IX: Obama’s Triumph of the Will: The 2008 Primaries 349used to be a corrective to.” (James Poniewozik, “Keith Olbermann Blows Last Remaining Gasket,”
Time, May 27, 2008)
Former SDS leader and foundation fellow traveler Tom Hayden worried that Obama was too
weak on the issues, and was losing out to Hillary for that basic reason: “...Obama’s basic problem is
that he relies on stylistic differences rather than substantive ones, because he believes he cannot
attack Clinton on policy grounds and still maintain his centrist orientation. She senses that, is
therefore neutralizing the policy differences, and taking the offensive to demolish his character
claims. Between two candidates with personal baggage, she figures the voters will ultimately vote
for experience.” (Huffington Post, April 23, 2008) But there were very important policy differences
between Clinton and Obama, and these explained the way the Democratic Party was dividing.
Clinton was for a freeze on foreclosures and on interest rate resets on adjustable rate mortgages;
Obama wanted to let the “market” work. Clinton had crossed into explicit New Deal territory by
proposing the re-creation of the Home Loan Ownership Corporation, an FDR creation. Clinton
commented: “During the Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress dealt with huge
impending foreclosures by creating the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC. Now, a small but
growing group of academics and public figures, including Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat
of Connecticut, is calling for the federal government to bring back something like the HOLC. Count
me in.”^181 Obama’s man Goolsbee sniffed that one had to respect the “market,” instead. Clinton was
for universal health care; Wall Street crowed that Obama was the only Democrat who opposed it.
Clinton wanted to apply the New Deal method by lifting the 18¢ per gallon federal gasoline tax, and
shifting the resulting tax burden to a windfall profits tax on the oil cartel to keep the Highway
Construction Fund replenished and maintain jobs on the front. Obama cited a myriad of reactionary
pro-Wall Street economic charlatans to assert that this was pandering; he lost the Indiana primary as
a direct result. Clinton, having learned something during the campaign, wanted to re-open NAFTA
and other free trade sellouts. Obama gave lip service to this idea, but sent Goolsbee to reassure the
Canadians that this was pure electioneering demagogy. Clinton was for a robust manned space
program, one of the indispensable science drivers for any future recovery; Obama wanted to wipe
out the manned space program by shifting the funds into education – a cheap and transparent anti-
science ploy. Obama’s advisors, especially the pudgy-faced Jason Furman and his sidekick Jeffrey
Liebman, wanted to begin privatizing Social Security to please Robert Rubin of bankrupt Citibank;
Clinton was having none of this. Even more important, as time went on, Obama moved towards the
Wall Street financier line on all major issues, while Clinton moved in the New Deal direction. It
was a clear choice.
CLINTON IN NEW DEAL TERRITORY
In economic policy, Michelle Obama’s veiled references to broken souls and a future of sacrifice
and the presence of ultra-right Friedmanite Chicago school ideologues like Austan Goolsbee make
clear that an Obama presidency will be one of savage austerity, economic sacrifice, and a lowering
of the standard of living for the already exhausted and depleted US population. There will be
onerous global warming taxes to please Al Gore, global solidarity taxes for third world subversion,
and much more. The proceeds will flow to Wall Street. Corporate state entities of the type
demanded by Rubin, Soros, Rohatyn and Rudman will be set up to exploit the infrastructure crisis
to create new financial bubbles. Obama is likely to cause more immiseration that Carter, who still
holds the post-Hoover record in this sad department. Civil war in the US is a distinct possibility.
Sen. Clinton, by contrast, benefited by being betrayed and scorned by the worst Wall Street
predators (Rockefeller, Soros), the worst media whores, and the worst Democratic Party elitists. She