others might call his manner circuitous, even yarny. Am I saying that he was a bore? Oh dear. I find that I possibly am.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1166498/QUENTIN-LETTS-Obama-told-joke-Brown-laughed--laughed--laughed--laughed.html

[ Okay, this is snark, but it's Brit snark. ]

[ The date says it all. ]

Obama Recovering After Closed Captioning ‘Mishap’ 

by Mac Johnson

04/01/2009 

Bethesda, Md. — Doctors were said to be treating President Barack Obama at Bethesda Naval Hospital today for exhaustion and possible vocal cord injuries after a freak television accident occurred at the White House Tuesday evening. 

According to a statement read by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, President Obama, noted for his near total dependence on the teleprompter when speaking, was leaving a practice session for an upcoming press conference when he happened upon a muted television set near the White House Briefing Room on which someone had activated the “closed captioning” function. “Apparently, Mr. Obama mistook the captioning for his new flat screen teleprompter and began reading the text aloud,” Gibbs said. Gibbs stated that “what followed was a tragic marathon speaking session that lasted for nearly 14 hours before staff discovered Obama and disconnected the device.”

The President’s accidental filibuster was said to have included a 2-hour episode of “The Biggest Loser,” a much anticipated “Law and Order: Special Victim’s Unit,” the local evening news, and a late night paid infomercial for “natural male enhancement.” The press later described Obama’s reading of the captioning as “eloquent” (New York Times), “historic” (CNN), and “emotionally moving” (Newsweek).

This event comes on the heels of several embarrassing teleprompter gaffes by Obama, including one in which he thanked himself for being invited to the United States [....]

humanevents.com/article.php?id=31285

Dutch media: Clinton voices appreciation for Netherlands

Dutch politicians have been saying for some time that the new US Afghanistan plan is similar to the Dutch approach, and that the choice of The Hague to host the talks is proof of this. However, this is the first time this has been echoed by a senior American politician [ ie Hillary Clinton ].

radionetherlands.nl/news/zijlijn/6238950/Clinton-voices-appreciation-for-Netherlands

"NYT over the line"

“The New York Times keeps going over the line in every single campaign and last year was the worst, easily,” said Mal Kline of the American Journalism Center. “They would ignore real questions worth examining about Obama, the questions about Bill Ayers or about how he got his house. Then on the other side they would try to manufacture scandals.”

Rauch: Is Obama Repeating Bush's Mistakes?

Obama, like Bush, set out with an agenda of his own devising, only to have another, crisis-driven agenda imposed upon him. Like Bush, he chose not to decouple the two agendas but to portray them as inextricably linked and drive them both forward. Like Bush, he seemed to decide that the crisis made a handy sledgehammer. Unlike Bush, he let his people say so.

From a long, thoughtful, refreshingly even-handed article at

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20090328_6609.php

Hillary 2-minute ovation, higher approval than Obama

Politico:

Despite the night’s star power—and although additional awards were presented to women leaders from Afghanistan, Nigeria, Cambodia and the Democratic Republic of Congo—it in every way belonged to Clinton, beginning with a touching video tribute and capped with a standing ovation that lasted nearly two minutes when she appeared on stage.

-------------

WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) — …Seventy-one percent of people surveyed in a CNN-Opinion research Corp. survey say they approve of her performance as the top diplomat for the United States. Less than one in four disapproved, the survey said.

“Nine in 10 Democrats approve of Clinton — that’s no surprise,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “But by a 50 percent to 43 percent margin, Republicans also think she is doing a good job at the State Department. That’s an interesting result for a polarizing figure like Clinton.” 

Further, according to the referenced article in UPI, Hillary’s approval ratings are higher than Obama’s last polling results the prior week.

Cites at http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/03/26/hillary-receives-some-well-deserved-accolades/

[ Yes, I'm being lazy today. ]

Krugman May Be Right

Krugman: the left's new anti-Obama
By MIKE ALLEN | 3/28/09 12:15 PM EDT

A stark image of Paul Krugman, the bearded New York Times op-ed columnist and Princeton economist, appears on the cover of next week’s Newsweek, with the headline “OBAMA IS WRONG: The Loyal Opposition of Paul Krugman.”

Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize in economics last fall, has been arguing that Obama is doing too little to respond to threats to the nation’s banking and economic system, and he has contended that the $787 billion stimulus bill should have been bigger.

Krugman personifies a conundrum for Obama: He has to cope with complaints from the political left, as well as the more predictable opposition of the right.

The prolific professor has been pushing his views in his column, on his blog and in Rolling Stone.

