Bad Day at Black Rock

Monday September 15th was a ‘bad day at black rock’ for Wall Street - and probably all of us. When two major investment houses fall in one day, one to the ignominy of bankruptcy, Lehman Brothers, and the other being forced to allow itself to be eaten by a bigger fish as BankAmerica gobbles up Merrill Lynch, it is indeed worth noting. But other than damaged careers and besmirched reputations, most of the guys responsible for this mess will land on their feet financially. They might have to fall a couple levels down from super rich to merely being ‘very well off.’ But they all no doubt saw this coming years ago and protected much of their own personal wealth. At the operational level the 13,000 jobs Lehman Brothers are in question, whereas BofA will probably keep most of Merrill Lynch’s 18,000 financial advisors and become the preeminent source of “experts” on financial matters (even as these ‘experts‘ participated in one of the biggest financial disasters in American history.)

The problem is not that there was shakeup on Wall Street and some biggies bit the dirt. The problem is that all of these operations were incestuously interconnected in a giant financial clusterfuck. The housing bubble has been long since acknowledged but was conveniently ignored by the both the players and government regulators, the neoliberal free marketeer controlled government agencies and the (as usual) corrupt Congress. There was simply too much easy money being made by all. Granting mortgages once meant using the aggregate of depositors’ money, saving accounts and such, as a reserve against loaning larger amounts on a real estate, that is real property that had some kind of underlying quantifiable value. With people’s homes as collateral they only defaulted if they absolutely could not avoid it. And property values slowly appreciated hence equity increased both by paying down the principal and enjoying the normal appreciation in value. That had worked well for years and was well understood and regulated.

What started it all was a sustained and delightful steep appreciation in home values, probably kicked off by normal supply and demand factors, but inevitably amplified by old fashion speculation. The whole thing might have been contained had not mortgages become not simple financial instruments in and of themselves but elements in larger more complex financial instruments. They become embedded in packages that were not handled by regular banks but big time investments banks like Bear Stearns et. al. and sold widely. And this eventually included the newer, higher yield but also higher risk animal – the now notorious “subprime loan”. This is a mortgage that by all rights should never have been granted in the first place. The debtor can’t afford it and/or the terms are misunderstood or misrepresented. Also often little or no down payment was required – a perfect recipe for many to bail at the first opportunity. Furthermore, they were marketed in an unregulated and McDonalds hamburger type way along with massive numbers of home equity loans, once quaintly known as “second mortgages.’

By the early 2000s the economy essentially ran on credit much of it derived from people pulling equity out of their homes for consumer spending (along with ubiquitous and usurious “plastic” - credit cards) as well as, of course, buying homes they couldn’t afford. The risk of subprime mortgages was supposed to be engineered out by all kinds of complex arrangements and the risk spread evenly like insurance risk. However, when the crash came and they were defaulted on, the reverse happened they infected everything they had contact with. The result is a near worldwide financial meltdown. And here we stand. The investment banks are falling like dominoes going hat in hand to each other and the government for handouts. If the government acquiesces, it falls absolutely into a contradiction to its ideological principals of lassie faire capitalism. Plus it sends the wrong signal to a future generation of players. But in the worse problem is it is liable to further erode the dollar causing a possible run and trigger hyperinflation.

The stock market is well aware of all of this and responded by going into full in panic mode, falling a disastrous 504 points. The amount of wealth that vanished in the clicking of mice is probably more than GDP of good number of whole countries. When everybody sells at the same time nobody gains except the first few rats off the ship – or of course all the guys ‘selling short” which I’m sure was a large chuck of the action. But what about the 401 K plans based stock ownership? Retirement for the baby boomers (a term I detest but use anyway due to laziness) looks bad. There are going to be a lot of old geezers in the workforce holding on to their jobs until they retire feet first.

Blame it on the ‘Green Meanies’ - demagoguery works

Webster defines a demagogue as a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.

