Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The company Hilary keeps (Article from The Nation)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:24 AM
Original message
The company Hilary keeps (Article from The Nation)
Edited on Fri Sep-28-07 10:26 AM by Armstead
Maybe it's an exercise in futility, but it's important to know what we're going to get if the Clinton/DLC steamrolls through the nomination and makes it to the White House.

You don't like Bush's corporate elite ties? You don;t like GOP crony capitalism?

Well perhaps it's worth doing a little bit of Googling and research to see what we'll get with Clinton 2. Here's one example, from The Nation magazine.It's worth reading the whole article.

Spinning Hillary Centrist
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/berman

Excerpt:

But perhaps the most important figure in the campaign is her pollster and chief strategist, Mark Penn, a combative workaholic. Penn is not yet a household name, but perhaps he should be. Inside Hillaryland, he has elaborately managed the centrist image Hillary has ...cultivated in the Senate. The campaign is polling constantly, and Penn's interpretation of the numbers will in large part decide her political direction.

Yet Penn is no ordinary pollster. Beyond his connections to the Clintons, he not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. This creates a dilemma for Hillary: Penn represents many of the interests whose influence candidate Clinton--in an attempt to appeal to an increasingly populist Democratic electorate--has vowed to curtail. Is what's good for Penn and his business good for Hillary's political career? And furthermore, can she convincingly claim to fight for the average American with Penn guiding strategy in her corner?.....

...Penn, who had previously worked in the business world for companies like Texaco and Eli Lilly, brought his corporate ideology to the White House. After moving to Washington he aggressively expanded his polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland (PSB). It was said that Penn was the only person who could get Bill Clinton and Bill Gates on the same phone line. Penn's largest client was Microsoft, and he saw no contradiction between working for both the plaintiff and the defense in what was at the time the country's largest antitrust case. A variety of controversial clients enlisted PSB. The firm defended Procter and Gamble's Olestra from charges that it caused anal leakage, blamed Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically modified foods for Monsanto. Penn invented the concept of "inoculation," in which corporations are shielded from scandal through clever advertising and marketing. Selling an image, companies realized, was as important as winning a legislative favor.

Penn kept his foot in the political world through the Clintons. In 2000 he became the chief architect of Hillary's Senate victory in New York...The massive PR empire WPP Group acquired Penn's polling firm for an undisclosed sum in 2001 and four years later named him worldwide CEO of one of its most prized properties, the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M). A key player in the decision to hire Penn was Howard Paster, President Clinton's chief lobbyist to Capitol Hill and a top executive in the WPP firmament.....The press release announcing Penn's promotion noted his work "developing and implementing deregulation informational programs for the electric utilities industry and in the financial services sector." The release blithely ignored how utility deregulation contributed to the California electricity crisis manipulated by Enron and the blackout of 2003, which darkened much of the Northeast and upper Midwest.

Burson-Marsteller is hardly a natural fit for a prominent Democrat. The firm has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which thousands were killed when toxic fumes were released by one of its plants, to Royal Dutch Shell, which has been accused of massive human rights violations in Nigeria. B-M pioneered the use of pseudo-grassroots front groups, known as "astroturfing," to wage stealth corporate attacks against environmental and consumer organizations. It set up the National Smokers Alliance on behalf of Philip Morris to fight tobacco regulation in the early 1990s. Its current clients include major players in the finance, pharmaceutical and energy industries. In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates....A host of prominent Republicans fall under Penn's purview.....

...Yet Hillary apparently sees no contradiction between her own advocacy, as painted by Penn, and the anti-union, pro-corporate work of her chief strategist's company. "Clearly not," says spokesman Howard Wolfson. "I don't think it reflects on her at all. Mark's work away from the campaign is Mark's work, and his campaign work is separate from that...."

