Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hillary: The Corporate Candidate?

By Ari Berman, TheNation.com. Posted May 18, 2007.


If Hillary Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful as she says in her speeches, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America.
05182007story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Ari Berman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In a packed ballroom in midtown Manhattan, Hillary Clinton is addressing hundreds of civil rights activists and labor leaders convened by the Rev. Al Sharpton for his annual National Action Network conference. The junior senator from New York starts slowly but picks up steam when she hits on the economic anxiety many in the room feel. "We're not making progress," she says, her sharp Midwestern monotone accented with a bit of Southern twang. "Wages are flat." Nods of agreement. "This economy is not working!" Applause. She's not quite the rhetorical populist her husband was on the campaign trail, but she can still feel your pain. "Everything has been skewed," Clinton says, jabbing her index finger for emphasis, "to help the privileged and the powerful at the expense of everybody else!"

It's a rousing speech, though ultimately not very convincing. If Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm -- the Glover Park Group -- that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton's campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons' closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton's economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay.

"She's got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors," says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.

It's not exactly an advertisement for the working-class hero, or a picture her campaign freely displays. Her lengthy support for the Iraq War is Clinton's biggest liability in Democratic primary circles. But her ties to corporate America say as much, if not more, about what she values and cast doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion. She is "running to help and restore the great middle class in our country," Wolfson says. So was Bill in 1992. He was for "putting people first." Then he entered the White House and pushed for NAFTA, signed welfare reform, consolidated the airwaves through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (leading to Clear Channel's takeover) and cleared the mergers of mega-banks. Would the First Lady do any different?

Ever since the defeat of healthcare reform, Hillary has been a committed incrementalist, describing herself as a creature of the "moderate, sensible center" whom business admires and rewards. During her six years in the Senate, she's rarely been out front on difficult economic issues. Given her proximity to money and power, it's not hard to figure out why she keeps controversial figures close to her -- even if their work becomes a liability for her campaign.

Polling Czar

After the 1994 election, Democrats had just lost both houses of Congress, and President Clinton was floundering in the polls. At the urging of his wife, he turned to Dick Morris, a friend from their time in Arkansas. Morris brought in two pollsters from New York, Doug Schoen and his partner, Mark Penn, a portly, combative workaholic. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said, 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-chips and school uniforms,'" says a former adviser to Bill. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest."

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 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 & Gamble's Olestra from charges that the food additive caused anal leakage, blamed Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically modified foods for Monsanto. PSB introduced to consulting the concept of "inoculation": shielding corporations from scandal through clever advertising and marketing.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton, mark penn

Ari Berman is a contributing writer for The Nation and a Ralph Shikes Fellow at the Public Concern Foundation. He's currently based in D.C.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hillary is About Hillary
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 18, 2007 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She always has been and always will be.

If she thought it was to her advantage to be a NeoCon tomorrow, she would do it and try to make it look as if she had been all along. As a resident of Arkansas I have been watching the chick for a long time now and have met her on a number of occasions.

I do not trust her any farther than I could throw her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But she voted "for" good things
Posted by: edith on May 18, 2007 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Clinton has a consistently liberal Senate voting record, earning near-perfect scores from Americans for Democratic Action."

This article shows just how meaningless the votes taken in Congress, on which interest groups and the dumb media judge Congresspeople, really are. Who cares how much additional money she votes to dump into ineffectual federal "education" programs when she is locked into an incestuous relationship with the most notorious union busters in America. Progressives need to stop worrying about how much federal pork a politician votes for, and start worrying about how much power to ordinary people a politician is willing to concede. Ideally, we wouldn't need politicians.
They "represent" us while the Howard Wolfson's and Mark Penn's "represent" both the "liberal" politician and some fat paying corporate, anti-labor clients as well.

Dig into Gore's or Edwards' circle of friends and you'll smell the same stench as the rotting dump in which Hilary plays her games.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How Much Power? Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: How Much Power? Posted by: Lincoln fan
A question about Hillary.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 18, 2007 2:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's left after you take away $26 million and Slick Willie?

