Diatribune - primaries - Comments

The real problem now is the

friendlytophil — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:11:27 -0600

The real problem now is the MSM's refusal so far--although it may not last much longer--to report on the source for Clinton's $5 million infusion of funds into her own campaign right after Super Tuesday. Long thought by media-watchers to be the reason for the Clintons' reluctance to release their 2007 tax returns, the truth has begun to surface in the indy media, both left and right.

Turns out Sen. Clinton may have gotten the money from one of Bill's charities, and pressured people at the non-profit to cover up the unethical and possibly illegal activity.

Here's a link to the whole ugly tale: http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2008/04/904758.shtml

The Clinton's Corporate

alexwierbinski — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:18:51 -0700

The Clinton's Corporate Democracy

Corruption Updates 59, 2^nd article on the page, At Wal-Mart, Clinton didn't upset any carts

Corruption Updates 33, ^th article on the page, Corporate Democrats of the Democratic Leadership Council Laughs at democracy

See Right Web for an interesting profile of the DLC and its Corporate backers

Corruption Updates 59, 2^nd article on the page, At Wal-Mart, Clinton didn't upset any carts

Corruption Updates 62, 6^th article on the page, Suit Sheds Light on Clintons’ Ties to a Benefactor

Corruption Updates 62, 10^th article on the page, Clinton: Pakistani businessman, donor to Dems, returns to U.S. to face charges

Corruption Updates 76, 4^th article on the page, Clinton: Fundraiser allegedly demanded stock

Corruption Updates 78, 6^th article on the page, Poll: Dem Voters Hate Canididates

Corruption Updates 93, 7^th article on the page, He backs Clinton; her backers help him

Corruption Updates 97, 2^nd article on the page, Executive privilege touchy for presidential hopefuls: Just a Reminder of why Bush is out of Control

Corruption Updates 109, 8^th article on the page, Clinton-Hsu: Yet Another Criminal Foreign Donor

Corruption Updates 113, 3^rd article on the page, Clinton to Hsu: Your Money is hot now. Please take it back

Corruption Updates 113, 4^th article on the page, FBI looks into disgraced donor's business: Investigating a pyrmid scheme from within a pyrmid scheme. The House of Mirrors.

Corruption Updates 127, 9^th article on the page, Billery and Corporate Democrats thoroughly Bribed by Corporate Medicine

Hsu the Billery bundler, lat, 9-14-07

NYT, October 29, 2007; Health Sector Puts Its Money on Democrats: Billery Bought to the Hilt by Corporate Medicine: Expect all Medical Costs to Continue Rising after Election

Clinton sets up fake soft-ball questions at public rallies: Just like bush, Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2007

Hsu used billery connection to bilk investors, Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2007

Clinton rolls a sizable pork barrel, LAT, 12-12-07

Hsu, bundler to billery, Democrats Is sentenced in California, NYT, January 5, 2008

Good! It's so much easier to

alexwierbinski — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:23:21 -0700

Good! It's so much easier to expose a problem with two differing perspectives than with someone who agrees with you!

Our forefathers in their wisdom created a democracy, not a bureacuracy.

To create a healthy and beneficial bureacuracy, we must first restore our democracy.

Your are mistaking my quest for democratic legitimacy with an attack on the very existance of burecratic institutions: I never took that position. What I did say is that the institutions cannot be clean nor effective when our democracy has been corrupted.

The dems and repugs have acted as conduits for wealth and power to overide our democracy, thus all ensuing institutions are tainted at the core, and incapable of fulfilling their assigned duties.

I would clean the democracy to restore the vitality of the bureacrats, not eliminate them!

Now, I belive that we are headed for the same goal; a free and healthy society, but I don't believe you can get there without a map that has compass points.

I align my map to the compass of our democratic constitution, not the vague term "bureaucratic restraints."

Oddly enough, I don't agree

Jacob Freeze — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:30:14 -0700

Oddly enough, I don't agree with your prescription for what ails us.

The economy isn't in trouble because of a lack of "democratic restraints," as you say. It's in trouble because of a lack of bureaucratic restraints. The SEC has been eviscerated by the Republicans, and that agency doesn't have many friends among Democrats either.

"The people" can't monitor sub-prime loans, much less more complicated financial instruments. "The people" can barely understand compound interest, and both parties have somehow convinced them that bureaucratic technicians at agencies like the SEC are the enemies of everybody.

But without those bureaucrats forcing full disclosure, and then analyzing the data, there's no way to control speculators and con men on Wall Street and elsewhere.

I totally agree that obama

alexwierbinski — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:07:42 -0700

I totally agree that obama is a bright shiny veneer with no real substance that i can see.

But billery is a proven tool of the global corporate special interests. And I'm against the canard of universal health care.

Call it what it is: the corporate profit health care system. I'm amazed that so called progressives are buying this line of bull.

Say it: single payer. say it again!

This farce that the corporate politicians and media are hyping is typically billery: I'm doing you a favor by allowing corporate health to profit from your misery.

Yeah, privitize me some more...

This brings us to the real problem: we have, to put it softly, a corporate "democracy" that produces candidates incapable of serving the general welfare of our people. Especially when it comes to health, agriculture, energy, or any of the corporate interests that have bought the candidates of both parties.

Until we stop the bribery, and put the voter back in the driver's seat, this is only going to get worse, as i completely agree with your prognosis on the health of the economy.

