Unfortunately, the Deplorables I know would never read the NYTimes, would not believe a single word printed in the NYTimes, and are consumed with so much hatred for HRC (hatred stoked for the past 30 years by -- yes -- that vast right wing conspiracy) that this thoughtful and intelligent piece will never be read or understood by them.
143
I had the same reaction... THIS is what all of the angst is about? The worst thing I have read are emails (that were meant to be personal) among campaign staff that could be construed as mildly disconcerting if you happen to be naive enough to think that some trash talk and strategy snark isn't SOP in political campaigns. Her speeches to banks leave me wondering why she didn't just release them. She is the ultimate pragmatist who knows that the finance industry has some egregious behavior to atone for and must change; but also understands that burning down the entire financial sector isn't the answer either. She's never been an extreme ideologue and that may be a weakness among some during a campaign- but I believe it's what so many centrist Democrats (and Republicans) want.
112
I'm with her also. But so far as a carbon tax is concerned I'm still dubious. The pollution from carbon won't be diminished simply because we get the price right.
Oh. Never Trump, never Pence either.
Oh. Never Trump, never Pence either.
30
I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. But why did not Hillary not reveal the real Hillary instead coming out of the Wikileaks? Just a little curious and a tad doubt in my mind. But that's a non-starter. She has my vote because she is intelligent, smart, hardworking, experienced, pragmatic, inclusive and empathetic right from her teenage years
140
And that’s why she’s the elites’ choice.
45
And you believe her? This is the same Hillary that was for TPP before she was against TPP that you are for, Mr. Friedman. Confused? So are the rest of us who try to pin her down on anything. And yes, I will be voting for her to keep Trump out of the White House. But in the end, a vote for Hillary is a vote for... who knows?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/opinion/thomas-l-friedman-on-trade-oba...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/opinion/thomas-l-friedman-on-trade-oba...
16
You are so in the tank for her that you've lost all objectivity.
No critical thinking whatsoever.
It's EASY to not want trump so why don't you lay out the case for or against a third party bid.
Because the lesser of two evils still leaves us with evil.
Very disappointing work by you during the campaign.
Take a break and bring some of your associates.
America not winning with this weak choice.
No critical thinking whatsoever.
It's EASY to not want trump so why don't you lay out the case for or against a third party bid.
Because the lesser of two evils still leaves us with evil.
Very disappointing work by you during the campaign.
Take a break and bring some of your associates.
America not winning with this weak choice.
29
To all you respondents getting apoplectic over "pay to play", where's the outrage that most of your senators and congresspeople are owned by lobbyists paying to play ?
106
And Mrs. Clinton was paid how much? $500,000.00.. sounds like she negotiated a nice deal for herself doesn't it. She's a better business man than the man..
44
Bravo Mr. Friedman.
63
Give me a break, Friedman: Who's trying to interfere with the election--Wiki or the NYT? Pshaw. You work for a criminal syndicate that trashes and destroys anything or anyone that opposes its Trotsky methodology and ideology.
Next you'll be telling us Queen Big Chops and her sordid, criminal past will have no effect on her future behavior in the White House. You don't see this because you're so busy laying on the ooze from Washington with a trowel--what you're best at, and your self-serving foreign policy advice.
If the nation can endure the malfeasance and senseless wars post-Berlin Wall--Trump is hardly a threat to such corruption--he'll be swallowed by it whole, whereas Hillary has been swimming in it and enjoying it since Watergate. Perhaps, you're right, she is the better choice to represent America's ideals in the post-Modern age of US politics.
Next you'll be telling us Queen Big Chops and her sordid, criminal past will have no effect on her future behavior in the White House. You don't see this because you're so busy laying on the ooze from Washington with a trowel--what you're best at, and your self-serving foreign policy advice.
If the nation can endure the malfeasance and senseless wars post-Berlin Wall--Trump is hardly a threat to such corruption--he'll be swallowed by it whole, whereas Hillary has been swimming in it and enjoying it since Watergate. Perhaps, you're right, she is the better choice to represent America's ideals in the post-Modern age of US politics.
30
Tom, you left out Hillary's profound militarism and economic imperialism. How about a Part 2 article?
22
Gee whiz, Tom, Super Secret Hillary sounds just super! That bumbling Vlady, working through his stooge (Assange), has unintentionally revealed the Authentic Hillary! How ironic that Putin winds up getting Hillary elected rather than Trump!
But, as you so astutely point out, the rest of humanity never saw Super Hillary. Only the good guys at Coldman Sacks and their Wall Street knights were privileged enough to savor the enlightened vision of the next POTUS.
Fortunately for humanity, Wiki-Leaks saved the day. But one wonders, as you wondered in this infomercial, why did Super Hill hide her super nova under a basket? Did her people think the People would be unable to withstand the candle power of her vision? Were they protecting us from ourselves?
It doesn't matter now, because the path to Utopia, thanks to Wiki-Leaks, has been revealed. Just follow Hillary. She is Super!
But, as you so astutely point out, the rest of humanity never saw Super Hillary. Only the good guys at Coldman Sacks and their Wall Street knights were privileged enough to savor the enlightened vision of the next POTUS.
Fortunately for humanity, Wiki-Leaks saved the day. But one wonders, as you wondered in this infomercial, why did Super Hill hide her super nova under a basket? Did her people think the People would be unable to withstand the candle power of her vision? Were they protecting us from ourselves?
It doesn't matter now, because the path to Utopia, thanks to Wiki-Leaks, has been revealed. Just follow Hillary. She is Super!
33
I wonder what a dump of the Benghazi committee and Judicial Watch members' e-mails would reveal about them? How about it WikiLeaks?
83
Yeah, unemployment, dislocation, economic obsolescence, off-shoring, and me buying it cheaper than cost at Dollar Tree are problematics to say the very least.
There are degrees of capitalism and of socialism, and dogmatic idealists pretend otherwise.
Creative & imaginative technologies are deliberately "destructive."
We somehow must transcend non-remedial destruction, or we are doomed
Do we blame the Chamber of Commerce and Tom Friedman's LEXUS & OLIVETREE economic prescriptions and curse the darkness, or do we
become maximally enlightened?
Are cutting taxes, relying on the genius of unfettered trickle down, austerity, and efficiency & productivity total solutions?
NO.
If I were a public interest foundation, I'd offer millions in prizes for concepts/ideas.
It's surely being done, but obviously NOT ENOUGH.
If Hillary actually wins, the nation survives, but only for awhile, the economically obsoleted angry mob.
BREXIT has unexpectedly won, and despite the current favorable polls, the scary demagogue DJT could win too.
There are degrees of capitalism and of socialism, and dogmatic idealists pretend otherwise.
Creative & imaginative technologies are deliberately "destructive."
We somehow must transcend non-remedial destruction, or we are doomed
Do we blame the Chamber of Commerce and Tom Friedman's LEXUS & OLIVETREE economic prescriptions and curse the darkness, or do we
become maximally enlightened?
Are cutting taxes, relying on the genius of unfettered trickle down, austerity, and efficiency & productivity total solutions?
NO.
If I were a public interest foundation, I'd offer millions in prizes for concepts/ideas.
It's surely being done, but obviously NOT ENOUGH.
If Hillary actually wins, the nation survives, but only for awhile, the economically obsoleted angry mob.
BREXIT has unexpectedly won, and despite the current favorable polls, the scary demagogue DJT could win too.
4
I 100% like this as well, good interesting well-calibrated speeches, indeed thanks, Dictator Putin, your KGB expertise is being put to good use. The only problem is Hillary's anti-TPP stance, I hope after January it can be adjusted. America needs that treaty and more so Asia needs it as a bulwark against Chinese hegemonism.
18
....so Thank God for WikiLeaks...if, per Mr. Trumps ardent wish, they actually do have Mrs. Clinton's 30,000 bleach-bited, destroyed e-mails, it will be an interesting three weeks....They said to Nixon "Why don't you just burn the tapes"
...Character...just wouldn't tolerate it...
...Character...just wouldn't tolerate it...
4
Simpson Bowles!? Say it ain't so!
Krugman has to start all over ...
Krugman has to start all over ...
5
Your comments are good ones except you accuse Hillary of not campaigning on her points you commend. Hillary is winning this election because her campaign is right-on with the electorate. We know she has the wellmeaning of Americans at heart (despite her opponent saying otherwise) and will do us all proud as our next President. Go Hillary!
31
I don't know who is more out of touch, Tom Friedman or Hillary Clinton!
24
I'm with you, Thom Friedman. Thanks for this.
29
Mr. Friedman, you are deciphering per your perception management mandate, as outlined by your employer, the NY Times.
I, and tens of millions of Bernie supporters know different, and can no longer be herded by government directed mainstream media sources.
Another take on Wikihillary, is found in The Intercept, see excerpt and link -
"Consider:
In a July 2015 memo addressed to Clinton herself, her campaign laid out plans for working with the Democratic National Committee and Correct the Record, a Super PAC. Correct the Record was created by David Brock, a longtime Clinton ally and the founder of Media Matters for America. One section of the memo instructed: “Work with CTR and DNC to publicize specific GOP candidate vulnerabilities.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/
I, and tens of millions of Bernie supporters know different, and can no longer be herded by government directed mainstream media sources.
Another take on Wikihillary, is found in The Intercept, see excerpt and link -
"Consider:
In a July 2015 memo addressed to Clinton herself, her campaign laid out plans for working with the Democratic National Committee and Correct the Record, a Super PAC. Correct the Record was created by David Brock, a longtime Clinton ally and the founder of Media Matters for America. One section of the memo instructed: “Work with CTR and DNC to publicize specific GOP candidate vulnerabilities.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/
16
Mr. Friedman can not write a column without attacking Social Security.
There is no need to cut benefits by the means recommended by Simpson-Bowles.
Raising the salary cap would solve all problems.
see http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/the-real-long-term-budget-c...
The longevity problem was solved in the 80's when the retirement age was raised.
Mr. Friedman writes we should help displaced workers.
I agree.
But I have yet to read one recommendation from him to do this..
Connecting people to the internet will not restore the displaced 50 plus workers' salary.
Mr. Friedman may not care about him.
The last thing we need is a WkiHillary and hopefully the Democrats in Congress will block HRC if she tries to institute any of the snake oil Friedman proposes.
There is no need to cut benefits by the means recommended by Simpson-Bowles.
Raising the salary cap would solve all problems.
see http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/the-real-long-term-budget-c...
The longevity problem was solved in the 80's when the retirement age was raised.
Mr. Friedman writes we should help displaced workers.
I agree.
But I have yet to read one recommendation from him to do this..
Connecting people to the internet will not restore the displaced 50 plus workers' salary.
Mr. Friedman may not care about him.
The last thing we need is a WkiHillary and hopefully the Democrats in Congress will block HRC if she tries to institute any of the snake oil Friedman proposes.
19
Gee! If WikiHillary is so great, why didn't she just release the transcripts of her $225,000 speeches a year ago? Someone must have drank the champagne punch. To every Hillary revelation spin spin spin.
Still would like to know who she will nominate to replace Scalia?
So secretive; can hardly wait for less governmental transparency.
Still would like to know who she will nominate to replace Scalia?
So secretive; can hardly wait for less governmental transparency.
17
Spin is in the eye of the Beholder.
As for the Supreme Court nomination, it would most certainly not be someone who would drag this country back into the Dark Ages.
As for the Supreme Court nomination, it would most certainly not be someone who would drag this country back into the Dark Ages.
25
Psst, Tom. We're living in a country where 39 percent of the electorate is for Trump and another sizable hunk is still moping for their Bernie. As wise as WikiHillary may be in terms of policy, political Hillary may be wiser still for keeping mum about it. Now that Ecuador has cut off Assange's internet privileges, Putin will have to find another way to break it to us Americans that we're about to fall into the hands of a rational pragmatic moderate.
So, Tom, Shhhhhh!
So, Tom, Shhhhhh!
24
I think Tom Friedman misses the point; the Wikileaks content might be music to the ears of centrists like him (or me) but not for die hard supporters of Bernie whom she tries so hard to get to the polling booths on Nov 8...
17
If all her speeches as you say show "more of that Hillary" who deserves to be president, then why is she so reluctant to release them? What is she scared of if all the emails courtesy of Putin actually prove what a great candidate she is. Based on what you say, this should be a boost for her candidacy.
Or is this just further proof that what Hillary says in public is different than what she says in private; and she knows it? And if so, why should we trust her anymore than that other person -- you know who -- you presents himself as such a great businessperson and champion of the little guy but for some strange reason won't release his tax returns as if there is something also he'd prefer to keep hidden?
Or is this just further proof that what Hillary says in public is different than what she says in private; and she knows it? And if so, why should we trust her anymore than that other person -- you know who -- you presents himself as such a great businessperson and champion of the little guy but for some strange reason won't release his tax returns as if there is something also he'd prefer to keep hidden?
8
Clearly Friedman has cast his lot with the neo-liberal globalists. His airy dismissal of the pain large global segments endure as a mere technocratic challenge is vastly re-assuring. Heck, let's do as Hillary wants and let the self-apponted masters of the universe figure it out. Isn't everything so wonderful!
16
If you had actually taken the time to look at Clinton's website, you'd know there is nothing about "appointed masters of the universe' there -- But there are concrete plans.
That other stuff is in your head.
That other stuff is in your head.
26
God bless you Hillary, and you too Mr Friedman for pointing this out. How she can keep a rational mind and put up real working policies while being attacked relentlessly, not only by Mr. Trump now, but by Republicans for the last 20 years, is to me a real testament to her strength and ability to lead and govern.
She really is a person to be admired for her intelligence and vision.
She really is a person to be admired for her intelligence and vision.
49
Open borders is your "dream"? So the US should forget the concept of sovereignty and allow anyone who wants to free access into our country when and where they choose? What's the point of evening saying we have a sovereign nation, then?
11
Very Trumpian argument. Open borders for trade (within treaties) is the only way forward. Protectionism, "build that wall" policies, are the alternative. Fortress America is a loser unless a new Administration also takes steps to curtail and prohibit new technologies, which powerfully disrupt from within.
6
The question is whether she will be able to govern, given what looks like more of the same coming from the right (McCain's statement that the GOP will refuse to comfirm ANY supreme court nominee coming from Clinton - yeah, he tried to walk it back but we know better). The GOP 'soul searching' regarding Trump, kind of hilarious ("oh my, could we be responsible for this? let us contemplate ..."), will not extend to a change of behavior regarding democrats or dialing down the rhetoric.
4
Yes! I've been, am and will continue to be For Hillary! To bad the vast majority of republicans can't/won't read above a 3rd grade level or they too would embrace her! The old joke about a bus full of lawyers driving over a cliff has just been updated as a bus full of republicans with donald trump as the bus driver! Pedal to the metal!
13
Your arrogant disdain is why I'm glad I moved a town over. Anytime you decide to stop talking down to people and moving away from stale partisanship, the children of our state and nation will thank you. Also, it's "too".
5
You talk about business and social factions like they're mutually exclusive. They're not. That's the whole point.
7
On Simpson-Bowles and focus on deficits, Mr. Friedman should really be better informed. Mr. Krugman and other economists (e.g. Jonathan Chait) have been devastating in their criticism:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/a-public-service-reminder-si...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/a-public-service-reminder-si...
5
HRC summarized as a "smart, pragmatic, center-left politician" is possibly the exact reason she is still poison to almost 40% of the population especially if you were to add the word 'female' before 'politician'.
13
Indeed the wiki leaks show an thoughtful intelligent woman who has real ideas and solutions and who is willing to work with both parties. I think that is what all Americans want
13
If those speeches are worth $250K to Wall Street, let the suckers keep paying it better to have her rip them off than the American middle and working class. We do not need to destroy our economy by more senseless tax cuts for the 1%--many of whom like TRUMP aren't paying a nickle. I trust her to work for those who need help in our changing global economy and not just the interests of the rich which the Trump/Republican tax proposals seem committed to.
15
I completely agree. If the worst leaks are like these, please bring more of them on.
12
I think its pretty clear why Hillary has not campaigned as WikiHillary - free trade, and really most nuanced and policy-centered opinions of any sort, are contrary to the current state of public opinion. Voters on both sides of the aisle currently seem more interested in pinning the blame for our problems on one group or another (Democrats, Republicans, immigrants, Muslims, China, corporations, the rich/elite, Wall Street, the government, etc.), rather than attempting to find best-evidence-based solutions. I think Hillary will govern as WikiHillary - but will that stem the rising tide of Sanders and Trump-ites in our midst? I think not.
8
I don't think "stemming the tide" has as much to do with it, as trying to find a balanced compromise -- Which by the way, requires the full co-operation of ALL sides involved.
9
I fear that as true and wise as Mr. Friedman's observations are they will never enter into the realm of the alt right fox news bubble people. When I read some of the wiki leaks about Ms.Clinton's speeches I thought 'these sound like good ideas' There is no damaging devious behind closed curtain revelations.
America will have to deal with fox news bubble people for a long time to come. How can one learn what best ensures their future if the don't ardently seek to get the facts that can make a real difference?
For anyone not interested in the true that sets one free, the truth is anything you want to believe
America will have to deal with fox news bubble people for a long time to come. How can one learn what best ensures their future if the don't ardently seek to get the facts that can make a real difference?
For anyone not interested in the true that sets one free, the truth is anything you want to believe
9
Finally an intelligent piece on these issues. Am tired of all the posturing and lack of facts. On this issue.
12
The emails, while they can be viewed as politically troublesome, it shows that Hillary Clinton masters the subject and is very well prepared to be President. Anyone has a right to disagree with the content of the speeches, but one cannot deny she knows what she's saying.
25
Remarkable that the New York Times has found a way to try to spin the evidence of Hillary Clinton's duplicity and corruption into a positive reason to support her even more. Perhaps it's not that surprising in light of the WikiLeaks revelation of just how complicit the NYT and other media outlets were with Hillary's desires; desires to destroy Bernie Sanders' candidacy, desires to promote Trump as the Republican nominee, and desires to portray a deeply problematic woman as the solution to America's ills. I know I'm not alone when I say that I will never view the NYT the way I did prior to this election. The NYT has lost this Liberal's trust, and I have learned a painful lesson.
11
Here's an idea. Get a viable Liberal candidate, and a viable Liberal Press, and do more to get others onboard, instead of just decrying about how bad everything and everyone is.
That might be a good start.
That might be a good start.
5
And here I thought Thomas Friedman a “Trump” kind of guy. But no, he likes Hillary even more now! Have purloined documents ever proved so enlightening?
I was enlightened by the virulent anti-Catholic bigotry we learned of in the highest levels of the Clinton campaign team. The kind of bigotry that if it were directed at blacks, Muslims, gays, or a dozen other marginalized peoples then that staffer would have been immediately fired.
But then what’s a little, or a lot, of anti-Catholic bigotry? Trump is not going to be president; and that is the most important thing facing us all right now.
I was enlightened by the virulent anti-Catholic bigotry we learned of in the highest levels of the Clinton campaign team. The kind of bigotry that if it were directed at blacks, Muslims, gays, or a dozen other marginalized peoples then that staffer would have been immediately fired.
But then what’s a little, or a lot, of anti-Catholic bigotry? Trump is not going to be president; and that is the most important thing facing us all right now.
1
The crux Friedman blithely elides is that Hillary's consciously misrepresenting her views, regarding an array of crucial issues and policies, to the electorate - etymologically, what was once called LYING. Friedman presumes the "real" Hillary is the one whose views dovetail with his own, but aren't union households (taking her stated TPP opposition at face value) making the same presumption? It's a virtual certainty that Hillary "Lincolnesque Liar" Clinton is deceiving millions of Americans - winners and losers to be announced sometime after Inauguration Day.
Matters of ideological taste aside, on what basis will Friedman (or journalism, generally) object to being lied to by a President Hillary?
Matters of ideological taste aside, on what basis will Friedman (or journalism, generally) object to being lied to by a President Hillary?
7
All Presidents lie to some extent, in fact, all adults do, 100% of them. That is the price for navigating through life without being locked in a cave. A 5-year old can tell it as it is, and adults laugh. An adult cannot do it.
7
" We’ll never get out of this economic rut, and protect future generations, unless the business and social sectors, Democrats and Republicans, all give and get something..."
Yeah, the problem is that the middle class is asked to give too much. Any solution for that?
Yeah, the problem is that the middle class is asked to give too much. Any solution for that?
2
What exactly is the middle class being asked to help with which is too much? Taxes? They are among the lowest in the Western World. And let's remember no VAT (20% in Europe).
2
Tom L. Friedman, your last paragraph is enlightening and put a smile on my face: "Nonetheless, thanks to WikiLeaks, I am reassured that she has the right balance of instincts on the issues I care about most. So, again, thank you, Putin, for exposing that Hillary. She could make a pretty good president for these times."
Thank our Founding Fathers for Freedom of the Press!
Thank our Founding Fathers for Freedom of the Press!
12
Recently I have been puzzled by the ubiquitous comments from CCN and MSNBC pundits and the NYT (these are my go to media outlets) that the WikiLeaks material that should be so damaging to Hillary is getting short shrift in the media because of Trump's flame-out. Isn't it the media's job to make sure that doesn't happen? If there were more thoughtful scrutiny of the WikiLeaks material, everyone would be able to see what Thomas Friedman is talking about in this article, and come to their own conclusions.
Even though I delight in every misstep that Trump makes, I am tired of the lack of discussion and real analysis about both Trump's and Hillary's policy positions, and what they would mean to the country. I have no hope of this changing during this election cycle, but I do hope that the post-mortem on and from the media, including NYT, will bring some constructive changes to the way political battles are reported and analyzed. I reluctantly have say that much of the time the media has not been contributing to our understanding of candidates' stands on the issues, and the implications for the future. This article by Thomas Friedman is a good start.
I'm with her.
Even though I delight in every misstep that Trump makes, I am tired of the lack of discussion and real analysis about both Trump's and Hillary's policy positions, and what they would mean to the country. I have no hope of this changing during this election cycle, but I do hope that the post-mortem on and from the media, including NYT, will bring some constructive changes to the way political battles are reported and analyzed. I reluctantly have say that much of the time the media has not been contributing to our understanding of candidates' stands on the issues, and the implications for the future. This article by Thomas Friedman is a good start.
I'm with her.
20
Excellent job as usual Mr Tom! I agree WikiLeaks in a way proved my instinct on Hillary Clinton. I wasnt surprised and infact felt happy with her speeches. WikiLeaks, although I hate them, helped me to solidify my vote for Hillary!!
11
Are there any two members of The Establishment who embody the status quo, not to mention the quid pro quo, more emphatically than Hillary Clinton and Thomas L. Friedman? Peas in a pod, self-reinforcing business as usual. So get ready for four -- and probably even eight -- more years of it.
3
Great column. Not sure Simson Bowles is such a great idea though. It basically continues to punish the have not's. Wall street is also partying like it is 1990 (see link below). That is my biggest beef with Hillary. She will do nothing about the over-financialization of the economy.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-one-goldman-sachs-trader-made-more-than-...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-one-goldman-sachs-trader-made-more-than-...
Focusing on these speeches is a distraction from the real issues. It would be good for Mr. Friedman and the Times' editors to comment on Ms. Clinton's aggressive and war-friendly foreign policy over many years, her defense of criminal Wall Street behavior, her enthusiastic support from the neocons who still feel the Iraq and Afghan wars were successful (!!), her documented hope that Obamacare will die a slow, painful death (replaced by what?), her willingness to profit personally from her State Department contacts, and her general support for the plutocrats and oligarchs (such as Mr. Friedman) at the expense of most working American men and women. These are troubling and serious issues, but nobody at the Times seems at all troubled by them.
3
As a center-left voter myself, I also find much to admire about WikiHillary. But we cannot forget the intent of Russia, via Assange, to release these emails now: to drive down voter support and turnout for Clinton and thereby increase Trump's chances of winning. The arrest of a Russian hacker by FBI agents in Europe yesterday may reveal the full truth, but the evidence clearly points toward a foreign government seeking to influence the outcome of a US election. Totally unacceptable no matter which side you are on.
9
Yes, after all is said and done, Republicans have a good, viable, dependable candidate - Mrs. Clinton.
We can only wish that the real competition to her and her ideologies would in the future come from the sincerely left position, currently sadly missing from the American political scene, and not from that deplorable excuse for a candidate who shares my initials.
We can only wish that the real competition to her and her ideologies would in the future come from the sincerely left position, currently sadly missing from the American political scene, and not from that deplorable excuse for a candidate who shares my initials.
1
The delusion of the American left is staggering.
They are about to elect the most flagrantly corrupt politician since the late 19th century. A woman who was an unaccomplished senator, a failed Secretary of State in a failed administration, a sexual assault enabler, and a pathological liar.
And they celebrate her.
They are about to elect the most flagrantly corrupt politician since the late 19th century. A woman who was an unaccomplished senator, a failed Secretary of State in a failed administration, a sexual assault enabler, and a pathological liar.
And they celebrate her.
7
I have not thoroughly examined the Wiki leaks on Hilary so I was glad to see the high points covered in this article. I would never consider voting for Trump, but now seeing Hilary's statements to the Bankers, it emphasized to me why I supported Bernie Sanders.
I agree with Mr. Friedman's analysis of the Wikileaks dump re Hillary. She's someone with vision, pragmatic, understands the complex issues at hand and will be rolling up her sleeves to get things done.
As far as Wikileaks itself though, they are obviously hoping their release in drip, drip, drip form will hinder her election. It won't of course but we do see how an foreigh entity is attempting to alter the course of the American election. If Wikileaks truly cares about facts then why do they not expose the inner workings of the Trump campaign and hack and release those emails? How about the emails of the Sanders' campaign? Choosing to only highlight Hillary's campaign is dishonest at best.
As far as Wikileaks itself though, they are obviously hoping their release in drip, drip, drip form will hinder her election. It won't of course but we do see how an foreigh entity is attempting to alter the course of the American election. If Wikileaks truly cares about facts then why do they not expose the inner workings of the Trump campaign and hack and release those emails? How about the emails of the Sanders' campaign? Choosing to only highlight Hillary's campaign is dishonest at best.
6
American politics has become winner take all. The art of compromise and striving for win-win solutions is in our distant past, when all of our wealth and glory was achieved.
Hillary should speak proudly of her efforts to achieve gains for all Americans, wall street and main street, the 1% and the 99%.
Hillary should speak proudly of her efforts to achieve gains for all Americans, wall street and main street, the 1% and the 99%.
2
i don't suppose my dream of a six month campaign with public funding will come true, so as long as the endless wars of the election-industrial complex are geared up, I'm glad for the additional information.
Hillary will make a fine president. She has been preparing for it longer than anyone and she has survived more nonsense than anyone else. what better recommendation?
Hillary will make a fine president. She has been preparing for it longer than anyone and she has survived more nonsense than anyone else. what better recommendation?
7
The truth of the statement, "Nobody is perfect," must stop being used by people sold on Friedman's desire to skip Hillary's enabling of right wing economic concerns as simply minor imperfections. Friedman's article is an obvious attempt to enable an enabler, to move her to the center right.
2
Thomas Friedman is a highly respected, extremely knowledgeable economist. I am struck by the ad hominem arguments in the comments and how derivative they are of the Trump persona, policies, and philosophy. It illustrates how critical this election is in ensuring that we elect a President who can govern and not incite.
5
I believe you are confusing Mr Friedman with Paul Krugman who is, indeed, an extremelyknowledgeable Nobel Prize winning) economist. Me Friedman is a columnist.
4
"Do we need to make adjustments so the minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor is compensated and better protected? You bet we do."
Easy words, but you fail to acknowledge that this hasn't happened in the 20 or so years we have had NAFTA and the like. It takes more than words to make these adjustments. And we haven't heard any of those words from Hillary.
And why do you try to minimize the issue by saying its a minority? It's the average wage of the entire labor force.
Easy words, but you fail to acknowledge that this hasn't happened in the 20 or so years we have had NAFTA and the like. It takes more than words to make these adjustments. And we haven't heard any of those words from Hillary.
And why do you try to minimize the issue by saying its a minority? It's the average wage of the entire labor force.
3
I wonder what proportion of the emails are real and what proportion are made up or tampered with by Russia or Assange? we have no way of knowing.
3
Bernie supporters voted their conscience in the primaries. I get that--I voted for him, too, although it was because I wanted to see specific changes happen swiftly--more swiftly, it turns out, than they realistically could in an orderly democracy--rather than for any hatred of Hillary. But now we get to vote our conscience again. How can an you as an idealistic but pragmatic person, educated and open to the information we see in the leak, refuse in good conscience to vote for the fully qualified candidate who may not have been your first choice but now is the only realistic choice against a person with a severe personality disorder, absolutely no relevant qualifications or experience, and a mean, ignorant, dangerous, irrational temperament? The reality is that if you still plan to vote for anybody-but-Her, you will get him.
9
The difference between campaigning for office vs. policy making and performing in office has always been Mrs. Clinton's biggest problem. While she is the nerdy student who quietly aces every test, Mr. Trump is the popular, bombastic prom king who publicly appears successful but who barely passes. Compared to Mr Trump's or even Bernie Sanders' simple, unrealistic proposals, Mrs. Clinton's wonky, pragmatic proposals come across as a lack of bold vision rather than the incremental, achievable plans that more closely resemble how political progress actually happens in this country. Mr. Trump is ready-made for exciting, unpredictable reality TV. Mrs. Clinton is more Bob Ross, the afro-sporting, landscape painting guy on PBS - competent and efficient, knowing exactly the results she wants and knowing how to get them.
7
"[Reading] her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other banks, I am more convinced than ever she can be the president America needs today.
Seriously, those speeches are great!"
When I read snippets of them that she dreamed of "open borders," I was, as a Bernie admirer was thrilled though even Bernie himself may not like that.
If planned properly it COULD become unnecessary to seal borders. Now there is no net migration from Mexico. Is it then really necessary to build a wall? We could have open borders to he South as we have to the North; may not be tomorrow, but eventually.
Relying more & more on renewable energy is the best way to go forward, which is within our reach, within the entire world's reach. Working towards that may be indispensable to keep the planet habitable.
40-hr-work week for everyone who wants to work is a myth. With automation human labor is less & less necessary. A 4-day 30 hr work week for most can be easily achieved.
Much of what the developed world does is "make-work" programs. The best example is jobs centered around auto-culture. If we rely on mass-transit & high-speed trains, etc. the number of cars produced & fuel used can be cut by two-thirds (?) and reduce the man-hrs needed to maintain auto-culture also could be reduced to half? There would be far less traffic casualties & reduced medical expenses. If stricter, Australian model gun control is instituted, there would be so much less suffering & grief for shooting victims. The list goes on.
Seriously, those speeches are great!"
When I read snippets of them that she dreamed of "open borders," I was, as a Bernie admirer was thrilled though even Bernie himself may not like that.
If planned properly it COULD become unnecessary to seal borders. Now there is no net migration from Mexico. Is it then really necessary to build a wall? We could have open borders to he South as we have to the North; may not be tomorrow, but eventually.
Relying more & more on renewable energy is the best way to go forward, which is within our reach, within the entire world's reach. Working towards that may be indispensable to keep the planet habitable.
40-hr-work week for everyone who wants to work is a myth. With automation human labor is less & less necessary. A 4-day 30 hr work week for most can be easily achieved.
Much of what the developed world does is "make-work" programs. The best example is jobs centered around auto-culture. If we rely on mass-transit & high-speed trains, etc. the number of cars produced & fuel used can be cut by two-thirds (?) and reduce the man-hrs needed to maintain auto-culture also could be reduced to half? There would be far less traffic casualties & reduced medical expenses. If stricter, Australian model gun control is instituted, there would be so much less suffering & grief for shooting victims. The list goes on.
4
Although not by choice, Hillary has become the most transparent candidate for president ever. We greatly benefit from this. No real surprises, but clearly a deep, strategic thinker who cares about the many issues that this country faces. I would love to see a portfolio of Trump, Ryan and O'Connell's messages. We could see the depths of their policy vision versus ideology driven politicking. In the seemingly private world of e-mail, how do they discuss their opposition and getting things done. Glaringly absent from Hillary's messages are personal criticisms of her opponents. This says a lot about her focus.
6
Transparent?. Are you kidding?. Defying FOIA by installing your own server and then deleting 30,000 subpoenaed emails is the antithesis of transparency. It's called a felony for anyone not as well connected as Hillary.
3
I completely agree with Thomas.
When these transcripts first started coming out, I felt exactly this way. I still do. This is the kind of president our country needs. Hardcore progressives want to dictate to everyone the definitions of center-right and center-left, and whine about neoliberalism and the Overton window, while libertarians equate WikiHillary with communism. And our center rightists want to label everything the center left proposes 'technocratic liberalism,' as if this is the case, and as if all of technocratic liberalism is ipso facto horrid.
I think the center right sometimes has better ideas than the center-left, but compromise from a moderate position is easy. When they have better ideas, here's what to do: Admit it; adopt them; move on. You can't run the country imagining that there's some magical alternative to our market economy, which has created the greatest middle class in the history of the world, as 'socialists' want to do. And you can't run the country imagining a Misesian utopia, as our hardcore, antigovernment ideologues want to do.
When we make business the enemy, for whom shall our workers work, the state? That doesn't usually end up well. A healthy business environment is necessary for a thriving populace. When we pretend that capitalism, totally unfettered, is Heaven on Earth and that we can ignore, e.g., those adversely affected by the double whammy of automation and trade, we're kidding ourselves and ceding space for populism to grow.
When these transcripts first started coming out, I felt exactly this way. I still do. This is the kind of president our country needs. Hardcore progressives want to dictate to everyone the definitions of center-right and center-left, and whine about neoliberalism and the Overton window, while libertarians equate WikiHillary with communism. And our center rightists want to label everything the center left proposes 'technocratic liberalism,' as if this is the case, and as if all of technocratic liberalism is ipso facto horrid.
I think the center right sometimes has better ideas than the center-left, but compromise from a moderate position is easy. When they have better ideas, here's what to do: Admit it; adopt them; move on. You can't run the country imagining that there's some magical alternative to our market economy, which has created the greatest middle class in the history of the world, as 'socialists' want to do. And you can't run the country imagining a Misesian utopia, as our hardcore, antigovernment ideologues want to do.
When we make business the enemy, for whom shall our workers work, the state? That doesn't usually end up well. A healthy business environment is necessary for a thriving populace. When we pretend that capitalism, totally unfettered, is Heaven on Earth and that we can ignore, e.g., those adversely affected by the double whammy of automation and trade, we're kidding ourselves and ceding space for populism to grow.