ANSWER: An empty pants suit.

Enough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A question about Hillary. Posted by: Glennk1949
The nature of the beast....
Posted by: Michael Boldin on May 18, 2007 2:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the one hand politicians like Hillary give a certain impression to us - to look good, while out the other side of their mouths they're buddying up with the people and ideals we oppose.

Politics and grandstanding - and big money backers - have gone hand in hand for literally ages.

A comment above said it would be ideal if we didn't have politicians - I agree. At this point, I'll still concede it's a necessary evil, but hopefully not forever. What we need to do is always be quite wary of what their real intentions are.

Some thoughts on this:

Beware of Politicians with Good Intentions - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is a Corporate Chess Piece!
Posted by: HiTechCowBoy on May 18, 2007 3:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want to point out what I believe are the two fundamental flaws in our system of government which have allowed our nation to evolve into the modern day equivalent of the empire our founding fathers revolted against and Chalmers Johnson writes about.

Those two aberrations are the legal principles that corporations have the same constitutional rights as citizens in this nation with the exception that they cannot vote and that monetary contributions in support of or in opposition to a candidate or an issue is considered free speech. It is my contention that absent those two constitutionally established policies, the United States would not have evolved into precisely the kind of empire our founding fathers rebelled against in 1776. Unfortunately, I believe it is to late by three generations to save our republic from economic, political, and social collapse because of the benefits those two anomalies have bestowed upon corporations in this country.

I believe our founding fathers grand experiment failed not because of lack of hindsight but because of their failure of foresight. In any case our nation has devolved into what would be the final chapter in Paul Kennedy's brilliant treatise on The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

Hillary Clinton is just another pawn on the corporate chess board.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Read Thom Hartmann on this Posted by: truthteller
The Lesser Evil: Her or the GOP 2008
Posted by: sofla100 on May 18, 2007 3:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, Hillary will likely be the Dem's candidate for President, and it will be her against one of the Repub. right wingers. Now, Hillary talks a good game and is wishy-washy and empty as this article points out, but at least she MIGHT vote for a few socially progressive causes. Your alternative is the Repubicans. That automatically means escalation of the American empire project, escalation of Mideast Wars, and even more tax breaks for the rich. Well, Hillary might give us most of this anyway as President, but she will let a couple more poor sick children in some town like Cleveland or Detroit see a doctor perhaps once a year. The lesser of two evils, once again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics is mere deception.
Posted by: chutzpah on May 18, 2007 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it acceptable for politicians to solicit millions of dollars for their campaign from corporations, but it is not acceptable for the corporations to recoup their investment (cos that's what it is) when the politicians get into power? Money doesn't grow on trees you know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Money Doesn't Grow on Trees? Posted by: Centavo
» RE: Politics is mere deception. Posted by: HiTechCowBoy
Hillary (Stepford Drone for the Mob) Clinton
Posted by: Hal on May 18, 2007 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aside from possible exceptions in Kucinich and Ron Paul, contenders for poodle in chief @ Amerika Corp DC are sellout actors in the employ of Fascist organized corporate crime.

Hillary the most obvious of a bad lot...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Fat DUH
Posted by: marxalot on May 18, 2007 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this informative article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Universal
Posted by: Universal on May 18, 2007 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this article and wondered why it would take hundreds of words, to tell us that she is a corporate whore, class mercenary who would uphold, defend the most crimiinal aspects of Corporate fascism, such as the illegal war of agression, the dictatorial support by members of her own party for stripping legal rights and due process of hundreds of innocnet detainnees in CIA Prisons around the world.

Get a grip, Alternet writers, we do not need endless empirical evidence when most people already know, she is a war criminal, corporate thug, and ideological class whore, which is why the Corporate media and "bourgeois" feminists call her a "rock star", the designation of Corporate coronation by Corporate Media whores themselves defending Class despotism, class democracy, now having morphed into Class tyranny, dictatorship, and Class Empire, and still these ideological whores expect us to fall for their policies.

