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.

Obama, Cozy with Corporate Lobbyists, Risks Much with Edwards Attack

By Christine Escobar, Huffington Post. Posted December 31, 2007.


Obama, all-too-cozy with corporate lobbyists, is wading into dangerous territory.

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

More stories by Christine Escobar

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

While John Edwards announced this weekend that he will ban corporate lobbyists and foreign government lobbyists from his White House, Barack Obama has stepped up criticism of Edwards on everything from his populist views to Iowa ads about Edwards by an independent organization backed by union members.

With these latest remarks, however, Obama is wading into treacherous territory if he thinks no one will notice his close ties to big business lobbyists and their money, all while he attempts to play connect-the-dots on Edwards.

Obama has been relying on the advice and support of Washington lobbyists since early in his 2008 predential campaign. In an article from March of this year on The Hill, Alexander Bolton detailed Obama's K Street connections:

"Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young."

These lobbyist ties surfaced again before the holidays, when The Hill published this story on December 20 that exposed two federal lobbyists currently on Obama's campaign payroll, one of whom appears to have received payment while she was working as a lobbyist.

"Teal Baker, who received her first payment from Obama's campaign on June 13, represented 18 corporations between Jan. 1 and June 30 of this year while working as a lobbyist for Podesta Group, a K Street powerhouse. Clients paid Podesta Group over $2 million during those six months for Baker and her colleagues to represent them, according to documents filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.

Clients such as Oshkosh Truck and Pinkerton Consulting paid more than $700,000 for Emmett Beliveau and his colleagues at Patton Boggs to represent them during the first half of 2007. Beliveau received a $3,050 payment from Obama's campaign for advance work on Feb. 21, a campaign finance report shows.

In addition, the article states, "Brandon Hurlbut, Obama's liaison to veterans, union members and senior citizens in New Hampshire, represented clients such as the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Allegheny County Housing Authority from January to June, according to public records. Six clients paid B&D Consulting $380,000 for Hurlbut to lobby their causes.

Until recently, Hurlbut had a voice mail greeting at B&D Consulting informing callers that he was on "a temporary leave of absence" to work for Obama's campaign."

On its website, Patton Boggs, (the firm that employed Beliveau), proudly boasts of being "consistently ranked as the nation's number one lobbying firm by the National Journal."

The Podesta Group, (the firm that employed Teal Baker), is run by Tony Podesta, a Chicago native. Podesta was listed third in Washingtonian magazine's list of the city's top lobbyists. The Washingtonian article from June says Podesta was hired by British Petroleum, whose pipeline problems and refinery fires have created regulatory and public-relations issues. Podesta had been "guiding BP through congressional hearings."

The author of the article, Kim Eisler, writes, "Podesta and his team of 23 lobbyists are said to collect $12 million to $15 million in annual billings."

A chart on current and former lobbyists who've worked for presidential campaigns for the 2008 election is published on The Hill's website. Wondering who's on Edwards' payroll? The chart names two men: Adam Jentleson and Matthew Morrison.

Jentleson "lobbied on behalf of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank," and Morrison, "was registered as a lobbyist for the American Federation of Teachers," (a trade union). Trade union and liberal think tank, quite the distinction from Obama's political movers, isn't it?

According to Colleen Murray, a spokeswoman for Edwards, both aides have ceased lobbying.

As Paul Krugman recently confirmed in his column for the New York Times, Obama is attempting to compare labor unions and progressive interests with groups that advocate for corporations as he criticizes Edwards, those recent Iowa ads and tries to link Edwards to Washington lobbyists.

But by doing just this, Obama glaringly leaves the door wide open on his own involvement with big business lobbyists and more importantly his denial of what's at stake in this era of rampant corporate greed.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, iowa, edwards, obama

Christine S. Escobar is a Chicago based writer whose work has appeared online and in print at Life Without School and Organic Family Magazine.

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:
No corporate lobbyist or anyone who has lobbied for a foreign government will work in my White house
Posted by: yellow on Jan 1, 2008 9:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well I guess that means AIPAC too. And John Edwards is the man I support for President.

He will do more for the people than a shit like Ron Paul. Why vote for Paul when Edwards is running. He is the true working persons candidate. He's been hammering at the same themes of income and social inequality for years. He made issues out of the growing maldistribution of income, the tax cuts for the rich, low levels of job creation and the falling median income and the disappearing middle class. He is now making an issue of some 200,000 veterans of foreign wars who are now homeless. I never thought that in America we would see such a thing. The very image conjured up stark visions of Czarist Russia on the verge of the 1917 Revolution!! We have growing social problems in this society and we need someone who understands this to do something. There are many things to consider. Edwards can mobilize the working class behind him.