...Furthermore, few Democratic consultants so consistently and publicly advocate an ideology that perfectly complements their corporate clients. Every election cycle Penn discovers a new group of swing voters--"soccer moms," "wired workers," "office park dads"--who happen to be the key to the election and believe the same thing: "Outdated appeals to class grievances and attacks upon corporate perfidy only alienate new consistencies and ring increasingly hollow," Penn has written. Through his longtime association with the Democratic Leadership Council, Penn has been pushing pro-corporate centrism for years. Many of the same companies that underwrite the DLC, such as Eli Lilly, AT&T, Texaco and Microsoft, also happen to be clients of Penn's....


MORE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. old article from the Nation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. May 7, 2007
And your point is?.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
againes654 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Anything to avoid
answering any kind of hard questions, and spin spin spin. That is my interpretation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. there's something about posting old articles
you could post that one from last May, and another from two years ago, and another from six years ago, etc. But why?

Are you going to post that article again in six months? If so, why?

I think most people post articles that they think other people haven't seen before. A few post articles that they think probably people have seen, but they want them to keep seeing it.

Why? It seems to me like battering people with the article instead of sharing it. If there's a good anti-Hillary article, you can expect that it will appear a dozen times on DU real quick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
againes654 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. That article isn't that old
you act like it was over a year ago. The fact remains the same, HRC is a corporate candidate. You have no way of defending that other than, she will win, and people are just picking on her.

But go right ahead spinning, Hillary sure has gotten good at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. I wasn't reading DU in May
Edited on Fri Sep-28-07 10:46 AM by Armstead
So forgive me if it seems repetitive. I've been Googling around and this is an informative article.

However that is beside the point. I do believe that what the Democratic Party seems to be about to do should be scrutinized very carefully.

If you support DLC CorporateCentrism and think that it is good for the US to perpetuate the current status quo, then you are entitled to your opinion. And it is worth discussing.

However, people should at least have their eyes open when they choose to simply replace the GOP's Corporate Representatives with Democratic DLC Corporate representatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. I'm against DLC CorporateCentrism
but I think Bill Clinton was a pretty decent president, despite being the epitome of DLC CorporateCentrism. It's a paradox.

A question for you: do you think there is a soul out there that doesn't already know that Hillary is a DLC CorporateCentrist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. that's why I voted for Nader
but I quickly realized I was wrong, even before Bush took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
45. With all due respect...
...There are a lot of degrees between a Nader and a Clinton.

If you supported Nader's basic message, then there are other options than jumping directly to the opposite side of the fence, which the Clinton's represent.

If one solution doesn't work, then it's not necessary to turn to the problem to fix itself.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
72. That's why my avatar is Opus
Everybody loves Opus. No flamefests about him. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
58. Then you should be supporting Dennis Kucinich... (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. I will probably end up voting for Dennis
the reason I changed my avatar to Hillary is that I spend so much time on DU defending Hillary that I thought it would look odd for me to have a Dennis avatar.

The thought of Hillary as president is pretty exciting to me, but I tend to go with reason over excitement when it comes down to it. I would be comfortable with Hillary winning, mainly due to my memory of Bill's presidency, which was far from the end of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. As I remember it
hillary was the more conservative of the two of them...

Corporate lawyer, Goldwater supporter, panderer to the health insurance mafia in 92-93...

From every indication, she's gotten worse. From the company she keeps, to the "policies" she nearly expounds upon during her tortured triangulation sessions, I'm convinced she'd be worse than Slick Willie.

And I couldn't vote for HIM in '96 after the way he betrayed the Progressive cause from 93-96...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
57. Slick Willie was the best republican president the U.S. ever had! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. ...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. Have any of the facts in the article changed?
Has Hillary Clinton made a populist turn away from her corporate backers since then? I hadn't noticed anything like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. will the facts have changed by tomorrow?
is someone going to post the article again tomorrow?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #23
39. They should keep posting it until you answer the question
Has anything in that article changed since it was written? It's pretty simple. Yes or no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. no, the facts are still true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
59. No. Hillary has moved FARTHER to the Corporate RIGHT WING.
1) Her HealthCare proposal shovels $MILLIONS$ of taxpayer dollars into the pockets wealthy CEOs.

