Read It… And Weep, Daily Kos, August 20, 2010, by Bob Swern, used with permission, quoted verbatim with additional important material from economic forecaster Gerald Celente:

Some of the better, IMHO, reality-based reads of the week (so far, still a day to go) on our economy:The Ongoing Destruction of Our Middle Class

A piece currently running in the International Online version of Germany’s Spiegel, by Thomas Schulz: “The Erosion of America’s Middle Class.” (See excerpt, below.)

“Austerian” Hysteria, Political Pandering and Social Security

Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security’s Future? A Marshall Auerback guest post at Naked Capitalism, from Monday. (See below.)

Three posts from Calculated Risk from Thursday, August 19th (alone, just one day of god-awful economic story after story that screams to me: “If this is ‘the Recovery,’ god forbid if we ever officially enter into a double-dip.”):

Commercial Real Estate: Moody’s: Commercial Real Estate Price Index declines 4% in June.

Ongoing Economic Contraction: Philly Fed Index shows contraction in August, first time since July 2009.

Unemployment: Weekly initial unemployment claims at 500,000, highest since November 2009.

All in one day’s news cycle! Foreclosures

The NY Times lead editorial from Friday: Foreclosures Grind On.

Financial Reform

AFL-CIO: Stronger Financial Reform Would Have Saved Jobs, by Simon Johnson over at his Baseline Scenario blog.

The Status Quo/Business As Usual

When Wall Street Rules, We Get Wall Street Rules, from economist Dean Baker, currently near the top of the FP over at HuffPo.

Paul Krugman’s two columns in this week’s NY Times, from Monday and Friday–
Social Security: Attacking Social Security
Deficit Hawks: Appeasing the Bond Gods

“The Dismal Science”

Joe Stiglitz’ commentary via the Financial Times: Needed: a new economic paradigm.

This kind of quasi-Euro-”Austerian” commentary pretty much sums it all up in what was, IMHO, a “slow” news week for the economy…

The Erosion of America’s Middle Class
By Thomas Schulz
Spiegel (International Online Edition)

August 19th, 2010…For people in the lower income brackets, the recovery already seems to be falling apart. Experts fear that the US economy could remain weak for many years to come. And despite the many government assistance programs, the small amount of hope they engender has yet to be felt by the general public. On the contrary, for many people things are still headed dramatically downward.

According to a recent opinion poll, 70 percent of Americans believe that the recession is still in full swing. And this time it isn’t just the poor who are especially hard-hit, as they usually are during recessions.

This time the recession is also affecting well-educated people who had been earning a good living until now. These people, who see themselves as solidly middle-class, now feel more threatened than ever before in the country’s history. Four out of 10 Americans who consider themselves part of this class believe that they will be unable to maintain their social status.

Unemployment Persists

In a recent cover story titled “So long, middle class,” the New York Post presented its readers with “25 statistics that prove that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.” Last week, the leading online columnist Arianna Huffington issued the almost apocalyptic warning that “America is in danger of becoming a Third World country.”

In fact, the United States, in the wake of a real estate, financial economic and now debt crisis, which it still hasn’t overcome, is threatened by a social Ice Age more severe than anything the country has seen since the Great Depression…

And, last but definitely not least, I have to say: WTF!? (Sometimes, we Democrats are our own worst enemy.)

(Even Krugman acknowledged this week, while slamming GOP’er Paul Ryan on Monday, that it’s not just Republicans encouraging the “austerian,” anti-entitlement meme.)

(Diarist’s Note: Diarist has received written authorization from Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith to print her blog’s posts in their entirety.)

Auerback: Which Party Poses
The Real Risk to Social Security’s Future

Auerback: Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security’s Future?
Naked Capitalism
Monday, August 16, 2010

By Marshall Auerback, a portfolio strategist and fund manager who writes at New Deal 2.0

Hint: it’s not Republicans.

Social Security remains one of the greatest achievements of the Democratic Party since its creation 75 years ago. Although Republicans have historically fulminated against the program (Ronald Reagan once likened it as something akin to “socialism”), they have actually made little headway in touching this sacred “third rail” in American politics. President Bush pushed for partial privatization of the program in 2005, but the proposal gained no policy traction (even within his own party) because Social Security continues to be hugely popular with American voters. It’s a universal program that benefits all Americans, not a government handout to a few privileged corporations.

Which is why it’s odd that Democrats seem almost embarrassed to continue to champion the legacy of FDR. The party frets about long-term deficits and the corresponding need to “save” Social Security from imminent bankruptcy and, in doing so, opens the gate to radical cuts in entitlements that will do nothing but further destroy incomes and perpetuate our current economic malaise. It is true that some Republicans have signed on to the idea of privatization, notably a proposal championed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. But only a handful of GOP lawmakers have actively embraced the measure and, in the aftermath of the worst shock to the financial system since the Great Depression, many Republican lawmakers would just as soon see the idea forgotten.

So why don’t the Democrats leave well enough alone? Why bother even setting up “bipartisan commissions” to discuss the issue of Social Security? At the risk of sounding like one of those ungrateful members of the “Professional Left”, whom Robert Gibbs recently decried, I note that it was President Obama who most recently re-opened this issue by setting up a commission on reducing long term budget deficits and dealing with the long term issue of entitlements, including Social Security. In the Commission’s remit, nothing is off the table, including Social Security and Medicare. (Of course, given that one of the members is a director of Honeywell, it’s hard to envisage any suggestions of defense cuts). I also note that according to the Washington Post, “Democrats said Simpson and Bowles are uniquely equipped to blaze a path out of the fiscal wilderness — and to forge bipartisan consensus on a plan likely to require painful tax increases as well as program cuts.” No mention of Republicans getting on board. This is self-immolation, plain and simple. And Obama wonders why voters remain unhappy?

