Skip to main content

I'm not at Netroots Nation, but it sounds exciting. Most interesting to me was the discovery that the inimitable Charles Pierce is there. He had a great piece on Joe Biden's speech yesterday. And now he's just posted on Elizabeth Warren's.

He's been a public admirer of Warren's since before she ran against Scott Brown. And if you haven't read his long piece on her that was published in the magazine (May, I think), I highly recommend it. He's always been keen on her message, but he's also chronicled her growth as a skilled politician. For example, in the current post he notes parenthetically:

It is also to be noted that Warren was cagey enough not to mention the TPP specifically, but that her condemnation was general, and it was limited to the secrecy within which the deals are struck. Thus are options kept open. She's learning.
Of course, there's a huge longing among us for her to run for President. Pierce thinks she won't, and I think he's probably right. But the interesting point is his assessment that she will be a player in the next Presidential election even without running herself. In her speech she denounced deals 'done in secret so big corporations can do their dirty work behind closed doors'. Here's Charlie's reaction:
Even if she doesn't run, and I still think the chances she will are almost nil, this is a shot directly across the bow of the putative Democratic frontrunner. There is nothing more central to the history of the last President Clinton than the Eisenhower-lite economics with which he triangulated himself, whether that's repealing Glass-Steagall, signing the Commodities Futures Modernization Act as he went out the door, or shepherding NAFTA through Congress and fast-shuffling it past the general population. There is no way for Hillary Clinton to detach herself from that legacy even if she wanted to, and it's not clear at all that she wants to. If Warren doesn't run, she nonetheless has an obvious constituency that is growing, and to which whoever the Democratic nominee is must respond.
Meanwhile, digby points us to Hillary Clinton's appearance on the Daily Show, which sounded some troubling notes. Here's Clinton:
What I found when I became secretary of state is that so many people in the world—especially young people—they had no memory of the United States liberating Europe and Asia, beating the Nazis, fighting the Cold War and winning, that was just ancient history. They didn’t know the sacrifices that we had made and the values that motivated us to do it. We have not been telling our story very well. We do have a great story. We are not perfect by any means, but we have a great story about human freedom, human rights, human opportunity, and let’s get back to telling it, to ourselves first and foremost, and believing it about ourselves and then taking that around the world. That’s what we should be standing for.
And here's digby's reaction:
My first reaction was hostility based upon the perception that she was saying we need to pat ourselves on the back about being exceptional more than we have been and then we'll live happily ever after. And frankly, if we wanted another round of Bushian proclamations about how "we're so good and they're so evil" I think we should probably just vote for Jeb and call it a day. But after watching it again, I realized that I might have been unfair. If what she was really getting at was a need to "find consensus" on the values that animate the Enlightenment spirit of our constitution and the Declaration of Independence, then I'm all for it. It would be the first time in our history that we were able to do it, but it's probably something worth doing.

If she's talking about some sort of "greatest country the world has ever known" boosterism, then she's not going to get very far. It's been a long time since World War II and the idea that we were widely considered to be the Good Guys during the Cold War just is not the case. We may have been considered "the better guy" in that match up by many in the western world, sure. Others disagreed. But this country did a lot of shady stuff during that era that's still haunting us today and it wasn't all in the name of "freedom and democracy."

Peter Beinart didn't like it either:
Really? Is America’s biggest post-Cold War foreign policy problem really that we’ve failed to adequately remind others, and ourselves, how good we are? After all, George W. Bush told Americans endlessly that the “war on terror” was another grand American crusade for freedom, in the tradition of World War II and the Cold War. In his second inaugural address and other thundering rhetorical displays, he announced to the world that America would champion liberty far and wide, as in days of old.
I'm not a Clinton hater, and I'd far rather elect her than lose the Presidency, but this is an example of why I'm less that completely enthusiastic about the prospect.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The name of Martin O'Malley keeps coming up (15+ / 0-)

    I know little about him except that he's the governor of MD. Should I be enthusiastic about him?

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 09:32:45 AM PDT

    •  He (might) make a very good VP (7+ / 0-)

      He has utterly no chance at mounting a national campaign, inside or outside of the HRC shadow.

