Okay, stop the complaints about Democratic presidential candidates who won't face up to the financial crisis bearing down the country. Hillary Clinton stood up and shook her finger at it, kind of like her husband does. Her response seems a little goofy and maybe a sign the boys in her "war room" are losing their grip. On the other hand, what she said is exactly what you would expect her to say.

Speaking at the University of Pennsylvania Monday [AP story by Charles Babington] Senator Clinton proposed the government provide mortgage companies with protection against lawsuits by other investors. Say what? Isn't that the old Republican chestnut called "tort reform?" Shouldn't she have saved this nugget until after she wins the nomination and starts moving to the right for the fall campaign?

Her logic is strictly from financial. "Many mortgage companies are reluctant to help families restructure their mortgages because they are afraid of being sued by the investment banks, the private equity firms and others who actually own the mortgage papers," Clinton explained. Good thought. Maybe she could send along a few security guards. I hear mortgage lenders are afraid of being tarred and feathered by those families who were conned into buying the sure-to-fail mortgages.

It gets better. Senator Clinton further proposes (actually urges our defunct President to appoint) "an emergency working group on foreclosures" to come up with some answers She doesn't exactly call this a "blue-ribbon commission" but that's the idea. Clinton nominates for this prestigious group her own financial patron and economics guru Robert Rubin of Citigroup and former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, also the former-former Fed chairman Paul Volcker.

Volcker is long retired and might be available, but Rubin is standing deep in the muck and debris at Citigroup, bailing furiously so it doesn't go the way of Bear Stearns. Greenspan was traveling abroad the other day when the New York Times tried to ask him to explain why he failed to prevent the Wall Street meltdown by regulating these financial high fliers before it was too late. Come to think of it, why didn't the New York Times ask that question when Greenspan was still chairman?

Senator Clinton should maybe include her husband on the expert panel since his presidency, coached by Rubin and Greenspan, laid the groundwork for our present mess.

As a window into the Clinton presidency-to-be, her remarks will reassure some. Others of us are retching on the lawn. There will be no surprises when she gets to the White House. Her long experience tells her to stick with her friends and make the same mistakes her husband made, all over again.

Comments (51)

1. want 4 more years? vote clinton!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2008 @ 8:46pm

2. Talk about adding insult to injury, Greenspan and Rubin ?

   Rubin helped scrap Glass Steagall while Greenspan failed to regulate loan underwriting after being told to do so by the Congress, then after lowering interest rates to 1% began extolling the virtues of these new exotic loans to the public.

   We need to fire the Federal Reserve. We need to establish a Publiic Central Bank that will put the publics' interests first, a fiduciary duty the privately owned and operated Federal Reserve has failed to honor for the 95 years of its' existence.

   Posted by mmckinl at 03/24/2008 @ 9:04pm

3. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/24/2008 @ 8:46pm

   No, IBB. Only McCain is promising "4 more years".

   Hillary, unlike Mr Grieder (and Ms vanden Heuvel and others) realizes that we HAVE to get the financial house in order.

   ".. and make the same mistakes her husband made, all over again. "

   Mistakes? Like a balanced budget that went into surplus and gave us a steady financial footing and an economic boom?!?!?

   Sorry, Mr Grieder...it won't be the "New New Deal" (an old refrain from me, I admit, but a true one)....even under Obama.

   Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 9:18pm

4. MASK

   Clintons' choice of Rubin and greenspan is an insult, and everybody that has followed this story knows it. This is just further proof that Clinton would be a terrible president, just like Bill, coddling special interests at the expense of the public ...

   Posted by mmckinl at 03/24/2008 @ 9:38pm

5. Posted by MMCKINL 03/24/2008 @ 9:38pm

   If you think Barack Obama is going to become a free-spending liberal, saying to hell with the deficit/debt, and enacting a "Great Society: Part Deux"...

   before getting the deficit down, without a politically suicidal tax hike....

   just like Hillary would...

   you're nuts.

   Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 9:48pm

6. Posted by MASK 03/24/2008 @ 9:48pm

   Clinton's choices speak for themselves, pure sellouts ... I never said Obama was a saint, unfortunately he is influenced by Walll Street as well. My candidate was Edwards. I have questions now about voting Dem at all. Maybe we need McCain to hit bottom in this country. Green is looking better all the time ...