Now that the President has opened this Pandora’s Box, it is hard for him credibly to make the case, as he attempted to do in last Saturday’s weekly radio address, that “some Republican leaders in Congress want to privatize Social Security.” In fact, it is an idea enthusiastically embraced by a number of Wall Street Democrats who are funded with huge campaign contributions from Wall Street itself. (Candidate Obama received more money from Wall Street in 2008 than Hillary Clinton.) These contributors would be the Rubinites who for decades have played a huge role in allowing for greater financial leverage ratios, riskier banking practices, greater opacity, less oversight and regulation, consolidation of power in `too big to fail’ financial institutions that operated across the financial services spectrum (combining commercial banking, investment banking and insurance) and greater risk. Privatization of Social Security represents the last of the low hanging fruits for Wall Street. Who better to provide this to our captains of the financial services industry than their major political benefactors in the Democratic Party?

The issue of privatization is germane when one considers the members of the Commission approved by the President. There are questions of possible conflicts of interest. As James Galbraith has noted, the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has been one of the leading campaigners to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is co-chaired by Erskine Bowles, a current Director at North Carolina Life Insurance Co (annuity products are a competitor to Social Security and would almost certainly be beneficiaries of the partial privatization). Mr. Bowles’ wife, Crandall Close Bowles, is on the Board of JP Morgan, and she is also on the “Business Council,” a 27 member group whose members include Dick Fuld, Jeff Immelt, Jamie Dimon and a plethora of other Wall Streeters.

At the very least, these kinds of ties raise questions in regard to proposals for dealing with Social Security. Many members of the Commission stand to become clear direct and indirect beneficiaries of the privatization that the President is now warning against. It’s disappointing that these ties have not been fully explored by the press, and it is extraordinary that the President would exhibit such political tone deafness in making these kinds of appointments. It tends to undercut the message of his last radio address.

I’ll leave aside the nonsensical arguments in regard to Social Security’s “solvency,” because Professor Stephanie Kelton has dealt with them conclusively here. The only point I would add is in regard to the alleged issue of deficit spending today burdening our grandchildren. In reality, we will be leaving our grandchildren with government bonds that are net financial assets and wealth for them. As Randy Wray and Yeva Nersisyan have recently argued, even if government decides to raise taxes in, say, 2050 to retire the bonds (for whatever reason), the extra taxes are matched by payments made directly to bondholders in 2050. We can question the wisdom of whether it is right to make this political argument in favor of bond holders over tax payers. But it is a decision to be made at that time (not before) by future generations as to whether they should raise taxes by an amount equal to those interest payments, or by a greater amount to equal retirement of debt.

In the meantime, President Obama’s approval ratings continue to plummet. His scaremongering has little credibility, given the disparity between his rhetoric and his actual policies. At the risk of further upsetting Robert Gibbs, we’ll try to explain why Obama isn’t finding stronger support from his base despite having passed, for instance, a health care bill, a fiscal stimulus bill and a financial regulation bill. For a start, follow the money: with the President and leading Democrats having taken the most campaign dollars from corporate interests those bills purport to challenge, and having gutted the most progressive elements in the bills themselves (see Matt Taibbi’s latest as a perfect illustration of the phenomenon), it is clear that those signature pieces of legislation do not fundamentally challenge the structure of power at a time when that’s what Americans most want. The only “change” most Americans might experience is a reduction in their Social Security benefits from a President currently presiding over one of the most regressive wealth transfers in history. They’ll be receiving nothing but pocket change if a serious attack on entitlements is legitimized by this commission. A scaremongering radio address doesn’t do a whole lot to change that or to alter the country’s current economic trajectory. To paraphrase one of his leading political opponents, Mr. Obama would do well to stop practicing the cynical “politics as usual” that his Presidency was supposed to “refudiate”.

#            #            #

However, from where I’m sitting, Dean Baker has the most apropos headline of the week: “When Wall Street Rules, We Get Wall Street Rules.”

So, will I be voting Democratic in November and then again in 2012? Ummm…yes, I will. But, if things keep moving forward as they are now, these will be some of the most underwhelming and unenthusiastic votes of my life.

Evans Liberal Politics would like to thank Bob Swern for permission to republish his work on an ongoing basis. Bob is our favorite progressive economics writer. More than even Paul Krugman, Mr. Swern fleshes out his articles with lots of details and links, and so provides real grist for liberals and progressives to learn from. You are invited to email Bob Swern here.

Economic Forecaster: ‘Greatest Depression’ Coming

See Economic forecaster: ‘Greatest Depression’ coming, The Raw Story, August 20, 2010, by Daniel Tencer, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Collapse of middle class means there’s no fuel for recovery, Gerald Celente argues.

The US economic recovery in recent quarters is little more than a “cover-up” and the world is headed for a “Greatest Depression,” complete with social unrest and class warfare, says a renowned economic forecaster.

Gerald Celente, head of the Trends Research Institute, told Yahoo!News’ Tech Ticker that there’s no risk of a “double-dip recession” because the first “dip” never ended.

“We’re saying there’s no double dip, it never ended,” Celente said. “We’re looking at the Greatest Depression. There’s no way out of this without [rebuilding] productive capacity. You can’t print [money to get] out of it.”

Celente, who has been credited with predicting the 1987 stock market crash, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subprime mortgage crisis of recent years, said the US and other developed countries can expect to see the sort of social unrest the world witnessed in Greece this year once government attempts to shore up the economy fail and lawmakers turn to “austerity measures” to plug gaping budget holes.