      And I say this as a native Marylander.

      He's a good guy and is right on all of our important policies.  But he just doesn't have the infrastructure, money, recognition, party backing, donors, campaign staff, experience or key issue/position to use to attract national attention.

      VP... Sec of HHS or something.  I like him.  Everyone should like him.  But no... he's not going to be at the top of the ticket.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:07:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure what he would bring as VP (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Demi Moaned

        to, say, Hillary.   MD is a very blue state.  So was Delaware, in 2008, but Biden fulfilled the role as an older DC adviser to a younger president.  If Hillary were the nominee she obviously doesn't need that. She would probably pick a man, maybe a Latino?  I could see O'Malley in some other prominent role.

        the woman who is easily irritated

        by chicago minx on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:19:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Even if Clinton doesn't run? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Amber6541

        I mean, I think it's much more likely than not that she will run, but a lot can happen over the next year-plus.

        "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

        by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:20:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think she will, but if she doesn't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chicago minx, Demi Moaned, wu ming

          I think we're in for a Warren/Biden throwdown.

          O'Malley just doesn't have something that will play on the National airwaves.  No one outside DC/VA/MD has heard of him or cares.

          He was an average Governor in an average Blue state.  

          He'll be another Bill Richardson, only without the Clinton ties, ethnic constituency and a fraction of the public service experience.  The only thing people will speculate on is who he endorses when he drops out early.

          Just no traction.

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:27:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bill Richardson was a bozo! (0+ / 0-)

            Kos was really promoting him for a while, but once he surfaced as an announced candidate he was seemingly incapable of making a public appearance without saying something embarrassing. If O'Malley doesn't have a lot more on the ball than that, he'd better stay where he is.

            "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

            by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:32:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Elizabeth Warren won't run (10+ / 0-)

    at the top of the ticket, but can you imagine a Clinton-Warren ticket?    Yeah, some will say that two women on a ticket isn't balanced enough, but that's what they said about two Southerners in 1992...

  •  Funny quote: (6+ / 0-)
    we have a great story about human freedom, human rights, human opportunity, and let’s get back to telling it, to ourselves first and foremost, and believing it about ourselves and then taking that around the world.
    Let's make ourselves believe that the US of A is all 'bout human rights and stuff.  

    "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

    by Calvino Partigiani on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 09:49:51 AM PDT

  •  I hope Warren runs, although I don't think (8+ / 0-)

    she will.  We need an airing out a la 2008;  it gets people engaged and excited.

       For 2016, I'm less interested in the presidency as an agent of change. I want it more for two reasons:  1) SCOTUS, obviously, and 2) The demoralization of the GOP if Democrats win their third (and hopefully fourth) presidency in a row.  If they can't win national offices that says something about their party that even the most hardened teabagger will have to acknowledge. Eventually. So we have to win in 2016.

         My real concerns are the congressional and gubernatorial elections in both 2014 and 2016, because we've seen what a blight this current congress has been.

    the woman who is easily irritated

    by chicago minx on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 09:59:12 AM PDT

    •  "More and better Democrats" (6+ / 0-)

      That's right.  A President can't make Congress much better than it is on its own, but a good, progressive Congress can make an opening for a President to be better than she otherwise might be.

      With any luck will go into 2017 with majorities in both houses of Congress. Still, I can't look back at 2009 without some regret at what (even at the time) seemed to me squandered opportunity.

      "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

      by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:10:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The demoralization is key (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chicago minx, MarkW53, MRA NY

      Plus it is not common to see a term-limited President succeeded by a member of their own party.

      If we win in 2016, the only Presidents in the last century to accomplish that would be:

      Woodrow Wilson
      Franklin D Roosevelt
      Harry S Truman
      Ronald Reagan
      Barack Obama

      That's an interesting list (and 4:1 Democrat, I might add)

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:12:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't follow your comment (0+ / 0-)

        Wilson succeeded Taft and was succeeded by Harding, both Republicans. And Truman was succeeded by Eisenhower. And term limits didn't come into effect until Eisenhower took office.

