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.

Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary

By Leonard Doyle, Independent UK. Posted October 31, 2007.


The U.S. arms industry has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party and is putting their money on Hillary Clinton.

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

More stories by Leonard Doyle

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The U.S. arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

Mrs. Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.

Employees of the top five U.S. arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of U.S. armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.

After her election to the Senate, she became the first New York senator on the armed services committee, where she revealed her hawkish tendencies by supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she now favours a withdrawal of U.S. troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates -- Democrat or Republican.

This week, she said that, if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Tehran's nuclear weapons facilities. While on the armed services committee, Mrs. Clinton has befriended key generals and has won the endorsement of General Wesley Clarke, who ran Nato's war in Kosovo. A former presidential candidate himself, he is spoken of as a potential vice-presidential running mate.

Mrs. Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq and Afghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note.

So far, Mrs. Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 percent of the total going to Republican candidates. Election fundraising laws ban individuals from donating more than $4,600 but contributions are often "bundled" to obtain influence over a candidate.

The arms industry has even deserted the biggest supporter of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain, who is also a member of the armed services committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He has been only $19,200. Weapons-makers are equally unimpressed by the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Despite a campaign built largely around the need for an aggressive U.S. military and a determination to stay the course in Iraq, he is behind Mrs Clinton in the affections of arms executives. Mr. Giuliani may be suffering because of his strong association with the failed policies of President Bush and the fact he is he is known as a social liberal.

Mrs. Clinton's closest competitor in raising cash from the arms industry is the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who raised just $32,000.

"Arms industry profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts that companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House," added Mr Edsall.

The industry's strong support for Mrs. Clinton indicates that she is their firm favourite to win the Democratic nomination in the spring and the presidential election in November 2008. In the last presidential race, George Bush raised more than $800,000 -- twice the sum collected by his Democratic rival John Kerry.

Mr. Edsall's analysis of the figures reveals that, over the past 10 years, the defence industry has favoured Republicans over Democrats by a 3-2 margin, making Mrs. Clinton's position even more remarkable.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, hillary clinton, arms manufacturers, defense, fundraising

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:
In my country...
Posted by: chomsky on Oct 31, 2007 2:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my country, corruption is illegal...
The USA should stop calling it lobying and make it illegal too.

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

» RE: In my country... Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: In my country... Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Hillary has become way too hawkish
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 31, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary has become way too hawkish for anyone like me who believes that war has become an uncivilized nightmare that needs to be ended asap. Instead of fawning over big defense contractors the new president should be aggressively pushing a scenario where global disarmament is begun and is proceeding toward an end to arms races and a beginning of disarmament for every nation proportionate to size: the most heavily armed and most loaded with weapons of mass destruction should begin the process leading to complete disarmament of major weapons for every nation. It is criminal to do otherwise.

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

» RE: Hillary has become way too hawkish Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» Become? She always was! Posted by: BTDT
» RE: Become? She always was! Posted by: rsaxto
The real question ...
Posted by: marxalot on Oct 31, 2007 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... for me is not where Hillery gets her money. There's a general sense that the Republicans are going down in '08 so the lobbying swings towards the likely Democratic contender. It's a no-brainer that Hillary is going to take corporate dollars.

The question is can she still be a good leader after taking bad money. That's doubtful if you ask me, but ousting the current band of quasi-nazis has everyone clamoring for change of any kind. Everyone from progressives to corporate lobbyists.

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

» RE: The real question ... Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: The real question ... Posted by: Basenjis
Where Does This Woman Stand?
Posted by: edpaz on Oct 31, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Cllinton has an ambidextrous brain and the left and right hemispheres have no communication with one another. She leads off with the left foot, then the right foot. Her constant shifting on her positions are worse than John Kerry in the last election when he said "I voted for the Iraq legislation before I voted against it." Her recent vote on Iran demonstrates her willingness to rattle the sabres and stir up more conflict in the middle East.
Hillary was my candidate of choice, but has really shifted on many issues and my support has waned. I am beginning to look to John Edwards now as my candidate of choice. His honesty and forthrightedness impress me. He is not an "honest politician" which is an oxymoron, but an honest candidate, but it's not easy for an honest candidate to make it to the top.