“You’re going to see it all over the world,” Celente said. “What they call austerity programs … What are they doing? They’re bailing out the banks and they’re making the people pay for it. And the people don’t like that.”

Celente pointed to a near-riot that took place last week in Atlanta when 30,000 people showed up to be put on a housing waiting list, saying that the event is a harbinger of what’s to come.

He also argued that the way unemployment is measured today masks a much larger joblessness crisis because “once you’re off the unemployment rolls, you’re no longer unemployed.”

Celente said the current unemployment rate, if it were measured as it was measured during the Great Depression, would be around 17.5 percent. And he expects that number to rise to around 22 percent in the coming years.

“One of the good businesses to get in to may be guillotines,” Celente quipped. “Because there’s a real off-with-their-heads fever going on. People are really fed up.”

Hire a Dedicated Worker
for Your Business in Northeast Ohio

SENDING IT OUT TO THE UNIVERSE: I NEED A JOB, by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: Here in Wooster, Ohio, the three of us in this house have been trying to get jobs for six months now. And while the unemployment rate for those making $200,000 a year or more stands at a very tolerable 3.2 percent, for those making $20,000 a year or less, unemployment stands an an official 31 percent. That’s the official unemployment rate.

I’m looking for any reasonable work. I have a B.A. with an undergraduate G.P.A. of 3.44 from Miami of Ohio, a good school, and an “all-but-thesis” in fields that I am no longer interested in (geology), but this constituted for me an excellent, liberal education. I type 70 words per minute, can program web pages in three languages and can work with five, and will happily design a website for you, and have edited 12 books. I can help you with your book or other project in terms of style, word processing and editing. I can do a very credible job fixing or optimizing your computer, and I’ll do it for less. And I’ll do any sort of reasonable work and I am a fast learner and a hard worker who “gets it”. I have no symptoms of mental illness whatsoever and am in healthy condition. My resume can be downloaded here. If you have work for me, please email me or call 330-202-7661. Real work for a hard worker.

HEY UNIVERSE!!!

I’m very grateful to the Universe for my life. I think that only in America could I have had the happy, even fulfilling, life that I have led. But for me, so far, the American Dream has not materialized. Now that my mental illness is not a factor and I am functionally well, simply because I have the word “disabled” on my resume is no reason not to consider me. I’ve been afraid that so far in my job search, employers have perhaps not been taking me seriously just because of that little, poisonous word “disabled” on the resume, with a lack of much of a recent, successful work history. But a person sometimes has to have a long time-out in their work history, and sometimes, if the Universe wills it, if God is listening, a person can make a big time comeback. I’m willing to work in Wooster, Canton, Massilon, Mansfield, Orrville, Smithville, Akron, Wadsworth, Medina, or anywhere in Northeast Ohio including Cleveland and the suburbs, and I’d certainly strongly consider relocating in the long run. You want hard work and loyalty? Consider hiring me, and you’ll never regret it. Please email me or phone 330-202-7661. Thanks for considering me.

I did want to say, despite the “dark” comedy by George Carlin below, I still believe in the American Dream. I still believe in the decency of people and the intelligence of the HR people making employment decisions. So I’m putting it out to the Universe: give me a chance and I’ll be your best, most dedicated employee. Now let’s listen to a little black humor on an American Dream that for many in our society, has gone badly wrong.

Serious Comedy on the American Dream

Warning: Obscenity. For Mature Audiences Only.

George Carlin: The American Dream

OR: Why the American Education System Will Stay "Broken"

"The American Dream": (This is a repeat due to popular demand.) George Carlin performs a brilliant and scathing monologue on our serfdom which may be his very best short effort. — 3:15. Scary stuff.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 180 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

White House unloads anger over criticism from ‘professional left’, The Hill, August 10, 2010, by Sam Youngman, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Robert Gibbs loses it… says these lefties ought to all be drug tested!

The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological purity.

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

The White House, constantly under fire from expected enemies on the right, has been frustrated by nightly attacks on cable news shows catering to the left, where Obama and top lieutenants like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have been excoriated for abandoning the public option in healthcare reform; for not moving faster to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay; and for failing, so far, to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Liberals have criticized Obama and his staff for moving to the middle and bargaining on healthcare reform, as well as the financial regulatory overhaul and even the $787 billion economic stimulus package, which some liberals said should have been larger.

Just last week, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow described Obama political adviser David Axelrod as a “human pretzel” for his explanation of the administration’s position on gay marriage. Axelrod had explained that Obama opposes same-sex marriage but favors equal benefits for partners in gay relationships.

Attacks from liberal political groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which raises money for liberal candidates and causes, are also frustrating to the White House.

Adam Green, one of PCCC’s founders, repeatedly blasted Obama for a “loser mentality” during the healthcare debate, criticizing the president and Emanuel for not trying harder to include the public option in the final healthcare legislation. The group even ran ads accusing Obama of ignoring the will of the millions who voted for him by courting the support of Republican Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe.

PCCC is now pressing Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren, a hero to the left, as the first head of the new consumer protection office created by the Wall Street reform bill.

While visibly frustrated, Gibbs did not specifically name any of the White Houses’s liberal detractors by name.

Green said in an e-mailed statement Monday afternoon, “When Republicans opposed the stimulus and when Joe Lieberman opposed the overwhelmingly popular public option, the president could have barnstormed across their states and demanded they support policies that their constituents wanted — but instead he caved without a fight,” Green said.

Gibbs’s tough comments reflect frustration and some bafflement from the White House, which believes it has done a lot for the left.

In just over 18 months in office, Obama has passed healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform and fair-pay legislation for women, among other bills near and dear to liberals.

