Which Dem candidate has taken the most money from corporate special interests?

It's the same candidate that:

1.) voted for the Iraq War Resolution and did not bother to read the intelligence report. Then, refuses to admit her mistake.

2.) does not provide a healthy margin of victory in the general election relative to the major Repuke candidates. The same candidate that will have Repukes showing up at the polls not to vote their candidate, but to vote against her.

3.) refuses to give a firm and substantial answer on the what, when, where, and how of getting us out of Iraq. What's her position on those permanent bases being built, anyway?

I guess she's really a vote for change with her corporatist backing and beltway bullsh*t. Good luck clearing your conscience when she tanks in the 2008 general.

J

She will not do well in a GE against McCain or any other Republican. Their hatred for her will insure high GOP voter turnout and I don't see how she can win.

The Repukes were working hard and early to make her the lead Dem candidate. They have done a fine job of picking and building up the candidate that they want to vote against.

J

Yeah, that one.

It's not a matter of better or best. It's a simple calculation of which Dem will provide a healthy margin of victory to surmount the inevitable voter fraud and other Repuke dirty tricks.

Mark my words. If Hillary is our candidate, we will lose the general. She will not carry a single Southern state. Period.

Scary, delusional folks, they are.

Consistent polling shows that Clinton just barely exceeds or matches the likely Repuke candidates. If 2000 or 2004 taught us anything, it was the necessity to win with enough margin to beat the voter fraud efforts. 50/50 match candidates are not safe bets in these modern times.

J

a future Clinton loss. Are you also claiming that the historical data predicts an Edwards or Obama victory sufficient to overcome fraud?

So how the hell is that going to work out for people who actually want a 180 degree shift from BushCo? Not very well, I wouldn't think.

Another four years of no universal health care, massive military spending, shitty schools, eroding infrastructure, fossil fuels uber alles, the continued Iraq occupation, maybe Iran too if we're really lucky, more privatization, another round of GOP-lite "triangulation," more offshoring and outsourcing, more torture and special renditions, no corporate accountability, Wall Street in the drivers seat, no criminal proceedings against the BushCo liars, thieves and war criminals, the continued scorn of the entire enlightened world, no repeal of BushCo's repressive unconstitutional laws and fiats and signing statements and regulatory insanity, growth of a permanent underclass, more revolving door crony appointments, lip service only paid to impending environmental collapse, corroding inner cities -- all this and a beltway perspective that refuses to acknowledge that there's something amiss in the land of plenty.

That's what a Clinton presidency means to me, and I haven't seen a word from anyone here or anywhere else that would convince me otherwise. When her corporate patrons gave her about $90 million through the first nine months of 2007, I'm sure they expected something besides good government in return.

And they further hedged their bets by bribing Obama to the tune of about $80 million over the same period. So just in case Clinton can't cadge (or cage) her way into the nomination, they're going to get a candidate they can cope with anyway.

Somebody tell me again why DK is such a horrible choice? Or Edwards, for that matter? Or an inflatable doll named Buffy and her imaginary cat Puffball?


wp

...but we may still end up losing more ground.

No thanks.

that raises some good questions. The best part is, there is no sexism involved or other (real or imagined) BS that her supporters could argue invalidates the points made:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x331580

I notice on the threads where the facts predominate that the Hillary supporters are amazingly silent. This reinforces my contention that the other Dem candidates need only run against her record and avoid the whole contrived "gender trap" they've constructed to sway the impressionable.

and thinks that she will get my vote by default...

J

Conyers is said to have put together a last minute ad campaign about it but I have not seen it.

They've both taken about the same amount from big corps.

That said, Clinton's health care plan is far better than Obama's which tells me she's more likely to put average people ahead of pleasing her donors.

There can be little doubt that Corporate America decided to back both candidates equally in order to set them against each other and watch them self-destruct in the primary. No doubt they hoped it would damage the party and leave it a nominee that had been severely damaged by the primary battle and who carried enough baggage to make it easy to defeat them.

They were also counting on Edwards to be out of the picture by now, but he is staying in. Under the corporate America plan, this is the best outcome we can have, the only hope against some idiot GOP candidate winning in November.

Edwards in a couple of the debates has made the claim that it is Hillary that has received more corporate money than any other Dem or Repuke. So, where does your claim that she and Obama are equal in corporate money come from? Please provide evidence...not spin.

J

Check it out.

The corporations will continue to pour all their money into Hillary and Obama's campaigns until one of them finishes the other off.
When the damaged Dem candidate prevails, the money (and favorable news coverage) will disappear and will be diverted instead to the GOP candidate. All that money and favorable media coverage will smooth over the warts, corruption and flaws and will recreate a new GOP leader to win in November.

I'm tired of the political monarchy between the Clintons and the Bushes. If I must be led by corporate shills, I'd at least like for it to be outside of those two dynasties.

J

What do we get from Hillary that we wouldn't get from John?

Oh, yeah. more war and polution and corporate welfare.

And surprise, corporations give to the front runners.

I've seen references that suggest that Obama has received a sizable sum of money from corporate interests, but most of these references also show that Clinton has taken more...somewhere to the tune of 10 million more.

J

and the swiftboating.

To what are you referring here? Her votes with the BFEE?

J

Apparently the machines simply swapped Hilly and Obama's votes. There's more about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=492693&mesg_id=492693

I can't believe it, just because she's a woman and the media blowhards bash her. Unreal.

Corporatism is fascism and we'll lose our republic. It's not a time for luxury voting; flowery platitudes... evoking MLK... gender hoisting... race hoisting...

The f*ckin' house is ablaze. Time to grab a big hose.

Hillary knew her support with women was soft, so employing skillful psychology she and her cadre have manipulated the media and situation to generate female "sympathy and fidelity" support. For many women that I have spoken to that support her, it's not about her policies or past...it's about showing men that she can do it.

J