   Posted by mmckinl at 03/24/2008 @ 9:58pm

7. Posted by ZERO 03/24/2008 @ 9:58pm

   Like I said, maybe this country really needs to hit bottom. Until people wake up and do their homework they are part of the problem. Maybe several years of a deep recession willl inspire Joe Blow to put down the sports section and take a look at what is happening.

   Posted by mmckinl at 03/24/2008 @ 10:03pm

8. I agree.

   The first thing we need is to get rid of the federal reserve and replace it with an elected bank answerable to the people. That way, they will not ever do anything that is not politically expedient when it comes to monetary policy.

   Next, we need to take all of the current fed members, and all of the economics professors and economists in the country and expel them. They are a fifth column, and they know nothing.

   Posted by novaseeker at 03/24/2008 @ 10:08pm

9. many of these problems were set into motion by the Clinton administration, yet I still get the feeling that Bush in Nero, playing his fiddle while Rome burns.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 03/24/2008 @ 10:16pm

10. Like I said, maybe this country really needs to hit bottom. Until people wake up and do their homework they are part of the problem. Maybe several years of a deep recession willl inspire Joe Blow to put down the sports section and take a look at what is happening.

    Posted by MMCKINL 03/24/2008 @ 10:03pm

    I have thought about this before, I called it the Path of Night, hoping for end or bottom because its what we deserve or the only way things will change. This is pointless, not because we won't hit bottom but I think you give too much credit to the grabasses that populate much of this nation to think that they will ever achieve any enlightenment.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 03/24/2008 @ 10:19pm

11. Why do socialistic policies seem to move up? We have no problems with bailouts, tax breaks, favorable laws etc, but when something like that applies to the common man you hear cries of "class warfare."

    Ayn Rand moves both ways conservatives, though to be honest I could only stomach 700 pages of Atlas Shrugged before my eyes began to bleed and my face melt, like the end scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    Who's John Galt?

    Posted by Tzimisce at 03/24/2008 @ 10:25pm

12. NOVASEEKER 03/24/2008 @ 10:08pm

    We need a Public Central Bank that prints credit money, money that costs us no interest. Banks should be limited to lending on a 1 to 1 ratio of deposits to loans, the Public Central bank could supply deposits at interest for shortfalls of private deposits. In this way private savers get a real return while the Public Central Bank sheds all interest and garners interest from deposits at private banks.

    Posted by mmckinl at 03/24/2008 @ 10:51pm

13. Green is looking better all the time ... Posted by MMCKINL 03/24/2008 @ 9:58pm

    There is no scenario, unless they start winning state governorships and more importantly Congressional offices, by which the Greens don't do one thing...

    guarentee Republican victories.

    Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 10:58pm

14. MASK 03/24/2008 @ 10:58pm

    Like I said, maybe this country needs to hit bottom ... and I meant it ...

    Posted by mmckinl at 03/24/2008 @ 11:01pm

15. Man, I really hope she doesn't get the nomination. She's about as dumb as Bush I've been starting to come to believe more and more with each passing day. And I've never liked her or Bill in the first place.

    Posted by molotov at 03/24/2008 @ 11:28pm

16. It's a case of "deja moo". We've all heard this bull before.

    Posted by wolfear at 03/24/2008 @ 11:43pm

17. At least Hillary offers solutions....St. Barry doesn't.

    Posted by nursevic at 03/24/2008 @ 11:55pm

18. Dear William Greider, Please provide careful analysis of Stiglitz's argument that the Fed turned a blind eye to the lowering of lending standards (and implicitly the derivatives trade growing with the mortgages which were then securitized) in order to hide the costs of the war.

    Stiglitz argues that the Fed allowed rates to go to historical lows and lending standards to be trashed so that we Americans would not understand how little fiscal stimulus or multiplier we were getting from the kind of deficit spending and how much damage the rising oil futures prices were doing to the economy.

    Did Greenspan turn a blind eye to lend "patriotic" support to a war we could not afford?

    Posted by A.L. Hartal at 03/25/2008 @ 12:08am

19. I sent this early this morning to the politics blog at the SF Chronicle website sfgate.com

    Clinton gave an important speech on the mortgage crisis today, but I am a bit skeptical of it

    She wants to limit the legal liability of mortgage companies if they restructure some of their loans rather than foreclose on them.

    She says that the mortgage companies can't take the initiative to restructure since they don't really own the debts anymore.