The reason the left calls these new forms of servile class elites, equal opportunity class mercenaries, "bourgeois", has nothing to do with the fact that she might be within a vague middle class, but because all middle layers, are institutionallly and wholesale corrupted by an oligarchy above, therefore shifting their moral, standards, universal values, which are inherent in any middle layer, to the right and far right, of class standards, depending on the tactical need for middle class shock troops, to defend Corporate fascism, as German Capitalism did when it financed these class thugs, like Hitler to defend property rights, over Human rights.

To defend Hillary Clinton, as one reader did below, stating that money does not affect Hillary liberal positions, is sheer ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy. All middle layers subordinated by an oligarchy, Corporate capitalist class masters above, function as appeasing class thugs, because they are first and foremost defenders of class ideology, which coopted the Enlightenment, and their revolutionary liberals, whose goal was not only to overthrow the Feudal class system, its oligarchy, aristocracies and class elites, clerical religious layers, but to put into place a mechanism, social principle and democratic means, a universal middle class, without class masters above to institutionally corrupt, wholesale these revolutionary, moral standards, through the nation state as the means.

Instead it was converted, corrupted into class nationalism and Class Empire when the Class laws of Napoelon served the commercial capitalists, merchants, who traded in slavery for their profits, while claiming democracy and social wealth principle. To see how this affects the democratic party, which is itself a class party with class Liberals, just note that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and most democrats routinely accept AIPAC money, and go to their warmongering, cheerleading lobby, the Israeli lobby that promotes not only its own fascism, zionism, but Amerikan Empire that supports Israel war crimes.

Recently in Common Dreams, Stephen Zunes writes that Baracak Obama, Hillary and most democrats, have used the same bull shit lies by Israeli Nazis, all discredited by outside independent sources, that Hezbollah fighters were using the civilians as human shields, therefore the need to defend Israel and its war crimes, just like our own war crimes in Afghansitan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea etc. The murder of hundreds of innocent Lebanese hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is not to be condemned, even after the democratic whores were aware of these fabrications. However, Israel has used Palestinian children as human shiled, caught several times on film, yet this is not condemned. She, Hillary,Barack Obama, and all democratic class hacks are hypocritical thugs, class whores, and time to get your own independent party without class standards, double standards, perod.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Universal Posted by: edith
» RE: Universal Posted by: Universal
» RE: Universal Posted by: boing007
» RE: Universal Posted by: Universal
» RE: Too many run-on sentences!!! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: Universal Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: Universal Posted by: Universal
So Hillary is a Corporate Shill
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 18, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't be fooled. Whoever the Democrats back will be acceptable to their corporate sponsors. The party line will be,"We can run a candidate who is for the corporations, (they will refer to this as "electable") and win, or a candidate who is for the people. (they will refer to this as "unelectable") and lose". It works every time.

