Where are Obama and Hillay on Corporatism?

That is the fundamental problem facing the US and the world, for that matter.

Our wars are brought on by corporate greed. Our wars are exploited by corporate greed. Our medicine is corrupted by corporate greed.

Democracy is being undermined by corporate greed.
Our media has turned corporate greed into the nation's religion.

Our laws are being undermined by corporate greed.

John Edwards won me over. He gets it. He said corporations must be fought. That's pretty radical stuff for a mainstream American politicans. If nominated, he will put this fight in front of the American public every day until election day, and hopefully for the next eight years.

America NEEDS this fight. The world NEEDS this fight. The democratic principle of "one-person one-vote" NEEDS this fight.

I keep reading threads saying, "We have to support WHOEVER wins the democratic nomination."

Sorry. If the Democratic nominee isn't willing to fight corporate power, then they are part of the problem, and not the solution.

So tell me, where are Obama and Hillary on this fight?

I've watched these Hollywood-style campaigners talk and talk and talk and say nothing to indicate they're going to fight corporate power and return it to the American people.

If I am wrong, show me.

Show me how I, someone who views corporate greed and power as the central cause of America's ills, can vote for Hillary or Obama in good conscience.

Point me to their speeches where they make this THE FOCUS of their platform.

Show me.

Please.

Oh hell, lemme give ya the good news first:
YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

Bad news?
Their are still "democrats" who do not
recognize the enemy on OUR side of the aisle,

BHN

If they nominate a corporate stooge.

Hillary, I simply don't trust. She's earned my distrust.

Obama's Oprah-fied candidacy is tough to stomach, and in his message of "hope" and "change" and "honesty" is vague.

You wanna run for president of a country which is threatening throw the world into WWIII?

You better get serious with your message.

We've been through it before.
Stick with us baby.
BHN

What's the point of a lesser-of-evils vote?

Who wins? Evil.

I am voting for whoever best represents the pro-union, pro-people, pro-civil rights kind of candidate I always thought came from the Democratic Party.

Edwards could be that guy. Kucinich represents those ideals, but has no chance.

And Nader represents those values.

I am voting for my values, no matter what party I punch the ticket for.

If the country is going down, we will have our integrity.
I will NOT vote for a corporacrat either.
Even if I have to write the name of a candidate in, be it Kucinich or other.
BHN

I am sad, however, to see that nobody except SandNSea seems willing to try to win me over on their candidate.

I imagine a good many of our DU family are celebrating, not
posting tonight...
Me, I'm here tonight because I am waiting on a call from my daughter
to be picked up from a club she went to.
So, thanks for keeping me company.
BHN:hug:

Hope you don't have to stay up too late!

My mother has informed me that it is my Karma, for what
I put her through...

:rofl: SO true.

BHN

I won't vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination because to do so would be enabling her agenda, which I oppose. But how could I not vote, I wondered...

Well (slapping palm to forehead) the write-in vote, of course! (Duh, why didn't I think of that?) Thanks for the (shoulda' been) obvious answer.




    Edwards '08 tees!

Obama-Feingold requires "lobbyists and lobbying organizations to disclose the contributions they collect or arrange for federal officeholders and candidates, leadership PACs and party committees."

Obama isn't talking about it, he's doing it.

What's he saying in his speeches?

Wow. You have a very different idea of what's important than I do.

All I am saying is that campaign reform is a SMALL part of the giant problem.

is dignified debate. Is that it?

Yes, campaign reform is a small part. But that isn't all he's done, as you can see with the government spending database. Or with his proposal to put the entire budget online before its passed. Obama is the one who went to Wall Street and told them to top focusing on their own bottom line and start thinking about the pain the workers were feeling. He's the one who went to Detroit and told the auto makers they were going to have to drastically improve fuel efficiency. He deals in facts and action, not empty hot air.

But why not come out and say he's going to go after corporations?
Why not make that a theme?

I have to say, listening to CSPAN this weekend, he came off as someone who was trying to find the "soft middle" instead of someone who wanted to fight.

That's what I mean by "Oprah-fied"

Sanding down the message until it's so smooth it sounds nice, but means nothing.

After eight years of this shit, after the hell that has been caused around the world with my tax dollars, I expect someone offering a bold alternative, and not something that sounds pleasant at 4 p.m. on a weekday talk show.

And that's not just a knock on Obama. That's a knock on ALL candidates who are afraid to stand out on a ledge and be bold.

This is the same Dean fight of 2004. I wasn't impressed with his "you've got the power" transformation then, and I'm not impressed with Edwards' transformation now. Talk is cheap. Maybe I think that way because I'm married to a salesman, I don't know.

When the talk is the national dialogue.

Anybody willing to talk this talk, knowing what the corporate media will do, is someone who ought to be considered.

When I hear Obama TALK, I'll listen

he pushed a campaign finance reform bills locally and in the Senate. Obama has run his campaign on small contribution (no corporate or PAC money) and you can't get anymore honest than that.