    Those investment banks which bought them won't allow them to restructure even though it would be in their financial interests to do so.

    Now she says that she would turn to Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan.

    What a narrow choice of advisors.

    Doesn't this suggest that she is trying to create the legal room needed for the mortgage companies to carry out the restructuring that would be in the best interests of the investment banks which bought the securitized mortgage?

    As she notes, the holders of these debts don't stand to gain from foreclosures when restructurings can be done on terms favorable to them.

    Her plan seems focused on helping the investment banks minimize their losses.

    Why else say she'll turn to Rubin, Greenspan and Volcker?

    The party favors she is really giving the borrowers don't seem that significant.

    Posted by A.L. Hartal at 03/25/2008 @ 12:10am

20. NURSEVIC 03/24/2008 @ 11:55pm |

    Clinton doesn't have a solution, she has another disaster ready to go. At this point she is desperate and will make any promises she can to get the nomination. She won't make it ...

    Posted by mmckinl at 03/25/2008 @ 12:31am

21. Mistakes? Like a balanced budget that went into surplus and gave us a steady financial footing and an economic boom?!?!?

    Conventional wisdom impervious to facts. Clinton balanced the budget on the back of a bubble, a bubble which Mask describes as an economic boom. The bubble was caused by deregulation of the telecom and banking industries and little to no regulatory oversight. Mask has his reponse to this 'Sounds like Rush!' Mask has no argument against this. At least not yet. Since having such an argument would require stepping outside of the conventional wisdom of the mainstream media, I do wonder from whence the argument will come.

    Posted by dentedpat at 03/25/2008 @ 01:26am

22. I am concerned with the two disturbing parts of Hillary's mortgage plan.

    First it shows that Hillary is backing corporate interests that have funded her campaign by not letting investors sue mortgage banks when those investments were fraudulently listed as being AAA investments.

    Second it is incredibly naive to want to appoint Alan Greenspan to a panel trying to solve the mortgage crisis when it was his incompetence that failed to regulate the mortgage industry in the first place.

    One of the main reasons homeowners have no leverage in negotiating with their mortgage companies is because of the highly punitive bankruptcy law that Clinton signed along with Bush's and the Republican's anti-middle class and pro-corporate agenda. Obama wants to repeal punitive parts of the new bankruptcy laws that use to enable homeowners to keep their homes by having more power to negotiate with the mortgage lenders.

    [barackobama.com]

    Posted by KQuark at 03/25/2008 @ 04:22am

23. She is also doing a major Republican move by conflating law suits with the mortgage crisis by spinning tort reform into helping home owners. If Hillary really cared about the middle and lower classes she would have never voted for the Republican's punitive bankruptcy law.

    Posted by KQuark at 03/25/2008 @ 04:28am

24. Don't know whether this last criticism is fair, KQuark, as she said that she wants to amend the bankruptcy law:

    "I've also proposed that we amend the bankruptcy code to give judges the discretion to write down the value of struggling families' homes.

    "Believe it or not, bankruptcy judges can write down the value of many other things to help families pay off their debt, but not their homes. They can write off the value or write down the value of second homes, which seems kind of ironic to me.Making this amendment to the code will help families in bankruptcy pay off their mortgages and stay in their homes."

    Now tort reform is another question, and she's not spinning that as help for homeowners in the first instance but as help for the mortgage companies and the owners of the securitized mortgages.

    She thinks with some tort reform they'll be able to agree to a restructuring of many of the loans which would otherwise be foreclosed.

    Now my confidence is not inspired because she is saying that she'll rely on Robert Rubin for a sense of how these loans should be restructured.

    I can't imagine that he wouldn't put the investors' and mortgage companies' interests before those of the borrowers.

    But how much better would Obama do? Well he has proposed legislation a year ago. He seems to be talking tougher about lender fraud for which there was a great financial interest-- risk on borrowers due to variable rates and arbitrage possibilities.

    So it seems to me that Obama may have stronger case about toughness towards lender fraud and thus about protecting the interests of borrowers.

    Posted by A.L. Hartal at 03/25/2008 @ 04:59am

25. Based on the old "80/20" rule of thumb, which has stood the test of time, 80% of what any president or presidential candidate says is symbolic, and no matter its actual chances of happening, which are often nil, it still carries the force of meaning for many people.

