Neither Elizabeth Warren nor Paul Krugman nor Robert Reich is risking their all, as a presidential candidate, to get these things done--reinstituting Glass-Steagall, breaking up the "too big to fail" banks. Only Bernie Sanders is doing that. (Warren may turn out to be his VP mate, but she isn't risking it yet.)
I'm not saying these others that you mention (Warren, Krugman, Reich) haven't fought hard on these and other vital issues. I'm just looking at the huge risks of a presidential campaign, especially to someone like Sanders, who started at--what?--3% in the polls (now about 50%), and who started with no money (now has lots from small donors), and no party backing (now has lots from regular party members, not the leadership). Lots of risks for Bernie--including risks to life and limb, and to family--just to get these things done, that most of the party leaders seem to have taken a Republican position on, or a lame, do-nothing position.
We need a PRESIDENT passionately committed to these things. They will not get done otherwise. And Bernie's leading a grass roots revolution to do them.
As for Hillary Clinton, her husband tore up this essential New Deal law (Glass-Steagall). She also defends "Dodd-Frank"--a very weak (and weakly implemented) law that has failed to end dangerous speculation, and will NOT prevent the next great crash.
That's how I see it. If we want Glass-Steagall back, there is only one presidential candidate who is firmly committed to doing that.
Re: RT. I don't find any problem with reading Paul Krugman, though he publishes in the New York Times--a publication that earned my lasting disgust when they printed lie after lie about WMDs in Iraq, in concert with Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld. I don't call them the New York Slimes for nothing. But I don't blame Krugman for the foul (not to mention murderous) lies of the owners, editors and reporters. It might have been nice for him to pull his column from their rag over the Iraq War, but I don't think it's realistic, or fair, to expect that of a mere columnist. They provide him a platform that he could not provide for himself.
I feel the same way about Hartmann and RT. RT provides a quite different perspective on world affairs from our Corporate Media. Nothing wrong with that. AND they provide us with access to Thom Hartmann. He shouldn't be expected to quit them any more than we should expect Krugman to quit the Slimes.
Warren is a colleague of the worst lot of corrupt scumbags and lying liars ever to hold seats in Congress. Should she quit her Senate seat because Congress is so rotten? No. It provides her with a platform.
I could mention many more instances of this kind of situation--where an individual wants to provide information and leadership to others, and people want and need that information and/or leadership, but the reporter, commentator and/or leader is dependent upon others--media owners, an institution--they don't necessarily agree with.
I think you should take your beef with RT to RT. Me?--I'm kind of glad that there are alternative views out there, even if they come from the Tsar of Russia. Alternative views are all worth understanding and analyzing. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand. And we shouldn't expect others to fight our battles for us--especially when you would be asking them to give up their living, or completely disrupt their lives and work.
To me, the info and views that Thom Hartmann provides are exceptionally important, and that is a mark in RT's favor.
= new reply since forum marked as read