OK I ask you, if the Republicans have the answers then why do they need to continually resort to abject blackguard demagoguery in every stinking election? If they have facts and rationality on their side, why is it necessary to appeal to the lower instincts of the populace to get votes? We know in recent presidential election it is the so-called swing voters that provide their small margin of victory in the so-called swing states (assuming, of course, that there was no election malfeasance there, a valiant assumption.) Anyway, at this stage of things the base of each party has nowhere else to go and it’s all up to the undecided, the uncommitted. In other words ‘it’s the swing voters, stupid!’ Or it is the stupid swing voters? Are these characters all that bright? They can’t decide whether they are Democrats or Republicans, Left or Right wingers, conservatives or liberals, progressives or reactionaries. And some are so gullible and/or craven that they fall for the transparently obvious ploys by cynical Rovian-style campaign consultants every fucking time? They seem to be just waiting to be “swift boated” into voting, yet again, against their own best interests? These are the people who rely on TV advertising and slick partisan campaign literature to decide who and what to vote for - and the Repubs know it!

The latest one of these such Republican ploys is this absurd but apparently appealing idea that opening the continental shelf fully to oil exploration will somehow immediately lower gas prices at the pump. It’s always easiest to blame the ‘green meanies’ for everything. The environmentalists are preventing us from achieving “energy independence. Yet why did everyone run off and buy 16 MPG gas hogs in the last ten years? Did they think oil would stay at 40 dollars a barrel forever? Why have the oil companies and their boys in Congress not been beating the drum and pushing for offshore access especially back when the Repubs controlled Congress? Until now, it was only drilling in ANWR in Alaska that was their golden fleece? Did they think that an endless war(s) in the Middle East would not adversely affect oil prices. Why have coastal state Republican governors like Arnold Swartzenagger and Jeb Bush both been steadfast opponents of “coastal drilling?” Why was Sen. John McCain previously opposed to offshore drilling and now as a Prez candidate he is steadfastly in favor of it? The answer is simple: demagoguery works. A quick fix is to gratuitously appeal to the masses of pissed off drivers, like the stupid idea of ‘gas tax holiday.’ Scapegoating is a favorite of demagogues - blame the environmentalists, blame Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for keeping all that good US oil out of our pipelines. Give the oil companies what they want: more leases in sensitive marine areas and wildlife preserves. Forget about the larger issue of global warming and the fact that any oil found would not be available for a least 10 long years “Energy independence” is the new holy grail of the Right, a new apple pie nationalistic buzzword.

During my college boy years I lived in the Seal Beach/Huntington (named after the oil baron Samuel Huntington) Beach area. I lived where the ocean horizon was punctuated by huge multistory oil rigs. They were a normal part of an urban coastal oceanscape and we grew accustomed to them. Sure there were occasional leaks and spills. I remember seeing pictures in the newspaper of surfers covered with oil sometime in the early 60’s. Sometimes we would have use kerosene to clean oil blobs off our boards. But it was not until the huge spill off of Santa Barbara in 1969 when a Union Oil platform blew and eventually leading to a rupture in five places along an underwater fault that the potential for catastrophe of this industrial coastal arrangement hit home with a vengeance. It took a full week and half to staunch the leaking. There was a huge loss of marine life. After that the platforms would never be looked upon as benignly, and coastal states especially Florida and California from then on resisted expansion of oil leases – until now.

The SF Chronicle reported yesterday that by a small margin even Californians favor offshore drilling as a placebo to $4.00 a gallon gas. Again, demagoguery works!

A run on the banks?

A run on the banks? Where is this all headed? Are we on the brink of another big one? The Great Depression of the 1930s was first kicked off by a particularly bad day on the stock market. There have had some other days even worse than Black Thursday October 24^th 1929 with stock values falling 17% in one day. But in the plunge continued and stocks continued downward well into the next week with a Black Monday and a Black Tuesday. Stock values never fully recovering until the mid 1950's. As we know it was so bad that stockbrokers jumped out of windows. But the real problem manifested itself a little later when there was a run on the banks. Sound familiar? Back in 1929 as the pessimism spread people lost confidence in those granite pillars of respectability, the banks, and wanted their money out immediately if not sooner.

Banks always have more outstanding claims on their assets than they have as real cash in their vaults. That is there function; banks not only hold money they create money. Amazingly enough they are allowed to generate money out of thin air by simply making loans. It’s all a confidence game in a way. So when the depositors all want their money on the same day or week, there is, hey, not enough there to go around. This because banks are legally allowed to create money by loaning amounts based on a percentage of their deposits. It’s called their Reserve Requirement. This is set by the Federal Reserve Board. This along with several other mechanisms for controlling the money supply, the most important being the Prime Rate are the way the money supply is managed, and in turn the entire economy -theoretically anyway. But unlike the 1930s today we have have a safety net, something called the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which exists as a direct result of the problems causing by previous bank runs. This government funded corporate entity allows depositors to rest assured that their saving and checking accounts are safe, at least the first $100,000.