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

» VOTE KUCINICH... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: Edwards REAL record Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Another lie from the UnEasyLiar Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Thanks for making my point Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Thanks for making my point Posted by: CharliePatton
» His wife said that Posted by: sliver
» RE: VOTE KUCINICH... Posted by: MalloryJustMallory
» RE: VOTE KUCINICH... Posted by: batteredup
Hussein Obama Disses Ted Kennedy
Posted by: DigitalAztec on Jan 2, 2008 12:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hussein should learn respect:
"Ted, you're getting a little old now..."
"...Ted, get some spine..."


I'm not a big TK fan but those comments are over the top.

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

The Obama myth of "change" will never be questioned
Posted by: Markson on Jan 2, 2008 1:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Support for Obama is based solely on blind faith (his voting record on Iraq and the so-called war on terror is no different than Clinton, for one, and yet the "change" myth lives on), with a side helping of rabid worship (He'll change the world! Everyone will look upon him in awe! Hope! Change! Fired up!). When you combine that with a corporate press that obviously benefits from such a Trojan horse this myth of Obama as some savior of America--and the world!--will never be challenged.

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

» That's a simply a hit piece Posted by: sliver
hargren
Posted by: Truelass on Jan 2, 2008 1:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is a dangerous man. He is in the pockets of corporate America and his pro-big business beliefs and his anti-union positions make him an opportunist as phony as a three dollar bill. He is a pontificator and never a debater, he would be lost in an intelligent discussion on social issues or on any other issue for that matter. John Edwards is a realist and understands the problems that we have and continue to face as a nation.

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

» RE: hargren Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: hargren Posted by: Wexler
» RE: hargren Posted by: mutualaid
» RE: hargren Posted by: Wexler
» RE: hargren - click wexler Posted by: johnclark
» RE: hargren - click wexler Posted by: Wexler
» RE: hargren - click wexler Posted by: johnclark
Is there any genuine choice for the next US president?
Posted by: Smiggsy on Jan 2, 2008 1:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not being an American I look at the daily hack pieces on the web & the like here on alternet about the upcoming presidential race. My outside view is that the election already seems a farce. How you all seem to put up with the system which is so convoluted & corrupted is beyond me. I mean electronic voting machines...wtf?

Is anybody surprised why voter turnout is so poor in the USA. There appears no choice at all in the presidential race. And we wonder why there is so little democracy left in the world when the "so-called" gleaming bastion of democracy is so pathetic at its own process.

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

» YES...Dennis Kucinich Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» Stop posting the hit piece Posted by: sliver
» RE: Amen Posted by: Ripcord
» Who said this is a democracy? Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Who said this is a democracy? Posted by: peacefullaim
» When shopping stops Posted by: bthespoon
» Ask the Kingfish Posted by: Sparks56
Let's examine Edwards' voting record
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 2, 2008 2:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's my source of Edwards' voting record.

A sample of Edwards' voting record follows:

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill Y
03/23/1999 Kosovo Resolution Y
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution NV
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq Y
05/18/1999 Religious Memorials at Schools Amendment Y
2/18/2001 No Child Left Behind Act Y
06/24/2004 Defense Department FY2005 Appropriations bill Y
09/25/2003 Terrorism Information Awareness bill NV
07/17/2003 Terrorism Information Awareness bill Y
04/03/2003 Appropriations for Operations in Iraq Y
10/16/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
08/01/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
07/18/2002 Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2003 Y
0/18/2001 Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill Y
09/26/2001 Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill Y
10/14/1999 Defense Department Appropriations bill, FY2000 Y
06/30/1999 Cuba Travel Ban Amendment Y
06/30/1999 Foreign Operations FY2000 Appropriations bill Y
04/29/2004 Internet Access Tax bill Y
03/19/2003 ANWR Oil Drilling Amendment Y
07/13/2000 Death/Estate Tax Amendment Y
06/20/2000 Hate Crimes Amendment Y
05/20/1999 Juvenile Crime bill Y
10/28/2003 Michael Leavitt, Adiminstrator of the EPA NV
02/03/2000 Alan Greenspan for Chairman of the Federal Reserve Y
01/24/2001 Norman Y. Mineta for Secretary of Transportation Y
01/24/2001 Thompson for Secretary of Health and Human Services Y
01/23/2001 Martinez for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Y
01/23/2001 Anthony Principi for Secretary of Veterans Affairs Y
03/02/2004 Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill NV
10/03/2000 American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, 2000 Y
11/09/1999 Two Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N
11/09/1999 Three Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N
6/11/2002 Hate Crimes Bill Y
10/22/2003 Reduction of SPAM bill NV
09/25/2003 Do-Not-Call Registry bill NV
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill NV
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y

How, after examining Edwards' voting record, can anyone conclude that he is "populist" or "anti-corporate" advocate?