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

» Where Does Edwards Stand? Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: Where Does Edwards Stand? Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Where Does Edwards Stand? Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Where Does Edwards Stand? Posted by: EKSwitaj
» RE: Where Does Edwards Stand? Posted by: EKSwitaj
Need Change
Posted by: packofwolves on Oct 31, 2007 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US desperately needs to change the process by which people run for and are elected into political office. The way it works now, and the way greed operates in the US, we are setting ourselves up for one corrupt politician after another. All donations should go into a general fund and those funds should be distributed evenly among all the candidates. Only in this way can the American people choose between all the candidates rather than from the narrow list of those who have been given enough money by big business to be seen and heard countrywide. Be wary of those who have lots of funds because they owe big business in a big way. Our system is set up for failure and until we have the courage to change it, we're going to be stuck with the corruption and greed we have now. Big business runs this country and they don't live by the same rules they impose on the rest of us because their bottom line is their profit margins. We suffer because of it. They don't care that we don't have health care or decent education for our children. They don't care that our sons and daughters are dying for a worthless war. They don't care that an illness has destroyed a family, throwing them into bankruptcy, they don't care that the poverty in this country is growing by leaps and bounds...they don't care about you or me or anyone else in this country. They care only for themselves and their bank accounts. Until we stand up to them and demand accountability nothing will ever change.

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

» RE: Need Change Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: Need Change Posted by: naima
» RE: Need Change Posted by: 1gma
ARMS INDUSTRY "DUMPING REPUBLICANS"???
Posted by: PROFPETE on Oct 31, 2007 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that "employees" giving $103,000+ to Clinton and "only" $86,000+ to Republicans is akin to the arms industry "Dumping Republicans" & "all but abandoning" them is a ludicrous and dishonest headline for several reasons:
1)-It is a tiny amount in the grand scheme of things.
2)-It is barely a 13% difference of the total given the two parties.
3)-It is only $16,000+ difference.
4)-It was given by employees not lobbyists or the corporate PAC or the Industry PAC.
5)-$103,000 buys diddle in that market.
6)-Finally because it is not true and there is still a year to go before the real money starts to show up.
Try writing an honest headline next time, this is more like an O'Reilly Yellow Journalism attention grabber that wasted my time.


PROFESSOR EMERITUS PETER BAGNOLO

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

» RE: ARMS INDUSTRY "DUMPING REPUBLICANS"??? Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» Just the same... Posted by: rjgwood
» ditto Posted by: whathaway
Not just Hillary Clinton
Posted by: Axiom69 on Oct 31, 2007 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When any corporation, industry, lobby group etc... gives large sums of money to a candidate you can bet that it isn't just a gift. It is an investment. They will expect a return on said investment. We don't need to be outraged that Hillary is doing it. We need to be outraged that this type of bribery is the status quo in our nations capitol. The funny thing is that the only people who can change it are the very people getting the bribes. Unless of course if "We the People" get together and refuse to elect or re-elect anyone that accepts this form of bribery but I don't see that happening. We all bitch, the left and the right, about our representatives being "owned" by corporate America yet we keep electing them again and again. "We the People" are the only ones to blame.

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

Democrat (most) or Republican -- Pick Your Poison
Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian on Oct 31, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excerpt From The Progressive -- Gore Vidal interview by David Barsamian (August 2006 Issue)

Q: Talk about the role of the opposition party, the Democrats.

Vidal: It isn’t an opposition party. I have been saying for the last thousand years that the United States has only one party—the property party. It’s the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican.

Q: What can people do to energize democracy?

Vidal: The tactic would be to go after smaller offices, state by state, school board, sheriff, state legislatures. You can turn them around and that doesn’t take much of anything. Take back everything at the grassroots, starting with state legislatures. That’s what Madison always said. I’d like to see a revival of state legislatures, in which I am a true Jeffersonian.

Q: Do you see any developments on the horizon that might suggest an alternative?

Vidal: Newton’s Third Law. I hope that law is still working. American laws don’t work, but at least the laws of physics might work. And the Third Law is: There is no action without reaction. There should be a great deal of reaction to the total incompetence of this Administration. It’s going to take two or three generations to recover what we had as of twenty years ago.

End of Interview

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

What we really need
Posted by: warrior woman on Oct 31, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we really need is to push our legislators on not taking action in Iran before the '08 elections. Take a look at this poll, if we can believe it, we're going down that path again.
http://digg.com/politics/Bomb_Iran_Americans_say_in_n
ew_poll?OTC-widget

Bombing Iran wouldn't be like bombing Iraq, the conflagration would be so extreme we'll probably wish it were Armageddon.

What we really need is to get the current administration cornered so that they don't do something so completely stupid but I fear there is little hope and no courage to prevent this.

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

Warning, Warning, Danger, Danger!
Posted by: peacelf on Oct 31, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton is one of them! The mindless, nihilistic corporate-owned politicans who speaks with forked tongue and stands on hooved feet.

peace.



Vote Dennis Kucinich!

