Skip to content

Month: January 2010

Sensitive Supermen

by digby

Evidently the most productive members of society have the extra time on their hands to read blogs. Via email, (responding to my comment “we’re not worthy”) I got this:

Sorry to say it Digby, but no you are not. Do you make any money for anyone as part of your job? Do you create value for your company, or shareholders? Does anyone cash a check because of you?

I believe the answer to those questions is NO. So until you do, maybe you should spend less time criticizing the compensation of people who legally earn their paycheck and more time finding some taser story to write.

Gosh, and here I thought the scrappy,independent sole proprietor wouldn’t qualify as a parasite by these Randian supermen.

I’ll just say that “value for company or shareholders” and “legally earning their paycheck” must be somewhat flexible terms if they apply to these river boat gamblers. And as a taxpayer and a shareholder, I’d have to point out that quite a few Wall Street executives seem to be cashing seven and eight figure paychecks because of me.

But hey, if this person is a Wall Street God, slated to make a six or seven figure bonus in this economy, I guess good for him. But somehow I suspect he is actually some drone who makes an average salary and lives a banal life but labors under the sad delusion that he too will be a Master of the Universe someday and is therefore pre-emptively defending his own interests. There’s one born every minute.

.

Haiti

by digby

Am I the only one who finds it weird that CNN is the only one covering the devastating earthquake in Haiti right now? Fox and MSNBC cover every random shooting and car chase every day, but nothing here.

CNN’s on it. It sounds awful. 7.0, 6 miles deep.

Update:

A powerful earthquake of 7.0 magnitude rocked Haiti just before 5 p.m. Eastern time, 10 miles southwest from the highly populated capital of Port-au-Prince, according to the United States Geological Survey, causing widespread damage and panic with the potential for a high number of casualties in the impoverished Caribbean country.

There were two aftershocks — of 5.5 and 5.9 magnitude — that followed in the last hour, and more were expected, according to David Wald, a seismologist with the survey.

“The main issue here will probably be shaking,” Mr. Wald said, “and this is an area that is particularly vulnerable in terms of construction practice, and with a highly population density. There could be a high number of casualties.”

The city has about 2 million people, according to National Geographic.

According to several news reports, a large hospital in the capital had collapsed, and people were screaming in streets full of rubble.

[…]

Since 2008, the island has been struck by at least three severe hurricanes — Gustav, Hanna and Ike — that have wrought nearly a billion dollars worth of damage and killed 800 people. All of this has taken place against the backdrop of food riots, health crises and near constant government instability and upheavals.

Raymond Joseph, Haiti’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview on CNN that he had little information about the extent of damage but said the suffering inflicted on the was likely to be “catastrophic.”

.

Banksters Are Sick Of Being Scolded

by digby

… to which I would reply that they should shut their pie holes and be very, very grateful that that’s all that’s being done.

The latest narrative about the Wall Street bonuses is being written as we speak. Here’s a typical exchange from “It’s The Economy” on MSNBC this morning between Wall Street apologist Melissa Francis, designated populist Contessa Brewer and financial reporter David Cho:

Cho: [Wall Street is] tuned to [the furor] to a degree. They are refashioning the bonuses to take the form of stock rather than cash, tie their performance to their firm’s performance. But that’s not going to get to the anger here. People are angry over the overall size of these bonuses, not necessarily the form that they take. It’s still going to be eye-popping figures. I think the commission is going to have to deal with this tomorrow. It’s just such a hot button topic, I don’t see how you don’t ask them about it.

Francis: And we’ve seen the stage set already. We’ve see so many reports this week about the bonuses and about the what the government might do. At the same time we’ve heard Jamie Dimond of JP Morgan health conference saying that he is sick of people taking aim at his executives who’ve done a great job. This is a company that doesn’t take TARP money any longer.

I mean it’s really gearing up to be a fight tomorrow.

Cho: Yeah, but they did take TARP money, that’s one of the points here…

Francis: But they paid it back! With interest.