Once it falls, we will rediscover the merits of having democratic restraints on the greed of our politicians and their bribers.

The last major fall made unions legal and forced the wealthy to accept minimal social responsibility.

We will only be able to restore our social infrastructure after restoring our democratic ethics and practices.

until then we are going to continue to be bled by both parties.

It is hard to perceive

alexwierbinski — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:15:13 -0700

It is hard to perceive clearly when the candidates are hiding behind a madison ave shield carved from vast sums of special interest dollars.

It seems our perceptions are the easiest thing for modern machine campaigns to mainipulate.

I would prefer if they had much less money from the special interests. We would get much more in real analysis of the crisis we are facing, and real plans to deal with this crisis from an ethical position, if the candidates represented people, rather than economic interests and political machines.

Then we could honestly compare the candidates. As it is now, I have not seen a viable candidate during my lifetime that reflect the needs of the voters who contributed, rather than the interests of their corporate bribers.

I haven't detected much in the way of an ethical responce to our war, economic, health, and educational crisis that we are experiencing from any of the candidates.

But they all offer "a bright shiny future of hopeful change." Sounds like the same old stuff all over again.

I would trust what they said a lot more if they relied on voters for contributions. That's not going to happen in this election. Maybe the next?

Alex

And so the erratic reporting

friendlytophil — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:57:13 -0700

And so the erratic reporting continues...the MSM are now saying that Hillary won Florida, even though absolutely no delegates were awarded. By giving Hillary her ten minutes of spotlight on CNN and network newscasts the anchors and commentators are agreeing to participate in the mess in Florida in exactly the way the Clinton camp desired.
Even if we buy into the argument that there was a real election in Florida (and Michigan, which was also stripped of all its delegates for trying to move up their primary), there is a surreal atmosphere that hangs over the way it was done. Who knows how the voters would have voted if they hadn't believed the delegates were moot? Who knows how many stayed home? Who knows what would have happened if the candidates hadn't agreed to stop campaigning in these areas? Even if big numbers of voters did turn out in Florida--which appears to be the case--we've been seeing bigger than big, in fact, record numbers, turning out in all the primaries.
A good argument can be made that Hillary and Bill are trying to rig the process by asking for the Florida and Michigan delegates after the fact. And it's a fact that the two races weren't run the way they would have been without all the mess. Remember, it's about the voters, all the voters, and their perceptions--not the candidates' little agreement.

We've just got to keep

Feral Cat — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:21:49 -0600

We've just got to keep trying. This is the first chance that we've had in a hundred years to join rural and city workers together. It's our best shot at some sort of healing. The powerful want us at odds with each other. That will continue with Hillary. With Edwards we get the whole shebang. Clear, concise, a warrior for justice and holding on to optimism.
And he has what my rancher husband likes....the repair manual and not just the shiny brochure.

The strange thing is that

Dr.Forbush — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:09:17 -0600

The strange thing is that most "Internet savy" people tend to support Edwards. In the discussion groups. Over at Daily KOS.

But, the pollster are calling that mom that is making dinner, or the guy watching TV. They might not have thought about the choices yet, and they all know Hillary. Maybe when the regular people start to think about the choices they'll vote differently. Then again they might just act like sheep going to the slaughter.

I like Edwards, but I think

WayneNight — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:03:32 -0600

I like Edwards, but I think it's less and less likely that he'll win the nomination this year.

It's still possible for someone - either Obama or Edwards - to take the nomination away from Clinton, but her position is strong, and keeps getting stronger.

If PA were to move its primary to a date where it could actually matter, I'd vote for Edwards (unless Gore got into the race, and polled as a potential Clinton buster - in which case, I'd go with him) because I like what he has to say the most. But, I think it looks increasingly like HRC is going to win. I've made my peace with the idea of her being the nominee.

It's sad, but I'm not so sure the presidency is going to happen for Edwards.

I couldn't agree with you

Dr A — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:41:06 -0600

I couldn't agree with you more. "CNN has spoken and the candidate shall be Hillary Clinton." This attitude just irritates me. The top three are just extremely flawed candidates. I just can't hold my nose and vote one more time.

Please Al....run for our sakes!!

Beautiful creatures.

epppie — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:49:06 -0600

Beautiful creatures.

That picture is from a park

kerry — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:18:13 -0600

That picture is from a park in downtown Lexington. I really like it as well and use it every time I do a post with a poll. That park has several bronze pieces dedicated to race horses.

Perfect picture! And I say,

epppie — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:24:41 -0600

Perfect picture!

And I say, GO SEABISCUIT!!!!!!

John Edwards is definitely a

alaprst — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:04:36 -0600

John Edwards is definitely a passionate person who's not afraid to fight for his beliefs (especially on the issue of "two Americas") and deserves credit for admitting that he was wrong in his vote to authorize the Iraq war. Hillary, on the other hand, deserves credit for standing up for progressive blogs against Bill-O and the rest of the right-wing noise machine, but what puts me off is her failure to admit her mistake in voting to authorize the Iraq war. Obama, at least, was against the war from the start and is not afraid to stand up for his convictions even when they seem unpopular or when opponents like Hillary vigorously attack him. It comes down to this, I like Hillary and Edwards, and I wouldn't mind supporting either one of them if they wound up with the nomination, but for now, I like Obama far more.