Taking direct aim at likely 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton—in a nod to his own presidential aspirations—former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley on Sunday said that what the country needs most now is "new perspective" and "new leadership."
Climate Change will intrude on the next presidential election. We can deal with the most dangerous situation we have ever faced or we can whistle our way past the grave yard.
I really hope Hillary does not run. First: She is too old to run for the presidency. She belongs to a fading generation and not the future. Second: She is in the power and influence of Wall Street not Main Street. She is the 1% not Change. The Presidency is not a crown.
Let's see, the last Maryland former governor to run for high offioce was Spiro "Ted" Agnew--to which everyone queried "Who's he?". So now Martin O'Malley is throwing his hat in the ring,"Who's he?".
I forget, now. Did Spiro go to jail, or just get thrown out of being Noxin's VP? I believe he was convicted of fraud and selling influence so he fit right in to U.S. politics.
“The greatest danger that we face right now on a consistent basis — in terms of man-made threats — is nuclear Iran..."
Right. You mean the Iran which has no nuclear weapons program, as opposed to Israel which has a stock pile of nuclear bombs? Just more corporatist war-mongering from the Dems. Which means most so-called Progressives will love this guy. Too bad he's not black or a woman. He would be a real challenge to Killary.
He pleaded no contest...No jail to my knowledge..
That comment gave me pause too. I guess, compared with terrorist attack or military attack of any kind, climate change is "natural", however brought about.
They can talk all they want about Democratic values, but until they start repealing the bush and reagan tax cuts for the rich, this country will continue in the death spiral started on November 4, 1980, a date that will forever remain a blot on American history.
Eh. Actually, VP Joe Biden will be the 2016 Dem Party candidate, and will be launching his campaign in late summer. Any Dem pol can challenge him for the nomination, of course, splitting Dem voters to make a 2016 Dem Party defeat possible. (There is a good chance of this regardless, since masses who voted for Obama -- the poor, and those who get why unrelieved poverty is sinking the country -- have been further alienated by Democrats and liberals.) While Clinton has the best publicity money can buy -- most notably, MSNBC -- she is unelectable because of her long, long record of support for the right wing agenda. Pro-war, anti-New Deal, worked to promote the TPP before deciding to play Candidate Coy, etc., etc. To my knowledge, Biden hasn't yet picked a running mate.
Yes, the Reagan Revolution (esp. Reagan's deregulation mania) has taken a heavy toll on the country. Add in the class war -- middle class vs. poor. It's important to look back, to remember that the US has been in this situation before, when the richest few/corporations gained too much power over Congress, to the harm of the nation. Each time, the poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, ultimately united to successfully push back -- to everyone's benefit. That can't happen this time, so we don't know how things will turn out.
On Clinton, she would first have to challenge VP Joe Biden for the nomination.In spite of such efforts by news corps. such as MSNBC to market Clinton, the "masses" aren't buying, due to her long record of support for the right wing agenda. Interesting point overlooked by lib media: Boomers overall are keenly aware of the threat Clinton would be to Social Security, for reasons that don't fit well into a simple post. In brief, what came to be called AFDC was actually first written into FDR's Social Security Act. Bill Clinton got rid of that, and began dismantling Social Security itself, targeting the disabled for cuts. (Social Security, incidentally, provides retirement and disability benefits for workers.) Although President Obama restored the benefits the disability cuts, the Clinton "New Democrats" in Congress promptly resumed cuts, and are reportedly planning cuts twice as deep as B. Clinton's previous cuts. We know this will cost lives. The ultimate goal, of course: Ending Social Security for disabled workers as a necessary step toward ending Social Security in whole. Just as Bill Clinton wiped out the Great Society, we have no doubt that Hillary Clinton's goal would be to wipe out the New Deal.
I think anyone who paid attention in science class back in grade school can understand why the climate change we face today IS man-made, not natural. Burning fossil fuels adds soot and oil particles to the air, the oil particles intensify the sun's heat (much like a magnifying glass) and the soot particles absorb that heat, keeping it relatively close to the ground. Humans are burning massive amounts of fossil fuels around the world every minute, every day, and our atmosphere keeps the oil/soot particles trapped (no, they don't fly off into outer space!). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure America's greatest contribution to climate change is our excessive use of privately-owned motor vehicles.Yet, Americans have fought every effort to transition to a modern mass transportation system.