Cho: they paid it back with interest …

Francis: .. and they didn’t want it in the first place. You can’t say the same thing about Goldman Sachs, you can’t say the same thing about AIG which hasn’t paid it back, but there are some banks that have gotten out there, took the money and paid it right back.

Cho: It is clear that they would not have seen these record profits without all the low rates by the Fed, all the other government programs that are going on right now to help the financial system get back on its feet. I mean it’s not just direct help, it’s also major help through the Fed and other government …

Brewer: I’ll just make one other point. I think the anger isn’t about people getting big bonuses. People have gotten big bonuses while other people are poor for a long time now. But the reason people are struggling right now because ..

Francis: Well there’s still 10% unemployment..

Brewer: Well, yeah, and the reason why there’s 10% unemployment is because we went through a financial crisis that in many ways is blamed on the decisions that the big banks made. So people are struggling because of the decisions of the big banks and to see them pulling in blockbuster numbers now, handing out bonuses while so much of America is still unemployed still hurts.

Cho: I think some of this anger does go on the administration. I mean, they are the ones forming many of these financial policies that help these big banks.

Francis: That’s right, they could have let these banks fail. They didn’t have to go in and bail them out.

David: Yeah …

There you have it. The banks are greedy bastards who never wanted the money but benefited from the taxpayers’ largesse — but the administration is at fault for bailing them out in the first place.

This isn’t going to be good for Democrats. Needless to say, the banks were originally bailed out by the Bush administration, but Bush’s failures have been disappeared and the transition was pretty seamless between the two administrations on this issue, so there’s not a lot of daylight. All anyone sees is this continued coddling of the big banks and Wall Street and a very unseemly relationship between the government and the most unpopular members of the business and financial sectors, in both the health care debate and the bailouts. Unfortunately, the only one of that group that people actually get to vote for is the government. As I’ve written before, the Democrats (and in particular those in the administration), are vulnerable on this because they ran so explicitly as clean, transparent reformers and they seem to be wither ineffectual or in cahoots. Neither of those things are selling points.

And I’m afraid that nobody believes the president’s reported proposal to tax the banks to “recoup” some of the TARP funds is anything more than a political stunt at this point. The days of finger wagging and strenuously objecting are gone — too much is known about the coddling of these institutions to make any of that believable. Unless there’s more to it than we can see right now, I can’t imagine that it will make a difference, even if the president goes on TV and sounds really, really mad. This requires something bold that will start to change the fundamental way our financial system is structured. Unless that happens this is going to be a very big political problem for the Democrats and an even bigger economic problem for the country.

.

Meanwhile, Back In The States

by digby

I hate to be a crank, but it seems to me that if an American state that has the 8th largest economy in the world, somebody ought to be worried about this. Aside from the sheer scale of human misery involved, it’s hard for me to believe that it won’t affect the rest of the country — you have to wonder how great this alleged recovery actually is if this is still happening here:

The latest budget plan from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would force 200,000 children off low-cost medical insurance, end in-home care for 350,000 infirm and elderly citizens and slash income assistance to hundreds of thousands more.

And that’s the best-case scenario under Schwarzenegger’s prescription for filling the state’s $19.9 billion deficit.

Refusing to consider broad tax hikes, he is relying mostly on $8.5 billion in reduced expenditures including drastic cuts to health and social spending that has long made California one of the leading U.S. states in providing help to the needy.

Schwarzenegger also is counting on the U.S. government contributing nearly $7 billion that he says is due California because of various federal mandates.

If federal money fails to materialize, the governor’s plan would trigger deeper cuts that would dismantle entire programs, including the state’s welfare-to-work system, CalWorks.

Enactment of the Republican governor’s proposal, with or without Washington’s cooperation, is far from certain given that leaders of the Democratic-controlled state legislature immediately rebuffed it as too harsh.

Even representatives of Schwarzenegger’s own government acknowledged the drastic scope of his proposed cuts, which the governor himself described as “draconian.”