The corporations just need to be held accountable and the laws that are on the books enforced. Campaign finance reform is how you get them out of DC. Hillary I won't say anything about since I can't say anything nice. If she wins the primary I'll vote for her, but I'd rather not.

Let's here him talk about the FIGHT.

Or does he not see corporatism as a threat?

Edwards proved that by doing nothing in his 6 years in the Senate, except vote for a bunch of stuff he now says was wrong. :crazy:

The kind of talk Edwards is talking is the kind of stuff that Americans NEED to hear.

Even if he backed down from his pledges, or even if he lost, four months of that kind of that kind of dialogue would wake up millions of slumbering Americans.

Four months of "integrity, change, blah, blah, blah" and everybody goes to sleep.

I believe that talk may be cheap if it can't be backed up with facts and I'd like to believe Edwards is being sincere, but I just don't know that for sure. We've seen the likes of those like pelosi say one thing and do another once in office. I'm going with the one who has a record of fighting corporatism and the current flavor of it known as neocon. That man is Dennis Kucinich. He's the only one who had the guts to start impeachment with cheney and you'll find he is active in trying to stop them, even the dino division of them. Alas, their monies are shutting him up without even so much as an objection stated by any of the other candidates, but then that's one real potential candidate out of the way for them isn't it?
I too will not vote for a corporatist.

Has my heart as a candidate.
And he's a joy to watch at debates.

Unfortunately, we all know he stands a snowball's chance in hell

Please let me hear your answer to that.

Regardless of his past voting history or his sincerity, he is running a CLEAR campaign. If he were to get in office and change nothing he'd be a clear liar. I can vote for Edwards because I have something I can hold him to. What am I going to hold Hillary or Obama to? Experience? Hope? Unity? These things mean nothing.

Edwards is asking me to vote for a platform.
Clinton and Obama are asking me to vote for their empowerment and I'm just supposed to trust that they'll take care of me.

I'm voting for Edwards. I don't know if Edwards really cares about labor. I don't know if Bush really cares about Christianity. But if Edwards wins, it's going to be a mandate against corporatism, that much I know. That's what I'm voting for.

Both cut from the same cloth.

Next question.

Because, sadly, taking corporate money is the only way that a presidential candidate can compete in our presidential election system.

And people here on DU support them!

:wtf:

Even at DU, has Democratic Underground Democratic, in name only?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3873196

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3873196#3874436

Don't know much about Obama having conflicted interests re: labor of this country vs his positions. As far as I can tell he wants to raise the minimum wage and protect striking workers, but I'm kind of unclear on his free trade positions.

So, Clinton and Obama supporters agree that their candidates are corporate stooges???

Clinton and Obama supporters want us to leave the party?

and all those helpful positions pre-written by the corporate lobbyists--you know, like Sen. Clinton's mandatory insurance plan.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

I am pleading with you ... show me where they're going to stand up to Corporate America?

Or, am I wrong in concluding that this is a serious issue?

And if it is not the central issue in America, what is?

but please don't turn this into a fight against capitalism in general. Regardless of how you feel about this aspect, they will bury us if the subject turns into this fight.

That's part of the fight.

I thought that was obvious. :shrug:

for them

What the fuck?

What do they see in them?

I get the same attendance numbers when I bring up Hillary's odious Heritage Foundation-like position on free trade and job offshoring. They kind of whistle past that dead elephant in the room, conveniently.

Why are they the "frontrunners?"

Edwards is outpacing both on here, however.

They're the "frontrunners" because the media says so. I really wish we wouldn't let them pick our candidate for us, as they've done so many times.

we can wake up to what you're saying. Other than the talk, in what way should she follow edwards lead? what were the big votes that she f'd up or should have written?

that undergirds all others -- the war, the environment, the economy, jobs outsourcing, food safety, you name it . . . when you break it all down, it's the incessant drive for more and more corporate profits vs. the real interests of the American people . . . and the SOLE interest of corporations (by law) is ever increasing profits -- to the exclusion of everything else (environmental protection, job protection, etc.) . . .

the ONLY viable candidate even willing to talk about it is John Edwards . . . for this he gets huge props -- and my vote . . .

Edwards is all for corporatism on a personal level- hell he invests in it big time through a hedge fund. And then he talks about the evils as he profits off corporations that do such things as invest in predatory loan companies. When he finds out about it, he's *shocked*. Shocked I tell you, and makes some skimpy amends. But does he pull his hefty investments out of Fortress? No. Do we know what other unsavory investment strategies Fortress has engaged in? No. Are some of us so naive as to accept all this? No. Oh, and Fortress has multiple off shore accounts to shelter the taxable monies of their investors. Lastly, social conscious investing, is hardly new. It's been well established for a couple of decades now.

so was FDR

That's what you have to be in order to be "serious" and we haven't yet gotten well organized enough to do a run around the mainstream media.