I Dabble in Fair Use Parody: What Would Hilary Clinton Do.

Maybe it’s just that I am sick of the endless talking head cycle. Maybe it’s because I’m stuck here in Chicago on my way to the National Conference on Media Reform due to “severe weather” in DC, but I have perhaps rashly indulged myself in a little fair use parody about the sorry coverage of the election. In particular, the endless speculating on what Hillary Clinton will do, when we can all just wait and find out.

What Will Hilary Clinton Do? TTO: What Would Brian Boytano Do from South Park the Movie, below . . . .

Continue reading

The Pity Is That It's True

Commenting on a piece by The Financial Times columnist Clive Crook on Barak Obama’s likely economy policies if elected, The Economist manages to interject a point desperately depressing, but spot on: “His voting record suggests that, if elected, Mr Obama would be the most economically left-wing American president since … well, it’s hard to say. Richard Nixon?”

The Economist has had Nixon in their sights ever since he briefly introduced wage and price controls in August 1971, violating a core tenet of Chicago School orthodoxy, but on reflection they have a point. Nixon was the last president who was willing to seriously entertain the use of government to fundamentally regulate the economy not solely at the behest of Wall Street and corporate interests. The Friedmanite orthodoxy which was religiously embraced by so many around Reagan and which has subsequently stripped government of the will to regulate the unchecked greed machine of the market was viewed as a sectarian movement, very nearly a cult, by Nixon and his principal economic advisors.

But it says a great deal about how much the progressive movement in the Democratic Party has surrendered that the principal organ of neoliberalism, The Economist, finds that the worst thing it can say about Barak Obama is that he might pursue Nixonian economic policies. Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society are beyond the realm of possibility, much less Roosevelt and the policies which underlay the New Deal. And they are almost certainly right. Obama is as much a captive of the corporate-worshipping wing of the Democratic Party as Billary (the principal reason that Hillary Clinton won’t release her joint income tax returns is that they would reveal that husband Bill has been openly a wholly-owned subsidiary of major U.S. and foreign corporate interests since leaving the White House, just as he was more clandestinely since his first days in Arkansas politics).

With Edwards and Kucinch out of the race there’s very little to enthuse me about a contest between a product of the Daley machine in Chicago and the Democratic Leadership Council’s anointed one. I suspect strongly that Obama will be just another case of “run to the left, govern to the right.” I only wish The Who’s lyrics were right: We won’t get fooled again. But I wouldn’t make book on it.

Romney Bows Out

Mitt Romney, the candidate widely considered an animatronic phony and opportunistic carpetbagger, has bowed out of the race for the Republican nomination. Well, good. The idea of Romney in the White House was scary.

But he’s not all bad. If he ran for Governor of Massachusetts again I would probably vote for him. And I’ve only voted for two Republicans ever, for any office, since the first time I voted 1972.

Continue reading