“They are major reductions in health and human services in California, whether we get the federal funds or not,” said Amy Palmer, spokeswoman for the state agency overseeing many of the programs hardest hit. “If we don’t get the federal funds, the reductions … are devastating.”

Critics say many such cuts ultimately would cost the state more money than they save, as when elderly patients forced out of adult day-care facilities end up in nursing homes.

[…]

Without extra federal money, CalWorks would be eliminated altogether, leaving California the only U.S. state no longer a part of transforming the nation’s welfare system into a program aimed at moving poor, jobless Americans into full employment.

Others programs on the chopping block include transitional housing for foster youth; low-cost Healthy Families medical insurance for needy children, the Medi-Cal healthcare plan for the poor, and a network of subsidized in-home care for the elderly and disabled.

At least 200,000 children are slated to lose eligibility for Healthy Families, with that number growing to 900,000 if the program is gutted entirely.

Nearly 90 percent of the 400,000 recipients of In-Home Support Services stand to lose care under Schwarzenegger’s best-case scenario, and state reimbursements to providers of those who remain would be slashed to minimum-wage levels. Otherwise, the program would be abolished, throwing 350,000 caregivers out of work.

For Medi-Cal, Schwarzenegger has proposed clamping new limits on health services while raising premiums and patient co-pays if he gets the extra federal money he wants. Medi-Cal for legal immigrants in the country less than five years would be eliminated, unless they were pregnant.

If additional federal funds fail to arrive, some 450,000 Medi-Cal recipients would be stripped of eligibility and most optional adult benefits, such as reimbursements for hearing aids and other medical equipment, would be scrapped.

All these health care programs being cut are especially worrying. These patients will logically be coming into the already stretched emergency rooms, costing far more money, so the only real purpose here must be to let them die. I can’t see how it will work otherwise.

The good news, though, is that the most productive members of our society are making 8 figure bonuses this year. At least we don’t have to worry that the really important people are being unfairly compensated for all their hard work, so that’s good.

.

“Ill Informed And Frankly, Stupid”

by digby

So the new Pecora Commission publicly convenes tomorrow and they will be asking all the Masters of the Universe about their bonuses. Of particular interest, of course, is Goldman Sachs, which is evidently slated to hand out record breaking bonuses despite receiving TARP funds, issuing bonds backed by the FDIC and benefiting hugely by the government rescue of AIG. Apparently, it’s our privilege as American taxpayers to have such godlike creatures walking among us.

ABC News has prepared a nice little primer so you can understand who the top beneficiaries are and what they do:

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein will be among the chief executives set to appear tomorrow at the first public hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, and his firm will be back in the public crosshairs later this month when it announces what is expected to be a $20 billion-plus compensation kitty. Some of Goldman’s top traders and bankers stand to earn at least $10 million each.

[…]

A Goldman spokesman said “the speculation about compensation is ill-informed and, frankly, pretty stupid.”

Here are 10 who most likely are in line to clear at least $10 million:

The Traders

Pierre-Henri Flamand is a French-born 39-year-old who was rumored to have been paid $100 million a few years ago (Goldman denied it). Flamand is the London-based global head of Goldman’s purely proprietary trading group, Goldman Sachs Principal Strategies. Goldman CEO Blankfein has said pure prop trading is only 10 percent of the firm’s trading revenues and profits.

Ashok Varadhan, one of Goldman’s top fixed-income guns, is the global head of foreign exchange trading in North America. Varadhan, who made partner in 2002 at age 29, owns luxury digs in the same New York apartment building as Blankfein. Varadhan’s dad, Srinivasa, teaches math at New York University. He had a brother, Gopal, who worked as a trader for Cantor Fitzgerald and was killed in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

David Heller joined Goldman in Asia in the late 1980s. He has risen within the firm, becoming the head of global equity a few years ago. Last year, he was named co-head of the Securities Division. Goldman’s equities division delivered $2.8 billion in revenues in the third quarter alone. “Heller is possibly the one person other than Gary [Cohn, Goldman’s president] who could someday succeed Blankfein,” said one Wall Street headhunter.