Candidates are a distraction. The real power in our governent is the corporate establishment that bought both parties. Our fight should be for control of both parties not a fight to choose between pro-corporate candidates.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So Hillary is a Corporate Shill Posted by: psychochurch
As much as I loathe neocons and religious fundies
Posted by: apeshow on May 18, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would never vote for her. She is no alternative and to think so is a fool's paradise. If its her against some Neanderthal like Thommy Thompson, I would vote for the neanderthal if I vote at all. One day America will wake up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Writing Off the Left
Posted by: sofla100 on May 18, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Politics is the "art of the doable" and we must be pragmatic. First off, yes, Hillary is a corporate shrill, pro-Israel (AIPAC bought and paid for) and she is very well moneyed by the corporate class. And yes, you can bet they (big corporate donors) will be EXPECTING a return on their investment. So, to be pragmatic, yes she, as all the Congressional members, Presidents, etc., have always done, will continue "returning goodies" to the corporate class once she is President (just as she has done as a Senator, be it tax cuts for the rich, "free trade," etc.). And, yes, much of this is very destructive and feeds into the American Empire Project. However, I do support the Dems. platform being as liberally modified as possible. No doubt, this platform is going to have to give some credence to getting out of Iraq, support for trade unions and some addressing of health care issues. Therefore, liberals and progressives need to work within the party for this. But, we must also be realistic and pragmatic. Remember, also as no doubt Hillary's spinmeisters and pollsters have already calculated, in a run against say Guilliani, Hillary is not going to worry a lot about the liberals and progressives. Because, who are they going to vote for? Nader possibly yes, if he runs, a few could do this, but they will never vote for Guilliani or a McCain. So, Hillary probably isn't worried a lot about the left and progressives, per a pragmatic analysis. Still, we should do what we can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Writing Off the Left Posted by: Lincoln fan
Ah, once again, the holier-than-thou crowd.
Posted by: Sojourner on May 18, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So American politicians have blood on their hands. Do tell? Look at your own. Unless you are homeless, your way of life is built on the exploitation of the Third World.

The point is that we are all in this together. Who will begin to move us in the right direction? Without leadership, all you can do is sit around in the peanut gallery and point your fingers.

Who dared to try to do something about national healthcare in 1992? The awful Hillary? What were you doing anything about in 1992? And it was Hillary's fault that Bush got elected and re-elected?

All the complaints about the life styles of the rich and famous make me sick. How else should the rich and famous behave? Yes, we are in the middle of a New Dark Ages. I don't expect miracles. We need to light some candles in our dark corners instead of throwing rotten eggs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hillary is blowing out our candles... Posted by: anotheropinion
» EXPLOIT THE THIRD WORLD?? Posted by: gellero
The Democrat Demimondaine and Consummate Pandering Politician
Posted by: wawa on May 18, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrat Demimondaine and Consummate Pandering Politician is Hillary Clinton.

On February 1, 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton betrayed we the people of America in her prostituting and pandering address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee/AIPAC.

Senator Clinton claimed, "Both Israelis and Americans know so well, a democracy is far more than just holding elections. Democracy has to spring from an active and open citizenry dedicated to tolerance, to respect for differences, to the rule of law, to policies that lift us up not tear us down as fellow human beings, and to the value of human life."


Jeff Halper, American Israeli, a 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions has consistently affirmed that, "Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control." [Chapter 2, Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory]

When Israel became a state in 1948, it was contingent upon upholding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees in Article 13 that:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Israel encourages any Jew without any pre-existing historical tie to the land to migrate under the Law of Return and all receive immediate citizenship and all rights and privileges including state-financed language and Jewish history immersion, free and subsidized housing, job placement and welfare assistance while seeking employment, medical, dental and other benefits.

Israel abetted by USA blind allegiance has blatantly refused to uphold UN Resolution 194, which guarantees the Right of Return-or compensation to the indigenous population which was forced from their homes in 1948 and 1967. Clinton is unmoved by the facts on the ground that the indigenous peoples of that land have been denied human rights and dignity and that they are illegally dominated and oppressed with the aid of USA's "$1.8 billion a year in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid, plus another $1 billion or so in miscellaneous grants, mostly in military supplies, from various U.S. agencies. Tax exempt contributions destined to Israel bring up the total to over $5 billion annually." [Page 24, Understanding the Palestine-Israeli Conflict, Dr. Phyllis Bennis. www.tari.org ]

Clinton continued to satisfy the ignoble lusts of AIPAC as she continued to deny the truth, " Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism. We need only look to one of Israel 's greatest threats: namely, Iran . Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel , but to the entire Middle East and beyond... U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