        Anyway, I don't put much stock in those kinds of historical arguments. Presidential politics have changed a lot in the last hundred years.

        "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

        by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:25:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think she's pretty clearly running right (4+ / 0-)

      now. That could change but she seems to be in the early stages of a campaign.

      Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

      by tigercourse on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:18:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Warren or Clinton? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Demi Moaned

        the woman who is easily irritated

        by chicago minx on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Warren. (3+ / 0-)

          Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

          by tigercourse on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You think? I'm not sure. I know it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Demi Moaned, Amber6541

            took a lot to get her to run for Senate, and the rubber chicken dinner route to the presidency is so grueling.  

               

            the woman who is easily irritated

            by chicago minx on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:26:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Could be, but the simpler explanation (7+ / 0-)

            ... is that she using her own bully pulpit to build a case for the kind of public policies she's been championing since before she took political office. If we had two or three more like her, our political landscape would be transformed even if none of them ran for President.

            "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

            by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:28:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think she feels that she can make her case (4+ / 0-)

              more effectively that way, with less stress, than shaking hands in Iowa and NH. And by making her case I mean advocating for her positions, not running for president.

              the woman who is easily irritated

              by chicago minx on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:31:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm always confused about all the advice (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                karma13612

                to Elizabeth Warren that she'll have more power if she has less power.

                I've never seen that deployed on anyone before. "She'll be able to accomplish so much more in the Senate . . . blah blah blah"

                I don't recall that advice being given to Barack Obama, do you? Or John Kerry? John McCain? Or any other Senator who's ever run. It's laughable on the face of it. I admire that people can say it with a straight face.

                “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

                by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:44:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hey, I would love it if she ran (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Demi Moaned, Phoebe Loosinhouse

                  Hope she does.

                  the woman who is easily irritated

                  by chicago minx on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:57:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  There's a difference between advising her ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chicago minx, MRA NY

                  not to run, and seeing why she might not want to run. Undoubtedly the President has more power, but getting that power comes at a tremendous personal price.

                  And change is very much dependent on changing the terms and content of political discourse, something that a relative outsider (as I think Warren legitimately sees herself) has a lot more discretion to pursue. A candidate for President and even more so an actual President, must be very careful and guarded in saying anything.

                  "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

                  by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 12:19:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  the clinton boosters said this about obama in '08 (0+ / 0-)

                  if i recall correctly, although it was more shaded with implications of  "he needs more experience in government" (which was hilarious given that clinton had only been in the senate six years longer than obama).

                  the senate is where inspired leadership and good ideas goes to die in committee. it's about the worst avenue to meaningful change the political system has to offer.

            •  Not to mention (5+ / 0-)

              her top campaign advisers are openly telling people that she is NOT running and therefore has NO financing lined up, no state-level infrastructure, no campaign staff, no big data operations, etc.

              Hillary Clinton has all of that, and more, with one phone call.

              Obama had all of his winning pieces still in place from 2008 and still spent $985 MILLION in 2012 to counter Romney's $992 MILLION.  (And thats only counting the official campaign, the National Party and the one main affiliated SuperPAC for each: Priorities USA/Restore Our Future)

              She struggled to run a smooth state-wide campaign in one of the most liberal states in the country against a half-rate schmuck like Scott Brown and she has just 843 Days 18 Hours and 6 Minutes before polls open on 11/8/2016 to figure it out.

              .....not happening folks.

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:53:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  As a MA resident, I need to object slightly. She (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Amber6541, wu ming

                is the first female Senator from MA and I think that had more to do with anything.  And FYI, we are a 50/50 state when it comes to national politics.  Locally, that's a different story.

                "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

                by ditsylilg on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 01:00:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Pierce is Usually Very Sharp But He Missed the (6+ / 0-)

    dinghy on this one.

    If Warren doesn't run, she nonetheless has an obvious constituency that is growing, and to which whoever the Democratic nominee is must respond.
    I think he's missed the last 40 years. Democratic nominees run from the base during the nomination race, then for the general election they tack to the right.