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

Hillary has ending the Iraq war at the TOP of her platform and she WILL do it and quick
Posted by: xbj on Oct 31, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are plenty of places in the world have "just" wars to feed the military-industrial-congressional complex;

Darfur, for example. The difference between the Clinton years and the Bush years is simple. During the Clinton years we had a five-minute war (I exaggerate) in Kosovo to prevent true genocide, imagine, to save Balkan MUSLIMS from Serbian fascist Christianists. A war that was run by a REAL coalition, NATO, and not the US high command, RESULTED IN NOT A SINGLE US CASUALTY, and was over in MONTHS.

That's the kind of war that could be fought in Darfur, and for the same HUMANITARIAN reasons.

The Bush Administration, on the other hand, solely to keep a dying oil industry alive and to hike up prices to ridiculous levels, goes into Iraq to completely destroy a country and make sure it stays that way, INDEFINITELY.

And then goes after Iran and ITS oil. All to keep an endless gravy train of graft and corruption streaming out of taxpayers' pockets into the US treasury and then into the grubby portfolios of Haliburton and other offense contractors. Oh, and not incidentally to get a lot of "surplus" Hispanic immigrants and Iraquis killed.

A child could see the difference. An adult imbecile could see the difference.

The US Military SEES the difference. After having their manpower and infrastructure DECIMATED by the Bush Administration.

Clinton limited humanitarian wars to SAVE PEOPLE'S LIVES look pretty damn good now, don't they?

So all you Hilliary-haters from both sides of the aisle, here's a little pre-emptive shoosh for all of you:

SAVE YOUR BREATH. You're not going to win this one. The truth is more than obvious to even an idiot.

If you believe that SOME wars are necessary, moral, and good, and SOME wars are scams, then the choice is clear.

And God bless Hillary for the smarts to be able to get into power the first place, and thank God for ALREADY granting her the WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

They've already PROVEN that.

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

» RE: Very Well stated. Posted by: MeridaLady
» Well, actually... Posted by: BTDT
» Same old song and dance Posted by: BTDT
And the winner is ...
Posted by: TarryFaster on Oct 31, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Hillary Clinton, who has taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any candidate from either party – more money than any Republican candidate.

She has taken more money from the defense industry than any other candidate from either party as well.

She took more money from Wall Street last quarter than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama combined."

From a recent speech by John Edwards.

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

» RE: And the winner is ... Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: And the winner is ... Posted by: TarryFaster
We will be talking about Pres. H. Clinton two years from now
Posted by: sausage on Oct 31, 2007 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a good reason Hillary will be our next president: The major investors and chairs of certain leading industries want her in the White House. Period. I don't see what's so difficult to figure out in that. Nor do I think it so difficult to figure out that, yes, the defense-security-military industrial complex is heavily backing Ms. Clinton in campaign.

However, you won't find those figures specifically spelled out at a Web site like OpenSecrets.org, because the major defense contrators have their fingers in other pies to boot. Like Humpty Dumpty explaining to Alice that a word means what he chooses it to mean--neither more nor less, defense contrators choose what their business is--neither more nor less--when the Federal Election Commission (FEC) comes round.

And as for just who consititutes an "employee?" Well, by way of example, a grocery chain in my state has claimed, for the past 60 years or so, it is "employee owned". However, counted among those "employees" is the CEO and president of the company. I know this for a fact because I went to high school with the guy and his parents live about a half mile from me. It's kind of disingenous but the company does give stock to all employees down to the lowliest cashier. Therefore, again like Humpty dumpty, if it wants to claim it is "emplyee owned" it can choose to do so--neither more nor less.

Anyway, this country's politics has become so corrupt that it will make little difference who's sleeping in the White House January 20, 2009. The hollowing out of the federal government will continue. Privatization of Social Security, the Postal Service, the VA, etc. will continue unabated. Insurance companies will run anything called "universal healthcare." We'll still have troops in Iraq. And bombing Iran will still be a very real possibility, if not reality.