Ed Eisler is head of interest rate trading, which is part of Goldman’s most profitable division, Fixed Income Commodities and Currency. The FICC group contributed the lion’s share of the firm’s $24 billion in trading revenues recorded through the first nine months of the year.

The Money Managers

Raanan Agus, 41-year-old manager of Goldman Sachs Investment Partners, a $7 billion hedge fund created at the start of 2008. Agus, a world-class chess enthusiast who is known to prefer Honda minivans to Hummers, runs the GSIP fund within Goldman’s asset management division, which has nearly $1 trillion under management. Through the first half of the year, Agus’ GSIP, which had a rocky 2008, was said to have had gains of around 6 percent.

Marc Spilker, who helps run Goldman’s entire massive investment management business, recently made the kind of headlines his bosses hate. He got into a vitriolic public dispute with his East Hampton neighbor, hedge fund heavyweight Jim Chanos, over a shared pathway to the beach near their homes. Spilker’s area produces nearly $1 billion in revenues each quarter.

The Salespeople

Harvey Schwartz, Goldman’s head of global sales and a co-head of the firm’s securities division. “People don’t realize how much sales drives Goldman’s business,” said one Wall Street headhunter. “Harvey is always among the firm’s best paid people.”

Isabelle Ealet, London-based global head of commodities and who runs the sales team for this hugely successful trading operation. She ranks No. 32 on Fortune magazine’s list of the most powerful women in business.

The Bankers

Gordon Dyal, global head of mergers and acquisitions. According to Deallogic, Goldman ranked No.1 in global M&A transactions through the first three-quarters of the year. Its investment banking division had produced $3.2 billion in net revenue. In one of the biggest fee-generating deals of the year, Goldman advised Burlington Northern Santa Fe when the railroad was bought out for $44 billion by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.

Richard Friedman, 51-year-old head of Goldman’s merchant banking division. A few years ago he helped pull off the historic initial public offering of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. Goldman has maintained a modest investment stake in ICBC, which continues to produce eye-popping returns — ICBC shares yielded Goldman $1.1 billion worth of revenue through the first nine months of 2009.

We’re not worthy.

One thing these people really seem to hate is being treated like well … commoners. The least the government can do is make them squirm — and hopefully more than that. These bonuses are largely to blame for the culture that got us here. It’s absolutely mind-boggling that one year after the near collapse of the whole enchilada they are right back at it. It’s ill-informed and frankly, stupid.

.

Justifiable Homicide

by digby

In the Dr Tiller murder trial, the judge is allowing the defense to argue that the killing was justified.

Before the first juror is selected or witness called, a decision allowing a confessed killer to argue he believes the slaying of one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers was a justified act aimed at saving unborn children has upended what most expected to be an open-and-shut case.

Some abortion opponents are pleasantly stunned and eager to watch Scott Roeder tell a jury his slaying of Wichita doctor George Tiller was voluntary manslaughter. Tiller’s colleagues and abortion rights advocates are outraged and fear the court’s actions give a more than tacit approval to further acts of violence.

”This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women,” said Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, Colo., a longtime friend of Tiller who also performs late-term abortions. ”That is the effect of the ruling.”

[…]

Will the judge’s decision embolden militant anti-abortion activists and lead to open season on abortion providers? Does the Justice Department plan to file charges against Roeder under federal statutes guaranteeing access to clinics? And what does it portend for the unfolding case itself and the inevitable legal challenges to the nation’s abortion laws?

Hern, of Boulder, Colo., said it’s irrelevant that Wilbert won’t decide until after the defense presents its evidence whether to allow jurors to actually consider a conviction on the lesser charge.

”The damage is done: The judge has agreed to give him a platform,” Hern said. ”It is an act of incomprehensible stupidity on the part of the judge, but he is carrying out the will of the people of Kansas who are trying to get out of the 19th century.”

