What is missing is a chance for Harvard Law Review Latin Ted Cruz to be in a matched most public head to head debate with Harvard Law Review Black Barry Obama. They have a century worth of changes to the legal world to discuss just for the few years of change between the older Obama’s graduation year and Cruz’s. These are the days that need a fuller and more general understanding of the Rehnquist Revolution as for it critical to the economic growth of the nineties. President Obama may have been of the last class year of Harvard fully of indoctrination and fidelity to the age old ways that then got upturned for progress. There is a world of difference not just in “legalese” standards to be pulled out for a good telling of “history” of President Barack Hussein Obama.
It is that blacks generally are now more at risk heading to post-Obama days of being judged more just by the color of their skin. It seems that as we march forward a stereotyping by skin color will be unavoidable as long as blacks are too clumped politically as Obama’s blacks. There are many more complications for blacks in future years if left to be so boxed and politically predictable. There are days ahead that should be fearsome in a socio-political existentialism for blacks in the United States of America for a beat seems set for a new modern styling of a: LATIN IS THE NEW BLACK.
Beyond the color of any of the “melting pot” American Dream and protections we have actual economic history to worry about and such that is a much untold story of the early 1990s and how Democrats needed to be saved from themselves and many of the Corporate leaders also then in the USA jurisdictions too needed saving from themselves. For President Obama and any or all of his followers or opponents it isn’t that I write from a dislike of his economics and high ideals as to social good but that since before these earlier days of such and until now I just have never figured a way that what has been his economics could or would actually work. We are not beyond the economics of the 1990s and especially the truth that if the Clintons had been left to their ways - their desired political hopes to much have done to the politics and economics what has been done by President Obama - the economic mess would have been triggered sooner and with more serious damage and destruction. The Clintons if they had been left to their ways would have caused this same mess much earlier.
Many top Corporate leaders were saved from themselves in the early 1990s and then the Clintons after much encouragement did have their late entry into the 1992 race and unexpected win. The Clintons did then also need to be saved from themselves - David Gergen’s hiring is just a small bit of that story. These as a set then didn’t finish the work of the saving of them and the US economy as by want of Clintons’ politics it became too much of a group think to just ride the wave as if the heroes and not the saved. We are in an economy now that won’t reset to growth - hasn’t yet - much because there is too much false witness about the real histories and so that these in power now are not possibly or probably good stewards to the necessary restoration of consumer confidence. Senator Harry Reid has power now quite only because this is so - as much of the untold story of these years of saving the economy of the United States of America also was defensively and of national security consideration about how the Persian Gulf War had to be wrapped up short of Baghdad and a prosecution of Saddam Hussein because Vegas and Time Square were so bad.
The Clintons were pawns in much of this in the first half of the 1990s - The Clintons were just the “do nothing” couple though we may have needed as otherwise the United States of America was at risk of seeming to dominant or arrogant as it struggled with its first steps as a sole superpower. It likely would have been to politically difficult for President Bush if re-elected to be himself more a “do-nothing” President though those times were better for delay - for a wait and see not too patronizing posture. Much, if not all, that worked for the Clintons in their first term was inherited by them from the work before they even entered the 1992 race. Much is considerate politically of such days of a pickle that the USA was in as per Saddam Hussein and “justice” as the Persian Gulf War seemed set of a trap if we moved on Baghdad too soon. Much is still relevant that with the saving of USA Corporate Leaders from themselves and then instincts to fold to new “management” styles as if too dominant and only option available - as if that they were quite already beaten by the Japanese and Germans and nearly to telling Americans that they all needed to learn to become more like the Japanese - at least. Much is still relevant, and especially per Senator Harry Reid, that for national security purposes related to Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda the United States of America had to first prove it could fix its own cities - fix Time Square and Vegas especially - before it even attempted to assert that it could be right to over-turn Saddam Hussein and offer a hope that Baghdad could be better after Saddam.
Too many Americans and others of the world have been just cruising along too unaware of the history of the politics of the past two plus decades. The Clintons have been surviving much just because so many of these that are of the “Corporate leaders” of these concerns too decided to just ride the waves too carelessly with the Clintons. In the untold story is the basis of a back to basics new federalism marketing push much that needed or justified the Rehnquist Revolution as too quite a caboose to the Reagan Revolution. What may be said to be keeping the economy from working again as it did without that which was just of the Clintons of phattening the growth the inherited to have positions to be able to show as if they caused the growth and weren’t just adding dangerous fat to it and with a risk of economic diabetes. We may all be stuck now because the economics of the Obamanomics cannot work, and, that the economics of the Clintons years that did work were actually of what they inherited and then damaged and put in jeopardy with their effectings by Clintonomics and the hyper-consumerism and irresponsible and unnecessary extra trillion cut for surplus popularity.
To park these thoughts for now let me just add that since 2007, if not 2006, I was aware of where it seemed the Democrat party wanted to stake a national political and economic platform. I have not yet been able to curb my original analysis that such if pursued so would drive the economy into a ditch - that they would drive the economies exactly to such a down and depressed course change from where we were actually routed better. I have stayed confident in my original balancing of their spinning as to believing it was so likely that such a road/path/march/beat would lead to such a down & depressed economics. I have yet though figured out if they have gotten here intentionally or accidentally — it seems that though I saw their “ideals” as only possibly leading to such a crash it may yet be that they had rosy glasses on and saw it as to a coming spectacle that just never took off. It seems the Dem have been cruising along not yet properly tagged for having caused the crashes. It is a wonder, for how confident I was that they were doomed to such, from the very start with the primarying party contesting roll-outs, that they either have been ignorant of it or of political shenanigans of a belief that they could only have their change if they could blame others/the other party. To curb your enthusiasm if still cruising with Obama Democrats you too may want to park your GREENNESS and look in the rear view mirror - you may want to consider that it isn’t that the Democrats caused the economic mess that is most worrisome but that they yet may be in so much denial that they haven’t yet to accept that they did cause the crashes.