    The chances of president Bush forming an "emergency committee on foreclosures" or whatever is about as probable as president Bush saying something rational and coherent about anything. In other words, it ain't gonna happen. However, as some have said in this thread, Hillary's decision to publicly name Rubin and, of all Masters of the Universe, Greenspan, to this fictional committee, along with the ancient Volcker, is proof positive of her blueblood establishment credentials and her status as a Carlyle Group wannabee once she ends her "public service".

    Anyone who believes this woman--who was raised in a Republican cloth coat like Pat Nixon and worked for Barry Goldwater as a youth--is really a liberal Democrat, let alone a progressive, is on their third glass of kool-aid. It's been a good cover all these years that she's helped orchestrate her "husband's" career (I put that label in quotes because I'm inclined to see their relationship as a law office LLC rather than a marriage, but I guess there are all kinds), and the whole "It takes a village" branding campaign attempted to give her the patina of, say, Eleanor Roosevelt, although it didn't work for most men around the country, who continue to think of her as the overfed, stuck up, cerebral, overachieving, asexual bitch that intimidated them in high school or college. Since she stuck with him in name all these years despite his serial infidelities going way back, long before Monica branded him for life, it's more than credible to believe she did so for his coattails, on which she has coasted so smoothly to the edge of power she now covets so intensely. What did Hannibal Lecter say about coveting?

    Nevertheless, it's common wisdom that anyone running for president in this society has to have an ego the size of Lake Meade, so give her that, along with Professional War Hero McCain and Boy Wonder Obama. Her "experience" really amounts to living in the White House for eight years, which means she knows where the kitchen and bathrooms are, and spending these past years as a Senator, during which she attended, say, 1000 meetings, 500 press conferences, 250 TV interviews, and made God-knows how many private, secret deals that would probably make most Americans' hair stand on end if they knew the substance, and which constitute her REAL "experience".

    When all's said and done, she's just another mainstream hack POLITICIAN who happens to wear very unflattering pantsuits, happens to be female, just like Senator Margaret Chase Smith of two generations ago or the whitebread Elizabeth Dole or the short, frumpy, ethnic Barbara Mikulski from Maryland, or the lispy Susan Collins of Maine, or the feisty--and true progressive--Barbara Boxer from CA. None of these other female Senators had or have a snowball's-chance-in-hell of ever running for, let alone being president, despite their bona fides in the Senate. Why Hillary? Of course we all know the answer to that one...her last name, which she's clung to like a safety rope during a mountain climb. She's sacrificed her own integrity, even her dignity, as a woman and a wife so she could remain on the path to ultimate power, buttressed by Billy Boy, widely considered a world-class campaigner on a par with Reagan and FDR.

    So what has he done for her lately? How about stolen her thunder, undermined her credibility, tainted her with charges of racism, made her look subordinate to him even as she struggles to look presidential. Thanks alot, sweetheart! Yet, when all is said and done, she should be judged on her own merits as a potential leader and commander-in-chief, and she comes up very short. She demonstrates in this latest "plan" for the economy that she is content offering empty bromides with no real chance of implementation, proposing establishment "saviors", even if they are directly associated, in Greenspan's case, with the facilitation and inflammation of the crisis at hand, not to mention his card-carrying membership in the Paul Wolfowitz "Let Them Eat Cake" Global Economic Strategy Club.

    To paraphrase an old slogan for videotape, "Is it Real, or is it Hillary?" We desperately need "real" after 8 years of synthetic, Made in Saudi Arabia. Go, Barack.

    Posted by stonecutter at 03/25/2008 @ 07:41am

26. Posted by DENTEDPAT 03/25/2008 @ 01:26am

    PAT, you opposed to balanced, even surplused (when we were a trillion in National Debt, not six trillion like now, much less) budgets?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 03/25/2008 @ 10:12am

27. Grieder always writes brilliant articles & his books are a must read.

    Agree w/ many comments above - dump the Fed (but won't happen) & I was for Edwards too & agree w/ much of what Stonecutter already wrote above.

    Real problem is there is little if any difference anymore between the two parties...who is really for the people?

    Posted by eecs at 03/25/2008 @ 10:30am

28. What is it that makes politicans want to protect the corporations over the people? It must be the money they give to campaigns. Until the interest of the people is put BEFORE corporations, nothing is going to change. I do not know where Obama stands on this issue but if this is the best hrc can come up with......she needs to wrap it up and call it a day.