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

» Nice post. Posted by: Coleman
» Hedging their bets Posted by: sausage
For Our Sake !
Posted by: MeridaLady on Oct 31, 2007 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, this article is rediculous! If employees donate money to everyone & she got the most, oh my Gawd!!!!
All you people are doing is making up reasons for the Democrats to lose, instead of to once more take over the country & get it fixed. Yes split everyone up again!
Maybe ole Ross will run again, wouldn't that be nice.
Right now Hilary is walking a tightrope. Unfortunately, that is what has to be done to get the nomination & win. If she takes a stand on anything important, well, look what they did to Bill over a blow job! That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel but all the good things happening, in spite of the Republican House & Congress majority, disappeared from view & it worked.
Yes, the system is broke but it's not going to get fixed anytime soon & we need someone who will fix our country.
We know that she, with a decent Democratic House & Congress, will get us all some healthcare, she'll focus on improving the schools, work on the Immigration problem, that's been around since Reagan gave amnisty, & she will fix all the war-monger scare tactics shoved down our throats by money-hungry idiots, with good solid humanitian rationale.
Her husband will be First Gentleman and he has done some wonderful humitarian work since leaving office & he still has karisma.
Yes, Hilary seems rather stiff but she's had a tough road to get where she is now and once she gets where she needs to go, you'll see some changes made.
We need to join together & once again beleive is something good. Otherwise, we'll just get more of the same thing we have now.
Our country has lost it dignity & we really need to get it back.

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

» RE: For Our Sake ! Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: For Our Sake ! Posted by: MeridaLady
» RE: For Our Sake ! Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: For Our Sake ! Posted by: AnthonyMason2k6
» RE: For Our Sake ! Posted by: 1gma
» RE: Thank You 1gma Posted by: MeridaLady
» RE: For Our Sake ! Posted by: MeridaLady
Defense industry contracts and global arms sales prop us the U.S. economy
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 31, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the larger issue here, as well as the ongpoing privatization of the military. Let's re-examine Clinton's "slimming down of the military" that this article alludes to. Did he really "slim it down?" - or did he simply assist in the ongoing privatization of military services?

Let's take a few examples: Clinton in the Balkans (Serbian Kosovo), and the creation of Camp Bondsteel. Never hear of this place? Try this: "In November 2005, Alvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, described the camp as a "smaller version of Guantanamo" following a visit."

Also, try this: "Camp Bondsteel was constructed by the 94th Engineer Construction Battalion together with the private Kellogg, Brown and Root Corporation (KBR)under the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers. KBR is also the prime contractor for the operation of the camp."

This is all about control of a major access point to Europe for Caspian and Middle East oil - Camp Bondsteel and America’s plans to control Caspian oil, 2002. With respect to this issue, there is little if any difference between Clinton and Bush policies in the region.

If we look at military spending (as % of discretionary spending in the U.S. federal budget), it has held fairly steady during the Clinton and Bush W. eras:

1992 56.7
1993 54.2
1994 52.1
1995 50.2
1996 49.9
1997 49.6
1998 48.9
1999 48.2
2000 48.0
2001 47.1
2002 47.5
2003 49.0

So, it appears that, from the defense contractor's point of view, Clinton served their interests just as well as Bush did. The U.S. spends more on the military than any other country, by far (1999 statistics):

US: $291 billion
China: $88.9
Japan: $43.2
France: $38.9
UK: $36.5
Russia: $35.0
Germany:$32.6
Italy: $23.7
Saudi Arabia: $21.2

Now, let's look at military exports. Military sales abroad equal about $10 billion a year, and account for about 10% of all U.S. exports, making the U.S. by far the world's largest arms dealer.

Now, think about that and then read this idiotic article by CNN: U.S. to keep tighter rein on military exports, CNN, Oct 10 2007.

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

Same ol' crap
Posted by: willymack on Oct 31, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're STILL hung up on the myth that money can buy ANYTHING, including a presidential candidate "pure as the driven snow". Federal funding (only) of political campaigns, with stiff penalties for violators should be immediately implemented. There's a good reason for the fierce resistance to this as well as the elimination of coporate lobbyists, and its name is MONEY, and lots of it.

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

» RE: Same ol' crap Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
Hillary would take money from ANYONE
Posted by: drblack on Oct 31, 2007 2:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary will do what is good for her, Big Business and then toss a few crumbs to the American people if it doen't interfere with the first two.
Hillary Clinton will sell out the media ,she will continue the war and let the Constitution, American Freedom and Economic prosperity continue to deteriorate.
The Clinton's are part of the problem. Reagan and all Presidents since were worthless, sold out and have slowly eroded the Freedom of American.

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

Hillary/Nader
Posted by: alkamm on Oct 31, 2007 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nader got a lot of money from Republicans too, remember? He didn't mind taking the money even though the effect was that despite his overweening ego, he'd help defeat Democrats. Hillary is also being backed by the big corporations because they know she'll be defeated, unlike Edwards who is their sworn enemy.
Democrats need to wake up and vote for anybody but Hillary.