6
Good Job, Mr. Friedman, for saying, "I am more convinced than ever she can be the president America needs today."
Yes, it's almost funny watching The King Predator and Con Don, and other republicans, try to find something - anything - to rave about. There is nothing there. It's politics, like it or not.
Yes, it's almost funny watching The King Predator and Con Don, and other republicans, try to find something - anything - to rave about. There is nothing there. It's politics, like it or not.
11
"unleashing America’s business class to create the growth required"
That has been the Republican "trickle down" lie line for decades. It is a lie. Everything left to do to "unleash" is just to enrich the rich with tax breaks and favors.
"Globalization and trade have helped to bring more people out of poverty in the last 50 years than at any other time in history."
Not in this country. It was in other countries, at the expense of the US. It was especially in our rival China.
"Do we need to make adjustments so the minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor is compensated and better protected?"
It is the MAJORITY of Americans that is hurt by the way free trade has been done. It is a rather small minority that has benefited, and to an outsized degree that has warped our economy.
Further, it is not all "trade" that is at issue, and it is not "free." It is the terms on which trade is done. Those terms are managed, not free. They have been managed without a proper concern for the vast majority of Americans, and without any corrective for that lack either. We just sink as the globalist corporate elite laughs all the way to the bank.
That has been the Republican "trickle down" lie line for decades. It is a lie. Everything left to do to "unleash" is just to enrich the rich with tax breaks and favors.
"Globalization and trade have helped to bring more people out of poverty in the last 50 years than at any other time in history."
Not in this country. It was in other countries, at the expense of the US. It was especially in our rival China.
"Do we need to make adjustments so the minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor is compensated and better protected?"
It is the MAJORITY of Americans that is hurt by the way free trade has been done. It is a rather small minority that has benefited, and to an outsized degree that has warped our economy.
Further, it is not all "trade" that is at issue, and it is not "free." It is the terms on which trade is done. Those terms are managed, not free. They have been managed without a proper concern for the vast majority of Americans, and without any corrective for that lack either. We just sink as the globalist corporate elite laughs all the way to the bank.
21
Mark, you said "Not in this country. It was in other countries, at the expense of the US. It was especially in our rival China" in response to the statement that globalization and trade helped bring more people out of poverty.
You are absolutely incorrect. Sure there are poor people, many people, that are poor. Sure there are areas of the economy that suffered under globalization and trade. But it's irresponsible and incorrect to say that overall globalization and trade were a detriment to wealth growth in the USA, for high earners, middle-income and even poor people. The fact that high-earners gained more than others doesn't negate the fact that more people are better off today than they were 20, 30 or 50 years ago.
You are absolutely incorrect. Sure there are poor people, many people, that are poor. Sure there are areas of the economy that suffered under globalization and trade. But it's irresponsible and incorrect to say that overall globalization and trade were a detriment to wealth growth in the USA, for high earners, middle-income and even poor people. The fact that high-earners gained more than others doesn't negate the fact that more people are better off today than they were 20, 30 or 50 years ago.
2
Yes; I'm with WikiHillary, too.
20
Again, the elite controlled New York Times praising a woman who has committed treason against every American and our country. Disgusting! We, the sheeple, have finally woken up. Thank you Wikileaks for exposing what we already knew but now we have 100% proof from Hillary Clinton herself. We, the sheeple, know that the global elite, corrupt politicians, mainstream media and the Bush and Clinton Crime Families have been stealing from and controlling we, the sheeple, for far too long now. We know that a vote for Trump is a vote to take our country back from these evil den of thieves including the New York Times. Thank God all of their evil is finally being exposed. Vote Trump!
6
As long as we are all for free trade, can we trade this Tom Friedman for some other writer? Say like Thomas Frank, or Adolph Reed Jr.? I will even take someone from 'The Onion' than read this globaloney peddler.
10
So, Friedman is 'down' with the absolute corruption to the core of Hillary and her consigliere. America will pay a terrible price for every citizen--including the liberal readers of the NY Times--that every decision, policy, and move of a possible Clinton Administration will be tainted. No one will be able to have any 'trust' that the action wasn't purchased with $$$ of the highest bidder or a quid pro quo with 'someone.' Citizens will have no faith that a Clinton Administration is acting for the greater and common good of ALL citizens--of ALL citizens. So, Pajama Boy Friedman, have at it.
11
Instead, you can have Trump, whose actions speak louder than words:
"Trump’s ... scam. He demands applause and annihilates those who refuse to give it. He preens about successes he obtained only by destroying the wealth, careers and reputations of other people. He takes credit for the victories of others and denies any blame for his many failures. In his impulsive pursuit of self-aggrandizement, his victims are legion.
"And now he vows to do to America what he did to them."
Chapter and verse here: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-business-busts-victims-5...
"A People’s History of Donald Trump's Business Busts and Countless Victims"
"Trump’s ... scam. He demands applause and annihilates those who refuse to give it. He preens about successes he obtained only by destroying the wealth, careers and reputations of other people. He takes credit for the victories of others and denies any blame for his many failures. In his impulsive pursuit of self-aggrandizement, his victims are legion.
"And now he vows to do to America what he did to them."
Chapter and verse here: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/donald-trump-business-busts-victims-5...
"A People’s History of Donald Trump's Business Busts and Countless Victims"
15
Or Susan, you could wake up from your inertia nightmare and choose a third party.
These two are historic losers.
And, the 2 PARTYS need COMPETITion.
It's never been more clear. Especially if you think for America and not for a party.
Wake up.
These two are historic losers.
And, the 2 PARTYS need COMPETITion.
It's never been more clear. Especially if you think for America and not for a party.
Wake up.
3
If you think Donald Trump is working for the good of ALL citizens, you should enroll in the School of Public Affairs at Trump University.
3
"I am Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message!"
Assume this was run by the Clinton camp for approval and edits as New York Times reporters Amy Chozick, Maggie Haberman and others have been doing over the past years. Per Wikileaks.
Assume this was run by the Clinton camp for approval and edits as New York Times reporters Amy Chozick, Maggie Haberman and others have been doing over the past years. Per Wikileaks.
16
How kind of you Tom! Perhaps Tricky Hill is looking for a press secretary. You'd do a great job.
I notice the hate rhetoric towards Catholics and Catholicism did not make the cut on your review of the leaks. Nor did the negotiations to give a quid pro quo to the FBI in exchange for retroactively re-classifying documents that Ms. Clinton did not "know" were classified (why State would be negotiating that when Ms. Clinton thought the big "C" was just a page mark is also unclear).
Your a fan of Ms. Clinton Tom? Fine. But don't try to tell us the sewer rat we are likely to get for president is really a mink. It won't fly.
I notice the hate rhetoric towards Catholics and Catholicism did not make the cut on your review of the leaks. Nor did the negotiations to give a quid pro quo to the FBI in exchange for retroactively re-classifying documents that Ms. Clinton did not "know" were classified (why State would be negotiating that when Ms. Clinton thought the big "C" was just a page mark is also unclear).
Your a fan of Ms. Clinton Tom? Fine. But don't try to tell us the sewer rat we are likely to get for president is really a mink. It won't fly.
13
Not to mention the emails in which State Dept employees complained she was lifting State Dept property and taking them home with her. In fact, the same behavior the Clintons' showed when Bill left the White House, and they were made to return stolen ... uh, I mean borrowed items.
Hate rhetoric toward Catholics? John Podesta IS Catholic. So is Hillary Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine. (And Hillary Clinton wasn't even on that conversation thread.)
Sorry, but you don't get to burn dissenting Catholics at the stake anymore and you don't have the authority to excommunicate anyone either.
The paragraphs marked with a (C) were lowest level of classification (confidential) and the message was sent by with someone with the authority to declassify information. Most likely this was an oversight by the sender than an security breach.
The "quid pro quo" was initiated by the FBI and after Hillary was long gone from State.
You don't like Hillary, fine. But what do you see in that con man Trump?
Sorry, but you don't get to burn dissenting Catholics at the stake anymore and you don't have the authority to excommunicate anyone either.
The paragraphs marked with a (C) were lowest level of classification (confidential) and the message was sent by with someone with the authority to declassify information. Most likely this was an oversight by the sender than an security breach.
The "quid pro quo" was initiated by the FBI and after Hillary was long gone from State.
You don't like Hillary, fine. But what do you see in that con man Trump?
3
Minks don't fly either.
How many of Hillary’s deleted e-mails were from a Foreign Government and/or their PAC representatives?
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails mention selling US government military weapons secrets to foreign nations or anything else similar to another "Chinagate" scandal in return for secret cash payments or cash donations to the Clinton Foundation?
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails concern future legislation in return for a campaign contribution.
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails discuss campaign contributions or cash donations to the Clinton Foundation in return for “PAY TO PLAY” federal government contracts such as the Solyndra type government money loan guarantees, “PAY TO PLAY” CGI Federal government ACA no-bid contracts, PAY TO PLAY Military-Industrial Complex type NO-BID military contract(s), pork barrel NO-BID contract(s) for infrastructure improvements, and other no-bid Federal government
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails mention selling US government military weapons secrets to foreign nations or anything else similar to another "Chinagate" scandal in return for secret cash payments or cash donations to the Clinton Foundation?
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails concern future legislation in return for a campaign contribution.
Did any of Hillary’s deleted e-mails discuss campaign contributions or cash donations to the Clinton Foundation in return for “PAY TO PLAY” federal government contracts such as the Solyndra type government money loan guarantees, “PAY TO PLAY” CGI Federal government ACA no-bid contracts, PAY TO PLAY Military-Industrial Complex type NO-BID military contract(s), pork barrel NO-BID contract(s) for infrastructure improvements, and other no-bid Federal government
13
The AP came away with egg on its face. So will all you people who are so sure something is there. By the way, here's Solyndragatepocalypse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwrNmRK_I0A
"the scourge of crony capitalism ... to blot out the sun"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwrNmRK_I0A
"the scourge of crony capitalism ... to blot out the sun"
9
Nope. Not a one.
Love your idle speculation though!
Nice try.
Love your idle speculation though!
Nice try.
What a completly rediculous way of launching baseless accusation of corruption and treason?
1
Why if there is nothing shocking did the US government put a gag on Julian? Why are Clinton supporters terrified?
6
The ONLY thing Clinton supporters (and half the world) are afraid of -- is Donald Trump in the White House.
3
How do you take this reasoning to the "Lock her Up" mob?
8
There is no reasoning with the "Lock her up mob" They are ideologically wed to the idea of the "evil" Hillary that their closed news loop has convinced them is real. Facts don't matter to that crowd. Judging from some of the comments here, I am shocked that some of them appear to read the NYT. Too bad they can never seem to learn anything, as their alt right republican religious ideology clearly prevents proper brain function.
4
I suppose they'd answer you back: We'll answer your question after you answer ours: "If Hillary's speeches and emails so bolster her claim to be the best candidate for the presidency, why is she so scared about releasing them?"
you don't, reason doesn't appeal to mobs...
2
Wow, where do you have that time machine back to 1999 stashed? Reading this article it's as if nothing has transpired in the last 16 years. Friedman's thesis is still playing on repeat after everything that has happened (the Great Recession, OWS the Greek debt crisis, the Brexit, the rise of right-wing nationalism, the global immigrant/refugee backlash, etc. etc). The warmed-over neo-liberal policy prescriptions here are interesting in light of the fact that neo-liberalism has largely been discredited, at least in the public's eyes, due to an almost a total collapse of confidence in it. If it was a smashing success, the social anxiety you're witnessing in every country on Earth wouldn't exist. Also, I'm guessing that if Clinton ran on the wikileaks platform, she'd be doing even worse than she is (she is winning, but only by not being Trump) because it doesn't gel with the experiences of anyone outside of financial industry and economic wonk circles.
9
Beware what you wish for.Authentic HRC emails leaked by Wiki may indeed support or even enhance thoughtful voter's views of her.The nightmare scenario is that having gained credibility as a source of authentic if private communications,Wiki is used to "leak' timely fabricated emails that could influence the outcome of the election.
3
Typically impressed with his own rhetoric Friedman. First of all the relentless blame Putin for everything Clinton/Democratic balderdash. Rachel Madow last night was arguing the neo cold war stuff last night. The US should just stop trying to overthrow Assad. Putin is leading his country over a cliff, the USs obsession with him gives him a lift. Hillary Clinton has tried to present herself as a social democrat when in fact she is an insider big money democrat. Suggesting that Wall Street regulate themselves to Goldman Sacs thats rich. Basically the Wikileaks Hillary is exactly how Bernie Sanders characterized her during the primaries. Is she much better than Trump certainly. Is she smart pragmatic and all that? That's hard to see as she stumbles all over herself.
3
I agree, people should actually read the leaks which reveal a smart pragmatist. That said, there are a few problems, and to a large extent they too are practical problems. Hillary is the best of the best on all this, but it still is not good enough.
There is the human preference for magic thinking over real action, a stark danger with climate change. It infects us at every level and in every political arena, including radicals. None of us, I repeat none, are willing to make our communities work for everyone, and do without the excessive consumption we have come to regard as our birthright. This does not mean going back to caves and rural living. It means a complete redesign that eliminates waste and promotes efficiency, and replacing screams and infotainment with putting our feet on the ground and accepting the limits of 3D reality. There are a few vegan low footprint fanatics who try, but their passion for purity undermines their message with intolerance. (No, I don't have the answer either, but moving on ...)
The TPP and for that matter all trade agreements are poisoned (I use the word intentionally, as strong as I can make it) by corporate influence and power mongering. Multinationals should *not* be able to sue governments for lost profits. They should *not* be able to prevent regulation that protects people from toxic effects, environmental or social. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That's a start: reality and membership in the human family.
There is the human preference for magic thinking over real action, a stark danger with climate change. It infects us at every level and in every political arena, including radicals. None of us, I repeat none, are willing to make our communities work for everyone, and do without the excessive consumption we have come to regard as our birthright. This does not mean going back to caves and rural living. It means a complete redesign that eliminates waste and promotes efficiency, and replacing screams and infotainment with putting our feet on the ground and accepting the limits of 3D reality. There are a few vegan low footprint fanatics who try, but their passion for purity undermines their message with intolerance. (No, I don't have the answer either, but moving on ...)
The TPP and for that matter all trade agreements are poisoned (I use the word intentionally, as strong as I can make it) by corporate influence and power mongering. Multinationals should *not* be able to sue governments for lost profits. They should *not* be able to prevent regulation that protects people from toxic effects, environmental or social. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That's a start: reality and membership in the human family.
32
the tpp being the mask on H(R)C's private-face position...
actually the flawed human preference is rather for material reality (as you suggest in your reference to consumption) than magical reality which is what you see in central park when it's full of music and families taking walks in their all-to-infrequent respite from the company store.
actually the flawed human preference is rather for material reality (as you suggest in your reference to consumption) than magical reality which is what you see in central park when it's full of music and families taking walks in their all-to-infrequent respite from the company store.
Should US workers hold grudges against Hillary because her husband created the laws that caused their jobs to relocate to China and Mexico?
Ex-President Bill Clinton (and Professor Robert Reisch) could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I signed NAFTA into law and that caused your manufacturing job to relocate to Mexico because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Mexican citizens would work for."
Then President Clinton could have also said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created PNTR for Communist China and this caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to China because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Chinese citizens would work for."
Ex-President Bill Clinton (and Professor Robert Reisch) could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I signed NAFTA into law and that caused your manufacturing job to relocate to Mexico because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Mexican citizens would work for."
Then President Clinton could have also said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created PNTR for Communist China and this caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to China because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Chinese citizens would work for."
Thomas Friedman's column brought me back to the presidential election of 1960 when I anxiously awaited Walter Lippmann's endorsement. Reading his words of praise for Senator Kennedy was sweet music, as are Thomas Friedman's thoughts today about Hillary Clinton. The NYT remains a beacon.
11
To be quite honest, it was never the Goldman Sachs speeches, or even the WikiLeaks that bothered me.
It was the slow and steady drumbeats and the baying crowds that responded in kind.
It was when the vehement comments posted by the insatiable left, started to coalesce with those of the rabid right -- making them both indistinguishable from each other, and neither had anything to do with the welfare of this country; for surely if that were the case, the election wouldn't also involve a candidate as incomptent and vile as Donald Trump, and even the slightest possibility of handing the election over to him.
This is not to say that Clinton is "perfect" -- anyone with an ounce of realism knows that's all but impossible.
But at least she would be the steady hand on the Nuclear codes.
And she knows what Aleppo is.
It was the slow and steady drumbeats and the baying crowds that responded in kind.
It was when the vehement comments posted by the insatiable left, started to coalesce with those of the rabid right -- making them both indistinguishable from each other, and neither had anything to do with the welfare of this country; for surely if that were the case, the election wouldn't also involve a candidate as incomptent and vile as Donald Trump, and even the slightest possibility of handing the election over to him.
This is not to say that Clinton is "perfect" -- anyone with an ounce of realism knows that's all but impossible.
But at least she would be the steady hand on the Nuclear codes.
And she knows what Aleppo is.
34
Perhaps if the NYTimes would spend less time obsessing about non-issues, like her emails, and more time about policy, Hillary would communicate her good ideas to the public. Unfortunately she has to be in a defensive crouch, with the media always trying to make her look bad.
Also, the author should tell is fellow pundits that she does have a vision, one of the raps against her is that she 'has no vision'. It's not that she has no vision, the problem is that the lazy media sticks to their 'untrustworthy Hillary' narrative, and are too lazy to learn her actual policy positions.
Also, the author should tell is fellow pundits that she does have a vision, one of the raps against her is that she 'has no vision'. It's not that she has no vision, the problem is that the lazy media sticks to their 'untrustworthy Hillary' narrative, and are too lazy to learn her actual policy positions.
34
"It's not that she has no vision, the problem is that the lazy media sticks to their 'untrustworthy Hillary' narrative, and are too lazy to learn her actual policy positions."
Lazy media? How about disingenuous media?
Lazy media? How about disingenuous media?
1
"Nonetheless, thanks to WikiLeaks, I am reassured that she has the right balance of instincts on the issues I care about most." And this is supposed to be an endorsement.
15
Hillary and WikiHillary are the same person: pragmatic, principled, informed. I’m With Her. But we should not underestimate the damage “weaponized data dumps” can do. The stolen documents are being doled out in dribbles through the month of October for maximum effect on the election. As James Poniewozik wrote in the New York Times yesterday: “When you’re told that a piece of information is a secret document, that you’re seeing raw information that was kept from you, there’s an unconscious signal that it’s unsavory. It was exposed, after all. And exposure is what happens to bad things. Who ever heard of anything good being exposed?” News outlets from NBC to CNN, hooked on the ratings dope of “equivalence,” balance every new Trump scandal with “....and Clinton faces heat over newly released documents.” The mere fact that the documents were released is “news,” not their content. They confirm what every know-nothing thinks he or she already knows about Clinton. Every campaign organization in the future faces a threat to the very privacy it needs to plan effective strategy. Selective, targeted WikiLeaks are an attack on the democratic process itself.
79
Alas, this "...same person: pragmatic, principled, informed..." had every opportunity over the past year to be forthright and make her speeches public, but she did not. Hmmmm!, why not, if the message was so great and would have showed us, who she really is, did she not do it. Where were the chorus of voices and yours saying: Release the transcripts! Was it a lack of self-confidence?
Then, of course, we would still need to ask why so much money for so little effort.
One may be reminded of the saying concerning a pig's ear and a silk purse.
Then, of course, we would still need to ask why so much money for so little effort.
One may be reminded of the saying concerning a pig's ear and a silk purse.
An excellent article. I'd only add that I'm a bit shocked that anybody's been shocked to find out that politicians try to, well, cut deals, and that sometimes, they have to try and cut deals with people they deeply disagree with.
It does in fact amaze me that this has to be explained to anybody, and that as Andrew Sullivan among others has been known to say, "it's about time the Left dealt with the fact that a lot of people in this country just don't agree with them."
Then there's the whole madness of complaining about having different public and private personas, which as Irving Goffman pointed out some time back is oretty much what modern life requires. Even bigger shock, folks: there's another layer to Clinton below these e-mails, the one reserved for close friends and very trusted associates, and another level below that, the one we all wake up at 3 AM with, and have to cope with as best we can.
Liked the article a lot. Oh, one more thing: I've figured out that if you steal info on behalf of the people, you don't get to dole out bits and pieces when you feel like it. If it's the people info, as Assange keeps saying, give it to the people.
It does in fact amaze me that this has to be explained to anybody, and that as Andrew Sullivan among others has been known to say, "it's about time the Left dealt with the fact that a lot of people in this country just don't agree with them."
Then there's the whole madness of complaining about having different public and private personas, which as Irving Goffman pointed out some time back is oretty much what modern life requires. Even bigger shock, folks: there's another layer to Clinton below these e-mails, the one reserved for close friends and very trusted associates, and another level below that, the one we all wake up at 3 AM with, and have to cope with as best we can.
Liked the article a lot. Oh, one more thing: I've figured out that if you steal info on behalf of the people, you don't get to dole out bits and pieces when you feel like it. If it's the people info, as Assange keeps saying, give it to the people.
47
"I'd only add that I'm a bit shocked that anybody's been shocked to find out that politicians try to, well, cut deals, and that sometimes, they have to try and cut deals with people they deeply disagree with."
Not to mention the criticism from the Donald for Hillary's propensity (and history) for making deals -- OK, so I mentioned it.
Oh, the sweet irony that the "ultimate deal-maker" is criticizing Hillary for being open to making deals.
Not to mention the criticism from the Donald for Hillary's propensity (and history) for making deals -- OK, so I mentioned it.
Oh, the sweet irony that the "ultimate deal-maker" is criticizing Hillary for being open to making deals.
4
Of course you like WIkiHillary, Mr. Freidman. You've already sold your fellow citizens out by supporting the export of jobs at every turn, and telling Americans that they aren't as productive or smart as ____(fill in the blank with a foreign country that profited from a free trade deal that benefitted multinational corporations).
You have no credibility. Hillary has no credibility with her "two positions - the public and the private position" that she takes. She does that because the private WikiHillary position that you support is a sure election loser. Too bad you don't realize that. But then again, you're just a talking head from the NYT.
You have no credibility. Hillary has no credibility with her "two positions - the public and the private position" that she takes. She does that because the private WikiHillary position that you support is a sure election loser. Too bad you don't realize that. But then again, you're just a talking head from the NYT.
15
Thank you for establishing why public positions need to be dumbed down, minh z.
1
While I'm glad Mr. Friedman liked what he saw from WikiHilary (which I am totally stealing, btw), he gives the American public too much credit when he says she would have gained respect for these views. The BernieBros and Steindernistas would have peed the bed over not thinking global trade is omg teh evil, and the Trumpster right would have done the same over the "carbon tax" and the acknowledgment with that that climate change is an actual real thing.
6
YES!!! Spot on, TF. Thank you for speaking important truth.
7
So you think that it`s OK for a politician to not be truthful about their policy with the people? To be two-faced and say one thing to the donors and the opposite thing to the public? Isn`t that false advertizing? She wants Wall Street to regulate itself, and accepts mass donations from those banks, but she`ll have us believe that she stands against Citizens United?
17
The public sees a simplified version, not an opposite one. Educated people in private settings get a more nuanced view of it.
I find it amazing that people buy into anything she says given she scripts it to appease whoever is standing in front of her at the time to attain maximum effect and applause in that moment. However, I'm happy Thomas Friedman knows the real Hillary. I'm sure he's had plenty of imaginary long in depth confidential conversations with her for many, ,many years to be so sure and charmed by what he obviously doesn't know for a fact about her and what she really stands for. If you ask me, David Mamet said it best about her: "The greatest charm of the senator is - her flexibility -".
8
Actually, if you read her entire statements, she's quite consistent. Any speaker, political or not, speaks to the issues relevant to a particular audience, and all politicians try to reassure their audience, not just for votes but because what they say may cause the audience to react in positive or negative ways once they leave the room - don't want to rattle financial markets unnecessarily.
2
Do you know all of this because you did a Vulcan mind meld with Hillary, or did you get it off the sub-etherial God channel?
1
Just remember that Assange is stealing property, is an ally of Putin and has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in England for three years. You ask why? He is wanted in his home country of Sweden for allegedly raping a 13 year old. Whether he's making Hillary look better or worse, he is a degenerate. If he dislikes Hillary, that's good enough for me.........I'm with her.
24
"He is wanted in his home country of Sweden for allegedly raping a 13 year old."
That is not true. It is however being repeated often, only now, evidently a lie put out by Hillary's campaign. No such things are done without Huma checking it with Hillary.
That is not true. It is however being repeated often, only now, evidently a lie put out by Hillary's campaign. No such things are done without Huma checking it with Hillary.
4
Actually Assange is Australian and he has had to flee a number of countries for various reasons.
1
...and you are doing the same thing to him that you claim others are doing to her, allegations of being Putin's friend and a rapist. Allegations.
Thank you for your very embracing column It will help me control angst when the question is sure to be asked this evening.
10
I wish other news media would cover this!
16
@jacobi
Then clearly the "others" you refer to, prefer the propaganda of FOX & Breitbart news.
No one is stopping you from joining them there.
Then clearly the "others" you refer to, prefer the propaganda of FOX & Breitbart news.
No one is stopping you from joining them there.
2
An editorial in Washington Post said the same that Mr Friedman in this article.
1
Mr. Friedman inadvertently makes clear the very reason why so many are so reluctant to support Hillary. That despite what she believes is best for the country and our economy, she will compromise those beliefs in order to gain power.
Does anyone think we'll see even a hint of WikiHillary at tonight's debate? No, she'll be locked in the closet while we're subjected to another round of demands for Trump's tax returns and a "heartfelt" soliloquy about all those women he "abused".
Does anyone think we'll see even a hint of WikiHillary at tonight's debate? No, she'll be locked in the closet while we're subjected to another round of demands for Trump's tax returns and a "heartfelt" soliloquy about all those women he "abused".
6
"...she will compromise those beliefs in order to gain power. "
Dude, that's what politics is. Oh that the Congress could compromise some of their beliefs (Creationism, Flat Tax, No Global Climate Change, etc.) so that we could get something done.
Dude, that's what politics is. Oh that the Congress could compromise some of their beliefs (Creationism, Flat Tax, No Global Climate Change, etc.) so that we could get something done.
1
Tough-love, practical realism on globalism vs. imaginary walls and magical thinking on jobs and making other markets bend to American will. That's the 2016 election.
3
We agree, but how can we know which Hillary will show up to take the oath of office? How do we know which is the real one?
6
The Emails revealed are so boring inconsequential that it shows the cable news 24/7 investigative reporting to be nothing more than creating news!
9
They report the transference-projections of Hillary's critics, and call it "news" no matter how old it gets.
Friedman isn't afraid to participate in the propaganda. Such a brave and flexible apologist for all that is status quo. "So thank you, Vladimir Putin, for revealing how Hillary really hopes to govern." Except that Russia's government had nothing to do with the leaks. Friedman and the NYT's are participating in what is both an affront to free speech and a dangerous dip into war baiting. So happy that they revealed it Thomas? That she has one thing she tells the public and another in what she actually does?
11
Hackers exposed Clinton as a smart thief with a vision and a pragmatic approach to getting things done and cash paid.
5
You must like thieves, to enjoy receiving stolen property from them, bern.
Awesome. Clearly not the reaction Wiki was going for. At one time they claimed to be doing a service to the world. Not it is clear that Wiki has a political agenda and has exposed itself as an actor of a hostile state.
8
Surprise surprise, much of what goes on in secret is perfectly ordinary activity.
2
Ahhhh....the endless pitch for free trade. To folks like Mr Friedman who profit immensely from partial ownership of companies that can hire slaves for labor it makes sense. As a farmer, free trade means that I am competing directly with a labor force without any labor rights, no environmental protections, and no political power to end their oppression. If it was truly free trade, with everyone obligated to play by similar rules, I would be all for it. It is time to call "free trade" what it it really is, which is Capitol's endless search for new slaves. Want to know what it is like to compete with people who will not eat without their job? Well gosh Tommy boy, come out to the farm next time you are in Oregon. You will not last 10 minutes doing the job my workers face every day.
20
Depending on what you are farming most likely your market is local. Oregon is full of nurseries growing for the landscape business and does ship all over the country. I know how hard you work because I ran a horse farm and nursery outside Seattle for years and still farm in Idaho. Time to lobby for growing hemp. A much easier crop than many of us are stuck with now and growing market. Several states have already approved it and it is a crop easier on the land than cotton. If you are organic, you should have a great market in Portland. If you are growing for the florist market it is hard to compete with Peru or California but many Asians were doing well with small plots outside Seattle.
I am persuaded. A woman who can talk frankly to float all kinds of ideas behind closed doors is better at thinking out loud, consulting with others, balancing competing interests, and (Lord forbid!) making compromises than a man whose frank talk focuses on boasting of his sexual achievements and financial wealth. I'll take the woman about whom we know EVERYTHING over the man who won't even show us his credit score.
WikiHillary is going to make a far better President than WakiDonald.
WikiHillary is going to make a far better President than WakiDonald.
12
The real Hillary? You havent seen enough of her yet? She will win, no doubt. But what a shame. The old notion of Truth, Justice, and the American Way seems like a pipe dream. Her complete lack of honesty and transparency will bring the highest office in the land to record new lows. Lamentable.
9
You will wait forever for Superman, Kimbo.
Dear Tom Friedman, thank you for a great piece.
Are you aware that it reveals your illogical bias against Hillary Clinton. Those of us who think she is wonderful, and that she has survived hundreds of our fact checks ever since she became the First Lady, never doubted after our investigations that she was who she has said she was. It was clear to the clear sighted and curious that her actions proved her words, and the fact disproved her enemies.
One must suspect that you never read any of her three books. I recommend, Living History, which recounts her life from grade school to becoming the Senator of New York. How many people go to Yale Law School and choose their electives in their first year in children's law?
Are you fundamentally against strong women? It isn't WikiHillary, it is Hillary Clinton. She has been perfectly clear about what she cares about, and so have you.
Are you aware that it reveals your illogical bias against Hillary Clinton. Those of us who think she is wonderful, and that she has survived hundreds of our fact checks ever since she became the First Lady, never doubted after our investigations that she was who she has said she was. It was clear to the clear sighted and curious that her actions proved her words, and the fact disproved her enemies.
One must suspect that you never read any of her three books. I recommend, Living History, which recounts her life from grade school to becoming the Senator of New York. How many people go to Yale Law School and choose their electives in their first year in children's law?
Are you fundamentally against strong women? It isn't WikiHillary, it is Hillary Clinton. She has been perfectly clear about what she cares about, and so have you.
7
"One must suspect that you never read any of her three books."
You must be one of the few who have.
You must be one of the few who have.
2
Yes, yes. Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up at Debate #3?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand why so many voters hesitate to support Clinton, while they turn to the insanity of Donald Trump.
See you at the debate...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not understand why so many voters hesitate to support Clinton, while they turn to the insanity of Donald Trump.
See you at the debate...
1
There is no such thing as "free trade." It is a myth. A slogan. There is only managed trade. And when people like Hillary Clinton talk about "free" trade, it is not free - it is designed to open the US market to unfair competition; it is designed to give poor countries access to our consumer base; it is designed to destroy our manufacturing base and transfer those jobs to the poor countries. What people like Perot, Trump and Sanders are talking about is "fixing the problem" with our current trade policies, so they do not stack the deck against American workers and drag down our economy. Are there short-term gains with past trade deals? Sure. People can get cheaper, lower quality shoes and dinner plates. But long term, when hundreds and thousands more plants close and millions of people are out of work - what is the result? More people in poverty and on welfare. America needs a diverse economy that meets the needs of ALL its citizens. That is why we DO NOT WANT WIKI-HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT!
17
Sorry to disagree, but her support of "Simpson-Bowles", which has been repeatedly ridiculed by economists like Paul Krugman, is very disappointing.
10
Once Hillary wins, WikiHillary will come out and be another Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama. Everything will be the same. No new changes to the US and it's trajectory.
6
Good thing! The US is better off than it was in the 1980s, and way better than it was in the 1950s or earlier.
1
Not quite. George W. Bush is a Republican, so whatever he did was OK with Republicans.
That's fine with me!
May be most problematic part of Hillary is lacking express her ideas in a Bill or Obama's oratorical eloquence.
She is more hardworking than both of them , she is more sturdy when it come to achieve goal.
She her self expressed very nicely, you cannot talk exactly the same with very different groups, then come s Trump. It means practically full of foolish and unintelligent ideas spewing out of someone mouth. Who will be elated so called that straight talk, who usually doesn't care details and essence but money in the pocket, rest is Bulls.t , type of people.
Unfortunately US engagement with world cannot be reduce straight talk.
Hillary must find a very eloquent person in her cabinet ( Kain looks a candidate for that) makes the talk, Bill can do it but he is very old , he can do only some times. That si essential.
Hillary lacks one thing , that is clearly visible, she doesn't have that charming touch in her style of speech like Bill and Obama have.
Lady is simply a working machine , she know the job, she knows people top the bottom, most important she cares and understands.
Hillary will be the best for our children and next generations at this moment of our History.
God bless her, I hope America doesn't make same foolish mistake what Britain did.
She is more hardworking than both of them , she is more sturdy when it come to achieve goal.
She her self expressed very nicely, you cannot talk exactly the same with very different groups, then come s Trump. It means practically full of foolish and unintelligent ideas spewing out of someone mouth. Who will be elated so called that straight talk, who usually doesn't care details and essence but money in the pocket, rest is Bulls.t , type of people.
Unfortunately US engagement with world cannot be reduce straight talk.
Hillary must find a very eloquent person in her cabinet ( Kain looks a candidate for that) makes the talk, Bill can do it but he is very old , he can do only some times. That si essential.
Hillary lacks one thing , that is clearly visible, she doesn't have that charming touch in her style of speech like Bill and Obama have.
Lady is simply a working machine , she know the job, she knows people top the bottom, most important she cares and understands.
Hillary will be the best for our children and next generations at this moment of our History.
God bless her, I hope America doesn't make same foolish mistake what Britain did.
6
I get your point - but she gave those speeches as a private citizen and they are her intellectual property. She gets to decide what to do with them, when and where and how and if they are published - that's the point of intellectual property laws. What you have done is quote from stolen private property because you thought it reflected well on her.
But that's like congratulating the hackers who released Jennifer Lawrence's pictures because you say she looks good in them and that we should see more of her like that.
I remember during Watergate the press covered the break-in not the contents of the stolen documents.
But that's like congratulating the hackers who released Jennifer Lawrence's pictures because you say she looks good in them and that we should see more of her like that.