    There's nobody a Democratic President needs to respond less to than constituencies like Warren's. That will never change.

    It would have to be changed.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:10:30 AM PDT

    •  You know, I was just thinking that here we have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBramble, MRA NY

      Elizabeth Warren making waves and a huge splash as she says the things people have been dying to hear for years and she is now the official champion of the people which is great and I love her for it and yet no one seems to be noticing that:

      Elizabeth is the only dog barking.

      Why? Why are all the other Democrats so silent as we lose our homes and our jobs and our nest eggs and our opportunities? What is the riddle behind the dogs that don't bark?

      Is there something wrong with this picture, folks?

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 01:49:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Warren could coalesce divergent contituencies... (4+ / 0-)

    ... and warm up cheering crowds to line a progressive pathway away from center-right politics. That enables a Democratic candidate to be bold and move left.  

  •  I want Warren where she is, thank you. (6+ / 0-)

    It's true a president needs to be espousing things good for We, the People rather than They, the Corporations - but no matter how good a president's beliefs/intentions are they die in the Senate if the Rs are controlling it.  I don't want anybody running for president who is currently holding down an elected position for our team.  We were lucky with Hillary's replacement, but half the crap going down in both KS and AZ are due to President Obama pulling dems from elected positions for his cabinet.  We are still in the unofficial depression of ought-eight because even when we had the House and Senate, we didn't have them by enough of a margin to do what needed to be done and part of that was the number of dem senators removed from the Senate for Obama's team.  Let Warren continue the good work she's doing in the Senate.

    •  I think we also made out well with Kerry's (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Demi Moaned, polecat, bfitzinAR

      That's a solid Senatorial Delegation he Bay State has in DC.

      Would be like if the plane never crashed and Minnesotans could say they were represented by Wellstone and Franken.

      But alas,.....

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:20:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't Franken hold the seat ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bfitzinAR

        previously occupied by Wellstone?

        "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

        by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:29:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Technically yes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Demi Moaned, polecat, bfitzinAR

          But one could argue that had Wellstone not died his seat would never have been competitive to someome like Norm Coleman and Franken could have stepped in when Mark Dayton announced in 2005:

          "Everything I've worked for, and everything I believe in, depends upon this Senate seat remaining in the Democratic caucus in 2007. I do not believe that I am the best candidate to lead the DFL Party to victory next year."

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:43:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  why want to spend $200M+ of Dem money fighting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demi Moaned, MarkW53

    other Dems for the nomination?

    From every poll I've seen to date it looks like Hillary will win the Dem nomination whether Warren, Biden and / or O'Malley (or others) run.  

    Rather than all of us and many other millions of Democrats donating hundreds of millions of dollars so the above candidates can fight for the nomination, I'd rather use that same money to support Democrats for Senate, House and Governors, along with the Dem Pres ticket.

    This is not a cost-free intellectual exercise.  If Warren runs, it will cost Dems hundreds of millions of Dem political dollars to wage that fight, money that could be better spent fighting the Republicans and the Tea Party.

  •  Even if Warren doesn't run (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demi Moaned, Dumbo

    (and I am hoping that she will)..........

    his assessment that she will be a player in the next Presidential election even without running herself.

    Here's Charlie's reaction:

    Even if she doesn't run, and I still think the chances she will are almost nil, this is a shot directly across the bow of the putative Democratic frontrunner. There is nothing more central to the history of the last President Clinton than the Eisenhower-lite economics with which he triangulated himself, whether that's repealing Glass-Steagall, signing the Commodities Futures Modernization Act as he went out the door, or shepherding NAFTA through Congress and fast-shuffling it past the general population.
    There is no way for Hillary Clinton to detach herself from that legacy even if she wanted to, and it's not clear at all that she wants to. If Warren doesn't run, she nonetheless has an obvious constituency that is growing, and to which whoever the Democratic nominee is must respond.

    _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

    by allenjo on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:49:37 AM PDT

  •  We may have no choice about finding (0+ / 0-)

    an alternative to Hillary if she does a 180 and decides not to run for the Whitehouse.  Elizabeth Warren is well placed to fill that vaccuum, and we can expect if she enters, there will be a line forming to compete with her.