This is not the voting record of a "populist" or "anti-fascist"; this is the voting record of a Republican who masquerades as a "Democrat".

Obviously, Edwards thinks that we, the voters, are a bunch of cretins.

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

» Cretins? Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Cretins? Posted by: CharliePatton
» Just remember Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Just remember Posted by: Sparks56
» You win the $64,000 question! Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: You win the $64,000 question! Posted by: lisaisalefty
» Unbelievable! Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: Unbelievable! Posted by: lisaisalefty
» Ex-pats for Kucinich! Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: He just plans to waste his vote Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: What State did Edwards Represent? Posted by: CharliePatton
» Off topic....but Posted by: CatDad
the US is more and more under the control of the Corporation of the City of London
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 2, 2008 2:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which was established by William the Conquerer in 1067, the year after his successful invasion of England. His first royal charter made the City (now perhaps only second to New York City as a financial district) self-regulating. It remains so to this day. There are NO successful prosecutions for fraud in the UK.

The Corporation (and its individual Mini-Me's)--by bankrolling political candidates--has been undermining the US Constitution, the rights and protections of ordinary citizens. Rupert Murdoch is a key player.

Whatever criticisms of John Edwards might be made, at least he is highlighting the most crucial issue of our time: Who runs America? Taking on the health "care" profiteers is a good beginning, but the media should be next on the list.

Law is being used for criminal purposes.

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

Now, let's examine Kucinich's voting record
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 2, 2008 2:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly, as this snapshot of Dennis Kucinich's voting record confirms, he's the only real progressive in the race, today.

A sample of Kucinich's voting record follows:

07/26/2005 Small Employer Health Benefits Plan Amendment Y
04/14/2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill N
07/26/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 N
12/13/2007 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 N
10/16/2003 Iraqi Debt Forgiveness Y
06/27/2003 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 N
06/15/2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations N
06/22/2006 Death/Estate Tax Amendment N
12/12/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 N
11/14/2007 Head Start Act of 2007 Y
11/08/2007 Homeowners’ Catastrophic Insurance Act of 2007 Y
06/22/2006 Line Item Veto bill N
04/13/2005 Death/Estate Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 N
05/05/1999 Bankruptcy Reform bill N
10/09/1998 Bankruptcy Reform bill N
11/07/2007 Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) Y
08/02/2007 Prescription Drug Imports N
07/31/2007 Lobbying and Donation Regulations Y
07/13/2006 Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Y
04/05/2006 527 Reform Act of 2005 N
05/17/2007 Guantanamo Transfer Plan Y
06/22/2005 Flag Desecration Resolution N
09/26/2006 Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006 N
07/31/2007 Lobbying and Donation Regulations Y
12/11/2007 Recognizing the Importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith Y
02/12/1997 Term Limits resolution N
07/25/2007 Ban on Permanent Bases in Iraq Y
12/19/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Authorization bill N
05/20/2004 Defense Department FY2005 Authorization bill N
06/10/1999 FY2000-2001 Defense Authorization bill N
03/18/1999 National Missile Defense bill N
11/08/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement N
6/16/2006 Global War on Terror N
04/28/1999 Military Operations in Yugoslavia Limitation Act Y
04/28/1999 Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from the Balkans resolution Y
05/01/2003 AIDS Assistance bill Y
06/08/2000 OSHA Ergonomic Protection Amendment Y
03/09/2000 Minimum Wage Increase-Two Year Raise Y
03/09/2000 Minimum Wage Increase bill Y
09/29/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 N
09/27/2006 Military Commissions Act of 2006 N
10/10/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq N
08/04/2007 Foreign Intelligence Acquisition N
09/28/2006 Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act N
06/29/2006 Intelligence and Law Enforcement Resolution N
03/07/2006 PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill N
10/24/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 N
10/12/2001 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 N
06/27/2007 Andean Trade Preference Act Extension N
07/20/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement N
07/28/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
06/09/2005 Withdrawing Approval from the WTO Agreement Y
06/27/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
06/27/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/27/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
12/06/2001 Fast Track Trade Authority bill N
06/21/2000 WTO Withdrawal resolution Y
11/14/2007 Head Start Act of 2007 Y
10/18/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Y
10/10/2007 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007 Y
10/04/2007 Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 Y

Could the gulf between Edwards and Kucinich be more obvious?

Source: Dennis Kucinich's voting record.