However, banks again are starting to experience ‘the runs’ even with the FDIC in place. As we have seen last week IndyMac Bankcorp had to be rescued by the FDIC. This rescue took a big bite out of the FDIC’s total reserves, as much as 10% of their $53 billion cache. And that's just one bank. IndyMac is the fifth US bank to fail this year - and its only July. It's classified as a ‘retail bank’. There probably won’t be a run on retail banks. IndyMac bank was big into subprime mortgages and has been under scrutiny for some time. But the real problem is with the next level up, the so-called investment banks. These banks create “money” for the big boys – corporations, hedge funds, pension funds. They do this by creating financial instruments like equities and securities that can be traded internationally. These include the recently nearly bankrupted Bear Stearns investment bank. Since they are investment banks, not regular commercial or retail banks, there is no FDIC and very little regulation – ah yes, the benefits of deregulation. Besides FDIC's 100K safeguard is chump change in this crowd. In fact to them millions are small potatoes. They wheel and deal in billions. And what has everyone concerned is that other investment banks are also on the ropes. Bear Sterns, which was recently taken over, that is eaten by a bigger fish, JP Morgan Chase, with government support. This happened with the unprecedented event of the Federal Reserve, that is the US government, "guaranteeing" the massive $32B buyout of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan. It was entirely necessary as Bear Sterns could have easily been the first domino in a long ugly chain of collapses. No one gains from a worldwide financial meltdown.

Why are Bear Sterns and other investment banks failing? Is it because they became too greedy and irresponsible during the gravy years of “free market” deregulatory madness? Were they like all compulsive gamblers unable to know when to 'cash in their chips'? Did they think they could permanently engineer all risk out of loaning to poor people at high interest rates (like the credit card companies have done?) They sliced and diced risky low grade ‘subprime mortgages’ and embedded them into financial instruments known as CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations.) The subprime loans were supposed to remain safely buried deep inside a mix of solid and not so solid mortgages, using high interest subprimes to pump up the returns but offset by the safer mortgages. These things were then sold to big players like hedge funds, insurance companies, pension funds, etc. Cool idea for making quadzillions. One hedge fund manager made over three billion dollars last year (and paid income tax on it at a rate far lower than your mailman pays.) Until the housing market went south these buried subprime mortgages pumped up the CDOs taking advantage of the high interest rates the poor saps eventually would get stuck with once their Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM) reset. But, alas, as the everything imploded and home values slid below mortgage value, these new homeowners began 'to walk'. So the subprime mortgages instead of bolstering eventually contaminated the CDOs in which they were embedded.

When an investment becomes questionable it gets dumped first by the sharpies, the Warren Buffets of the world, then as word gets around, survival instinct takes over and there is a mad rush to the exits. So now the mighty investment banks are in the toilet, a credit crisis threatens and the US economy slides inexorably into recession - and it might be a really bad one. This is because the standard counter cyclical tools, monetary and fiscal policy, in a downturn require expanding the already looming federal deficit. This will in turn weakens the dollar, which (alas) pushes up the price of oil thus more inflation and less money for consumer durables and so it goes. Inventories accrue leading to layoffs (maybe in China, too) resulting in even less disposable income available for consumption, and so on. Feedbacks loop r us. Stagflation, anyone? Runaway inflation, anyone?

Of course the overheated US housing sector had been in a near bubble bursting state for some time now. So its actual puncture was no surprise to anyone. But the problem is that it has been propping up the whole US economy for years. What now? Even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the privately owned but government backed holder of mortgages, are now both in trouble and need rescue. They were indirectly burned by the subprime crisis. They hold trillions, yes trillions, in regular mortgages, much of it in Southern California where home values are sinking like rocks. Consequently Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, normally solid as rock (again that tired simile,) have seen their stock hit the skids as their profitability goes into the red. They will need an injection of liquidly from Uncle Sam or all hell will break loose.

