once again, Charles, you make these pronouncements . . .

are there any links that provide a balanced view of just which candidates have what financial interests in which corporations?

that's what I'd like to see

anybody?

Colombia

I know its you country of origin and everything Charles but should we really be using Columbia as a model for democracy?

I am no expert but haven't they been in the midst of a 30 year civil war? Government Vs Drug Cartels Vs Communist rebels?

I spoke with labor organizers from Columbia a few years back. They said trying to organize a Union there was the sure fire way to get a bullet in your head.

I also noticed that your previous post about change politics in Columbia featured at least one politician that was assassinated for trying to change things.

Perhaps my facts are old but it seems like an odd choice.

I couldn't agree with you more, as far as the money game in politics goes. We give corporations far too much latitude to influence candidates, when they should have exactly zero (the one thing Texas gets completely right in electoral law). Neither should we give lobbyists that power. The only solution is public financing for all federal elections... then, and only then, can we hope to stop the cycle of big money -> big payoffs.

Third parties in the US system start with the deck heavily stacked against them. Everything from modern (read: ad-driven) campaigning to ballot access is designed to keep them out. I suppose the entrenched powers learned their lesson with the Bull Moose party. :( I feel this change must start at the top, but it leads to a vicious cycle: how do you get people willing to change the system to the top of it, when the system is designed to keep them out?

BTW that hyperlink doesn't seem to be working

I spoke with labor organizers from Columbia a few years back. They said trying to organize a Union there was the sure fire way to get a bullet in your head.

This law separates those who govern the country from those who campaign. They get time to think, reflect on policy and yet neither fail to do the people’s business as they are doing now nor have to take political stands in terms of controversial votes. They can better speak their minds without having to watch their backs.

You mean like Hillary missing the Telecom Immunity vote?

I really like that Idea, Nobody can run if they are currently holding another office.

I really like that Idea, Nobody can run if they are currently holding another office.

How would these people make a living? Go on corporate payroll?

Re Telecom Immunity:

House Democrats have been sticking their necks out on this issue and no one is giving them credit for this courage. I watched these hearings on CSPAN and I was so damned proud of the House dems, but then I was disappointed to find that no Dems on any of the blogs I'm familiar with spoke about this. Why?

From Magnolia's link:

Republican John McCain and Barack Obama both voted on amendments to the measure; Obama opposed telecom immunity, while McCain supported it. Clinton left town early to get to a campaign stop in Texas.

Although he voted to sustain a filibuster on the FISA update, Obama left Washington for a campaign stop in Wisconisn without voting on the final bill.

It is up to the House to decide whether to let telecoms off the hook in about 40 civil lawsuits alleging their participation in President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. A temporary extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act expires at midnight Saturday, and the House on Wednesday failed to extend that deadline.

One more Clinton link (hey, Charles wanted to Vet obama, so let's vet clinton too).

Rezko co-defendants and who they gave contributions to

How would these people make a living? Go on corporate payroll?

It's amazing to me that I automatically assumed that everyone who runs for president is independantly wealthy that they didn't need a job. blink

One again Magnolia, you have provided some excellent research. I doubt that you'll get any credit for it though. You'll no doubt be put into the box of being a member of the cult notwithstanding that you always provide a link to back up what you say and notwithstanding the fact that you always present a cogent argument which is always ignored.

Obama needs to join Hillary in the gutter

Too often, good guys finish last.

Granted, it's merely a coincidence that the Rezko story ripened days before the big Texas and Ohio primaries. But Obama was practically skewered by the press on questions related to Rezko. Meanwhile, Clinton's stonewalling on the release of her tax returns, and the Clintons' friendship with people who ended up in legal trouble weren't mentioned.

Yes.. Hillary Clinton supporters were bitching about the media being biased towards Obama, and her meme worked quite well. In the lead-up to the Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont campaigns, the media became very critical towards Obama and began to kiss Hillary's ass. The media is so damned fickle.

It's time for a little, "Shame on you Hillary Rodham Clinton!"

For some voters who were still on the fence, the repeated sound bites on the NAFTA gaffe were enough to push them into the Hillary camp.

Obama is going to abandon his "feel good" campaign. He has too. Clinton is playing dirty and negative campaigns work. Expect the upcoming weeks to expose all of the mud on both of their faces. They would have to contend with this mud in a general election, so perpaps this is probably a good thing. I just hope that Bomb-Iran-McCain is defeated.

And, Magnolia, as you have pointed out, politics is dirty. It's filthy. Both Hillary and Barack and John have mud on their face as concerns being influenced by corporations. Of course. Why do any of us support either Hillary or Barack? They are basically twins.

Clintons got money from Rezko co-defendants by margieburns on Sat 02 Feb 2008 01:26 PM EST | Permanent Link

Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago’s “Operation Board Games.”

Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.

One of the arguments against campaign finance reform is that it would be a violation of the First Amendment. Despite the fact that this seems to run counter to what was intended by the First amendment, this is a compelling argument. So, it seems to me that the way to reduce corporate influence in electoral politics is to reduce the power of corporations. One way to do this is to bring back the corporate charter. Prior to the Civil War, corporations were granted charters by the government, and the charter could be revoked at any time if the government discerned that the terms of the charter had been violated. In a specious 1886 Supreme Court ruling, the Fourteenth Amendment (originally adopted to protect freed slaves) was invoked to grant corporations "personhood," which in turn rendered the corporate charter unconstitutional. Overturning this ruling would be a good first step, but since nearly everyone in the political establishment is beholden to corporations, this doesn't seem like a realistic option. Here's an interesting page on the incident: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

He has too.

How embarrassing... That should have been "he has to"..

And to some posters here, please learn the difference between "then" and "than"... please!

Prior to the Civil War, corporations were granted charters by the government

Yeah, well, prior to the Civil War neither women nor blacks had the right to vote and American Indians were forced to accept Christianity. I find it a bit tiresome to always return to the early days when the U.S. had nothing at all to brag about in terms of being democratic.

I am so sick and tired of Americans always looking backwards towards how wonderful our country was and how we represent the new and advanced way of thinking. We should be thinking in terms of enlightenment on a global scale instead of always returning to the "old days" when the United States had slaves and women couldn't vote, and when Europeans had kings. I should hope that we have all progressed way beyond those ideas by now.

In a specious 1886 Supreme Court ruling, the Fourteenth Amendment (originally adopted to protect freed slaves) was invoked to grant corporations "personhood,"

This absolutely should be overturned. I don't know why it isn't mentioned more. A corporation is not a person and should NOT be taxed (counterintuitive I know, but better economists than me have gone into depth on this, which I won't do here. Supercapitalism is a good place to start, also, "The Corporation" the movie is an interesting study of corporations, as a person)

One again Magnolia, you have provided some excellent research. I doubt that you'll get any credit for it though.

Thanks Joann, just trying to keep up with your quality of posts.

What's amazing to me is every bit of mud that hillary is tossing seems to be because she's in the mud to throw it, so to speak. Her condemnations of Obama over his policies and ethics always seems to find a way back and tie themselves to her too. The only way this might hurt Obama is because he's focused on being not an "insider politician" and so any of this mud turns him into one, while clinton (who people expect to be THE insider politician) comes out looking spotless.

Joann,

I don't see how you could infer from my remarks that I am in favor of slavery or a lack of women's suffrage. I even comment on how the Fourteenth Amendment was ORIGINALLY ADOPTED TO PROTECT FREED SLAVES, and how that honorable intention was misused to increase corporate power. I am so sick and tired of Americans always looking backwards towards how wonderful our country was and how we represent the new and advanced way of thinking. Well, I am sick and tired of the way you cherry pick portions of other people's comments simply because you are spoiling for a fight. Indeed, it often keeps me from commenting here. If you want to fight so badly, why don't you visit Powerline or something. Here's the link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/

"How do I remind you that one of the many things that the Founding Fathers railed against were corporations?"

Quote some of the passages you're thinking about. The modern corporation really didn't exist in 1800.

I acutally like the single six year term for presidents. It probably won't reduce corporate influence, but it will stop this perverse system where the first four years are about getting reelected and the second four years are all about having no new policies and trying to break the law.

The "more parties" solution isn't as good. Having more pro-labor parties would be great, but it seems to assume a can opener. You need people to support the parties if you're going to have viable, influential parties. The first past the post system, the electoral college, etc., may prevent us from having a socialist party represented in Congress, but they're probably not preventing us from having less corporate friendly poliices. Adding more voices does not mean that only left voices will be added. There are conservative groups as well--Christian conservative, anti-immigrant, etc.--who would love to have some more say than they currently have.

In fact it's probably our consensual institutions--the Senate filibuster is a big one--and not our majoritarian institutions (electoral college, first past the post voting), which is preventing more left wing reforms. That's because a majority of people favor these policies. So the solution would be to empower the majority, not left-wing (and right-wing) mniorities.

Assuming a can opener:

http://www.callipygia600.com/callnugget/alljokes/econmist.htm

Quote some of the passages you're thinking about. The modern corporation really didn't exist in 1800.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson, 1812 Source:Liberty Quotes

I'm sorry, I just can't help myself:

Here's an interesting PR firm who defends many corporations:

Burson-Marsteller

Just for a clip of the kind of work B-M does, they worked for rBGH manufacturer Monsanto.