I remember during Watergate the press covered the break-in not the contents of the stolen documents.
1
The stolen documents were entirely innocuous.
Please don't elect paranoiacs to public offices.
Please don't elect paranoiacs to public offices.
Thanks Thomas Friedman for being a real journalist! You actually read and thought about the leaked documents. If only the rest of the journalists covering this election would grow up. Anyone can make any statement, to be repeated by journalists without the slightest examination. For example, on NPR (yes - that right wing outlet) an interviewer asked a Trump supporter if she had any thoughts on women coming out with sexual harassment complaints, and she replied "I suspect anyone that is coming out now without any reason or rationale - it is a conspiracy," while the reporter failed to mention that they all came out after Trump lied to 84 million people that he never groped anyone. Sheesh! Many thanks to you for keeping it straight on the issue of the selectively leaked documents meant to damage Hillary, that even a cursory examination shows are full of depth and knowledge that Trump would not even understand, least alone articulate.
4
Hillary Clinton has been carved up by Republicans for decades, often through surgically selective use of quotes, taken out of context, and repeated by the media. She knows the drill. I don't really blame her for understanding that what passes for political discourse is often about a quarter inch deep and miles wide. Remember the one about putting miners out of business? It wasn't at all the celebratory declaration it has been made out to be. It was a warning that they would need help. She can be forgiven for anticipating a deluge of superficial attacks over her smart, strategic arguments for the benefit of the American people navigating the reality of a global system.
2
One tends not to understand what anyone tells one when one refuses to put oneself in their shoes.
I agree in part. But what Wikileaks also show is that HRC is not a natural leader (mind you, I'm going to vote for her). She could have been out front on a variety of issues that she now supports (gay marriage for one), but waited until the political winds shifted before jumping on the bandwagon.
That said, I believe she'll be a capable technocratic president but not a transformational figure.
That said, I believe she'll be a capable technocratic president but not a transformational figure.
1
Pioneering is not the same as implementing. Hillary is an implementer more than a pioneer.
Everything you say is right about Hillary's proposed policies and especially her vision, but you are wrong to repine about her election strategy. I had wanted her to release the transcripts in the spring, but now I see why she didn't. Her vision of necessity requires that financial interests (Wall Street, if you will) be treated as partners and that trade agreements be promoted. The fact that things could be done with both regulations to prevent financial excesses and to support those who might suffer as the result of inevitable change notwithstanding, The Sanders campaign would have used them as red herrings to support his charges of corruption and elitism, and the media, which seems driven to pursue tangential issues ad nauseum, would have enthusiastically gone along for the ride. This, combined with her position as a powerful woman in a male dominated culture, make her caution seem not only understandable, but wise. This is a woman with an impressive vision and also with a sharp sense of how best to work towards it, even if it is, as the says " like making sausage."
6
Whatever else we do, we do not want to materially disrupt the flows of money that everyone depends on in a modern economy. That is why we take input from bankers about the needs of the banking industry.
This is a timely article indeed. The pragmatic democratic leader will tend to be more successful than an idealist one playing a zero-sum game.
1
Hillary Clinton has had to hold on tight to just maintain a grip on the cyclone that is this election, thanks to the never stop movements of T rump.
She has not been given the room at the debates to offer any substance since T rump just wants to rumble.
But that might be a good thing, she hasn't made a host of unachievable promises that her enemies can use to try to delegitimize her once elected. That would mean her successes would be more impressive having not been torn to pieces during the election.
She has not been given the room at the debates to offer any substance since T rump just wants to rumble.
But that might be a good thing, she hasn't made a host of unachievable promises that her enemies can use to try to delegitimize her once elected. That would mean her successes would be more impressive having not been torn to pieces during the election.
1
Imagine a WikiTrump disclosure - that would be worse than the image Mr. Bruni implanted in my mind this morning of Trump in a Bikini.
Unfortunately the "WikiGOP" is dissecting "WikiHillary" in order to obstruct her at every proposal or idea - regardless of merit.
As for Globalization, I have no problem with if it is done right - but it is under the control of a wealthy global elite.
The problem is we are not teaching the third world to fish so much as we are giving them our own fishing rod. Even worse, the fishing rod is now owned by the global elite who can globally play with all of us by moving the fishing rod from place to place to maximize their own profits - regardless of all the starved humanity they leave behind.
In a properly set up globalized framework, we would all have our own fishing rods, benefiting us all. Yea - call it redistribution of fishing rods! We cannot depend on the wealthy few to have control of our fishing rods.
Now if only we had WikiWealth exposed.
Unfortunately the "WikiGOP" is dissecting "WikiHillary" in order to obstruct her at every proposal or idea - regardless of merit.
As for Globalization, I have no problem with if it is done right - but it is under the control of a wealthy global elite.
The problem is we are not teaching the third world to fish so much as we are giving them our own fishing rod. Even worse, the fishing rod is now owned by the global elite who can globally play with all of us by moving the fishing rod from place to place to maximize their own profits - regardless of all the starved humanity they leave behind.
In a properly set up globalized framework, we would all have our own fishing rods, benefiting us all. Yea - call it redistribution of fishing rods! We cannot depend on the wealthy few to have control of our fishing rods.
Now if only we had WikiWealth exposed.
2
Unfortunately in our system you can't "run in the center". The Dems want a left leaning person and then to run in the general you need to scamper to the middle. Don't get me started about the GOP where to get nominated you need to be an alt-right loon to get nominated. The problem is the answers and normal governing is in the middle, but the activists are not practical enough to realize that the middle is the place to be. The result of this constant shifting is that the candidates promise one thing and then don't deliver because what they promise is impractical and sophomoric. "The base" thus becomes more cynical. It is time for the majority to take the system back
3
There is no left wing with any clout in the US. The Democratic Party is center-right by global metrics.
Looking at both from the standpoint of the average citizen, once again we have all the smoke and mirrors of politics and then those in power go back to their good ole' boys club and take care of themselves. Trump is no prize, but how can anyone look at Clinton's past, the way she despises people and think she will do anything positive for this country. When was the last time you heard her mention the national debt.? NEVER! Just remember that old slogan be careful what you wish for.
3
How can you possibly vote for Trump if you think Hillary depises you? Trump believes everyone who deals with him is dumber than dirt.
I've I've read those leaks everyday and I thought they made her look good , doing what politicians do well. Think things out , hear other sides, and draw conclusions. So , good job on this column
1
Yay, Tom! You said it! I wish Hillary would speak truth to power in the debate. She can make the case for all of the points you bring up from WikiHillary.
Please don't be on the defense, Hillary! Come out swinging with your best wonkiness and your absolute charm, energy, intelligence!
I'm proud of the woman you are and I am so excited at the prospect of a presidency for you.
My biggest concern now is the very real potential of undermining of the electoral system that the Trump campaign has assured. I am afraid of the intimidation at the polls and I don't think he will concede regardless of the margin of your victory.
Good luck!!
Please don't be on the defense, Hillary! Come out swinging with your best wonkiness and your absolute charm, energy, intelligence!
I'm proud of the woman you are and I am so excited at the prospect of a presidency for you.
My biggest concern now is the very real potential of undermining of the electoral system that the Trump campaign has assured. I am afraid of the intimidation at the polls and I don't think he will concede regardless of the margin of your victory.
Good luck!!
2
Inciting violence at Trump rallies with paid thugs.
That's the Hillary you are with, eh?
Guess it goes with the Democrat's number one rule...the Ends Justifies the Means.
That's the Hillary you are with, eh?
Guess it goes with the Democrat's number one rule...the Ends Justifies the Means.
7
That definitely isn't true. Democatrats are not interested in ends, we want the show to continue.
Hillary is inspiring when she speaks adult to adult, as she has on so many occasions--including many on the record and in full view. I'm voting for WikiHillary (and public adult Hillary) too.
2
God forgive people who vote Billary , because they know not what they are doing !
here is what Chris Hedges a long time close observer of american polity and columnist says today,
""There is a vague realization among Americans that we have undergone a corporate coup. People are angry about being lied to and fleeced by the elites. They are tired of being impotent. Trump, to many of his most fervent supporters, is a huge middle finger to a corporate establishment that has ruined their lives and the lives of their children. And if Trump, or some other bombastic idiot, is the only vehicle they have to defy the system, they will use him".
and the concluding insightful para .
"Clinton in office will continue the neoliberal assault on the poor and the working poor, and increasingly the middle class, that has defined the corporate state since the Reagan administration. She will do so while speaking in the cloying and hypocritical rhetoric of compassion that masks the cruelty of corporate capitalism." unquote
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/donald_trump_the_dress_rehearsal_for...
Worth reading it in full whether you agree with him or not to get the larger picture of the GREAT FARCE being played out now with much fire and fury pomp and media hype and pop .
Not that people don't hate trump but people hate billary much more more ! ; for her being the puppet of the wolves of the Wall Street.
We the people, want change , we want STREETEXIT .
here is what Chris Hedges a long time close observer of american polity and columnist says today,
""There is a vague realization among Americans that we have undergone a corporate coup. People are angry about being lied to and fleeced by the elites. They are tired of being impotent. Trump, to many of his most fervent supporters, is a huge middle finger to a corporate establishment that has ruined their lives and the lives of their children. And if Trump, or some other bombastic idiot, is the only vehicle they have to defy the system, they will use him".
and the concluding insightful para .
"Clinton in office will continue the neoliberal assault on the poor and the working poor, and increasingly the middle class, that has defined the corporate state since the Reagan administration. She will do so while speaking in the cloying and hypocritical rhetoric of compassion that masks the cruelty of corporate capitalism." unquote
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/donald_trump_the_dress_rehearsal_for...
Worth reading it in full whether you agree with him or not to get the larger picture of the GREAT FARCE being played out now with much fire and fury pomp and media hype and pop .
Not that people don't hate trump but people hate billary much more more ! ; for her being the puppet of the wolves of the Wall Street.
We the people, want change , we want STREETEXIT .
8
Don't you remember who you elected president in 2000 and 2004?
That was the period whose excesses produced the crash of 2008.
That was the period whose excesses produced the crash of 2008.
Reading this great piece by the invariably interesting Tom Friedman, I would say that the WikiLeaks document dumps are actually meant to help Hillary get elected!
But what's truly amazing to me at this juncture is that no "smoking gun" or mortally damaging information has yet to come out, despite so many documents about various Hillary dealings having been dumped, from way back during Whitewatergate, through the Benghazi Inquisition Committee's hearings, to the FBI investigation and the thousands of cyber-pages by Wikileaks.
If people dug for dirt long enough on ANYBODY, they'd eventually come up with "something" [Ken Starr ended up with a blue dress while ostensibly looking for wrongdoing related to the S&L fiasco!] because no one is perfect. But the lack of anything substantive so far on Hillary after so long has got to put an end once and for all to the fiction that she is secretive, duplicitous, a "congenital" liar , untrustworthy, manipulative, etc, etc, etc, that has kept her approval rating in Trumpian territory!
But what's truly amazing to me at this juncture is that no "smoking gun" or mortally damaging information has yet to come out, despite so many documents about various Hillary dealings having been dumped, from way back during Whitewatergate, through the Benghazi Inquisition Committee's hearings, to the FBI investigation and the thousands of cyber-pages by Wikileaks.
If people dug for dirt long enough on ANYBODY, they'd eventually come up with "something" [Ken Starr ended up with a blue dress while ostensibly looking for wrongdoing related to the S&L fiasco!] because no one is perfect. But the lack of anything substantive so far on Hillary after so long has got to put an end once and for all to the fiction that she is secretive, duplicitous, a "congenital" liar , untrustworthy, manipulative, etc, etc, etc, that has kept her approval rating in Trumpian territory!
2
This editorial really show how stupid its author is. He goes on and on how great Clinton is with several examples of "normal thinking".
But wait.
He FORGETS to tell us also about the duplicity and lies contrary to the positions she adopts in those speeches when she goes on the campaign trail. We all want politicians to tell the truth.
Neither Clinton or this author speak the truth. Truly, they speak with "forked tongue".
But wait.
He FORGETS to tell us also about the duplicity and lies contrary to the positions she adopts in those speeches when she goes on the campaign trail. We all want politicians to tell the truth.
Neither Clinton or this author speak the truth. Truly, they speak with "forked tongue".
6
If the truth were easy to define, there wouldn't be any argument about it.
What can I say to you Tom Friedman.....is an uphill battle is almost won....and
I really Thank You Tom....because I was "hanging my hat" on you as a superior
journalist.....and you ...have done "your homework" and reported in ...filed
this report...and I am soooo Proud of You...
so...Thank You ..Tom Friedman...you have made...a Home Run....and we
are waiting at the Goal Posts....to Cheer You on...great example set for
your fellow journalists...who need to get down from the Towers of the Isolated
as could be said of those at Time Inc....and others..
You have reported...the NEWS...that really IS 'fit to print'..
[email protected]
I really Thank You Tom....because I was "hanging my hat" on you as a superior
journalist.....and you ...have done "your homework" and reported in ...filed
this report...and I am soooo Proud of You...
so...Thank You ..Tom Friedman...you have made...a Home Run....and we
are waiting at the Goal Posts....to Cheer You on...great example set for
your fellow journalists...who need to get down from the Towers of the Isolated
as could be said of those at Time Inc....and others..
You have reported...the NEWS...that really IS 'fit to print'..
[email protected]
1
All I have to say is, Thank heavens for Mr. Friedman, who puts it all into perspective!
This is one of the best April Fools Day columns I ever read. You really feel that Friedman actually believes the outlandish statements he makes.
7
Hillary qualified woman lost in '08....
2
I agree that the HRC presented in WikiLeaks presents woman of broad understanding of the issues, one who has the wisdom to distinguish what is ideal vs what is doable vs what is palatable. The complaint that HRC didn't run based on this is, however, unwarranted. Consider for example her infamous coal talk in WV. The full text shows that it started out with her plan to incentivize job creation in coal country to counter act the ongoing and future death of coal. What 99% of the country heard was only "we're going to shut coal mines". Bad journalism, partisan journalism, and a country which seems to have an attention span of exactly one sentence rather than one paragraph precludes HRC speaking as she did in her talks.
Trump got where he is by speaking only in single sentences - Make America Great Again - Build the Wall - Law and Order - Destroy Isis. It's the very lack of substance to these utterances that made them as effective as they have been.
Trump got where he is by speaking only in single sentences - Make America Great Again - Build the Wall - Law and Order - Destroy Isis. It's the very lack of substance to these utterances that made them as effective as they have been.
454
I agree with your assessment of her stand on substance, but which stand? I she for free trade or against TPP? HRC has had all the opportunities she could ask for in the debates to rise above the fray and speak in a substantive and 'presidential' way and she has not remotely done it. She certainly had the opportunity to speak in paragraphs. To paraphrase Gertude Stein, there is no there there.
Nice to know that someone who knows something about trade is actually reading these documents so that we don't have to listen to the selective outtakes of the Hillary haters. Thanks Tom.
2
This is the best. I am so glad Mr. Friedman wrote this.
1
Here and in other Times articles it states that Clinton's hacked speeches were released by Wikileaks. Apparently Thomas Friedman read them. Why doesn't the Times print them or post a link to them. Or do I have this wrong?
7
Here is a link to the Podesta site: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
What Wikileaks released is 80 pages of excerpts, which means the original documents have been edited and possibly redacted to suit Wikileaks' political preferences, so the released excerpts should probably be taken with a grain of salt, or two.
Here is a link to one of her speeches at Goldman Sachs:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
What Wikileaks released is 80 pages of excerpts, which means the original documents have been edited and possibly redacted to suit Wikileaks' political preferences, so the released excerpts should probably be taken with a grain of salt, or two.
Here is a link to one of her speeches at Goldman Sachs:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
The elephant in the room is that Hillary lacks the courage of her convictions, and that makes her a defacto liar.....not that that ever disqualified a democrat from holding office.
4
Do we have speeches to labor groups as well? There is no doubt some pandering to the crowd depending upon their leanings. So I wouldn't go overboard one way or the other. HRC will make a great President for all.
"...we have to restrain spending..." As in cutting the defense budget?
3
If you were to ask Trump about Simpson- Bowles, he'd think it was where Homer went to bowl on Wednesdays. And that Brexit was a new snack cracker from Nabisco. This election has been an embarrassment and it is good to hear from a legitimate source like Mr. Friedman that the system is not so broken that it could not produce at least one candidate that knows a thing or two.
3
I've read some of the leaked e-mails as well and I also hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician. But I also heard a politician admit to having a public and a private position on important matters. Spin the Wikileaks any way you want, but be careful what you wish for.
2
Mr. Friedman I agree with the premise of your article but "WikiHillary" is not going to fly. The word "wiki" refers to something that everyone gets to contribute to making - like Wikipedia, or Wikileaks. So what it implies is that you're saying that everyone builds Hillary together - and to me, this implies that you're saying that she kind of tries to be everything to everybody rather than just being herself. And that is precisely what people are frustrated about with the Goldman Sachs speeches - that she could say one thing to the working class during the primary and another to bankers. So your catchphrase is basically signifying the exact opposite of what you're arguing.
1
She can only be herself. Her objective is to govern fairly in a world where all people are unique.
Exactly! There's nothing in here that's worrisome at all!
She's not pro-Wall Street as the Marxist Sandersites claim. She's a liberal, progressive candidate who knows economics.
Trickle down failed.
Voodoo economics failed.
Marxism failed.
Protectionism failed.
But economic growth, with sensible regulation and redistribution measures works!
She's not pro-Wall Street as the Marxist Sandersites claim. She's a liberal, progressive candidate who knows economics.
Trickle down failed.
Voodoo economics failed.
Marxism failed.
Protectionism failed.
But economic growth, with sensible regulation and redistribution measures works!
11
Speaking of speeches, you gotta love the utter hypocrisy of Trump voters angry about Hillary's lucrative speech fees. Sour grapes, boys!
5
We are all watching and of course we are not naiveté or feeble minded person.
Benghazi, Email issues, and last WikiLeaks all come up with nothing, nada, zilch.
If there is a wrong doing with any doubt , I am 100% FBI will at least proceed their investigation to DOJ at some point.
FBI Director Comey clearly stated, nothing sums up to prosecutable charges.
Pursuing these things will only distract media, congress and White house doing their essential jobs.
We clearly saw that happened with Congress, they spend millions dollars and hundreds of hours for nothing , meanwhile they didn't even appropriate money for ZIKA before the summer.
Everything boils down with Hillary , whomever against her , is nothing objective but rather their personal feelings towards her.
That is my friend WRONG.
Benghazi, Email issues, and last WikiLeaks all come up with nothing, nada, zilch.
If there is a wrong doing with any doubt , I am 100% FBI will at least proceed their investigation to DOJ at some point.
FBI Director Comey clearly stated, nothing sums up to prosecutable charges.
Pursuing these things will only distract media, congress and White house doing their essential jobs.
We clearly saw that happened with Congress, they spend millions dollars and hundreds of hours for nothing , meanwhile they didn't even appropriate money for ZIKA before the summer.
Everything boils down with Hillary , whomever against her , is nothing objective but rather their personal feelings towards her.
That is my friend WRONG.
1
TV coverage of this goes out of its way to make these seem more nefarious than they are with cheesy tabloid-style graphic gimmicks such as using "old typewriter" or "stencil" fonts for onscreen quotes from the emails, as if that makes sense.
I'm looking at you especially, Andrea Mitchell.
I'm looking at you especially, Andrea Mitchell.
The press would love HRC to be the kind of candidate that works best for them. Clear, concise, transparent to the point of exhibitionism... all of which makes reporting on that candidate a cakewalk. Unfortunately, that kind of candidate doesn't usually get elected. As every savvy politician knows, you've got to get elected before you can govern. HRC has played it perfectly, in my opinion. Letting Trump drive the moderate Republicans into her camp rather than using some of her more pro-business economic policies to do so -- while compromising with the Sanders wing of the party to make sure she brings them into her coalition. Her business acumen, and advocacy for good corporate citizenship, have every chance of leading us further out of recovery into a thriving economy again -- as did the first President Clinton. But playing it smart during this election -- with the primary opponent and general election opponent she's had proves that she's a savvy politician that knows how to get elected AND how to govern; a balance her predecessor was not quite successful in achieving.
1
Right on the money, Mr. Friedman! You notice that after all the hullaballoo about Hillary’s closed-door speeches to the banking industry, Republicans and Democrats have gone radio silent about what she actually said to these banks per WikiLeaks?
So now Republicans are scraping the bottom of the WikiHillary barrel expressing shock about her VP choice being lumped into food groups? Really, that’s the best the GOP could come up with? Thanks WikiLeaks and Putin for your October surprise – now all you need is Trump to disown your efforts!
So now Republicans are scraping the bottom of the WikiHillary barrel expressing shock about her VP choice being lumped into food groups? Really, that’s the best the GOP could come up with? Thanks WikiLeaks and Putin for your October surprise – now all you need is Trump to disown your efforts!
The fact that Globalization and Automation is stripping American Heartland of Manufacturing is a Reality. If you accept the causes are a 'fact of life' then so are the effects. And that is why, after all that, Hillary is barely winning.
Bernie proposed free tuition to make those who lost out to recompete in a changing world. It may be better than 'Universal Basic Income' which is being discussed now.
Too bad that Mr. Friedman is so blindly supporting Hillary that he has forgotten of the dire necessities of today. Hillary is saying that 'all we can do is to rearrange the deck chairs of the Titanic. Never mind that the ship is sinking.'
... and someone calls that Pragmatism.
Bernie proposed free tuition to make those who lost out to recompete in a changing world. It may be better than 'Universal Basic Income' which is being discussed now.
Too bad that Mr. Friedman is so blindly supporting Hillary that he has forgotten of the dire necessities of today. Hillary is saying that 'all we can do is to rearrange the deck chairs of the Titanic. Never mind that the ship is sinking.'
... and someone calls that Pragmatism.
5
Where are the facts mister Friedman ? You assert many ideas without evidence
Sorry but you are wrong . Globalisation killed jobs not only in America but in all western countries . Only China and India have a positive balance sheet . Look what is the situation in Europe , except Germany where population decline , the 27 EU countries are in terrible mess .
The regulation of the world trade must start fixing the currencies issue . It is required to give each market a chance to have a fair position in this competition.
Sorry but you are wrong . Globalisation killed jobs not only in America but in all western countries . Only China and India have a positive balance sheet . Look what is the situation in Europe , except Germany where population decline , the 27 EU countries are in terrible mess .
The regulation of the world trade must start fixing the currencies issue . It is required to give each market a chance to have a fair position in this competition.
5
It will be a nightmare - more regulation, more tax to make it all but impossible for small businesses to be a worthwhile risk. All you laud will benefit only large corporations not companies with 1-100 employees, the supposed backbone of the country. Hope now lies in 2020. Only good news is that Trump, a bigger nightmare, will not be there. Unfortunately this reincarnation of Pravda likely will be.
2
Every time I hear the plight of small business with taxation and regulation, I want to hurl. I run a for profit, small business for which I pay ZERO taxes. All you have to do is distribute all the profit among the partners at the end of the year and "PRESTO" the business pays ZERO TAX. The reason small business fail is because the are poorly run and the owners have zero idea of accounting practice.
Another time it seems U.S. would have nothing to talk about without Russia.
3
I'm really turning against WikiLeaks. It's a biased organization accountable to nobody. The NSA is more accountable to the American people than the folks at WikiLeaks are. In fact, they're not even American. They're just people who think they can decide how Americans should be governed. And let us not forget that WikiLeaks is led by a man hiding out on sexual assault charges and that his so-called progressive followers attacked his accusers without mercy when they first filed their charges two years ago.
But I already voted. For Hillary. By mail. So they can't hack my vote or punish me for having made it.
But I already voted. For Hillary. By mail. So they can't hack my vote or punish me for having made it.
3
So long as Assange confined himself (principally) to antagonizing Uncle Sam's intelligence agencies, the progressive left embraced him as their arch conscience. But WikiLeaks' Podesta email dumps jeopardize a project essential to progressives' continuing grasp on the levers of global power: Hillary getting elected POTUS.
With the shoe on the other foot, the Obama administration has put the diplomatic screws to Ecuador, and they've acquiesced to e-silencing Assange ... at least until after the Nov. election.
With the shoe on the other foot, the Obama administration has put the diplomatic screws to Ecuador, and they've acquiesced to e-silencing Assange ... at least until after the Nov. election.
1
Every President has an implicit mandate to do 2 - 4 things they deem important, regardless of the margin by which they won or what they said in campaigning. I think most are serious about their campaign pledges but circumstances often intervene and no one can fulfill all their "pledges."
The 2-4 things President X chooses to do are what define each (as well as whether X succeeded). We won't know until HRC, assuming she wins, has to decide what her priorities really are.
The 2-4 things President X chooses to do are what define each (as well as whether X succeeded). We won't know until HRC, assuming she wins, has to decide what her priorities really are.
The "smart".. "pragmatic" ..."vision" of Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton does not include either black African Americans nor brown Latino Americans. Hillary is only for the equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for people who look like her, her husband, her daughter, her son-in-law and her grandchildren
Hillary is for mass black incarceration, black mass welfare deformation, mass deportation, corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare, military-industrial complex war mongering and bowing down to Tel Aviv, Cairo and Riyadh.
Hillary Clinton "talks down" to black people in the same condescending paternalistic tone favored by her husband and Barack Obama. Hillary is the embodiment of duplicitous deceptive cynical hypocritical politics. Hillary is no Rosa Parks nor Ella Baker nor Fannie Lou Hamer nor Shirley Chisolm nor Barbara Jordan nor Carol Mosely Braun nor Michelle Obama.
Hillary is for Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel interfering in American elections and politics my money, media and espionage. Hillary is for "earning" a $121 million golden fortune by using her elective and selective "public service" to her and her husbands advantage.
Hillary is no Bernie Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren. I was not and am not and never will be with Hillary. Hillary has no character. Trump is a caricature. Johnson is a idiot. Stein is a one note joke.
God bless America! Right?
Hillary is for mass black incarceration, black mass welfare deformation, mass deportation, corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare, military-industrial complex war mongering and bowing down to Tel Aviv, Cairo and Riyadh.
Hillary Clinton "talks down" to black people in the same condescending paternalistic tone favored by her husband and Barack Obama. Hillary is the embodiment of duplicitous deceptive cynical hypocritical politics. Hillary is no Rosa Parks nor Ella Baker nor Fannie Lou Hamer nor Shirley Chisolm nor Barbara Jordan nor Carol Mosely Braun nor Michelle Obama.
Hillary is for Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel interfering in American elections and politics my money, media and espionage. Hillary is for "earning" a $121 million golden fortune by using her elective and selective "public service" to her and her husbands advantage.
Hillary is no Bernie Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren. I was not and am not and never will be with Hillary. Hillary has no character. Trump is a caricature. Johnson is a idiot. Stein is a one note joke.
God bless America! Right?
4
While clunky, how about "moral hazard free trickle-on economics?" Or for us who aren't gifted, let alone talented, banking insiders - "don't worry, it truly is raining, trust me." Kind of like Mr Friedman's "global weirding" to deflect attention from global warming, while there was a domestic shale oil and gas boom to promote.
5
The fact that you, as a journalist, are excited to have a known criminal as President of the United States, proves that we are doomed, even if Trump wins. The day of reckoning is coming. Even if we hold you off in 2016, the balkanization of the US is coming when the globalist banking cabal collapses That you can ignore Project Veritas and the fact that Hillary has known for years that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are sponsoring ISIS should be all of the proof any sensible person needs. I don't apologize for Trump's conduct, but he is not a felon.
6
A writer for the NYT endorses a candidate who asks for story approval from his own employer and fails to mention or criticize this.
Who would have thought it? Although one has to wonder whether perhaps
Mr. Friedman himself collaborated on stories with the campaign,
what difference, at this point, does it make, really?
Who would have thought it? Although one has to wonder whether perhaps
Mr. Friedman himself collaborated on stories with the campaign,
what difference, at this point, does it make, really?
7
Please, you may hurt your back Tom trying to bend over to come up with a positive spin for her.
Admit it, she will win because a) she is a Dem b) she is a woman, c) Trump imploded and d) her last name is Clinton.
It has nothing to do with what she has done or plans to do.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, take your victory and move along.
Admit it, she will win because a) she is a Dem b) she is a woman, c) Trump imploded and d) her last name is Clinton.
It has nothing to do with what she has done or plans to do.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, take your victory and move along.
7
This is the smartest piece Friedman has written in a long time. Thank you.
5
Mr Friedman,
Since you love what wikileaks has done perhaps you'll write another column urging Mr. Kerry to persuade Ecuador to reinstate Assange's wi fi? What do you think?
Since you love what wikileaks has done perhaps you'll write another column urging Mr. Kerry to persuade Ecuador to reinstate Assange's wi fi? What do you think?
4
Tom, Thanks for outlining activist / progressive work for the next few years. "Center left", indeed!
1
I think Bernie Sanders did a disservice to the country with his blanket condemnation of banks, corporations and trade. He made any nuanced discussion impossible.
"A politician who will be inclined to work with ... Republicans?" Given the history of the past eight years, any such hope must surely be faint. It takes two to tango, and since 2009 the GOP has deliberately bedecked itself in cement boots.
We should no longer worry about *if* the GOP will work in good faith with a duly-elected Democratic president so much as whether the Party is any longer capable of functioning, period. It appears to have tumbled so deeply into dysfunction that any hope of negotiated progress on public policy is all but nonexistent.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
We should no longer worry about *if* the GOP will work in good faith with a duly-elected Democratic president so much as whether the Party is any longer capable of functioning, period. It appears to have tumbled so deeply into dysfunction that any hope of negotiated progress on public policy is all but nonexistent.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
Tom, you should read several past columns by your colleague Paul Krugman about the nightmare of Simpson-Bowles. If Secretary Clinton praised this deficit scold report during one of her speeches, it should be covered to a great degree in the media because that's 'news'. Up to this point in the campaign, Mrs Clinton has not praised Simpson-Bowles and it raises the question, why not?
The implications of adopting Simpson-Bowles are enormous for our society. In the name of debt reduction, a president supporting 'entitlement' reform would implement policies to balance budgets on the backs of retirees and poor people instead of raising taxes on the rich.
This ought to be of concern to square Mrs Clinton's support for Simpson-Bowles with a lack of transparency about it during the campaign.
The implications of adopting Simpson-Bowles are enormous for our society. In the name of debt reduction, a president supporting 'entitlement' reform would implement policies to balance budgets on the backs of retirees and poor people instead of raising taxes on the rich.
This ought to be of concern to square Mrs Clinton's support for Simpson-Bowles with a lack of transparency about it during the campaign.
3
Hillary is the ultimate policy wonk -- and she may be EXACTLY what this country needs. But she is an awkward, unnatural, very scripted politician that makes votes question her authenticity. I was not a Hillary fan until I moved to DC and ran into people who actually worked for her -- to a person they adored her. But in this wiki-world we live in, social media soundbites rule. "Crooked Hillary" and "the system is rigged" are statements way more palatable to a huge swath of our population grazing on content specifically created at 5th grade reading and reasoning levels. (My apologies to the 5th graders out there). And sadly, for that reason, she'll be an ineffective, one-termer.
Globalization has caused the "economic rut" in developed countries that is fomenting revolution, which is now on a violent trajectory.
Surely you see that by now?
I recognize that it must be awkward to have to come out and admit that the policies of globalization that you've been aggressively promoting for decades have destabilized societies across the Western world, but at some point you need to do the right thing, here, and apologize for the pain and suffering you have caused.
And many of those people that have been raised out of poverty in developing countries are already slipping back into it, as the global economy enters an era of slow growth, which, again, is a consequence of the flawed version of globalization you've been a cheerleader for.
And you conveniently omit the fact that their rise has come at the expense of the middle classes in the developed countries, who are going backwards, economically. Turns out it was a zero-sum game, after all.
So over the next decade millions of people in developing countries are going to slip back into poverty, and they're not going to be happy about it.
And the middle classes in developed countries have already begun their revolution. They have more than "adjustments" in mind. And to call them a "minority" is obscene. The "minority" is about to rock your world.
So we are looking at massive social unrest on a global scale, and you talk about "collaborating" and being "more prosperous with fewer conflicts".
Surreal.
Surely you see that by now?
I recognize that it must be awkward to have to come out and admit that the policies of globalization that you've been aggressively promoting for decades have destabilized societies across the Western world, but at some point you need to do the right thing, here, and apologize for the pain and suffering you have caused.
And many of those people that have been raised out of poverty in developing countries are already slipping back into it, as the global economy enters an era of slow growth, which, again, is a consequence of the flawed version of globalization you've been a cheerleader for.
And you conveniently omit the fact that their rise has come at the expense of the middle classes in the developed countries, who are going backwards, economically. Turns out it was a zero-sum game, after all.
So over the next decade millions of people in developing countries are going to slip back into poverty, and they're not going to be happy about it.
And the middle classes in developed countries have already begun their revolution. They have more than "adjustments" in mind. And to call them a "minority" is obscene. The "minority" is about to rock your world.
So we are looking at massive social unrest on a global scale, and you talk about "collaborating" and being "more prosperous with fewer conflicts".
Surreal.
4
Thank you, thank you. As a Hillary supporter I am of the same opinion. If I was able to talk with Ms. Clinton, I believe the funny, personable, wicked smart (as Obama called her) person would be there. The personable side that other politicians are experts at displaying (Bill, Obama) is the part she feels the need to protect.
I don't buy into the "scandals" the right wing have promoted for 25 years. For instance, George W and Cheney "disappeared" 22,000,000 emails about buildup to war and its aftermath. Is the right wing enraged? I haven't seen it. Ms. Clinton is a politician. You don't get the jobs she's had without sharpening/changing your opinion, putting the most salable position forward. Of course there are going to be disagreements, unfortunate characterizations in those emails. How could it be any different?
Just imagine for a minute if Putin had stolen GOP emails for Assange to publish. (it would never happen, he hates Hillary) Given the public tone of their campaign, can you imagine the hateful depths of depravity that are under the surface?
So while Hillary has behaved like a politician, as shocking as that is to some, the inner workings of Trump's organization are hidden. But the little we see is not pretty. I wish there was some mention of that disparity in the news coverage. I haven't seen much of that yet.
I don't buy into the "scandals" the right wing have promoted for 25 years. For instance, George W and Cheney "disappeared" 22,000,000 emails about buildup to war and its aftermath. Is the right wing enraged? I haven't seen it. Ms. Clinton is a politician. You don't get the jobs she's had without sharpening/changing your opinion, putting the most salable position forward. Of course there are going to be disagreements, unfortunate characterizations in those emails. How could it be any different?