Obama is also overseeing the end of the Iraq war, with the U.S. on schedule to end its combat operations by the end of this month.

He’s also added diversity to the Supreme Court by nominating two female justices, including the court’s first Hispanic. Yet some liberal groups have criticized his nominees for not being liberal enough.

“There’s 101 things we’ve done,” said Gibbs, who then mentioned both Iraq and healthcare.

Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.

Progressives, Gibbs said, are the liberals outside of Washington “in America,” and they are grateful for what Obama has accomplished in a shattered economy with uniform Republican opposition and a short amount of time.

Obama reached out to the left — including through a private lunch with Maddow and other liberal commentators — earlier this summer. ….

Read the whole story here.

Comment by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: Well I guess I am a member of this "professional left," and I don’t appreciate Gibbs attitude.

What’s he mean, trying to separate “real progressives” out there in America from the naysayers about the Obama administration. I’m not even exactly a naysayer, and yet I very much resent Gibbs attitude. I don’t see where he gets off, having that kind of attitude about the failures of the Obama administration to enact a truly progressive agenda. YES, the big ticket items got passed through Congress and are now law. But they were so watered down by the need to pick up the support of the Blue Dogs and a few Republicans that what passed is almost worse, sometimes, than doing nothing. (That’s partly – partly – just sour grapes that the legislation wasn’t more progressive.)

Nowhere is that clearer than in health care reform. The bill DOES have some good features, and important ones. But insurance companies can charge up to 300 percent more for policies based on age. In Massachusetts, the figure is 20 percent more that they can charge based on age. I tell you, it’ ain’t right. And then the failure to include a public option in the final version was criminal, as far as I am concerned. You say, “well they didn’t have the votes for that in the Senate”. I say — well then twist some arms. To have not tried and just given up on the public option disappointed one heck of a lot of Obama’s followers. But still, this professional leftie nonetheless fell in line and tried as best I could to be supportive of the bill. If almost all of the Republicans were against it, that was enough for me.

I just can’t help thinking that radicals and “the professional left” are constituencies that Obama has treated poorly. The way Rahm and those in power in the White House and Congress have treated the Progressive Congressional Caucus is amazing. In fact, I don’t see how Grijalva can look his own face in the mirror, the way he rolls over and follows the White House line, in the final analysis. I can’t tell if it’s more his (Grijalva’s) fault for rolling over like a lap dog or if he really was given no choice by the White House.

Moreover, I’m betting that us “professional lefties” were really the driving force behind the grassroots movement that propelled Obama to the White House. And since he got in office, except for token appearances like the Netroots remote appearance, he’s pretty much ignored us. And then Gibbs comes along and unloads on us, like we’re the problem. No, Robert, attitudes like you have about the people who really are the backbone of the movement that put you into office — it’s your attitude that’s the problem. Have you been Press Secretary too long?

I always pretty much enjoyed Gibbs’ press conferences and feel he does his job pretty well. But he has no business equating this nebulous “professional left” as the same sort of enemy as are the Tea Partiers. Get real Robert. I expect this sort of attitude from Rahm Emanuel. I know what I’m dealing with there. But coming from you, Mr. Gibbs, I feel a little blindsided and very disappointed. Email Paul Evans.

See White House: Some ‘crazy’ liberal critics of Obama ‘ought to be drug tested’, The Raw Story, August 10, 2010, by Sahil Kapur, excerpt quoted verbatim:

UPDATE: Gibbs apologizes for ‘inartful’ comments, blames watching too much cable news

EARLIER: “I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

The paper described the president’s spokesman as “simmering with anger” and “in furious disbelief” over some of Obama’s liberal detractors, from whom he has faced regular criticism for not pushing a progressive agenda more authoritatively.

Comment: Obviously Gibbs has been hanging around Rahm Emanuel far too much. ~ Paul Evans

See White House in dispute with ‘professional left’, AP hosted on Yahoo News, August 10, 2010, by Associated Press.

In Other Important News
(brought to you by CLG News & Other News Sources):

Alert triggered after freon leak at Pa. nuke plant

Affected building evacuated 10 Aug 2010 A nuclear power plant in northeastern Pennsylvania has been partially evacuated because of a non-radioactive refrigerant leak. PPL Corp. said Freon gas was detected leaking from a chiller in the Unit 1 reactor building of the Susquehanna plant in Berwick around 9 a.m. Tuesday. The Allentown-based utility said the affected building was evacuated, not the entire plant.

Ex-Pakistan spy chief: FBI had ‘no solid evidence’ bin Laden involved in 9/11 attacks

06 Aug 2010 The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is a “lost cause,” said a former Pakistani intelligence chief, and the United States needs to negotiate peace with Taliban leader Mullah Omar… The attacks of September 11 were a pretext to a war already under consideration, Gul said… The 2001 terrorist attacks helped win the public support for the neocon plans, he said. There was no legitimate reason for the United States to attack Afghanistan, Gul said, because the FBI had no solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in the attacks on New York and Washington. “Why has not a single individual connected to 9/11 been caught in America so far, and why hasn’t Osama bin Laden been charged?”

Former Senator Ted Stevens Is Killed in a Plane Crash

Former United States Senator Ted Stevens was killed in a plane crash in southwestern Alaska on Monday night. Five of the nine people on board the small plane headed to a remote fishing lodge were killed in the crash, Gov. Sean Parnell of Alaska said.

Mr. Stevens, who had been the longest-serving Republican in the United States Senate while representing Alaska, was 86.

Sean O’Keefe, 54, a former NASA administrator who now is an executive with the European aerospace firm EADS, was also on the plane with his son, but they both survived, according to an official briefed on the crash who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.