In the 1980s recombinant bovine growth hormone or bovine somatatrophin (rBGH/BST) was Monsanto’s flagship biotechnology product. A genetically engineered substitute for the cows’ growth hormone, rBGH was developed to increase the milk yield of dairy cows, a market that Monsanto’s CEO R.J. Mahoney estimated in 1985 to be worth $1bn a year. It was also one of the first biotech products to be readied for the market and as such the whole biotech industry had an interest. The only problems were gaining approval for its commercial use and some unfavourable scientific opinions of the artificial hormone. Monsanto’s own tests showed an increased risk of mastitis in rBGH treated cattle, that the milk went off quicker and that it contained higher levels of pus. FDA scientist, Dr Richard Burroughs concluded from analysing test data that Monsanto was manipulating the figures. In 1989 he was sacked after complaining to Congress that his superiors were suppressing his accusations.

You don't have to be bill Maher to know why rBGH is a bad thing to have in your milk. Monsanto is one of the major reasons why a bill in PA died which would label milk that had rBGH in it.

Who do you think is the CEO of such a heineous PR firm, ah, there it is. Mark Penn (and I don't think I have to tell you whose campaign he's working for. Google him if you don't know.)

she's back! and she's pissed off! oh, happy day.

Joann,

I don't see how you could infer from my remarks that I am in favor of slavery or a lack of women's suffrage

I did not infer that from your remarks. Go back and read more carefully what I did, in fact, say.

Dende Blogger said:

So the solution would be to empower the majority, not left-wing (and right-wing) mniorities.

For the most part, I agree with what you said. However, don't we have the Supreme Court in order to prevent the majority from abusing the minority?

Magnolia said:

Her condemnations of Obama over his policies and ethics always seems to find a way back and tie themselves to her too

His condemnations also find their way back also. Politics is dirty business.

she's back! and she's pissed off! oh, happy day.

LOL jonathan! And oh happy day to find you here! ;)

Yeah, well, prior to the Civil War neither women nor blacks had the right to vote and American Indians were forced to accept Christianity. I find it a bit tiresome to always return to the early days when the U.S. had nothing at all to brag about in terms of being democratic.

Here it is, Joann. Seems like that was your inference.

Big Daddy,

I wasn't inferring that you, Big Daddy, were in favor of slavery or the subjugation of women.. of course no.

I was only suggesting that that the U.S. was not all that democratic in the beginning. Do you disagree with this?

I was only suggesting that that the U.S. was not all that democratic in the beginning. Do you disagree with this?

It's a mixed bag. Women, blacks, indians & poor folks all got the short end of the stick back in the "good ol' days," but corporations had less power, and those who could vote wielded more power than today's voters. Newspapers were more plentiful & represented a broader spectrum of ideas; it was easier for the average joe to go into business for himself or run for office; and things like "In God We Trust" weren't branded all over everything. It could be (and has been) argued that the Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights would never be ratified in today's political climate. That seems to tip the scales toward less democracy.

At any rate, that's not what this discussion is about. Charles' post was about the increased influence of corporations in the electoral process, not whether we are more or less democratic now than we were in the past. My pre-Civil War comment was based solely on this aspect and not the entire universe of democratic rights. I was merely attempting to pinpoint precisely when & why corporations gained so much power in the political process and what might be done to remedy the problem. Obviously, there was much wrong with the country back then; presumably, a century from now we will look back on present times more or less the way we now look back on pre-Civil War days, unless of course we nuke ourselves or disintegrate into fascism or get slammed by a comet or some such thing.

are there any links that provide a balanced view of just which candidates have what financial interests in which corporations?

I can't do all the work for you. You can leverage the links that others are kindly providing. They are ALL tied. It is just a different client list, though many corporations also hedge their bets.

If you believe that link in the chain needs to be broken, then Nader should enter your list of possibilities. There are of course good reasons not to cast your vote for Nader, but the above is an argument for Nader.

There is a reason why I bring up so many Latin American examples. The reason is that between 1973 and 2000, the continent to varying degrees was subjected to bizarre economic experiments by Milton Freidman and his University of Chicago boys. They wrecked the continent. By 2000, some countries were worse off that they had been in 1960.

It is no accident that this led to the rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Desperate times lead to desperate men.

Yet the rest of continent has managed to become a more reasoned social laboratory. In Argentina, for example, when plants shut down, the workers took them over made them a worker's cooperatives. My last visit to Buenos Aires back in November, I stayed in a worker-owned hotel.

Latin America can be viewed as a cutting edge social experimenter. They have to try something new because Friedmanism was a disaster.

If you want to read more about the effects of Friedmanism in Latin America and in the United States, one good book is Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

One of the arguments against campaign finance reform is that it would be a violation of the First Amendment.

I intend to tackle this in a future post. No corporations do NOT have First Amendments. Certainly the Founding Fathers did not grant them those rights. The Supreme Court granted corporations free speech rights and have been increasing them over the years. To be brief, the case of Union Pacific v. The County of Santa Clara in 1873 set us down that path. See why I say we are fighting battles we fought in the 1870s. "Useless" Grant sold out the country to the big trusts. We also got it back during the period 1932-1968, but since then it has been one continuous assault upon us.

Charles Lemos

How would these people make a living? Go on corporate payroll?

I hate to break it to you but they are all millionaires. Now how did a community organizer who has never worked for major corporate firm and then has spent the last 12 years working in the Illinois State Legislature and the US Senate become a millionaire?

Look into that question, and you will find another reason not to vote for Barack Obama.

One way to do this is to bring back the corporate charter.

Oh BigDaddyMalcontent. I LOVE YOU! You win the prize. You get it. Thank you.

BigDaddy is paying attention. He is right. He is my new best friend.

Seriously, thank you. Your comment is simply brilliant. Everyone should read that comment.

Charles

Now how did a community organizer who has never worked for major corporate firm and then has spent the last 12 years working in the Illinois State Legislature and the US Senate become a millionaire?

He was not a Millionaire until he became a US Senator. How did he do it? He wrote a book and capitalized on his new fame.

Sen.Barack Obama(D-Ill.)

Net worth: $1-$2.5 million*

Details: In January 2005, Obama agreed to a $1.9 million advance from Random House for two non-ficton books and a children's book, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400305_pf.html

Another baseless accusation from Charles Lemos

I find it a bit tiresome to always return to the early days when the U.S. had nothing at all to brag about in terms of being democratic.

JoAnn you know I love you but here you are wrong. It is precisely because we have deviated from the approach to government and civil society that the Founding Fathers advocated that we find ourselves in this mess.

BigDaddyMalcontent (what a great screen name) is absolutely right. Right his comment again.

Carlo il radicale con senso sensible

Thanks, Charles.

JoAnn you know I love you but here you are wrong. It is precisely because we have deviated from the approach to government and civil society that the Founding Fathers advocated that we find ourselves in this mess

Ye who loves me so much:

If the founding fathers were so wonderful, then why were blacks enslaved and women not allowed the right to vote? Why did "we"have to end up years later passing anti-trust legislation?

are there any links that provide a balanced view of just which candidates have what financial interests in which corporations?

Charles said

I can't do all the work for you

Oh, come on now. That's a cop out. If you claim something, you should provide proof. Saying that you can't do all the work is just lame.

If the founding fathers were so wonderful, then why were blacks enslaved and women not allowed the right to vote? Why did "we"have to end up years later passing anti-trust legislation?

The truth in this arguement is right in the middle.

The founding fathers developed a system of govt that was ahead of the times but lacking in a number of ways, but they were smart enough to create a system that could be made more free, but would have to violate its core principles to become less free.

Unfortunately corporate freedom worked its way into the system.

The point is that the so-called founding fathers of the U.S. weren't all that enlightened. To argue a point, it is best to use philosophical arguments and not just point to the "founding fathers".

If the founding fathers were so wonderful, then why were blacks enslaved and women not allowed the right to vote? Why did "we"have to end up years later passing anti-trust legislation?

Because like all humans they inherited their predecessors' bad decisions, misconceptions & superstitions. You seem to think anything short of perfection is unacceptable. Under the circumstances, Jefferson et al. did a marvelous job. It's true that by our standards there were startling shortcomings among the Framers, but by their standards they were astonishingly advanced. You can't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Anyway, all of Europe has managed to be enlightened without the benefit of the "founding fathers".

It's true that by our standards there were startling shortcomings among the Framers, but by their standards they were astonishingly advanced. You can't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, they had some good ideas. The point I'm attempting to make, to no avail, is that just because the "founding fathers" of the U.S. claimed something was good, doesn't make it so. You should use philosphical arguments to backup what you say other than just saying that the "founding fathers" of the U.S. said so, as if other countries don't also have some good ideas, if not even better ideas!

Jefferson's distrust of religion and aristocracy are some of the founding principles. I would actually say that was pretty enlightened. The bill of rights too.

England has a state church and no first amendment. They could still use a few folks like Jefferson.

All of Europe is enlightened? Didn't Theo Van Gogh get assassinated? Aren't Basque separatists blowing shit up? What about Northern Ireland? Chechnya? French riots? The EU can't agree on a constitution; Turkey is dangerously close to Islamic dictatorship; grinding poverty in Greece & Italy; just the other day, Serb extremists set fire to the American embassy. Is this the enlightenment you're talking about?

Will you two stop?

who throws Turkey in the face of a pro European culture comment?

All of Europe is enlightened

Sign...

Okay, so I should have qualified that statement. The point is that the U.S. is no more enlightened than most of Europe is and Europeans have developed without the benefit of the "founding fathers".

Hell, Europeans no longer have the death penalty, whereas the U.S. does. We can go back and forth as to whether Europe or the U.S. is more or less enlightened.

Get it? ...

"How do I remind you that one of the many things that the Founding Fathers railed against were corporations?"

Quote some of the passages you're thinking about. The modern corporation really didn't exist in 1800.

Dende: the best thing would be to read either The Federalist Papers or deTocqueville's Democracy in America if you want a period perspective. If you prefer a modern historian then read "Unequal Protection" by Thomm Hartman.

Here is a book review: http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/unequal_protection.htm

If you do decide to purchase books, please support OGM by buying through the Amazon link.

BigDaddyMalcontent, you made my day. Thank you.

Carlo il radicale con senso sensible

So, it seems to me that the way to reduce corporate influence in electoral politics is to reduce the power of corporations. One way to do this is to bring back the corporate charter. Prior to the Civil War, corporations were granted charters by the government, and the charter could be revoked at any time if the government discerned that the terms of the charter had been violated.

So you buy a fire insurance policy from Smiley Ltd. but when it's time to collect you discover that selling insurance wasn't in the corporate charter. You read the fine print of the contract, but you neglected to review the corporate charter filed in its Delaware office. Your insurance contract is a nullity, and the corporation is dissolved. The CEO doesn't have enough money to pay out the claims of all the other people in the same situation as you, or maybe he's moved to Bermuda. Good luck suing the former shareholders.

Before getting too enthusiastic about this idea I suggest you research why the corporate charter requirements were abandoned in the first place.

when Europeans had kings.

Oh JoAnn, I actually believe in monarchy. I have a Spanish passport. I love my King. Monarchy can work. It can also fail. I am proposing one for Afghanistan. I think it can work there. It works in Bhutan though it failed in Nepal. The most enlightened countries are largely monarchies: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Spain.

I think it important to examine the period called the Enlightenment. JoAnn, I would be happy to recommend any number of books. Start with this one. Thomas Paine and the Promise of America by Harvey Kaye. Easy to read, touches on the issues. Some Founding Fathers wanted to end slavery and for women to vote. They were just prevented from doing so by the South Carolina contingent. Ever see the musical 1776? Based on a true story.

Love you as always,

Charles

Another baseless accusation from Charles Lemos.

Look at his wife, Michelle. She wears the purse in the Obama bank account. She is a corporate lawyer, Norm would use a word beginning with a-, for Sidney-Austen LLP. Over a billion dollars in revenues. Sixth largest in the world.

Black is the New Big Blue. Her husbands rails against NAFTA, she spends her time figuring out how to ship your job to China. Read up on Michelle Obama. Look up Sidney-Austen LLP or TreeHouse International.

She may be pretty, but her ethics stink.

Monarchy can work. It can also fail. I am proposing one for Afghanistan.

Is this an episode of the twilight zone? Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you are a Hobbesian.

Was in not Thomas Paine that wrote, "Give me tyranny, or give me death."

Europeans have developed without the benefit of the "founding fathers".

Once again, Joann, you are cherry picking one tiny portion of the discussion for...for what I don't know exactly. Just to argue I guess. The point of Charles' post is that corporations wield too much power and that that power has been disastrous for democracy, just as Jefferson et al. predicted. Do you agree with that thesis or not? Sure, Jefferson kept slaves and it took 150 years for women to get the right to vote. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, but that doesn't render his pioneering work in physics worthless. I just don't get what your beef is.

Look up Sidney-Austen LLP or TreeHouse International.

Sidney-Austen LLP: She worked there straight out of Law school, but left at some point to join the mayors staff.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc.: A food supplier that she was paid 60K a year to be on the board of. It supplied walmart as a customer so she resigned in 2007.

No sign that either of these made anybody millions. Everybody with a big expensive law degree works at a corporate law firm for a few years to pay off debt, then the good ones leave and purse their real interests.

As for the Board of Treehouse. I am sure it isn't wonderful but it certainly is a step away from being on the actual board of Walmart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama#_note-womanbehind

So not a baseless accusation, but an enormous stretching of the truth.

Tell me Charles,you seem to be into conspiracy theories ,who do you think planned 9-11?

The point is that the U.S. is no more enlightened than most of Europe is and Europeans have developed without the benefit of the "founding fathers".

I sympathize with the main point you're making, Joann: that ancestor worship does not prove anything and is pretty thoughtless besides. But officially, Europe is not a good comparison: The U.S. went through slavery (slavery was banned much later here than in, say, France), and a longer civil rights struggle; Europe when through a serious of violent internal wars that killed millions, a genocide, totalitarian rule, and much else. Also: This argument doesn't have any force unless it presupposes that the U.S. had no influence on them. But Jefferson, Paine (officially British but granted honorary American citizenship and a residence in NY), and others were influential, both directly and as models, offering advice on democratic procedures and legislation the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. And, more generally, America really did serve as a model for democracy in other countries, and in the case of the Marshall Plan, instituted it directly itself.

As an aside: Women have pretty much always gotten screwed in most democracies--although please don't turn that into a reason to vote for HRC--earning voting rights in most Western countries only in the 20th C: Australia (1902), U.S. (1920), Great Britain (1928), France (1944)

BigDaddy said:

One of the arguments against campaign finance reform is that it would be a violation of the First Amendment. Despite the fact that this seems to run counter to what was intended by the First amendment, this is a compelling argument.

I sympathize entirely with your raising this issue, and somewhat with your corporations and "personhood" point. But I think the far-right wing "argument" you cite as worrisome yet "compelling" is actually not sound. A central normative presupposition of free speech is that my right to speak my mind does not interfere in the least with your right to do so. What it is in part supposed to protect is the entitlement (but not an obligation) of any citizen to the process of democratic decision making in the form "free", that is uncoerced, communication. (The same is true of democratic participation, which is further protected under the 1st amendment by the "assemblies" clause). But that normative standard is but exactly what gets violated if corporate funding manipulates and dominates democratic elections, because in a very real sense, if money is treated as "speech," and it controls the political process, then in a very real sense, corporations donating millions of dollars to manipulate elections really does prevent other people from exercising their right to (genuine rather than merely illusory) political participation and speech (in the form of a vote which gives "voice" to their political preferences).

Charles asked:

Now how did a community organizer who has never worked for major corporate firm and then has spent the last 12 years working in the Illinois State Legislature and the US Senate become a millionaire? Look into that question, and you will find another reason not to vote for Barack Obama.

As you've already pointed out, Charles, his wife did work for a large corporate law firm. Perhaps that is in part what you were intended to insinuate. As I've already pointed out, even if his wife were the most malicious person in the world--I actually think the opposite is true, but just suppose for a moment--it would not follow, in the least, that Obama is any better or any worse a candidate for president. It's guilt by association reasoning.

The immediate problem is not "rich" people: it is the coercive role some--not all--of them play--in what is supposed to be a democratic process.

A question: What practical measures would need to be taken to reign in or eliminate the influence of corporate money on democratic elections?

Obviously, the public funding of elections, would be one way. Perhaps there are others.

But any proposal we adopt, it seems to me an absolutely necessary first step in that direction is what precisely gets obstructed by corporate influence: government transparency and accountability.

Obama has worked on a lot of legislation in favor of this, although I'm sure it will all somehow be made out to make him look like a far-right-wing Republican, who is not worthy of our trust under any circumstances.

Adam:

I wasn't saying I agree with the first amendment rationale for our campaign finance methods, just that that is the argument made by people who oppose campaign finance reform. Hillary Clinton made this assertion on Letterman not long ago. Here it is at about the 6:40 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omRVdSq5E_k

The Supreme Court has ruled that political contributions are a form of free speech protected under the Constitution. Again, I don't necesarily agree with this position, but it is a compelling argument.

Since few seem to actually look at links, I'll reprint the review of Thomm Hartman's book, "Unequal Protection."

After independence, corporations received their charters from states and the charters were for a limited period, like 20 or 30 years, not in perpetuity. They were only allowed to deal in one commodity, they could not hold stock in other corporations, their property holdings were limited to what was necessary for their business, their headquarters had to be located in the state of their principle business, monopolies had their charges regulated by the state, and all corporate documents were open to the legislature. Any political contribution by a corporation was treated as a criminal offence. Corporations could, and often did, have their charters removed if the state considered that their activities harmed its people.

Railroad companies, opening up the interior, became the first monopoly corporations. They had traditionally been referred to as 'artificial persons' and when the Fourteenth Amendment gave all 'persons' equality before the law they desperately tried to claim that it applied not just to slaves but to them as well. They eventually succeeded with the Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case.

Hartmann tried to find why this particular case had suddenly reversed eighteen years of consistent ruling by the Supreme Court that corporations did not have the rights of human persons. He found that textbooks only quoted the headnote not any details. He eventually unearthed the original records in Vermont only to find that the judge had specifically stated that the case did not relate to corporate personhood. The headnote had been written a year later by a person whose life had been with the railroads, but by then the judge was too ill to check it. This mistaken or fraudulent headnote is still used in court as a cornerstone of corporate law. It set the road to corporate tyranny.