    I don't see many people talking about this.  In USA today, there's an article about how Hillary might choose not to run because she knows how hard it is to be president and because her grandchild is about to be born.  Yeah, I'm not making that last part up.

    Would Hillary Clinton Skip 2016?

    The former secretary of State told Charlie Rose that the prospect of becoming a grandmother could be a factor in deciding against a 2016 campaign.

    “I’m about to have my first grandchild, which I’m thrilled about,” Clinton said Thursday, according to the PBS transcript. “I can’t wait. I want to see what that feels like. I’m not going to skip over it. I want to really be present, as I meet this … new person in our family.”

    We're so used to getting smoke signals about how her candidacy is inevitable that a smoke signal about spending more time with grandchildren (for Tenet it was his kids, and for Scott McClellan, it was his nephews, ew...) seems rather ominous.  Heaven forbid any Hillary for Prez supporters wish ill luck for Chelsea's pregnancy.
  •  Warren needs to stay in Congress (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ditsylilg

    where she can do the most good.  gotta get rid of the GOP which has demonstrated a willingness to do anything BUT their jobs.

  •  Let's clear up a couple facts here: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demi Moaned

    1.

    "...we have a great story about human freedom, human rights, human opportunity..."
    Slavery fueled the vast majority of America's economy from 1710 through 1865; women couldn't vote until the 1920s; the Klan ran nearly 70% of all local governments in the south from 1870 through 1975 while the steel, railroad and defense-related industry pretty much ran everything else; school kids were segregated between white and "others" up until 1965; workers in this country didn't get a full weekend off, any benefits, sick leave or vacation time until hundreds of people were killed by employer's union-busting efforts and several riots early in the 20th century; Americans of Asian descent were rounded up like cattle and caged in remote prison ghettos during WW2 for fear of sympathetic collusion with the Empire of Japan. And so forth. It appears that Hillary thinks everyone is just as uneducated, stupid and susceptible to jingoistic bullshit as the neocons.

    2.

    "... no memory of the United States liberating Europe and Asia, beating the Nazis ..."
    Also, no memory of how Asians and Jews were treated in this country up until the post-Vietnam era, no memory of how the Republican Party of the time was perfectly satisfied with letting Churchill and Great Britain become another cog in Hitler's Europe, no memory of what soldiers of the Empire of Japan did to Nanking or their prisoners of war or Red Cross nurses or the Philippines, no context of this country's involvement in armed conflict. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NO LONGER TAUGHT. And why is that? because it brings up unpleasant memories for our current business partners and ourselves.

    Since the end of WW2, every single armed conflict in which this country has participated has had nothing to do with survival and everything to do with promoting obtuse ideologies and notions of star spangled "freedom", which were nothing more than thinly veiled excuses for economic expansion.

    3.

    "... fighting the Cold War and winning..."
    Reagan and the politicians who think that this country actually "won" something as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union could no more have claimed responsibility for the "dubbaya" than could the mythological Greek god Bacchus for inventing grapes. the Soviets were already well on their way to collapse under the weight of their own "trickle down" policy called "communism”. Gorbachov had no choice but to “tear down that wall” because East Berlin and, for that matter, most of Communist Eastern Europe was on the verge of total social and economic collapse. The Soviet military hadn’t been paid in months, there was no available employment and little food in East Germany and, to make matters worse, winter was coming. People will generally tolerate an amazing amount of abuse from their government before they get angry enough to revolt, but they never tolerate blizzards, poverty and starvation all at once. Most analysts familiar with the situation agree that had “Gorby” not relented by capitulating in the face of the two Germanys desire to re-unify, he would have had another 1918-style revolution on his hands and a bloodbath rivaling anything that Stalin ever did that could easily have spread to every corner of the Soviet bloc. Bolshevik Communism was a failure - and in fact had been a failure for a decade before Reagan went to Berlin. The final collapse took as long as it did because of the intransigence of the Soviet Politibureau, the leadership of the communist congress and their willful neglect of their own people. (Huh... sound familiar?)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site