Fed, Citing Slowdown, to Buy U.S. Debt

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve acknowledged on Tuesday that its confidence in the economic recovery had dimmed, and announced that it would use the proceeds from its huge mortgage-bond portfolio to buy long-term Treasury securities.

Saying it would buy relatively modest amounts of government debt, analyst said the Fed signaled that it had no intention to back away from steps that it took, starting in 2007, to prop up the financial and housing markets.

While the central bank held off on taking more aggressive steps, like a new, huge round of asset purchases, it left open the possibility that additional easing of monetary policy could take place in the fall if the recovery were to continue to weaken.

The Fed’s new stance marked the completion of a turnabout from a few months ago, when officials were discussing when and how to eventually raise interest rates and gradually shrink the $2.3 trillion balance sheet the Fed amassed through its response to the 2008 financial crisis.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 164 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Evans Liberal Politics, July 31, 2010, discussion by Paul Evans

We invite you to participate in a discussion we began on the White House’s LinkedIn group. We wanted to open up this little discussed but critical area of looming difficulty in the world to public discussion. I don’t know if transparency will help in this grave difficulty, but it couldn’t hurt!

News on Iran and Israel from CLG News:

What Happens When Push Comes to Shove with Iran and Israel?

What should the White House’s and the President’s proper response be if Israel attacks Iran? Should the United States stay neutral, adopt a stance of moderate logistical support for Israel, or join Israel in attacking Iran? Recent news suggests a higher likelihood of Israel in fact choosing a response of making an attack, on Lebanon (Hezbollah) and very likely Iran.

The following current news items support this assertion. The question is, if this happens, what should the White House response be? (~ Paul Evans)

House Republicans Give Green Light for Israeli Strike on Iran: Arutz Shiva – Israel National News.com: 28 Jul 2010 – Nearly one third of the Republican congressmen in the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced a resolution that would support Israel’s right to use “all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran”, including military force. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Louie Gohmert [R-Texas] and 46 co-sponsors. [See: House Resolution 1553.]

Israel says Iran sanctions not enough: Press TV (Iran national news organization): 30 Jul 2010:

Repeating its accusations against Tehran’s nuclear program, Israel says sanctions cannot stop a determined Iran from pursuing its nuclear goals.

"They’re determined to get nuclear military capability. We see it," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program on Friday, AFP reported. "I don’t believe that sanctions will work," he told the US-based cable news channel.

Barak said Israel agreed in essence with the sanctions and that Tel Aviv still believed it was time for sanctions to see whether they worked, but said the measure was not enough. "We have to realize, we cannot wink in front of tough realities, however tough they might be."

The UN Security Council approved a fourth set of sanctions on Iran in June — a slap in the face of the Islamic republic’s confidence building efforts and a tripartite nuclear swap declaration it signed with Brazil and Turkey in May.

Watch Israeli Mossad Chief Secretly visits Saudi Arabia, PressTV (Iranian national news) YouTube video — 0:41.

Listen to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak discuss Iran’s nuclear program on Fox News. — 4:57.

I then left the following comment to open up the discussion on the White House Group’s LinkedIn page:

I realize the controversial nature of any claim that Israel plans to attack Iran. The fact is, Israel has “dry-runned” the flight path to Iran and back twice, going the entire distance necessary to attack Iran from the air, and Israel has the world’s fourth largest air force. The second dry run included fighters equipped with extra fuel allowing them to accompany the bombers. Israel also has now developed predator drones, giving it a possible capacity to “decapitate” the Iranian regime. In fact, news items from around the internet suggest that Saudi Arabia has given Israel permission to use Saudi air space in any attack. The recent visit, referenced above, of the Israeli Mossad chief secretly visiting Saudi Arabia underscores the reality of the developing situation.

It seems to me that America desperately needs a public discussion of just how far we, as a nation, are willing to go in supporting any future Israeli attack on Iran.

The fact is, Israel has a few to several hundred nuclear weapons in its possession. Should the possibility, or even the probability, of Iran developing a weapons capability, be sufficient cause to support Israel in an attack on Iran? This is one of the paramount questions of our time.

Of course, this is sensitive information, and any response, particularly a “positive” decision to support Israel in an attack, must be made in secret. Yet a national dialogue on the whole topic and danger seems to be lacking, and I am inviting the White House to allow this discussion and see what our American people’s will is in the matter.

See Israel’s Insane War on Iran Must Be Prevented, CASMII (Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran), July 30, 2010, by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, excerpt quoted verbtim:

Israel’s attack on a humanitarian aid ship headed for Gaza may prove to be the greatest strategic error the government has ever made. Like the Soweto riots in South Africa in 1976, or Bloody Sunday – the American civil rights march on March 7, 1965, in Selma, Alabama, where police opened fire and killed civilians – the Mavi Marmora affair crossed a red line. It has triggered an international wave of condemnation, expressing a shift in attitude toward Israel. The hope is that this international outrage, flanked by growing anti-government dissent inside the country, will provoke an identity crisis among the elite and people of Israel, shake up the political kaleidoscope and allow for a viable pro-peace force to emerge. Unless this occurs, new Israeli aggression, including against Iran, will remain high on their immediate agenda.

See Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites, The Times Online, June 12, 2010, by Hugh Tomlinson.

See ‘U.S., Israel officials hold talks on Iran’, Tehran Times, July 31, 2010, by Press TV, excerpt quoted verbatim:

"’As a matter of fact, this afternoon we have a meeting with the senior Israeli team to talk about Iran and to talk about sanctions,’" AFP reported Robert Einhorn, a U.S. State Department adviser, as saying on Thursday.