2) She has reassured AIPAC/MIC tha she will keep the carnage and destruction going in Iraq indefinitely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #59
71. Ding ding ding! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. It's just like the Republican meme doesn't matter how old it is along as it's about Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Five months ago. Yes, that was an eternity.
Did you even bother to read the article?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yes I did, 5 months ago when it was discussed ad nauseam here.
Edited on Fri Sep-28-07 10:39 AM by William769
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. And it and all other info should be discussed ad nauseum
But simply engaging in ad hominum responses isn;t discussing.

A simple question for you.

Does it bother you that if Hilary is elected, insiders like this -- who support GOP corporate crap equally -- will be determining national policy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. The Nation: Notorious Republican rag. BWAHAHA! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #17
41. Yeah, I hear they've added Rush as a columnist.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Have the facts contained in it undergone any change since then?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. will they have changed tomorrow?
will someone post it again tomorrow?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. It should be posted every day, IMO n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. what's stopping you?
the answer is that what's stopping you is that you know it would be obnoxious to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. Should repetition be used in politics only by Republicans and their mediawhores or
should it be used by Democrats concerned with HONEST and OPEN GOVERNMENT who want to keep pressure on and a check on the fascist leanings of government leaders?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. we're all friends at DU
let's not use any kind of tactics against each other. Just say what we think and let each other decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. Should be like that...
but some people are more dependable Democrats than others, and DU reflects the loyalties of our party and its leaders of influence.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
42. It doesn't matter, does it? It could be 5 MINUTES old...
And some posters would claim that it's too NEW to be taken seriously.

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. An oldie, but a goodie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramapo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hillary would be Bush Lite
She will continue corporate governance. The deals have obviously been made. She won't be the embarrassment that Bush is, but I don't think she'll do much to change things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
26. What "things" do you want changed? Is your candidate more capable of bringing changes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. I want Open Government accountable to the people.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. Let me turn that question around
Presumably you are a Democrat, or an independent with leanings towards the principles of the Democratic Party tradition.

Since Hilary supported the Iraq War, and refuses to say what she will do about it when elected, what will change?

The Bush administration has done the bidding of their corporate clients by systematically dismantling regulations, consumer protections and any other restraints to unfettered "free markets." If those same corporate clients are determining the policies and "message" of a Democratic administration, what would really change, except for the window dressing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #31
47. (1)Hillary "supported" keeping Saddam in check via the UN. (2)I'm not bothered
by her level of coziness with corporations. She's aware of the cost that America must pay for being a super power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. An honest answer
I don't agree with you, but I appreciate the fact that you are basing your support on your beliefs, and are willing to say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ericgtr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
75. And that is exactly what we would expect from a Republican
I completely agree with your assessment on this and I believe she will definitely win over members of the other party because of it. However, as a Democrat I will go ahead and vote for a candidate with the best interests of my party in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
60. Three major things
Public Financing of ALL Federal Elections... and take back OUR airwaves for OUR political process...

Universal, Single-Payer Health Care...

A Department of Peace led by a Cabinet Level Officer...



All would be done with DK...

Some MIGHT be done under Obama or Edwards...

None of this will be done by hillary...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Department of Peace?That's the work of the State Department.
"Defense" works just fine, besides, America's not yet ready for the ultra left to turn our military into flower children.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. And the "State Department" and the "Defense Department"
do such a good job of peace-keeping... :sarcasm:

-------------------

The Department of Peace

The United States was founded on hope, optimism, and a commitment to freedom. We can once again become a beacon of hope for the world. To do that, we must reject the current administration's policies of fear, suspicion, and preemptive war. It is time to jettison our illusions and fears and to transform age-old challenges with new thinking. This is the idea behind my proposal to establish a Department of Peace. This is the idea to make nonviolence an organizing principle at home and abroad and dedicate ourselves to peaceful coexistence, consensus building, disarmament, and respect for international treaties. Violence and war are not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable.


We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. We can conceive of peace as a tool to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. We can move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all wars.

Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make nonviolence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control. Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values.


We must change the metaphor of our society from one of war to one of peace. The Department of Defense now requires in excess of $400 billion for its activities. A Department of Peace can be an effective counterbalance, redirecting our national energies towards nonviolent intervention, mediation, and conflict resolution on all matters of human security.


A Department of Peace can look at the domestic issues that our society faces and often ignores as we focus on matters internationally. We have a problem with violence in our own society, and we need to look at it and address it in a structured way. Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, and police-community relations conflicts, and would work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as "violence is inevitable" or "war is inevitable." Thus, it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus.


The Department of Peace will also address human development and the unique concerns of women and children. It will envision and seek to implement plans for peace education, not simply as a course of study, but as a template for all pursuits of knowledge within formal educational settings.


Americans have proven over and over again we're a nation that can rise to the challenges of our times, because our people have that capacity. And so, the concept of a Department of Peace is the vehicle by which we express our belief that we have the capacity to evolve as a people, that someday we could look back at this moment and understand that we took the steps along the way to make war archaic.


Violence is not inevitable. War is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this world a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children from fear, from harm, from destruction.


Congressman Kucinich is the 2003 recipient of the Gandhi Peace Award. Former recipients include Eleanor Roosevelt, Cesar Chavez, A.J. Muste, Dr. Linus Pauling, Dorothy Day, Sen. Wayne Morse and Marian Wright Edelman.


http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/the-department-of-peace/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Great vision. I like it,but it's not going to happen.
Edited on Fri Sep-28-07 01:26 PM by oasis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Not as long as people of good will don't think it will...
be part of the solution, not part of the problem...

Believe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. I don't understand why so many Dems WANT BushInc protected and books to stay closed.
Edited on Fri Sep-28-07 10:37 AM by blm
Since when did the Democratic party become the party that protects secrecy and privilege?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


Why do citizens not respect THEMSELVES enough to trust themselves with knowledge of what their government has done and is doing in their names or their right to open government?

I want the Democratic party to stand AGAINST government corruption and FOR open government.

Why has that become so controversial?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #6
30. Priorities. More important issues than putting the Bush criminals behind bars.
Should "sticking it to the Bush family" be the main focus of the next Democratic Convention?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. Exposing BushInc's agenda would've stopped Bush2, 9-11 and this Iraq war
so what would exposing the Bush2 (BushInc w/MORE power) agenda accomplish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. Bush is becoming more and more toothless. He'll be history by the end of the year.(nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. And those ensconced in power behind the scenes? We THOUGHT Bush1 was vanquished
in 1993 when Bill took office, and instead they came back STRONGER than ever because they were no longer under scrutiny of a Dem congress.

What happened?

And do you think the corpmedia is going to give up the powers they gained?

Carlyle?

Dubai and all its BCCI moneymen?

Bush1 was at its weakest and most exposed when Bill Clinton took office in Jan 1993, what happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Are you suggesting that Bill Clinton was/is in cahoots with the Bush gang?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #55
73. No - he really does LOVE HIM only because they do charity work together.
And he really does LOVE GEORGE BUSH. So I really expect the citizens' right to open government will be respected and upheld by a next Pres. Clinton. Really. Just like before.



You can believe their lips, o....I'll believe their actions. k?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #46
77. That is what I said in July 2001. My bad. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
24. say anything to get elected
Thats her mantra. Vote Joe Biden.

Truth should not be hidden nor sugar coated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
32. What a worthless article. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Please explain
Do you not think it is important to know who is running the campaign of the front runner of the Democratic Party (or any candidate for that matter).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Says he does polling
and is a chief strategist. You know Hillary relies on polling data to help make strategy, hence she wants accurate poll data, hence she hires a competent person to do the job. If the article examined anything interesting or important I would not have called it worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. It also pointed out that he is a strategist
If he were simply gathering and analyzing data, I might agree with you.

But he crafts the "message" and helps to define the positions and policies she will take.

And, if his worldview is based on the idea that unionbusting, covering up environmental destruction, and otehr such tactics are good, then that is going to determine how policies are crafted.

If you want another "V-Chip" election or when in office, a team whose role is to make what is good for the corporate elite seem palatable to the majority hurt by those policies, then that's what you'll get.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
36. What esle would you expect from The Nation.
They even did a hit job on Wes Clark a few yrs ago. Clark's True Colors. I cancelled my subcription then and won't even browe their Pages. I have seen the guy on TV that represents them I think his name is Corn. Don't like him either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Corn is not bad
I probably agree with him most of the time. Thats not who wrote this though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
concerned citizen23 Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
40. Corporate elitism ...why the surprise?
Thanks for sharing this “old” article…I hadn’t seen this one…

Given how the electoral and campaign system is structured with corporate and lobbyist funding our candidates and elected officials who determine national policy such elitism and cronyism is a natural consequence. It’s only speculation at this point why some policy makers like HRC become more favored over others, but could the promises they make to their corporate supporters play a role?

I am convinced that until we change how people come to power and who funds them things really won’t change. Our weakest link in our political system today is an electoral process run amok by corporate-lobbyist funding.

It is for this reason I recently posted the follow two commentaries:

Regardless of party affiliations, they all serve the same masters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3532891
Corporations + Money + Lobbyist + Politicians
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3538692

And Dennis Kucinich had this to say on corporate power:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3534002

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. That's why this is important, IMO
We are at a point in time that is ripe for real reform -- including how we elect politicians.

People are fed up, the GOP is on the ropes, the climate is ripe for a populist shake up of the status quo.

But we will only take advantage of that by pushing for real reform now -- when the roadmap for the 08 campaigns are being drawn up.

If we simp,ly lie back and let the Corporate special interests roll us oiver in this stage of the process, we'll be stuck with the same old crap for anotehr eight years.

But it could change if enough people wake up to both the dangers and the real opportunity for meaningful change now, by rejecting the same old insider domination of the electoral process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
concerned citizen23 Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. I completely agree...
And the message needs to be repeated over and over...

I am becoming more convinced we need to build critical mass and collectively push for election reform, and that this should be our primary focus...signing more petitions and submitting them to the "old guard" of those in power is mostly a waste of time. They have too much invested in keeping the status quo as is...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
51. The ole smear by association by Ariana Bermanington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. The company one keeps
You don't just elect a person. You also elect the people and interest groups behind the person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
concerned citizen23 Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Very true, and all the baggage that comes with that too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #53
62. Just as flies are attracted to shit...
so are like-minded corporatists attracted to hillary...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
56. Bottom line, which deserves to be reiterated
there's an onslaught and constant drumbeat here that tends to overlook inconvenient facts about Hillary's campaign.

Reminding people who she has around her, her advisors and pollsters , her campaign personnel, is important and why I decided, after taking a long look at her campaign that it was THIS that needed to be fixed. She's pretty headstrong and I doubt she'll jettison these guys any time soon.

So, as much as I love ya, Hilly, your people are toxic and will manage to run your campaign aground by old worn out memes, insulated beltway views, and a general lack of conncetion withthe core of the party.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the Gore campaign, and the Kerry campaign. Go back to the Dukakis campaign. Same guys at work.

Pure and simple, Hillary can win, but not if these clowns ruin her campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #56
76. You seem to think those Dem 'strategists' were working FOR Gore and Kerry.
Edited on Fri Sep-28-07 07:20 PM by blm
I think some of them were working for Hillary2008 in 2000 and 2004.

There was a reason the DNC let the RNC run roughshod over them when it came to the votecounting in crucial states, too.

There was a reason that all the Dem spokespeople on tv were basically useless from 2001 thru 2005. They didn't know much about any other Democrat so all they could do was defend Clinton as they'd been schooled in the years before.

I don't love Hill or her team. They are in it for the corpratists, not us.


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
68. The Nation - gimme a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. The late Molly Ivins was tougher on Hillary than she ever was on GWB. (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
69. Thanks for the article, Armstead! Keep shining the light! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
74. Let's just hope that she does get stopped. Mark Penn is an overrated strategist
His "efforts" could ultimately backfire, because most indeps and Repukes aren't buying it. Also, many Dems are furious at Hillary's lame calculations, and believe she's an AWFUL candidate in so many ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC