= new reply since forum marked as read
What time did stores open on Black Tuesday? 
Too few Americans know the difference between Black Tuesday and Black Friday. Very true and very well put. Fewer still can put Black Tuesday (and the New Deals that resulted it from it) within the context of world history: World War I, the Russian Revolutions, etc. Including me. However, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the New Deals and the Great Society were not so much indicia of liberalism within the Democratic Party as they were programs conceived from the idea that, pushed far enough, people just may revolt--and get the military to go along with them.
Once, Democrats were considered the party that took the nation to war. Next, both Houses of Congress were filled with Democratic veterans of the Korean War (Ted Kennedy, for one) and Vietnam, while Republicans who voted for war were known as chickenhawks (Bush v. Kerry is a perfect example). Now, the military is predominantly RW and Democrats are trying to win it back. Throughout, the left has been deemed a risk to the government. Weird.
what to say to the masses to sound populist, without hurting the feelings of the rich. One piece of advice I bet they gave: "Don't talk about wealth inequality as Bernie does, talk about income inequality. The masses probably won't notice or think about the difference, but talking about income inequality won't scare the wealthy as much as wealth inequality."
Sperling was also a Clintonite hired by Obama--and by "self-avowed socialist" Lawrence O'Donnell btw. (If O'Donnell, who has been very dismissive of Sanders, is a socialist, I'll eat every tape of the West Wing.)
Anyway.....Sperling came up with the sequester, then lied about that repeatedly, until Woodward outed him with his (Sperling's) aemails. After being outed, Sperling's retort was to the effect that Congress had not adopted the sequester exactly as he had proposed it: The wicked Republicans had made changes. So......he never proposed the sequester.
By that standard, Obama never proposed Obamacare.
Then he might have been able to follow the bouncing ball while Summers and Rubin were talking and drawn his own conclusions.
Or, too bad he wasn't smart enough to know the difference between a DLC/Third Way economist and someone like Stiglitz, at least enough to get a second opinion.
Or, too bad he wasn't smart enough to appoint people who wouldn't pull the wool over his eyes, like he claims Summers and Rubin did on money issues and he claims Colin Powell did on DADT.
Bubba has two standard excuses. "I signed it because it was veto proof anyway." and "The people I chose to advise me and whose pay I controlled duped me."
Neither one washes. He wanted legislation Republicans wanted anyway and he and his White House lobbied Democrats hard to get those allegedly veto proof majorities. So, obviously, he anticipated that he was going to have to do some Presidentsplaining some day. If he didn't want the bill, why the hell did he and his White House lobby hard for it, instead of against it? And no majority can be truly called veto-proof until the veto occurs. Not many Democrats would have voted to override his veto, unless he persuaded them to.
Sorry, but ,to paraphrase Lincoln, Slick Willie is just not Slick enough to fool all of the people all of the time.
and they probably sympathize, but they did not / will not support legislation that will hurt their close friends. There is a reason that Goldman-Sachs prefers H. Clinton, and it's not because of her work for social justice. Bill Clinton and his close friends Summers, Rubin and Geitner, helped solidify Wall Street's hold on our economy and government. There is no reason to believe that H. Clinton won't do the same. 
