Do you think Hillary Clinton is a corporatist?

[redqueen]

Why why not?

rinsd asked earlier if we thought her voting record looked like the record of a conservative. Within that summary were votes for free-trade bills... all in favor. IMO, that's not so good, and an indicator that she may indeed be at least slightly corporatist.

So... what do you think?

[Emillereid]

1. Her photo on Fortune's cover said it all and her health care giveaway to

the parasitic insurance companies only reinforced the truth.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. No More So Than Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Obama And Yes, Edwards, No Matter What He Professes

eom

[redqueen]

3. So... you do think she's a corporatist... but no more so than others.

Am I reading you right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. You Are Corerect

"You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of corporatism."

[jgraz]

7. In other words: yes, she's a sellout, but don't bother voting for anyone else

Classic Hillary tactic.

[Hieronymus]

70. You sure pegged a typical Hillary supporter.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

If They Are All The Same Might As Well Go With The Winner

At least they will stay the fuck out of my bedroom unlike the Rethuglicans...

[jgraz]

136. Just don't try burning a flag

And if we're going with a winner, doesn't Edwards do the best against the Rethugs?

[MadHound]

161. Thing is, they're not all the same

Kucinich, unlike Hillary, has taken no corporate money this election cycle.

[GreenArrow]

133. not exactly.

More like you can have your car any color you want as long as it's black.

[musette_sf]

4. oh, let's pick just one:

Wal-Mart Board Of Directors.

[jgraz]

5. I also think that ursine mammals tend to relieve their bowels in a sylvan wilderness

[jmp]

185. Yeah but ... do bears shit in the woods?

That is the question. :P

[TahitiNut]

216. No wonder polar bears are becoming endangered.

:dunce:

[MethuenProgressive]

6. Only if you say Edwards and Obama are too.

So, what's the point of name calling?

[jgraz]

"Corporatist" is not name-calling. It's a verifiable fact.

Edwards and Obama also have issues with corporatism, but no Democrat is as bad a Hillary. Not even close.

[...of J.Temperance]

42. Corporatist is name-calling

Because it's being used here as a derogatory and dirty word.

[jgraz]

53. It IS a derogatory and dirty word. Just like DLC

And since there is ample evidence to show that both apply to Hillary, it's a simple case of calling a spade a spade.

[...of J.Temperance]

58. Not that you have an idea what you're talking about

IF the Democratic Party were minus the DLC, then the Democratic Party would forever be a minority party and have something like 10 Senators and 80 Congresspeople....and very little Governors.

[jgraz]

74. Hmm...why don't you guys drop out and we'll see if you're right

Personally, I'd rather have a real opposition party than one that's been infiltrated by stealth republicans.

[...of J.Temperance]

82. You obviously have no idea what the DLC even is

Your allegations are ridiculous "stealth republicans"....WTF?

Maybe if people like you stopped constantly wanting to fight the DLC, ie. fight members of your OWN party, then maybe we could get more done in general.

It's the Reactionary Right-Wingers who are the enemy, it's not the DLC who are the enemy.

[jgraz]

91. I think the DLC is led by someone who can't win a statewide election

And who goes on Faux news to slam fellow Democrats who aren't sufficiently pro-war.

And I do believe that the Democrats would be the undisputed majority party right now if it weren't for the boat-anchor influence of the DLC. The majority of this country is far to the left of the policies espoused by the DLC, and they would be much more supportive of our party if the pro-war corporate influences were gone.

[...of J.Temperance]

100. If the majority of the country is "far to the left of the policies espoused by the DLC" then why

Didn't Dennis Kucinich win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2004 and why isn't Dennis Kucinich sitting in the WH now?

Yeah I agree, Harold Ford failed to win the Tennessee Senate race, but that was because sadly, Tennessee has become increasingly more Right-Wing than it was, say, 10-15 years ago.

Dennis Kucinich failed to garner more than 10% of the vote in Ohio during his Presidential run, and Ohio is far LESS Right-Wing than Tennessee.

[jgraz]

105. Um...have you checked who's running the MSM?

You do remember the flogging of Kerry as the only Dem who could beat Bush, don't you? Dennis has never gotten traction, not because people don't believe in his policies, but because he doesn't look the part of a president. He's also, sadly, not the strongest campaigner, IMHO.

[...of J.Temperance]

109. The MSM

Bash ANY Democrat, let's face it, can you actually remember when ANY of our candidates got treated fairly?

Oh yeah, the media LOVED John Kerry....UNTIL he got the nomination, and then proceeded to take on George W. Bush, then the media attackdogs went after him like nobody's business.

Remember the Swift Boat horsecrap and all the lies and smearing of John Kerry? The media ran with all of that crap day after day....yet Bush was treated like he was wrapped in cotton wool.

I don't think it had anything to do with Dennis Kucinich not looking like he should be a President, the man's from Ohio, he's been the Mayor of a big city in Ohio and a Congressman....on the wider scale Kucinich's policies are alien to the mainstream public, all of his anti-trade stuff and the Department of Peace, the mainstream public just don't find too much of that stuff to be appealing.

[ima_sinnic]

175. the MSM doesn't "bash" Kucinich, they totally ignore him

... if Kucinich was a whore like Hillary and other DLCers, they would love him and be shoving him down our throats 24/7. For the MSM to "bash" Kucinich would do the guy a favor, because it would call attention to him. That is the last thing that corporatists, MSM, and DLC want.

The DLC made sure that Dean would not be the nominee in 2004. The DLC does not like those who don't play by their payola-grubbing, inside-the-beltway good ole boy rules. They think, just because they are money-grubbing me-firsters, that only they should coronate our "leader," the one whose strings they can pull to do their bidding of raping and plundering the world in their globalist pursuit of profit.

The DLC can take their trojan horse, WAR MONGERING, greedhead, corporate ass-kissing, Rupert Murdoch lovefesting, triangulating, slimeball, wink-&-a-nod repuke-lite candidates and shove them where the sun don't shine.

[...of J.Temperance]

189. Calling Hillary a "whore" is VERY low a blow

The media ignore Dennis Kucinich, for the same reasons they ignore other candidates that are on the political fringe....it's because these fringe characters have nothing in common with the mainstream of politics or the mainstream general public.

The proof of how alienated from mainstream reality Kucinich is, is that the man is only polling 2%.

Dennis Kucinich doesn't represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party....Hillary, John Edwards DO represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

[ima_sinnic]

217. HRC will give whoever pays her whatever they want, ergo she is a whore

she especially likes the corporate megabucks from the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the gazillionaire war mongers. She couldn't give two shits what The People, the voters, want, all she cares about is playing front babe for her corporate pimps.

For some reason you want the status quo to be maintained. You have an interest in perpetual war and in unregulated corporate greed and global plunder. What this says about you is disgusting. It implies that you are personally profiting from human misery and suffering and that your values are can be summed up in one word: money.

In your rigged polls, Kucinich "polls" at 2%. We all know about Hillary's crooked poll meister. Dennis Kucinich was declared the winner, twice, of the MSNBC Democratic debate--which you know only too well.

His only exposure is by word of mouth, since, unlike Shillary, who has the backing of the MSM thanks to people like you who put in your megabucks to ensure her "victory" so you can continue your rape and plunder of the earth, he is shunned by the press. If he is so "fringe," what are they afraid of? You would think his "entertainment value" would be good, wouldn't you? If he is so "fringe" and "alienated," you would think Fux News would be ridiculing him (subtly of course) 24/7. No, the total blackout indicates there is a very real reluctance to let his message be heard in any way, shape, or form.

again I say, join the repukes and get it over with. The DLC is a trojan horse organization of scumbag greedheads who hate the democratic process. They are the lowest of the low, because, unlike the repukes, they pretend to be someone they're not.

[...of J.Temperance]

230. Lol! Have you ever thought of going on the Stand-Up Comedy Circuit?

That filthy and ugly rant....DIRECTED PERSONALLY AT ME....was actually hilarious!

Hey pal, have a lie down in a darkened room.

[Freddie Stubbs]

253. The MSM certainly gave ample coverage to Dean last time

They didn't ignore him, as you allege that they are now doing to Kucinich.

[DemBones DemBones]

250. Uh, read what you posted.

After a rant against the mainstream media, who are indeed guilty of all you said and more, you made a segue into:

". . . Kucinich's policies are alien to the mainstream public, all of his anti-trade stuff and the Department of Peace, the mainstream public just don't find too much of that stuff to be appealing."

Hello! The media are making sure Kucinich has very little opportunity to tell the "mainstream public" about his policies.

Kucinich is being marginalized by the media while they rush to extol the DLC candidates.

But considering your avatar says ""DLC" I suppose you're in denial about that, either because you really don't get it or because you understand it perfectly well but deny it in order to make it seem that the media aren't unfairly boosting the DLC favorites at the expense of everyone else.

[William769]

108. He's only got 2% right now in Ohio.

Were you being kind when you said 10%?