The Feminist Majority Foundation also denounced the ruling, saying Wilbert essentially was allowing a justifiable homicide defense. The group, which supports abortion rights, urged the Justice Department to file federal charges under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar declined to comment, citing an ongoing […]

A man who runs a Web site supporting violence against abortion providers said in the wake of the judge’s decision that he has changed his mind about attending Roeder’s trial. The Rev. Don Spitz of Chesapeake, Va., said he and other activists from the Army of God plan to observe the court proceedings quietly next week.

”I am flabbergasted, but in a good way,” Spitz said of the judge’s decision.

Spitz acknowledged that the possibility that Wilbert’s decision may influence some people who in the past wouldn’t kill abortion providers because they risked a sentence of death or life imprisonment. ”It may increase the number of people who may be willing to take that risk,” he said.

In Des Moines, Iowa, militant anti-abortion activist Dave Leach agreed the decision opens the door to presenting the same evidence as in a case of justifiable homicide. It was Leach who wrote the 104-page legal brief that Roeder signed and submitted to the court in which he admitted killing Tiller.

”The closer we come to a court actually addressing these issues, the less danger abortionists are going to be in,” Leach said.

Nice little clinic you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it…

.

They Really Mean It: 9/11 Doesn’t Count

by tristero

A few days ago, I wrote a blog post about Giuliani’s latest lie entitled, 9/11 Doesn’t Count. That was sarcastic exaggeration, of course. I really didn’t believe that Giuliani, or anyone else for that matter, no matter how crazy or politically ruthless, would ever seriously assert, under any circumstances, that 9/11 didn’t count.

Huh. Little did I know:

In late November, Dana Perino, a former Bush press secretary, said, “We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term.” In late December, Mary Matalin, a former senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, said, “We inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history.” She clearly meant Sept. 11, not the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people and until 2001 was the worst terrorist act in this country.

“Republicans tend not to count 9/11 against Bush,” Margaret Carlson, a columnist for Bloomberg News, said Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.” “That’s, like, not on his watch because ‘Oh, we didn’t know about that before.’”

Now, Mr. Haberman deserves praise for rounding up these disgustingly deliberate Republican lies and exposing them in a major newspaper, albeit buried deep inside its pages. However, by not directly rebutting Carlson, he unintentionally let stand her odious spin.

Of course, we did know “about that” – bin Laden’s murderous intent to attack Americn targets – in part because Clinton had tried like hell to get Republicans to get their faces out of his crotch and focus on the threat from al Qaeda. Even more specifically, the Bush administration knew that in the summer of 2001, “bin Laden [was] determined to attack inside the US.”. And what was Bush’s response?

,,,an unnamed CIA briefer… flew to Bush’s Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president’s attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” *

So, even if Republicans were prepared to give Bush the benefit of the doubt before, they no longer have even the remotest excuse to do so.

And since that is the case, none of them – Giuliani, Perino, Matalin, and Carlson, in the present case – deserve the opportunity to influence the public discourse without being immediately, and forcefully, rebutted with the actual facts. That Stephanopolous let Giuliani get away with that lie is outrageous. That CNN let Carlson spin that lie without objecting is equally so.

We – ie, readers of this blog – know all this. But as the pattern Haberman reports makes clear, Republican operatives – whose cynicism knows no bounds – are betting that Americans have already begun to forget exactly what happened after the GOP stole the presidency in 2000 and wreaked such havoc on us.. That is why it is incumbent upon responsible journalists like Haberman not to let scoundrels like Carlson explain away Giuliani’s cold, calculated lie as merely a different way to view the world.

Surely, Carlson’s spin is as self-evidently absurd to Haberman as it is to us. But, as long experience with rightwing GOP nonsense has demonstrated, merely holding it up for ridicule is not enough to stop it. As long as they think they can get away with it, they will.

*And of course, ignoring that August memo was only the tip of the iceberg, as even a cursory familiarity with the history of the first nine months of the Bush presidency would make clear. Furthermore, that Bush had ignored clear signs of a major imminent domestic attack was well-known long before the publication of Susskind’s book.

[Edited slightly after initial posting.]

Cliches For Sale

by digby

I don’t want to give Tucker Carlson any traffic, so I won’t add a link, but you can find this article by googling, I’m sure.It’s written by a conservative writer named Cupp in Carlson’s new online operation called the Tuckington Post (aka The Daily Caller.) It is a perfect example of the snotty, sophomoric humor in which Carlson has long specialized.

This is yet another in a long line of proudly obnoxious, conservative woman with chips on their shoulders the size of Alaska complaining that everyone hates them because they are so incredibly sexy and special. The main thing you need to know is that she loves God, hates liberals and likes to kill things, which makes her so awesomely cool that only the manliest of manly men will be able to handle her violent, macho, scotch-swilling womanliness:

If you don’t know me, I’m an author, a political columnist, and a conservative television commentator. I live in New York City, I love board games, and my favorite food is macaroni and cheese. I’m also a terrible person.

You should know this about me now, because it will lessen the blow later when I gradually reveal all of my grotesque short-comings over the course of our relationship here at The Daily Caller. I figure, if I’m upfront with you at the beginning, you will come to hate me only slightly less. It’s that modicum of tolerance that I hope I can eventually turn into a shred of acceptance, and then later maybe that will become a snippet of appreciation. But that may just be wishful thinking.

So let’s pretend we’re on our first date, and we’re getting to know each other. You are sitting across the table from me at some trendy, low-lit, beautiful-people lounge that you picked and I probably hate. You’re sipping from a glass of small-batch bourbon that you ordered to prove how “old-school” you are, and I’m sipping from a glass of small-batch bourbon because that’s what I drink. In the first five minutes you’ve been sure to let me know you’re a banker/lawyer/politico and I’m immediately regretting my pledge never to go out with a banker/lawyer/politico, and as you talk I’m imagining myself fishing the salmon run in Alaska (you’re not there).

And then, after your one-of-a-kind story about the time you and your college buddies ran with the bulls in Pamplona, you say, “So tell me about yourself.” And here’s where I get ready to lower the boom.

First of all, I say, I dislike you very much already. Not because you’ve already told me how much money you make, but because I’m a misanthrope. That’s because most of the people I meet fall far short of the examples my mother and father set decades ago. Whereas they are compassionate, hard-working, down-to-earth, unpretentious, God-fearing common folk, you are an entitled, self-important, elitist and condescending snot weasel who wears his empty moral relativism and cheap “Daily Show” pieties like they are Olympic medals.

In addition to being a misanthrope, you should know I don’t care much for other living things either. I don’t really care that polar bears may not live to see the birth of my great-grandkids, or that I just shot a deer with my 12-gauge, since it will make for really tasty jerky, and I probably just prevented 14 future car accidents. I would fish every trout out of the Housatonic River if they let me, and grill them up with some lemon and dill. Catch-and-release is for wimps, and nature’s bounty is mine for the taking.

The so-called “environment” doesn’t really tug at my heart-strings either. I will use as much water as comes out of my faucet, kill enough trees to TP the White House, and burn enough electricity to power the Magic Kingdom, simply because you insist doing so will make me a “bad person.” I recycle because, in Manhattan, I’m required to, and if I had a car, I’d get the one that left the biggest carbon footprint, because the flatulent cows in Australia and your pampered dog Fluffy are worse for the planet than my Hummer would be. The ice caps may be melting in the Arctic, but I’ve got more pressing concerns — like my letter campaign to bring back the British “Office,” and pretty much everything else.

I must confess I’m also a bit of a warmonger. Because unlike you I believe in good and evil and protecting my way of life sometimes requires inflicting blunt trauma. If you’re going to tell me that Islamo-fascist, communist and socialist dictatorships around the world aren’t worse than we are–they’re just “different”–I’m going to tell you that you’re a colossal idiot, and we should probably part company here. American exceptionalism isn’t a theory, it’s a fact. Sorry, France. (Your music sucks anyway.)