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham explains the choice in a letter to readers: “Every once a while, … a critic emerges who is more than a chatterer—a critic with credibility whose views seem more than a little plausible and who manages to rankle those in power in more than passing ways. As the debate over the rescue of the financial system—the crucial step toward stabilizing the economy and returning the country to prosperity—unfolds, the man on our cover this week, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, has emerged as the kind of critic who, as Evan Thomas writes, appears disturbingly close to the mark when he expresses his ‘despair’ over the administration’s bailout plan. …

“There is little doubt that Krugman—Nobel laureate and Princeton professor—has be come the voice of the loyal opposition. What is striking about this development is that Obama’s most thoughtful critic is taking on the president from the left at a time when, as Jonathan Alter notes, so many others are reflexively arguing that the administration is trying too much too soon.

"A devoted liberal, Krugman hungers for what he calls ‘a new New Deal,’ and he prides himself on his status as an outsider. (He is as much of an outsider as a Nobel laureate from Princeton with a column in the Times can be.) Is Krugman right? Is the Obama administration too beholden to Wall Street and to the status quo, trying to save a system that is beyond salvation? Does Obama have—despite the brayings of the right—too much faith in the markets at a time when prudence suggests that they cannot rescue themselves? We do not know yet, and will not for a while to come. But as Evan—hardly a rabble-rousing lefty—writes, a lot of people have a ‘creeping feeling’ that the Cassandra from Princeton may just be right. After all, the original Cassandra was.”

Keeler: Gillibrand Hit Piece By Times: A Classic Study.

They employed classic tactics. Simply put, they used quotes that do nothing but praise her dedication, drive and work ethic, to support quite a different meaning; framing that work as an ominous piece about her past.

[....]

 The short analysis is that Gillibrand has a 100% anti-tobacco voting record in Congress and the Senate, and as Bill Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said “What’s important to us is how she votes.” [Albany Times Union, 10/16/08] 

Here’s a more detailed account of that record:

- Gillibrand Co-Sponsored and Voted For a Bill to Regulate Tobacco Through the Food and Drug Administration. In 2008, Gillibrand voted in favor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This bill seeks to remove the exemption that tobacco products have from basic health regulations that apply to other consumer products such as food and medicines. The bill would crack down on tobacco marketing and sales to kids, require larger, more effective health warnings on tobacco products, require tobacco companies to disclose the contents of tobacco products, changes to their products and research about the health effects of the products, ban candy-flavored cigarettes and prohibit terms that mislead consumers into believing that certain cigarettes are safer. [HR 1108, Vote #542, 7/30/08] 

- Gillibrand Voted to Raise Taxes on Cigarettes. In 2007, Gillibrand voted for bill that would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products to offset a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The bill would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years. The bill passed 265-142. [HR 3963, Vote #1009, 10/25/07] 

- Gillibrand Voted to Override President’s Veto and Raise Taxes on Cigarettes and Tobacco Products. In 2007, Gillibrand voted for an attempt to override President Bush’s veto of the bill that would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. The bill failed 273-156. A two-thirds majority was required to override the veto. [HR 976, Vote #982, 10/18/07] 

- In 2008, Gillibrand Voted to Override Bush SCHIP Veto. In January 2008, Gillibrand voted again to override the Bush veto of legislation to renew and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The bill would have overridden Bush’s Dec. 12, 2007, veto, of the bill that would reauthorize the program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents, to $1 per pack, and raise taxes on other tobacco products. [Vote #22, 1/23/08]

- In the U.S. Senate, Gillibrand Voted to Raise Taxes on Cigarettes to Expand Children’s Health Care. In 2009, Gillibrand voted for bill that would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products to offset an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. [Vote # 31, HR 2. Public Law 111-3]

Classic Hit Piece. Case Closed.

VV: Afghanastan reality check diary

Afghanastan reality check diary:

villagevoice.com/2009-03-25/news/afghaniscrewed-how-i-spent-my-fall-vacation?src=newsletter

…article is about 6 pages long…

Beware Obama's Bank Plan

Obama’s bank plan could rob the taxpayer

By Jeffrey Sachs

The Geithner-Summers plan, officially called the public/private investment programme, is a thinly veiled attempt to transfer up to hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayer funds to the commercial banks, by buying toxic assets from the banks at far above their market value. It is dressed up as a market transaction but that is a fig-leaf, since the government will put in 90 per cent or more of the funds and the “price discovery” process is not genuine. It is no surprise that stock market capitalisation of the banks has risen about 50 per cent from the lows of two weeks ago. Taxpayers are the losers, even as they stand on the sidelines cheering the rise of the stock market. It is their money fuelling the rally, yet the banks are the beneficiaries...

Full article at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b3e99880-1991-11de-9d34-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1