[...of J.Temperance]

110. I think he got the 10% in 2004

I don't hate Dennis Kucinich, he seems like a nice fellow, it's just politically to get elected on a national stage, his policies are out of touch with mainstream reality.

John Edwards is the man, he's my candidate, he was in 2004, he is in 2008.

[geek tragedy]

229. DLC'ers aren't Republicans.

They're just Democrats who are embarrassed to be associated with the values of the Democratic party and especially liberal/progressive ideology.

DLC'ers still think it's a sign of weakness to have spoken up against the Iraq war. Which is why Hillary's DLC All-Star team of advisors doesn't have a single person who spoke up against the Iraq war.

[Hydra]

If we need the DLC to win

then we really aren't the majority, are we?

I refuse to accept republican values because the DLC might leave us. In fact, I insist that they leave...NOW!

[...of J.Temperance]

116. You're openly advocating splitting the Democratic Party in two then?

You say you insist that the DLC leave now?

So you then reduce the party to the status of forevermore minority party, is that what you REALLY want?

"Republican values"?....like what:

Supporting separation of church and state

Keeping abortion legal, safe and rare

Protecting Roe v Wade

Supporting Gay Rights including the right of gay people to get married and have the full benefits that hetereosexual couples have

Supporting Stem Cell Research including Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Yeah, like those are TOTALLY "Republican values" aren't they? NOT.

[robinlynne]

123. This party done been split. We're just taking a while to figure it out.

[Hydra]

132. DLC is offering us that

while expanding corporate and executive power, as well as imperial adventures?

Devil's trade.

Yes, I am advocating splitting the party. If we have to vote for the kingmakers to stay in power, our message will never be heard anyway.

[...of J.Temperance]

139. The DLC is a part of the Democratic Party and

As such the DLC works with other groupings within the Democratic Party to strengthen what unites us as a party....NOT polarize on the issues that divide us.

[Hydra]

145. Really...

then how is it they are weakening our position with Bush and the overall image of the Dems?

Really, the DLC and the war supporters in our party are like Joe Lieberman. When Joe left, few followed him. In the same way, The DLC is like a parasite- they need us to survive, yet they demand our blood, and tell us to go elsewhere if we don't like it. If they moved over to the republican party, almost everyone would stay voting Dem, and they would lose any power they had.

So I say again- let them leave. They're hurting us far more than any help they are offering.

[...of J.Temperance]

151. "The DLC is like a parasite"

How absolutely charming of you, what a charming comment that is :sarcasm:

We get ALL of this stuff thrown at us, we get called "evil" and WORSE words, and now we're like a "parasite"....and yet if you notice, we always despite all of this remain courteous and polite....I think that says a lot for us DLCers, that our attitude remains positive.

I'm not sure how the DLC is weakening the Democratic Party's position with Bush....I can't stand the man, never have been able to, never will be able to....and I'm sure that I'm not the only one who can't stand George W. Bush or ANYTHING he advocates.

[Hydra]

155. Poor you

maybe you're hanging out with the wrong people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

It is the opinion of the DLC that economic populism is not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984. The DLC states that it “seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions." <2>

The DLC has supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 <3>, President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit <4>, and the creation of AmeriCorps <5>. The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both NAFTA and CAFTA.

<snip>

Recently, the DLC also urged Senate Democrats to vote against Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court "on principle", but firmly opposed any filibuster of the nominee.<6>

2003 invasion of Iraq

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left" <7>. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall reprised his right-wing credentials and called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."

That doesn't sound like my party...not one bit. Your group is attempting to make us more like the other party, when in fact the other party has MASSIVELY failed the people of this country(other than the top 5%)

Your people have tried to marginalize people like me who have SANE ideas, in favor of what your group wants.

If you don't agree with those positions, that's fine. Don't defend them, then. If you do agree with these positions, you have no business trying to say you are beneficial to our party.

[...of J.Temperance]

157. These are my opinions:

"It is the opinion of the DLC that economic populism is not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984. The DLC states that it “seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions." <2>

The DLC has supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 <3>, President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit <4>, and the creation of AmeriCorps <5>. The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both NAFTA and CAFTA."



I support ALL of the above things....except for No Child Left Behind.

I am in complete agreement that economic populism isn't politically viable nor is it viable when put into practice....I support continued welfare reform and a continued Earned Income Tax Credit....I support AmeriCorps....I support expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured....I'm against single-payer universal healthcare....I support universal access to pre-school, charter schools and measures to allow more choice in schooling....I support NAFTA and CAFTA.





"Recently, the DLC also urged Senate Democrats to vote against Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court "on principle", but firmly opposed any filibuster of the nominee.<6>"




I agree with that position that was taken, to vote against Alito but not to use the filibuster....a filibuster of Samuel Alito would have been a disaster for the Democratic Party in the Senate, if you remember, it probably would have lead to the GOP STOPPING the filibuster rule altogether.





"2003 invasion of Iraq

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left" <7>. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall reprised his right-wing credentials and called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."




I've been AGAINST the Iraq War from day one, I continue to be against it, it was disasterous from the beginning, it's now turned into a catastrophy of epic proportions.

I did support the invasion of Afghanistan, although that's gone wrong now as well.

I'm not a Pacifist....I have very little in common with the Michael Moore crowd.



As I said, I've been polite and courteous, maybe you'd like me to subject YOU to the Third Degree and DEMAND you participate in a Litmus Test of MY choosing?

[Hydra]

159. Fire away

I'll be happy to answer any of your questions. You lost me as to why you want to be in our party when you support NAFTA and Caftra, as well as most of the other issues, so I'm satisfied that you're not helping us.

[...of J.Temperance]

160. Okay

You answer the same questions, you tell me WHY you're OPPOSED to ALL of these things and why economic populism is a GOOD idea, CONSIDERING the ONLY two economic populists that we've nominated in the past forty years - McGovern and Mondale - BOTH only won ONE state each and lost the elections in the WORST LANDSLIDES that the Democratic Party has probably EVER suffered.

You give your responses to the below things and why you OPPOSE ALL of the below:



"It is the opinion of the DLC that economic populism is not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984. The DLC states that it “seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions." <2>

The DLC has supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 <3>, President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit <4>, and the creation of AmeriCorps <5>. The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both NAFTA and CAFTA.

<snip>

Recently, the DLC also urged Senate Democrats to vote against Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court "on principle", but firmly opposed any filibuster of the nominee.<6>"

[Hydra]

167. Sure

"It is the opinion of the DLC that economic populism is not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984. The DLC states that it “seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions." <2>

Part one is "economic populism" being unviable in elections.

I spent a good deal of time with Google trying to find a complete list of tenets for that philosophy, but no go- lots of rabid rants, however. Since the tenets are unavailable unless you or someone else will post them, we'll use this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

In the process, it accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic monopolies and regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws intending to secure economic opportunities for all. It also expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good.

Now, minimum wage was one of the "first 100 hours" promises, so that one is viable

Anti-trust laws usually don't alienate anyone except the one who is currently running a monopoly, so I think we can accept that as a viable platform item also

Welfare or workfare- universal healthcare, job training, low income housing and unemployment insurance fall under that realm...nope, still not seeing angry voters

Economic opportunities for all- Doesn't Bush boast about creating new jobs(as he ships them away)? That would be a viable one, then

Health and education- Plenty of people have been screaming about cost of healthcare and the low quality offered, and low quality and large class sizes for schools. Sounds like another solid plank

Taxes...there's a sticking point, eh? How about we stop paying the Federal Reserve for our money? With those savings alone, I bet we could pay for all of the above.

Now that we have a viable platform, let's see what's being offered as the alternative to our perfectly good message?

"progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions."

Well, that's suitably vague. Let's see if we can get some clarification...

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

In keeping with our party's grand tradition, we reaffirm Jefferson's belief in individual liberty and capacity for self-government. We endorse Jackson's credo of equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none. We embrace Roosevelt's thirst for innovation and Kennedy's summons to civic duty. And we intend to carry on Clinton's insistence upon new means to achieve progressive ideals.

We believe that the promise of America is equal opportunity for all and special privilege for none. We believe that economic growth generated in the private sector is the prerequisite for opportunity, and that government's role is to promote growth and to equip Americans with the tools they need to prosper in the New Economy.

Well, that was informative. Your group is accomplishing exactly the opposite of most of the stated aims. Was that the idea? If it wasn't, I would be doing something about that, were I you.

Moving on:

The DLC has supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 <3>, President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit <4>, and the creation of AmeriCorps <5>. The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both NAFTA and CAFTA.

I don't see the welfare reform as having done anything positive, much as I am displeased with the new bankruptcy laws. Expanding EIC is a nice gesture, if no help to me taking care of a disabled relative. Americorps apparently ran into a PR problem- very sloppy.

Next on the list is tax credits for insurance...how useful are these tax credits to people like me who would have to pay around $4000-$5000 per year for the insurance and have a tax liability of around $1200 to the feds? As it stands now, medical expenses are only deductible starting at 7.5% of your income and up. This is a giveaway to private insurance via tax credits for people making significantly more than me.