Lastly, and probably worst of all, I’m a conservative, which means, of course, that I don’t deserve to live. Valuing the sanctity of life, the traditional family, the 2nd Amendment, personal responsibility, low taxes and a limited government puts me at odds with the esteemed cultural taste arbiters of our great nation–like Alec Baldwin and Rosie O’Donnell. I know this, and accept this. It’s a lonely road sometimes, but as a misanthrope, it works out well.

Poor sad little girl. I hope she doesn’t find that man of her dreams —you know, the one who will beat the shit out of her for breathing wrong one morning?

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter called and wants her persona back.

H/t to Susan of Texas

Make It Stop

by digby

Sweet Jesus, I hate this goddamned Halperin/Heileman tabloid atrocity. It’s got the villagers so excited I fear they are going to literally orgasm on camera — and that’s something I just don’t want to see. A book based on backstabbing gossip from disgruntled campaign aides and pissed off rivals is about as reliable a six year olds playing a game of telephone. When you combine these nasty little tidbits with the Villager sensibility and biases of the writers, you end up with a docu-drama rather than a work of non-fiction.

Here’s just a sample of the fall-out from Independent Women Forum’s Michelle Bernard on MSNBC:

It’s almost like Bill Clinton thought Barack Obama should have walked up to him and said “yes massa, may ah get you some coffee?”

This after hours and hours of dishing on Elizabeth Edwards and Harry Reid and Sarah Palin about stale news and nasty gossip until I want to jam chopsticks in my ears.

Glenn is so right. They haven’t gone anywhere. If anything they’ve gotten stronger.

BTW: There’s good reason to mistrust that Bill Clinton ever uttered those words. Here’s Greg Sargent:

The claim about Clinton’s explosive remarks came on page 218 of Game Change:

The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

The remark is not in quotes. And the authors’ note from Mark Halperin and John Heilemann states explicitly their rationale for choosing not to put dialog in quotes:

Where dialog is not in quotes, it is paraphrased, reflecting only a lack of certainly on the part of our sources about precise wording, not about the nature of the statements.

This is kind of amazing. By the authors’ own stated guidelines, this might not have been the “precise wording” Clinton used. Yet it has been the basis for a huge amount of media discussion all the same, with some suggesting racism on Clinton’s part.

I have no idea what Clinton actually said, obviously, but he isn’t an idiot and I find it hard to believe that he would try to persuade Teddy Kennedy to endorse Hillary by waxing nostalgic about slavery and Jim Crow. He may very well have demeaned him in some fashion, but it was far more likely about his inexperience than his race. It doesn’t make sense.

From the excerpts we are getting from the book so far, we must assume that except for Barack Obama, all parties involved in the 2008 race were nearly insane assholes in every possible way. I guess it’s a really good thing that he’s the one who won or it’s hard to imagine the country would have survived.

.

Bipartisan Revulsion

by digby

So, here’s the hole the Democrats have dug for themselves. The Republicans are out there denouncing them for Wall Street bail outs and coddling bankers and there’s nothing anyone who cares about their credibility can say except “it’s a bipartisan scandal” and then agree with everything the Republicans are saying.

There is no more of a GOP hack than former McCain spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer, but she had the better of the argument today when she appeared on Blitzer with Paul Begala:

Wolf: … Some of these institutions, do the math, are gonna hand out eight figures 10 million dollars, 15 milion dollars. What if anything should the Obama administration do about this?

Nancy Pfotnehauer: well you know it’s a slippery slope because for the companies that took government money, you then have an implied oversight from the government. So for companies who didn’t take government money,their shareholders are the ones who should hold them accountable.

Wolf: A lot of these companies have returned the money, the TARP money that they received. Should they at all be restricted in the bonuses that they give out?