TBC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TBC, Part 2
Posted by: wawa on May 18, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Feb. 10, 2007 , Dr. Phyllis Bennis, a secular Jew, journalist, prolific author, Mid East analyst and Co-founder and Co-Chair of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation stated, " Iran has signed the NPT, which allows them the right to have nuclear power and to enrich uranium. The 185 non-nuclear states have agreed to give up the right to have nuclear weapons and the five nuclear powers that signed the NPT agreed to get rid of their nuclear weapons... Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but America is! The USA has been in violation ever since the day they signed it. The USA is acting like a rogue state. The rhetoric out of Washington , the arresting of Iranian diplomats in Iraq , are deliberate provocations hoping that the Iranians will take the bait and respond." http://www.wearewideawake.org/


At her AIPAC fundraiser, Clinton continued her pimping and denial of the facts on the ground, "We also know that the dangers posed to Israel have been compounded by the rise to power of Hamas, an avowed terrorist group that has assumed the reigns of the government in the Palestinian Authority and Hezbollah, the terrorist group that is represented in the Lebanese government. I have long said that Hamas must not be recognized until it renounces violence and terror and recognizes Israel 's right to exist...Hamas terror campaigns have claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians and its leaders have refused to disarm, to reject violence, or even to recognize the right of Israel to exist. We must insist that Hamas and indeed all Palestinian parties renounce terror and recognize Israel "

Not only did the Palestinian Authority agree in 1988 to recognize Israel and reaffirmed this in 1993 during the Oslo Accords, Israel instead, persisted in its unabated relentless seizure of Palestinian land and resources.


On November 15, 2005 , Senator Hillary Clinton stood on the Jerusalem side of The Wall and was quoted in Ha'aretz, expressing support for The Wall because it "is against terrorists" and "not against the Palestinian people."

Senator Clinton,-as most of Congress- have NOT ventured to the other side of The Wall to view the economic and psychological effects of The Wall, which has been deemed illegal and must come down by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. [I address this in detail in "MEMOIRS of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"]

After reading Senator Clinton's inaccurate, insensitive and pandering remarks in Ha'aretz, I immediately contacted her through her website, but my email bounced back, for I am no longer a New York constituent. This really got my Irish up, for unlike Senator Clinton, I was born and bred in New York and I am more New York than Hillary will ever be.

Not being one to ever give up, I then snail mailed Hillary a respectful letter expressing my distress over her obvious pandering and blatant denial of humanitarian and International Law and informed her of the many gaps and lack of 'security' along The illegal Wall that I knew about from my visits to Israel Palestine in June 2005 and in January, March and November 2006. Every taxi driver, would be 'terrorist' and I knew the way into Jerusalem from Bethlehem without going through security checkpoints and The Terminal.

The only response I received from Senator Clinton was to be put on the DNC's mailing list soliciting funds.

Clinton has continued to fuel the fire of my Irish ire during her hustling of AIPAC votes:

TBC Part 3

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TBC, Part 2 Posted by: Universal
TBC part 3, The Democrat The Democrat Demimondaine and Consummate Pandering Politician: Hillary Clin
Posted by: wawa on May 18, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton persisted in her pandering for AIPAC funding:

"I was deeply saddened and outraged by the suicide bombing in Eilat this week. Some are saying that Eilat was bombed because Israeli's efforts at self-defense through its security fence have been so successful. But Eilat is a tragic reminder of the threats that Israel faces everyday and underscores the importance of our continued support for Israel 's right to protect and defend her people. The highest priority of any government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens and that is why, as I have said, I've been a strong supporter of Israel 's right to build a security barrier to keep terrorists out. I have spoken out against the International Court of Justice for questioning Israel 's right to build that fence of security."



If The Wall were actually built on Israeli land, Clinton could get a pass on her procuring of Jewish votes, but a map of The Wall super-imposed upon Palestinian aquifers clearly illuminates that The Wall is all about grabbing land and resources from the indigenous peoples of that land.