The system as usual was gamed. Irresponsible abuse of credit ran rampant. Everybody played, big boys and little fellas. Wall Street's investment bankers went wild as we have seen. But the middle class also participated in this hog wallow. Those who owned houses with plenty of equity used them to leverage themselves into ever bigger, newer, fancier ones. Or they simply felt wealthier (known as the "wealth effect") and spent profusely. Other more entrepreneurial types made big bucks 'flipping house' - buying and selling them in short succession as they rapidly appreciated, and then buying others. Those lower the down food chain or merely less enterprising simply refinanced often drawing out equity each time for SUVs, plasma HD TVs or vacations in Mexico, or else they irresponsibly took out ‘equity loans’ (once known derisively as 'second mortgages') foolishly consuming their hyper inflated home equity (for many their main asset) and adding it to ever heftier mortgages. This process was fine for a while especially when it involved solid mortgages on ever appreciating real estate. It was a avarice-driven phenomena typical of finance capitalism and it worked to pull us out of the downturn following the last bubble popping, the Dot Com bust.

All this was cooking along with no end in sight. But what about all the lower income working class types who also wanted to participate in the American Dream, home ownership and the realization something for nothing - real estate created wealth? With real income flat for blue collar and service sector jobs and the once unionized manufacturing jobs having been globalized to 'low wage platform' countries, many full time families with both parties working simply could not afford a home. They could neither come up with the traditional 20% down nor the stiff monthly payments on a multi hundred thousand mortgage. The inflated value of the housing, old and new, sent the value of even older tract homes into the stratosphere at least those near jobs. But not to worry, the banks had an answer - “creative financing” . All sorts of new loan packages were conjured up - adjustable rate, no interest, negative amortization and all without that annoying, intrusive documentation.

These new fangled mortgages were marketed like hamburgers or Fords. Amazingly enough hundreds of thousand dollar loans were floated without even verifying the info on the loan apps like actual employment. It all worked because the value of owner occupied homes kept zooming up. The sky was the limit. If people were worried about ballooning payments when the ARM reset or their ever-growing mortgage on interest only deals, they were told “when that happens, just refinance dude.” Of course, all of this irresponsibility pumped up the bubble ever more - and kept the US economy cooking right along. But it had to pop. And it now has. But so much else was going on – an unpopular inept President involving us not one but two wars, global warming actually happening, torture as official US policy, Constitutional shredding by a power mad administration and so on. How to could we be concerned about merely a possible real estate meltdown?

How close are we to a “big crash”? No one who really knows. And if so, they wouldn't be telling us. The role of the people who let this happen, who a run the Dept of Treasury and the Federal Reserve is not to acknowledge the seriousness of things but to placate and bamboozle us into acquiesce and passivity. That is simply because so much of this is psychological rather simply than logical. Panic selling (busts) and buying frenzies (booms) are two sides of the same coin. They are based on herd mentality. But if you are caught in herd running off a cliff, it’s pretty difficult not to get pushed over the cliff yourself by the mass of other crazed beasts. No use encouraging a stampede.

In any case, economists right, left and center agree we are in big trouble. We have definitely stepped into some serious shit. Generally in these situations by the time there is enough political support to do something drastic and steadfastly move away from what is obviously not working, more damage is done than was necessary. The dithering is dangerous. Yet moving resolutely in the wrong direction using superannuated ideologies as did the Hoover administration did in the early years of the Depression can be even worse. They did dumb stuff like plowing under crops to drive up ag prices up while people went hungry. An recent example of this was the pathetic attempt to goose the economy back ion track by luring consumers into going 'back to the mall' by giving everybody a measly $600 “tax rebate”. Like that is going to turn around a trillion dollar economy.

The problem we have now is that the tools that worked to get us out of the 1930s Depression (eventually), deficit spending on a grand scale (WW II) have been abused, misused and dulled for over 60 years. We have used it rain or shine, on the upside and or downside of the business cycle. We have used it like heroin and our tolerance as ever increased. The irony is that the Republicans who resisted such methods during the Depression and restrained Roosevelt from full application of counter-cyclical deficit spend in the 1930s, went hog wild with them in 1980s under Ronald Reagan and in the 2000’s and under George W. Bush went absolutely insane – pushing the deficit into the trillion dollar stratosphere. Since the positive effects of Keynesian deficit spending only came about only as a result of massive armament spending during WW II, it became acceptable by the Republicans and the libertarian right - but never acknowledged. They made it article of faith that social spending was "liberal tax and spend" apostasy and bad for everyone. Yet in the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes, that underpinned liberalism got us of out the Great Depression. The theory is that the business cycle endemic to capitalism, can be countered by deficit spending in downturns and recessions and recouped during upturns and booms (as Bill Clinton managed to do.) However the deficit, pump priming, spending that Keynes envisioned was to be for domestic needs ) – infrastructure, health care, welfare for the poor, education, etc. Yet WW II was no sooner over than we engaged in an arms race, the Cold War, with the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent the Peoples Republic of China. "Warfare Keynesianism" become the underlying mechanism that drove the fiscal policy but was never acknowledged. In fact as the Republican right took over from Reagan onwards, it continued to function but for guns not butter, even as 'liberalism" went out fashion and right wing, neoliberal, 'free market', deregulatory mania reigned supreme.

What next? It will probably take a major crash in one or more of the following -the US economy and/or the world economy, the biosphere, the USA as a superpower, confidence in monopoly capitalism, a belief in reactionary fundamentalist religion ideologies (we wish) and other hoary institutions of modern life to turn this mess around.

Hanging on by her fingernails

How little surface does Hillary need for her fingernails to remain engaged to the ledge? Apparently not much - only a measly 2% margin of victory in Indiana. This is in a red state much like the ones she usually takes in a brisk walk. It’s in the same rust belt neighborhood as Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Clinton camp has to be disappointed. With Obama’s campaign being pummeled every direction by his showboating ex-minister and the Clinton campaign’s no-holds- barred, down and dirty Republican style tactics, as well as the talking heads puditacracy hammering Obama nightly, they only managed a crummy 51/49 victory in Indiana and got trounced in North Carolina by a double digit spread.

Obama is now in an ascendant mode again. With the wind at his back he should soon pick up more of the wavering, wind direction sensitive super delegates and hammer a few more nails in the coffin of the Clintonian hope of dynastic glory. The numbers have been against her for a long time but there was always the perennial hope of a monumental Obamaian fuck up or freshly dug up smelly new canard disinterred and then amplified by the talking head jackals-with-bullhorns on the tube.

How far the Clintons will try to push things is now the question. Will they try to change the rules to seat delegates from the two disqualified states (Florida and Michigan?) Do they have some October surprise to detonate underneath Obama’s bus? Can they convince the uncommitted super delegate to line up behind Hillary because some recent polls now show (which didn’t in the pre-Wrightgate days) that she stands a better chance against McCann than Obama? Not likely. From now it is shear inertia (and draw down of their life savings) for Hill ’n Bill.

The numbers are simply not working for them. They are not losing by a lot but by enough. But that should do it. Everyone is sick of this thing. We have had too many debates and too much sterile analysis and windbag pontification. We’re bored. They are not different enough in their policy nostrums for it to be a real argument and thus interesting. Let’s move on. Sure Hillary can play alpha male and almost schizophrenically shape shift to alternately ingratiate, charm, intimidate and finally stoop to conquer by pandering. But who cares. If she wasn’t a Clinton it might have worked. She would have been a new phenomenon on the political scene – like Barack Obama. But she is a Clinton. Her name recognition via marriage to ex-President Slick Willie is both her best political asset and her Achilles heel. We already had our Clintonism - 8 years of it. His triangulation and pro business neo liberalism in a lot of ways paved the ideologically for our descent into Republican de-regulatory and privatization madness (of course Bill Clinton seems like Abe Lincoln compared to the clown in there now.)

The thoughtful sectors of the Democratic Party - the (non-Republican) educated upper middle classes, the left intelligentsia, the college kids and the African-Americans all agree – at this juncture Barack Obama for better or worse is our best bet. Let’s get on with it.

A Meltdown?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The case for Obama - sort of

Barack Obama as president of the United States may very well disappoint us. He is essentially a mainstream member of a center-right political party. His cautious record in his short tenure in the Senate, his proposals on foreign policy, Iraq, health care and the economy are in many ways almost indecipherable from Hillary Clinton's. It almost takes a policy wonk to parse and tease out their differences. However, his association with a fire-breathing black minister is vastly unimportant as is his past associations with shady rascals like the indicted Tony Rezko. In Obamba's meteoric rise to political stardom he had to make nice will all sorts of unsavory characters – they all do. But he is not a racist for having listened for years to Reverent Wright's vitriolic sermons (which to me is are rather entertaining.) In fact in attending Trinity United Church of Christ gives Obama a sort of 'street cred' among African Americans. The law abiding ones go to such churches. It's no big deal. Plus his speech in defending himself was a masterpiece in oratory and honest political communication (and he did it without tossing his old preacher over the side.)