The diplomat did not divulge further information on the nature of the talks or the identity of the Israeli team members due to attend the White House meeting.

However, he hinted at the intelligence work involved and said that the Israelis "’are an important source of information. We cooperate on intelligence matters with lots of friendly countries around the world, but Israeli intelligence is particularly good.’"

Meanwhile, White House officials have remained (tight lipped) about the theme of the talks and other administration officials only said it was a White House meeting.

See US: Iran sanctions starting to bite, Jerusalem Post, July 30, 2010, by Hilary Leila Krieger, excerpt quoted verbatim:

WASHINGTON – New sanctions regimes against Iran are already bearing fruit, senior US officials said Thursday, though they acknowledged the need to press countries in the Middle East, Asia and South America more forcefully.

Accordingly, top US Treasury and State Department officials are scheduled to travel to those regions in the coming weeks to push for greater sanctions there – or at the very least that these countries refrain from taking advantage of the vacuum created in Iran’s energy sector as other international sanctions take effect. China and the United Arab Emirates were places of particular concern, according to the officials.

But Robert Einhorn, US State Department special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, and Daniel Glaser, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for terrorist financing, also testified before Congress Thursday that they were already seeing progress from new sanctions. The UN Security Council passed a resolution in June adding sanctions on Iran if it didn’t halt uranium enrichment, followed by a new US law signed at the beginning of July, EU and Canadian sanctions this past week and Australian sanctions on Thursday.

“Our efforts have yielded significant results,” said Einhorn, who pointed to $50 billion to $60b. in held up or canceled oil and gas development deals, the unwillingness of a growing list of major suppliers to provide Iran gasoline, and Iran’s trouble in accessing financial services because of the refusal of international banks to do business with it.

“I think we’re starting to see that it’s working,” Glaser agreed. He noted Iran’s difficulties in getting investments in its energy sector, with the targeted Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps itself dropping out of deals, and said, “International corporations are increasingly unwilling to do business with Iran.”

See EU approves tougher sanctions against Iran, Xinhua News English, July 27, 2010.

Ex-CIA chief: Strike on Iran seems more likely now

Ex-CIA chief: Strike on Iran seems more likely now, AP hosted on Yahoo News, July 25, 2010, by The Associated Press, excerpt quoted verbatim:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was “way down the list” of options. But he tells CNN’s “State of the Union” that such action now “seems inexorable.”

He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it’s just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.

U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.

Maybe Sanctions Are Working: Iran Ready to Halt Nuclear Enrichment – Report

Official: Iran ready to halt enrichment, Xinhua News, July 31, 2010, excerpt quoted verbatim:

BEIJING, July 31 (Xinhuanet) — The leader of Tehran’s Friday Prayers has repeated Iran’s expressed readiness to halt domestic uranium enrichment.

Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani, also member of the country’s Assembly of Experts, says his nation will do so if it is provided with the 3.5 percent enriched uranium it requires for a research reactor.

He also urges world powers to stop opposing Iran, and let the country continue its nuclear activities under international supervision.

Mohammad Emami Kashani, Iranian Assembly of Experts Member, said, “Come and supervise all of our nuclear activities. Iran has shown its good intentions before, and is still proving them. These lies and violations of rules will not take you anywhere, and will not bring you any results from now on, either.”

Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization also says the country would be ready to negotiate with world powers over a fuel swap in the next few days.

See Israel Gets Brutal With Media, InterPress Service, July 23, 2010, by Mel Frykberg.

All we can do is pray for peace. Chinese papers typically follow an Iranian line on these matters so that the aforementioned news item may well constitute propoganda. Yet is is still a hopeful sign in the ongoing saber rattling, is it not? All this rather sounds like “wars and rumors of wars”, right? ~ Paul Evans

See ‘US psywar plan includes 2 hot wars’, Press TV (Iranian national news), July 26, 2010.

*****

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?

Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page, and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 152 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Nation editor: Obama ‘feeding zealots’ by not standing up to right-wing media, The Raw Story, July 23, 2010, by David Edwards and Daniel Tencer, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

The Shirley Sherrod controversy has shown that the White House needs to stand up to conservative media attacks, or risk “feeding the zealots” in America’s political debate, says the editor and publisher of a leading progressive magazine.

The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel told NBC’s Today Show Friday that the Obama administration needs to “get a spine.”

“This White House needs to institute procedures, as President Obama said, and get a spine because it is feeding the zealots of our system by not standing tall and confronting the forces of hate and fear in a country that has a lot of economic pain,” vanden Heuvel said.

She described the controversy as “a testing moment for America … Are we going to be an America that learns from Shirley Sherrod’s tale of reconciliation, overcoming prejudice? … Are we going to be a media system which is vetting and upholding standards, or are we going to be bullied as a country by a right wing media which peddles fears and slanders to, really, destroy President Obama’s presidency?”

Host Matt Lauer interrupted vanden Heuvel to point out that “in the past it’s worked in both directions. Biased media is nothing new.”

Vanden Heuvel responded by saying the issue wasn’t about media bias, but media credibility. It’s about “the mainstream media — with a few exceptions in this case — accepting Andrew Breitbart, a journalist who’s known to have no credibility.”

Watch a relevant video is from NBC’s Today Show, broadcast July 23, 2010, here.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Top anti-war Democrat: Afghanistan war could ‘destroy’ Obama’s presidency, The Raw Story, July 12, 2010, by Sahill Kapur, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

WASHINGTON – An outspoken anti-war Democrat said ongoing US military efforts in Afghanistan could deeply imperil the presidency of Barack Obama and the fortunes of the Democratic Party.

“I think that this war, if it goes on and if it escalates, has the potential to destroy this presidency and to destroy the Democratic majorities in Congress,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) told Raw Story in an interview.