Ok, universal "access" to educational systems and NCLB...Not helpful. These are things that benefit corps- preschool so mom can work, charter schools that focus on NCLB and other tests...the only thing I'm seeing that I like here is the no school vouchers. I shouldn't have to subsidize people who want to send their kids to religious schools.

NAFTA and CAFTRA are of no benefit for most Americans, and also no benefit to the countries involved- more than 3 million jobs have been shipped away, and still counting. My job could be next. As my coworker put it so well- "I hate calling the airlines, and getting India."

Recently, the DLC also urged Senate Democrats to vote against Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court "on principle", but firmly opposed any filibuster of the nominee.<6>"

Alito most CERTAINLY should have been filibustered. He's a proponent of signing statements, among other things. The fact that he can ignore the constitutional separation of powers so flagrantly should have put him out of the running.

As for the threatened "removal of filibuster," filibuster that too. If a filibuster could have been pulled off against Alito, the same people could have been counted on to block the removal of that power.

Feel free to add anything that the DLC has accomplished- their website is horrible.

[...of J.Temperance]

242. Although we disagree on some issues, I do respect and appreciate that

You took the time to respond to all of that.

The bottom line is, we're BOTH Democrats, and we BOTH want a Democratic President in the White House in 2008....and I'd bet money, that IF Hillary becomes our Presidential Nominee, I'd bet money that on Election Day 2008 you'll vote for her....why? Because the alternative is JUST going to be TOO scary, that's why.

I don't dislike you, I just disagree with you on some issues is all.

[Capn Sunshine]

147. How's that working for you?

I don't think "we're right, and you guys are just soooo wrong" is a viable uniting premise. And I speak as an ex DLC member and corporate guy. Partner in a bank.

[...of J.Temperance]

149. I try and listen to

ALL views, I've never adopted the "we're right and you're wrong" attitude, I wouldn't be that disrespectful or that disregarding of other peoples' views and opinions.

I'm very open-minded....and I'm also very inclusive of other people.

[Capn Sunshine]

153. yes, but we were talking about the DLC

I know where of I speak. I have a subscription to Blueprint and was a DLC member since 94. YOU might consider yourself open and reasonable, and I'm quite sure you are, but review some of the Reed and From editorials. They are quite adamant about what the party "must do". And they don't indicate any willingness to discuss other paths. I also find it hard to justify taking money from the Olin and Coors foundations. Kind of a divergence from the "third way".

[...of J.Temperance]

156. Just because I'm DLC doesn't mean that I have

To agree with Reed and From 100% of the time, I mean it's not like as if it's a Dictatorship where we ALL have to kiss Reed and From's backsides all the time....dissent is allowed.

I personally would be against taking ANYTHING from Olin and Coors, as I've said I don't always agree with 100% of things....I commented the other night that I'm not a Rubberstamp for nobody....I'm able to think for myself, sure sometimes Reed and From are wrong.

[ima_sinnic]

218. but you agree with the basic message: war, global rape & plunder,

media distortion, ruination of someone like Howard Dean who dares not to join your inner circle of greedhead beltway blowhards.
you can stuff a sock in your self-righteous bullshit. The DLC is a trojan horse organization that will screw We The People in the back every damn time.

[...of J.Temperance]

231. Ah, shaddup

Your ugly rants are wasted on me.

I live in the real world, not on the Good Ship Lollipop....where do you get that I SUPPORT "war, global rape and plunder"?

I've been AGAINST the Iraq War from day one, I continue to be AGAINST it AND the occupation of Iraq, so you have no idea even what the heck your ranting on at me about.

[Critters2]

165. Then you're not representative of the DLC. nt

[PassingFair]

179. Hi Captain!!!

:hi:

Here's a link to some old essays on the DLC, among other subjects that I
THOROUGHLY enjoyed reading!

P.S. Personally, I support EATING THE DLC.

http://democrappy.blogspot.com/2004/12/23-short-films-about-dlc.html

snip>"In progressive circles the Democratic Leadership Council is often unfairly maligned. Here I hope to remedy that injustice by maligning the DLC fairly. All of the following is drawn from statements on the DLC's Web site, most from a document they call The Hyde Park Declaration, their blueprint for this first decade of the new century.

So, without further ado, here are 23 reasons I can't friggin' stand the DLC:

[Critters2]

164. LOL!!

:rofl:

Oh, please! I was in Iowa in 2004. I saw what your "part of the Democratic Party" did to Howard Dean. If I ever hear the word "unelectable" again, it'll be too soon. The DLC unites the party!! It's TOO funny! :rofl:

[ima_sinnic]

176. oh blah blah blah--I have NOTHING in common with global rapists &

war mongering, MSM-manipulating greedheads.

Just join the repukes ferchrissake and make it official.

[...of J.Temperance]

188. Your hate isn't cute or clever in the slightest

No wonder the DLC has such a difficult time communicating with this sort of hate-filled mentality.

We don't do screeching and hate, sorry.

[ima_sinnic]

215. oh, aren't you the self-righteous one? no, you like to give the appearance

of gentility while turning the knife, the way you did to Howard Dean in 2004. You like to appear "above it all," so "proper," while engaging in subtle dirty tricks and outright manipulation while you push your agenda of plunder and "spreading democracy" on the rest of the world.

Stuff a sock in your "polite" crap. I don't do war, murder, torture, oil theft, etc. etc. THAT is what offends me, not "screeching and hate."

pompous, greedhead @$$.

[...of J.Temperance]

232. OMG! Not ANOTHER ugly and PERSONAL rant at me from you!!!!

WTF? Get a GRIP for goodness sake.

WTF? I DON'T "do" war, murder, torture or oil theft EITHER....so drop the utter nonsense that you're going on about please.

It's obvious from your three ugly and personal rants that you've directed at ME, that you haven't a clue what the heck you're going on about.

[Critters2]

163. The DLC supports gay marriage with full parity?!

Since when?

[...of J.Temperance]

190. I PERSONALLY support gay marriage

I've repeatedly stated that I'm NOT a Rubberstamp for nobody and that I DON'T have to agree with the DLC on 100% of the issues.

[Critters2]

192. But the DLC does not.

And you presented a list of "values" that we would lose if the DLC were not welcome in the party. One of those values was gay marriage. The DLC does NOT support gay marriage with full rights, so please don't state that it does. And don't imply that a "value" is that of the DLC, and then deny that's what you're saying when you get caught in that dishonesty.

The DLC does not support gay marriage.

[PassingFair]

178. Since WHEN does the DLC support the separation of church and state?

Ask Joe Lieberman about FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES.

[stimbox]

201. LOL Good one, jgraz!

:rofl:

[redqueen]

55. It is not. Corporations are attempting to take over the world...

or hadn't you noticed?

[...of J.Temperance]

62. So if

You succeeded in smashing ALL Corporations, and thus there were no Corporations anymore....what would happen then?

What about the MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people who are employed by Corporations, what would happen to those people....aside from them joining the unemployment queue of course.

[redqueen]

64. Where did you get the idea I wanted to "smash" corporations?

:wtf:

[...of J.Temperance]

75. I've just thought that the

People who are very much anti-Corporations, would prefer if Corporations would just evaporate or something.

I apologize for making such an assumption.

I'm not 100% pro-Corporations, just to let you know that, I think that some Corporations are ripping people off....but I'm not of the opinion that Corporations per se are this incredible evil, and I do think that private and public sector co-operation should in fact be encouraged a bit more, which of course Hillary Clinton would almost certainly agree :)

[redqueen]

81. Ah no... I'm not necessarily anti-corporations...

I know people who are, and their arguments don't seem to persuade me to join them. I like a socialist/capitalist mix, myself.

I am fine with corporations... I want them regulated and stripped of personhood and the right to donate to campaigns is all. :)

[...of J.Temperance]

90. Okay

I can respect that :)

I'm not of the opinion myself, that it'd be a good idea to strip Corporations of the right to donate to political campaigns.

In the 2008 campaign, how would our nominee be able to compete, if say the Republican nominee had $200 million....and without Corporate donations our candidate had $120 million....how would we make up the financial shortfall, it couldn't be done solely with grassroots donations, and unfortunately, political campaigns are getting more and more expensive, and a candidate needs a lot of money especially to run ads in dozens of individual states.

[redqueen]

93. It's a complicated question you ask...

As of now, I'm embarrassed to say I don't have a ready answer.

However, other countries manage to keep their elections free of the meddling that powerful corporate 'persons' are capable of... so I'm sure we can improve on what we have. I think mandating that the media (which ain't hurtin for money) carry a certain number of ads GRATIS is a starting point... and public financing of campaigns. The sticky point is how to decide a campaign doesn't qualify for funding. That will upset some, but... nothing will ever please everyone.