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

» Don't read it Posted by: sliver
» Nope. Posted by: CharliePatton
» Yep Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Yep Posted by: Wexler
» Wrong again Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: LMAO! Posted by: UnEasyOne
Now, notice the similarity between Clinton's voting record and Obama's
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 2, 2008 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Source: Hillary Clinton's voting record.

Source: Barack Obama's voting record.

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

Lobbyists aren't going to magically disappear
Posted by: Wexler on Jan 2, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is nothing more than a cheap drive-by on Barack Obama, the ONLY candidate who has consistently and steadfastly refused to take money from lobbyists.

There is a difference between HIRING a lobbyist to work on your campaign and TAKING CONTRIBUTIONS from lobbyists. This crummy parlor trick of semantics designed to impugn Barack Obama's campaign as being somehow cozy with insiders in Washington is shameful and an outright lie.

Shame on you, Escobar.

-Wexler

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

Let's examine Ron Paul's Record
Posted by: Sissy on Jan 2, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A tremendous amount of work has gone into examining Obama and Edward's record. I want to see what Rep. Paul has done in his tenure in Congress. I want to see the bills he has produced and I would really like to see what he's voted for. I know pretty much what he's been against, but I would like it laid out neatly like the other.

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

Kucinich endorses Obama
Posted by: Wexler on Jan 2, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dennis Kucinich has urged his supporters to vote for Obama at caucus if Kucinich doesn't get to 15% at a caucus.

http://www.therawstory.com/

I'd say that's a pretty good endorsement, coming from my first choice as candidate to my second choice.

-Wexler

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

» RE: Kucinich endorses Obama Posted by: war_on_tara
» Kucinich making BIG mistake Posted by: bthespoon
» I stand by my analogy Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: I stand by my analogy Posted by: Wexler
» COBRA by law limited to 2% Posted by: bthespoon
» I'm certain BCBC is gouging Posted by: bthespoon
» If you support Obama Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: If you support Obama Posted by: Wexler
» We're in the same boat Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: We're in the same boat Posted by: Wexler
» I prefer Single Pool Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: I prefer Single Pool Posted by: Wexler
» RE: Kucinich endorses Obama Posted by: peacefullaim
» ...which shows to go ya... Posted by: Philip Newton
Now I'm confused
Posted by: SufiLizard on Jan 2, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more I've learned about Obama, the less I've liked him. I'm starting to consider him just another Hillary (the only Dem candidate I can NOT vote for in the primary OR general election).

But for Kucinich to give him such an endorsement makes me question everything.

At least Obama isn't a big, gift-wrapped present to Republicans like Hillary would be. None of the Republican contenders is likely to fire-up the Republican base, but Hillary certainly would. Obama seems like just another lobbyist/consultant-driven corporate candidate. I'm really curious why Kucinich has such a high regard for him.

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

» Kucinich is confused Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Kucinich is confused Posted by: C-Dawg Blake
proof is in the pudding
Posted by: mwildfire on Jan 2, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want to thank Charlie Patton for posting those succinct voting records here. This is what counts for candidates--where they stand on the issues, not what they look like on camera or which groups identify with them. Those with voting records should be judged almost entirely on those records as it's the best indication of what they'll actually do in another office.
But, as one person from elsewhere observed, the US political system is so thoroughly rigged in so many ways, that voters have little say in who gets elected. As someone else observed, the corporate media is the key reason. What we have now has gone well beyond the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about--that is now just a part of the corporate-government-media complex that acts as a self-defending entity. Ron Paul was recently excluded from a debate that included all the other Republicans by Fox News—just like CNN and the Des Moines Register excluded Kucinich from a debate that included the other Democrats. Why? Because if voters could hear these guys they might discover that their views are closer to the voters’ views than any of the supposed “front-runner” candidates who have been vetted and approved by the corporate-government-media establishment.
So what can we do about it? I’m afraid this has gone beyond the point where we might be able to rescue our country through voting, or through the system. There will have to be a revolt or a full-scale revolution—and the people are not nearly fed-up enough, or aware enough, for that to happen soon.

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

» RE: proof is in the pudding Posted by: CharliePatton
TK or the Dem Party may not be beyond reproach
Posted by: DigitalAztec on Jan 2, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But neither is Hussein.

Calling TK old and suggesting he has no spine is uncalled for.

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

Rule: go negative when you're losing
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 2, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article implies that Edwards, assuming that he picks up a bunch of second place votes, is about to win.

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

Funny Thread
Posted by: xi_people on Jan 2, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its really amusing to view this 'debate' about the merits of the so-called presidential candidates. Hasn't it hit some of you yet that the American system of government is essentially and irrevocably broken?

None of these 'candidates', including Kucinich and Paul, can do a thing to avert the looming series of financial and social crises that will soon engulf the country.

People really need to get beyond this stupid pseudo-debate and acknowledge the truth about the situation. Whoever is "selected" makes not a whit of difference. All are controlled to varying degrees by the corporatocracy, and will govern according to their dictates.

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

» RE: Funny Thread Posted by: Wexler
Discussing Iowa is tantamount to rearranging deck chairs
Posted by: JoAnne on Jan 2, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A call for a Constitutional convention:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12212007/profile.html

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

Campaign Speak
Posted by: Southern Gal on Jan 2, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is noticable is what most of the politicians don't say. We all understand that the corporations are running this country. The interests of corporations don't always fit the interests of the people of the country. John Edwards is discussing the issues of corporate control of this country. By doing this he has made himself a target of the corporate controlled media and the corporate lobbyists. His positions take courage. It's no joke that we have the best government that money can buy.

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

Rule #1: Follow the money trail, and don't look for heros to save you
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 2, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks to opensecrets.org, we can identify the leading sponsors of the various presidential candidates (these are bundled contributions from employees of the firms listed - according to opensecrets, most bundled contributions come from finance, law and real estate firms.):

Clinton:
DLA Piper $356,100
Goldman Sachs $350,050
Morgan Stanley $323,550
Citigroup Inc $307,350
EMILY's List $211,642
(*re this story, Clinton took $118,400 from Patton Boggs)

Obama:
Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
(*Patton Boggs donated $15,000 to Obama)

Edwards:
ActBlue $1,965,274
Fortress Investment Group $187,850
Stearns, Weaver et al $131,000
Lerach, Coughlin et al $93,950
Goldman Sachs $77,100
(Patton Boggs gave $0 to Edwards)'

Romney:
Goldman Sachs $181,425
Merrill Lynch $147,200
Marriott International $115,000
Bain Capital $112,200
Morgan Stanley $110,050
(Patton Boggs gave $22,000 to Romney)

Giuliani:
Ernst & Young $255,200
Elliott Management $228,400
Credit Suisse Group $164,900
Merrill Lynch $151,000
Bear Stearns $147,691
(Patton Boggs gave $5,450 to Giuliani)

McCain:
Blank Rome LLP $141,100
Citigroup Inc $137,050
Greenberg Traurig LLP $124,987
Merrill Lynch $113,575
Goldman Sachs $88,700
(Patton Boggs gave $8,375 to McCain)

Kucinich:
Institute For Democracy Studies $6,300
ActBlue $5,422
Laborers Union $5,000
Sheet Metal Workers Union $5,000
Ridgeline $4,600
(Kucinch got $0 from Patton Boggs).

What's the common theme there? Goldman Sachs & friends are betting heavy on the election in hopes of avoiding government oversight and regulation of their oh-so-dirty business practices - which are closely involved with government contracting, i.e. corruption, through their investments. (Goldman Sach's CEO just got a $70 million bonus, by the way - someone's not too upset about this credit crisis, are they?)

By the way, anyone who banks their future on what politicians say in the leadup to elections is a complete idiot - a brainwashed child of the U.S. propaganda system known as the corporate press, who are also owned and controlled by the very same interests that finance Clinton, Obama, Romney, etc. - and who are blocking out candidates like Dennis Kucinich. No heros are going to ride up on white horses to save us - you can count on that.

This is the world of corporate conglomerate control of the media, politics, the government and the military, and academics. This situation has been building for some time now - and there's no way a single presidential election is going to change much. So - vote strategically. Edwards has the best chance of defeating a Republican in the fall, so I'm voting for Edwards. I don't expect him to 'save us', however - I just don't want to see another GW Bush kleptocracy.

As with the Iraq war, the real culprit here is the dishonest U.S. corporate press, who never, ever references opensecrets.org in their discussion of this election.

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

» Yep Posted by: Philip Newton
BASH!!!!!
Posted by: radbear on Jan 2, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poor little Iowa, a veritable cesspool of corporate control, corrupt politicians, low educational standards that produce a population of drooling dullards, and national headquarters for the KKK. Every four years, the journalists from the Big City come to call. Since actually covering the caucus would require a degree of effort that died with William A. White, we are treated to a vast catalog of reasons why Iowa should be disallowed as the first-in-the-nation caucus state. Disappointed candidates and their crews are also likely to hate the Iowa experience and they have subtle ways of letting us know it, usually a large turd deposited on the steps leading to the exit. I hate to remind those who love to bash our state of certain realities, but I think I must: Iowa has people of color in our state government, including our state legislature. (My state house district has been represented by a black female for two terms and she has won e