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

Clinton – CRYPTO-FASCIST PUPPET
Posted by: stryder on Oct 31, 2007 5:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

Clinton’s biggest Fascist supporters in big corporate monopoly media (Rupert Murdoch etc,) and the Big Oil-Big Military complex establishment are what drive her self-fulfilled poll numbers. The poll numbers that sham MSM pundits say are behind her (and thus Slick Willy’s) inevitable frontrunner success.

Of course, the Clinton crew are dirty on so many levels (look into Clinton at Mena Arkansas, etc) that they should be nowhere near any seat of surface power at the west.

Fact is, brainwashing the gullible is actually easier in the U.S. than most anywhere in the developed world.

"Our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China..."
ANTONY SUTTON – Professor Economics California State University, Los Angeles. Research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. From“America’sSecret Establishment” 1983. 1925-2002)

EXAMPLE: witness low poll numbers for those who believe 9/11 was a false-flag event under some kind of government complicity. This when even Kean and Hamilton admit 9/11 is no less than a cover-up. Gee, could those cooked poll numbers have any connection to 24/7 corporate media peddling of Washington’s official and discredited 9/11 conspiracy theory?

Likewise for dirty Clinton and Rudy Guilliani camps’ phony success in the polls and at the monopoly corporate media.

Ditto for Big Fascist MSM and its constant drumbeat for “war on terror” when there was nothing but a war OF terror from the start. All paid for by the gullible (as all global wars have been).

All that is necessary to gain majority control over any country is to get power over state money creation, the media and “education”.

As Doctor Albert Einstein said, “The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.”

In this country, the result is crypto-Fascism.

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

Just Another Neocon
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Oct 31, 2007 6:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is yet more, and very convincing. proof that Hillary W. Clinton is a crypto-neocon. She dances the macarena around the issues to obscure her real agenda, but she's not as convincing as her husband. Bill's famous charisma is clearly not contagious, although she clearly hopes to benefit from proximity. That's probably why she didn't divorce him in the wake of the Monica scandal. Fortunately for both of them, Bill's legacy has benefitted immensely by the contrast of being framed on both sides by the incompetent, rash and corrupt Bushes. Hillary may be marginally better than George W. Bush, but we can surely do better.

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

Hillary is all too obvious
Posted by: Number_6 on Nov 1, 2007 2:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary and sly Billy dearest have been Stepford sellouts from the word go.

The only "progressive" agenda at work here is in how progressively these parasites can bleed America on behalf of their fat and cushy corporate paymasters.

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

I'd love to see a woman president. . .but
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Nov 1, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HRH really gives me the willies! A recent article in The Nation reported that one of her most enthusiastic and generous donors to date is the (disgraced? or at least should-be-disgraced) head of Harken Energy, the same guy who bank-rolled Dubya's rise to power, assisted him with insider-trading and that infamous "bail-out" before he smirked his way into the governorship of Texas.

Add to this her acceptance of funds from no less than Rupert Murdoch and the above-reported figures in the defense industry and a very disturbing pattern emerges. Are we to believe that she's going to take all this tainted money and then just show those donors the door?

Among the reasons I ENTHUSIASTICALLY support John Edwards; 1. he will not take that kind of tainted money; HRH tries to claim that "lobbyists represent ordinary people too" but it all rings hollow! 2. Edwards doesn't change his message from one audience to the next; he says the same thing in Iowa as he does in New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada, and he sure as heck doesn't try to "talk folksy" in front of farmers and then "talk smart" in front of college kids the way HRH so obviously does. 3. Edwards' message has been the same all along; the GOP will NOT be able to run footage of him saying one thing in the primaries and another in the general (will anybody in the GOP be so consistent? Think not!) In spite of the main-stream (sic) media's attempts to trash Edwards and nominate HRH by acclamation, some of us "ignorant caucus goers" here in Iowa are going to have our say first and then we'll see how it goes.

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

» RE: I'd love to see a woman president. . .but Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
KUCINICH
Posted by: Flora Gael on Nov 1, 2007 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will progressives wake up and smell the incense? If you want PEACE, Kucinich is the only Dem of choice.

Hillary, face it, is a Repugnican. She is as blood-thirsty as any male neo-con.

VOTE KUCINICH OR REAP WHAT YOU SEW.

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

» RE: KUCINICH Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: KUCINICH Posted by: BTDT
» RE: KUCINICH Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» I was joking Posted by: BTDT
» RE: KUCINICH Posted by: BTDT
the Military Industrial Complex is real
Posted by: mickrussom on Nov 4, 2007 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The term was coined by Eisenhower. All the way back to Lydon Johnson the complex has been very involved at the highest levels. Johnson was in bed with Halliburton (Brown and Root).

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

» RE: the Military Industrial Complex is real Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian