I believe that the financial oligarchs of this country will ultimately choose the president.  These are the people who control the financial institutions (that have lost and are losing tons of money), the same people who own the media:  print, broadcast, etc.; and the ones who stand to lose a lot more if trends today continue.  There is the problem with the increasing hold of China on the U.S. economy because they are the ones who hold the most U.S. foreign debt.  They can literally bring the U.S. economy crashing down if they decide to do something with the U.S. paper they are holding.  

 That is why the U.S. is not in any kind of position to pressure them on anthing.  Aside from the paper, they can also decide to nationalize any or all of the U.S. manufacturing operations in China right now.  The country is big enough to be its own market.

And then there is Russia that recently announced their intention to be the leader in space again. Obama has already stated that he intends to cut the funds for Nasa. By his own admission, he is not able to keep track of papers given to him ahead of time. He brags about his foreign policy strength based on his stay in Indonesia between the age of 6-10 years old.  Obviously spoken by someone totally ignorant of the expertise needed to evaluate world situations.

McCain has already stated that economics is not his area of expertise.

And there is the chronic Middle East problem:  Iraq; Palestine; Jordan, Syria/Lebanon/Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan.  And there is Africa.

The real estate problem in the U.S. has extended to places li8ke Ireland, Portugal, Spain (per NYTimes).

So which of the three candidates running has the knowledge and experience to juggle all those problems and keep things from boiling over?  As much as they might not like to see another Clinton, are they really going to risk four years of deterioration of the present conditions?  Obama can't do it; McCain cannot.  

The question for the oligarchs, is whom can they trust to handle/clean up the mess? Or who stands the chance of being able to do something?  So that they can continue to make their profits?

Ideally, the question should be, whom should the voters choose?  But we all know that by simple manipulation/control of information being fed to the general population, their decisions are already determined.  This is a painful realization but it is true.  THEY allowed Carter to be elected because the country was in turmoil at that time, coming out of the civil rights riots, bombings, the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, the SLA, Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers, Nixon's resignation/pardon. The country needed a respite.  Carter was it.

 But it took Carter nearly two years to have a working knowledge of Washington, managed to negotiate peace between Egypt and Israel (which is a great accomplishment.  But his biggest failure was the Iran hostage crises.  Enter Reagan/Bush.  This is where we saw the successful dismantling of practically all the measures in place to regulate the Savings and Loans to keep it from engaging in risky operations; deregulation of the airline industry, weakening the labor unions, etc.  When the economy went downhil after eight years of Reagan/Bush then four years of Bush Sr., enter Bill Clinton who shored up social security, paid down the national debt; reformed welfare system; balanced the budget, maintained world peace; there was a budget surplus.  

The secrets of the Reagan/Bush adm. would have been available through the Freedom if Information act some time in 2001.  I remember very clearly that one of the first executive acts of Bush Jr. was to defer to an unspecified date, the release of the papers for the Reagan/Bush years.  I believe that this is the real reason that Bush Jr. HAD to be the president and not Gore.  To this day, I still wonder what are those secrets that required such extreme measures.  But after eight years of Bush Jr. those records, just like those Karl Rove emails, are probably long gone.  

But going back to the mess right now, the powers that be cannot afford to let the economic situation slide down further.  It will be economic chaos globally.  Only Hillary is up to the job.  Hillary is a born problem solver.  Her approach is discreet and incremental.  She is not a publicity seeker; she just wants to get things done.  And I do believe she will be a good CEO of this great United States of America.  She is not out to compete in the economic arena as an individual; she collaborates even with opponents to accomplish a common goal for her constituents.  And when she is the president, all Americans will be her constituents. She is the real uniter.

Thank you, Sen. Clinton.

Frontline's healthcare piece was quite good. TR Reid's documentary looking at 5 countries' healthcare plans is quite good, even if he does say he can't see the US going for single-payer government run healtcare.  He did leave a prayer note at a Japanese shrine saying "Universal healtcare for the US, please" (iirc the wording).

When Obama says Clinton is unelectable because Republicans think she will do anything to win, he is just pointing out the facts. When Clinton says Obama is unelectable because Republicans think he is another effete elitist Democrat, she is crossed the line!

Well, Senator Obama is promising to start investigating and prosecuting war criminals in the Bush Administration immediately.

Good idea or bad idea?

"By vetoing funding for stem cell research once again, the President is deferring the hopes of millions of Americans who do not have the time to keep waiting for the cure that may save or extend their lives. The promise that stem cells hold does not come from any particular ideology, it is the judgment of science, and we deserve a President who will put that judgment first and make this promise real for the American people."

6/20/07

Advance Stem Cell Research: Despite recent advances pointing to alternatives like adult stem cell and cord blood, embryonic stem cells remain unmatched in their potential for treatment of a wide variety of diseases and health conditions. Barack Obama has been a long-term supporter of increased stem cell research. He introduced
legislation while a member of the Illinois Senate that would allow embryonic stem cell research in Illinois.
Obama has cosponsored legislation to allow greater federal government funding on a wider array of stem cell lines. Obama believes we need high ethical standards that allow for research on stem cells derived from embryos produced for in vitro fertilization, embryos that would otherwise be needlessly destroyed.

His comments made for just the sort of rookie error that the Illinois senator is prone to make, and they have reinforced a feeling that he can be too aloof, or, yes, elitist. His attempts to explain himself have fallen flat,

Second, I will restore openness in government. When I am president, the era of Bush/Cheney secrecy will be over.
...

That kind of open leadership has been sorely lacking these past seven years. In fact the Bush administration has dramatically widened the definition of classified information to shield more and more materials from public scrutiny, has widened the scope of the states secrets privilege to shield this program from judicial review, and has widened the reach of executive privilege to shield its activated from Congress. From warrantless wiretaps at home to secret prisons overseas, the Bush administration has conducted illegal activities and stonewalled efforts of the people and the Congress to discover them and to hold the administration accountable.

...

Fourth, because government abuse is checked by the separation of powers, I will restore respect for our co-equal branches of government. I'll start by limiting the excessive executive powers this president has accumulated, like the unilateral power to wiretap, or detain try people, even American citizens. I will work with Congress again as a partner to solve problems. I'll end the use of signing statements to rewrite the laws that Congress has passed. I'll shut down Guantanamo, disavow torture and restore the right of Habeas Corpus.

I will end the practice of using executive privilege as a shield against the public's right to know and congress' duty to oversee the president.

Finally I will make crystal clear that the president and the executive branch will comply with the laws of our nation. My Department of Justice will interpret those laws fairly accurately honestly and publically. We'll release Justice Department interpretations so that you know exactly what our understanding is and how laws are being executed. The President is not above the law in our system of government and we need to make that absolutely clear starting next year. These changes both represent and drive the transformation I believe is needed in our government starting on day one of my administration. I do not believe that power is an end in itself but a means. A means limited in scope of serving the interest and protecting the safety of our nation, while creating opportunity for our people.

"I'll end the use of signing statements to rewrite the laws Congress has passed. I'll shut down Guantanamo, disavow torture, and restore the right of habeas corpus," she said. "And I'll end the practice of using executive privilege as a shield against the public's right to know and Congress's duty to oversee the president."

Revise the PATRIOT Act: Barack Obama believes that we must provide law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate, disrupt, and capture terrorists, but he also believes we need real oversight to avoid jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans. There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the current administration has abused the powers given to it by the USA PATRIOT Act. A March 2007 Justice Department audit found the FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information about American citizens. As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.

Strengthen Warrantless Wiretap Approval Process: Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence
Paid for by Obama for America
Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional Intelligence Committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.

Restore Habeas Corpus: The right of habeas corpus allows prisoners to ask a court to determine whether they are being lawfully imprisoned. Recently, this right has been denied to those deemed enemy combatants. Barack Obama strongly supports the bipartisan efforts to restore habeas rights. He firmly believes that those who pose a danger to this country should be swiftly tried and brought to justice, but those who do not should have sufficient due process to ensure that we are not wrongfully denying them their liberty.

From Obama Homeland Security Fact Sheet

"Fourth, because government abuse is checked by the separation of powers, I will restore respect for our co-equal branches of government. I'll start by limiting the excessive executive powers this president has accumulated, like the unilateral power to wiretap, or detain try people, even American citizens. I will work with Congress again as a partner to solve problems. I'll end the use of signing statements to rewrite the laws that Congress has passed. I'll shut down Guantanamo, disavow torture and restore the right of Habeas Corpus."

Not new though, she's been talking about this right along. Clinton's Privacy speech to the American Constitution Society in 2006 is a good one:

"Now I believe that the President - and I mean any President - must have the ability to pursue terrorists and defend our national security with the best technology at hand. But we have existing law that allows that - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or so-called FISA. We have judicial mechanisms in place that this Administration could have used to obtain authority for what it did; we have a system of Congressional oversight and review that this Administration could have used to obtain a legislative solution to these challenges."

More importantly, wouldn't he get special treatment from Barack in either case? To clear his path in D-primary, or make sure there isn't serious opposition if he runs as an R?