Reported in the august, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "Financed with U.S. aid at a cost of $1.5 million per mile, the Israeli wall prevents residents from receiving health care and emergency medical services. In other areas, the barrier separates farmers from their olive groves which have been their families' sole livelihood for generations." [Page 43, Jan/Feb. 2007]

In Jeff Halper's April 2005 edition of "Obstacles to Peace, A Re-Framing of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" wrote, "Missing from Israel's security framing is the very fact of occupation, which Israel both denies exists...and that "security" requires Israel control over the entire country...rendering impossible a just peace based on human rights, international law, reconciliation." [Page 1]

During one of my four interviews with Jeff halper, he told me this joke:

"The Israeli government simply does not want to take responsibility and the USA government ignores the situation. Do you know why Israel does not want to become America 's 51st state? Because then they would only have two senators!"

They certainly have one vocal demimondaine and craving consummate pandering Senator who is currently lusting for the American Presidency.



http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our election system is severally flawed
Posted by: anthroman on May 18, 2007 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Elections have become a battle for money. This fact opens the door to corporate sponsors and gives more power to "business" than to the "people." Its our election structure and system that leads to this. Most money is raised to pay for TV adds. This not only intensifies the need for corporate money, but also negative attack based campaigns and polemic debates.

Its time to change how candidates are elected. We need to push for publicly funded elections. Candidates should all receive the same amount of funds from the gov't. This would make candidates more accountable to the people, rather than their corporate sponsors. Elections need to be about who has the best vision for the future, not who can raise the most money. At the same time we could limit the power of corporations as well as bring a more competitive atmosphere to politics. Candidates will be forced to better articulate their positions and visions for the future and we could hopefully move past our two party system, which doesn't come close to capturing the political positions of the American people.

Unfortunately, this will not happen by itself. Both parties enjoy our current hegemony and wouldn't change unless we begin to demand it. Our system is severally flawed and limits democracy, rather than promotes it. We'll always have candidates that pander to corporate power as long as we have a system that allows it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary vs. Bill
Posted by: boing007 on May 18, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anything you can do,
I can do better.
I can do anything
Better than you.

No, you can't.
Yes, I can. No, you can't.
Yes, I can. No, you can't.
Yes, I can,
Yes, I can!

Anything you can be
I can be greater.
Sooner or later,
I'm greater than you.

No, you're not. Yes, I am.
No, you're not. Yes, I am.
No, you're NOT!. Yes, I am.
Yes, I am!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary will do ALL the right things for ALL the right reasons once in office
Posted by: xbj on May 18, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like all savvy and brilliant political candidates, she knows more than anyone else what it takes to win the Presidency in this country, AS IT EXISTS TODAY.

One has to win before one can change a damn thing. I am tired of people on the left lambasting her and doing the Nazi "right's" work FOR THEM, for her not commiting political suicide by telling the truth, nothing but the truth, so help her God.

That's what failures do. Go vote for your Ron Paul's; go vote for your Kucinich's, your Mike Gravel's IN THE PRIMARIES. Such men are the sacrificial consciences of their parties, and you or I have more a chance at being President than they do.

But quit berating Hillary and doing Rove's work FOR HIM for doing WHAT SHE HAS TO DO TO WIN.

The left and Democrats are going to just have to bite the idealism bullet AND BE REALISTIC if they're going to truly put DOWN THE NAZI GOP SCOURGE, THIS time.

It's THAT simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, PLEASE. Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
a limit on spending on TV and radio advertising
Posted by: Suzon on May 18, 2007 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is one thing that the British government does that is commendable which is to limit campaign spending or radio and television advertising.

In the runup to a general election, any party which qualifies as having a certain level of support is given a small number of free radio and television slots. A denial of free speech? If so, it's a defensible one in that it would do a lot to silence Big Money and therefore reduce its destructive influence on all political parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary and the Blue Pill Democrats by Kurt Nimmo
Posted by: rwa on May 18, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, Democrats will argue, as the 2008 selection closes in, Hillary Clinton is less than perfect—but she’s better than the mob boss stand-in Rudy Giuliani or the Manchurian candidate, John McCain. In fact, we can bet the farm Democrats will once again take the blue pill, believing whatever they want to believe. Democrats will vote en masse, not unlike lemmings stampeding to the precipice, for Hillary or Obama, most likely Hillary as not so subtle indicators reveal she is the One.

