Fortune Magazine: BUSINESS LOVES HILLARY.
I haven't seen any similar covers for Obama, have you?
and there are bad businesses.
In which category is Walmart?
who is sitting on the board.
Walmart is sometimes the only place to shop and get decent prices. So when you criticise this just remember who you truly are dissing.
i remember seeing a panel on bill maher back in the fall discussing the HRC would be the least desirable candidate for big business.
in this reality anything Hillary said or did before Feb. 5th, 2008 didn't actually happen.
and it it happened after that date well its probably us sexist Obama supporters behind it.
seriously.
Obama:
Has offered few good ideas about how to handle the current economic crisis.
Cass Sunstein, a constitutional advisor to Obama, told Jeffrey Rosen of the NY Times: "I would be stunned to find an anti-business [Supreme Court] appointee from Obama. There's not a strong interest on the part of Obama or Clinton in demonizing business, and you wouldn't expect to see that in their Supreme Court nominees."
Obama wrote that conservatives and Bill Clinton were right to destroy social welfare,
Supported making it harder to file class action suits in state courts
Voted for a business-friendly "tort reform" bill
Voted against a 30% interest rate cap on credit cards
Had the most number of foreign lobbyist contributors in the primaries
Is even more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain
Was most popular of the candidates with K Street lobbyists
In 2003, rightwing Democratic Leadership Council named Obama as one of its "100 to Watch." After he was criticized in the black media, Obama disassociated himself with the DLC. But his major economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is also chief economist of the conservative organization. Writes Doug Henwood, "Goolsbee has written gushingly about Milton Friedman and denounced the idea of a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures."
Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer: "Top hedge fund honcho Paul Tudor Jones threw a fundraiser for him at his Greenwich house last spring, 'The whole of Greenwich is backing Obama,' one source said of the posh headquarters of the hedge fund industry. They like him because they're socially liberal, up to a point, and probably eager for a little less war, and think he's the man to do their work.
"They're also confident he wouldn't undertake any renovations to the distribution of wealth."
Thank you!
Me thinks you're talking out your ass
wasn't Obama on the cover of this magazine just recently?
talk about stretching things...............
obama = in the pockets of corps.
hill = clean as a whistle.
ok, who's buying it?
"Obama McCain"
This is a new one.
I like Obushma better.
I'm partial to Barorge H. W. McBama.
I'm really trying to understand your opening question here, but it's quite difficult.
"Why are 'they' (SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE US AND INTERNATIONAL 'ELITE' - not Obama naive backers - so desperate to have Obama McCain) win?"
I assume that "'they'" correlates to the domestic and international "'ELITE'", whom you differentiate from the "Obama naive backers." Of course, your parenthetical statement should function as a qualification. That means that your question should make general sense without it. But I do not understand what you mean by "Why are 'they'...win." Now, maybe you mean "why do they win" or "why are they winning." Which one? Or is it something else that cannot be clarified through attention to grammar. But even with the added specificity that the parenthetical contributes, I am not sure what you are asking. And to return to that parenthetical, would you please specify in a little detail who comprises this international ELITE? I would appreciate representative individuals and organizations, as opposed to abstract or overly general categories such as the "MSM" or "corporate cartels." And what about those of Obama's supporters who belong neither to your ELITE nor to this "Obama naive" group. Don't they want Obama to win? Or are they simply less desperate? And how do they fit into your understanding of Obama's supporters? Are they simply less desperate? Finally, who is "Obama McCain?"
You forgot the millions of Americans who continue to hand him victory after victory and delegate after delegate with their votes.
Why are THEY so desperate?
Americans are not known for being a well informed electorate, unfortunately.
But nobody has addressed my points. I am trying to give reasons why the right wants Obama over Hillary enough to do desperate and deceptive things to ensure Hillary is NOT the Democratic nominee who runs against McCain.
The poster a few posts higher brought up a bunch of good points about Obama's center-right pedigree which I think show his real position far better than the deceptive marketing of him as a progressive does.
He is very slick. Don't fall for it.
So, is the anger or denial?
Doesn't seem like bargening?
Oh, let's see....
Obama, Corporate?
Hillary (the DNC candidate) Populist?
I see, it's not angry or in denial?
It's just dumb.
bargening <----no, it's-----> bargaining
Obama accepts no money from lobbyists or pacs. Hillary defended lobbyists as representing people too and had one running her campaign while he was still raking in a fortune working for legislation she is supposed to be opposing (as was Bill himself). A big chunk of the millions the Clintons have made have come directly from the INTERNATIONAL 'ELITE'.
