Personal Note
If there was one person in the Philadelphia blogosphere that was an outspoken critic of the Barack Obama candidacy, it was Susie Madrak. Susie’s never been one to mince words, and as a result she was vilified for her point of view. I know, because I was one of the people who would argue with her about my preference for Obama over Clinton.
My feelings about the Clintons are no secret: I remain antagonistic against Bill Clinton for the way he sold out working people with NAFTA, and the way he sold out the poor with welfare reform. Knowing that the Republicans were rabid with rage over his presidency, and looking for anything to pin to him, he still stuck his dick in a young woman who wasn’t his wife. No, it’s nobody’s business, but anyone could see the Republicans would MAKE it everyone’s business. And so we ended up with more than a decade of Republican rule. Hell, Clinton’s mistakes led to the disaster of the Gore candidacy in my opinion, and directly to George Bush. And so I was deeply suspicious, and with good reason, of Hilary, who was and is deeply involved in her husband’s political activies. I also didn’t like the race-baiting emanating from her campaign, and her refusal to bow out when it was clear Obama was going to win.
That said, I don’t know that Hilary Clinton as president would have made nice with the GOP or the insurance industry the way Obama has. I honestly don’t know. And I don’t think she would have been rolled the way Obama seems to have been rolled (if he was rolled at all. Anyone who hasn’t noticed that politicians promise the moon and deliver substantially less isn’t paying attention).
What I do know is that Susie was proved right about a number of things, including those ties to Wall Street. But a number of bloggers who were vociferous Obama advocates, who now are much more pithily critical of the president, have never once acknowledged that it was THEY who were wrong, and not Susie. I think that’s a damned shame.
For instance, here’s a post from January 2008, highlighting how Obama might deal (and has dealt) with the collapse of the housing market:
“There’s been less emphasis from the Obama campaign on the really dysfunctional role of the financial industry in the subprime mess,” says Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute. “Edwards and Clinton talk much more about regulation of the financial industry going forward, and to the extent that blame is placed, they tend to place it on the lenders for steering people into loans they couldn’t afford.”
Obama’s disappointing foreclosure plan stems from the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisers and his campaign’s ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulation…
Goldman Sachs, which made $6 billion from devalued mortgage securities in the first nine months of 2007, is Obama’s top contributor. When asked if Obama would hold these financial institutions accountable for losses incurred by homeowners and investors, his campaign refused to comment.
Prescient, eh, as the adminsitration ended up opposing cramdown or direct aid to underwater homeowners and bailed out the banks with no strings attached.
You may also enjoy this post, in which Obama proclaims his support for universal health care and opposition to the PATRIOT ACT.
Like a lot of people, Susie’s out of work. So if you like what she writes (I’m a daily reader), sling her a couple of dollars. Because unless you’re a bank or an insurance company, no one’s riding to your rescue: we have to help each other.