Just imagine for a minute if Putin had stolen GOP emails for Assange to publish. (it would never happen, he hates Hillary) Given the public tone of their campaign, can you imagine the hateful depths of depravity that are under the surface?
So while Hillary has behaved like a politician, as shocking as that is to some, the inner workings of Trump's organization are hidden. But the little we see is not pretty. I wish there was some mention of that disparity in the news coverage. I haven't seen much of that yet.
5
Why are White American men angry? Not because jobs went overseas. Not because minorities are taking their jobs. Not because of Sharia Law. They are angry: Let me give an example, R's grandfather had a dry goods store in small town America. He prospered. He became a board member at the local bank. He was able to buy preferential property in Colorado. R's father took over the business for most of his adult life. Then he had to close the store. When asked, "Where are people going to buy their clothes?" he said, "They will go to Walmart like they have been for the last 20 years". R was one of the lucky ones, he got a state job. Now a job at Walmart at $7.50 an hour for no more than 30 hours a week is one of the best jobs, even if it holds no future, one can get The corporatization of America is why White American men are angry.
4
But no one can work with the Republicans because all they want to do is obstruct. The only non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-sexist, thing you hear from Trump supporters is that he is an outsider who will dismantle the system (yeah, that may be true; why anyone thinks Trump would improve things is beyond me). The Congressional districts are so gerrymandered that it is virtually impossible for sane people to control the House of Representatives.
3
That is a very lopsided reading of the wikileaks emails. And actually, Mr. Friedman, she would have lost votes. The way globalization has been taking shape is unacceptable to most people. The trade pacts that Mrs. Clinton has championed have never had serious worker's wage parity protection. Without that you allow business owners to pit one class of poor people against another further widening the income gap and adding to the world's current inequality. I'm for globalization, just not the kind democrats and republicans have been chasing for years because it only benefits the rich. If you missed "Globalization and it's Discontents" by Stieglitz, I suggest you read it. The invisible hand doesn't exist, it's been thoroughly disproven. Trade pacts that don't treat labor equally are predatory by nature. Shame on you for pretending not to know that.
5
Mr. Friedman, you wrote: "Do we need to make adjustments so the minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor is compensated and better protected? You bet we do. That's called fixing a problem."
Your kind of late to this party, aren't you? I don't remember you discussing this when Nafta was passed. I don't remember you discussing it a year ago when Trump and Sanders were considered less than marginal candidates.
As for "fixing a problem", please be aware that we are talking about the most crucial and intractable problem of our age: The loss of meaningful work. It's not so much trade but automation that is decimating the American working class. Middle skill jobs can be done better by computers and robots. Not everybody is cut out to be an engineer or a coder. While miserable pockets of poverty remain, the hard lifting has mostly been done, except for India and Africa. Population growth has stabilized in other regions and people have better lives. But what about the blue collar workers of the west? What do you propose for them? This superficial glib paean to globalization and Hillary Clinton is totally inadequate.
Dan Kravitz
Your kind of late to this party, aren't you? I don't remember you discussing this when Nafta was passed. I don't remember you discussing it a year ago when Trump and Sanders were considered less than marginal candidates.
As for "fixing a problem", please be aware that we are talking about the most crucial and intractable problem of our age: The loss of meaningful work. It's not so much trade but automation that is decimating the American working class. Middle skill jobs can be done better by computers and robots. Not everybody is cut out to be an engineer or a coder. While miserable pockets of poverty remain, the hard lifting has mostly been done, except for India and Africa. Population growth has stabilized in other regions and people have better lives. But what about the blue collar workers of the west? What do you propose for them? This superficial glib paean to globalization and Hillary Clinton is totally inadequate.
Dan Kravitz
5
Mr. Friedman, Hilary did not talk like this during the campaign because she is a liar.
On your well known love of open borders, we think our trade and immigration policy should benefit America first. That's it. End of story. After 20 years of war and recession we don't have a choice. Why the Liberals hate that idea so much is tough to understand and justify.
On your well known love of open borders, we think our trade and immigration policy should benefit America first. That's it. End of story. After 20 years of war and recession we don't have a choice. Why the Liberals hate that idea so much is tough to understand and justify.
6
Zahir -- "Why the Liberals hate that idea so much is tough to understand and justify."
Don't put that on "the Liberals." Tom Friedman and Hillary are not Liberals. Hillary defeated the liberals, with neocon hawk globalist corporate elites like Friedman cheering her on.
Don't put that on "the Liberals." Tom Friedman and Hillary are not Liberals. Hillary defeated the liberals, with neocon hawk globalist corporate elites like Friedman cheering her on.
3
Thomas, read the reaction to your column to see exactly why Hillary is reticent to be as public as you would wish her to be. There is nothing she can say or do that will not be transformed by the sufferers of Clinton Derangement Syndrome into something hateful and misogynistic that has nothing in common with what she meant.
6
Freedman trumpets Hillary's goal of "opportunity for every person in the hemisphere”.
Excuse me, but isn't she running for president of the USA?
Her goal of helping the entire hemisphere leaves mighty little time for the struggling middle class and the poor of the USA.
So bless me Hillary for I have sinned. Yes, I am selfish.
I want the best for the USA first, for my family, kids and grands to come.
Then if we can educate, feed and provide health care and jobs for ourselves without going broke, i'm all for helping others outside my family.
So Tom sacrificing yourself and your family for the hemisphere is certainly noble, but I can't afford it.
Excuse me, but isn't she running for president of the USA?
Her goal of helping the entire hemisphere leaves mighty little time for the struggling middle class and the poor of the USA.
So bless me Hillary for I have sinned. Yes, I am selfish.
I want the best for the USA first, for my family, kids and grands to come.
Then if we can educate, feed and provide health care and jobs for ourselves without going broke, i'm all for helping others outside my family.
So Tom sacrificing yourself and your family for the hemisphere is certainly noble, but I can't afford it.
5
Wake up,
I applaud her hemispheric open border policy.
At this moment America and Canada is like a magnet for Poor and disincentive people to immigrate.
America since Bill Clinton didn't pay attention to its continent , we need south America upgraded to NAFTA status so US will stop immigration at the source. and also we can create our own strategic group.
Today , China is racing against US in eastern Asia , Africa and partially south America.
US economy needs always big pacts , trade agreements, this is not a country and economy can survive only domestic economy. this is not 19th century anymore.
People are saying but Washington forgot us, left behind us , yeah that si true .
But
The thing you demand should be more social protection not tariffs or border protection.
You cannot reduce US economy's goals inside the America , this level economy needs entire world. Opposite bring us down , like Russia today.
I applaud her hemispheric open border policy.
At this moment America and Canada is like a magnet for Poor and disincentive people to immigrate.
America since Bill Clinton didn't pay attention to its continent , we need south America upgraded to NAFTA status so US will stop immigration at the source. and also we can create our own strategic group.
Today , China is racing against US in eastern Asia , Africa and partially south America.
US economy needs always big pacts , trade agreements, this is not a country and economy can survive only domestic economy. this is not 19th century anymore.
People are saying but Washington forgot us, left behind us , yeah that si true .
But
The thing you demand should be more social protection not tariffs or border protection.
You cannot reduce US economy's goals inside the America , this level economy needs entire world. Opposite bring us down , like Russia today.
Friedman likes Clinton's vision for the future:
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
Many, many Americans do not.
The problem with NAFTA was not that we don't need trade, it was that, unlike corporations, workers did not have a seat at the bargaining table.
For example, Mexican farmers were driven out of business by competition with America's farms which are highly mechanized. Then America's meatpackers advertised in Mexico for workers willing to work at one-third the cost of American workers. So Mexican immigrated illegally into the US, benefitting Tyson foods. Meanwhile the costs of educating immigrant children were borne by the US taxpayers.
Corporations got a free ride, workers got the shaft.
Democratic theology is based upon two little white lies:
1. Resources are unlimited. Not true. California is running out of water because of too many people. Population in California has almost quadrupled since 1950. That is unsustainable. And quality of life is plummeting!. Look at the congestion and smog.
2. Population growth has no effect on the environment. Once again look at California. The megalopoli around LA and SF are growing to engulf the state.
Democrats seem to believe that quadrupling population has no impact on quality of life! That is just wrong.
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
Many, many Americans do not.
The problem with NAFTA was not that we don't need trade, it was that, unlike corporations, workers did not have a seat at the bargaining table.
For example, Mexican farmers were driven out of business by competition with America's farms which are highly mechanized. Then America's meatpackers advertised in Mexico for workers willing to work at one-third the cost of American workers. So Mexican immigrated illegally into the US, benefitting Tyson foods. Meanwhile the costs of educating immigrant children were borne by the US taxpayers.
Corporations got a free ride, workers got the shaft.
Democratic theology is based upon two little white lies:
1. Resources are unlimited. Not true. California is running out of water because of too many people. Population in California has almost quadrupled since 1950. That is unsustainable. And quality of life is plummeting!. Look at the congestion and smog.
2. Population growth has no effect on the environment. Once again look at California. The megalopoli around LA and SF are growing to engulf the state.
Democrats seem to believe that quadrupling population has no impact on quality of life! That is just wrong.
4
Thank you Tom for writing this. I was waiting for this article to appear somewhere. This election has demonized Wall Street. What no one is saying is that in order for Main Street USA to thrive, Wall Street must thrive also. Hillary is pragmatic and knows this. Yes, there were some unforeseen problems with NAFTA, but there was also a lot of good that came out of it also. Instead of scrapping it, it needs to be adjusted and corrected. And yes, Hillary has the ability to compromise and seek solutions with both Republicans and liberal Democrats. A better candidate would be hard to find.
3
I would like to remind NYT readers that this is the same Tom Friedman who praised W when he was on the verge of invading Iraq. He was of the opinion that this would be a great incentive for democracy in the middle-east. We have seen how well that turned out.
While any reasonable person would vote for Hillary, I am still holding my breath on the final outcome. I certainly will not vote for a disaster named Trump or Gary (really?). I will, like a large majority of the electorate, vote for the better of the two/three bad choices we have this time and definitely not because Tom said so!
While any reasonable person would vote for Hillary, I am still holding my breath on the final outcome. I certainly will not vote for a disaster named Trump or Gary (really?). I will, like a large majority of the electorate, vote for the better of the two/three bad choices we have this time and definitely not because Tom said so!
I'm less concerned by what Hillary had to say in those speeches than by the fact that we needed a Russian spy to find out what that was.
2
Friedman, you need to get out more. As someone who did vote for Bernie Sanders, I dont object to free trade in principle. What I do object to is secret courts stacked with corporate lawyers who can impune national soverignty. I object to provisions that make it harder for poor countries to make cheaper, life saving drugs. If you want free trade, just sign an agreement that removes tarrifs, not a corparate give away.
2
Another benefit of the DNC Wikileaks is the entertainment factor. Watching the Bernie or Busters salivate with every release only to learn there's really nothing there to latch onto. They latch on anyway of course and only look more foolish by the day. I'm sick of my far left friends sharing talking points with the GOP.
2
I read with interest the excerpts from Hillary's speeches to highly influential financial and world politic leaders. Think what Trump would say in the same situations.
I wish his supporters and apologists would actually envision scenarios such as that, as well as how Trump would handle the intense thought and deliberation that are required of a president - from dealing with incredibly difficult problems in the Mideast, guiding economic and social policy for a nation of 300 very diverse people, and managing a worldwide mesh of alliances and adversaries.
This is serious stuff, folks.
I wish his supporters and apologists would actually envision scenarios such as that, as well as how Trump would handle the intense thought and deliberation that are required of a president - from dealing with incredibly difficult problems in the Mideast, guiding economic and social policy for a nation of 300 very diverse people, and managing a worldwide mesh of alliances and adversaries.
This is serious stuff, folks.
2
A side note on the process. I am guessing that by now most people, including politicians, are writing email with the idea that they may someday be revealed. How does that change the nature of communication. We all have things that we say in private to people we know closely that we would not want shared with a broader audience. I favor transparency over secrecy, but wish we had some ground rules in place. And now the media is focused on wikileaks, instead of giving us both candidates on real issues like climate change, income inequality, security, etc.
“…trimming some spending and entitlements to make them more sustainable.” Let’s be clear what this means: at a time of growing financial inequality in our country, instead of increasing taxes on the highest income earners, Clinton suggests:
-trimming Medicare payments when many doctors already refuse to take Medicare patients because the fees are set too low by Congress, and/or raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67, ignoring that workers who engage in physical labor wear out sooner.
-trimming Social Security payments, when they are already too low to provide the financial security that the program was originally intended to ensure.
“…I hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician…” If Clinton is a center-left politician, I wonder what a center-right politician would look like.
-trimming Medicare payments when many doctors already refuse to take Medicare patients because the fees are set too low by Congress, and/or raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67, ignoring that workers who engage in physical labor wear out sooner.
-trimming Social Security payments, when they are already too low to provide the financial security that the program was originally intended to ensure.
“…I hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician…” If Clinton is a center-left politician, I wonder what a center-right politician would look like.
4
This article, perhaps more than many others, highlights why voters are not really paying that much attention to the Wikileaks outpour of hacked e-mails. Ordinary people understand that much of the back and forth of the e-mails is just chit-chat and ideas being bounce back and forth. Excerpts from H. Clinton’s speeches do not show her to be the devil that the Trump supporters want us to believe.
Trump can stomp his feet all he wants, but when his surrogates have to try to explain that he didn’t really say what we heard him say, then we call foul. We see him. We hear him. We do not believe him.
Trump can stomp his feet all he wants, but when his surrogates have to try to explain that he didn’t really say what we heard him say, then we call foul. We see him. We hear him. We do not believe him.
10
a perfect example of why looking forward will benefit more persons rather than looking backwards. A bigger pie is essential for addressing inequality.
2
Psychologists studying voting behavior know that few voters actually vote on issues. There are other factors, but mostly we pick our party and then distort reality to fit the program. Hard to think of a better example than the terrible things Hillary haters believe. I strongly agree that WikiHillary (thanks so much, Mr. Friedman, for the term) matches the Hillary I have been following since 1975 much better than the image that has been sold both by her enemies and, to some extent, Hillary herself. Of course, Republicans will block all the good stuff she wants to do and then blame her for the failures just as they have done with President Obama. (I also picked my party, but do not have to distort reality very much to support it.)
2
This column long ago ceased to be relevant. It is just a cheering section for corporate globalist elitist rich people who like to label themselves liberal because they aren't racists. Hence this column was a strong backer of a Bloomberg candidacy, wanted a grand bargain to further hinder recovery and cut Social Security and Medicare, and supported the Iraq invasion though it knew Bush incapable of handling the day after. But this person and their ilk are responsible for Trump by allowing the country to constantly drift right while problems get worse.
10
The inhabitants of Earth face one of two possibilities for long term future of human existence on this planet. The dark vision is a return to xenophobic tribalism and genocidal history as "recorded" in the Old Testament and archaeological records of the continents. The other view is a unified civilization: prosperous, peaceful, perfect, if you will. Perhaps that is the real "Heaven" of the bible. But a distinct absence of fundamentalist religion is a necessity for this view.
6
Friedman calls Clinton "center-left", but gives no evidence to show that she is anything but "center-right". The problem with these labels is that we have swung so far to the right that anything to the left of Ted Cruz must be "center-left", per Friedman.
Center-left would mean making massive infrastructure investments (trillions of dollars, like we do on war); federal investments in green energy; support of education at all levels; review of our "defense" budget in light of current threats, with an eye towards billions of dollars in spending reductions;
strengthening, not weakening the social safety net, including no cuts to what Friedman and Clinton call "entitlements".
I could go on naming other "center-left" ideas, none of which Clinton has endorsed except under the threat that Sanders posed.
Center-left would mean making massive infrastructure investments (trillions of dollars, like we do on war); federal investments in green energy; support of education at all levels; review of our "defense" budget in light of current threats, with an eye towards billions of dollars in spending reductions;
strengthening, not weakening the social safety net, including no cuts to what Friedman and Clinton call "entitlements".
I could go on naming other "center-left" ideas, none of which Clinton has endorsed except under the threat that Sanders posed.
10
"If Clinton wins, we know -- with 100% certainty --that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, ...." That's Ted Cruz. Even he thinks Hillary is honest, dependable, and WILL DELIVER. I'm with Her! And Ted. And Thomas. Truly a president for all.
"Do we need to make adjustments so the minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor is compensated and better protected? "
Unfortunately the attitude taken by other NY Time Op-Ed writers is not so charitable. When folks are hurt by what is deemed a progressive forward thinking program, well those folks are just collateral damage.
ACA Caused some financial hardship? Krugman says those people don't exist or deserve to pay more.
Social engineering causing neighborhood or school disruptions? Kristof says you just don't get it (but he keeps his distance).
But there is finally an acknowledgment from Hillary and the NY Times that they consider labor is a commodity. It can be traded and moved with some labor declared obsolete. Open those borders Hillary, you won't have to live too close to the consequences.
Unfortunately the attitude taken by other NY Time Op-Ed writers is not so charitable. When folks are hurt by what is deemed a progressive forward thinking program, well those folks are just collateral damage.
ACA Caused some financial hardship? Krugman says those people don't exist or deserve to pay more.
Social engineering causing neighborhood or school disruptions? Kristof says you just don't get it (but he keeps his distance).
But there is finally an acknowledgment from Hillary and the NY Times that they consider labor is a commodity. It can be traded and moved with some labor declared obsolete. Open those borders Hillary, you won't have to live too close to the consequences.
Exactly right! Don't understand though why is she double faced about it? Or maybe she thinks her intelligent thoughtful and well intentioned words will be mocked just like her reference to President Lincoln during the second debate.
I can agree with most of what Mr. Friedman writes and spins about the Wikileak release of campaign emails. However, she would have been buried alive in the primaries by telling the "truth". That's the sad state of our democracy: truth will not get you elected. And one more thing: Hillary Clinton is by no means left of the political center, she is slightly to the right by global standards. She will be a great match to Angela Merkel. Hard times for Putin ahead
1
I hope she shows as much confidence about these leaks in he debate tonight.
1
Thank you, Mr. Friedman. I have been committed to vote for Hillary,
but I have had reservations. I respect your opinion greatly and this
eases some of my misgivings.
but I have had reservations. I respect your opinion greatly and this
eases some of my misgivings.
1
In our current political atmosphere where lies and distortions, sound bites and slogans dominate and win the day, wikihillary would lose the election. She's limited by an apparently very effective Republican/Fox/Limbaugh/trump et.al. strategy to divide us and give us up to the power of the 1% who benefit by our division...all the way to the bank. Wikihillary wouldn't be elected and president wikihillary, like Obama, won't be able to govern.
1
I do not think Hillary is center left. She is more like center right. By many measures, well to the right of Nixon, a well known republican.
2
Tom, as long as you recognize pipe dreams when you read them. To be sure, these Clinton talks see a future America needs to approach, but today, 10/19/2016, she is sowing them in a storm that will wash away any planting. I blame Trump and the anger he has awakened and nourished and before anything else, calming this potent anger is the first order of Presidential business.
What I am suggesting, Tom, is "first things first."
What I am suggesting, Tom, is "first things first."
2
"When I read WikiHillary, I hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician who will be inclined to work with both the business community and Republicans to keep America tilted toward trade expansion, entrepreneurship and global integration, while redoubling efforts to cushion workers from the downsides of these policies."
When I read WikiHilary I see a continuation of the neoliberalism that got us in the rut we're in, which is why I was energized by Bernie Sanders who wanted to increase public spending at the expense of cushioning billionaires from the downsides of his "redistributionist" tax plan and a balanced budget, who saw climate change as the primary threat tour well-being, and who wasn't afraid to state his agenda clearly.
But like most Boomers who supported Sanders I will do anything possible to ensure that Ms. Clinton's opponent does not get into office, after which I will do everything possible to make sure that WikiHillary's grand bargain is never struck and her "musings" about a carbon tax become an outright advocacy... but I will confess to voting for her with a degree of suspicion...
When I read WikiHilary I see a continuation of the neoliberalism that got us in the rut we're in, which is why I was energized by Bernie Sanders who wanted to increase public spending at the expense of cushioning billionaires from the downsides of his "redistributionist" tax plan and a balanced budget, who saw climate change as the primary threat tour well-being, and who wasn't afraid to state his agenda clearly.
But like most Boomers who supported Sanders I will do anything possible to ensure that Ms. Clinton's opponent does not get into office, after which I will do everything possible to make sure that WikiHillary's grand bargain is never struck and her "musings" about a carbon tax become an outright advocacy... but I will confess to voting for her with a degree of suspicion...
1
So you are saying let the one percent control all the wealth and move on folks! Don't be to quick to trash Bernie or link him with Trump. That is not objective. Income inequality destroys our biggest market right here at home so lets give the folks that buy all the stuff a break. I did not hear that theme in your get out the vote trumpet call for WikiHillary.
3
You are so right.
So why does the "global media conspiracy" announce each fresh leak as a "scandal".
Why do they do that?
So why does the "global media conspiracy" announce each fresh leak as a "scandal".
Why do they do that?
6
Mr. Friedman,
I agree with your assessment that Hilary Clinton's speeches to the banking community show wisdom and practical policy positions. But please, don't thank Putin for cyber terrorism against the U.S., even in jest.
I agree with your assessment that Hilary Clinton's speeches to the banking community show wisdom and practical policy positions. But please, don't thank Putin for cyber terrorism against the U.S., even in jest.
6
Good for you, Tom; not so good for Hillary's election in 2016. Plainly she could not produce such music for the people's ears as yours, if she had not embraced elements and implications of substantially redistributive reform. I'm not surprised that you're satisfied, only a little that you've not been paying attention.
Sigh...
Another typically flaccid attempt to assure us that all players in this battle are equally honest and fair-minded.
I'm an unwavering Hillary supporter, but her stance is much too accommodating . I would much prefer
"Listen boys, these are the new rules and regulations. We'll streamline them, but they're here to stay. And, depending on what recklessness you embrace, there will be more to come.
You're still free to make enormous amounts of money, but we're not going to allow you to put the country- and yourselves- at risk. And if you agree to pay slightly higher taxes, your middle class customers will be eager and happy to support you making money hand-over fist.
It's a win-win- and you all know it. Let's make the deal."
Another typically flaccid attempt to assure us that all players in this battle are equally honest and fair-minded.
I'm an unwavering Hillary supporter, but her stance is much too accommodating . I would much prefer
"Listen boys, these are the new rules and regulations. We'll streamline them, but they're here to stay. And, depending on what recklessness you embrace, there will be more to come.
You're still free to make enormous amounts of money, but we're not going to allow you to put the country- and yourselves- at risk. And if you agree to pay slightly higher taxes, your middle class customers will be eager and happy to support you making money hand-over fist.
It's a win-win- and you all know it. Let's make the deal."
1
Part of pragmatism is not promising things you can't deliver. Good for Hillary!
8
Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street. That is a fact. Anyone who believes her appointments or policies are not going to be completely pro-Wall Street is a lunatic.
The Street funded her campaign to the tune of $50 million plus and privately gave her and Bill tens of millions for speeches because they expect something in return.
In the case of crooked Wall Street, past performance is a guarantee of future performance.
The Street funded her campaign to the tune of $50 million plus and privately gave her and Bill tens of millions for speeches because they expect something in return.
In the case of crooked Wall Street, past performance is a guarantee of future performance.
8
No, it's not a fact. People like Trump, the alt-right, and, apparently you, do not understand that a fact is a matter provable by the presentation of evidence. Even then, with sufficient evidence, one might reasonably be persuaded that the alleged matter is true. Most facts are merely things that we believe to be true. That belief usually is based on reliance one one or more trustworthy resources. Trump, by example, does not define facts that way. In his alternate universe, that about which he has a gut feeling, i.e., an emotional response, is converted by him into a belief, and the belief is then converted by him into an incontrovertible fact. He never provides persuasive evidence. To paraphrase you, anyone who believes Trump's policies are good for America is a lunatic. By the way, how did you manage to get the coveted green check-mark that allows your comments to be published automatically? Today's comment is sheer drivel.
1
Anyone who says it's a fact that "Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street" doesn't know what a fact is. These are facts: Hillary is Woman, she wears pantsuits, she is married to Bill Clinton. Saying she is 'bought and paid for by Wall Street" is a rhetorical flourish which can only be taken seriously if it is clarified by actual facts. It is a fact that her campaign has received funding from Individuals who work on Wall Street, and other wealthy individuals whose interests diverge from mine. So has Trump's. It is also a fact that she is dependent on Sanders and Warren to keep her newly liberal base loyal to her. (The unrepentant Berniebots, who don't support Clinton, and now support a Sanders that never existed, are less than 5% of the people who voted for him.) Trump has no such dependency. So the question is, do you want someone who is pressured only by Wall Street, and his own narcissism, or someone who is pressured by both Sanders and Wall Street?
1
Stop letting Limbaugh do your thinking for you.
2
The local and national media "news readers" would have the American public believe that these "leaked" comments are somehow evidence of the "Crooked Hillary." This advances their false equivalency that there is essentially no difference between her and Trump. What utter nonsense! They are frustrated because they want a "smoking gun" when in fact there will not be one.
7
This is the point: Trump has been hyping out-of-context phrases as if just being “leaked” was itself incriminating. In fact, in context, her policies are cogent, sensible and consistent. Further, getting paid significant sums for giving speeches is no different than any world figure – be it a SuperBowl champion or a rockstar – being paid handsome sums. The complaint is itself sexist. As for quid pro quo charges – none have been demonstrated let alone proved.
10
I love protectionists - the basic argument is in a fair open contest the US will lose. We can't win unless we rig the rules! Protectionism always fails in the long run and weakens the "protected"
Yes we need a President who understands the political and business realities of true negotiations not the Trumpian bullying of opponents.
Yes we need a President who understands the political and business realities of true negotiations not the Trumpian bullying of opponents.
4
Please explain why we need "to create the growth required to sustain social programs"? Growth and sustenance are entirely contradictory, the former meaning more (and more) and the latter implying that we maintain the prosperity we have already achieved (which is not at all fairly distributed). At what point can we say we have "enough"?
Economists have long preached the magical idea that endless growth on a planet of limited resources will somehow solve all our problems and Mr. Friedman (and many others) seem to agree. Leaving alone the fact that unlimited growth is biophysically possible, I would argue quite the opposite: that the modern religion of endless growth is indeed contributing to many of the world's problems today.
Economists have long preached the magical idea that endless growth on a planet of limited resources will somehow solve all our problems and Mr. Friedman (and many others) seem to agree. Leaving alone the fact that unlimited growth is biophysically possible, I would argue quite the opposite: that the modern religion of endless growth is indeed contributing to many of the world's problems today.
6
Growth = Increased Tax Revenues + Increased Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare Revenues = Sustenance for Those and Other Social Programs. Plus HRC has talked about moving beyond the Quarterly Report obsessed corporate climate now in play, and toward a sustainable growth that mirrors population growth, etc.
No contradiction here, because the two words refer to different things. She wants growth in the economy so that social programs can be sustained.
"The way Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have made trade and globalization dirty words is ridiculous."
I am wondering if Thomas L. Friedman would be able to point out the location of Ohio on a United States map. The steel that used to be made in Ohio is now being made in China (that would be in Asia).
I am wondering if Thomas L. Friedman would be able to point out the location of Ohio on a United States map. The steel that used to be made in Ohio is now being made in China (that would be in Asia).
2
I appreciate Mr. Friedman's take on the Wikileaks material. Truth be told though that if opposition research on Trump had seen the light of day through the machinations of an international criminall and the Russian intelligence services his followers would be screaming bloody murder and his talking head partisans would be baying at the moon.
1
Thank you Thomas for sharing this moment of unbridled joy for your ideology of neoliberalism with all of who have become despondent over the loss of democracy and our loss of a role in your neoliberal Utopia.
Most of us understand in the choice between technocracies and the lunacy that has resulted from 50 years of neoconservative propaganda. Reason and efficiency is better than chaos and confusion.
I wish I had a way of telling everyone that neoconservatism is neither new nor conservative and neoliberalism is neither new nor liberal but you have stolen my language and there are just too few Americans that speak and understand French.
I know you have a hard time understanding why so many Americans are so dissatisfied with a life of excess but there are real conservatives and real liberals out here looking for meaning in a life that isn't measured by numbers.
Thomas I am 68 and I don't know if I will be alive when neoliberalism gives rise to its own Donald Trump but I suspect my children and grandchildren will be alive and I hope Canada will be here for them as it was for my wife and I when I was too young for medicare and I couldn't get insurance because of preexisting conditions.
Most of us understand in the choice between technocracies and the lunacy that has resulted from 50 years of neoconservative propaganda. Reason and efficiency is better than chaos and confusion.
I wish I had a way of telling everyone that neoconservatism is neither new nor conservative and neoliberalism is neither new nor liberal but you have stolen my language and there are just too few Americans that speak and understand French.
I know you have a hard time understanding why so many Americans are so dissatisfied with a life of excess but there are real conservatives and real liberals out here looking for meaning in a life that isn't measured by numbers.
Thomas I am 68 and I don't know if I will be alive when neoliberalism gives rise to its own Donald Trump but I suspect my children and grandchildren will be alive and I hope Canada will be here for them as it was for my wife and I when I was too young for medicare and I couldn't get insurance because of preexisting conditions.
4
Thank you for summing up exactly what I was thinking. This entire column is exactly the kind of Pollyanna-ish encapsulation of the neoliberal world view that folks like Friedman have been serving up for a couple of decades now. It's always amusing to me that folks like Friedman always include the caveats that labor should be as free to move from country to country within our new, shiny globalized "marketplace" as capital is, and how provisions must be made to help workers sidelined by the relentless search for cheap labor made possible by neoliberal globalization, but these things never seem to materialize when neoliberalism is actually implemented in the real world. Equally amusing to me is how Friedman, who to his credit has been an effective supporter of tailoring public policy to mitigate the threats posed by global climate change, posits that the neoliberal paradise he envisions can be an engine of limitless "growth" in a world characterized by limited and inequitably distributed resources.
1
I too think HRC is pragmatic and is highly motivated to get things done. So, Tom, what does HRC put on the table from the Republican wish list to get the things from her wish list?
If Hillary wants to get a carbon tax she will probably have to approve Keystone Pipeline at a minimum and possibly rollback some of the regulations on coal. If HRC wants paid family leave she will have to make major changes in the corporate tax code that the Republicans want to get this deal done. If HRC wants universal Pre K, she will have to probably make major concessions on either Social Security and/or Medicare that the Republicans want to get this deal done. This is what a functioning, pragmatic, compromising democracy looks like, and what the American people overwhelmingly have stated in poll after poll that they want. The American People have said across the board that they want both parties to work together to compromise and make deals. I too believe that HRC is quite willing and prepared to horse trade with Republicans way more so than President Obama was. I just hope her supporters understand just how much she and they will have to trade away to get what they want.
If Hillary wants to get a carbon tax she will probably have to approve Keystone Pipeline at a minimum and possibly rollback some of the regulations on coal. If HRC wants paid family leave she will have to make major changes in the corporate tax code that the Republicans want to get this deal done. If HRC wants universal Pre K, she will have to probably make major concessions on either Social Security and/or Medicare that the Republicans want to get this deal done. This is what a functioning, pragmatic, compromising democracy looks like, and what the American people overwhelmingly have stated in poll after poll that they want. The American People have said across the board that they want both parties to work together to compromise and make deals. I too believe that HRC is quite willing and prepared to horse trade with Republicans way more so than President Obama was. I just hope her supporters understand just how much she and they will have to trade away to get what they want.
1
"trimming some spending and entitlements to make them more sustainable."
What Mr. F glosses over is that this "trimming" includes the recommendation
for raising the Social Security retirement age. This is a really important fact
to ignore. Had it come out when Mr. Sanders was challenging her for the
nomination it would have been a lot of trouble for Mrs. Clinton. And well she
knew it,I am sure that was one of the reasons she did not want the
content of her speeches released. It is things like this two faced approach
that makes people like myself not trust her. I am a good liberal Democrat
and I will vote for her. But I will never really trust her. She basically `has
an inability to tell the whole truth when she thinks it will hurt her.Of course
the truth does come out later as witness these leaks.Neither of the Clinton's
think that the rules that apply to everyone else apply to them.
What Mr. F glosses over is that this "trimming" includes the recommendation
for raising the Social Security retirement age. This is a really important fact
to ignore. Had it come out when Mr. Sanders was challenging her for the
nomination it would have been a lot of trouble for Mrs. Clinton. And well she
knew it,I am sure that was one of the reasons she did not want the
content of her speeches released. It is things like this two faced approach
that makes people like myself not trust her. I am a good liberal Democrat
and I will vote for her. But I will never really trust her. She basically `has
an inability to tell the whole truth when she thinks it will hurt her.Of course
the truth does come out later as witness these leaks.Neither of the Clinton's
think that the rules that apply to everyone else apply to them.
5
Was raising the retirement age specifically mentioned in the Wikileaks? I didn't see that.
Yes, the speeches show a sensible perspective from "WikiHillary" as a framer of progress from all sides. Apparently, though, Hillary herself wasn't confident these speeches would be evaluated that way. That is a misfortune - a failure of courage and an unwillingness to be frank with voters and include them in planning their future.
51
No, it's simply a recognition of the truth. Look how the leaks are being interpreted now.
John, Hillary is pragmatic and female. Women know how "confidence" can become mockable because of gendered stereotypes like yours. Choosing a new employee? Candidate a, a man, claims detailed knowledge w/o proof. Candidate b, a woman, has vastly superior credentials and claims she knows what she's doing. She is asked to prove it. He is not.
My thoughts wander to the African American doctor, a woman, told to take her sweet, "sweetie," because the Delta flight attendant saw a white male coming and wanted a "real" doctor. I wonder how many companies have made terrible hires by hiring candidate a...Candidate b is definitely more careful about making unsupported claims of competency.
My thoughts wander to the African American doctor, a woman, told to take her sweet, "sweetie," because the Delta flight attendant saw a white male coming and wanted a "real" doctor. I wonder how many companies have made terrible hires by hiring candidate a...Candidate b is definitely more careful about making unsupported claims of competency.
Perhaps it's not the courage she is lacking, but learnt lessons from the traumatic experience for all previous presidential campaigns, knowing how impatient the public maybe for complicated answers and how the answers would appear in a partisan ad under negative light or she simply refused to play by other's playbook. She often ask voters to check facts on her website, she should have asked people to check with serious journalist venues.