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 03/25/2008 @ 11:05am

29. Posted by NOVASEEKER 03/24/2008 @ 10:08pm | ignore this person

    kindly stop posting such foolishness.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/25/2008 @ 11:51am

30. It's the economy stupid - but it wasn't Clinton's economy. Exit polling in Ohio show working class folks thought Hillary would be better for the economy because "Bill did a good job with the economy in the 1990s". It's not true - it's a myth.

    The 90's economic boom began 22 months before Clinton took office.

    Let me repeat that.

    The 90's economic boom began 22 months before Clinton took office - in March 1991, to be exact.

    In addition, the only reason Clinton had surpluses is because the 1994 Republicans forced fiscal discipline on Clinton's federal spending during a time of rising tax receipts (because of the pre-Clinton economic boom)

    Hillary often takes credit for the good times in the 1990s and says the surpluses show she can be trusted to "manage the economy". None of that's true.

    So, why don't progressives backing Obama and conservatives backing McCain take Hillary down a few notches over this?

    This isn't some policy wonk debate - who is perceived at better "managing the economy" will win the Presidency of the United States.

    Both McCain and Obama can make a better case than Hillary.

    McCain's famous for no earmarks and restraining spending.

    Obama's campaign raises money from average folk - Barack doesn't owe any budget-busting special interest groups.

    Either McCain or Obama are better than Hillary - but first they have to debunk the "economy was great in the 1990's because of the Clintons" myth.

    Now. Please.

    Posted by Look2theWest at 03/25/2008 @ 11:59am

31. Bush is now playing the role of Calvin Coolidge. Both Hilary and McCain appear to be doomed to repeat the role of Herbert Hoover. Will Obama (if elected) skip the "Hoover curse" and jump straight into a 21st Century New Deal? I certainly hope so.

    Posted by Onca at 03/25/2008 @ 12:30pm

32. I think we may see the same type of idiocy with Obama. He also has ex-Clinton advisers.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/25/2008 @ 12:33pm

33. Oce again, Senator Clinton, like her husband before her, shows the degree she has accepts the same neoliberal economic assumptions that have been the accepted wisdom since the late seventies, and remain the basis of the Bush administration policies.

    There is very little here progressives can find useful. The perspective here remains solidly within the Milton Friedman, supposedly "laissez faire" deregulated free markets consensus and far off from view of economics and society represented by FDR and The New Deal. Until the existing narrative remains uncritically accepted doubt we can get out of the economic and financial crisis we face. Hillary is not about to change and her proposals reflects another bureaucratic adjustment within the same system.

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 03/25/2008 @ 1:37pm

34. ". . .it's more than credible to believe she did so for his coattails, on which she has coasted so smoothly to the edge of power she now covets so intensely. What did Hannibal Lecter say about coveting?"

    Someone had better warn Barack that Hillary's planning to make a pantsuit out of his skin!

    Posted by habiba at 03/25/2008 @ 2:27pm

35. Obama simply copied Clinton and Edward's economic plan, pretty much word for word.

    What leadership!

    Sincerely,

    Typical White Person

    Posted by honkyjesus at 03/25/2008 @ 2:38pm

36. Posted by HONKYJESUS 03/25/2008 @ 2:38pm

    And Hillary just copied George Mitchell's resume' on bringing peace to Northern Ireland!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/25/2008 @ 2:43pm

37. And Obama just copied Jermiah Wright's views on race relations.

    he he

    Got any GOOD ones?

    Posted by honkyjesus at 03/25/2008 @ 2:46pm

38. Obama saw this coming, why hasn't the media said anything about this??? We know why.... Guys, I am posting this on as many comment pages and blogs, as I can, so if you see if more then once, I apoligize, but it is worth looking at. For all the Obama haters out there, please check out the following:

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obamas-year-old-letter -to-bern.php

    Can your candidate say that they did this??? Maybe he is the future!!

    Take this and post it everywhere.....

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 03/25/2008 @ 2:57pm

39. Posted by HONKYJESUS 03/25/2008 @ 2:46pm

    Yeah....who did Hillary copy that ACTUALLY DID come under sniper fire?

