Clinton is NOT a "Corporate Democrat"-- fact vs. religious zeal

This article (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php">Is Hillary Clinton a "Corporate Democrat?" - Part 3, 10 Oct 2007) debunks the near religious conviction held by anti-Clinton fanatics.

www.legitgov.org

about something (being a progressive) that is inherriently relative to each individual. what gets me is that she is the person with the most corporations, pacs and bundlers. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=B12 and these graphs are based on something that can be accepted almost universally. so if she is not a corpratist candidate why do the candidates give her all the money. my second point is the amount of face time the major corporate news networks give her. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/08/candidate_face_time_on_news_networks_/

so if she is not the corporate candidate why does she get the most attention from them with both contributions and face time?

of associations that call themselves liberal say she has an 89% rating! QED.

not the figures that other people find, tabulate and then spit back that are utterly meaningless unless you put blind faith in the instition. how she votes and who is giving her support are why i answer the way i do.

We are in full agreement.

like Ford GM and Chrysler or the constuction industry.Road constuction is almost at a standstill since 2001.Interstates are falling apart and getting more crowded daily.I have driven on strip job roads that are in better shape than some parts of I-75

K&R and bookmarked.

It doesn't matter what cumulative scores certain groups choose to give. How they weigh their ratings, which votes they consider worthy of going into the score is irrelevant. Everyone's smart enough to come to their own conclusions by studying the record themselves, regardless of what ADA wants to say is important.

"Corporate" is the least of it - that's almost all of these treasonous boogers.

She has an exceptionally pro-war, pro-imperialist record.

You can never take back her yes-votes on all the Bush initiatives that mattered.

You can especially never get rid of the stench of the pro-war votes: on Iraq and, quite recently, on Iran.

John Edwards is preferable to Hillary Clinton, but I just wanted to clarify some misconceptions about Hillary Clinton.

False dichotomy.

.. is more Iraq war, more big Pharma and big Insurance giveaways, I'd just as soon have it done by a Republican rather than having the Democratic party take the BLAME for all the SHIT that is going to result.

So if the question is "would HRC be at least a little better than a Republcan?" well the answer is of course yes. Is she enough better to give a shit, no, not for me.

becomes president? I'm just wondering how/why you're so sure of the outcome.
I think Hillary Clinton hates the Reichwing and would not support the corpora-terrorists, if she gets the Democratic nomination and wins the 'election.'

the "reichwing" while her husband smoozes with them. I also love the meaningless phrases you spit out like reichwing and "corpora-terrorists" As per your question as big pharm and is contributing the most to hillary i am sure she will reciprocate. please stop trying to play up her weaknesses. Go and talk up her inebitability. at least then we couldnt logically argue with you.

elected. I think that's what most people (except for Freepers and lurkers) on DU desire.
That having been said, OF COURSE the candidate with the voting record that would closely match my own (if I was in Congress, lol) is Dennis Kucinich.
But, I really don't see him winning the Democratic nomination!

In other words, if Hillary Clinton (eventually) wins the presidency and votes to strengthen the EPA, etc., I'll take that 'small victory' over a rightwing president who would, for example, weaken the EPA, etc.

democrate. but your not prepping us for a general election in which hillary is the nominee. This is regarding the primary election in which i am not going to vote for hillary and if i do have to vote for someone besides kucinich i damn sure hope it will be anybody but hillary.

... is nothing but more giveaways to the industry.

will she bite the hand that feeds her?

We're all adults here and the strategy of voting first on faith in the expectation that once in office they will reveal their hidden true and good side is dubious! Not only that, it's never worked.

is one of the more ridiculous posts of the season.

It's the rhetoric. That she continued to support the war past December 2005 and beyond. Not just with votes, but with letters and speeches.

That is what I want to know.

We need to get rid of lobbying as a profession. Its too corrupting of government.

... http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_detail/C00431569/">for Hillary's campaign.

- Dave

relying on facts and reason.

DAMN you!

:evilgrin:

... and don't yield easily to rah-rah-sisk-boom-bah types.

- Dave

As we're seeing on DU, sadly.

The facts may be stubborn and clear, but they can be badly abused.

And muddied.

Luckily, there are some DUers who insist on the REal facts.

:thumbsup:

Thanks for providing it.

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

Data is the gourmet mustard in any race.

- Dave

;)

a "Corporate Democrat" is.

Better yet, what's the alternative?

Seems an "acceptable" candidate ranges from someone who will blow up GM headquarters not caring how many people are put out of work to someone who will close loopholes and return to reasonable regulation. I get the impression that anything less than Lenin is too rightwing for some around here.

The "Hillary is a corporate whore" mantra is simply pure bullshit. She may be leaning toward looser regulation than some would like, but I don't see her falling over the cliff any more than her husband did.

Every Republican candidate, otoh, will be almost as bad as to much worse than what we have now.

Really?

Where have you been?

else is truth?

I do miss the traffic and weather reports, though.

Counterproductive.

Our nation depends upon an educated citizenry.

from a Union LABOR/Middle Class Working American viewpoint.

I don't believe Working Americans can survive another DLC Clinton presidency.










"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

when I dig into the weeds, I find that Lieberman's score is brought down by MISSED VOTES

http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/members.jsp?member=CTI&district=At%20large&issue=A0

For example, on Seniors, where his score was only 60.87% he missed 18 votes and got a score of "close vote absent" mostly in June 2003. What was going on in June 2003? Lieberman was running for President. I find similar things when I check his other low scores.

I conclude: take away the absent votes and Progressive Punch would say that Lieberman is just as progressive as Clinton, Obama, Dodd, or Edwards. Since we know that is not true, that says to me their scoring system kinda sucks. Either that or Lieberman is not a corporate Democrat either.

She's the leader of our party like it or not...50 states in 2008 with her we can do it.

Communists?

Terrorists?

Republicans?

We're waiting with baited breath....

with that blind faith. i don't care that you love hillary just don't say that crap and think for yourself.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Now I think I have truly heard everything on DU! Thanks for that serious laugh! :hi:

Hillary is not going to turn ONE. RED. 2004. STATE. America isn't New York and this isn't a Senatorial race against weak Republican opponents.

Americans will say most anything in the 21st Century....

Clinton is DLC. Her top contributors are investment firms, lawyers and the media. That may not spell "Corporate Dem" to you, but it sure as hell does to me.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

She has indicated she would keep some of the powers bush/cheney have illegally accumulated.

That fact can't be spun away.

It just shows how narrow the political discourse is in this country. The notion that Hillary does not wear knee pads and give Monica Lewinsky to corporate interests at every opportunity does not mean that she is a progressive. It only means that she is not a neo-con George Bush corporate fascist.

Hillary poses zero threat to corporate interests. She basically stands for the status quo, and would only support modest restraints on corporate power.

The corporations figure there's going to be a Democrat in the White House in 2009, and they're putting their money on the candidate they feel will be the best for them -- Hillary.

That makes her a corporate democrat in my book.