Ol Tricky Dick ade what on the surface was a briliant move by picking a relatively unknown governor to fill an obscure office--teh vice presidency. Alas! NIxon did not do his homework and Agnew was bounced first (because even Nixon's enemies, of whom there were many, could all agree that Agnew would have been the worse of the two as president--so bye-bye assassination insurance!
In the end Richard Nixon got his revenge by appointing Gerald Ford--by all accounts a fumbling and bumbling but really nice fellow--to succeed him and then announced his appointment with a straight face as though he had considered the choice for a long time as he pondered the good of the nation.
Then Gerald Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller and all the conspiracy theorists said, "see I told you so!!". Rocky's taste in indiscreet womanizing led to his demise when he attempted to take one too many rides on a young lass about one third his age and succumbed to a heart attack. We guess that at least he died with a smile on his face.
Let's look no further than the Bush family. A nightmare come true for the United States. Gave us two already. As people they are horrid. Their work is horrid. The matriarch, Barbara-why not, she even told us how much better off Katrina victims were after they were displaced. With the Bushes, you not only get a crown thing going, you also get people who are supposedly sober speaking like they are on psychedelic drugs and perceive a looking glass reality.
Now, does a dynasty seem that strange in relation to the people who are leading the charge for it?
Overall, I applaud the courage of anyone who would think to throw his hat in the Dem ring for the Presidency. We need several of these people to challenge and test the presumptive front-runner. And yes, who is he? I hope to learn more in the coming weeks and months. Is he substance with a record to prove his stated convictions, or just another pretty face, so to speak. I guess kind of like Obama turned out to be.
I think you are narrowing your criticism too much. The Bush family and their supporters are symptomatic of what ails us, not a special or anomalous case. Many of our presidents have been bought and sold; have presented a sober face at the same time that they reveled in chicanery and double dealing--and often, with great calamity for other peoples of the world, including our own. I don't need to cite the list of outrages and abuses our leadership, congress and yes, people, have supported over the past 150 years. So, to focus on the Bush family, while correct, is to assume that the blister is located on one spot of the larger body politic. It's not. We are consumed by fire, by disease, and we are now entering our Saint Vitus Dance.
That's true, and that's exactly when it started, 1980. Problem is, younger people who are sympathetic literally don't know it. The fact that 1980 was the year everything changed is basically never brought up. My own life was intensely affected by it, I was in my first year of college. Everything related to the economy began to change very fast, in the cities the homeless appeared almost overnight in some places, for education, social and medical services, and other essentials it just became one big no.
People who are thirty years old have no knowledge of what it was like even as late as the 1970's and the media whores pulling in huge salaries don't seem to want to tell them. The silencing of the country that began that year has permanently affected peoples' expectations-they want a new electronic gadget but don't understand why they have 40K in student loans. They have lived in an economic fantasy all their lives and are not prepared to even understand it.
To know all about the Bush crime family, read Russ Baker's " Family of Secrets" . Superbly documented. Naturally Russ wasn't sued by the Bushes. They hope no one reads this fact filled expose'.
Disagree. I do understand that, thanks to such outlets as MSNBC essentially serving as an arm of the Clinton non-campaign, people aren't yet well-informed about 2016. VP Joe Biden already IS the 2016 Dem Party candidate. If you still don't know about the considerable work he has been doing, please catch up. Biden will be launching his campaign in late summer, following much the same strategy used before by Obama/Biden. Clinton or any other Dem pol can challenge him for the nomination, of course. What lib media hasn't yet addressed is the significant opposition to Clinton, based on her own record.
The Clintons were/are very popular with corporate media and the better-off, but not with the masses. H. Clinton is even more unelectable than Al Gore was, for many of the same reasons. Don't forget that because Bill Clinton was the first president to target Social Security (specifically, disability), H. Clinton is considered a significant threat to Social Security in whole -- an issue of great concern to the masses of Boomers. There's no doubt that she would pick up where her husband left off, doing to Social Security what her husband did to our former welfare programs.There is no way to hide H. Clinton's long record of support for the right wing agenda. Of particular concern is the widespread opposition to the TPP, and the fact that H. Clinton worked long and hard promoting the TPP before deciding to (maybe) run against Biden for the nomination.
What women's issues? She does occasionally speak about issues of concern to better-off women, not to the masses. The majority of US poor are women, and both Clintons (obviously) have been anti-poor, taking a strictly punitive approach to poverty. That's not only wrong, but wildly counter-productive.
Ah, that does make more sense.