[...of J.Temperance]

106. That's okay

There's no need to be embarrassed, none of us have the immediate solution to a lot of questions asked of us, and there's nothing wrong with that.

A lot of countries, as in major countries, have Corporate donations to political parties, look at European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc....it's just a given thing, and has been for rather a number of years now.

I'm interested to know though, which countries you refer to that have kept their political parties free of Corporate donations?

I'm not sure that public financing of campaigns would be very popular, I know that in Great Britain, this had been suggested a few months ago and the polls showed that the British public weren't terribly hot on having to finance their political parties.

We can agree that the media should have to agree to show a specific number of campaign ads, of course it'd have to be fair to both sides, because if the media decided what to show themselves, they'd probably show more GOP ads, given that the media are primarily biased in favor of the Right-Wing.

[redqueen]

107. I believe Ireland is proud of keeping corruption out of politics.

(No IRA jokes please ;))

And yes, lots of poeple don't want to fund anything, not even healthcare :o... so that's a big problem.

Great Britain is a terrible example... look how long they put up with Thatcher. They're probably the closest to us, politcs wise. Japan I would say is next, with their crony capitalism. Russia, too.

And yes, you'd have to force the media to be fair. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change? :)

[...of J.Temperance]

112. There were a lot

Of corruption messes going on around Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fial, he seemed to deflect them though to win another election....Albert Reynolds and Charles Haughey had a lot of corruption scandals surrounding them as well.

So politics in the Republic of Ireland isn't exactly corruption-free.

If the public refuse to publically fund political parties, what would you suggest the alternative should be then?

With regard to healthcare, at least all children should be adequately provided with full health insurance, surely as responsible adults it's our duty to ensure that children receive adequate heathcare assistance.

Great Britain was never as bad corruption-wise with Margaret Thatcher as it's been with Tony Blair, of course just mere months after Blair got in, he was immediately embroiled in the Bernie Ecclestone scandal, and he left office with the Cash-for-Peerages scandal hanging over his head.

Personally I favor the re-introduction of The Fairness Doctrine, a fair and unbiased media then, one would at least hope.

[liberaldemocrat7]

141. I believe in the separation of corporation and state.

I believe corporations appear necessary however just like drivers to an extent they need regulation and oversight and laws to govern them.

To help against the negative aspects of corporations we need unemployment insurance, disability programs, creation of jobs by government, and more and none of these should get administered ala blackwater and halliburton.

I do not want corporations handling the social safety net whatsoever. I want to remove corporations from Medicare completely includign removing them from Part D which does not help the middle class.

[...of J.Temperance]

154. Re.

Not sure where you got the idea that the DLC supported Blackwater and Halliburton, I've always been rather disturbed by both organizations myself, and even more disturbed than ever by Blackwater, considering what occured the other week in Iraq with them.

I've got nothing against unemployment insurance nor disability programs, in fact I SUPPORT BOTH of these things.

Government never really created that many jobs though, the private sector CREATES the largest number of jobs and always will do so.

I think the other night, I did tell you that I was AGAINST Corporations having any role whatsoever in the Social Security Safety Net, I think that I told you that I believe it's ANY government's moral duty to ensure that a nations most vulnerable citizens - the sick, the elderly, the disabled etc - are taken care of and provided for via the Social Security Safety Net.

I also told you the other night that I was AGAINST the Medicare Part D thing, and that I would support it being repealed.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[Whisp]

207. because it IS A DIRTY WORD. now.

when that Word replaces We the People, it is a stinking offal scummy dirty word I've only know in sci-fi films of the past.

we are not talking entrepreneurialship here, in the good sense the word was actually made, we are talking about Preditors to labor and to the constitution and to humanity.

we are talking fascism.

[Maribelle]

184. Y'all truly need to give up on this word, as you haven't a clue as to its meaning.

Using it as a slur against a Democrat, any Democrat, merely indicates to me you should have reservations about calling yourself a Democrat.

Class struggles, and organized workers are an apex of the Democratic party in many Democrats' opinion.

[redqueen]

11. "name calling"

Are you serious?

Have these other candidates voted as consistently in favor of free trade bills? :shrug:


FWIW, I made this about Hillary because the previous thread asked if her voting record looked conservative, it didn't ask about Edwards or Obama or anyone else's records. So... try not to be so defensive. :hi:

[...of J.Temperance]

45. It's imperative

Economically for a country to have free trade and support free trade, a country has to be competitive.

The alternative to free trade is what? Could you elaborate for me?

[redqueen]

47. Fair trade.

Trade agreements as they are now are pretty blatantly abusive of labor & the environment.

[...of J.Temperance]

54. In what ways

Are they?

[redqueen]

56. I'm not conducting a classroom.

This isn't breaking news... do some reading. :hi:

[...of J.Temperance]

65. Lol! Sorry :)

I'm reading up some now, I'm also giving your thread a recommendation vote, because it looks pretty interesting thus far.

:hi:

[redqueen]

68. OMG!

We're... we're... we're having... a... a DISCUSSION! And dare I say... it's almost CIVIL!

:rofl:

Thanks! :yourock:

[...of J.Temperance]

94. It's cool to be civil and polite

I mean, people might disagree on some things, but there's no need to start screeching at each other is there? ;)

We're all sensible adults....at least I think SOME of us are....Lol!

Oh and :yourock: as well!

[davidwparker]

51. trading has gone on for thousands of years. it wasn't discovered with NAFTA.

[...of J.Temperance]

114. I don't believe that I even mentioned NAFTA

Now that's it's mentioned, yes I support NAFTA, and just the other day I was reading that Senator Obama was going to vote for the NAFTA expansion, so I'm glad he's in support of NAFTA, for some reason I thought he might of been anti-NAFTA, but I've been pleasantly surprised that he isn't.

[winston61]

76. The only place you will find free trade is when

some mealy mouthed politician talks about it. Free trade is a myth and a cruel hoax forced on us by a Repuke congress and the first president Clinton.

[...of J.Temperance]

115. I wasn't aware that President Bill Clinton was a Republican?

To say that free trade is a myth, is perfectly absurd.

[LoZoccolo]

8. No; that word is so tired and worn out.

Why did Kucinich accept funding from Boeing?

[redqueen]

13. You don't think she's corporatist because you don't like the word?

Seriously?


As for Kucinich... don't know. Did he vote in favor of legislation to benefit them, perhaps? That would sure set off some alarm bells! (Kind of like Hillary's private, for-profit insurance solution to healthcare and her receiving the most in insurance-industry donations. :hi:)

[creeksneakers2]

113. Without insurance she can't sell any health care plan

at all. People who get free insurance through work and are satisfied with their insurance will be extremely difficult to convince to give up their health insurance in favor of a government plan.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/free_health_care_not_if_it_means_switching_insurance_coverage

Despite these concerns, when asked to consider these impacts, 47% of adults continued to support the concept of providing health care for free to all Americans.

However, that support falters when people are asked to support a plan that provides coverage for all but requires everyone with insurance to “change their coverage and join a program administered by the government.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted October 9-10 found that just 31% of adults would support that plan.

There are excellent reasons for keeping the insurance companies in health care for now.

[jgraz]

14. So what word would you suggest for someone who sells out the base for campaign money?

I've heard that "whore" is frowned on.

[ruggerson]

31. Who's the base?

we ain't all heterogeneous, pappy.

;-)

[jgraz]

61. Oh, I don't know, maybe the 70% who want us to pull out of Iraq

Or the 60-some percent who want single-payer healthcare. You know, all those far-out lefties who make up the majority in this country.

[ruggerson]

79. So then if that's the base and they are a super majority

as you assert, and if Hillary Clinton is a "corporatist" who has sold out the base, why is she leading in every poll?

Where's the disconnect? Your characterization of Hillary? Your figures? The polls are all rigged?

[jgraz]

95. Hillary's support is a mile wide and an inch deep

Once the primaries start and people actually begin to pay attention, you're going to see that melt away. The MSM and the Republicans are pushing her as the inevitable nominee, but the actual Democratic voters will have the final say.

[PassingFair]

181. I was at a democratic meeting in Michigan this week. Our primary has been *ucked up.

I can assure you there were no Clinton supporters in that room.

Only angry democrats that want ALL of our candidates on the ballot.

We KNOW we have been railroaded by the DLC.

[...of J.Temperance]

49. Hillary hasn't "sold out the base"

What she's doing, and very sensibly and I agree with it, is that she's reaching outside of the base and expanding the base.

You don't win by preaching to the choir, you have to reach outside and try and bring MORE people into the tent, and that's what Hillary and 90% of other Democrats are doing.

They can't compete can they, just solely by relying on "grassroots donations", surely you CAN understand that?

[jgraz]

67. Sorry, but anyone with a DLC avatar has no clue what "the base" is

But thanks for helping to keep Congress in Republican hands for so long. And good luck with that "big tent" thing. I especially like that y'all found room for the folks who helped put Alito and Roberts on the Court.

[...of J.Temperance]

117. What IS "the base" then....by your definition? n/t

.

[LoZoccolo]

72. Kucinich 1% "base", lol n/t

[Forkboy]

102. And Nader's 3% has sent you into la la land for seven years.

Beware those low percentages! :eyes:

[...of J.Temperance]

119. Nader's 3% put George W. Bush into the WH

If the majority of the Nader voters would have voted for Al Gore, like everyone else did, then Al Gore would have been sitting in the WH INSTEAD of George W. Bush.

Of course the Nader voters voted for Ralph because they INSISTED that there was NO difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush....NO difference huh? ONE word for the difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush:

IRAQ.

[frylock]

122. and if my aunt had nads, she'd be my uncle..

read some Palast. educate yourself.

[...of J.Temperance]

127. Ralph Nader is primarily to be blamed

Sorry those who voted for Nader in 2000 instead of voting for Al Gore, they need to take responsibilty for what they did, which was assist in putting George W. Bush in the WH.

Ralph Nader got MORE votes in Florida than the margin of a few hundred votes that put Bush in the WH.

Nader got something like 96,000 votes in Florida, and if only HALF of those votes that Nader got instead would have been cast for Al Gore, Florida would have been a landslide for Gore, he'd of got the EC votes and would have been sitting in the WH.

I'm sorry, the Nader voters need to take responsibility for their stupid vote.

I am educated thank-you.

[jgraz]

152. Ralph Nader is primarily blamed by people who want to distract from the real story

Like a hamstrung DLC candidate with a right-wing running mate who couldn't even carry his home state.

Like massive voter disenfranchisement ignored by the leaders of the party

Like a centrist party leadership who wouldn't stand with their candidate even after it was obvious the election had been stolen

And, especially, a group of head-in-the-sand DLCers who, even today, won't call for election reform.


Yeah, go ahead and blame Nader. You might as well complete the anti-democratic image you guys have developed over the past decade.

[ShortnFiery]

173. I have to comment jgraz - Excellent Response!

You put to words what I can not :blush: ... thanks, you convey my thoughts on this issue "to a tee." :hi:

[Forkboy]

174. Bingo...Nader is a scapegoat for lazy Dems who are scared to address our own problems.

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

219. Apparently you wouldn't know a troll if it bit you ass.

Nice try though.

[Forkboy]

126. Tell it to the judge. Oh wait, the judge is a Supreme Court Justice....

[...of J.Temperance]

131. If Nader HADN'T of run in 2000, then there wouldn't even have BEEN the SCOTUS thing

Now would there?

The straight choice would have been Gore or Bush....instead of Gore, Nader (I'm a Republican whore and I'm in the race to make sure Al Gore doesn't win) and Bush.

The simple fact, Nader took votes ONLY off Gore, and he got 96,000 votes in Florida....had he of butt the heck out, then most of those Nader votes would have gone to Gore, thus there wouldn't have been any talk about going to court and then the whole SCOTUS thing happening.

The Naderites have been in denial for 7 years.

[Forkboy]

135. And if there weren't Dems that voted for Bush there wouldn't have been the SCOTUS thingy either.

And If the ballots hadn't sucked there wouldn't have been the SCOTUS thingy either.

Nader has every right to run and his votes were not owned by the Democrats.It's called democracy.Live it, love it, learn it.

But, let's take your logic and take it back further still.Why was Nader's run so damaging? Why did enough people believe his charge of no difference between the two parties?(and if you say because they're stupid that would explain why those votes didn't go to us).

If we're going to blame the world's ills on Nader we have to take that logic back further and see what conditions led to him running and having such an effect, no? What conditions were those that they would resonate to that degree? And don't those factors deserve as much blame? What about the factors that led to those factors? We can take this logic back through history and end up blaming Adam for the Iraq war if you'd like.At least then the logic would be consistent.

[PassingFair]

180. Three letters for why there even WERE Nader voters:

DLC

[frylock]

120. ouch!

well played!

[Forkboy]

128. The same people who say Nader cost the election will turn around say how irrelevant he is.

They want it both ways.That 3% means nothing, yet it destroyed the world as we know it. :crazy:

[...of J.Temperance]

134. When an election is THAT close, then yes, 3% is A LOT

Can you even begin to understand that?

Aside from the 2000 election spoiler that Ralph was....he's irrelevent and The Green Party are irrelevent, unless of course they get into CLOSE election races SOLELY to PREVENT the Democratic candidate from winning.

Strangely I NEVER have seen a Greenie get into a CLOSE election race to PREVENT the Republican candidate from winning.

LOL! No wonder so many Bush/Cheney campaign donors all gave money to Ralph Nader and the Green Party, they KNOW Nader and the Greenies are OWNED by the GOP and that the Greenie aim is to PREVENT the Democratic candidate from winning and thus hand the election to the Republican candidate....just LIKE Ralph Nader did HIMSELF in the 2000 Presidential Election.

[Forkboy]

144. So which is it? Is he irrelevant or not?

It can't be both.And if he is relevant then maybe us Dems should start looking at ways to attract those votes instead of pissing on them and then whining that they didn't like us and vote for our guy.How many people do you like that shit all over you? I bet none.

Can you even begin understand THAT? :eyes:

[ulysses]

193. you know they don't answer questions like that!

How in the hell else could they have it both ways, with the ideal scary boogyman whose piddling support means nothing? ;-)

[reggie the dog]

238. It's the fault of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decided who won before the recount was finished. They cost the Democrats the 2000 election not Nader. Do not forget that the Libertarians run candidates too that draw off the right.

[...of J.Temperance]

243. AND it's ALSO the fault of Ralph Nader n/t

.

[reggie the dog]

246. how?

Al Gore won. The supreme court decided to halt the recount. How is this Nader's fault? If the Libertarians choose not to run a candidate in 2008 will it be their fault that the Democrats do not win????

[LoZoccolo]

169. Kucinich does not run against the Democratic nominee. n/t

[denem]

209. YOU ?

"... sent YOU into la la land for seven years". An interesting choice of words. Lets see your ... Green, Repub, Liberatarian or prefer to not say? FORKboy huh?

[Forkboy]

220. Democrat

LAMPrey huh?

:silly:

[denem]

222. Caught Red Handed

" Nader's 3% has sent you into la la land for seven years" #102

[Forkboy]

226. delete...nevermind.

[denem]

225. Apologies

It might have helped if I had looked at LoZoccolo's Fuck Nader avatar before shooting my mouth off. My posts in this thread have been wrong headed. I'm embarrassed - sorry.

[Forkboy]

227. No problem.

Thanks for the apology. :toast:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. jgraz should address that point

He lives in the most liberal area of America and presumes all of America is such...

Can you tell me how that would be more logical than a person living in Jonesboro, Georgia or someone living in Tupelo, Mississippi and thinking the whole nation is such...

I'd really like to see him get his hands around that...

[gateley]

27. Does accepting funding from a corporation automatically determine that

you're on the take or pandering to that corporation?

[redqueen]

32. Not that you were asking me, but no.

IMO they have to also vote for legislation that favors that industry (and corporatism in general) for the label to stick.

[texastoast]

44. Uuuuummmmmm

Yes.

[gateley]

66. I'm agreeing with redqueen and not with texastoast. TT, your attitude is too

black and white I think. But thanks to you both for your input! :hi:

[reggie the dog]

247. not automatically

but if you want their funding in the next election cycle well....you see the pressure that is created to pander to their wishes...

[...of J.Temperance]

46. Not to mention

Ralph Nader and the Green Party's acceptance of Corporate donations.

[reggie the dog]

111. why not

ban donations to political candidates outright and go to public funding of elections?

[...of J.Temperance]

118. Public funding of elections isn't what the majority of people want though

The majority of the public don't want to be funding political parties....and you can't FORCE people to fund political parties.

[reggie the dog]

121. do politicial parties always have

to follow opinion polls, or can they be expected to lead people down a more humaine and enlightened path? The death penalty was still supported by a majority of the people when it was outlawed by the Socialist president François Mitterrand in 1981. Now a majority of French people are against the dealth penalty and Chirac pushed for, and got a constitutional amendmenment forbidding the death penalty.

[...of J.Temperance]

137. If the people don't want to

Fund political parties, then you can't FORCE them to fund them....the people are allowed a choice and IF they say "No", then you can't say "Tough, we're doing it anyway"....that's not what democracy is about.

Dunno about the Death Penalty thing, personally I'm 100% in support of the Death Penalty and I have no desire to be "humaine" to POS like serial killers, child rapists and killers and mass murderers....when they catch them, the quicker they rid them off the face of the planet, the better for society is what I say.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[reggie the dog]

142. so

you have no problem running the risk that an innocent person is sentenced to death and then killed? Also how can society condone killing someone that is locked up and no longer poses any risk to anyone? I personally have nothing against a sentence of natural life in prison but I think that it is an abomination to condone death as a penalty for crime. The point of my comment at any rate was to illustrate that parties sometimes lead the people.

[Capn Sunshine]

150. define "majority"

do corporate lobbyists get weighted votes in this mythical "majority"? Is this a DLC poll?

[Mojambo]

9. I don't think there's any doubt

Even among her supporters.

And I'd agree that most of the rest of the Democratic field are corporatist to varying degrees, but I don't think any of them approach Clinton levels.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. Your making it sound as if it were in question is puzzling.

[redqueen]

15. Well, it's a follow-up thread.

There was a thread earlier that was just entirely too ignored. Showed her voting record... I'd like to hear people's thoughts, that's all. And I'm trying to be nice about it! :hi:

[incapsulated]

12. Other because it's not either/or

For any of them. It's a matter of degree. The Clintons are definitely cozy with Corporate America.

[redqueen]

16. Excellent point... it is indeed a matter of degrees.

Would you say she's the most corporatist? The least? Somewhere in the middle?

[incapsulated]

19. I think her and Edwards

Are the worst.

It is also because, well, of Bill. When you are President for eight years, you develop relationships with business that Senators only, and I mean it this way, dream of.

[redqueen]

22. I thought Edwards would have ranked lower than Obama.

Without a careful analysis of votes / funding... it's hard to say for sure.

[incapsulated]

25. I would have to look myself, Hillary is definetly the worst

In this regard, but the longer you are in politics, and the higher up on the food chain, the worse it gets. And you don't get any higher than the white house.

[redqueen]

26. Agreed on all points.

:hi:

[SaveElmer]

17. Shameless attempt to get a post on the greatest page...

[redqueen]

23. What?

:rofl:

What difference does it make if it's on the "Greatest Page"? I never even go there. :eyes:

[SaveElmer]

30. Like posting the following poll on the NRA website

Do you think gun control advocates are commie,pinko,Liberals...

Yes

No

[redqueen]

35. So you think DU is as virulently anti-Hillary as the NRA is to

the groups you name?

:wow:


Sorry to disappoint you, but this really is only a follow-up poll to address the points raised in another, largely ignored thread.

Also, check the votes for greatest... your accusation doesn't even make any sense. :eyes:

[jgraz]

80. Ooh, thanks for reminding me. K&R.

:evilgrin:

[antigop]

18. She most definitely is....look at these videos

Hillary Clinton Pushes For More H1B Visas and outsourcing
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs

Lou Dobbs: Hillary Clinton's Hypocrisy (Part 1)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4

Lou Dobbs: Hillary Clinton's Hypocrisy (Part 2)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M

I'm sending these to everyone I know.

[pinto]

20. Just for clarification purposes. What's a 'corporatist' in modern politics?

(Might help focus discussion beyond yes/no... :shrug: )

[redqueen]

24. Someone who is more amenable than disagreeable to the corporate takeover of the world.

How's that? :7

[pinto]

69. Thanks. In that case I'd have to say no, across the Democratic spectrum.

[redqueen]

71. Thanks.

:hi:

[Larkspur]

21. She's DLC and all DLCers are corporatists

[...of J.Temperance]

29. Wow! Such a DEEP and intellectual response

:sarcasm:

Why don't you explain it?

Without a DLC bashing rant obviously.

[redqueen]

33. FWIW, I think the DLC deserves less criticism than Blue Dogs.

But people are more familiar with the DLC's failings.

The Blue Dogs have the benefit of operating largely under the radar.

[...of J.Temperance]

125. You know something, I agree

The DLC, we're Centrist Democrats, economically conservative and socially liberal.

The Bluedogs, they're economically conservative AND socially conservative.

The Bluedogs though, like you say, they're pretty much ignored because they operate well away from any sort of limelight.

The DLC has had a few failings obviously, but largely I feel we're a successful organization, a lot of work goes on behind the scenes, work that adds to the general success of the Democratic Party at large.

[Capn Sunshine]

146. well you're partly right

except you the DLC are definitely right of centrist. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I think the "centrist" or "mainstream" title goes to the progressives.
:hi:

[liberaldemocrat7]

148. Libertarians: Economicly conservative and socially liberal.

The DLC and the Libertarians appear similar in their outlook.

Libertarians while they don't like government do like corporations.

A coporate bureacracy can work just as harshly as a public bureacracy and the corporate bureacracy hasn't gotten elected to anything.

[nealmhughes]

28. Well, I am reminded of Dave Chapell's comment on Whitney Houston:

"I'm not saying she's on crack -- she's just mighty cracky-looking."

[paulk]

34. I don't even know what that word means, it seems to be a

catch all anymore for whatever negative people want to put on it.

First of all -

She didn't vote "all in favor" on free trade issues. I see this sort of thing endlessly repeated and you are just plain incorrect.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

This is important!

Please read this if you are at all interested in her positions and votes on this issue.

She has a 17% approval rating from the CATO Institute. They are the main conservative thinktank pushing "freetrade". A 17% rating does not indicate someone who is pro "freetrade", at least by the definition people who ARE freetrade accept.

[incapsulated]

39. What it means to me is...

Who is getting the most money from corporate america and who is voting in their favor? Or, presumably, would, given the amount of money they have taken from them?

This doesn't mean they are as bad as Bush and Cheney and will have a democratic version of Haliburton and rape the country. But it is how our system is corruptible. And it goes for both sides.

[incapsulated]

50. I will also add...

When it comes to this, it's not always an obvious quid pro quo. Sometimes it just means actions aren't taken or issues aren't addressed. If you get a lot of money from a certain sector, you aren't going to be pushing for reforms in that particular area if it costs them money.

Not all of them play ball though. I've seen senators take money from lobbies and turn around and fuck them over, too, heh.

[redqueen]

59. And God bless those who bite the hands that feed them.

If we could get rid of corporate money in politics, they wouldn't have to be afraid to do so!

[redqueen]

41. Thanks for the source with more detail!

The voting summary posted earlier only showed the titles of bills and her votes... so it was much less informative than your link.

:hi:

Corporatist isn't a catch-all word... it's a very serious problem. Multinational corporations are usurping the rule of local governments all over the world. They must be reigned in.

[paulk]

77. that is an ok definition of corporatist - someone who is helping

corporations become more powerful than government. It fits pretty much every Republican out there.

Too many people, however, use it to mean, as others have pointed out, the opposite of socialism. Or perhaps more accurately Communism, or a state run economy.

The Democrats have to walk a fine line - they need money from corporations to compete with the huge amounts given by corps to the Republicans. Corporations are also an intrinsic part of our economy. They exist and they're not going away. They employ millions of people, people who are also constituents. Our government often feels the need to help American corporations because foreign governments are helping theirs - and in a global economy we do need to compete.

The word is thrown around way to freely, IMO, by people who don't understand how complex and interrelated the situation is.

[redqueen]

84. Yes, it is every republican out there.

And you're right... the way the system is screwed up now, playing ball is pretty much a requirement.

For now!

:)

[calteacherguy]

36. What's a corporatist? nt

[redqueen]

48. See post #24.

Most candidates are corporatist to some extent or another... this poll is a follow-up of a thread in which her voting record was posted.

[...of J.Temperance]

37. No....also explain the definition of "Corporatist" please

Also explain what's WRONG with Corporations and people not thinking Corporations are evil.

Big Business plays a very large part in keeping the economy of a nation running, Big Business also is responsible for employing MILLIONS of people....Capitalism makes the world go around....so WHAT'S bad about all of this exactly?

There's also nothing wrong with the Democratic Party accepting Corporate donations, in modern politics, a political party must be able to compete financially in order to keep afloat, and Corporate donors have big pockets.

[William769]

40. It's the opposite of Socialism. NT

[jgraz]

86. Exactly the problem

Funny how someone on a supposedly progressive board thinks "socialism" is a bad word. You should learn a little history, once you're done with remedial grammar.

[...of J.Temperance]

140. Most people are opposed to Socialism n/t

.

[stimbox]

202. And the people most opposed to Socialism are?

REPUBLICANS!

[...of J.Temperance]

233. And Democrats....

No actually, 90% of the mainstream public is opposed to Socialism, which is why the Socialist Party has never got off Square One.

[reggie the dog]

237. the public

can be convinced to vote for their own interests, or against them, it depends on what the media is up to. During the cold war Socialism got very bad press in the USA as if the economic system was at fault in creating Stalin. Socialism would benefit many Americans but not Stalin's version. The version that you need would be found in countries like France (where the Socialist party exists and is the main left wing party) or in Finland. Both of these countries have what would appear to be to most Americans highly reglulated capitalist economies.

[...of J.Temperance]

244. There's never been a Socialist President

The Socialist Party have also never been in control of The Senate or The House, ever in HISTORY.

Socialists in Europe have adapted to the times, most Socialists in Europe are now Left of Center, as opposed to the Socialism that the American Socialist Party espouses, which is Left of Left and then Left again.

One can't blame the media for there never being a Socialist President, Socialist Senate or Socialist House.