So your diary makes absolutely no sense at all.
Obama has taken many millions from lobbyists and their organizations. I cannot imagine any voters being more deluded and uninformed than some Obama supporters who believe the lie that he hasn't taken money from lobbyists. It is astonishing that you could be so uninformed.
http://www.sourcewatch.org:80/index.php? title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing
"While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Senator Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital," Dan Morain wrote April 23, 2007, in the Los Angeles Times.
The lobbyists who are financing Barack Obama:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit le=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing
In Illinois, Obama dealt with lobbyists But as candidate, he faults Clinton for ties By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | September 23, 2007
When Barack Obama and fellow state lawmakers in Illinois tried to expand healthcare coverage in 2003 with the "Health Care Justice Act," they drew fierce opposition from the insurance industry, which saw it as a back-handed attempt to impose a government-run system.
Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama's remarks on the Senate floor.
The wrangling over the healthcare measure, which narrowly passed and became law in 2004, illustrates how Obama, during his eight years in the Illinois Senate, was able to shepherd major legislation by negotiating competing interests in Springfield, the state capital. But it also shows how Obama's own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail.
http://www.boston.com/...
Obama, who made a strong floor speech in opposition to the 2005 bankruptcy bill, nonetheless voted against a key amendment that would have put a cap of 30 percent on interest rates. Financial firms, according to Ken Silverstein's much-discussed Harper's article "Barack Obama Inc.," "constitute Obama's second biggest single bloc of donors." You'll find nary a word about the debt crisis on his campaign web site.
http://www.motherjones.com/...
"...it is also startling to see how quickly Obama's senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation's manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama's top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a "leadership PAC," a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians' campaigns--and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.
http://www.harpers.org/...
Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street
by Pam Martens
Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages.
[...]
These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season.
Must read full article:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.p hp?option=com_content&task=view& id=613&Itemid=1
You cannot discuss Obama's money without also mentioning where Hillary's comes from
His presidential campaign takes no money from registered lobbyists. Your Sourcewatch link confirms that. Yes most of the people who contribute to his campaign have jobs. Surprise, surprise and since every industry and business sector in America is represented by lobbyists in DC you can make the absurd connection that if I'm a bank teller, bank security guard or a bank executive and give personally to Obama then since the company I work for has a lobby then my contribution is somehow tied to that lobby. I guess he should only solicit donations from the unemployed.
You really are twisting yourself in knots to make a connection that is not there. The other candidates take money directly from lobbyists and have them running their campaigns. No contorted innuendo needed to see the connection there.
If you are a lobbyist and send the Obama campaign a check it will be sent back. Enough said.
and most of the MONEY comes from big donors..
In 1994, a similar thing happened with Job Cooper, who killed universal healthcare. Now he's Obama's healthcare guy.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9B00EEDD1431F93AA25757C0A96295826 0&scp=14&sq=%22Jim+Cooper%22& ;st=nyt
I recommended your diary because you are on the right track with this.
Of course Corporate America prefers Obama over Clinton.
The number one issue is healthcare and Obama's plan is really more of the same...Which is what corporate America wants.
Hillary is the corporate candidate. That's what her beloved DLC is all about. And the insurance industry LOVES Hillary's health care plan, since it will line their pockets.
Ha. Obama is the DLC's candidate:
Cass Sunstein, a constitutional advisor to Obama, told Jeffrey Rosen of the NY Times: "I would be stunned to find an anti-business [Supreme Court] appointee from Obama. There's not a strong interest on the part of Obama... in demonizing business, and you wouldn't expect to see that in their Supreme Court nominees."
Voted for a business-friendly "tort reform" bill, the Orwellian-named "Class Action Fairness Act," which Obama and Lieberman supported along with Republican Senators.
Voted against even having a 30% interest rate cap on credit cards [his biggest donors are Wall Street Financial Mega-Corps.]
Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer: "Top hedge fund honcho Paul Tudor Jones threw a fundraiser for him at his Greenwich house last spring, 'The whole of Greenwich is backing Obama,' one source said of the posh headquarters of the hedge fund industry. They like him because they're socially liberal, up to a point, and probably eager for a little less war, and think he's the man to do their work. They're also confident he wouldn't undertake any renovations to the distribution of wealth."
Obama is the DLC's candidate
Are you really that far gone, that you are completely blind to the absolutely obvious? Does someone really have to explain to you how absolutely, inarguably wrong that statement is?
wow wow wow. You do realize that outside of the healthcare industry itself, most corporate types want government-backed healthcare so that they don't have to keep providing it?
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read." --Marx
Do you Hillary people know your candidate? Do you know that she is a proud member of the DLC? Do you see how absurd it is to try to paint Obama as the "corporate candidate" when that's what Hillary is all about?
I know Hillary Clinton didn't hire the DLC's Chief Economist as her economic advisor.
But Barack Obama did.
Stop spamming this shit
Have any evidence of this? Why do most CEO's back the GOP, which opposes government backed healthcare?
If getting over 50% of the pledged delegates is a sign of desparation, then yes, this Tuesday there will be a huge surge of desparation.
The push for Obama by the elite media tells the real story.
The media has given Hillary a big pass because they want this primary to continue.
They want the primary to continue on their terms. In otherwords, don't say anything negative about poor Obama or we'll pull the plug.
Hmmmm ... you must have missed the media frenzy about Rev. Wright.
Tim Russert stated that cable media was aware of Rev. Wright long before they aired the clips but were pressured to do so due to outside media outlets (internet, talk radio.)
Riiiiight. They were "pressured" into running this non-story non-stop 24 hours a day for weeks.
Please try harder, your efforts today are just laughable.
Heh, I like your signature...You do realize that it's conditional don't you? I'm sure she's making a list and checking it twice. Good for her.
Making a list? You mean a blacklist? So we should expect the Clintons to seek vengeance on those who dared to support Obama?
You really don't understand politics do you?
Zing!
I wouldn't worry about it. If anything, Hillary should be concerned about crossing the new leader of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama. Afterall, it's kinda hard to threaten people when you don't have any money or power.....
Apparently, you don't understand politics either. Money and power are important but there are no superdelates to help Obama in the General Election. In otherwords, Obama WILL need Clinton's constituents come Nov. I realize that's difficult for the Obama supporter to accept.
Oh, I accept it -- and if Hillary would like to retain her senate seat and a role within the Democratic Party, she'll work to ensure that her supporters vote for Obama. For a small cadre of internet fanatics, however, it clearly won't do much good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a member of the MyDD Fifth Column?
I really don't think Clinton is worried about her "role within the Democratic Party." She has a lot of power. I can just see the Democratic Party kicking the former first lady to the curb. That's really funny. The party would never be the same...it would also be a whole lot smaller.
I really don't think Clinton is worried about her "role within the Democratic Party." She has a lot of power. I can just see the Democratic Party kicking the former first lady to the curb.
Oh, it's very possible. You're forgetting that the folks supporting Obama are by and large the most active volunteers, voters, and donors in the Party -- just look at the money raised and the caucus results if you need any evidence of that. Hillary can be Lieberman-ed just like Joe was because the people likely to vote in a senate primary election are disproportionately likely to be Obama voters.
Ever heard the saying; Cutting off the nose to spite the face? :D
No, it's not difficult for any reasonable Obama supporter to accept.
What is difficult to accept is having to deal with people such as yourself who have the intellectual honesty of a flea and the maturity of a two-year-old.
Now now now. Let's play nice.
Admit it. You smiled.
Speaking of a "flea and the maturity of a two-year-old," the fact that you're angry that I pointed out the power of the Clintons says to me that it is difficult for you to accept.
I think we're all just in awe of you because you're the only one who understands politics.
Thanks, I agree.
But you backed a loser, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you voting for McCain in November? If you're such a political pro, why do you keep supporting losers?
But you backed a loser
In reference to voting for McCain; Where did I say that?
I said I'm not voting for BO because I don't support losers, especially ones that lack good judgement.
You supported Hillary, but you "don't support losers."? Again, you're the political expert, but there seems to be an inconsistency here.
Everyone's idea of a loser is different.
In reference to losing the primary she most likely will due to superdelegates. IMO, Obama will lose the GE.
Will you think of Obama as a loser if he loses the GE? I guess so.
Again: so much for intellectual honesty.
Heh, I was being honest. I see Obama as a one big GE loser.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Actuallly, things look good for us for November. Despite the long drawn out primary season, Obama is at worst tied with McCain in the polls, and most show Obama ahead. A new Gallup poll shows something like 80% disapproval with the direction of the country, and we've already picked up three House seats in red states via special elections. Once the bickering is over we'll come together as a party and beat McCain.
I didn't back a loser, the superdelegates did.
The superdelegates and the voters. And for the record, Obama has had a superdelegate lead for about a week during this entire contest.
I've been saying all along that BO will lose the GE.
And you've been wrong all along.
I wasn't sure if you were a Naderite or a closeted Republican -- turns out it's the former. My apologies.
Absolutely nothing that Barack Obama has done in his entire life has reflected as poor judgment as Hillary's AUMF vote.
And you've been wrong all along
I wasn't sure if you were a Naderite or a closeted Republican -- turns out it's the former. My apologies
---->Sorry, but I have to leave this wonderful conversation, It's been quite amusing for sure, peace.
We'll miss you and your expertise.
A pass on WHAT?
Right.
They realize that Obama might be all they can realistically wish for right now. Obviously, the fact that he is 50% black man makes it that much easier.
Getting Obama elected would be IMPOSSIBLE if he was all white. The black community would not turn a blind eye to his shortcomings then.
Really, his candidacy was a stroke of genius by somebody.
A step back and a wider view would probably do some good.
In the GE, should Obama win the nomination, it's a pretty clear choice.
Yes, because as a black person, I've always clearly had every advantage in life. And I didn't think some of you could get any dumber. Learn something new everyday.
turns an otherwise STANDARD paranoid incoherent SCREED into COMEDY GOLD!
None of you would be falling over backwards to respond negatively to it.
Read some of the links that were posted. Those articles make some of the same points I did.
Obama is the insiders insider.
Oh.
I thought Obama was no experienced. How can one be inexperienced as well as be the insiders' insider?
Folks there is no argument that you can come up with that is going to convince Architek she/he is wrong. Architek has become married to a belief system and once someone gets to this point only they can pull themselves back.
Architek has joined the flat earth society and believes we are all going to fall off the edge should would sail off with Obama. The only thing that will change Architek's mind will be the voyage and seeing we end up coming back alive. That's assuming Architek has made the decision not to join us.
It is a bit sad actually.
The rabid Hillary supporters have invested way too much in her nomination.
To be fair, I am not so sure that many the rabid Obama supporters wouldn't be making similar "flat earth" arguments if things were reversed.
Then again, my sense is Obama would have withdrawn, thus avoiding the whole mess in he first place.
That would be just as sad.
Anyone who is so invested in a candidate that he has to create a alternative reality is someone who has my pity.
One minute, we're told that Camp Obama is unacceptable because we're really the corporate right, the next minute the same thing because we're a bunch of stinky McGovernite hippies who are too far to the left.
Which is it? 'Cause we can't really be both at the same time.
Prog
One minute, we're told that Camp Obama is unacceptable because we're really the corporate right, the next minute the same thing because we're a bunch of stinky McGovernite hippies who are too far to the left. Which is it? 'Cause we can't really be both at the same time.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone. So long as Hillary wins, the regular rules of space, time, and logic need not apply.
sort.
Don't lie. It discredits YOUR message.
Have you read the articles?
BTW, there is nothing more angry than people who feel as if they have been betrayed.
If Obama wins, and he ends up being a right-winger on healthcare, fiscal, environmental and financial issues, while being a centrist on foreign policy, people who voted for him are going to be worse than angry.
Is that what you Obama supporters want? To destroy faith in democracy and the democratic process?
It is tough to keep up.
I'd like to see the lingering Obama bashers work this out themselves - maybe conduct a little tournament of bile... The far left, dirty hippie accusers vs. the far right corporatist Reagan zombie accusers.
The problem is that some of them would end up matched up against themselves.
sorry to disappoint you.
You do what?
1.) FEAR OF A SHIFT IN NATIONAL PRIORITIES -by- MANY esp. the Right (ALL of the GOP) and industry and the politicians in the Democratic party do not want ANY new, successful entitlements, NOMATTER HOW MUCH THEY ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED BY SO MANY - some of them 'on principle' (like Bush's opposition to Social Security and SCHIP) because they feel healthcare will end up cutting into future Pentagon budget (which is so HUGE it dwarfs everything else, seriously.)
Entitlement growth is a problem. We can't continually shift resources from workers to the retired and expect to have a healthy economy. I'm in favor of single-payer because I think it would be a more efficient system. However, we may have to reform or eliminate social security (Medicare's the real problem, but I can't see that one going anywhere) in order to keep entitlements from eating up the entirety federal budget when the Boomers retire.
industrial complex to be 'entitlements'?
Some people do.. What about growth in them? They dwarf healthcare and education.
Do you consider corporate welfare or the military industrial complex to be 'entitlements'?
No, because by the technical definition of "entitlement," they're not.
You need to check your facts and figures again. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP account for about twice as much of the federal budget as defense. The growth of entitlements, moreover, is automatic and much faster than the growth of defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget.
I did some big time archival research -- to things I posted and wrote way back in 2003/2004.
I was pretty steamed when Dean was imploded by rifle mics, DC insider gang-ups, the hostile media, and weak-kneed 'electibility' Democrats.
While I most definitely posted and wrote some things I regretted - and it took me until the convention to truly go from resigned Democratic voter to Kerry supporter - I actually never went this far.
Even during my height of bitterness over Dean's fall - it was never that the other side(s) were "evil" - I never explicitly or implicitly hoped or attempted to sabotage the party or the chosen candidate... I simply thought my party had made the wrong decision, that we were missing the dawn of a new Democratic era.
I think it goes back the the "inevitability" of Hillary. A lot of people got on board the Hillary train assured that it would be going all the way to D.C. And now, like a man who curses a rock when he stubs his toe on it, some Hillary supporters (a small minority, I'd say) are cursing the man who prevented her from grasping the gold ring.
"Healthcare Profits - Domestic -by- Alliance of healthcare-related corporate interests do not want Hillary putting her healthcare plan into place because it will put government in the position of bargaining with them for lower prices, something that they REALLY want to avoid because the government WILL get prices down."
Hillary's healthcare plan is a huge benefit for health insurance companies. She is mandating that every single person buy into their plans. Most will end up buying the lowest priced plans (which offer the least coverage) because they can't afford anything better, leaving the insurance companies with tons of new customers without having to provide hardly any benefits.
GOPs know they can win over Obama, but not sure how to handle Hillary. So they helping Obama anyway they can.
Sure...that's obvious from the amount of Michelle Obama/Rev. Wright ads they've run in downticket races.
Anything to help Barack!
GOPs know they can win over Obama, but not sure how to handle Hillary.
Oh, they've been handling Hillary for years -- all the way to her +50% negative rating.
This stuff is getting really crazy.
Blogs are an interesting world. On a blog like this, you don't get the people posting who will quietly back whichever candidate. Instead, we get the loudest posters- from both sides.
I'm more than happy to support whomever carries the D with their name in this election. There is frankly no possibility that I would allow my pride to give McCain a chance at winning the election. It's just not right. The man is a towering buffoon. Anything that we do which gives him a better chance at winning is a direct offense to the US and the rest of the world.
The D party, rightly or wrongly, has a way of choosing its nominee. The process was agreed upon in advance, and as a result, it should be honored. The party is made up of adults, so if there is a decision which seats the delegates from MI and FL, then that's great, too. They are allowed the flexibility to determine a fair procedure for seating those delegates.
I do understand the struggle to deal with the apparent loss by Hillary's supporters. She would be a good presidential candidate. It just appears that we have a situation where the voters, and the process have led to Obama being the nominee.
There will no doubt be continued autopsies of this primary election season, but then again, there always are. I am still reading about Dean fans who are bitter over the 2004 election.
As soon as this primary is over, McCain will have no chance. He has been getting a free ride as this primary season winds down. As soon as this is over, the entire Democratic Party will be breathing down his neck, and there will be no fighting it. McCain is the real enemy here.
Obama is relaxed, calmly absorbing the (dare I say) desperate attempts by FAUX NOOZE, DRY DRUNK BUSH, Grampy McSame, and the bitter Marshans. All the while more discerning adults calmly allow events to take their course, confident that the noise will eventually die down, and prepare for the departure of the GOP Administration from Hell.
It's the opposition to Obama which is desperate. The persuasiveness of Obama's message of empowerment and yes, Hope that we can turn this ship if we work together is what has his opponents baffled and pulling their hair out.
Perhaps they will settle down and exit the echo chamber at some point. In the mean time, we'll manage just fine.
Yes! yes! Our diabolical secret is now revealed! Our multinational conglomerate of powerbrokers convinced tens of thousands of "regular folks" go register, go to polls and caucuses, and above all to "donate" $25 or $50 online to advance our secret plan to CONQUER THE WORLD! BWAAHAAAHAA! We put sleeper operatives in the Obama campaign and plied them with weak coffee and donuts to make GOTV calls. We ordered our minions to attent huge rallies, often standing in the rain and sleet prentending to be enthused about Obama's campaign! We will rule the wooooorrrlllldd! BWAAAHAAAHAAA! Suckers!