She is perhaps the most exposed politician with more than 50,000 emails out in public that not meant to be when she sent them, yet partisans can't find any serious inconsistency with her public persona, and somehow she is still being portrait as untrustworthy, I simply cannot understand the logic... She certainly has courage, she has everything in the world- fame, wealth, family, grandchildren, a long life of public service, lived in white house for eight years, knowing the scrutiny she got from partisan politics, and yet she is still willing to carry on the job? That's courage to me!
She is perhaps the most exposed politician with more than 50,000 emails out in public that not meant to be when she sent them, yet partisans can't find any serious inconsistency with her public persona, and somehow she is still being portrait as untrustworthy, I simply cannot understand the logic... She certainly has courage, she has everything in the world- fame, wealth, family, grandchildren, a long life of public service, lived in white house for eight years, knowing the scrutiny she got from partisan politics, and yet she is still willing to carry on the job? That's courage to me!
Here we are less than 3 weeks from D-Day and people are still talking about how Clinton stole the primary from Sanders. This is why she decided against releasing the transcripts. Too many people need HRC in the role of evil genius to admit that her words and actions throughout most of her life, just as in the speech reveal a pragmatic problem solver, who works from the center and is about compromise vs total domination.
Sanders lost the primary because millions more voters saw that it was either his way or the highway, and that the future depends on compromise. He also lost because he made a grave error of becoming a democrat just for the sole purpose of running for president after being an independent for decades. Sanders falsely offered followers the promise of a political revolution. His base supporters were independents, who were not registered to vote democrat in the primaries because his campaign did a poor job of reaching out to get these voters to register as democrats prior to the primary to vote for him.
Johnson and Stein are on the ticket, and many people claim they are voting for them, despite their small, poorly funded campaigns. Why exactly couldn't Sanders do the same? You can't blame HRC for that.
Sanders lost the primary because millions more voters saw that it was either his way or the highway, and that the future depends on compromise. He also lost because he made a grave error of becoming a democrat just for the sole purpose of running for president after being an independent for decades. Sanders falsely offered followers the promise of a political revolution. His base supporters were independents, who were not registered to vote democrat in the primaries because his campaign did a poor job of reaching out to get these voters to register as democrats prior to the primary to vote for him.
Johnson and Stein are on the ticket, and many people claim they are voting for them, despite their small, poorly funded campaigns. Why exactly couldn't Sanders do the same? You can't blame HRC for that.
2
The fact is that while I strongly support getting Hillary elected, the day she starts governing is the day the left starts pushing for fair trade and better support for policies that help the lower and middle class. Her honeymoon will be short, if she gets one at all.
In fact, it really is not to her advantage to have the House majority in the hands of the Democrats. She would have to produce something major at that point, and show us where her priorities and loyalties lay. With Sanders and Warren in open revolt, the midterms would be a bloodbath.
In fact, it really is not to her advantage to have the House majority in the hands of the Democrats. She would have to produce something major at that point, and show us where her priorities and loyalties lay. With Sanders and Warren in open revolt, the midterms would be a bloodbath.
If Hillary had talked like this in the primary, the left of the Democratic Party would have revolted and she would have lost the nomination. I can imagine the country now having to chose between a Sanders/Warren ticket and Trump/Pence. It would have lead to another 4 years of pitched warfare and no progress.
Hillary was smart to move to the left in the primary and to stay center left in the general. She has not had to move to the right because Trump has decided to try and not be elected President. I hope that Hillary as President can get some agreements on these issues. The question is whether or not Republicans having had their fever, will come back to sanity, or will they go all in on another 4 years of absolute obstruction.
Hillary was smart to move to the left in the primary and to stay center left in the general. She has not had to move to the right because Trump has decided to try and not be elected President. I hope that Hillary as President can get some agreements on these issues. The question is whether or not Republicans having had their fever, will come back to sanity, or will they go all in on another 4 years of absolute obstruction.
4
"Seriously, those speeches are great! . . . . In a speech to a Morgan Stanley group on April 18, 2013, WikiHillary praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan, which included reforming the tax code to increase investment and entrepreneurship and raising certain taxes and trimming some spending and entitlements to make them more sustainable."
I heard last night on the national news that the average social security monthly payment to recipients is going up by $5 next year . . . and the Part B medicare payments required to be made out of that $5 per month increase is $39 per month.
I question how the social security cost of inflation increases are calculated. Mr. Friedman states that Hillary Clinton's speeches show "a healthy instinct for balancing the need to strengthen our social safety nets" with something else. Plus $5 per month minus $39 per month equals minus $34 per month. I know that this calculation does not directly affect Mr. Friedman, but it puts a big hole in many people's "social safety nets." Maybe Mr. Friedman should go back to grade school and learn a little math.
I heard last night on the national news that the average social security monthly payment to recipients is going up by $5 next year . . . and the Part B medicare payments required to be made out of that $5 per month increase is $39 per month.
I question how the social security cost of inflation increases are calculated. Mr. Friedman states that Hillary Clinton's speeches show "a healthy instinct for balancing the need to strengthen our social safety nets" with something else. Plus $5 per month minus $39 per month equals minus $34 per month. I know that this calculation does not directly affect Mr. Friedman, but it puts a big hole in many people's "social safety nets." Maybe Mr. Friedman should go back to grade school and learn a little math.
5
You believe Hillary can "unleash the America’s business class to create the growth required to sustain social programs."
The business class that promotes all the "globalization" and "trade pacts" and builds all their factories in foreign countries or in general "out sources" all their production to those countries where poor people are paid a pittance and become capitalist slaves. The same business class that thus has decimated factory jobs in this country, degraded the middle class and created the legions of very, very angry white males? The same men who are now hooked on drugs by the millions? Creating huge numbers of men (reported this week) in their prime who cannot work because of disabilities and constant use of pain killers?
That business class?
The business class that promotes all the "globalization" and "trade pacts" and builds all their factories in foreign countries or in general "out sources" all their production to those countries where poor people are paid a pittance and become capitalist slaves. The same business class that thus has decimated factory jobs in this country, degraded the middle class and created the legions of very, very angry white males? The same men who are now hooked on drugs by the millions? Creating huge numbers of men (reported this week) in their prime who cannot work because of disabilities and constant use of pain killers?
That business class?
4
Thanks for actually reading the leaked e-mail material - apparently unlike most of your media colleagues. The standard media reaction is that each day's WikiLeaks "Trump for President" data dump is "embarrassing" to Hillary Clinton, but as soon as you read the actual e-mail the "embarrassment" disappears, and what you find is a professional campaign operation run by grown-ups, carefully considering all aspects of every issue that comes their way.
The media has this mysterious need to "balance" its reporting of Trump's serial sexual improprieties with something bad about Clinton. Perfect example is the "quid pro quo" allegation, involving an FBI agent and a State Department representative. Aside from the fact that no transaction ever occurred, the only problem with this allegation is that Clinton had left the State Department several years before it occurred - if there had been a scandal there, the scandal would have been entirely not Clinton's scandal. But the media for the most part couldn't be bothered to actually read and understand the material they were reporting on - one network devoted an entire 10-minute segment to this, without even once mentioning the year that the exchange occurred, leaving the viewer to believe that it occurred while Clinton was in office and that Clinton herself was responsible.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
The media has this mysterious need to "balance" its reporting of Trump's serial sexual improprieties with something bad about Clinton. Perfect example is the "quid pro quo" allegation, involving an FBI agent and a State Department representative. Aside from the fact that no transaction ever occurred, the only problem with this allegation is that Clinton had left the State Department several years before it occurred - if there had been a scandal there, the scandal would have been entirely not Clinton's scandal. But the media for the most part couldn't be bothered to actually read and understand the material they were reporting on - one network devoted an entire 10-minute segment to this, without even once mentioning the year that the exchange occurred, leaving the viewer to believe that it occurred while Clinton was in office and that Clinton herself was responsible.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
13
She will make a wonderful president. We only have to hope she has at least one house of congress or like with Obama, all of her great ideas will be stopped. The three pronged plan is the only sensible one but republicans have refused to listen. But it must include a major funding of infrastructure improvements.
10
The benefits of free trade go far beyond economics. Free trade links countries and cultures, permit the exchange of ideas and innovation, encourage cooperation, and build deep ties between nations that go beyond treaties and agreements. Free trade has done more to spread peace and prosperity throughout the world than the combined diplomatic efforts of every nation on the planet.
7
So which financial firm do you work for? Get out of your NYC bubble and visit the small towns across America devastated by free trade policies. Look at the abandoned factories. And while you are at it, fly to foreign countries in which millions of foreign workers are exploited for corporate profits.
But I guess that is all that matters--corporate profits.
But I guess that is all that matters--corporate profits.
4
I was just making the point that the benefits of free trade are often not fully appreciated. I realize there are also painful realities associated with free trade and believe we have not done nearly enough as a country to offset the pain. For what it's worth, I run a nonprofit studio for people who build furniture by hand and am very aware of the problem of cheap imports. Also lived in Detroit for many years.
The Republican Party has tried to smear Hillary Clinton for 26 years. Every single charge ever leveled against her by these vindictive political terrorists has been a lie. Mrs. Clinton is a decent person who has devoted her life to the common good. She should be thanked for her years of public service, not demonized. I dare everyone to release their emails, so we can all read them. I'm sure we all have skeletons we hope no one ever sees on our servers!
7
This point of view and strategic thinking is the very reason I supported Hillary over Bernie. Her solutions are practical and her understanding of various stakeholders is deep. It's a much better leader that can work to incentivize business to help workers vs. going to war with the very mechanism that grows the economy, supplies capital, spurs innovation and provides a healthy retirement. Hillary is "Smart Power" we need her now more than ever.
477
We need her now more than ever? This is not the most important election in history, although Baby Boomers, like HRC and myself, like to think that every event that happens in our lifetime is the most important in history. It isn't. Either candidate will likely be a one term President, either because of their own fatigue (they will both be looking at 73 for a second term) or because neither of them can get anything passed through Congress. One hundred years from now, HRC will be a historical note, but that is all.
"I am more convinced than ever she can be the president America needs today."
Mr. Friedman, We like the way you think!
Go Hillary!!
Mr. Friedman, We like the way you think!
Go Hillary!!
17
With enemies like Donald Trump and Julian Assange, one doesn't really need friends.
8
The leaks didn't expose anything but they confirmed what was generally known about Hillary. She is a politician who changes her public views based on her own and electoral experts' evaluation of what will get the most votes. She also has at least two faces; one for the voting public and one for big donors like Goldman Sachs.
These things are common to most politicians, but they certainly do not bolster a case that electing Hillary could bring major change to the political or economic systems of the country.
These things are common to most politicians, but they certainly do not bolster a case that electing Hillary could bring major change to the political or economic systems of the country.
13
I always had a gut feeling that Mrs. Clinton would make a great president. My gut feelings are now confirmed after reading this article. Thank you sir
24
Well stated. Imagine a candidate with actual insight and practical plans to execute in order to move the US into the future as a valued member of the world community. Instead we are bombarded by isolationist nihilistic bombast whose sole purpose is to frighten people into voting for an unrealistic and at best vaguely described myopic future.
12
Just keep in mind you will be paying dearly for her immigration plans and all of her other plans.
1
Thanks Mr. Kristoff. I was beginning to get really worried after reading the headlines proclaiming that the new trove of released speeches transcripts were sources of trouble for Hillary Clinton, but then I read them and reached the same conclusions you did. Donald Trump claims the election is rigged because the news media is conspiring against him. I guess Hillary could say the same based on how the news media has decided to describe the Wikileaks "revelations." Because most people do not take the time to review the underlying data, the news media should step up its game and for once report the facts instead of just inflammatory headlines.
11
the speeches show that bernie was right about H(R)C...they may make friedman and the times swoon but if bernie has them back ehen, her nomination is less than likely...together with the DNC chicanery (its very explicit bias now public) her nimination is past tainted, way past legitimate.
3
re: the DNC chicanery: While I, too, was a Bernie Sanders supporter, it was as a socialist that I supported him. However, he was an interloper in the nominating process only registering as a Democrat for the purpose of a quixotic pursuit of the nomination. I know he caucused with the Democrats pretty much since joining the House, but that doesn't give him standing with the party. O course the leadership is partisan; the game they play is, after all, partisan politics.
1
Donald Trump doesn't have the temperament to serve as president. Hillary Clinton doesn't have the character to serve as president, yet it is probable that she will be elected and should the Senate and House will remain Republican, where does that leave US?
Hillary Clinton will be a thoughtful and considered president of the United States. Right now, that alone seems like a blessing.
31
However the pundits on cable news try to extract ominous signs of fabrications that do not exist. They attempt to give credence to the Hillary the liar image fostered by Trump. Yet fact checkers give Trump the overwhelming use of falsehoods. This does not support Trump's claim that the media is plotting against him.
11
Well Trump is certainly a bigger liar than Mrs. Clinton but she sure has been
responsible for her share of misleading statements. I am a liberal democrat and I will vote for her. I think that some of her supporters make a big mistake in
completely ignoring the facts about her relationship with the truth. She is
indeed a person like the rest of us and she sure has her known faults, which
her supporters consistently try to gloss over just like she does. This is what makes a large percentage of the voters mistrust her. As do I.
responsible for her share of misleading statements. I am a liberal democrat and I will vote for her. I think that some of her supporters make a big mistake in
completely ignoring the facts about her relationship with the truth. She is
indeed a person like the rest of us and she sure has her known faults, which
her supporters consistently try to gloss over just like she does. This is what makes a large percentage of the voters mistrust her. As do I.
1
Wouldn't it be great if she released those transcripts today and stood by those positions tonight?
10
"So, again, thank you, Putin, for exposing that Hillary. She could make a pretty good president for these times."
Putin's plot backfired.
Putin's plot backfired.
25
Thomas Friedman would like completely open borders for the entire Western Hemisphere. Absolutely mental. How exactly will the US prosper by a flood of tens of millions of deeply impoverished immigrants from South and Central America? How on earth would the nation handle the tidal wave of people that would want in on day 1?
Measured immigration is a wonderful economic stimulus and an engine for innovation and global competitiveness. Truly open borders is a recipe for dragging down what's left of the Western middle class and the creation of the neoliberal dream: a two-tier feudal society with a tiny number of bankers, politicians and New York Times op-ed writers living in luxury while the vast rest of us live short, miserable, penurious lives desperately scraping and scratching for just enough to get by. No thank you.
Measured immigration is a wonderful economic stimulus and an engine for innovation and global competitiveness. Truly open borders is a recipe for dragging down what's left of the Western middle class and the creation of the neoliberal dream: a two-tier feudal society with a tiny number of bankers, politicians and New York Times op-ed writers living in luxury while the vast rest of us live short, miserable, penurious lives desperately scraping and scratching for just enough to get by. No thank you.
4
Open borders could also work the other way. People seeking a lower cost of living might move to Mexico or elsewhere if they could have the possibility of a good life there. People from Latin America might hesitate to move to the US if they know how expensive it is to live here and the probability of getting a high-paying job without credentials is slight. You assume that open borders won't do anything to alleviate poverty and increase the desirability of other nations. To me that is one-dimensional thinking. Over time, some people would come here, others would go there, if "there" has a chance to rise a bit.
Terrific, Tom. It is clear to me that the "real" Hillary we have campaigning today, and the WikiHillary revealed in this piece, are one and the same—authentic, with integrity, and not the phantom Hillary projected and then suspected by folks who don't think on the basis of evidence.
27
This just sounds to me like a raging case of cognitive dissonance. If WikiLeaks reveals so much good about Hillary, why hasn't your paper covered it?
11
It has! And because it did, I voted for her.
Look, Donald Trump is dopey, which is not the same as being stupid. And Hillary will almost certainly be our next president. But the threat of a Trump presidency is forcing her supporters into saying stupid things. Example, President Obama criticizes Trump for warnings about election fraud. Really? Obama is, after all, from Chicago, so he should know better. And now Tom Friedman, whom I admire immensely and is, in my opinion, one of the smartest guys on the planet, writes: "The MINORITY of the United States population that is hurt by freer trade..." Well, in a country of over 300 million people, a "minority" could be 149 million. So why not stop sugarcoating it and just say "millions" and then get on with it? And I'm sure I'll get over it eventually, but Friedman's lumping of Bernie Sanders and Trump in the same sentence was just a terrible thing to write.
14
If I thought for one moment that Hillary Clinton, a craven well-documented liar (or Donald Trump for that matter) would cut one iota of spending, she'd possibly have my vote. Sadly, I know this will never be the case. Which is why, Mr. Friedman, I'll be casting my vote for the only true small-government candidate, Governor Gary Johnson.
1
False equivalence. Read their budget proposals and the effect they would have on long term debt.
@Karen - agreed - pretty certain your false equivalence is far different from mine. My concern is with spending. Raise revenue? Fine. But show me one area (other than perhaps defense) where either candidate would cut (not curtail growth of) spending absolutely. That's right - you can't
I wish she had made the case for TPP. She did not trust the electorate.
With the Trump take-over of the GOP, this distrust seems warranted.
With the Trump take-over of the GOP, this distrust seems warranted.
6
You left out the statement that the banks aren't doing the right thing because of fear of regulations, which is absolute nonsense and pandering to her banker audience. And you left out the part about the bankers being the best people to fix the system because they know it so well. Strategic omission of relevant facts to craft an image, such as you have done here, is a propaganda tactic, not the sign of a critical thinker. I too might actually like CherryPickedHillary, but she doesn't exist. And don't forget Hillary was paid $675K to say these things to people who wanted to hear them.
39
Hillary is not the first one to give speeches to these groups for money. Obama did it, Bush did it. Hillary is the first one to have all her private papers exposed for the world to see without her permission. She is the most vetted candidate in American history. It's always twice as hard for a woman to get a job.
Oh no! A speaker pandered to her audience! Lock her up!
How ironic that the WikiLeaks "scandal" has proved to be proof that Hillary is the only candidate completely qualified to be president and is a pragmatic problem-solver, which cannot be said for anyone else who has run in either the primaries or this election. Trade has created far more prosperity and relatively minor disruption for the majority of citizens. Automation technology accounts for close to 90 percent of job losses. Wake up Trump supporters, your candidate is making it all up and is completely unqualified to be president.
Trump brings nothing to this election. His is singularly the worst, most despicable candidate I can remember in all my years of political awareness. He is a failure in so many ways, and proof that wealth does not mean intelligence, good character or role model. Our presidents should represent the best of us, not the very worst. He respects no one but himself, the least worthy individual of respect.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Trump brings nothing to this election. His is singularly the worst, most despicable candidate I can remember in all my years of political awareness. He is a failure in so many ways, and proof that wealth does not mean intelligence, good character or role model. Our presidents should represent the best of us, not the very worst. He respects no one but himself, the least worthy individual of respect.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
17
Revise distribution of wealth in this country so that all benefit from the fruit of trade & automation.
Globalization is here to stay. Capitalism is a keeper. Nations that boldly face globalization practicing smart capitalism will dominate this economy. Hillary simply gets it. She understands political capital, human capital, and social capital better than any one this election.
I'm with her.
I'm with her.
60
I agree if you say 'regulated capitalism'.
Hillary presents her thoughts with a nuanced pragmatism. Making a case for weighing the pros and cons involves an implicit admission that there are pros to positions you disagree with and cons to positons you propound. The past decade of extreme partisanship has got us to a point where politicians present their ideas in black and white terms ("if you are not with us then you are against us"). Americans, people and politicians, need to grow up and start behaving like thinking adults on matters of consequence. This all pros and no cons attitude is another symptom of the dumbing down of America. No good can come of it.
4
Hillary is a globalist in a time of anxiety and retraction. Nearly half the country wants to "build a wall" and the other half is worrying about the price of college and saving for retirement. Given those concerns, she is lucky to have such a cartoonish villain to run against.
1
Typical, Mr. Friedman, and expected, from an elitist, looking down his nose at the great unwashed, the masses who pose the now single greatest threat to the status quo, the establishment, in decades.
Hillary and Trump are essentially one and the same, she being wholly owned by corporate America, primed to do its bidding, and further beggar the poor and the middle class, and he primed to do the same thing, with an outsize dose of authoritarianism factored in.
We desperately need Bernie back.
Hillary and Trump are essentially one and the same, she being wholly owned by corporate America, primed to do its bidding, and further beggar the poor and the middle class, and he primed to do the same thing, with an outsize dose of authoritarianism factored in.
We desperately need Bernie back.
1
I think Bernie got called on the mat and got bought in the end so I'm not sure I want him back either.
Anyone looking to smear Hillary talks about her emails and now her speeches. But, cleverly, they don't read them. When they do, they discover something other than what they expected. "I was a Hillary hater until I read her emails" and other similar pieces describe the experience of actually looking into the details and not finding the devil after all.
3
Likewise I found nothing in the leaks to be surprising or offensive, but then, I've seen political sausage being made up close before.
What bothers me is that the public is so willing to judge Hillary and the DNC on the benign content of these emails without the ability to compare them to the RNC, Trump, or even Bernie campaigns - which I have every reason to believe would be the same, or in Trump's case, much worse. As usual, it's not a level playing field for HRC, and she is once again under a microscope reserved for a woman running for higher office.
What bothers me is that the public is so willing to judge Hillary and the DNC on the benign content of these emails without the ability to compare them to the RNC, Trump, or even Bernie campaigns - which I have every reason to believe would be the same, or in Trump's case, much worse. As usual, it's not a level playing field for HRC, and she is once again under a microscope reserved for a woman running for higher office.
7
Tom, you've got it all wrong!
We need to build a wall around America (even the coastlines).
We need to create good paying jobs for white men--a national deportation force to round up and deport non-white Christians.
We need to end all trade with other countries.
We need to stop immigration; stop all travel into and out of the US.
We need to have a national stop-and-frisk policy and build more prisons.
We need a test of citizenship and identity proof to determine who can vote.
We need a new amendment to the Constitution that restricts Supreme Court appointments to right-wing Republican ideologues who recognize that money is speech, corporations are people, English is the national language and only Christians can serve in government.
This is the only way to make America great again.
And when that happens it will be time for all sane Americans to escape from this Republican version of utopia.
We need to build a wall around America (even the coastlines).
We need to create good paying jobs for white men--a national deportation force to round up and deport non-white Christians.
We need to end all trade with other countries.
We need to stop immigration; stop all travel into and out of the US.
We need to have a national stop-and-frisk policy and build more prisons.
We need a test of citizenship and identity proof to determine who can vote.
We need a new amendment to the Constitution that restricts Supreme Court appointments to right-wing Republican ideologues who recognize that money is speech, corporations are people, English is the national language and only Christians can serve in government.
This is the only way to make America great again.
And when that happens it will be time for all sane Americans to escape from this Republican version of utopia.
7
Well said. Sometimes a little humor highlights the effect of Republican policies
Except this is not nearly close to what anyone is arguing.
And many are already researching where to go!
I'll tell you something I find interesting about Wikileaks. A few nights ago, I posted a joke at the Guardian asking who would fund wikileaks now that it is seen by some as a partisan website (because literally half the stories on the homepage are about the Clinton campaign and there's also an offer to pay $20,000 to anyone who can provide damaging info about Jeremy Corbyn - the liberal leader of the Labor Party in the UK.) My comment was maybe the 1100th post and few people were commenting at that point.
Here's the thing, though. In less than five minutes, I received six replies refuting my suggestion that liberals would no longer be willing to fund such a partisan website. Six replies in five minutes on a nearly dead story! And all of the replies followed the same recipe: a putdown followed by "evidence" that the left is even worse.
For those of you who don't know, that is also the MO of the kremlin-paid brigade of propagandists know as the "Putinbots". And the replies I received tell me all I need to know about just who is currently funding Wikileaks. And it ain't us liberals.
Here's the thing, though. In less than five minutes, I received six replies refuting my suggestion that liberals would no longer be willing to fund such a partisan website. Six replies in five minutes on a nearly dead story! And all of the replies followed the same recipe: a putdown followed by "evidence" that the left is even worse.
For those of you who don't know, that is also the MO of the kremlin-paid brigade of propagandists know as the "Putinbots". And the replies I received tell me all I need to know about just who is currently funding Wikileaks. And it ain't us liberals.
5
Good work, only the 20,000 (pounds, not dollars) is "for information on how the Labour Party's top officials have attempted to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming and staying on as leader."
I agree with Friedman 100%. It's unfortunate Hillary believes she had to pretend (not very convincingly) to be a raging populist to appeal to the Bernie Sanders/socialist wing of the Democratic Party. I prefer the real Hillary and hope that's how she'll govern.
3
Rest assured that she will sell out and betray every single progressive she can sucker into voting for her, just as Obama did.
Julian Assange is trying to decide who will be the President of the United States. Outrageous. And yet journalists seem to glide right by that ugly fact. Why? What about Assange's motivations? Is this payback for a failed blackmail attempt on the Obama Administration to drop its extradition request? Why are our U.S. journalists not exploring this?
By the way, I bet it is thanks to our US diplomats that Ecuador -- normally no friend of the US -- has shut down ASsange's internet access in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Sad day when the Ecuadorians do more to protect our electoral integrity than our journalists.
By the way, I bet it is thanks to our US diplomats that Ecuador -- normally no friend of the US -- has shut down ASsange's internet access in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Sad day when the Ecuadorians do more to protect our electoral integrity than our journalists.
2
Interesting that a "center-left politician" gets invited at Goldman-Sachs (paid hundreds of thousands), and that we don't exactly hear that they ever invited Trump to speak.
2
Why would you imagine they'd want to hear Trump speak? These are generally intelligent people; they want to listen to inspiring self-made success stories. There's nothing inspiring or intelligent about the wealthy heir Trump - they might just as well invite Paris Hilton to speak.
1
to Eshebang: Secretary Clinton was invited to speak at Goldman-Sachs because she actually has something to say. She has a 30 year history of involvement in economic and social issues that she has been fighting for. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has nothing to contribute. He has no platform, no understanding of economic or social issues and does not care to know. What would Mr. Trump say "I'm going to make Goldman-Sachs great again"! Do you really believe a highly respected investment firm would invite Mr. Trump to speak? Goldman-Sachs wanted to hear serious policy not bluster.
1
Why on earth would they invite Trump? He doesn't know anything except how to borrow money and not pay it back. He has no policy ideas at all. What he spouts at his rallies are poll-tested one-liners that he knows will rile up his base. Then he can stand there and lap up the adoring shouts of "Trump, Trump, Trump". If you disagree with me, can you show me one speech that he has given where he lays out a fully-fleshed out policy position on anything? Even "build a wall and get the Mexicans to pay for it" doesn't seem to have been thought through and I think that may have been his first and most often repeated idea.
1
I strongly agree and would add the following. Without assigning blame or trying to explain the process the essential problem in our two party political system is unchecked extremism which has pushed the parties apart to the point of governing paralysis.
Voters need to come to understand that as long as we have two political parties extreme positions on either the right or left will be blocked by the other side and not pass into law. Getting angry and taking increasingly extreme positions is therefore self-defeating. The path back to a functioning government is the one toward the election of relative moderates both on the right and the left. We need two parties that are far enough apart to offer voters meaningful choice while at the same time close enough to allow for compromise.
Among all the presidential candidates, on both sides, Hillary (with the possible exception of John Kasich) is the only moderate. As such I believe she has the opportunity to take what might be the most important and presidential position of our time. I would like to see Hillary do the following. From a strong center left position explain why government, including her administration, will not work from extreme positions. Explain the importance of an effective Republican Party and make a passionate call for voters to reject extremism and vote for moderates. Promise to be a president for everyone.
Voters need to come to understand that as long as we have two political parties extreme positions on either the right or left will be blocked by the other side and not pass into law. Getting angry and taking increasingly extreme positions is therefore self-defeating. The path back to a functioning government is the one toward the election of relative moderates both on the right and the left. We need two parties that are far enough apart to offer voters meaningful choice while at the same time close enough to allow for compromise.
Among all the presidential candidates, on both sides, Hillary (with the possible exception of John Kasich) is the only moderate. As such I believe she has the opportunity to take what might be the most important and presidential position of our time. I would like to see Hillary do the following. From a strong center left position explain why government, including her administration, will not work from extreme positions. Explain the importance of an effective Republican Party and make a passionate call for voters to reject extremism and vote for moderates. Promise to be a president for everyone.
11
Only the most liberal Democrats can believe that Hillary Clinton is a right-wing corporatist who stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Any fair reading of leaked e-mails from the DNC and John Podesta can only serve to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton is a left-center, policy-oriented, pragmatist, who defeated Sander (and will defeat Donald Trump) because she genuinely represents the moderate views of the vast majority of the public. The presidency will be in good hands under a Clinton Administration, and the U.S. will be better off under her leadership than under any other candidate this election cycle.
99
Really, I read those speaches and say yes of course. I thought those were progressive stances. They were when I was young and idealistic. She pragmatic, but for people. She understands coporations need to be restrained, not just for us the people, but from their worst selves. I suspected as much, so I prefered her over my other favorite Bernie.
12
Center-left politician? How about center-right? Give her credit for investing time, energy, and political capital on women's rights, children's rights and civil rights over many years. (Except for her support until recently for draconian sentencing laws as the Clintons wanted to show they weren't soft on 'crime'.) Otherwise, on progressive center-left economic issues HRC has been either absent/silent or issuing a perfunctory statement with an absence of any follow-up activity or involvement.
Regarding trade Friedman states that the 'minority' (read millions) injured need to be 'compensated and better protected'...'fixing a problem' and moves on. Where are the specifics, where are the details? It seems that both Mr. Friedman and HRC make the perfunctory rhetorical bow on this issue but that it is not an issue that they are deeply invested in. This reminds one of the 'immigration' issue. When the last 'amnesty' law was passed more than 25 years ago there were the usual perfunctory promises that illegal immigration had also been deal with, which turned out to be utterly false. . It was only when this became a deal breaker -show us effective action first- that effective steps were taken to reduce illegal immigration. In regard to TPP and similar measures, we need to see effective, functioning, well funded job retraining programs in place and working before a TPP is passed. Otherwise, as Yogi Berra might have said , it's deja vu all all over again.
Regarding trade Friedman states that the 'minority' (read millions) injured need to be 'compensated and better protected'...'fixing a problem' and moves on. Where are the specifics, where are the details? It seems that both Mr. Friedman and HRC make the perfunctory rhetorical bow on this issue but that it is not an issue that they are deeply invested in. This reminds one of the 'immigration' issue. When the last 'amnesty' law was passed more than 25 years ago there were the usual perfunctory promises that illegal immigration had also been deal with, which turned out to be utterly false. . It was only when this became a deal breaker -show us effective action first- that effective steps were taken to reduce illegal immigration. In regard to TPP and similar measures, we need to see effective, functioning, well funded job retraining programs in place and working before a TPP is passed. Otherwise, as Yogi Berra might have said , it's deja vu all all over again.
5
Yes, "getting things done" means continuing the policies of the previous President Clinton that: (a) created the financialization of the American economy, (b) ended the separation of investment and commercial banking, effectively deregulated, the derivatives "market," (c) enabled banksters to defraud millions through false ratings of "securities," the creation of NINJA mortgages and false, automated foreclosures, and (d) opened the US economy to low-wage competition from China for the benefit of multinational corporations, (e) etc.
Unfortunately, the only alternative is a "man" with manhood issues, i.e., with an uncontrolled adolescent personality bordering on sociopathology, who only can blow his own Trumpet.
Blllary for POTUS - by default.
Unfortunately, the only alternative is a "man" with manhood issues, i.e., with an uncontrolled adolescent personality bordering on sociopathology, who only can blow his own Trumpet.
Blllary for POTUS - by default.
2
A Bill Clinton veto of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that ended Glass-Steagall would have been overridden.
Dollar Bill Phil Gramm and his wife, Wendy, deregulated the economy, resulting in the financial and securities fraud and the crash.
Dollar Bill Phil Gramm and his wife, Wendy, deregulated the economy, resulting in the financial and securities fraud and the crash.
I agree with Mr. Friedman; I wish WikiHillary had campaigned openly for free trade, open borders, cutting Social Security and Medicare a la Simpson-Bowles, and a carbon tax. That would have defused all the criticism about her being untrustworthy and dishonest, and Democratic Primary voters would have been better informed. (Bernie Sanders also would have defeated her.)
Instead, we ended up buying a car that was advertised as being fast and fuel efficient, but ended up owning a low-powered fuel hog.
Instead, we ended up buying a car that was advertised as being fast and fuel efficient, but ended up owning a low-powered fuel hog.
2
Every American should be concerned that our privacy is evaporating. Whoever does the hacking for whatever reason is a threat to free speech.
If we reach a point where candid words cannot be uttered, or distorted for dubious ends, then what?
If we reach a point where candid words cannot be uttered, or distorted for dubious ends, then what?
I’m just sorry that campaign Hillary felt she could not speak like WikiHillary to build a proper mandate for President Hillary. She would have gained respect for daring to speak the truth to her own constituency — and demonstrating leadership — not lost votes.
This unfortunate comment completely misses what Hillary DID accomplish: caving into the false quid pro quo challenge by trump and disingenuous republican leadership that the content of Hillary's speeches is an even exchange for trump's releasing his tax returns.
On this she is absolutely successful, tax returns surfaced and now the content of the speeches are coming out and in that order.
What's not to like? Not to mention it shows control and leadership of the degree of skill and integrity befitting the job of POTUS.
I for one am completely satisfied.
What I want to see next is putting Rice, Powell et al. who all had their own servers and advised Hillary to take the same hit that has been served up to Hillary. Not going to happen? Well then shut up about Hillary too, you two faced, cheating, bullying democracy bashing liars supporting a singularly unfit presidential candidate.
This unfortunate comment completely misses what Hillary DID accomplish: caving into the false quid pro quo challenge by trump and disingenuous republican leadership that the content of Hillary's speeches is an even exchange for trump's releasing his tax returns.
On this she is absolutely successful, tax returns surfaced and now the content of the speeches are coming out and in that order.
What's not to like? Not to mention it shows control and leadership of the degree of skill and integrity befitting the job of POTUS.
I for one am completely satisfied.
What I want to see next is putting Rice, Powell et al. who all had their own servers and advised Hillary to take the same hit that has been served up to Hillary. Not going to happen? Well then shut up about Hillary too, you two faced, cheating, bullying democracy bashing liars supporting a singularly unfit presidential candidate.
3
Thank you for validating my impression! I spent the better part of Saturday reading the material and kept on saying to myself how great the speeches were and how I wish more people would read them. I also was thinking what a stark contrast to her opponent who cannot put two coherent sentences together to explain his position or plan on anything. November 8th cannot come soon enough.