Look at Great Britain, the Labor Party USED to espouse Socialism, and that resulted in the Tories being in power from 1979-1997....Tony Blair ditched the Socialism from the Labor Party and I'm happy to report that Gordon Brown is also a Capitalist as opposed to a Socialist....the Labor Party is now a Liberal Centrist party.

If Segolene Royal would have had a good platform, then France wouldn't be saddled with Nicolas Sarkozy now would it....what about the previous elections in France, Lionel Jospin never won....the Socialist Party in France has learned the hard way, that it's either going to have to become more Moderate or else it'll continue to lose elections.

I'm not too well versed regarding Norway, I'll have to read up some.

[DuaneBidoux]

235. Does that mean when Teddy Roosevelt broke up the trusts he was a socialist?

To me there is a huge difference between letting big companies do absolutely anything they want on one end and being a socialist on the other hand.

When someone asks me if she is a corporatists I think that she is looking out for the interests of big corporations over regular people. I voted yes she is like that. Evidence, as far as I am concerned, can be seen in her medical insurance and retirement proposals which will, again, help big corporations at the expense of regular people, or at least to their secondary benefit if it works out in their interests to give those benefits.

[redqueen]

52. Never said anything about corporations being evil...

but I don't want them taking over, which is what is happening in the world... all over the world outside of a few places.

Corporate donations should be made illegal, IMO. That way no party can have an advantage due to catering to corporatism in blatant disregard of public interest.

:hi:

[KoKo]

38. Her Winning Nomination is Done Deal...She has so much money

she's Unstoppable...The Wall St. Crowd over at CNBC and the WSJ finds her "willing to work with them"...Bill and Poppy Bush are like "father and son" (according to Poppy Bush) and Rupert Murdoch just loves Hillary after his organization trashed the Clintons from the time Bill took the "oath" and we here were working so hard to defend them. Talk about "falling in with Thieves"...that's the Clinton's for you. Power is what they are about and if they had to suffer humiliation for 8 years and Bill got caught doing cigar tricks with a 'plant' ...it doesn't matter because they've been ASSURED ALL THE BUSH POWERS when Bill gets his chance to redo his Presidency.

[leftchick]

43. Donations from Lobbies...

Big Pharma? Check! Insurance industry? Check! Big Media? Check! and on and on. Just look at who is throwing their money at her and you get your answer. CORPORATIST? CHECK!

[Totally Committed]

228. Some people are in deep denial about Corporatism, the DLC and HRC's aherence to both...

I'm left wondering these days if it really IS denial, or an effort to quash that thought, and discourage conversation about it here. Know what I mean?

TC

[winston61]

57. Hell yes she is a corporatist and that ain't all-

She is also a Zionist, she is in the hip pocket of AI PAC and the rest of the Israeli lobby. If any of you Hillary supporters think she is going to anything to stop the war, you are high. When Israel or Cheney bombs Iran, she's gonna stand up and say it was the right thing to do. Hillary is just Bush in a skirt.

[incapsulated]

60. Right from facts to hyperbole....

Just like that.

Hillary has become "Zionist" because she needed votes in New York. A lot of dems do this.

How that translates into, she is Bush in a skirt and will cause WW3 is all in your mind.

[redqueen]

63. There's a lot of fear about a war with Iran.

I think the hyperbole stems from the fear that she won't be the best advocate for ensuring that such a war does not take place.

Not saying I agree with the post you responded to, just adding my two cents... cause I'm opinionated. :P

[incapsulated]

73. I dunno about that

Frankly, although I thought klye/lieberman was bullshit, I also thought it was pure political posturing, because her strategy was always to appear tough. Hillary and Levin and others voted for it only after it was changed into a statement for "diplomatic leverage". She is also on board with the Webb amendment which makes an almost opposite point.

I honestly don't believe the Clintons have any interest in blowing up the ME. No one sane does. And a fair argument can be made that aside from Richardson, no people are more qualified to deal with this international mess.

[redqueen]

78. Excellent points. With the public so gung-ho on war...

hmm... I wonder what the polling is on war with Iran... the big contenders have all been talking tough... let's hope those who have 'the fear' about it are mistaken... and that there's nothing to worry about.

God knows if the repuke wins, it's a sure thing. So... no doubt who I'm voting for... whoever gets the nod!

[incapsulated]

83. My fear is that...

Iran will be bombed long before the next president, whoever they are, gets any say in this anyway.

It's bad enough to inherit Iraq, Iran could melt the whole thing down. And now Turkey.

[redqueen]

87. Geezaloo, guy...

I didn't need that in my head! ;)



But seriously, though... :scared:

[incapsulated]

89. Hehe, not a guy

But it is scary. Then again, the past eight years have been scary.

[redqueen]

96. Oops! Sorry!

I thought your opinions were sexy... projecting my wishes there a little maybe. :P


And yes, the past 8 have been a nightmare.

[incapsulated]

98. Hehe, thanks

:)

[winston61]

85. Hyperbole is just another word for

Bullshit. A lot of Dems do it, so that makes it alright? Show me one pol on either side of the aisle who will say no to Israel or the Military Industrial Complex. War is good business, invest your son.

[redqueen]

88. I didn't say it was all right, friend... just maybe a little more understandable.

I think we should ALL try to be a little more understanding of those DEMS / LIBERALS we disagree with. (I point out dems & liberals cause FUCK THE PUKES! FUCK THE CONS!)

[incapsulated]

97. Being pro-Israel

Doesn't mean "bomb the ME into dust and start WW3".

Jesus, not all Israelis want to start that war either.

A trillion dollars of debt is not good for business. For anyone other than Haliburton and company. In case you didn't notice, balancing the budget disaster Clinton inherited was priority #1 last time.

And frankly, Israel is already in print saying if Iran is on the brink of creating a nuclear weapon, they would bomb them. So we would get dragged in either way.

[redqueen]

99. You are SINGLE-HANDEDLY making me feel MUCH better

about voting for Clinton in the GE.

:yourock:

[incapsulated]

101. lol!

Hey, if you look at my post from months ago, I was all Hillary hate and fuck the DLC, lol.

I try to change what I can and accept what I cannot.

ANY democrat will be a godsend after Bush. :)

[redqueen]

104. "ANY democrat will be a godsend after Bush."

AMEN and HALLELUJAH!

[winston61]

166. That's like saying a serial killer that only killed 10 people

is to be preferred to a serial killer that has only killed 25 people. How about Brother Lieberman? A good Democrat, with his head right up the ass of Cheney.

[rabies1]

124. She is for a fact.

But yes she has to be better than Bush.
In truth most people would be better.
Most people have a soul.

[ronnykmarshall]

129. Oh this should prove to have some orginal responces

[GreenArrow]

130. why limit it to Hillary?

Ain't none of them gonna kill the golden goose.

[illinoisprogressive]

138. both clintons are hooked up with the corporate world. she is friendly with the

lobbys and with the power brokers. She pals around with many including Murdoch and her advisor, mark Penn, is a union buster.

[Capn Sunshine]

143. Push Poll!

Leading the witness, your honor
:)

[mmonk]

158. Yes.

Follow the money.

[Bread and Circus]

162. I think she's a jackass who would do/say anything to get elected

and if that means sucking some corporate dick...she's more than on board. Just like nearly all politicians.

[eridani]

168. Friend of Rupert Murdoch and Mark Penn

Sell-out to health insurance companies.

[OHdem10]

170. Do I believe Hilary is willing to help Business Interests?

Yes, but I believe she is tougher than Bill. I believe
Hilary will try to be fair and consider the People's
as well as Business Needs.

Corporations and Business already have so much power in
this country, No Democratic Candidate or Demorcratic
President can ignore Business Interests.

IMO, the Business Groups have had their turn the last
6 years. I hope Hilary will look upon policy as to how
it will affect average Americans.

[ShortnFiery]

172. I fear that you may make the mistake of confusing "tougher" with "self-righteous" independence?

:shrug:

[jillan]

171. Here -

play around with this for a while and you will see why I voted yes.


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F27

[sellitman]

186. Wow! Look at the money she took from Lobbyists.

She is a HUGE corporatist.

[HughBeaumont]

177. Yep. This thread says it all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3156226#3156245

She's made it clear she's on the money side of the desk when it comes to labor. That's why I really gotta laugh when people say she's a "pro-labor" candidate. Was this before or AFTER she made this speech?

[Greyhound]

182. Is this a serious question? She's an entirely corporate product, manufactured and sold

to us by corporations that, like any good corporation, have retained all of their ownership rights.

She has garnered more campaign $$$ from lobbyists than any republic and more than the next 4 Democrats combined. This is the woman that took her big payday from Tata and threw them a lavish thank-you party:party: the same week IBM laid off 35,000 of her constituents.

[Maribelle]

183. You're trying to turn corporatist into a slur against Hillary yet ...

supporting Labor Unions is also corporatism, not hardly the business model which I believe you are trying to shoot down in flames. Instead, to those who understand corporatism, you merely look as if you feel a strong urge to grasp at straws.

cor·po·ra·tist (kôr'pər-ə-tĭst', kôr'prə-tĭst') adj.