Nancy Pfotenhauer: That’s a very interesting question. I still believe that there was a value to the money that the taxpayer stepped in to pay the bill. But I think the reason we haven’t seen anything happen is not only that it is complicated matter, but 73% of the campaign contributions from the financial services industry according to the Center for Responsible Politics has gone to Democrats this cycle. So you get a lot of talk about crackdowns and and what we end up living with are bailouts.

Wolf: What do you think? What should the president do, if anything, about this?

Begala: Listen to Nancy. Now, I’ll never say that again, it will ruin her credibility with the Republicans.

Nancy: It’s a first!

Begala: It’s a bipartisan scandal. The Bush administration bailed out Wall Street and now apparently the Obama administration is going to protect their bonuses. In Britain, they’re taxing these bonuses. Just to put it into perspective, Wolf, I did a little back of the envelope math. There are reports that the bonus pool on Wall Street this year is 150 billion dollars. That’s enough to pay for the whole war in Iraq for the whole year and have 30 billion left over. It is enough to pay for in state tuition four years for every college freshman in American. It’s enough to pay for 31 million people for health care — all the uninsured could be covered just for Wall Street bonuses. It’s obscene. It is obscene and a decent society, and a Democratic society ought to do something about it.

Wolf: You know Nancy, John Reed the Citigroup founder was quoted in the New York Times as saying this, “There is nothing I’ve seen that gives me the slightest feeling that these people have learned anything from the crisis … They just don’t get it. They are off in a different world.”

Nancy: Well you know it’s interesting when you have one person speaking the truth in a room full of folks just saying what will advocate their own cause. I think that this may be the case in this instance because it is just beyond the pale to me that taxpayers could have funneled this much money into these institutions and the idea that there is not even any interaction or regulatory oversight.

Now, I want to say that the danger here is that once you government gets involved in the business here, it can get rather fun. They enjoy manipulation and their incompetence is legion, but the bottom line is they took taxpayer dollars …

Wolf: But Ken Feinberg the pay czar as they call him, he can determine how much money salaries and bonuses should be available to companies that still owe the taxpayers money but once these companies return the loans his responsiblity goes away.

Begala: Right. To me it would be three steps. If you’re still on the hook for taxpayers money then the pay czar should control your pay and that’s how it should be. If you’ve gotten it in the past, even if you’ve paid it back I think it ought to be confiscatory tax rates on those bonuses. Not on everybody who makes a lot of money but those Wall Street bonuses because they did, after all ruin the whole country and destroy the economy. But over time rather than taxing is to empower shareholders. There have been some talk about laws that would be “safe or pay” that would make shareholders, give shareholders the right to vote on compensation.

Nancy: Yes, yes.

Begala: All congress is talking about is symbolic votes. I want a real vote so shareholders can say “no you cannot pay executives that much.”

Wolf: A lot of those companies that repaid the federal government as you know, they got money from AIG indirectly from the federal government gave hundreds of billions to AIG which in turn paid off a lot of these companies the insurance money they supposedly needed. And they’re not repaying AIG for that …

Nancy: No and it’s a very incestuous thing. And remember Tim Geithner helped the AIG bonuses get in that bill, you had Chris Dodd protect them and make them stay in there and now you have the House legislation that came forward, I don’t think the massive taxation is the way to go forward, I think you should approach it at the front end. But instead of that the Senate instead of acting on that are hollowing it out and instead are putting up Mr Reid’s health care bill.

I don’t know if Pfotenauer was on talking points, but if she was, the Democrats had better come up with something to counter it. I would suggest that it be something other than “we agree!” or “Bush did it too.” In fact, actions speak louder than words, so they probably need to do something.

I know that Jonathan Alter thinks we should all run around screaming “SCHIP,” “Health Care” and “Gitmo!” while giggling merrily about how wonderful everything is, but somehow I doubt that’s going to get us very far. This is a very potent critique and the Democrats are going to be the ones who pay the price.

.