Ari Berman, writing for the Nation, attempts to whack Democrats out of their blue pill slumber, for all the good it will do...

Indeed, Berman is correct on all points, but none of this matters much to Democrats, as simply being Democrats reveals the depth and severity of their stepfordized condition.

Come the 2008 selection, when voters are allowed to vote for the selected, it will not matter [that] Hillary Clinton attends Bilderberg meetings, along with Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, daughter of the SS officer Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld, “life member” David Rockefeller, fellow Democrats Dianne Feinstein and John Edwards, George Soros, Alan Greenspan, Melinda Gates, former World Bank loan shark James Wolfensohn, and no shortage of Council on Foreign Relations members, transnational corporate CEOs, international banksters, and other lovers of one-world government...

Of course, for Hillary and her corporate backers—including Rupert Murdoch, who is fond of throwing fund-raisers for Clinton—all of us must “live in the real world,” that is to say a one-world as envisioned by the WTO, IMF, Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank, the so-called global financial services sector, the entire neoliberal panoply of thievery, looting, fire sales, and other criminal aspects of the “market fundamentalist” religion.

Democrats want ever so much to believe—and that is why they overlook the fact a “bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm—the Glover Park Group—that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton’s campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons’ closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton’s economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay.”

Never mind the blue pill Democrats are steadily losing grip on that once hallowed ground known as the Great Middle Class. Instead, they are tilting toward the New Serfdom, enforced by a scientific dictatorship and monitored by panopticon industries.

Not to worry. Because there will be any number of placards to hoist and shiny balloons to unloose come 2008 at the Pepsi Center in Denver, never mind the venue or its all too appropriate name.

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=868

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

COMPARED TO KUCINICH, HILLARY IS A LIGHT WEIGHT ON WAR!
Posted by: HiTechCowBoy on May 18, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kucinich on Supplemental: It’s About Oil




Washington, May 10 -


WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 10) — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) released the following statement after the passage of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007:

“There has been a broad deception about the content of the hydrocarbon law, a deception which has taken in members of Congress and the media. Misdescribed tactically as a revenue sharing plan, it is in fact a radical plan to privatize Iraq’s oil.

“The law before the Iraq Parliament contains 3 vague lines about revenue sharing and 33 solid pages of a complex legal restructuring, facilitating the privatization of Iraq’s oil resources. The sharing will not be 1/3 of 100%. The sharing is more likely to be 1/3 of 20% at most, after private oil interests take their cut. The stage is being set for theft on a historic scale.

“Iraq may have as much as 300 billion barrels of oil to be tapped. At a market value of $70 a barrel, the value of its oil may approach $21 trillion.

“In the past twenty four hours the Vice President made an extraordinary trip to Baghdad to urge the Iraqi Parliament to stay in session to pass a “hydrocarbon law” which provides for “revenue sharing.” Today, President Bush explicitly mentioned that he could come to an agreement if it included a benchmark for “sharing oil reserves.” This is the tone of the legislation which the House passed tonight.

“The legislative debate between the Congressional Democrats and the Republicans misses the point of the key issue regarding the invasion, occupation and long term US presence in Iraq - - oil.

“The attempted theft of the oil assets of Iraq under the guise of a plan to end the war will keep the war going long into the future.

“This is the time to be taking steps to end the U.S. occupation, stabilize Iraq, and give Iraqis full control of their oil assets.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why I don't like or trust Hillary.
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 18, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. She 'stood by her man' when he cheated on her. It was as though she would not punish him-so the rest of the country felt they had to do it for her.
Which was a shame-as he was a good President-and he did not, after all-cheat on the country!

2. Her husband did not pardon Leonard Peltier. They did not even tell him they were not going to...after giving him hope they would. Talk was that it would not have been good for Hillary's future politics.

3. She supports the war. Maybe it is just politics. I don't care. She supp