The New York congressman, who has called the Afghanistan war a “fool’s errand,” said he has no qualms opposing Obama and Democratic leaders on this sensitive issue ahead of the midterm elections, despite the harsh climate for his party.

“When you’re dealing with war and peace you can’t think of it in those terms,” he said. “People are dying. The security of our country, the honor of our country, the lives of our men and women, the lives of foreign men and women – are at stake. And that’s a lot more important, frankly, than partisan advantage.”

For Nadler, his stance on Afghanistan hearkens back to when he disapproved of US efforts in Vietnam in the 1960s, which President Lyndon Johnson championed and escalated.

“I got into politics opposing a president of my party – a president who was very good in most other respects – over the Vietnam war,” he said.

Military leaders say the US has national security interests in creating a stable central government in Afghanistan, by rooting out Taliban insurgents and ensuring the region doesn’t become a save-haven for Al-Qaeda.

Obama, who has championed the mission and deployed 30,000 additional troops to the region this year, faces a tough political predicament. Recent events have enhanced negative perceptions of the war, but withdrawal may carry with it an admission of failure and lead to forceful attacks from Republicans.

148 Hot Rock and Pop Tracks
for Your Listening Pleasure!

#1 Rated by Google

A House vote on July 1 to approve war funding revealed growing Democratic divisions over the war. Three-fifths of Democrats backed an amendment demanding an exit strategy, which failed due to resolute Republican opposition.

While the president and most members of Congress deem a withdrawal timetable ill-advised, Nadler considers the shift in Democratic perception a positive step. “I think most of the Democratic Party is coming round,” he said.

The Brooklyn native said that while he believes there are political incentives for ending the Afghanistan war, his opposition is based chiefly on harsh realities in the region that make victory unachievable at a reasonable cost, if at all.

“It ought to be stopped for all sorts of reasons, but those political reasons increase the case for stopping it,” Nadler said.

Comment by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: Yes, we know, right now our videos are not showing. We believe it is a hosting issue or perhaps some little snippet of code is not quite right. We are working hard to resolve this issue. Thanks for your patience. ~ Paul

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 148 Rock and Pop Tracks

#1 Rated by Google

We Are Screwed, Daily Kos, June 10, 2010, by Jill Richardson, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

I am frustrated. And depressed. First of all, the oil spill is just overwhelming. Everything about it. The amount of marine life killed, the wetlands destroyed, and then all of the extra disaster on top of the original disaster. As if all of the oil spilling into the Gulf wasn’t bad enough, then they had to go dump in a bunch of toxic dispersants. And when the EPA told them to stop using Corexit, BP basically gave the EPA a middle finger and kept on doing it. Then there’s the endangered sea turtles burned, the clean-up workers denied the ability to wear protective gear, and the media kept away from the clean-up, the wimpy six-month moratorium that should have been longer in the first place, and then even THAT getting turned over by a judge who gets his bread buttered by the oil industry.

But that is just the start.

Oh and my actual title is We Are F**ked but the Swearing Police made me change it.

Now if Obama had been a progressive in the first place, which I don’t believe he ever was, he might have nominated someone better than Ken Salazar for Secretary of the Interior. And maybe something could have happened to fix MMS before now. But it didn’t. Maybe somebody would have noticed that every single oil company had practically identical clean-up plans in case of a spill, and they all included Caribbean walruses and contact info for a dead guy to call in case of an emergency? Maybe somebody, somewhere, would have given a shit about whether the oil companies actually had any technology to prevent spills and to clean them up if they happened.

But the truth came out. The U.S. government loves its oil money too. Recently, one of the news shows I listen to (Rachel, Amy, or Keith) suggested cutting all of the oil subsides we as a nation give to the oil industry. We’re in a “PAYGO” (pay as you go) environment in DC right now, which means that nothing gets extra money unless you make a cut or add a tax somewhere else. And I’m highly attuned to sources of money because my own pet bill – the school lunch program – needs BILLIONS more than it’s going to get. I was all ears when they brought up cutting oil subsidies. Seems only fair, right? They make more money than god, what do they need subsidies for?

And the answer came back that the U.S. relies on the money it gets from leases paid for by the oil companies. Now, I don’t see how cutting subsidies (saving money) will lose us that lease money from the oil companies. The oil’s there and they want it. They aren’t going to stop drilling tomorrow if we take away their subsidies. Believe me, we could take away an awful lot of money from them before they stop being profitable and can’t pay us for leases. But that was the reason given.

I’d bet it as a lot more to do with the fact that the oil companies are some of the top spenders on lobbying in the entire universe. (To find out who spends what on lobbying, go here.) In the first quarter of this year, ConocoPhilips spent over $6.4 mil in lobbying. BP spent $3.5 mil, Exxon Mobil spent nearly $3.4 mil, Chevron spent over $3 mil, and Shell spent nearly $2.3 mil. You can pick a quarter, any year, and they all spend that much or more, depending on what kind of legislation Congress is debating at the time.

It’s not just the oil I’m mad about. If it was just the oil, well, maybe we could keep fighting until the politics in this country changed and then get off oil later. I mean, it’s gonna run out one of these days, won’t it? And then we’ll have to get off of it. (And if it runs out before we’re ready, it won’t be pretty. Cuba found out what that was like in the early ’90s. I went there this year and blogged about it to document how they’ve adapted to life on little oil.)

But it looks like global warming’s gonna get us before Peak Oil ever will. And the injustice in that is that the rich countries in the temperate zones (i.e. us) will largely be okay. Oh, we might not have any more American maple syrup, which would be sad, but we’ll be okay. Countries in the tropics, by and large poor and developing nations, will be the ones who are hardest hit by changes in climate. They didn’t cause it but they’ll be the first ones to suffer from it.

So what are we doing about that? F**king around, mostly. Talking about “clean” coal and nuclear and ethanol, as if they are viable alternatives. (Last month when I visited DC, the ethanol industry – who has signed up Wes Clark as a spokesman – had the Capitol South metro station plastered in ethanol ads.) We talk about cap and trade, we leave major sectors like agriculture out of our climate change bills, the stupid Governor of West Virginia isn’t sure it would be in his best personal interest to appoint a Senator ASAP to replace Sen. Byrd…. and on and on it goes. A million reasons why nothing is happening and they all have the same effect. Nothing is happening.

Meanwhile, there are millions of ideas out there on how to solve our problems. About a year ago, I interviewed a guy who invented a plug-in electric hybrid designed so that you only fill it up 4 times a year IN THE MID-90s!!!! And what happened? All the auto-makers and the U.S. Department of Energy saw the car… and they did nothing. A few years later, one of the major automakers asked this guy to make them a prototype of a similar car, which he did. He delivered it to them, they did nothing with it. A full decade ago.

There’s a similar story for agriculture. You can grow corn and soy organically, using your same equipment, getting the same or better yield than you do now, AND sell it for organic prices, using up to 2/3 less oil, AND while sequestering carbon into the soil, and yet few farmers do it. There’s no incentive for them to do it. In fact, there are a number of disincentives, since your first few years in transition you have decreased yields and since you aren’t certified organic yet, you still get paid conventional prices. Plus the infrastructure in place makes it very easy to go with the flow planting GE corn and using fertilizer and herbicides and much harder to be organic or even non-GE. And even harder if you want to grow something other than corn and soy.

We have experts who say we need to change the way we grow our food but make no headlines, and then we have the fuckwits appointed by Obama (like this guy, who came to USDA directly from Monsanto’s non-profit) who are for continuing the status quo and exporting it around the world.

It’s amazing what a tiny role facts play in the decisions made at the top levels of our government. Colbert said that reality has a well-known liberal bias. Well, I still believe that is true, but our government sure isn’t liberal. We’ve got a Democratic House, Senate, and White House, and there’s very little in the way of liberalism actually happening in Washington.

This is more than sad, pathetic, and depressing. It’s tragic. We’re gonna take ourselves down in flames and take the entire planet down with us, and we probably won’t even know it’s happening until it’s too late.

See Jill Richarson’s website, www.lavidalocavore.

Email Jill Richardson

See Oil Change International’s interactive Follow the Oil Money.

Listen to 146 Rock and pop hits on our three page playlist of the best in rock and pop sounds anywhere on the net. Listen to rock, pop and electronic tracks while you search the web! Currently a starred result and number 5 out of 13.7 million results on Google search for “rock and pop playlist”.

*****

Evans Web Design

Taking Your Message to the World

Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House, &#169 Telegraph.co.uk, June 20, 2010, by Alex Spillius in Washington, official photograph of Rahm Emanuel from Wikipedia, quoted verbatim:

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is expected to leave his job later this year after growing tired of the “idealism” of Barack Obama’s inner circle.

Goodbye and Good Riddance, Rahm Emanuel

Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to “bang heads together” to get policy pushed through.

Mr Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term.

Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of most high profile jobs in US politics.

“I would bet he will go after the midterms,” said a leading Democratic consultant in Washington. “Nobody thinks it’s working but they can’t get rid of him – that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he’ll go.”

An official from the Bill Clinton era said that “no one will be surprised” if Mr Emanuel left after the midterm elections in November, when the Democratic party will battle to save its majorities in the house of representatives and the senate.

It is well known in Washington that arguments have developed between pragmatic Mr Emanuel, a veteran in Congress where he was known for driving through compromises, and the idealistic inner circle who followed Mr Obama to the White House.

His abrasive style has rubbed some people the wrong way, while there has been frustration among Mr Obama’s closest advisers that he failed to deliver a smooth ride for the president’s legislative programme that his background promised.

“It might not be his fault, but the perception is there,” said the consultant, who asked not to be named. “Every vote has been tough, from health care to energy to financial reform.

“Democrats have not stood behind the president in the way Republicans did for George W Bush, and that was meant to be Rahm’s job.”

There were sharp differences over health care reform, with Mr Emanuel arguing that public hostility about cost should have forced them into producing a scaled down package. Mr Obama and advisers including David Axelrod, the chief strategist, and Valerie Jarrett, a businesswoman and mentor from Chicago, decided to push through with grander legislation anyway.

Mr Emanuel has reportedly told friends that his role as White House chief of staff was “only an eighteen month job” because of its intensity.

Regarded as the most demanding after president, it involves controlling the president’s agenda, enforcing White House message discipline as well as liaising with Congress.

His departure would regarded as another sign of how Mr Obama’s presidency has been far more troubled than expected.

Mr Emanuel has privately expressed a readiness to run for mayor of Chicago, which is also his home town though he was never part of the Obama set and did not endorse the then senator in the Democratic primary in 2008.

That would however depend on Mayor Richard Daley stepping down when he is up for re-election in 2011.

The chief obstacle to taking the White House job originally was doubts about moving his three children from Chicago. According to another former Clinton official, he has let friends know that he is “very sensitive to the idea that he is not a good father for having done this”.

One of Washington’s more colourful characters, Mr Emanuel is the son of Jewish immigrants and was an accomplished ballet dancer at school. He served as a civilian volunteer with the Israeli Defence Force in the 1991 Gulf War.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

&#169 Telegraph.co.uk