    Posted by Mask at 03/25/2008 @ 4:15pm

40. 'Chillary' Clinton is running from behind and knows full well there will not be a significant bailout to the bad mortgages holder or to the Banks who wrote those awful deals...@ least, not in time to stave off the majority of thees foreclosures. We are going to see darker days and a lot of knocks from the County Sherriffs as they put these unfortunate souls out of their houses and on the street. It's cruel to stand there and posture compassionately when you have no intention of offering real help in real time. Brings to mind that Clinton expression: "I Feel Your Pain" ( You, Senator, who had $5 Million to loan to yourself!) I don't think so, Hill. Nice sound byte, no substance @ all.

    Posted by gwats1957 at 03/26/2008 @ 06:00am

41. There can be no denying that Bill Clinton's presidency was marked by relative prosperity that included most Americans, unlike Bush's, in which prosperity is the province of the wealthy. But the memory of those good times obscures the fact that many of the seeds of our current financial woes were planted and nurtured by Bill Clinton and his Wall Street oriented team of economic advisors. Clinton was, in essence, the president who followed in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in furthering the corporate project of deregulation and conglomeration. I have no doubt that the corporate world and their political lackeys cling to the belief that markets are self-regulating and that any disturbances that might occur are the result of too much government regulation. These are not the people who will have the insight and wisdom to solve the problem. But the fact that Hillary considers them qualified to do so reveals much about her economic agenda.

    Posted by robgo2 at 03/26/2008 @ 12:24pm

42. Posted by ROBGO2 03/26/2008 @ 12:24pm

    True or not...as someone else noted...

    Obama's advisors aren't much different!

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2008 @ 12:32pm

43. At least none of the dems are suggesting that a $300 check to all taxpayers will stimulate growth and repair the ailing economy. What nonsense.

    Posted by jackwells at 03/26/2008 @ 1:02pm

44. Posted by JACKWELLS 03/26/2008 @ 1:02pm

    Did they vote against the stimulus package???

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2008 @ 2:24pm

45. "Deja moo", now that's priceless. The last thing we need is the same folks who pushed through deregulation of the banking/investment system "coming up with the solution." Those pirates created this mess, now they can pay for it out of their own pockets. Congress must authorize regulation of investment banks asap.

    Posted by GoCards1978 at 03/26/2008 @ 2:40pm

46. Obama's advisors aren't much different!

    Actually, if you check the Obama website, you will find a statement or speech in which he specifically mentions deregulation as part of the problem.

    Posted by robgo2 at 03/26/2008 @ 3:11pm

47. Posted by ROBGO2 03/26/2008 @ 3:11pm

    So he inserts a statement about de-regulation....what's the big diff between him and HRC?

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2008 @ 7:30pm

48. I wish i could say something intelligent here, but it's all been well said. Wow

    Posted by julien38 at 03/26/2008 @ 8:16pm

49. William Greider has been slightly dishonest in his attempts to sully Hillary Clinton. He chose to highlight what could be misinterpreted and ignored the rest of her speech. It was shoddy journalism at its worst. Hillary has argued that if Bear Stearns is bailed out to the tune of $30 billion than at least $30 billion should be directed at home owners. In herPA speech she argued that those monies should be used buy foreclosed properties, restructure mortgages and provide for "anti-blight" programs. For anyone who knows about the devastating impact of home defaults in precarious neighorhoods, these are on the mark suggestions by Clinton. Btw, tort protection for mortgage lenders is probably a necessary evil that Hillary understands will be necessary if we require mortgage banks to restructure loans.

    Lastly, while Greider is "retching", Hillary is responding to a major financial and economic crisis.

    Posted by Maria Paul at 03/27/2008 @ 10:57am

50. Posted by MARIA PAUL 03/27/2008 @ 10:57am

    H.T.O.T.D.?

    Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 10:59am

51. Like Greider, I was also surprised taht Hillary did not suggest her husband and Phill Gramm for the 'blue ribbon' commission on financial industry regulation ---- since 'Slick NASCAR announcer' Phillll Gramm, and 'Slick Willy' Clinton were the crooks most responsible for killing the Glass-Steagall Act which had protected the US financial system since the age of FDR and the end of Great Depression I.

    Now with 'Slick' Phil and 'Slick' Willy's Financial Modernization and Destruction Act of 1999 folks like my father (who graduated from high school in 1932) will have the fun of experiencing Great Depression II.

    Posted by amacd at 03/27/2008 @ 4:52pm