Hartmann believes that reversing the Santa Clara case would be the first step to subjecting corporations once again to the control of the people. The federal government, each state, each township, could then regulate corporations to the benefit of its citizens and help local economies to flourish. Indeed, in California local governments have already passed laws that deny corporations the status of persons while in Pennsylvania some townships have forbidden corporations from owning or controlling farms in their communities. Hartmann ends the book with model ordinances to rescind corporate personhood.

Perhaps not lost is this sentence: It set the road to corporate tyranny.

That's what we have. Corporate tyranny.

Charles

BigDaddy: Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification. I think you were after a basic assumption--that corporations are "people"--that legally enables them to be regarded as having a right to free speech.

I just meant to emphasize--and I'm aware of absurd majority opinion Roberts' wrote on McCain-Feingold--that corporations can still be acknowledge as legal persons in the vague sense--and so still subject to law suits and much else--while still rejecting the argument that this entitles them to putative "free speech" in the form of huge monitary contributions to legislators and political candidates.

"Dende: the best thing would be to read either The Federalist Papers or deTocqueville's Democracy in America if you want a period perspective. If you prefer a modern historian then read Unequal Protection by Thomm Hartman."

I'm an American professor of political theory who teaches the Federalist Papers and Democracy in America all the time. I have no idea what you are talking about. Hamilton and Madison don't mention corporations, in any of their Federalist essays that I've read (again, do you have any specific quotes or references?). Very frequently, however, they favor the U.S. becoming a "commercial republic" (especially Hamilton). And since Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, I'm not sure how that's a reference to the Founders' criticisms of corporations.

Hamilton was unabashedly pro-banking, -commerical, and -industrial interests. Jefferson was the opposite. Madison was somewhere in the middle. Where there were criticisms of capitalism and commercialism, the point wasn't corporate influence but the moral and political effects of urban, commercial society.

Dende:

I posted this above but maybe you didn't see it:

Quote some of the passages you're thinking about. The modern corporation really didn't exist in 1800.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson, 1812 Source:Liberty Quotes

Dende:

Also, I think what Charles was getting at is that you can infer from the Federalist papers that fear of corporate power was present even if it wasn't mentioned by name. Here is an interesting paper touching on the topic:

http://www.pamij.com/99_4_1_dunn.html

Sorry, bad link. Here it is

BDM, I think I get it, vaguely. At any rate Hamilton wasn't on board.

And thanks for the Jefferson quote. Jefferson is cited as an advocate of "small government" which is very true. But he is definitely a figure of the left, no doubt about it. The author of the Declaration was a leftist. It was only after decades of the central government helping the rich, then starting to help other people, that the right became "small government" conservatives.

Europeans have developed without the benefit of the "founding fathers".

Not true. Who then were John Locke, Adam Smith, Jean-Jacques Rosseau, Emile Voltaire, the religious dissenters, Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, Diderot, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Emma Goldman and my own ancestor, Jean Matheron?

Their work took Europe away from absolute monarchy and put Europe on a path towards a social democracy with health care for all, for education for all, for a sensible way of life. Europe has its problems but in terms of social welfare they are light years ahead of us. And their CEOs don't earn 450:1 the average worker pay.

And Adam, I am glad you and I are having this debate. I value your opinion. You are a worthy opponent. I hope others benefit from it.

Charles

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you are a Hobbesian.

Was in not Thomas Paine that wrote, "Give me tyranny, or give me death."

I am not a Hobbesian. Bush is a Hobbesian. I rail against Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was for absolutism. This is not about Afghanistan which had a monarchy until 1975. Monarchy can hold nation-states together. Spain and Belgium are a case in point. It would take too much effort right to go into the reasons why, await a future post, I guess.

Red, you need to go back to and look at your American history. That quote is from Patrick Henry, not Thomas Paine.

Charles

How did this turn into a debate of American influence in Europe?

I thought this was about Corporate influence.

"Give me tyranny, or give me death."

Patrick Henry said liberty not tyranny but I am guessing that was just a typo. Meant to correct that in my last comment.

Norm and I are in heaven (so to speak, perhaps nirvana is a better term) with these comments. We are besides ourselves with glee and satisfaction with the comments. Thank you one and all.

Charles

I find it a bit tiresome to always return to the early days when the U.S. had nothing at all to brag about in terms of being democratic.

JoAnn, some of us argue that the US has little to brag about it now. More back then than now actually, I hope to convince you sooner or later.

Ye who does love you,

Charles

PS. did I get my thans and thens right? :-)

Tell me Charles,you seem to be into conspiracy theories ,who do you think planned 9-11?

You're kidding right? No I do NOT believe that the Bush Administration planned 9-11. Were they inept? Yes. Did they miss the warning signs? Yes. That does not mean they allowed it to proceed. They were as dumbstruck as you and I.

Conspiracy theory? The role of corporations in public life is hardly a conspiracy theory. We are having a very good debate about it now. I am pointing to historical facts, to a Supreme Court case. So are others.

Charles

Meh, I'm not convinced. Lemos makes a lot of accusations and many of them seem to be disprove with minimal research (See Redseven's response). Naturally, by the time anyone bothers to realize this, Lemos has posted his latest attack piece and the attention is diverted. And it just goes on..

..this is getting tiring....

You've all seen "The Corporation," and "The Take"?...Just throwing it out there.

Charles, did you support John Edwards?

Do you deny that John Edwards clearly thought of Hillary as the corporate candidate?

So do you think John Edwards is less intelligent than you, or do you have second thoughts on your views about the "corporate candidate"?

Senator Obama wrote two best-selling books. Maybe he became a millionaire as an author, Charles.

You're kidding right?

yes

Just remarking in seeing what you see in the facts, rather then what is actually there.

Haven't you worked in corporate America longer then Michele Obama?

want to

Red, you need to go back to and look at your American history. That quote is from Patrick Henry, not Thomas Paine.

I am ok on the history Charles, I was just pointing out the irony of calling for a monarchy and making reference to Thomas Paine in the same comment.

I think Thomas was to big a fan of Liberty be comfortable with that.

I totally agree that one of the biggest issues is the power of money to influence government and political parties and candidates. Even if they are not really corrupt they then become so. It is amazing we allow what we allow to happen. We need to stop the power of lobbyists and totally reform the candidate financing systems. I like the STV (single transferable vote system) and it is being proposed in my province (canada). I do not think the STV or other systems will make any difference in the influence of money on politics however, i personally think there should be total spending limits, and enforced legally. THe situation in the US is totally crazy, the money spent totally crazy.

Now i am still annoyed at CL, makes a great post, and then goes on about Obama's wife again, re-quoting Black is the next Big Blue, once again without any data to support any of it, not any data. So his wife worked for a law firm, what is wrong with that, you worked on wall streeet, mightly ethical place that is. She currently works for a hospital does she not?

The Clintons won't release their tax forms, they are much more linked to various financial scandals that i don't want to list as we all know them. (whitewater was Hillary's scandal) Hillary can work for a big law firm, Edwards can work for a big law firm, but no not Obama, why??

FInally Charles, you say you were on wall street, you therefore should know something about investing. Therefor you would know that the Obama's having between one million and 2 million of assests in nothing spectacular for a 2 professional couple where both are working in their age group. Nothing unusual at all, if you were sensible with your money, bought a house, and invested sensibly. On top of it he wrote a best selling book.

JoAnn, when you make the claim for europes' "enlightenment" you're only talking about the relationship between government and corporations, right? because otherwise i might have a bone to pick with you. europes' current (and shaky) state of "enlightenment", in my view, has to do mostly with ww1 and ww2- in other words, they were dragged there, kicking and screaming. at heart they are still the racists and xenophobes they always were. governmental liberalism is just a cover for most of them. (gross generalazation 101)

i don't have much else to say at this thread, because i mostly agree with charles on this one.

For those interested in the issue of corporate reform, there's a site called Citizen Works:

http://www.citizenworks.org/admin/press/corpreforms.php

The suggestions are comprehensive and revoking corporate charters is included among them.

The people behind Citizen Works shouldn't surprise anyone. (That's not an endorsement. I'm not voting.)

The Clintons won't release their tax forms, they are much more linked to various financial scandals that i don't want to list as we all know them. (whitewater was Hillary's scandal) Hillary can work for a big law firm, Edwards can work for a big law firm, but no not Obama, why??

Whitewater? What did Ken Starr find? Zip.

The Rose Law firm is based in Little Rock. Sidney-Austen LLP is the sixth largest in the world and it is a corporate law firm specializing in international trade issues. Edwards worked for a law firm that sued corporations for malpractice, defective products etc. He fought corporations, not did their dirty work. I think, and I know you disagree, that everything about Obama is a facade. His religion, his politics, his stance on NAFTA. David Alexrod is a message guy, an advertising guru. He is selling Obama on personality. Google NYT David Alexrod and April 2007. Read that article. The link is too long and would get cut off.

I do think that ALL of the candidates are tainted, I grant you that. It is a problem. Clinton's ties to corporate money worry me too.

"Clinton's ties to corporate money worry me too."

It should do more than just worry you Charles, it should disqualify her as a nominee for President! She has received more donations(just from the Military Industry ALONE) than ALL of the other Candidates combined.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embracesn68927.html

Bombs have to be used in order to sell them, that is why the Military Industry puts so much thought into who they put their money behind. If you don't see this as being more than just a small concern then you have all ready drank the kool aid. You can't expect her to do the bidding of the people who voted her into office while her path to the White House was literally pathed by money from huge corporate interests. For me it is not just a concern, but a disqualification for President, and I will be voting for Nader out of protest this Fall if she happens to get the Democratic Nod.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embracesn68927.html

sorry, the link didn't work...let me try this again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embracesn68927.html

Third times a charm? :S

eh, I can't figure it out...it seems to be deleting some of the dashes needed to successfully link to the web-site when I go to post it on here...very strange.

bob,

Norm posted a tip about this a while back. If you surround the URL with < and > it will be okay.

The problem occurs when there are underscores in the URL. This site supports Markdown, which is a syntax for allowing certain punctuation marks to be shortcuts for HTML. In particular, underscores, even in the middle of a word, are translated into the HTML for italics (or, more accurately, the HTML for emphasis).

Here's your link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html

Ok, thanks aglee!

I'm going to bring up three developments that are loosely tied to this thread.

<Southwest AirlinesThe fact that they flew unsafe planes points to an all too cozy relationship between corporations and the regulatory agencies that govern (or should govern) them. Clearly the FAA failed you and me. I don't know to whom Southwest has contributed money but I would not be surprised if the GOP received the lion share of Southwest's contributions. The chain must be broken.

<Ron Paul I don't agree with the man very often but I appreciate what he brought to this campaign especially on the nature of US foreign policy. In closing out his run for the Presidency today, he said this "political campaigns are short-term events, revolution is a long-term one." I think that quite fair. He and I disagree as to the nature of the revolution to come, but it must come.

<Campaign noise.Two events. Puerto Rico has changed its caucus to a primary and moved its date to June 1st. That should favour Clinton. The caucus system is wholly undemocratic. It disenfranchises voters who can not attend a specific time event to participate in the caucus. Working people especially those with children and the elderly or the disabled are victims of this process. The fact that Clinton won the Texas primary but lost the caucus should forever dispel the notion that the caucus system is fair. There is some cognitive dissonance here.

Lastly and more of an aside, Samantha Power resigned from the Obama campaign today after being quoted in a Scottish newspaper for calling Clinton "a monster." Those sort of comments are what left me rather perturbed with the Obama campaign. In Nevada, the Obama campaign called Mrs. Clinton a "sinverguenza." The literal translation is "shameless." In the Hispanic cultural context such a slur has rather overt sexual overtones. In fact, the Obama campaign called Mrs. Clinton "a fucking whore." Words do matter. I am not suggesting that Obama realized this fact, but it would be hard to believe that someone in his campaign did not. The misogynistic remarks have been so prevalent and they disgust me. It was those comments among others that led to my posts on Obama's language. This I hope provides you some context for my ire with Obama.

Charles

Charles, are you even living on the same planet as the rest of us?...and what happened to the notion that we should be including links to back up our claims? Who and when in the Obama campaign called Hillary "a fucking whore" and how does this connect to Obama? How about listing some claims with substance to back up this distaste for the man, so that we're doing more than just flinging mud on here. Not to mention that it might help to convince readers on this blog that your distaste for Obama is based on more than just an irrational bias. I can give you some more legitimate reasons to distrust Obama as a candidate if you need them...this however hardly qualifies.

Bob,

If you want to fully understand what Charles Lemos is saying, here is his full comment on this topic at Correntewire

It seems that the worst traits of senator Clinton seem to be projected onto Obama continuously in this campaign even when there are no facts to support them.

Who is Nixonian? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Plouffe_You_have_to_wonder_whether_shell_be_open_and_honest_with_the_American_people.html

I don't think Charles is unique in this regard, I just wonder who is briefing him on the Clinton strategy.

Facts, Facts, Facts http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/NATION/15653289/1001

Ah, yes, the Moonie Times.

bob, have you checked out opensecrets?

Some of Obama's major donors include: Goldman Sacs, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Co., Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Lockheed Martin, General Motors, Boeing, Walt Disney, Citigroup...etc.

Note that it isn't unusual for corporations to make donations to multiple candidates. There's also no reason to think that these corporations won't make their interests heard at some later point in time, simply because their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination. But all of this is obvious.

Damn, sorry.

That one is possible facts.

Samantha Powers made the remark off the record. It was unethical for them--whatever they want to pretend--to print it like that--and it was a loss for our country. She is a first-rate foreign policy expert and has several books under her belt on Africa.

The Clinton campaign is really good at the 'it's OK when we do it, just not when you do'. It is OK, for instance, for HRC to imply in her 60 minutes interview that Obama is a Muslim. It is OK for Clinton supporter Bob Johnson to introduce HRC at a campaign rally by making nasty insinuations about Obama's race and past drug use. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/07/742579.aspx It is OK for the Clinton campaign to call Canada, and tell them to take the NAFTA rhetoric with a grain of salt, but if Obama had a much milder conversation, not even remotely resembling that imputed suggestion, it causes furor.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/112830/8819/425/470456

It is OK for the press to give worshipful treatment to HRC the week before a very big primary contest, and pester Obama about the faux-Canada story and Rezko (in which case he was never implicated). It is not OK for them to pay attention to Obama.

It is OK for Clinton to make "red-phone" ads about a candidate who has more legislative experience than she, and no less real foreign policy experience (which is to say, almost none), and imply that he is weak and incompetant. If Obama even remotely suggested any such thing about her--regardless of whether it is actually true--it would be denounced as "sexist".

Some of Obama's major donors include: Goldman Sacs, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Co., Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Lockheed Martin, General Motors, Boeing, Walt Disney, Citigroup...etc.

Could you please provide a link for this? What I found is much different than what you listed.

Side by side not an enormous difference

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

One should note that all these numbers are the employees of said companies and likely the largest employers of high paid professionals will always top these lists. But some are high because they no doubt hosted a fund raiser.

Could you please provide a link for this? What I found is much different than what you listed.

JoAnn. I misstated. I should have specified according to which section of industries. In any case you're correct. The current top contributors for Obama are here, and the list for Clinton's is here.

The 'Top Contributor' list is small. If you want to check on 'individual' corporations. You have to do a search, select 'Donor Profile,' select 'All recipients' and restrict to the 2008 cycle.

So for example, as of Feb. 11th:

• GE Obama $109,850; Clinton $88,479
• Boeing Clinton $30,708; Obama $23,753
• Exxon Mobil Obama $15,150; Clinton $14,700
• Chevron Clinton $6,800; Obama $3,813
• BP Obama $9,196
• Boeing Clinton $30,708; Obama $23,753
• Disney Clinton $58,050; Obama $47,150
• Lockheed Martin Clinton $17,350; Obama $10,500

melpomenh,

Come now, you know better than to characterize your point in that way.

"Some of Obama's major donors include: Goldman Sacs, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Co., Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Lockheed Martin, General Motors, Boeing, Walt Disney, Citigroup...etc."

Those donors are INDIVIDUAL contributors, who also happen to work for the companies you listed.

Big difference.

"The caucus system is wholly undemocratic...The fact that Clinton won the Texas primary but lost the caucus should forever dispel the notion that the caucus system is fair."

What you're doing is called begging the question. In every election the process itself contributes to the outcome. If the Democrats had first past the post delegate allocation like the GOP, perhaps Hillary would be doing better. That doesn't mean that it's more democratic. The two systems are democratic in different ways.

HRC has suddenly morphed into a democratic theorist out to reform all institutions in the nominating process that happen to be hurting her chances electorally. So superdelgates--which clearly violate the standard principle of one person, one vote--are fine (she might need them to win!), but caucuses no.

A democratic general election is not quite the same as a democratic nominating process. One reason is that there are two goals in nominating, but only one in general elections. In nominating you want a representative of the party but also someone who can win. This is why Hillary has a chance to be the nominee but not Nancy Pelosi. You want someone who can get non-Democrats. The second thing is that intensity of preference is not at all undemocratic. In preference voting voters can give their positive or negative perferences different weights. So as much as Texas has been maligned by Hillary people, it seems to do quite a good job of allowing easy access to low-intensity preferences and the ability to register higher intensity preferences. Preference voting makes some sense in a general election, but even more in a nominating contest, because you want to have the most motivated and most organized people on board for the general election.

HRC has suddenly morphed into a democratic theorist out to reform all institutions in the nominating process that happen to be hurting her chances electorally. So superdelgates--which clearly violate the standard principle of one person, one vote--are fine (she might need them to win!), but caucuses no.

At long last, someone who finally points out the obvious, and found an amusing way to do so.

We also hear all sorts of whining about the voters who went the polls in MI and FL, and their "voices." I'd sure like to know about those whose voices won't be heard if the those delegates are seated, because their guy wasn't even on the ballot in MI, or who, in either state, having no particular affinity for symbolic and empty gestures, would have voted in a real primary but stayed home.

Agreed Brett. I made a mistake.

Thanks JoAnn, I knew I was missing something there...

So yeah, after reading what the "Obama called Hillary "a fucking whore"" comment was all about, it still doesn't add up to any reason to distrust the man. It was DUMB of him, don't get me wrong...but you know so was it DUMB of Hillary to in front of a black audience Accused the Republican Majority of Running the House of Representatives like it were "a Plantation"( http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2006/01/hillary_clintons_plantation.html ). Politicians say and do a lot of dumb things, it's called human nature, not villainous intent. You focus on the glitches and you miss the bigger, real problems that exist with these candidates.

Thank you melpomenh, but yeah I'm aware that Obama is no Angel when it comes to corporate campaign financing...there is a distinction though between Hillary and Obama however(which is the one of the only reason I am still considering Obama as a potential Candidate), and that is the fact that he acknowledges that Corporate Financing is a Huge Problem in Washington, Hillary does not. Now I realize that in the end Obama may not move to make a difference about it if he were elected as President, but Hillary most certainly will not, and that to me is part of what should completely remove her from consideration as President...

Now although I will not vote for Hillary for this reason and several others, Obama still has a LOT to prove to me in order to get my vote in the Fall(I am no "Obamabot" ;)). There admittedly are many reasons to distrust this man, and his lack of experience is merely one of them.

Well, Michelle Obama's ties do have deep pockets. I will say this via The Corporate Crime Reporter:

Well, let's take the law firm of Sidley & Austin. Sidley & Austin is a registered federal lobbyist. It cannot by law give money to federal candidates. But the lawyers who control the firm and profit from the firm's lobbying activities can give to Obama. Some of those individual lawyers are registered lobbyists. Some are not. Guess who gives to Obama? Right. The ones who are not registered lobbyists. But they still control and profit from the lobbying activities of the firm. So, technically, Obama is not taking money from federal lobbyists. But only in the narrowest sense.

Sidley Austin, Skadden, Arps, Jenner & Block, Kirkland & Ellis, and Wilmerhale are all registered lobbyists. Lawyers at these registered lobbying firms have given Obama's campaign $813,459 through February 1, 2008.

"Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists?" asks Pam Martens, writing in the current print edition of Counterpunch. ("The Obama Money Cartel," by Pam Martens, Counterpunch). "Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying."

I love this question: Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists?" asks Pam Martens

Nah, it is only his wife's former employer, Sidley-Austin LLP. How could they know? And who keeps in touch with their former employer and former co-workers? You know the ones working to send all those Ohio jobs to China while earning seven figures themselves.

Slurs in Spanish. Who knew? Did a campaign official of mine meet with the Canadians and tell them it's only political rhetoric? I didn't know. And another called Mrs. Clinton a "monster"? Well I don't approve of that.

Dishonest much Senator Obama? Hypocritical much Senator Obama?

When do you pull the plug on this charade?

Did a campaign official of mine meet with the Canadians and tell them it's only political rhetoric?

In fact, the Clinton campaign, not Obama's, was the one who did this:

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark. The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt." The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats. Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment.

And another called Mrs. Clinton a "monster"? Well I don't approve of that.

Ah, I see. And the race-baiting in Clinton's campaign is OK? And it is also OK for Clinton herself to suggest that there may be some merit to the charge that Obama is muslim?

Samantha Powers was a policy adviser, not a campaign spokesman, and the interview was to discuss her academic work and her in-depth campaigns against genocide, not explicitly the Obama campaign. The Scotsman reporting an off-the-record conversation was unethical; it also sets a precedent that interviewees should not be forthcoming with journalists, and so indirectly degrades the quality of the information with that will get reported, as is explained here:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/07/clinton-campaign-needs-to-get-over-itself.aspx

When do you pull the plug on this charade?

This is a fair question of Clinton as well. On the delegate math, she cannot possibly with the nomination, short of a major disaster in the Obama campaign. Being more focused on smear, fear-mongering on the basis of her non-existent foreign policy experience--other than a speech she gave in Ireland as first-lady, which is a strange appeal to make for someone who claims her opponent is only speeches--and talking about how we should talk about policy--rather than talking about actual policy--she is contribution to our national discourse not at all, except in negative terms.

doh! left off the link for the first quotation. See here;

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/EmailBNStory/National/home

Adam,

It is a waste of time attemting to convince Charles Lemos of anything as pertains to Obama. He hates Obama so much that he would prefer to have John McCain as a president. He even said

I do disagree with the assertion that a McCain victory will lead to expanded warfare. McCain is certainly an advocate of doing what he thinks is necessary in Iraq but I also would have to think that he would realize how expensive and over-stretched the military is.

I give up in discussing this issue with him. It is a complete waste of time. He also said that "Americans act more like sheep than any other people on Earth with the exception of North Koreans". I get the clear impression that he has such absolute disdain for anyone that is an Obama supporter that attemting to discuss this issue with him is pointless.

I now find it amusing that Krugman says, "I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody."

Well, every person posting here, including myself, who supports Obama has said that we will vote for Hillary Clinton if she ends up being the candidate. It is clear to me that Clinton supporters have a lot of venom too, if not more.

"Well, every person posting here, including myself, who supports Obama has said that we will vote for Hillary Clinton if she ends up being the candidate."

Yeah, I might be the one exception to that rule...however my Obama support is very thin, because although I trust him more than Hillary, it is only because he hasn't been around long enough to prove that he is untrust-worthy, or corrupt. I just don't find Hillary to be all that different from John McCain...maybe that is why Charles doesn't cringe at the sound of a John McCain Presidency.

When John McCain becomes the next president of the U.S. and when the headlines read, "How can 150,000 Americans be so stupid"? , we'll all know the answer to that question.

The chain will not be unbroken. We're going to have John McCain there to appoint more right wingers to the Supreme Court and corporations will become even more powerful because leftists are so ideological that they are unwilling to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, therefore John McCain wins... Unless the radical right who is unwilling to vote for John McCain manages to cancel out the votes of the radical left, who are unwilling to vote for either Hillary Clinton Or Barack Obama. However, Rush Limbaugh is doing a good job of reigning in the radical right.

For the radical right, Clinton and Obama are too liberal. For the radical left, either Clinton or Obama are too conservative.

Norm,

The Obama Camp emphasizes the elected delegate account, but not so much the popular vote that may well end up being in favor of Hillary.

I stand on principle in terms of democracy, but a Popular vote going CLinon and Delegates going another would be much more of split decision then it is in the general.

In the primary there are different voting systems. THere are quite a few versions of Cuacuses.

If the Party decided the popular vote should determine,it would be the same as saying that cucus states count for less.

Cuacus system is different, because it intends to find the opinions of party activists and not the voting puplic. Knowing that the party activists can get out and work for a candidate has its merrits I wouldn't advocate for the system but the party has not discouraged it before the primary and to do that after the primary is arguably a change in rules.

Another point for the "Obamabot" throwers. Clinton's caucus results are certainly an point to the a theory contrary to the "Cultish" argument. Clinton loses the actively engaged participants in caucuses, that in places like Iowa actually got to meet her, and she also loses the independents and moderate swing voters in other states. What does that leave her. The big swath of voters that vote based on that commercial they saw on TV.

Caucus

How many ways did I spell that? Crazy

For the radical right, Clinton and Obama are too liberal. For the radical left, either Clinton or Obama are too conservative.

Very little of the radical left would vote against Obama.

His public persona is much more liberal then that of Gore or Kerry. There is little evidence on his private thoughts, but I find it hard to believe that it is any more conservative then Gore or Kerry.

Norm

The Obama Camp emphasizes the elected delegate account, but not so much the popular vote that may well end up being in favor of Hillary. If on convention day Hillary has received the most popular votes and Obama the most elected delegates he'll argue that the super delegates should follow the elected delegates. Does that make any more sense than the Hillary crowd pointing to the popular vote. And what if the polls show Hillary or Barack a better candidate against McCain. Do we stand on principle even if it leads to a loss. It's politics, what does anyone expect from either side but that they'll be political.

I am 100 percent for popular vote. If Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote, I feel that she should win the nomination, and if Barack Obama wins the popular vote, I feel that he should win the nomination.

I am against the electoral college because voters in states which are clearly slanted towards one particular party (Democrat or Republican) don't even have a voice, and that's not fair.

One vote. One voice. That is the only system which is truly democratic, and not our screwed up system.

Caucus

How many ways did I spell that? Crazy

RedSeven,

I have a lot of respect for what you say and how you express yourself. I just wish that you'd learn the difference between "then" and "than", which would lend more credence to your excellent comments.

Please forgive me for picking on you because I make all kinds of grammatical mistakes myself all of the the time, whereas this is the only mistake I ever see you make, so if you could correct this error...

His public persona is much more liberal then that of Gore

That should be "than that of gore"

I hesitate to say this, really I do, but as your comments are so good, I think that this one clarification would be helpful..

Than or then

Than is a conjunction used with comparisons. It rhymes with pan.

Then is an adverb that refers to time. It rhymes with pen.

Examples: He likes you more than me.

First you take a cup of flour, and then you sift it.

Thanks JoAnn,

I have several editors in my life, an I am sure they would tend to agree with you whole heartedly.

Obama's public persona is much more liberal than that of Gore or Kerry.

Obama's public persona is much more liberal than that of Gore or Kerry.

LOL! I agree. ;)

One person, one vote.

Today, 8,000 Democrats in Wyoming voted up from 615 Democrats four years ago. Still only a fraction of the registered number of Democrats in the state, some 58,000. Wyoming has 13 delegates to Democratic convention. 8,000 divided by 13 = 615. So Wyoming sends 1 delegate for every 615 voters.

California. 4.4 million Democratic voters. California sends 370 delegates. 4.4 million divided by 370 = 11,892.

615 Wyoming red voters = 1 delegate 11,892 California blue state voters = 1 delegate

Bloody brilliant.

JoAnn,

You cannot cherry pick quotes at your leisure. Provide the context. You were rather intelligently dishonest in your assertion. Do not do that again. Linking to other articles I've written, that's cool. No problem there. Suggesting that I would support McCain is not. I was making an argument for Nader should Obama be the nominee. And I was dismissing the notion that McCain was simply going to launch us into WW III. I think McCain pretty dumb but not stupid. You chose not to tell the readership that in fact I may not even vote for Clinton because I have had it with the Democratic Party. You missed that quote. Another you missed was I might vote Socialist but that I need to do more research. Or perhaps the one where I said, people should take aim at the Democratic Party for not having a backbone on FISA, on impeachment, on Iraq. You cherry picked. That's dishonest.

I am courageous enough to blog under my own name. How many others do that?

Charles Lemos San Francisco, CA

Hi Charles,

I provided the link to your full statement here in which you clearly state that you while you might vote for Nader if Clinton is the nominee, you said that you will definitely vote for Nader if Obama is the nominee, notwithstanding the fact that this might result in McCain winning the nomination and you even explain why McCain winning wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I also blog under my name, and I never change my blogging name in a deceptive way and I have always clearly stated my view that my primary objective is defeating John McCain. There's not a whole lot to know about me, though, as I'm not a big shot like you are. ;)

Also, I don't push my blog here because I'm basically a hippie artist and my little blog would not interest the heavies here at onegoodmove.

As for providing my full name, I'm not about to invite weirdos to stalk me. No thank you.

One person, one vote.

States chose their systems of voting based on the one delegate, one vote rule.

And Charles, so you don't feel that I've cherry picked, here is your post in its entirety (although I've provided the link twice now, and it was you who directed us to Corrente in one of your previous posts, so it's no secret:

Sorry, but I can’t support Obama. He is not a Democrat.

I still think that Clinton call pull it out so I hope that the point will be mute.

If faced with Obama versus McCain. I will go with Nader because I see that system is broken and I am increasingly more comfortable with the Green Party. I may even vote for Nader if Clinton is the nominee though then I do think that Clinton would win the general election. If the election in California were to be close then yes I would support Clinton no questions asked.

I have thought about the SCOTUS and other issues but I also believe that Obama would be a trainwreck of inexperience and folly that he would set the Democratic Party back another generation.

Still I am throwing all my energy towards Clinton now so that I won’t be faced with that choice.

I do disagree with the assertion that a McCain victory will lead to expanded warfare. McCain is certainly an advocate of doing what he thinks is necessary in Iraq but I also would have to think that he would realize how expensive and over-stretched the military is.

Even if I were to buckle to pressure, I don’t see how Obama can win.

I hope my honesty doesn’t offend you but I will note that many feel the way I do. Obama is unacceptable. It is hard place to be. Sorry.

The misogynistic remarks, the ties to corporations, the inexperience on foreign affairs, the sell out of the LGBT community, his religious conversion, the fact that he throws the progressive agenda under a bus time and again on health care, on energy is just too much for me to get over.

I have fought Bush for 7 years. I will fight McCain and even Obama because he is not a Democrat

RedSeven,

States chose their systems of voting based on the one delegate, one vote rule.

Well, if you're going to argue on the rules, even so-called "elected delegates" can change which candidate to side with. According to the rules, the delegates and the superdelegates decide who will be the nominee, not the voters. Sad, but true.

Well, if you're going to argue on the rules, even so-called "elected delegates" can change which candidate to side with. According to the rules, the delegates and the superdelegates decide who will be the nominee, not the voters. Sad, but true.

I would argue the rules. But I would also say that elected delegates are expected by tradition to stay with the candidate they were on the ballot for. And Super delegates were created with the mission of only overriding the elected delegates when the potential nominee is unelectable.

System sucks, no doubt, but camapain and activists and states all went into this system knowing the rules.

Clinton and her husband and her campaign chariman ran the Party for 12 years, they had every opurtunity to change it, but instead they just front loaded the Primary process with the assumption that the gerrymandering would favor the big money candidate.

Another lack of foresight on there part.

although I've provided the link twice now

The link you first provided to Corrente was a different story, not the one you cherry-picked. I had no problem with the former.

People seem to believe that there is some great difference between Obama and McCain. There is. Obama lacks experience. I tend to view inexperience as a liability even more than the view of jaundiced experience. We are still paying for Kennedy's mistakes of inexperience.

I also will remind you that because this election is a zero-sum game for you that does not mean it is one for me. I have other choices. If you can't elect Barack Obama without me, that problem is Barack Obama's, not mine. I am hardly Barack Obama's biggest problem. One of his biggest critics perhaps.

The logic that I have to vote for a lessor of two evils has always escaped me. Evil is evil. By always boxing yourselves into an either or choice you are always left with an either or choice. I don't do that. I don't play politics as a zero-sum game. There are always more choices.

Electoral reform is what the US requires. Without it, you poor folks will always feel it is a zero-sum game, even though it isn't. But that is what both political parties want you to think. It is a desperate game of chicken. And playing chicken is stupid even for children. And we're supposedly adults. And yet we play that game of chicken. We let the TWO parties dictate to us. When will that chain be unbroken?

And the link to Sidley-Austin LLP, when will that chain be unbroken? Does the dishonesty not perturb anyone? That his wife's former firm is a registered lobbyist and it has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign doesn't bother anyone?

Charles Lemos

And the link to Sidley-Austin LLP, when will that chain be unbroken? Does the dishonesty not perturb anyone?

Yes it does.

But not so much as I would ever believe anything remotely like this...

People seem to believe that there is some great difference between Obama and McCain. There is. Obama lacks experience.

This is the same sort of Crap we heard from Nader supporters in 2000. It is simply not true. Even more so now then 8 years ago.

Does anyone believe that this country would look pretty much the same if Gore was president today?

Insults without basis

The logic that I have to vote for a lessor of two evils has always escaped me. Evil is evil. By always boxing yourselves into an either or choice you are always left with an either or choice. I don't do that. I don't play politics as a zero-sum game. There are always more choices.

Did you just call Barack evil? I think that's a little excessive, unless merit is given to most of your spurious and unsupported charges.

You've convinced me on the experience point, though. For a long time, I took "experience" to be just a sound bite that Mark Penn invited, one that would pre-empt the challenge that she only had a term and half or so of senate experience under her belt, and one that if repeated enough times would become lodged in the minds of the less alert, who did bother to question it, but simply repeated it. But this little article is a handsome summation of Clinton's foreign policy experience. She really does know the ins and outs.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Clintons_experience.html

So, apparently, does Chelsea. Chelsea 2020!

She really does know the ins and outs.

Lol

"Isn't she doing what all politicians do emphasizing those things that benefit her politically and ignoring those that don't."

Yes, I think some degree of manuvering is normal and fine. The problem is that apparently some of her supporters actually believe these arguments that caucuses are undemocratic and are getting really worked up about it. This is especially damaging because it can give a lot of Democrats a reason to reject the result of the process. This is not 2000 in Florida, but HRC is laying the groundwork for being able to reject the result. I admit the process is messy and difficult to grasp but the alternative to Democrats accepting the result of it would be disasterous. But if her argument is just to convince superdelegates, and not to tarnish an Obama win, I have no problem with it.

"She really does know the ins and outs." Yep. But it's not just that she doesn't really have foreign policy experience. It's that she has cited this non-existent experience as the basis for her belief in in a link between Saddam and Al-Qaida. This is the kind of "experience" that she and McCain have but Obama doesn't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTqs85ES9pk&e

The logic that I have to vote for a lessor of two evils has always escaped me. Evil is evil. By always boxing yourselves into an either or choice you are always left with an either or choice. I don't do that. I don't play politics as a zero-sum game. There are always more choices.

I have a ferret-like attention span and dart in and out of the comments, so I could have this wrong, but - - I was under the impression that, apart from the usual denigrations, Obama supporters were also wrong to refuse to vote for Hillary if she were to "win" the nomination.

Hm?...Yes?...No?

Not being a fan of group-think (or political parties), I wasn't gonna let it stop me from voting my conscience. But I'm heartened to think that we readers may admit our intent to do so openly without fear of reproach.

Does anyone believe that this country would look pretty much the same if Gore was president today?

Obviously, the answer is no. But keep in mind that your question only arises if we are allowed to rely on displaced judgements. If Gore had been president, and one were dissatisfied with his presidency – a sentiment that I would find unremarkable – then the suggestion that Nader would have made a world of difference would also be an unremarkable reflective sentiment. If only I had asked Nicole out, I wouldn’t be having these arguments with Diane.

But let us take on something a bit more problematic. There is an insistence, on the part of many voters, that candidates must ‘fix’ the world. Given the range of issues that candidates must cover, from the domestic to the foreign, from the foreign to the future foreign, the expectation is nothing short of systematic order. With ‘so much on the line,’ again, a completely unremarkable historical sentiment, the perception for many voters is that there is a fundamental choice. That choice is between disorder and order, and is embodied by a choice between two candidates; a Democrat and a Republican. But disregarding non-participation, a two party system merely defines choice, and when we rely on a political process that merely defines the boundaries of democratic thought, it is unlikely for voters to perceive political offerings in any constructive manner (i.e., other than between order and disorder). The distance between two choices is perceived as infinite.

Realistically, politicians offer us “solutions.” The platform of any candidate is just that, a list of solutions. From our vantage point, those solutions are untested, and for the moment we have to take the candidate’s word that they will play out the way politicians, pundits, and experts anticipate. But in the world of human interaction, a list of untested solutions, however agreeable they may be to you or me, is insufficient. We require some form of character assessment to guarantee that their personality will somehow ‘make things happen,’ ‘resist temptation,’ ‘play well with others.’ Problems arise when character traits begin to trump analyses of solutions, when the criteria for one’s assessment become arbitrary, when the realm of character analyses becomes divorced from consideration of political planning or worse, political reality. We all knowingly participate in these kinds of activities either because ‘a list of solutions’ is time locked and unsettling to our anticipatory outlook, or because serious consideration concerning the ‘actual’ planning and implementation of specific policies is unmarketable and overly technical.

(I have no idea whether these thoughts are of interests, or if they’re so entirely self-evident that they should be ignored. I’ll add Part 2, if there’s interest.)

Does anyone believe that this country would look pretty much the same if Gore was president today?

Obviously, the answer is no. But keep in mind that your question only arises if we are allowed to rely on displaced judgements.

Is "displaced judgements" another term for reality in this context?

Are you personally aware of a Gore-as-president reality, and if you are, are you equally aware of a Nader-as-president reality? And if you are, which are you more satisfied with, and how have you determined which is better? Displaced judgements aren't merely speculative, where the later is reliant on evidence. In this case, you have an intuition based on an assessment of Gore's character. Some people have even suggested that Bush was the perfect wake up call. I find the entire discussion distracting and unhelpful. It's possible that I've been bogged down in epistemology and the philosophy of language for too long...What does your question tell you? What does it reveal about politics in general?

Fuck it. Here's part 2. I may be entirely wrong (if you think I am, please point it out) and much of this, for me, is just a reaction to Charles' thoughts.

Change is the quintessential political promise, and even if it’s unstated, it is unavoidable. The question is whether the ‘picture of reality’ that is offered to voters is sufficient. At the outset of an election cycle, the answer is surprisingly, yes. Whether our answer is in fact, “a qualified yes,” or “no, but I’ll go with you on this one,” the vote registers as “yes.” Two conceptions of political reality are evidently all that’s required to satisfy millions. Unsurprisingly, years later, our original answer is reversed. “No, it’s not enough,” “We can do better,” in fact “why didn’t we do better before?” Humans are poor judges of what is enough.

One explanation for this phenomenon is that political candidates are prototypical constructs at best that never fully represent the diversity of human sentiment. When various issues are laid out, put side by side, their moral application is contradictory or limited, and perhaps because we too are limited in our selection of candidates, we ourselves limit our ethical demands. (Keep in mind that ethics is personal, and non-normative in the sense that they originate out of a demand concerning one’s own behaviour, extending as an assumed universal out towards society.)

Let us ask whether or not our candidates are consistent in their moral sentiments (I’ll let you decide which candidates I’m talking about). A). Do heterosexuals have the right to marry or enter into a civil union? If we say “yes,” and our candidates agree, then what do we do when if they refuse to apply the same standards to homosexuals who desire that right? B). If we invade a country unlawfully, should the perpetrators be held accountable to domestic or international law? C). If we invade a country unlawfully, should we provide economic aid to help rebuild their infrastructure? D). If we believe corporations are private tyrannies, should we allow them to retain the legal status of individuals or allow them to influence campaigns or legislation? E). Are our expectations of Israel’s behaviour toward other states consistent with others or our own? Etc.

What I think Charles seems to be suggesting is that our outlook regarding corporate behaviour has historically been much more stringent, but for reasons already mentioned, the legal status of corporations and their criminal behaviour has become part of the ‘way things work,’ an unmentionable point of origin from which all other political considerations take form. Our political awareness has been conditioned in such a way that any discord from our personal code of ethics is often unnoticed; a fact that, for some, barely registers as unsettling or shameful. Our imprisonment, or what Charles refers to as the ‘chains that bind us,’ is what I view as a renewing investment in a particular delusion; a kind of obscene compromise that could very well render the democratic process ineffectual.

Did you just call Barack evil?

Adam, no I did not. What I said that when people approach an electoral choice and say that they are voting for the lessor of two evils, I find that logic flawed. For one, they are still picking an "evil" choice in their estimation and for two, they have other choices such as another candidate or even voting in blank. Basically, I am trying to argue that it is not a zero-sum game because one always another option even if it is not voting at all. Of course there is a price to pay. I dislike that phrase in politics because it makes no sense and because it allows the two parties to dominate us at their will. I am suggesting the link be broken. These two parties seem to have run their course. If I don't like what either of the two dominant parties are offering me, then I look for other options.

Melponenh: good posts. I hope people read them. There is a lot there.

Charles

"For the radical right, Clinton and Obama are too liberal."

Well for the radical right, John McCain is too liberal as well...but I don't think the problems most liberals have with Obama and Hillary have anything to do with them being too conservative(at least speaking for myself), I think it's the reality that after we gave the Democrates the power to end the war, they choose to take the politically safe path instead...so no one trusts that these two candidates are going to do what we going to put them in power to do either. I would almost want an elected official that does what he said he was going to do when he's put into office(wether I agree with it or not), over a candidate that gets put into office on lies, and then does the exact opposite. I think John McCain is more honest than Hillary and Obama in those regards...not that I want to see him elected, I just don't believe that Hillary and Obama are going to do anything that drastically different with the Iraq situation once they are put into office...however I hope that I am proven wrong!

Anyhow, to step out of my cynical self for a moment, I read this article on CNN just now and though that all of the Hillary or Obama squabblers, might find it refreshing...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

It seems that Charles might just have to vote for an Obama ticket after all. ;)

In case anyone comes back to this comment thread down the road, here's a permalink to the article bob referred to:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/08/bill-clinton-a-clinton-obama-ticket-would-be-unstoppable/

Little Mickey said:

I was under the impression that, apart from the usual denigrations, Obama supporters were also wrong to refuse to vote for Hillary if she were to "win" the nomination.

Yep, that was precisely what my impression was, and all I was doing in pointing out Lemos' comments was demonstrating that Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama either.

Clinton? Obama? Pft. They don't stand a chance....Not when Jello Biafra is running!! (I wish).

hear, hear, melpomenh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agojxS7a_qQ

for charles

"I have a ferret-like attention span and dart in and out of the comments, so I could have this wrong, but - - I was under the impression that, apart from the usual denigrations, Obama supporters were also wrong to refuse to vote for Hillary if she were to "win" the nomination.

Hm?...Yes?...No?

Not being a fan of group-think (or political parties), I wasn't gonna let it stop me from voting my conscience. But I'm heartened to think that we readers may admit our intent to do so openly without fear of reproach."

Yeah well I'm one of those few people who think voting for a third or fourth party isn't a waste of a vote, but rather a very healthy and patriotic act to do for our Democracy(there are many reasons to support this logic I believe)...But the main root of my reason for doing so is that I just really don't trust Hillary on the war, and I'm not trying to be one of those, "If my guys doesn't win, I'm not voting for your guy", soar loosers or anything. I just think that the war is FAR too important an issue, and I won't vote for somebody who I don't feel confident in trying to immediately resolve the situation once put into office.

If someone can convince me that she will do so, I very well might throw all my other distasteful reasons for not voting for her out of the window and join the team with everyone else.

oh thanks again aglee! my bad! :P

Hey bob, My 'prediction' is that both Clinton and Obama will be withdrawing troops early, and depending on what kind of conditions are presented to either of them, it might take anywhere between three to six years; that’s assuming that either candidate intends to withdraw all the troops. There are still contractors and diplomats to consider.

I happen to think there are issues on the table that are just as important if not more important than the war in Iraq. You might want to consider our relations with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, the war in Afghanistan, etc.; all are related to the war in Iraq. You might also want to consider what kind of relations we should have with Iraq once troops have been withdrawn. Let me also say that how I see the world and the issues shouldn't dictate how you make your decisions. Ultimately when you make your vote, you'll have to convince yourself.

Thanks melpomenh, those are all very thoughtful points, and I do consider them when I think about Iraq as well. I hope you are right about that(both Hillary and Obama ending the war), because if it makes the difference between ending the war, and preventing it from going on for another hundred more years, I will vote for Hillary OR Obama most definitely.

...If they don't however, and either one of them goes on to create another unjustified conflict, similar to the way Bush did, I will be voting third party for the rest of my days. Trust is abused so often in our political system, that it leaves me at times just mind-numbingly cynical. :P

Not to be too On topic, or to the point. Here is a link in the chain

offer a broad glimpse of the Clintons' finances. Since 1999, the couple's net worth has increased from somewhere between $1.25 million and $5.7 million to between $10 million and $50 million, according to filings.

Gee I wonder who might have paid Bill Clinton 10 Million dollars and who funded his library and philanthropy.....

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4421457&page=1

RedSeven,

Get with the program! Any ties to corporate America are evidence that Obama is not as pure as he claims. Any ties to corporate America that Clinton has are expected, par for the course, and just prove that she's a monster, uh, I mean a "fighter".

Also, both candidates have to scream and cry about how horrible that NAFTA is, even though there are some Americans whose lives have improved because of NAFTA. Where one stands on NAFTA depends upon where one sits.

just prove that she's a monster, uh, I mean a "fighter".

I saw Primary Colors again last night. I know its a work of fiction, but its an interesting morality tail, If you see it as a characterization of reality, it puts forth the the theory that Vince foster killed himself because he helped get the Clinton's to the white house and then realized that they were "monsters" or some such things.