Of, relating to, or being a corporative state or system.

corporatism cor'po·ra·tism n.

Corporative State

State in which the members are organized and represented not on a local basis as citizens, but as producers working in a particular trade, industry, or profession.

Catholic social theory, as expounded in some papal encyclicals, also favours the corporative state as a means of eliminating class conflict.

[cuke]

187. Your OP is wrong. Do more research

Hillary voted against CAFTA

"Within that summary were votes for free-trade bills... all in favor. " - Wrong.

[...of J.Temperance]

191. This is an ugly and hate-filled thread

With Hillary being called a "whore" and a "war-monger", yet again a bunch of people saying the DLC should leave the Democratic Party and the DLC being called "parasites".

When this sort of hate-filled rhetoric is displayed, the ONLY people who stand to benefit from such total animosity are the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party in real life are an inclusive party, and seek purges of NO section of the party, and we're working with ALL sections of the party to stay united and go forward as one unified group, working with the clear aims of getting a Democrat elected to the White House in 2008 and the Democrats keeping control of the House and the Senate.

[ulysses]

195. a question:

What do you think the purpose was for the DLC's founding in 1985?

[...of J.Temperance]

196. NOBODY has a RIGHT to tell me to LEAVE my OWN party

Yes I'm DLC, and the Democratic Party is MY party as well.

Do any of us tell the Left-Wing of the Democratic Party to leave the party? No, we don't.

Some of these people really ought to learn some more respect and TOLERANCE for those who have differing views than they do.

Now, the purpose, or one of the purposes for the DLC's founding in 1985, came about because of the aftermath of Walter Mondale losing in a landslide in 1984.

The first actual candidate that was associated with the DLC, that ran for President won, and that was President Bill Clinton....and he became the first Democratic President to win two terms for a long time.

Then, the next candidate that was associated with the DLC, that ran for President was Al Gore in 2000, and yes, it's my belief that Gore did win.

What we have, are people almost constantly bashing Hillary Clinton, and quite often in rather disrespectful terms as well....and these people hold up Dennis Kucinich as speaking for the mainstream Democratic Party and they hold up Dennis Kucinich as holding the same political views as the majority of the mainstream public.

Dennis Kucinich is in the same league politically as George McGovern and Walter Mondale, what I'm meaning is, IF Dennis Kucinich EVER somehow got our party's Presidential Nomination, then we'd lose the General Election in exactly the same sort of landslide that McGovern and Mondale did.

Probably even worse actually, as at least the one state that McGovern and Mondale respectively won, was their home state....Kucinich is polling 2% and in the 2004 Democratic Primary in Ohio - his HOME state - Kucinich couldn't even garner 10% of the Democratic vote.

[ulysses]

198. you could boil that rant down to "liberals can't win".

As far as respect and tolerance go, that advice might well apply equally to both sides.

So, another question. Given that your chosen direction alienates the left, do you think you can win the presidency without the left?

[...of J.Temperance]

203. I don't "rant"

I explain my thoughts logically.

There have been "rants" in this thread, but none of them have been by me.

I'll ask you your own question:

Given that the Left-Wing Democrats chosen direction alienates the Centrist Democrats, do you think that the Democratic Party in GENERAL could WIN the Presidency without us Centrist Democrats?

IE: IF the DLC left the Democratic Party, the party would be a constant minority party.

[ulysses]

204. au contraire.

That was a rant.

Given that the Left-Wing Democrats chosen direction alienates the Centrist Democrats, do you think that the Democratic Party in GENERAL could WIN the Presidency without us Centrist Democrats?

What in the "Left-Wing Democrats chosen direction" alienates centrists?

[BootinUp]

211. It basically boils down to

black and white purity oaths, such as the one you are trying to pull out of the other poster now.

[denem]

213. Politics is a tough game.

I guess I know why players such as wyldwolf play hardball all the time. Your respect, tolerance and courtesy have hardly been reciprocated.

(sorry for the pompous tone) Leadership is many things but does include the ability to inspire. I've heard many here express the sentiment that BigMoney/Clintons/DLC/Whatever are disfranchising them from their own Party/Country.

Change may always be scary but many if not the majority fear economic adjustment will throw lives and whole communities on the scrap heap ready to be crushed by the biggest bully on the block. The benefits of free trade come with the costs of adjustment. And those costs must be addressed by Government. And have not been.

[...of J.Temperance]

234. Read the UGLY rant at me in post # 217

So yeah, the DLCer's respect, tolerance and courtesy haven't been reciprocated in post # 217 most definately.

Oh and your comments aren't pompous, you made your point exceedingly well.

[denem]

240. # 217 ... really appalling

I've seen it a lot. The further you go to the fringes of politics either left or right, the more hatred becomes the base motivation. Hatred that splits reality into complete black and white. Humanity, let alone civility, eaten up in one seething conspiracy after another. I'm sorry you had to read that.

[...of J.Temperance]

241. That fellow needs to learn some darn manners and stop with the hatred

I hate nobody, well, actually after the other night I REALLY hate Ann Coulter, but I also deeply pity the woman, to have to live with so much hatred inside yourself, eventually will destroy the soul.

I can't believe the rant in post # 217, I mean that fellow accused me pretty much of STARTING the Iraq War and of supporting RAPE and PILLAGING, WTF? That's so messed up on ALL levels, I can't even get my head around it.

Yeah, the hate splits reality into total black and white, in the real world this bile rarely occurs, and in the real world such absurd Conspiracy Theories I never hear EVER.

I appreciate your kindness in saying you're sorry I had to read that, but I'm glad it's there, because it makes that fellow look bad and he's shown for what exactly he is.

Of course I could have alerted on his three ugly rants at me, but I chose not to, let people read his hate, which obviously totally consumes him....let people read the hate, the sensible and civilized people here at DU will see his hate for what it is.

[dmallind]

197. To beat the Republicans for a change.

It worked a couple of times too, and may very well again.

[ulysses]

200. even if it works again, is it worth it?

[dmallind]

205. God yes nt

ljk

[ulysses]

206. I disagree.

A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.

[paulk]

208. that you would say that after what this country has been through

these last seven years is just...

unbelievable.

how could anyone still be pushing the idea that there's no difference between the parties?

[BootinUp]

212. They don't really believe in our political system, thats how. n/t

[cuke]

214. They don't really UNDERSTAND our political system....nt

[ima_sinnic]

221. "united" my frikkin ass -- after what you, the DLC, did to Howard Dean?

You mean, you are working to ensure that the dumbass peasants are "united" around your trojan horse candidate HRC so you can continue to rob them blind while laughing all the way to the bank.

Without the likes of traitors and parasites like the DLC, the Democratic Party WOULD be "inclusive." But now it is hobbled by "centrists" who have an interest in maintaining the status quo of a shrinking middle class, perpetual war, corporate rape and plunder, and a complicit propagandizing media.

[ulysses]

194. of course she is.

If she weren't, the easiest way to get white, working class votes in the south is to come out against NAFTA and the like - these trade agreements aren't popular down here among the hoi polloi. That she hasn't done so tells me she's after the money of those who benefit from "free" trade.

[greyshade]

223. More Corporate, but still better than the Republican Alternatives.

She won't come out against NAFTA because Pres. Bill Clinton signed the thing.

Both parties take corporate money. However, there are *far* more in the Republican party that are corporatist, or fascist in the classical sense of the relationship between corporations and government. Those factions have been running the government since 2001, and see where it's got us.

I say if you don't vote for the Dem in 2008, Hillary or not, then you'd better pray that you become a multi-millionaire. That's the only way a Republican in the White House would ever represent your interests.

[sendero]

199. Anyone who needs..

... an "explanation" is a moron. Just watch her.

[rocktivity]

224. She's said she's pro lobbyist. And she's a secret officer of the DLC.

And she doesn't seem to be too interested in getting out of Iraq. And that's why I'm voting for her in the primary--I feel that things will be least likely to change if she wins.

:headbang:
rocknation

[BeHereNow]

236. 6 years on the board of Walmart- need we look further?

BHN

[stlsaxman]

239. one picture = a thousand words

and here you go-



and one more just for fun...

[Stephanie]

245. This was in the NY Times today >

[cleveramerican]

248. She shifts to suit the audience.

when speaking to corporate concerns she is as corporatist an anybody.

[Senator]

249. She Said As Much Herself

In her much-discussed "defense of lobbyists" she literally equated "corporations that employ" with "Real Americans."

You can see it for yourself on the YouTube.

And I'm sure she has no idea that she has no idea what a "Real American" -- a real human being for that matter -- actually is.

More's the pity.

---

[Douglas Carpenter]

251. "Government is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie"

Don't they teach that in eighth grade civics anymore?

But for a small handful of exceptions - they all are.

And as another poster put it, "No More So Than Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Obama And Yes, Edwards, No Matter What He Professes

[onenote]

252. define corporatist.