4
There is Zero proof that Russia had anything to do with the hack of Clintons Campaign Managers email. Assange does not personally hack anything, nor does Wikileaks. I prefer to judge someone by what they have done while holding power, such as destroying Libya, (all Hillary). Buddying up with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and more. Unfortunately she will be the next President and will probably blame the Russians and Assad for the coming sharp downturn in the U.S. economy. One thing certain though, the Clintons will continue to enrich themselves as guests of the U.S., just about anyway they can.
5
Bless you, Thomas Friedman, for bringing to light HRC's on the record WikiLeaks comments. Though the sentences themselves are not unduly complex they do show a Presidential candidate able to express herself in a clear-visioned, Presidential way. Diagram a Trump sentence, easy to do, and you don't get much, usually and repeatedly, an adjective followed by a proper noun, i.e., "Crooked Hillary'. Or, adverb, followed by another adverb, followed by an adjective followed by a noun, i.e., "...a really, really amazing person…". Admittedly, Trump does excel when spewing insults. But even these are not well-crafted due to their utter baselessness in fact. You may not agree, but Clinton puts on the table thought provoking ideas well-expressed. Trump, however, seeks to provoke his willfully uninformed base through mean-spirited invective and vengeful hyperbole having little resemblance to the facts.
3
Thanks for the sanity, Tom. The day of the leak, the WPost published the full paragraph including "with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." The NYTimes did not and I was furious about it. With a leading headline, it pointed out the potential problem the leak could cause for HRC and only published the part of the sentence that was likely to create reaction.
It is unfortunate that she doesn't come right out and stand clearly for her vision, but it's also understandable, since everything she says is twisted and edited for more clicks.
It is unfortunate that she doesn't come right out and stand clearly for her vision, but it's also understandable, since everything she says is twisted and edited for more clicks.
9
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..." - Hillary Rodham Clinton
No doubt Friedman wants such a candidate. No doubt Friedman wants to eradicate the borders of the United States and see to it that the majority of Americans are on par with the citizens of Latin America. The little people of the United States need to be shown our place.
I too wish that Hillary were being honest in this campaign. I wish she would just say it plainly: "I'm with Tommy Friedman and the billionaire class!" "We're Globalists and we're proud!" "Our bread's buttered in Brussels!"
Yeah Thomas. I wish she would say it too. I just wonder why, if she disagrees with the very idea of America so much, why is she running for president?
And by the way, Friedman's economic ideas have proved a failure for this country in it's current form. His columns aren't worth reading.
No doubt Friedman wants such a candidate. No doubt Friedman wants to eradicate the borders of the United States and see to it that the majority of Americans are on par with the citizens of Latin America. The little people of the United States need to be shown our place.
I too wish that Hillary were being honest in this campaign. I wish she would just say it plainly: "I'm with Tommy Friedman and the billionaire class!" "We're Globalists and we're proud!" "Our bread's buttered in Brussels!"
Yeah Thomas. I wish she would say it too. I just wonder why, if she disagrees with the very idea of America so much, why is she running for president?
And by the way, Friedman's economic ideas have proved a failure for this country in it's current form. His columns aren't worth reading.
9
I find it equally puzzling that so many are against the notion that a president of a country should foremost be the protector of that country and the economic well-being of all its citizens. Imagine you witnessed a father or mother with 10 hungry children at home go feed the neighbors kids first. You'd report them for child abuse and neglect.
1
If South America is so bad why are people like the Bush family and corporations like Nestle buying up huge properties there? Are you aware how many people who can afford to are leaving the US? A surprising number of Times commenters live in France, Austria, the Netherlands Germany, Sweden, Canada and Australia and even third world countries.
Anyone who can afford it should travel outside the US. We are not so perfect and better than other countries as we like to think. I remember when the Iron Curtain first fell how many adventurous young people moved to Prague, Krakow, and even Russia. There are many Americans living in China and loving it. My goddaughter and her husband would still be in China if he hadn't gotten a higher paying job in the US but would still move abroad at a moments notice if a good offer came along. Americans of Polish descent have moved from Chicago and Detroit and Milwaukie to beautiful cities like Krakow and the mountain resort towns, taking their money with them. I know three couples who live part of every year in Argentina because it is beautiful and relatively inexpensive outside of the major cities. Only the most inexperienced think the US is the only place to be!
Anyone who can afford it should travel outside the US. We are not so perfect and better than other countries as we like to think. I remember when the Iron Curtain first fell how many adventurous young people moved to Prague, Krakow, and even Russia. There are many Americans living in China and loving it. My goddaughter and her husband would still be in China if he hadn't gotten a higher paying job in the US but would still move abroad at a moments notice if a good offer came along. Americans of Polish descent have moved from Chicago and Detroit and Milwaukie to beautiful cities like Krakow and the mountain resort towns, taking their money with them. I know three couples who live part of every year in Argentina because it is beautiful and relatively inexpensive outside of the major cities. Only the most inexperienced think the US is the only place to be!
Trade barriers undermine economic growth in all countries. The fact that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (willfully) ignore the Law of Comparative Advantage tells me all I have to know about pandering politicians.
3
Mrs Clinton is quoted as wanting " a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..... ". The USA has 324 million residents currently. And gains almost 3 million more each year, under a current system of allowing 1 million legal immigrants to move here. As the British discovered with the rules of free movement within the European Union, everyone will want to come to the highest standard of living country. Her " open borders " idea would easily mean a doubling to 2 million every year arriving here legally. And our population will go to 400 million and 500 million a lot sooner. It would be more overcrowded than presently, and millions more acres of natural land would be paved over. It may be her dream, but it would be a disaster.
4
It's true our largest cities are overcrowded as millenials and others have chosen to forgo the green lawns of suburbia for smaller spaces close-in to a large population area. But the US has hundreds of small and medium size cities with decent infrastructure that are rapidly dying. Beautiful, large homes in still great neighborhoods can be had for under $150,000 in cities like Schenectady, NY and Springfield, MA as well as many smaller cities all across the country. Many of these places have beautiful historic buildings and wonderful public spaces and amenities. We have no shortage of already developed space.
I don't claim to know how to disperse employment opportunities more widely, but I'd love to see these cities come back to life.
I don't claim to know how to disperse employment opportunities more widely, but I'd love to see these cities come back to life.
It is a sad state of things when almost all American adults have never taken a macro economics class, including apparently the Republican candidate, and so do not understand Riccardo's Law and the concept of comparative advantage in trade. Instead they think in what is essentially 17th century mercantilist concepts of economics in which the world economy is a zero sum game of "us against them."
12
Trade theory goes far beyond Roccardian theory. In fact, a large industrial economy that enjoys economies of scale, and conseqeuently becomes a center of international real capital investment, can and has effectively forced the peripheral economies like those of latin America to be suppliers of resources the the center. The large land holding class of the periperal economies seek the static comparative advantage of resources. This leads to under developed economies. It is hard to overcome these problems, and in effect the center or core industrial economies get vast majority of the benefits of trade, while the peripherals stagnate and fall behind, with the small benefit going to resource holders, who then move their financial capital to the industrial core.
Too often trade agreements are blamed for all of our economic ills, unemployment in particular, without any discussion of what should be changed. Just scrapping the agreements could be devastating to the world economy, and, like it or not, we are part of and effected by the world economy. HRC is not a populist spouting slogans. As Mr. Friedman points out, this is a good thing.
5
Even without WikiLeaks, I have always thought Clinton had the best policies hidden somewhere but because they have both elements of Conservative and Progressive ideas and would be considered to "wonky" for people, she would never be able to articulate them fully in public. Unfortunately a large part of American voters just can't pay attention to the details and prefer catch phrases like "Make American Great Again".
Conservatives should take heart from the WikiLeaks that if Clinton is President, they could work with her. Of course that would take a willingness to compromise. But instead of seeing a chance to participate in good governance, all the Republicans they can think about is the Supreme Court.
For the Republicans, ideology "Trumps" the economic well being of the people of this country.
Conservatives should take heart from the WikiLeaks that if Clinton is President, they could work with her. Of course that would take a willingness to compromise. But instead of seeing a chance to participate in good governance, all the Republicans they can think about is the Supreme Court.
For the Republicans, ideology "Trumps" the economic well being of the people of this country.
18
Well said, as always. I couldn't agree with you more. So sad that this election has gone so astray diverting away from actual issues at stake for the country. I am hopeful that beginning in January, our Madam President will be able to lead us on the long way back to improved prosperity, peace and productivity. I sincerely hope that whatever the eventual makeup of Congress is, they realize that they indeed work for us, the people who elected them, and act appropriately to move our great nation forward!
18
Remember when the economy of New England was built on textile mills? How about when Indiana and Michigan were the heart of the steel and auto parts world and southern Illinois a major oil producer? When the Pacific coast was all about forestry, lumber mills, fishing and mining? When 80% of Americans lived on farms? When tobacco farming was a mainstay of Appalachia and Mid Atlantic? When 80% of Americans lived on farms? When a billboard said, "will the last person leaving Seattle please turn out the lights?"
Things change. The US has become a world leader in biotechnology, medical equipment, robotics, aerospace, electric cars, advanced batteries, enterprise and personal software and hardware, e-commerce and a whole lot more. We don't make everything here anymore but we manage the financing, design, development, distribution and servicing of a big part of the expanding global economy. GM early on became the largest car manufacturer in China, GE in power generation. And we have some stiff competition from Asia, Europe and elsewhere.
Our economy currently faces labor shortages ranging from agriculture, construction, maintenance and repair and advanced manufacturing to health care workers, teachers, engineers, pilots and more.
Sometimes, it looks more like the Wild West and new rules are needed to curb predatory behavior that harms workers, savers, investors, consumers and the environment. In many cases, states are ahead of the Federal government.
Things change. The US has become a world leader in biotechnology, medical equipment, robotics, aerospace, electric cars, advanced batteries, enterprise and personal software and hardware, e-commerce and a whole lot more. We don't make everything here anymore but we manage the financing, design, development, distribution and servicing of a big part of the expanding global economy. GM early on became the largest car manufacturer in China, GE in power generation. And we have some stiff competition from Asia, Europe and elsewhere.
Our economy currently faces labor shortages ranging from agriculture, construction, maintenance and repair and advanced manufacturing to health care workers, teachers, engineers, pilots and more.
Sometimes, it looks more like the Wild West and new rules are needed to curb predatory behavior that harms workers, savers, investors, consumers and the environment. In many cases, states are ahead of the Federal government.
16
I remember in the 1970's and 80's when people were saying when the last person leaves Buffalo, NY - Scranton, PA - Flint, MI - Saginaw, MI - Detroit, MI - Anywhere, MI please turnout the lights. Just look how far we have come from those dark days.
I too agree that Hillary will make a good president. She has a wealth of knowledge and experience. I am not convinced that globalisation is the path to pursue in it's purest forms.
2
Is there any fault of Clinton that cannot be contorted by her supposedly rational supporters into either a virtue or flippantly shrugged off as "realpolitik"? Once she's in office and plagued by the inevitable scandals stemming from the venal shadow government she'll install, will their responses still be so disingenuous? How long will the blinders have to remain on before they admit they've been had?
2
I"m puzzled as well.
"...unleashing America’s business class to create the growth required to sustain social programs." The underlying premise of this statement is absurd. We have experienced the results of the Clinton "unleashing" and unconstrained neoliberal policies since the first Clinton administration. More of the same as you advocate and as are implied by a careful reading of the Clinton presentations to the financial services industry will postpone the ultimate denoument of these policies. This is not to imply any advocacy of the dogma-driven economic policies and disaster of the Bush administration but to state the opinion that from an economic policy standpoint the ONLY reason to vote for a Clinton administration is that she is NOT Donald Trump.
1
Granted, Putin has uncovered.....a leader that has a plan for the future that will provide growth and prosperity around the world with America in the lead. Putin and the Chinese don't like what the leaked transcripts exposed. Ambitious trade, free discourse and travel, and an end to hydrocarbon addiction do not fit into the Russian or Chinese leaders want. They want an incompetent hustler who they can manipulate. Russians want to torment the EU with oil and gas cut-off threats, with blackmail. Chinese want to control manufacturing in the Pacific and East Asia. Trump is probably not an agent of Russia and China. He may be stupid.
5
Yes, I agree. It would have been nice if Hillary showed her "WikiHillary" during the campaign. Unfortunately, the American people are too "reality TV" oriented, too celebrity, too image focused to make this a winning campaign strategy.
And yes, Hillary will be that smart, pragmatic, center-left politician/president that we so sorely need. Now, in the next two weeks we need to mobilize those voters in the "down ballot" elections to ensure legislative progress.
And yes, Hillary will be that smart, pragmatic, center-left politician/president that we so sorely need. Now, in the next two weeks we need to mobilize those voters in the "down ballot" elections to ensure legislative progress.
24
As the breathless headlines blare "leak" and "secret" and EMAILS (!!!), I too have taken the time to parse the content of the emails. As a center-right independent (these days), I can only applaud Mrs. Clinton's process. Of course she wanted to best Bernie Sanders in the primaries, and why would a campaign not want to discuss how to do that? Am I happy with every jot and tittle of her policies? Of course not, but as one who had a career in corporate America, I know well that one never gets the whole pie, and that the interests of all of the stakeholders in an enterprise need to be respected (note to self-righteous left). People who stand on the purity of their principles never get anything done.
Far from suggesting a scandal, these emails illustrate a person with whom I feel I could work effectively, hammering out policy that would respect her most important priorities and mine as well.
Consider the alternative...
Far from suggesting a scandal, these emails illustrate a person with whom I feel I could work effectively, hammering out policy that would respect her most important priorities and mine as well.
Consider the alternative...
35
She will have to have a detailed plan for how she is going to redouble efforts to protect the people from the job losses and lowered wages of free trade, and prevent the wall street fiasco of 2008 with relaxation of regulations. If we had a better candidate than repugnant, unstable, ignorant and arrogant Trump (the latter precluding overcoming ignorance), we'd vote for a change, so we will have to hope that Hilary is taking the populist movements of Sanders/Trump seriously, and keep the pressure on her for this, or wait out her 4 years and do a better job at grooming a candidate for the prosperity of all the classes.
3
The alternative is to reject that more of the same. Hope is not a plan. WikiHillary and the delighted neocon globalist flat-worlder Friedman make this stark.
Instead, just take the hit. We know these four years will be bad. We've already made that mistake.
Instead, force the Democrats to rebuild themselves as not-Hillary, and force the Republicans to recreate themselves entirely post-Trump.
That sounds harsh, but it is not. We are going to get hit. We can't avoid it. We can take it well, or take it badly. Looking to the future is the only choice we've got now.
Instead, just take the hit. We know these four years will be bad. We've already made that mistake.
Instead, force the Democrats to rebuild themselves as not-Hillary, and force the Republicans to recreate themselves entirely post-Trump.
That sounds harsh, but it is not. We are going to get hit. We can't avoid it. We can take it well, or take it badly. Looking to the future is the only choice we've got now.
1
In the same way it took a communist-under-every-bed Nixon to open up relations with China, perhaps it will take a big money, Wall Street-friendly HRC to enact true consumer protections, reform the corporate tax code, and overturn Citizens United. I am most definitely with her!
9
When I read WikiHillary, I hear what passes for a moderate Republican.
She buys into federal deficit fear-mongering, nevermind that the federal gov't is a fiat money sovereign that could mind a $10T coin tomorrow to pay off the debt (not that anyone with any sense would actually WANT it to pay off the federal debt).
She buys into the notion that the welfare state is too generous, nevermind that we have horrendous poverty and inequality in this country. We've got trillions for war but nothing for the poor.
She buys into free trade, nevermind that the comparative advantage of our trading partners is exploited labor and global environmental degradation.
She buys into regulation-bashing, nevermind that regulations are our only defense against the socialization of risks and costs by businesses and the powerful.
I get why Hillary didn't release her speeches - Democrats would have asked her why she was running in the Democratic party primary!
She buys into federal deficit fear-mongering, nevermind that the federal gov't is a fiat money sovereign that could mind a $10T coin tomorrow to pay off the debt (not that anyone with any sense would actually WANT it to pay off the federal debt).
She buys into the notion that the welfare state is too generous, nevermind that we have horrendous poverty and inequality in this country. We've got trillions for war but nothing for the poor.
She buys into free trade, nevermind that the comparative advantage of our trading partners is exploited labor and global environmental degradation.
She buys into regulation-bashing, nevermind that regulations are our only defense against the socialization of risks and costs by businesses and the powerful.
I get why Hillary didn't release her speeches - Democrats would have asked her why she was running in the Democratic party primary!
8
If you read what she said with a tad more objectivity, and a little less of a rabidly partisan stance, you would see that she is articulating a vision for a future in which these problems with globalization have been addressed. She is not talking about what the current state is. Tom Friedman is spot on about this tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water.
"Do we need to make adjustments so the minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor is compensated and better protected? You bet we do. That’s called fixing a problem"
Yes, well after it was broken. That is the real problem, government has blithely pressed on with the neoliberal globalization agenda without seriously thinking ahead to the consequences we are now suffering. Doubling down on this agenda is not going to help.
Yes, well after it was broken. That is the real problem, government has blithely pressed on with the neoliberal globalization agenda without seriously thinking ahead to the consequences we are now suffering. Doubling down on this agenda is not going to help.
3
The United Auto Worker Union had priced itself out of the market well before NAFTA . That is what really gave the Japanese auto companies a chance in the American markets starting in the late 60s and especially in the 70's and thru the 80's. It cost the big three something like $1200 per vehicle more to produce an auto than the per unit cost than the Asian companies due to labor cost. And that metric was writ in other industries as well. NAFTA was actually a symptom, not a cause. Know your economic history before you speak.
http://www.epi.org/publication/the-decline-and-resurgence-of-the-u-s-aut...
read here:
"The UAW (in recent history) has also played a constructive role in ensuring the financial viability of the Big Three.
For example, the union agreed to a lower entry wage in 2007 of $14.20 (approximately 60 percent of the regular production starting hourly wage) for up to 20 percent of the workforce; after this threshold was reached, workers would receive the higher regular wage.
http://www.epi.org/publication/the-decline-and-resurgence-of-the-u-s-aut...
read here:
"The UAW (in recent history) has also played a constructive role in ensuring the financial viability of the Big Three.
For example, the union agreed to a lower entry wage in 2007 of $14.20 (approximately 60 percent of the regular production starting hourly wage) for up to 20 percent of the workforce; after this threshold was reached, workers would receive the higher regular wage.
This statement: 'Do we need to make adjustments so the minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor is compensated and better protected? You bet we do.'
Is in conflict with Simpson Bowles and entitlement reform.
And that's putting aside that Simpson Bowles officially recommended exactly nothing since Ryan and other Republicans refused to go along with anything calling for higher taxes.
Happy to see praise for Hillary from the MSM. But looking for more support for the economically left behind doesn't gel with cutting benefits and reducing spending.
Is in conflict with Simpson Bowles and entitlement reform.
And that's putting aside that Simpson Bowles officially recommended exactly nothing since Ryan and other Republicans refused to go along with anything calling for higher taxes.
Happy to see praise for Hillary from the MSM. But looking for more support for the economically left behind doesn't gel with cutting benefits and reducing spending.
4
Only a very few, well-educated thoughtful people have actually read the stolen campaign e-mails or the speeches to various Wall Street firms and that group does not include the majority of the public or even the reporters who grab a few words -- a sound bite -- and make that appear to be the "point" of the entire message.
We are a dumbed down nation and becoming dumber each day -- making ourselves incapable of attention to detail, following a process, thinking logically, paying attention etc. and that's why the GOP has been able to brainwash a segment of the populace to the point that they fall for a con man like Trump with his lies, bluster, bullying, and total nonsensical comments.
It's a sad day in America.
HRC is the best candidate which has been obvious from day one and the fact that many people are incapable of seeing that and acknowledging it and are pretending that the sideshow which will happen tonight is anything other than another cheap reality show featuring a scary clown is further proof of how far we are from being an intelligent people deserving of s democracy.
We are a dumbed down nation and becoming dumber each day -- making ourselves incapable of attention to detail, following a process, thinking logically, paying attention etc. and that's why the GOP has been able to brainwash a segment of the populace to the point that they fall for a con man like Trump with his lies, bluster, bullying, and total nonsensical comments.
It's a sad day in America.
HRC is the best candidate which has been obvious from day one and the fact that many people are incapable of seeing that and acknowledging it and are pretending that the sideshow which will happen tonight is anything other than another cheap reality show featuring a scary clown is further proof of how far we are from being an intelligent people deserving of s democracy.
49
Now that the gist of the Hillary speeches are out in public, will we finally see Trump's tax returns?
Paid for speeches to corporate groups are usually formulaic. Insights tailored to the group that are common knowledge to specialists but not to non-specialists, encomiums tailored to the group coupled with challenges for the future, and generalizations. If a company wants specific help, they hire the person as a consultant or lobbyist. Or put them on the board ( but only if management has them under control). Someone of Sec. Clinton's stature is not going to spill any beans or come up with company specific advice in a speech.
The demand for the speech transcripts was always just a political game. The speeches would provide some political fodder, especially for parts taken out of context. But smoking guns, no.
But the demand for Trump's tax returns is more than a political game. There are serious questions about his international and domestic business transactions. The tax returns, at a minimum, would disclose the scope of his potential for conflicts of interest. Let's at least see the appropriate schedules.
Paid for speeches to corporate groups are usually formulaic. Insights tailored to the group that are common knowledge to specialists but not to non-specialists, encomiums tailored to the group coupled with challenges for the future, and generalizations. If a company wants specific help, they hire the person as a consultant or lobbyist. Or put them on the board ( but only if management has them under control). Someone of Sec. Clinton's stature is not going to spill any beans or come up with company specific advice in a speech.
The demand for the speech transcripts was always just a political game. The speeches would provide some political fodder, especially for parts taken out of context. But smoking guns, no.
But the demand for Trump's tax returns is more than a political game. There are serious questions about his international and domestic business transactions. The tax returns, at a minimum, would disclose the scope of his potential for conflicts of interest. Let's at least see the appropriate schedules.
135
Rita, you do have to wonder why Putin didn't order that Trump's tax returns/financial records be hacked too.
WHERE ARE trumps TAX RETURNS?????????????
Why can't they be "leaked"?
Why can't they be "leaked"?
Cushion workers from the downsides?
Okay for a start. What we really need though is to tilt the playing field back to workers and away from capital, and I certainly don't see that in any of her remarks to bankers and such. What we need to do is throw over the system that put all the gains from trade into the hands of the one percent for the last thirty years. Hillary is basically a continuation of Reagan-Clinton conservatism with some tweaks to ensure that this time she wins the election. This approach has done no favors to the middle and working class in this country and it is a shame that voters don't have a better alternative.
Okay for a start. What we really need though is to tilt the playing field back to workers and away from capital, and I certainly don't see that in any of her remarks to bankers and such. What we need to do is throw over the system that put all the gains from trade into the hands of the one percent for the last thirty years. Hillary is basically a continuation of Reagan-Clinton conservatism with some tweaks to ensure that this time she wins the election. This approach has done no favors to the middle and working class in this country and it is a shame that voters don't have a better alternative.
Thomas, presidents aren't monarchs! They can't do much without a decent congress behind them. Give Clinton a super-majority Dem Congress, and you'll find out where she stands. Until then, she has to move to where she can WIN most voters in an election -- and most voters aren't progressive. Losers get NO power in our system, so that strategy makes perfect sense to pragmatic progressives like me. Was I happy that Bill had to move eight to win? No, but I was darn glad he won, and not HW or Dole, who would have been way further right. Clinton managed to moderate some of the worst GOP decisions.
Compromise and pragmatism are dirty words that may only be uttered behind closed doors in this political environment. Hence, Hillary's unwillingness to share the speeches publicly. But that is exactly what we need, now more so than ever. I hope she can succeed where others have failed and lead us out of this morass.
8
Like or not we are tied into a system that needs government intrusion to make it work for everyone. On its own it will destroy itself and us with it. Radical actions like those Trump has proposed will do the same, just think of all the Americans with 401K retirement accounts who will see their savings crash when Trump tries to end global trade agreements. And that could lead to a major collapse of the economy so even those with nothing saved would be devastated.
3
Free trade is catching it from both sides right now. The Bernie people and the Trump people are both against it.
But that's largely because it's being blamed for the accumulation of wealth at the top of the economic distribution. If profits were shared more equitably, more people would be happy with freer trade.
But that's largely because it's being blamed for the accumulation of wealth at the top of the economic distribution. If profits were shared more equitably, more people would be happy with freer trade.
6
Politicians pander and leaders lead. It is probably impractical to expect a candidate for a 1st term to not be more of a politician. I agree the speeches give hope for more.
To my fellow Republicans: Trade, immigration, and a realistic longterm budget plan is far more consistent with the Republicanism of Ford/Reagan/Kemp or any Bush than is Trumpism. I would hope that Clinton's technocratic love of bureaucracy will be tempered (and only sometimes obstructed) by a Republican Congress.
To Sanderistas: I don't think anything in the speeches actually contradicts what Clinton has said about her policies and her goals. While I am relieved that she does not demonize bankers and trade, she still shares much of your skepticism, much of your approach, and all of your goals. If my party recovers some sanity, I am likely to stay a Republican, but she is your champion.
To my fellow Republicans: Trade, immigration, and a realistic longterm budget plan is far more consistent with the Republicanism of Ford/Reagan/Kemp or any Bush than is Trumpism. I would hope that Clinton's technocratic love of bureaucracy will be tempered (and only sometimes obstructed) by a Republican Congress.
To Sanderistas: I don't think anything in the speeches actually contradicts what Clinton has said about her policies and her goals. While I am relieved that she does not demonize bankers and trade, she still shares much of your skepticism, much of your approach, and all of your goals. If my party recovers some sanity, I am likely to stay a Republican, but she is your champion.
6
Somewhere, deep in the Kremlin or in a non-descript office building elsewhere in Russia, there must have been a bitter argument about what hacked emails to release to the American people.
We will never know if Vladimir Putin personally weighed in on the choice of content. We can imagine, however, one of his staff dismissing the notion that anything showing Hillary Clinton being friendly with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley was less than a fatal blow to the Democratic nominee.
To some Democrats, there may be a knee-jerk revulsion at Clinton’s nuanced approach to regulating banks and to international trade. Most of us, however, agree with Thomas Friedman that the leaks show an intelligent, well-informed Hillary Clinton whose ability and good ideas dwarf Donald Trump’s malignant stupidity.
We will never know if Vladimir Putin personally weighed in on the choice of content. We can imagine, however, one of his staff dismissing the notion that anything showing Hillary Clinton being friendly with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley was less than a fatal blow to the Democratic nominee.
To some Democrats, there may be a knee-jerk revulsion at Clinton’s nuanced approach to regulating banks and to international trade. Most of us, however, agree with Thomas Friedman that the leaks show an intelligent, well-informed Hillary Clinton whose ability and good ideas dwarf Donald Trump’s malignant stupidity.
8
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” If only the latter followed the former. Perhaps a President Hillary could enforce equitable rules unlike how NAFTA has ignored same. One thing for sure is that if the dream could come to be a very significant number of CIA agents would be out of work.
1
Gosh, what a surprise! When Hillary tells Goldman Sachs what it wants to hear, her message resonates with Tom Friedman. His favorite mantra, "Globalization helped bring more people out of poverty in the last 50 years than at any other time in history," is no doubt music to the ears of the evolving one percents in nations like China and India where fortunes are built on near-subsistence wages for their masses. The transition has spelled diminishing living standards in Europe and the U.S., austerity budgets and another historical record, the greatest gap between rich and poor ever.
3
Maybe instead of mindlessly going after NAFTA and, by extension Clinton, you could stop yourself long enough to consider who has been the real enemy of US Common Man (and Woman yes, yes):
Who killed Unions - Republicans.
Who has opposed a living wage - Republicans.
Who has stacked courts at every level in favor of greedy businesses ripping off their employees and 'the people' - Republicans.
Who mocks the struggling, tells them to grow up and get a job, and fixes the tax code so those same struggling people support the top of the top of our economy - Republicans
Who created and expanded your despised income gap from the get - Republicans
And on and on.
Yes, the dislocations and losses of establishing international trade can be painful. But they will happen whether you will it or not because our national deck has been so stacked in favor of the corporate and the wealthy.
There is only one candidate, and one party, that has made actual efforts to address these issues, and they have been thwarted at every turn by you-know-who.
Yes, both parties are too much like social clubs for the rich; you can begin to change that if you're willing to do a little work. But your are willfully ignorant if you imagine some politician other than Hillary will go out and take a stick to Goldman. She, at least, is trying to get some of each.
Who killed Unions - Republicans.
Who has opposed a living wage - Republicans.
Who has stacked courts at every level in favor of greedy businesses ripping off their employees and 'the people' - Republicans.
Who mocks the struggling, tells them to grow up and get a job, and fixes the tax code so those same struggling people support the top of the top of our economy - Republicans
Who created and expanded your despised income gap from the get - Republicans
And on and on.
Yes, the dislocations and losses of establishing international trade can be painful. But they will happen whether you will it or not because our national deck has been so stacked in favor of the corporate and the wealthy.
There is only one candidate, and one party, that has made actual efforts to address these issues, and they have been thwarted at every turn by you-know-who.
Yes, both parties are too much like social clubs for the rich; you can begin to change that if you're willing to do a little work. But your are willfully ignorant if you imagine some politician other than Hillary will go out and take a stick to Goldman. She, at least, is trying to get some of each.
1
Ms. Clinton did not dissemble on the campaign trail. Rather, she learned and adapted.
Prior to the campaign, she favored increased trade and immigration, as did almost all economists. However, during the campaign she listened to people marginalized by trade and immigration. She also saw that many people in their desperation surprisingly supported an unqualified socialist (Sanders) and a ruthless flim-flammer (Trump). So Ms. Clinton modified her views. Changing one's mind based on new evidence is not lying. Rather, such adaptation is the way that democracy works. That's what elections do: teach candidates about the actual state of life in the country.
Mr. Friedman underestimates the difficulty of helping the disenfranchized to participate in the new world economy. But Hillary has got it now.
Prior to the campaign, she favored increased trade and immigration, as did almost all economists. However, during the campaign she listened to people marginalized by trade and immigration. She also saw that many people in their desperation surprisingly supported an unqualified socialist (Sanders) and a ruthless flim-flammer (Trump). So Ms. Clinton modified her views. Changing one's mind based on new evidence is not lying. Rather, such adaptation is the way that democracy works. That's what elections do: teach candidates about the actual state of life in the country.
Mr. Friedman underestimates the difficulty of helping the disenfranchized to participate in the new world economy. But Hillary has got it now.
21
David, it is incredibly naive to believe that Hillary Clinton amended her personal beliefs after being on the "campaign trail". But, if you are right, it shows how disconnected she is from the average American in the first place and doesn't bode well for her Presidency.
Things have changed since 2013, and so has Hillary's views on unrestrained global trade. Like Bernie Sanders she recognizes that such free trade has created social strains in a number of ways, and she has made clear in her campaign that she intends to address them. She is not a free-trade libertarian, far from it. Her whole political career has focused on using government to foster the social common-weal, and I have full confidence that she will use her experience-hardened intellect to manage this delicate balance between open global trade and protecting the social fabric.
16
That "minority of the U.S. population that is hurt by freer trade and movements of labor" is growing bigger and bigger, while Friedman and Clinton have no clue what to do with these superfluous workers formerly known as the tax base.
Here are Clinton and Friedman praising the dead-on-arrival Simpson Bowles deficit reduction plan at a time of declining employment, with millions dropping out of the work force; once called Hooverism, it's now called "austerity," in which "reforming the tax code" magically "increases investment" - as if the tax code ever prevented anyone from taking a risk to make money. This tax "reform" must be accompanied by "trimming some spending and entitlements" - that is, the "safety net" of Social Security, health care, unemployment benefits and retraining necessary to get workers back to work.
When Artificial Intelligence gets here and puts us all out of work - including columnists and, one hopes, politicians - who's going to pay the bills? Americans might be happier for all those millions lifted out of poverty around the world in the last 50 years if China's newfound prosperity weren't coming at our expense.
Hillary Clinton should be forced to release every word she spoke to those Wall Street bankers - because that's her real program, not what she says at the latest trumped-up "debate." While Wall Street's high flyers are doing their trapeze act, the safety net gets smaller and smaller just as the acrobats let go of our hands.
Here are Clinton and Friedman praising the dead-on-arrival Simpson Bowles deficit reduction plan at a time of declining employment, with millions dropping out of the work force; once called Hooverism, it's now called "austerity," in which "reforming the tax code" magically "increases investment" - as if the tax code ever prevented anyone from taking a risk to make money. This tax "reform" must be accompanied by "trimming some spending and entitlements" - that is, the "safety net" of Social Security, health care, unemployment benefits and retraining necessary to get workers back to work.
When Artificial Intelligence gets here and puts us all out of work - including columnists and, one hopes, politicians - who's going to pay the bills? Americans might be happier for all those millions lifted out of poverty around the world in the last 50 years if China's newfound prosperity weren't coming at our expense.
Hillary Clinton should be forced to release every word she spoke to those Wall Street bankers - because that's her real program, not what she says at the latest trumped-up "debate." While Wall Street's high flyers are doing their trapeze act, the safety net gets smaller and smaller just as the acrobats let go of our hands.
3
I detest wiki leaks for dumping private information of people with no goal other than an attempt to embarrass them. I am sure I have said things in emails I'd find embarrassing if made public. That being said - once again ms Clinton is the most transparent and honest candidate running for president. The irony that the public generally perceived her as a dishonest scheming liar is remarkable - and mostly based on sexist ideas of how a woman of a certain age should behave. Hint - society would rather she bake cookies than lead the free world.
140
"You should both have a public opinion and a private opinion." - HRC
Dana, thanks for bringing up whether we should be reading people's stolen mail. And here, the issue is beyond a simple moral question because of the identity of the thief: Putin has ordered the hacking of computers to embarrass HRC ALONE.
Why wouldn't Putin order the hacking of Trump's tax returns or other financial records?
Why wouldn't Putin order the hacking of Trump's tax returns or other financial records?
2
I would suggest that in keeping with the idea of globalization and free trade, that Tom should be laid off and replaced with a far less expensive replacement. I'm sure that there are Indian and Chinese post-docs who could provide equally compelling arguments for globalization. This would have the benefit of lowering my NYT subscription cost and raising someone out of poverty. Of course Tom should be provided with financial aid to attend a community college where he could acquire a useful skill, perhaps coding so he can then compete in the global market place. The Utilitarian ideal of the greatest good for the greatest number should be modified to apply first to the greatest number of our fellow citizens, and only then more broadly. Economic efficiency is less compelling an ideal then social justice for our fellow citizens.
17
So you prefer Tom keep his job and you pay thru the nose to read his column ?
Large scale economic dislocation, a real consequence of globalization, is fertile soil for the rise of a demagogue. On a more personal level, I for one do not want to purchase goods and services at the absolute lowest price if it means my neighbor is put out of work.
Hold on Allan, then Mr. Friedman and his followers on this issue would be personally adversely affected, and their whole tone would change.
What's missing from this is the acknowledgement that Goldman's payment for these speeches was a bribe. No one at Goldman cared about hearing what she had to say. They all think they know better anyway. No, they paid her that much in exchange for future influence over public policy. I will vote for her anyway, but let's call the current money in politics what it is, corporate bribery of current or future public officials.
6
Clinton's enemies have accused her of many things without any proof. To say that she accepted a "bribe" is simply another bogus claim-- sheer supposition back up by supposition. It's ridiculous. Voting for her is the way to go, though, since she's said she will sponsor a constitutional amendment to lessen the influence of money in elections -- in effect, negating Citizens United. When she does so, she will tie many Republicans in knots as they try to find a way to oppose her without opposing one of the key demands of the populist tide.
1
Bob, the people who hired her all paid a standard speaker's fee. She owed them nothing but a speech. Was she also being bribed by the 90-odd other organizations where she spoke, charging the same rate? What does she "owe" the clinical pathologists or tavel agents or the American Camping Association? If you don't think their speaking fees were bribes, do you think the bank speaking fees were? Or can you not believe anyone would pay that much for what a woman says? Of course, Trump's $1,000,000 per speech fees were simply a reflection of how valuable every word out of his mouth is...
I appreciate Mr. Friedman's general point–that the hacked emails are simply the shop-talk of a serious, center-right politician. [Mr. Friedman calls her "center-left," but at least he didn't plug his flat-earth book.] She is solid. She has a plan. She is a credible leader of America. I'm with her... with tons of caveats, and a certain level of depression, but I'm onboard.
My main gripe with Mr. Friedman was this statement, "Globalization and trade have helped to bring more people out of poverty in the last 50 years than at any other time in history."
That's a bit like the old and awful joke that between me and my brother we know everything... ask me something... "What's the GDP of Uruguay?" My brother knows that one.
Globalization AND trade. Me AND my brother.
It can be argued that trade, all by itself, has brought more people out of poverty than anything else. But it can also be argued that people love puppies. Hardly a deep insight. But "globalization" is not well defined. Selling subsidized US corn to Mexico is hardly fair trade. Allowing US companies to use poorly paid workforces in a countries with bad records of human rights and poor environmental standards is not fair trade. Allowing US companies to have their corporate offices in Ireland or the Bahamas is hardly fair trade. Allowing US employers to hire undocumented workers (often driven from their home countries by "fair trade" practices) for terrible off-the-books wages is not fair trade.
My main gripe with Mr. Friedman was this statement, "Globalization and trade have helped to bring more people out of poverty in the last 50 years than at any other time in history."
That's a bit like the old and awful joke that between me and my brother we know everything... ask me something... "What's the GDP of Uruguay?" My brother knows that one.
Globalization AND trade. Me AND my brother.
It can be argued that trade, all by itself, has brought more people out of poverty than anything else. But it can also be argued that people love puppies. Hardly a deep insight. But "globalization" is not well defined. Selling subsidized US corn to Mexico is hardly fair trade. Allowing US companies to use poorly paid workforces in a countries with bad records of human rights and poor environmental standards is not fair trade. Allowing US companies to have their corporate offices in Ireland or the Bahamas is hardly fair trade. Allowing US employers to hire undocumented workers (often driven from their home countries by "fair trade" practices) for terrible off-the-books wages is not fair trade.
10
I have always felt Secretary Clinton was for free trade and immigration. I have always felt she is and was a pragmatic centrist who believes in capital formation.
It's not the Wikileaks documents that scare me, those actually reassure me. It's her pandering to Bernie Sanders supporters who want to burn down investment banking and have the government take over large portions of the US economy and protect the government economy with protectionist policies.
Mrs. Clinton failed to lead and simply coopted a position that is a disaster for our country. She is very fortunate that her opponent is Donald Trump. A man who is clearly living in the past, the WW2 European past.
It's not the Wikileaks documents that scare me, those actually reassure me. It's her pandering to Bernie Sanders supporters who want to burn down investment banking and have the government take over large portions of the US economy and protect the government economy with protectionist policies.
Mrs. Clinton failed to lead and simply coopted a position that is a disaster for our country. She is very fortunate that her opponent is Donald Trump. A man who is clearly living in the past, the WW2 European past.
4
So when Clinton is in an election, she's in it to win it! That's a good thing and simply reinforces the point that she's a politician with a fine pragmatist sense. If she were not, she would not be on track to become the first woman to become President. How many men have become President without being political?
Douglas, I would suggest that if Mrs. Clinton didn't authorize President Bush to go to war in Iraq she would be finishing up her second term now.
Politics is political. Mrs. Clinton is correct on trade and the people who support Bernie Sanders have nowhere else to go. Mrs. Clinton being political didn't make Donald Trump the Republican nominee.
She has a wonderful opportunity because of the Republicans to actually lead. That's something almost every President has done when they had the overwhelming advantages that Mrs. Clinton currently has.
Bernie Sanders was never going to be the Democratic nominee. She didn't need to be wrong to appease his supporters.
Politics is political. Mrs. Clinton is correct on trade and the people who support Bernie Sanders have nowhere else to go. Mrs. Clinton being political didn't make Donald Trump the Republican nominee.
She has a wonderful opportunity because of the Republicans to actually lead. That's something almost every President has done when they had the overwhelming advantages that Mrs. Clinton currently has.
Bernie Sanders was never going to be the Democratic nominee. She didn't need to be wrong to appease his supporters.
In one sense isn't what Hillary Clinton said what we all wish for? Some perfect world in which we're nor polluting the environment, are open and accepting of each other and have equal opportunities to advance? Although why we would want that for only one hemisphere and not the entire world is beyond me.
The thing is, though, while dreams of pie in the sky can be useful in articulating aspirations, realizing them has to take into account the reality on the ground. Globalization has not brought about the flat world and level playing fields you and so many others imagined. It's resulted in greater wealth inequality even within the nations that appear to be doing better on a global scale.
You have said before that whatever can be done will be done--that it can be done by you or to you, and that you'd better do it before someone does. I guess you meant that with the internet, without national economic barriers, anyone can make it if they only act quickly enough. That doesn't speak to me of some idyllic future in which the playing field is level; it speaks to me of a dog-eat-dog world in which people with high speed computers can wipe out the rest of us. Oh wait, isn't that what's happening? Seventy-one percent of the world's population now holds only 3% of the world's wealth.
We have to keep in mind is that without laws or what you might call barriers, greater wealth equality will not emerge naturally. It all depends in the balance of political power in the global economy.
The thing is, though, while dreams of pie in the sky can be useful in articulating aspirations, realizing them has to take into account the reality on the ground. Globalization has not brought about the flat world and level playing fields you and so many others imagined. It's resulted in greater wealth inequality even within the nations that appear to be doing better on a global scale.
You have said before that whatever can be done will be done--that it can be done by you or to you, and that you'd better do it before someone does. I guess you meant that with the internet, without national economic barriers, anyone can make it if they only act quickly enough. That doesn't speak to me of some idyllic future in which the playing field is level; it speaks to me of a dog-eat-dog world in which people with high speed computers can wipe out the rest of us. Oh wait, isn't that what's happening? Seventy-one percent of the world's population now holds only 3% of the world's wealth.
We have to keep in mind is that without laws or what you might call barriers, greater wealth equality will not emerge naturally. It all depends in the balance of political power in the global economy.
5
GLobalization is a bell that can't be unrung, and aspiration is the only way that any of us can hope to shape a positive future. The alternative is a Balkanized world of constant conflict.
1
Great column, one with which I wholeheartedly agree. For a cogent summary of the issues and misconceptions on trade I highly recommend the recent New Yorker article entitled "The Meaning of Open Trade and Open Borders", by Bernard Avishai. I think it will enlighten those who, like me, have had reservations. As you state, the key, one that has, to date, been sorely neglected, is planning to cushion the inevitable dislocations that come with change. My view is that Clinton is sensitive to that need. The closer the election, the more confident I become in my vote for her. And that is great comfort in these disconcerting times.
121
Indeed, Hillary has been outed as a pragmatic politician by Wikileaks. That is what many Bernie supporters have against her conveniently ignoring the fact that without a large majority consensus no major changes are possible. The attacks against global trading and trade agreements miss the point that it is not possible to turn back the clock without major disruption. What has been missing in Hillary's speeches so far is how does one preserve free trade while helping those hurt by it. Lost manufacturing jobs will not come back unless new US manufacturing is based on innovations that keep the US ahead of the competition. That is where government and private enterprise need to concentrate and work together. Hillary has talked about making the US the prime mover in clean energy production. That is a good step but will not be sufficient. Trade agreements also need modifications to strengthen the protection of workers in emerging economies. This is hard to accomplish but not impossible.
45
"What has been missing in Hillary's speeches so far is how does one preserve free trade while helping those hurt by it. Lost manufacturing jobs will not come back unless new US manufacturing is based on innovations that keep the US ahead of the competition."
Completely agree with this! Hopefully, she will begin to address this tonight. I can see no bigger contrast that she could exploit, than Trump in attack mode and her ignoring his nonsense to drill into solutions.
Completely agree with this! Hopefully, she will begin to address this tonight. I can see no bigger contrast that she could exploit, than Trump in attack mode and her ignoring his nonsense to drill into solutions.
1
Wow the big scandal of WikiLeaks is that Clinton is a fairly standard, pragmatic centrist politician. Who knew?
607
If you think that the stagnant wages and increasing inequality of the last 40+ years are ideal, then Hillary (or for that matter some of the more highly-regarded Republican candidates) is a good candidate.
Actually Hillary and her supporters been trying to convince the supporters of Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that she is really more progressive than a standard, pragmatic centrist. Are we supposed to believe her new positions or what is in the leaks?
Actually Hillary and her supporters been trying to convince the supporters of Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that she is really more progressive than a standard, pragmatic centrist. Are we supposed to believe her new positions or what is in the leaks?
She's the republican she was in college. Why aren't Ryan and McConnell happy?
Dra, when she was in college, there were liberal, secular Republicans.
2
Making free trade the enemy is like trying to ban driving because there are too many accidents. Free trade is essential. Period. There is no substitute. We need to do a better job in distributing the benefits of free trade to everyone. Unfortunately, efforts to do just that have been stymied by the Republican Party and the white, lower middle-class voters that continue to vote for it (i.e., Trump supporters).
243
The case against free trade is so totally misguided thanks to Trump and Sanders. Hillary has publicly moved away from her free trade position because it is politically expedient to do so. The loss of jobs has also been the direct result of improvements in technology, yet that doesn't play well to those seeking to blame "the others" because fear of outsiders garners votes. The answer is not trade restrictions but retraining our workforce to fill the jobs we need filled.
84
There won't be enough jobs to fill without taxation and spending on public projects.
1
Frankly, there is nothing shocking in the speeches. I suppose the idea is that Bernie Sanders' supporters will vote third party or stay home. Those who think trade is the reason for our shrinking middle class are mistaken. Corporate greed is our problem. Too many low-paid service jobs is our problem. Our economy is not the same as it was in the 70s. Protectionism is not the answer. Exploring how to make 21st Century jobs pay a living wage is the answer.
199
Frankly, that ain't gonna happen with hand waving arguments about the 'magic' of the marketplace, the world is flat, dumb and happy and Simpson- Bowles psychosis.
Yes, turns out the dreaded "October surprise" that the Russian stooge Assange breathlessly promised was a whole bunch of emails that amount to nothing of consequence and some speeches that Friedman has clearly carefully analyzed. The ongoing theft of Democratic materials by the Putin-WikiLeaks axis for their man Donald is more of a crime than anyone except the Democratic Party seems to think, but thankfully it won't affect the outcome this time around, thanks to the paltry Republican candidate. If I was a Dem insider, though, I'd skip emails from now on and make a lot of phone calls on prepaid cellphones, like something out of Breaking Bad. "Gonzo, this is Tuco."
56
Werd!
TracPhones are $15 at Dollar General
This leaks show the same Hillary we have known for decades. If Putin's intention was to change our perception of her, I think that he badly failed. She is and intelligent, thoughtful and realistic woman that believes in incremental change, not in revolution. She will be a great President because, although she is caricatured as an extremely partisan figure during the campaigns, she has proven a million times -and this leaks prove it also- to be a moderate who is ready to compromise if necessary. A tested hard working realist in a time of extremism and populism.
307
None of which explains the Hillary hate.
Moral outrage vs. dishonest corruption. I would say that is quite a conundrum Mr. Freidman.
I can vote for someone I dislike, it's not even a question of like, but rather who can move us in the right direction.
But here is the thing, I cannot possibly vote for someone who hates me and my kind. And what the wikimails have proven, that covers a lot of people besides me.
The frosting on the cake, are the videos of Mr. Creamer placing the millions of dollars from people like Morgan-Stanley into some very dark corners of society.
As a group of elderly Englishmen once said; "won't get fooled again"
I can vote for someone I dislike, it's not even a question of like, but rather who can move us in the right direction.
But here is the thing, I cannot possibly vote for someone who hates me and my kind. And what the wikimails have proven, that covers a lot of people besides me.
The frosting on the cake, are the videos of Mr. Creamer placing the millions of dollars from people like Morgan-Stanley into some very dark corners of society.
As a group of elderly Englishmen once said; "won't get fooled again"
5
Please don't emulate The Donald's bawling victim act over a couple of Catholics engaging in introspection.
Hillary Clinton has always been thoughtful and pragmatic in her approach solving problems. The problem most people have with Hillary is that they have absorbed the 30 years of smears and mischaracterizations about her. When she is able to connect unfiltered by the media as in debates, people start to see the smart wonk that is the true person. I started to understand her by reading her books. You came to see her true nature by reading her unfiltered speeches. She is a gem and we should be happy she will be our next President.
487
Barbara--you are certifiably 'nuts.' If anything all the objective evidence has shown, is that she is corrupt to her very core. No American under a Clinton Administration will have any trust that her decisions and actions can be done with the greater and common good for ALL Americans being the deciding reason. She will be and can be bought by $$$ or quid pro quo with someone else. That is what this country will truly pay the price with.
1
Well, I am not an enthusiast of Simpson-Bowles. We should remember that the main part of SB is cutting taxes on the already well-off, and paying for it by cutting services mainly to the less well-off. It would actually increase rather than decease the deficit. Pure trickle down.
But I think Friedman is misreading Hillary, at least I hope so. I hope she will make the income tax more progressive, that she will close loopholes, and invest in infrastructure. Of course, I am voting for Hillary.
But I think Friedman is misreading Hillary, at least I hope so. I hope she will make the income tax more progressive, that she will close loopholes, and invest in infrastructure. Of course, I am voting for Hillary.
26
You have to understand that Friedman is not a liberal.
She also said, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
Funny, but not really, how the right and the trump campaign surrogates love to repeat the one part of her statement and take it out of context... she wants open borders.
They are really good at editing comments and then presenting them to their "poorly educated" followers.
Funny, but not really, how the right and the trump campaign surrogates love to repeat the one part of her statement and take it out of context... she wants open borders.
They are really good at editing comments and then presenting them to their "poorly educated" followers.
70
It doesn't help that the media participates in creating materially misleading soundbites. For example, it was journalistic malpractice to quote her comment about putting coalminers out of work, without the context that she intends to replace those jobs through clean renewable energy programs.
4
When global population stabilizes, borders will open naturally.
Is Friedman unaware that the average US wage is lower than it was since 2000? That we have the greatest income disparity since before the Great Depression? That a heroin epidemic is sweeping white male America?
These are not minor problems arising from global trade that need to be tweaked. They are systemic failures that threaten social stability.
Friedman's 1990s bromides Illustrate why so many media experts were caught flat footed by Trump. Friedman is a globalization winner, so he concludes globalization must be good for almost everyone else.
These ideas are not just naive and unempathetic-- they are very dangerous.
These are not minor problems arising from global trade that need to be tweaked. They are systemic failures that threaten social stability.
Friedman's 1990s bromides Illustrate why so many media experts were caught flat footed by Trump. Friedman is a globalization winner, so he concludes globalization must be good for almost everyone else.
These ideas are not just naive and unempathetic-- they are very dangerous.
53
Globalization irrefutably grows the pie. Our national wealth has irrefutably grown. The problem has been that all those gains have been allowed to go to the poorest laborers in other countries and the richest owners of capital in our own country.
For decades, now, our anti government right wing has peddled an orthodoxy that refuses to recognize those facts by conflating 'freedom' with economic anarchy that opposes any kind of taxes or government intervention to address these differences. 'Greed is good' has been the right wing one liner since Reagan.
No wonder the white working class feels like the system has been rigged.
For decades, now, our anti government right wing has peddled an orthodoxy that refuses to recognize those facts by conflating 'freedom' with economic anarchy that opposes any kind of taxes or government intervention to address these differences. 'Greed is good' has been the right wing one liner since Reagan.
No wonder the white working class feels like the system has been rigged.
4
Those are real issues, but they are not the result of trade.
2
A lot of Americans like to whine instead of getting a bit tougher and working harder. Scapegoating ain't going to cut it.
1
Hillary Clinton certainly recognizes the positive externalities of the carbon tax. The stimulus to the economy, resultant job growth, and the positive effects on global warming and environmental quality would be enormous. Arrayed against the carbon tax, are arguably the most powerful lobbying groups in American history, the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel oligarchs with their insidious "Dark Money". They have used their financial clout to virtually "buy"the Republican Party, whose opposition to the carbon tax makes it an impossibility.
33
Thank you Tom. Like others commenting, I wonder why she did not release the speeches. I guess we are in a political environment that discourages in depth consideration of alternatives and the speeches are nuanced and include sentences and phrases that could be taken out of context for ads that would hurt her campaign. However, I am wondering if ads really hurt any more.
The situation is a shame. I am not sure how we can solve the problems of the country and the world without discussions of the pros and cons of all policies without prejudging them. And accepting that at times we will make mistakes ... and it is ok to correct mistakes (think aspects of the ACA).
Lets try to elect officials who can counter this trend.
The situation is a shame. I am not sure how we can solve the problems of the country and the world without discussions of the pros and cons of all policies without prejudging them. And accepting that at times we will make mistakes ... and it is ok to correct mistakes (think aspects of the ACA).
Lets try to elect officials who can counter this trend.
16
Robert Steen: "Like others commenting, I wonder why she did not release the speeches."
I'm still of the view -- on principal -- that Clinton should not have released the transcripts, unless she personally WANTED to do so. No other candidate has been expected to reveal private communications from when they were private citizens, so she should not be held to a higher standard especially when the other (male) candidates in the race at the time (e.g., Bernie and Donald) failed to meet even minimal disclosure obligations. Trump continues to avoid releasing his tax returns (something even Nixon did), and Bernie released only a partial 2014 return (after being shamed into it) and never made his required FEC financial disclosures (avoided through multiple extensions and then finally by dropping out). The only reason we even knew about Clinton's speeches was due to the Clintons' making close to 40 years of returns publicly available. So the demands to see her speeches are essentially punishing her for being more open than the other candidates. (And, by the way, the Clintons donated much of those proceeds to charity.)
Plus, her speeches to banks were a tiny minority of her speeches, so unless she disclosed her speeches to schools, tech companies, etc., the bank speeches would be taken out of context and given excess weight.
Some people wont' be satisfied until they've rummaged through her underwear drawers ... and still they'll be complaining and demanding more.
I'm still of the view -- on principal -- that Clinton should not have released the transcripts, unless she personally WANTED to do so. No other candidate has been expected to reveal private communications from when they were private citizens, so she should not be held to a higher standard especially when the other (male) candidates in the race at the time (e.g., Bernie and Donald) failed to meet even minimal disclosure obligations. Trump continues to avoid releasing his tax returns (something even Nixon did), and Bernie released only a partial 2014 return (after being shamed into it) and never made his required FEC financial disclosures (avoided through multiple extensions and then finally by dropping out). The only reason we even knew about Clinton's speeches was due to the Clintons' making close to 40 years of returns publicly available. So the demands to see her speeches are essentially punishing her for being more open than the other candidates. (And, by the way, the Clintons donated much of those proceeds to charity.)
Plus, her speeches to banks were a tiny minority of her speeches, so unless she disclosed her speeches to schools, tech companies, etc., the bank speeches would be taken out of context and given excess weight.
Some people wont' be satisfied until they've rummaged through her underwear drawers ... and still they'll be complaining and demanding more.
3
We don't need to hear Trump's private speeches to imagine what they are like anymore.
1
She did not release the speeches because it was none of our businesss, despite the blackmail the Bernie bros were trying to do.
1
Already a Clinton voter, I would/will likewise vote for WikiHillary, a principled, deliberate, pragmatic, and effective leader who open to the validity of concerns raised and policies proposed by the right and the left and accepts not only the the necessity but the advisability of reasoned respectful compromise. Unfortunately a corresponding campaign seemingly has little if any prospect of success within either the Democratic or Republican parties (I am a registered Democrat), captive as they are to extremes in their "base." Perhaps such a campaign might find a home in a new third party arising from the ashes of the current GOP, one which will select its candidates/nominees in state and national conventions rather than primaries. If so, where do I register?
10
How exactly is the democratic party captured by its 'left wing base' when they managed to nominate Clinton?
3
Mr. Friedman, it's interesting to hear you "partial" take on the Wikileak data! Unfortunately, most of us see it differently. A politician pandering to whomever she is talking too. A cold, calculating politician who is completely scripted and focused grouped to death. As for your take that Bernie is like Trump and against all trade deals is ludicrous! We ask for fair trade deals and instead get lobbyists and corporate executives writing these deals in secret with no insight from other groups such as environmental or labor groups. Just look how the Haiti aid ended up enriching corporate leaches who make money on tragedy, while the local economy gets destroyed and the Haitian people have no say how the aid is directed. If you want to truly help, you invest in giving money directly to the Haitian people to build a middle class creating jobs and building infrastructure instead of using it to build sweatshops for foreign companies who exploit cheap labor. If this is the best we can do, then we might as well stop the aid program. Of these trade deals like TPP are so great, then why can't the public review them in advance.
Trump may represent the worst that America has to offer in terms of ignorance, fear and institutionalized misogyny, but Hillary represents everything that is wrong with Washington. It's a shame that you are one of her endless minions in the MSM that continues to make excuses for poor judgement and endless scandals that would sink any other politician.
Trump may represent the worst that America has to offer in terms of ignorance, fear and institutionalized misogyny, but Hillary represents everything that is wrong with Washington. It's a shame that you are one of her endless minions in the MSM that continues to make excuses for poor judgement and endless scandals that would sink any other politician.
11
The most vetted, investigated, interrogated, and harassed politician in history has been criticized on both the left and on the right for decades. Her biggest failing in the eyes of the other candidate now appears to be that she stood by her husband when many women may have chosen otherwise.
Still standing after all these years.
And the other candidate stands for what............
Still standing after all these years.
And the other candidate stands for what............
My reading of WikiLeaks, has reached the same conclusions stated by Mr. Friedman. Unfortunately, the journalists covering this story, as always, go for the quick sound bite kill, and emphasize sentences, yes, sentences, that appear to evidence a contradiction with her campaign message. What our media pundits/reporters do not report, and which is fundamental to sound journalism is: 1) the danger of lifting sentences out of context, which misrepresent the goal and substance of the speech; and 2) placing the context of the entire speech into a frame that matches policy with results. All of the recommendations made in Sec. Clinton's presentations, were workable and researched based solutions to economic problems we are confronting. Aside from accurately representing the messages in her speeches, the journalists reporting this story should compare the content of these WikiLeaks with Trumps economic strategies---which would make 2008 look like a brush fire.
90
I concurr!
Obviously prevention of a Trump presidency is essential to the survival of American democracy and HRC has many virtues. But despite the absolutely essential need to have HRC win the election, there remains reason for concern about her presidency. How can we reconcile her moderate facets with her catering to the Bernie and Warren devotees and her history on healthcare of making a "progressive" mess of reform efforts in 1993? If there is a Democratic sweep in the election, including House and Senate majorities, the recent leftward tilt-granted it was pragmatically essential to campaign success-is a real threat. Extremism is not limited to the extreme right wing. On the left, enthusiasm for sweeping inept change and profound self-congratulatory narcissism are also found in abundance.
5
You must be a republican.
2
Hillary is an advocate of evolutionary fine tuning, not revolutionary disruptions.
Unfortunately, your analysis will fall on the ears of the faithful and if perchance it goes viral your vision may be too esoteric for many voters who it seems have been swayed by red meat slogans. But that is politics. As you have educated us, we have serious problems to deal with as we wander the world into the future and we had best get out and solve them before they get out of hand. Is the president the one to solve these problems? probably not, but at least the president has the bully pulpit and can lay the problems out.
Mr. Obama seems to have been a missed opportunity because of the derelict Republican smear machine. So I believe they have committed political malpractice. We would all be better off if they were more honorable and honest. So here come Mr. Trump a true horror for anyone who had any kind of concern about how to solve our future problems. In addition, he is trying to incite a civil war. Shame on him.
The complex problems we face must be articulated, as in his column, so the electorate can be given the chance to vote on solutions. We sure don't see that in this election.
Mr. Obama seems to have been a missed opportunity because of the derelict Republican smear machine. So I believe they have committed political malpractice. We would all be better off if they were more honorable and honest. So here come Mr. Trump a true horror for anyone who had any kind of concern about how to solve our future problems. In addition, he is trying to incite a civil war. Shame on him.
The complex problems we face must be articulated, as in his column, so the electorate can be given the chance to vote on solutions. We sure don't see that in this election.
9
And you won't see it if the next election begins on November 9, because the US is politically paralyzed during elections.
Everyone knows that Clinton is and was the most qualified person running for President at any time during this election cycle. Her only problem is 30 years of denigration and lies about her that have become cant in Republican circles. Tell a big lie enough times and people will believe it.
My issue with this column and the media are trafficking in stolen goods. These emails were stolen, presumably by Russian hackers who are either governmental contractors or private contractors doing it for money, and published by WikiLeaks whose founder Julian Assange is an exile from justice and, more important, an avowed Clinton hater. Irrespective of whether their content reflects well or poorly on Clinton, we do not know whether they have been altered. By using them, the media encourages others to use them or, worse, to engage in greater hacking. In effect, we are all now on alert that privacy no longer exists.
My issue with this column and the media are trafficking in stolen goods. These emails were stolen, presumably by Russian hackers who are either governmental contractors or private contractors doing it for money, and published by WikiLeaks whose founder Julian Assange is an exile from justice and, more important, an avowed Clinton hater. Irrespective of whether their content reflects well or poorly on Clinton, we do not know whether they have been altered. By using them, the media encourages others to use them or, worse, to engage in greater hacking. In effect, we are all now on alert that privacy no longer exists.
36
She is the one that has been lying and been caught and these emails prove it but keep on believing someone else is the cause of her lying.
2
This constant mantra we hear from the right, that Globalization has rescued millions around the world from poverty, is disingenuous & evasive. The massive push to open the borders for money over the last few decades has not been motivated one whit by redistributive fervor or by compassion. It has been motivated solely by the personal financial interests of the investors and the executives who profit from driving down labor costs and blocking regulation. If, in the future, conditions change so that accomplishing those goals means, say, abandoning the masses in Asia for automation in Alabama, they will do so in a heartbeat. People angry at being "left behind" by globalization are not all xenophobes, racists & luddites. They are also people who resent having their livlihood and their entire culture turned into a disposable convenience in the ruling class's drive to turn the world into their personal ATM.
21
Earlier to begin the day on an uplifting note, I decided to revisit a video of the World According to UNICEF, an international children's agency, where the First Lady of the above retires with amazing grace and humility. The Party took place in New York at HQ in 2013 and it was an honor to be invited to this event where we all come together in America, different cultures, religions and nationalities.
Would Hillary Clinton fit in to this panorama of the Human Condition, I truly believe she would. The Public Sector, complex and far more challenging than the Private Sector, requires a pragmatic thinker, bold and willing to soar above obstacles. To accomplish and succeed in implementing programs of benefit to our future generation, the inheritors of our Planet.
Would she need the help of loving and caring Russia to invite those of us working for a good cause, strengthening communication links between our Allies and Foes? It might be conceivable if it were under a different leader, this is not the case with the one in Office but wishful thinking, while Hillary Clinton, well prepared, measured and experienced is destined for higher Office: The next President of the United States.
But what about the other presidential hopeful? A diversion in American History, controversial and tarnished in ways that need no longer be explained,
would He make America and the World a better place? Would he understand? This is for each and every one of us who plan to vote to determine.
Would Hillary Clinton fit in to this panorama of the Human Condition, I truly believe she would. The Public Sector, complex and far more challenging than the Private Sector, requires a pragmatic thinker, bold and willing to soar above obstacles. To accomplish and succeed in implementing programs of benefit to our future generation, the inheritors of our Planet.
Would she need the help of loving and caring Russia to invite those of us working for a good cause, strengthening communication links between our Allies and Foes? It might be conceivable if it were under a different leader, this is not the case with the one in Office but wishful thinking, while Hillary Clinton, well prepared, measured and experienced is destined for higher Office: The next President of the United States.
But what about the other presidential hopeful? A diversion in American History, controversial and tarnished in ways that need no longer be explained,
would He make America and the World a better place? Would he understand? This is for each and every one of us who plan to vote to determine.
5
Thank you, Tom Friedman, for so succinctly laying out the case for why Hillary Clinton does not deserve, and will not get, my vote. In fact, though I have been a lifelong progressive Democrat, I have this year finally irrevocably decided that the only reasonable course of action for any self-respecting citizen who wishes to no longer be played for a fool, is to no longer be affiliated with, and not feed with money or votes, either of the two major political parties. (After this election, I will formally change my voter registration accordingly).
The Bowles-Simpson ("catfood") commission as admirable, Mr. Friedman? Implications that Dodd-Frank should be weakened? Duplicity, hypocrisy, and green buzz-phrases as laudable? Praise for those actions simply evidences that it is Hillary, the Donald, and you who have an undeserved sense of entitlement.
Your "flat world", Tom, may have somewhat benefited the poor in some regions of the globe, but nearly everywhere the bulk of benefits from globalization and inadequately-regulated capitalism have flowed to the upper classes, and both democracy and economic well-being for the majority in major portions of the western world have suffered. The modern Republican Party, whether led by Trump, Ryan, or Cruz, is an abomination. But long-term, the neoliberalism of the Democrats as led by Obama and the Clintons will have set the stage for the ultimate rise of a demagogue far more dangerous than Trump.
The Bowles-Simpson ("catfood") commission as admirable, Mr. Friedman? Implications that Dodd-Frank should be weakened? Duplicity, hypocrisy, and green buzz-phrases as laudable? Praise for those actions simply evidences that it is Hillary, the Donald, and you who have an undeserved sense of entitlement.
Your "flat world", Tom, may have somewhat benefited the poor in some regions of the globe, but nearly everywhere the bulk of benefits from globalization and inadequately-regulated capitalism have flowed to the upper classes, and both democracy and economic well-being for the majority in major portions of the western world have suffered. The modern Republican Party, whether led by Trump, Ryan, or Cruz, is an abomination. But long-term, the neoliberalism of the Democrats as led by Obama and the Clintons will have set the stage for the ultimate rise of a demagogue far more dangerous than Trump.
7
Then you are voting for Trump.
2
Good luck with your political party of one. By registering independent, you probably won't count in any party's candidate nomination process.
2
The problem with the leaks is how they get reported more than what they say. I suspect a lot of "reporters" haven't even taken the time to read through the formidable pile of messages. They mostly report on what others, who also may not have read them, have said.
A while back Friedman himself commented that a lot of people had looked at free trade and seen only benefits. They underestimated or ignored the negative impacts on some people and their communities. Reporters who were attracted to the latest shiny thing responded by emphasizing the negative when Trump and Sanders put trade in the spotlight. Nuance is hard in politics and in journalism.
Climate change is an important issue and it's astounding that so many people think that it's a hoax. It's also dangerous. I don't understand exactly why doubting climate change became a part of Republican ideology, but I hope that seeing Donald Trump's contempt for truth in other areas may bring the rest of the party to a more realistic place.
I agree that Hillary Clinton is smart and pragmatic. It's unfortunate the she's not a charismatic politician, but I think that maybe we need her ability to listen and process information effectively more than we need another Bill Clinton at this time.
A while back Friedman himself commented that a lot of people had looked at free trade and seen only benefits. They underestimated or ignored the negative impacts on some people and their communities. Reporters who were attracted to the latest shiny thing responded by emphasizing the negative when Trump and Sanders put trade in the spotlight. Nuance is hard in politics and in journalism.
Climate change is an important issue and it's astounding that so many people think that it's a hoax. It's also dangerous. I don't understand exactly why doubting climate change became a part of Republican ideology, but I hope that seeing Donald Trump's contempt for truth in other areas may bring the rest of the party to a more realistic place.
I agree that Hillary Clinton is smart and pragmatic. It's unfortunate the she's not a charismatic politician, but I think that maybe we need her ability to listen and process information effectively more than we need another Bill Clinton at this time.
26
We all know Tom Friedman is over enthusiastic about the so-called flat/connected world.
The lowering of trade and political barriers and the exponential technical advances of the digital revolution have made it possible to do business instantaneously with billions of other people across the planet.
In other words, acceleration of global integration of latter 20th century led by US-based transnational corporations, particularly IT ones.
Hillary Clinton represents the perfect politician for a flat world. Donald Trump, however, is the anti-globalization politician.
Left out of Tom's narrative is a political question. The losers of such highly integrated world.
Newly industrialized economies, particularly China, have been the main beneficiaries of a flat world. Per capita, China is the country with the largest number of millionaires being created lately.
In America, the perception of a flat world -based on reality - is not so benign. Wealthy investors, domestic/overseas, have been the main beneficiaries of this new wave of integration, the 1% crowd.
Low skill workers and the middle-class have been the biggest losers. In fact, Trump's candidacy is only possible due to the frustration and anger felt by the middle class.
Hillary Clinton, certainly, will be elected as the first female president of the USA. The question is whether her presidency will be governed by globalization or addressing the grievances of a downward mobile middle class.
The lowering of trade and political barriers and the exponential technical advances of the digital revolution have made it possible to do business instantaneously with billions of other people across the planet.
In other words, acceleration of global integration of latter 20th century led by US-based transnational corporations, particularly IT ones.
Hillary Clinton represents the perfect politician for a flat world. Donald Trump, however, is the anti-globalization politician.
Left out of Tom's narrative is a political question. The losers of such highly integrated world.
Newly industrialized economies, particularly China, have been the main beneficiaries of a flat world. Per capita, China is the country with the largest number of millionaires being created lately.
In America, the perception of a flat world -based on reality - is not so benign. Wealthy investors, domestic/overseas, have been the main beneficiaries of this new wave of integration, the 1% crowd.
Low skill workers and the middle-class have been the biggest losers. In fact, Trump's candidacy is only possible due to the frustration and anger felt by the middle class.
Hillary Clinton, certainly, will be elected as the first female president of the USA. The question is whether her presidency will be governed by globalization or addressing the grievances of a downward mobile middle class.
14
Hopefully both if Congress cooperates.
Agreed that Hillary in WikiLeaks is a reasonable Hillary. No conspiracies or duplicity. But let's not go too far. The folks she was speaking to (Goldman Sachs, etc.) have done a great disservice to our country with their risk-taking at the taxpayer's expense, their collateralized debt obligations, and disgusting sales tactics. She should have shamed them. Sure, finance is needed to make our economy go. But it must be highly regulated and responsible (like the rest of us, liable for jail and serious fines for wrongdoing). Then there is globalism. This term is used by the naive and ignorant as if it referred to something invented yesterday. But just look at our past. Humans have been migrating, trading, and exchanging their resources and products over long distances for millennia. There is nothing magical about globalism. It is just cheaper and easier now, and more subject to abuse. We need to hear more about reducing this abuse, about wages and working conditions, and environmental effects. Finally, there is our problem with constant growth. It is obviously unsustainable in a finite world. We have not yet colonized Mars. So we need to hear more about adjusting for a low-growth humane society rather than tricks to stimulate growth. Hillary and her campaign's leaks were boring, as David Brooks mentioned, but they were also not brilliant. We need her to put her energy into thinking (and we know she can do a fine job there) rather than playing politics 24/7.
4
I'm a pragmatic millennial, I'm a Canadian watching the election from Boston. I'm working in the USA under NAFTA and I sincerely agree with your points and pragmatism. However I deeply believe in transparency and accountability, if the agreements were written is secrecy then success will be diminished. All stakeholders need input into all agreements especially from the public and not solely business. And if necessary the agreements need to be amended and tweaked to fix points of failure.
I lived in Ontario, the former manufacturing province of Canada. There was a golden period where the Canadian dollar was low and auto manufacturing was at its height. With the recession and the bailouts the manufacturing sector has collapse. Jobs moved to Mexico and some disappeared. Anticipation of severe events cannot be fully predicted, but the collapse was softened by some government intervention.
My point is that trade agreements can be use constructively or taken over by outside interests, businesses that their own and shareholders interests.
I lived in Ontario, the former manufacturing province of Canada. There was a golden period where the Canadian dollar was low and auto manufacturing was at its height. With the recession and the bailouts the manufacturing sector has collapse. Jobs moved to Mexico and some disappeared. Anticipation of severe events cannot be fully predicted, but the collapse was softened by some government intervention.
My point is that trade agreements can be use constructively or taken over by outside interests, businesses that their own and shareholders interests.
5
Globalization is here to stay and economic isolationism is suicidal. No doubt, as some have remarked, we did not fully consider nor appropriately plan for the the dual whammy impact of globalization and technology on the middle class. That must change with a savvy combination of job re-training for the "new economy", job growth linked to infrastructure, and supplemental transitional economic assistance paid for by--dare I utter the heresy--targeted tax increases.
In addition, we must shine a giant spotlight on two critical areas: healthcare and education. Consumer costs for both are way too high. "Obamacare" is a well intentioned kluge destined to fail from the outset due to the influence of healthcare conglomerates and insurance providers. Medicare for all is the cure despite the scare tactics and misinformation. Colleges have lived off the notion that a college diploma is the guaranteed ticket to happiness and prosperity. That may have been the case when I went to college in the 60's graduating with a C+ average, a BA in History and many fun times. I did fine but those days are over. An appreciation for the liberal arts does not take 4 + years and $50-100K in outlay/student debt. Colleges should be training students with the skills necessary to succeed in the new economy generally described as STEM. The DOE should provide a strategic, informational road map for students, linked to the future, to help them make career choices. The middle class will, must rise again.
In addition, we must shine a giant spotlight on two critical areas: healthcare and education. Consumer costs for both are way too high. "Obamacare" is a well intentioned kluge destined to fail from the outset due to the influence of healthcare conglomerates and insurance providers. Medicare for all is the cure despite the scare tactics and misinformation. Colleges have lived off the notion that a college diploma is the guaranteed ticket to happiness and prosperity. That may have been the case when I went to college in the 60's graduating with a C+ average, a BA in History and many fun times. I did fine but those days are over. An appreciation for the liberal arts does not take 4 + years and $50-100K in outlay/student debt. Colleges should be training students with the skills necessary to succeed in the new economy generally described as STEM. The DOE should provide a strategic, informational road map for students, linked to the future, to help them make career choices. The middle class will, must rise again.
4
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders"
Hasn't this been tried in Europe? The European Union should be evidence that most societies are not ready for this. Europe has seen a growing xenophobic backlash and the rise of radical rightwing parties over the past 10 years. No matter how irrational these movements are, they are expressing real worries of real people. People want to feel that they have a cultural heritage and that their way of life will be preserved for their children and they fear that immigration can dilute or change the culture that has been built for generations. It should not just be dismissed as racism or cultural bigotry.
Reality is that immigration is needed in Europe and the United States as both populations age. What we do not need is mass immigration and all social ills (mainly rightwing reaction) that goes with it. We need to be measured in our approach and we need to balance our cultural heritage with the benefits of immigration whether those benefits be economic or the blending of cultures that make our culture more diverse and satisfying for all.
Hasn't this been tried in Europe? The European Union should be evidence that most societies are not ready for this. Europe has seen a growing xenophobic backlash and the rise of radical rightwing parties over the past 10 years. No matter how irrational these movements are, they are expressing real worries of real people. People want to feel that they have a cultural heritage and that their way of life will be preserved for their children and they fear that immigration can dilute or change the culture that has been built for generations. It should not just be dismissed as racism or cultural bigotry.
Reality is that immigration is needed in Europe and the United States as both populations age. What we do not need is mass immigration and all social ills (mainly rightwing reaction) that goes with it. We need to be measured in our approach and we need to balance our cultural heritage with the benefits of immigration whether those benefits be economic or the blending of cultures that make our culture more diverse and satisfying for all.
8
@ Typical Ohio Liberal. Haven't we supposedly been the country of blending cultures from the beginning, although we are only now really beginning to respect the original Native American culture, the culture brought by the African slaves and the Hispanic culture of the Southwest which was dominant long before the Anglos? The EU has been great for young people who are the ones with the courage to go and experience other countries and cultures. It is the older people who start clinging to the past and being xenophobic. In England, instead of enjoying the shop selling Polish food and goods they evidently want to stick with "bangers and mash." But they do love their curries because they have been adopted for many years. Will we Americans choose to give up pasta, pizza, tacos, Chinese and Japanese food and go back to burgers and fries (leaving out the French part)? How about Brats and sauerkraut? Just how do you define our cultural heritage?
Friedman focuses on what the leaked documents reveal about Clinton, but the philosophy behind the exposure of private deliberations also requires scrutiny. Assange presents himself as an antagonist of corrupt elites who use secrecy to buttress their dominance.
His self-portrait as a champion of democracy captures part of the real Assange, but only in the same way that flattering depictions commissioned by successful people reflect an idealized version of the subjects. Assange may have a generic aversion to powerful individuals and institutions, but he also displays a more targeted hostility to groups and persons who threaten him in some way. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton, who undoubtedly would like to prosecute him, fit this description.
Even if one takes the Wikileaks founder's motives at face value, Assange resembles an anarchist more than a knight errant. The notion that private deliberations and secrets undermine a free society harks back to the WWI era, when President Wilson claimed that secret treaties, negotiated behind closed doors, had helped to cause the war.
The president had hit on part of the truth, but in fact the premature disclosure of sensitive deliberations can destroy any chance for agreements. The authors of the American Constitution, for example, had kept secret their debates, to encourage a frank exchange of ideas. While transparency remains a virtue in a free society, a rigid demand for it in all circumstances can do more harm than good.
His self-portrait as a champion of democracy captures part of the real Assange, but only in the same way that flattering depictions commissioned by successful people reflect an idealized version of the subjects. Assange may have a generic aversion to powerful individuals and institutions, but he also displays a more targeted hostility to groups and persons who threaten him in some way. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton, who undoubtedly would like to prosecute him, fit this description.
Even if one takes the Wikileaks founder's motives at face value, Assange resembles an anarchist more than a knight errant. The notion that private deliberations and secrets undermine a free society harks back to the WWI era, when President Wilson claimed that secret treaties, negotiated behind closed doors, had helped to cause the war.
The president had hit on part of the truth, but in fact the premature disclosure of sensitive deliberations can destroy any chance for agreements. The authors of the American Constitution, for example, had kept secret their debates, to encourage a frank exchange of ideas. While transparency remains a virtue in a free society, a rigid demand for it in all circumstances can do more harm than good.
8
I agree with Mr. Friedman, whatever difference that makes. Sometimes it is difficult to convey ideas to wide coalitions that make a good bit of sense in private. It is curious that most presidents at least attempt to keep their promises (contrary to popular belief): http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-th... . This means one has to read what they write and listen rather carefully to what they say, including areas where compromise is possible or likely. This means not paying attention to partisan assertions/tweets about how they interpret what is said solely for their own purposes.
As for Trump, I will quote a portion of the concluding paragraph from the above link:
"His plans to build a wall on the Mexican border, for instance, have probably been too specific and repeated too often for him to walk away from them, either as part of a general election strategy or in office. But on many other issues, it is difficult even to say what promises observers should score him on, as his rhetoric on the stump doesn’t match the official plan published by his campaign. Trump, then, is right to say he is not a typical politician: The best evidence we have suggests that the bulk of his promises really are as unreliable as voters wrongly assume his peers’ to be."
It is hopeful to see signs that Trump continues to plummet in the polls, that more of our citizens are coming to their senses.
As for Trump, I will quote a portion of the concluding paragraph from the above link:
"His plans to build a wall on the Mexican border, for instance, have probably been too specific and repeated too often for him to walk away from them, either as part of a general election strategy or in office. But on many other issues, it is difficult even to say what promises observers should score him on, as his rhetoric on the stump doesn’t match the official plan published by his campaign. Trump, then, is right to say he is not a typical politician: The best evidence we have suggests that the bulk of his promises really are as unreliable as voters wrongly assume his peers’ to be."
It is hopeful to see signs that Trump continues to plummet in the polls, that more of our citizens are coming to their senses.
7
Clinton is a pragmatic politician. Her speeches and emails, if fully revealed, probably bespeak that fact. I support her.
She is not, however, center-left by any definition. She is center-right. And that position bothers me as a senior and a retiree. My Social Security and Medicare, no matter how you try to argue otherwise, are not "entitlements." That she supports the propositions of Simpson-Bowles disturbs me. Those economically comfortable two old men would have the rest of us seniors take cuts to our "entitlements" as part of some grand bargain to restore balance to the USA economy. I would prefer a center-left Clinton in office who would increase the tax burden on the wealthy and change tax provisions that give people like Trump unlimited opportunities to avoid taxes.
Perhaps it is forgotten that in a nation where defined benefit pensions have disappeared, for too many seniors Social Security is the only income that they have. I am not voting for Clinton to condemn a whole class of USA citizens into even greater poverty! Take heed from how Trump gained traction!
She is not, however, center-left by any definition. She is center-right. And that position bothers me as a senior and a retiree. My Social Security and Medicare, no matter how you try to argue otherwise, are not "entitlements." That she supports the propositions of Simpson-Bowles disturbs me. Those economically comfortable two old men would have the rest of us seniors take cuts to our "entitlements" as part of some grand bargain to restore balance to the USA economy. I would prefer a center-left Clinton in office who would increase the tax burden on the wealthy and change tax provisions that give people like Trump unlimited opportunities to avoid taxes.
Perhaps it is forgotten that in a nation where defined benefit pensions have disappeared, for too many seniors Social Security is the only income that they have. I am not voting for Clinton to condemn a whole class of USA citizens into even greater poverty! Take heed from how Trump gained traction!
9
@vincentgaglione
NYC
Would you like to provide us with a link to wherever Clinton has said she supports the implementation of the Simpson Bowles program (which incidentally disappeared into the dustbin of history long ago). She has probably expressed concern about the deficit. What responsible politician hasn't.
NYC
Would you like to provide us with a link to wherever Clinton has said she supports the implementation of the Simpson Bowles program (which incidentally disappeared into the dustbin of history long ago). She has probably expressed concern about the deficit. What responsible politician hasn't.
5
It was the following quote in Friedman's piece which prompted me:
In a speech to a Morgan Stanley group on April 18, 2013, WikiHillary praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan, which included reforming the tax code to increase investment and entrepreneurship and raising certain taxes and trimming some spending and entitlements to make them more sustainable.
The ultimate shape of that grand bargain could take many forms, she said, but Hillary stressed behind closed doors: “Simpson-Bowles … put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula.”
In a speech to a Morgan Stanley group on April 18, 2013, WikiHillary praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan, which included reforming the tax code to increase investment and entrepreneurship and raising certain taxes and trimming some spending and entitlements to make them more sustainable.
The ultimate shape of that grand bargain could take many forms, she said, but Hillary stressed behind closed doors: “Simpson-Bowles … put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula.”
3
America has a lot of moving parts.
The 4 to 6 million high paid jobs lost to off-shoring and robotic technology or coal miners losing out to the high environmental costs of coal are two sectors among hundreds, some losing while some win, often at the cost of another sector. Taxi drivers lose protected monopolies to Uber drivers. Travel agents lose to online booking sites. Bankers face a growing sector of online lenders and REITs compete against crowd-sourced real estate funds. Movie revenue is tanking to video games.
One %ers invest in expanding sectors while most of the 99% struggle in contracting sectors. Mechanisms for balancing and spreading the benefits of new sectors to losing sectors are an existing tax system as well as public funding initiatives to ameliorate displacement and facilitate wider participation in expanding sectors.
But the balancing mechanism has been sabotaged by Republicans who religiously deny America's fundamental sense of community and mutual responsibility to all citizens, specially those left behind or see no way forward.
The national debt is easily paid when we honor the moral debt we have to each other and remember America's not an island nor is any American. Fair taxes fuel prosperity.
Pitting one sector against another is how everyone loses. Restoring progressive taxes to insure broad public benefit of tax perverted private wealth is why it's critical to shrink GOP until it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Suicide works too.
The 4 to 6 million high paid jobs lost to off-shoring and robotic technology or coal miners losing out to the high environmental costs of coal are two sectors among hundreds, some losing while some win, often at the cost of another sector. Taxi drivers lose protected monopolies to Uber drivers. Travel agents lose to online booking sites. Bankers face a growing sector of online lenders and REITs compete against crowd-sourced real estate funds. Movie revenue is tanking to video games.
One %ers invest in expanding sectors while most of the 99% struggle in contracting sectors. Mechanisms for balancing and spreading the benefits of new sectors to losing sectors are an existing tax system as well as public funding initiatives to ameliorate displacement and facilitate wider participation in expanding sectors.
But the balancing mechanism has been sabotaged by Republicans who religiously deny America's fundamental sense of community and mutual responsibility to all citizens, specially those left behind or see no way forward.
The national debt is easily paid when we honor the moral debt we have to each other and remember America's not an island nor is any American. Fair taxes fuel prosperity.
Pitting one sector against another is how everyone loses. Restoring progressive taxes to insure broad public benefit of tax perverted private wealth is why it's critical to shrink GOP until it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Suicide works too.
68
I agree. These leaks have been fascinating not for the reasons I'm sure Assange, Putin, and indeed trump hoped but for the way it shows Clinton's governing mind.
No smoking gun, no great reveal of corruption. Even the speeches don't contain promises to big banks, but rather musings about the biggest challenges facing the world. The only one that bothered me was the one about her saying the banks could help figure out their own reforms. I still remember a fuming Warren excoriating Citibank for grafting US banking laws.
The inner workings of her campaign aren't really bad either. As you point out, what would any hijack of emails from ant candidate show--Sanders, Trump, Rubio, Cruz?
I'm sure the latest scandal (trump calls it as big as "Watergate!") is also a big nothing, taken totally out of context. In fact the FBI this morning admits this famous offer "quid pro quo" on classification of a Clinton email came from them, not Clinton.
Like you, Tom, I feel relieved and enlightened. And more confidant than ever that Madam President will know what she's doing, and where she's going, on Day 1.
No smoking gun, no great reveal of corruption. Even the speeches don't contain promises to big banks, but rather musings about the biggest challenges facing the world. The only one that bothered me was the one about her saying the banks could help figure out their own reforms. I still remember a fuming Warren excoriating Citibank for grafting US banking laws.
The inner workings of her campaign aren't really bad either. As you point out, what would any hijack of emails from ant candidate show--Sanders, Trump, Rubio, Cruz?
I'm sure the latest scandal (trump calls it as big as "Watergate!") is also a big nothing, taken totally out of context. In fact the FBI this morning admits this famous offer "quid pro quo" on classification of a Clinton email came from them, not Clinton.
Like you, Tom, I feel relieved and enlightened. And more confidant than ever that Madam President will know what she's doing, and where she's going, on Day 1.
171
@ Christine McMorrow. Yours are usually among my favorite comments but just this one time I would like to challenge you a bit on one point, and that is about reforming banks. If the reforms are totally imposed from the outside there might be more effort to skirt them. If the banks can be convinced to be better "citizens" and choose to be more honest rather than just greedy I think the reforms would have a better chance of working. Maybe I'm naive but I'd like to think that there are some moral people working for the banks and not just greedy ones.
2
Her unwillingness to reveal the speeches was intended to avoid distortion if her statements. I've not read them but your description makes it seem as if he approaches consistently one of balance for example, regulation vs undue burden. Of course balance does not work with a GOP controlled Congress.
37
I'm not sure that was the only motivation behind not revealing her speeches. She was being held - once again - to an uneven and higher standard than her opponents. Let's just say that if ALL of them had been asked to release transcripts of speeches they'd made to special interests, well, then, okay. But to have to release her tax forms AND her speech transcripts when another candidate won't release even the tax forms, then I admire her for refusing to play by another set of rules being applied to her.
267
We could as Trump to release all of the out-takes from the Apprentice, and any remaining Howard Stern tapes.
1
Tom, the speeches don't scare me - but let's not pretend that globalization run amok has worked. It hasn't - least of all for many of the workers in emerging markets who have been converted from farmers into factory serfs by oligarchs, like the Communist Party billionaires (talk about your oxymoron) seeking to shelter their overflow wealth in New York real estate.
The devil is always in the details - and as of today, no adequate mechanism has been devised for simultaneously, and continually, raising the boats of workers around the world. And that's what will be necessary for globalization to become a force for liberation instead of marginalization.
Protectionism isn't ideal - but unless an appropriate mechanism can be implemented over the next few years, protectionism will be in our future, even if we dodge the bullet here (due to the fact that the messenger was an "A list" psycho).
Workers in developing markets need to be paid fair wages based on a rough global wage scale - or else their poverty will become an epidemic that spreads across the advanced industrial world. It's this fear of looming poverty that is underpinning so much of the discontent sweeping the planet.
We have the resources available to us to create a near paradise on this planet, once we make up our minds to do so.
Is the Hillary the person to lead that revolution in consciousness? If the alternative is Drumpf, you bet she is.
The devil is always in the details - and as of today, no adequate mechanism has been devised for simultaneously, and continually, raising the boats of workers around the world. And that's what will be necessary for globalization to become a force for liberation instead of marginalization.
Protectionism isn't ideal - but unless an appropriate mechanism can be implemented over the next few years, protectionism will be in our future, even if we dodge the bullet here (due to the fact that the messenger was an "A list" psycho).
Workers in developing markets need to be paid fair wages based on a rough global wage scale - or else their poverty will become an epidemic that spreads across the advanced industrial world. It's this fear of looming poverty that is underpinning so much of the discontent sweeping the planet.
We have the resources available to us to create a near paradise on this planet, once we make up our minds to do so.
Is the Hillary the person to lead that revolution in consciousness? If the alternative is Drumpf, you bet she is.
193
But there is already a system for raising boats! It is called education. Of course, you have to want it and you have to have parents who understand the value of it.
Many in the youger generation are going to have to be encouraged, supported, but also taught to curtail a lot of immediate pleasures to make a good life for themselves. Make education more accessible, absolutely, and bringing a little bit of moral fiber (and patience and resolve and determination and fortitude and love of good work and love of reading) to the table, definitely.
Many in the youger generation are going to have to be encouraged, supported, but also taught to curtail a lot of immediate pleasures to make a good life for themselves. Make education more accessible, absolutely, and bringing a little bit of moral fiber (and patience and resolve and determination and fortitude and love of good work and love of reading) to the table, definitely.
2
I agree. The biggest problem with these trade agreements is they don't address the wide disparity in wages, which is the main driver for "that sucking sound", as Ross Perot used to say, as companies move their factories to where the cheap labor is. Some sort of minimum wage should be a basis for any agreement. That would provide less incentive for the companies to leave. It would also provide for greater spending (consuming) by those workers in other countries, who now receive fair wages (on a global scale).
1
" as of today, no adequate mechanism has been devised for simultaneously, and continually, raising the boats of workers around the world."
What has worked in modern, industrialized countries are unions.
What has worked in modern, industrialized countries are unions.
2
This is an argument that will resonate with those who benefit from the unrestricted trade that Sec. Clinton evangelizes but not with the vast numbers of middle class (or who once were middle class) Americans who have been displaced by the race to the bottom that unrestricted trade is. We fashioned our trade agreements without providing for them in an orgy of creative destruction. She first favored the TPP then, when popular resistance to it intensified, she voiced concerns – but your first reaction to something is usually the real one.
Her October 2013 speech? I once had little concern that Sec. Clinton might be elected president, because once her proffered policies made a lot of moderate sense. But since the convention she has embraced the levelling agenda of Bernie Sanders and the regulatory agenda of Elizabeth Warren. Both would be catastrophic for America, as she hinted in her 2013 speech – but if she wins, she’ll feel obligated to name people to help her who believe in it and pursue those objectives.
Nobody that I’m aware of has ever accused Hillary Clinton of being stupid. While some of the content of those speeches is embarrassing, after Romney’s aphasic “47%” comments I would have been astonished if she’d said something earth-shattering. She didn’t: she merely played to her well-paying audience.
Her October 2013 speech? I once had little concern that Sec. Clinton might be elected president, because once her proffered policies made a lot of moderate sense. But since the convention she has embraced the levelling agenda of Bernie Sanders and the regulatory agenda of Elizabeth Warren. Both would be catastrophic for America, as she hinted in her 2013 speech – but if she wins, she’ll feel obligated to name people to help her who believe in it and pursue those objectives.
Nobody that I’m aware of has ever accused Hillary Clinton of being stupid. While some of the content of those speeches is embarrassing, after Romney’s aphasic “47%” comments I would have been astonished if she’d said something earth-shattering. She didn’t: she merely played to her well-paying audience.
17
"She first favored the TPP then"
This is a mistaken analysis. The TPP she favored then is not the TPP we have today. It changed over the subsequent 3 years of negotiation. Hillary supported that negotiation because it was promising. But you can't conflate that with supporting the final product.
Don't be confused by the fact that we used the phrase "the TPP" to refer both to the process of negotiation and to the final agreement.
This is a mistaken analysis. The TPP she favored then is not the TPP we have today. It changed over the subsequent 3 years of negotiation. Hillary supported that negotiation because it was promising. But you can't conflate that with supporting the final product.
Don't be confused by the fact that we used the phrase "the TPP" to refer both to the process of negotiation and to the final agreement.
8
Richard,
If you loved the first Clinton Presidency, you're going to love this one too! Hillary will start with almost half the country against her outright and at least 20% who voted for her as a second choice. That 20% is well represented here in the NYT comments section.
Even they admit that Hillary stands for Hillary, but at least she's not the other guy! Well, she's not Bernie Sanders either! Government by "triangulation" is probably better than government by ideology, however you won't convince most of those here of that fact. On the "positive side" we may recover some of the stuff the Clintons stole from the White House the last time they were there.
Let me predict that it won't take 100 days for the NYT and its "approved commenters" to turn on Clinton 2.0! In fact, by the time the snow melts we will be fighting the 2018 midterm battle to elect a more "Progressive Congress"! Never mind that that's not what the voters want or the country needs.
Win or loose this is the end for those here who define themselves by the war in Vietnam. On the bright side that end may come with a Goldwater supporter in the White House and a Republican Congress!
Truly, you can't make this stuff up!
If you loved the first Clinton Presidency, you're going to love this one too! Hillary will start with almost half the country against her outright and at least 20% who voted for her as a second choice. That 20% is well represented here in the NYT comments section.
Even they admit that Hillary stands for Hillary, but at least she's not the other guy! Well, she's not Bernie Sanders either! Government by "triangulation" is probably better than government by ideology, however you won't convince most of those here of that fact. On the "positive side" we may recover some of the stuff the Clintons stole from the White House the last time they were there.
Let me predict that it won't take 100 days for the NYT and its "approved commenters" to turn on Clinton 2.0! In fact, by the time the snow melts we will be fighting the 2018 midterm battle to elect a more "Progressive Congress"! Never mind that that's not what the voters want or the country needs.
Win or loose this is the end for those here who define themselves by the war in Vietnam. On the bright side that end may come with a Goldwater supporter in the White House and a Republican Congress!
Truly, you can't make this stuff up!
2
I am with Hillary. At least she as a plan. Mr. Trump has nothing.
Let's give Mrs. Clinton a chance.
Let's give Mrs. Clinton a chance.
6
I totally agree. Putin & Assange thought they would embarrass Mrs Clinton on Mr Trump's behalf but it might have the opposite effects for the people who are genuinely interested in the content of the emails and not just the headline news.
For example, if it if true, one shows the VP list demonstrates the Clinton camp has casted a wide net for the best possible candidate, including Sens. Warren & Sanders, and many extremely capable business leaders like GM's Barra & Apple's Cook.
Some of the emails might be lawyer-y but nothing nefarious. But more important, they reveal a pragmatic Clinton with a diverse group of people working for her. It is welcome news to show Mrs Clinton remains a centrist at heart. Good for the independents.
Of course, probably Wikileaks never intended for the emails to support Mrs Clinton, Putin & Assange probably thought they would damage her. The problem is that WikiLeaks has become an empty shell of its previous self. Without any analytic and parsing capability, it just dumps the data core. Sure, words like 'leaks' and 'emails' have achieved certain negative connotation in contemporary setting but the details are anything but.
Still, this hack must not go unanswered. The cyberwar has just begun
For example, if it if true, one shows the VP list demonstrates the Clinton camp has casted a wide net for the best possible candidate, including Sens. Warren & Sanders, and many extremely capable business leaders like GM's Barra & Apple's Cook.
Some of the emails might be lawyer-y but nothing nefarious. But more important, they reveal a pragmatic Clinton with a diverse group of people working for her. It is welcome news to show Mrs Clinton remains a centrist at heart. Good for the independents.
Of course, probably Wikileaks never intended for the emails to support Mrs Clinton, Putin & Assange probably thought they would damage her. The problem is that WikiLeaks has become an empty shell of its previous self. Without any analytic and parsing capability, it just dumps the data core. Sure, words like 'leaks' and 'emails' have achieved certain negative connotation in contemporary setting but the details are anything but.
Still, this hack must not go unanswered. The cyberwar has just begun
565
So much of what is secret is quite banal. The mere fact that something was hacked is no guaranteee that it is interesting.
8
Assange betrayed Bradley Manning, and redacted nothing of the identities of service personnel (CIA) on their "data dumps."
5
The war has been on for years now. Does anyone think the NSA hasn't been hacking into the Russian system? If they were willing to steal our allies information, surely they've done the same to Russia.
1
I haven't seen anything released so far that she should be ashamed of. Her opposition must have been a political calculation to oppose Bernie Sanders. In making that stand, she provided fuel to her opponents that she is a liar and phony. She played into their hands.
This is what happens when political consultants run a campaign. Did FDR use political consultants when he spoke to the people? No, he spoke to us directly and the people believed and followed him. The people cherished him.
Electing a president is not like buying a box of cereal but that's how we run our campaigns now.
She should fully release the transcripts and be proud of them. Stand by them. Hillary has to be president of all the people. If being economically centrist causes her to lose support from the extreme left, she might very well gain even more support from the center right than she lost. Corporations have way too much power but waging a campaign to destroy them will not be anywhere near as effective as working with them and push toward a more socially responsible left leaning policy.
Stand tall Hillary and let us see you. Publish the transcripts and defuse the attacks on your credibility.
This is what happens when political consultants run a campaign. Did FDR use political consultants when he spoke to the people? No, he spoke to us directly and the people believed and followed him. The people cherished him.
Electing a president is not like buying a box of cereal but that's how we run our campaigns now.
She should fully release the transcripts and be proud of them. Stand by them. Hillary has to be president of all the people. If being economically centrist causes her to lose support from the extreme left, she might very well gain even more support from the center right than she lost. Corporations have way too much power but waging a campaign to destroy them will not be anywhere near as effective as working with them and push toward a more socially responsible left leaning policy.
Stand tall Hillary and let us see you. Publish the transcripts and defuse the attacks on your credibility.
355
@Bruce Rozenblit
Kansas City, MO
Actually FDR used plenty of political consultants. The principal one was called Louie Howe.
Kansas City, MO
Actually FDR used plenty of political consultants. The principal one was called Louie Howe.
6
Why should Hillary publish her speeches? Who else has been even asked to do such a thing? Any GOPers? Any men? No, only Hillary.
I believe the speeches show exactly who Hillary is, a smart, lifelong politician with her own views. The legislation she supported shows who she is, a wonky Democrat who does what she says. And I will happily vote for her.
But to hold her to standards that other do not have to meet is unfair.
I believe the speeches show exactly who Hillary is, a smart, lifelong politician with her own views. The legislation she supported shows who she is, a wonky Democrat who does what she says. And I will happily vote for her.
But to hold her to standards that other do not have to meet is unfair.
11
You think HRC will stand tall? Like her stand on TPP? She is for free trade in the hemisphere except when it will cost her votes among Bernie supporters. She will lead the same way.
1
Spot on. When the content of these speeches started to leak, I almost felt like I was watching a Hillary Clinton for President ad campaign aimed at intelligent, mature, serious people.
799
It is, but how many intelligent, mature, serious people in this vast wasteland of ignoramuses.
5
Exactly, which is why she can't do that on the campaign trail. There aren't enough of them.
6
"I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade ... and we have to resist protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade.”
...“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..."
A single market, no borders, for South, Central, and North America.
If TPP is Nafta on steroids, this vision is the EU on steroids. It is the exact opposite of what many people want.
...“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..."
A single market, no borders, for South, Central, and North America.
If TPP is Nafta on steroids, this vision is the EU on steroids. It is the exact opposite of what many people want.
26
Possibly. But the dirty little secret of the EU is that it mostly works pretty well. The free movement of labour that so frightens the Farages and other ignorant bigots has opened opportunities for millions of young people across the Continent.
And for the first time in centuries, Europe hasn't been ripped apart by war in rather a while.
Yes, the bureaucracy is maddening, the Euro zone was made too big too early, and the fallout of centuries of colonialism around the world is bringing terrorism anew to the Continent, but on balance, the EU project has been a positive one.
And on the latter point, does anyone remember the IRA? the Bader-Meinhof Complex? Extremist-driven mayhem is not new. But Europe's best chance at confronting and defeating it is most certainly not withdrawing into thirty-odd isolationist nations again.
'Many people' can long for a smallness of vision, but the arc of history is towards a more open and co-operative world, not a paranoid and closed one.
And for the first time in centuries, Europe hasn't been ripped apart by war in rather a while.
Yes, the bureaucracy is maddening, the Euro zone was made too big too early, and the fallout of centuries of colonialism around the world is bringing terrorism anew to the Continent, but on balance, the EU project has been a positive one.
And on the latter point, does anyone remember the IRA? the Bader-Meinhof Complex? Extremist-driven mayhem is not new. But Europe's best chance at confronting and defeating it is most certainly not withdrawing into thirty-odd isolationist nations again.
'Many people' can long for a smallness of vision, but the arc of history is towards a more open and co-operative world, not a paranoid and closed one.
15
As Europe declines and Asia struggles to maintain high growth, it could very well be that Latin America becomes the fastest growing region on earth, economically. Hillary could be spot-on championing a hemispheric alliance that has learned the lessons of the others and shares the benefits across all sectors of society.
6
The EU's problem is mostly the Euro. The single market has benefited all countries. Even the open borders have been fine here in the UK (from my perspective as an ex-pat). Most folks in Britain today think Brexit is a mistake despite the vote to the con tray in June. Most of the manufacturing jobs are gone because it is much less labor intensive process. My object to TPP is not free trade but the ability of corporations to break down environmental and labor standards. This is not a simple black and white
issue with a simple answer. Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated an understanding of the levels of grey.
issue with a simple answer. Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated an understanding of the levels of grey.
7
The problem is that Mrs. Clinton is too controlled in public. She won't share her vision. Is she afraid? I say the answer is yes. She and her husband were completely shocked at the level of public scrutiny they received on moving into the White House in 1993 and she, being much accustomed to a role on the side out of the spotlight, was perhaps permanently altered, damaged, especially with the beating she took trying to fix our health insurance system. All of this and the campaign of 2008 taught her and her aides the wrong kind of lessons: stay low, keep your head down and be extremely, extremely careful what you say.
If she hides as president, we are in for a rough four years. Obama, to a much lesser degree, is also unhappy at times with the public leadership aspect of the presidency. It seems he imagined himself as legislator-in-chief, while still being reticent about actually send bills to the Hill. With his ability to handle himself in public, he is nowhere near the over cautiousness of Clinton.
As for her statements about open trade being a dream, do full employment and substantial raises for workers go along with that vision? How about "open borders"? No, because the economies and value of the various currencies are too great to allow that any time soon, like the next 100 yrs. What was she thinking? Open borders? The disparity between here and there, south of the border, is too great. It would be like opening a mighty dam without considering where the water goes.