Obama has done something remarkable. He has bridged a gap between blacks and whites. He is a black politician but without recourse to “identity politics” - that bane of the left. Compare his style to Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. They are never for a minute not a black politician, never a minute without a totally racial oriented agenda lurking just beneath the surface. It's part of them. It defines them. And turns it off most non-blacks. Obama can be that if wants but most of the time he is something else - a politician with a message for change. And he is not any more or less corrupt than any other US politician for having known some Chicago 'operator' or a secret hater of whites for having gone to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. Serious politicians must rely powerful connections (and the campaign donations they lead to) like regular ordinary people rely on air. His past (as with everyones) simply leaves chinks in his armor that are there to be exploited by enemies and opponents.

The question at this point is how much collateral damage has been inflicted by the stubborn, recalcitrant Clinton forces in their rear-guard, last ditch battle for the nomination? And how much of Clintonian dirt can be recycled by a formidable Republican slime machine later in the year? Remember what the legitimate media, which is bad enough, won't quite do (even Fox), a whole coteries of GOP allied hate mongering bloggers and “independent” right-wing ad hoc hit teams will gladly do. And once in circulation the scandal-whore corporate media will take up full force. Many fear it could make the cranky old warhorse, John McCain, an actual contender.

In any case the hope with Barack Obama is that he represents a major departure, symbolically if nothing else, from our imperialistic, corporatist, neoliberal, neocon, neofascist (yes, we have all at the same time) recent ugly Bushian past. Unfortunately there is no real evidence that he is willing to actually take on the corporate-right wing monolith, that is the military-industrial state its variants. Sure he is a riveting speaker and pushes all the right emotive buttons. Yes he seems to be promising to end our disastrous and grindingly expensive occupation of Iraq, but he will leave troops there (the enduring dream of Iraq becoming a compliant 'US client state' in the Mideast is still alive and well in both parties.) He appears to be uncritically pro-Israel, which make serious Mideast negotiations difficult. Also he says he will expand the military – great, it already eats up over half our national budget. His universal health care proposal is not single payer (as all other developed countries' systems are). In fact his proposal is weaker than Hillary's as it will leave participation voluntary. In fact according to economist Paul Krugman his proposals are actually less progressive than Hillary's.

Yet who can stand the thought of President Hillary Rodham Clinton? Ugh! Her and Bill's inherent decency and basic character have been called into question as they take the low road in a last desperate grasp for the nomination. It's ugly. And who wants a re-run of the triangulating Clintons – always grabbing at right wing policy positions and isolating their progressive left flank. Sure, Hillary would face a different political milieu than Bill did; and a Democratic president would be able do more and would not have to pander so much to the right. But anyone (even McCain) would be a breath a fresh air after eight long dark years of monumental Bushian blunders and a frenzy of Constitutional shredding. People now want change. They are sick to death with Republican ideologues (except, of course, the ever lower taxes part.)

What now exists now is a unique and important, historical opportunity to actually turn things around. The whole world is watching. A young, mixed race articulate leader could bring us together globally. He could start to repair the damage to US credibility and image. He could be a real world leader. Maybe if Obama gets in, he will suddenly tear off his rubber mask and low an behold we will have Che Guevara or somebody like that, somebody really radical in the best sense of the word. What with global warming, a possible economic collapse, a shredded Constitution and being mired in not one but two wars, it will take some real to-the-roots originality. Thomas Jefferson is supposed to have said that we need a revolution every 20 years. Aren't we are sort of overdue? If not Che Guevera, maybe at least Obama could 'metamorphosize' into an African American version of FDR and we could crank up another New Deal – the Green New Deal 2.0. Maybe we are on the cusp of something big. I sure hope so.

Will Nader spoil Obama's Party?

Ralph Nader announced today that he would again run for president. This will make many so-called “progressives” angry. They see Ralph as a spoiler. He 'steals' votes from the Democratic candidate especially in close presidential election like the last two. On the Huffington Post blog the Nader announcement garnered 508 comments. All the ones I read (that floated to the top) were hostile and demeaning of Nader. These whining fools still blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss in 2000. They can't resist the received wisdom from the Democratic Party hacks who helped Gore run his pathetic campaign almost into the ground. They still believe that it was the foolish Nader voters in Florida who tipped the scales for George W. Bush. First of all Gore did not lose the election – it was stolen from him by a reactionary cabal by the way of a right wing Republican dominated Supreme Court who gave Bush the election. Gore also as I recall didn't even push for the whole state to be recounted – only several heavily Democratic counties like Dade County. Post election research by newspapers discovered Bush would have won had things been counted properly. But if you read the entire report all sorts of crooked voter suppressing legerdemain was uncovered like 'caging' (challenging voter registration of potential Democratic voters), and knocking thousand of non-felon Afro-American voters with similar names to felons off of off the roles by computer. Plus Gore with Joe Lieberman as his running mate (of all people to choose) ran a weak, uninspired campaign always with his eye on the 'undecided voters', those shallow-thinking airheads who so distort American politics, rather trying to energize the Democratic base (as Obama has). Also Bill Clinton was still in the dog house then (as he is again now) for nearly being impeached for getting a blowjob. So Clinton couldn't really be used to lend legitimacy and gravitas to the his erstwhile VP's presidential run even though Clinton had presided over a fairly successful presidency (aside from being an incorrigible Lothario) presiding over a robust economy.

Don't these so called progressives understand that Ralph Nader's laborious and symbolic runs for the presidency are not meant to place him in the position to be a real candidate? He is in there to keep our eye on the ball. Even if the points he makes seem inconvenient and ,yes, tiresome. These points are not tiresome becomes they are hackneyed and boring. They are tiresome because nothing every gets done to address them by either party, and they have to be brought time and time again. As the NY Times article in announcing his candidacy states “..Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a "bloated military budget..” Nader know better than anybody else that the country is in the hands of a Janus faced single party. We have a single party with two right wings as Gore Vidal says. The problem is that whole spectrum has shifted so far to right since the Ronald Reagan years, the 1980s, that a moderate and reasonable European style Social Democrat type like Ralph Nader now looks and sounds like a left wing radical. Ralph has not slipped into the realms of the politically impractical (but maybe someday possible) visions of the real left. No it's the “It's the movies that got small”. The whole country has drifted year by year even while Clinton was in ever further into the dark arms of the corporate capitalist radical right. The seven miserable years of the megalomaniac George W. Bush with his clumsy mismanagement and geopolitical blunders has finally opened most eyes. The American have people finally collectively realized things have gone too far. Ralph Nader, the straight, suit wearing, consumer advocate has stayed pretty much in the same place. It's just the backdrop has shifted into 'cuckooland.' His calm demeanor and smooth empirical reasoning has not changed. The subject of it has.

Progressives should not resent Nader's entry into 'the race.' Just as Dennis Kicinich and finally John Edwards in the primaries did, he will serve to prod the Democratic presidential candidate to confront some realities. Otherwise the dialog with old warhorse McCain will be about who can be the most effective imperialist. Nader's involvement in the debates (if they let him in) should have a positive and salutary effect on the Barack Osama (or very unlikely Hillary Clinton) platform and will force them to get real on the military budget – among other things. The US at this late stage simply cannot afford guns and butter – not 'guns' at the trillion dollar price tag we are now dealing with. We simply cannot properly and responsibly address the long laundry list of accumulated needs without taking on the power players like the Pentagon, the Pharmaceuticals, the energy giants. John Edwards understood this, maybe Hillary does. Does Barack Obama? Really confronting global warming with a sustainable reconfigured green economy, providing a fully functional universal health care system and rebuilding our aging infrastructure while confronting residual poverty will not be possible if we have to continue to support a global military apparatus that almost as big as the rest of world's combined. Something has to give. Ralph is just there to keep their eyes on the ball, to keep things real. Also, and this is important, as the Democratic candidate confronts the Republican machine and mean old man McCain, he or she can afford to move further into a fully progressive direction as Ralph will be there to seemingly define the outer limits of discourse. In other words with Ralph there at the table the Demos will have some elbow room on their left.