Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry

[Leo 9]

Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 19 October 2007

The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

Mrs Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.

Employees of the top five US arms manufacturers – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon – gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of US armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.

snip

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3075691.ece

[ileus]

1. Everyone remembers the clinton years fondly...

[Colobo]

9. Even warmongers...

[SaveElmer]

10. Huh?

[incapsulated]

2. Are you fucking kidding me?

Although she now favours a withdrawal of US troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates – Democrat or Republican.

:eyes:

[RC]

3. Hillary is starting to make DINO's look good.

[incapsulated]

12. Way to miss the point

That is the biggest load of bullshit I've read in a while.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Are you saying Hillary is weaker on defense than other candidates?

That's not the impression I've gotten from her. She's a hawk on defense, and this article would bear that out.

What's your problem?

[incapsulated]

31. My problem

Is the statement that she is more "pro-war with Iran" than any REPUBLICAN.

[Turbineguy]

4. The defense industry

will have years of work replacing all the stuff ruined by the Iraq war.

[calteacherguy]

5. $103, 900 is small change.

And that's the amount for ALL Democratic candidates.

Hillary has 50 million in her war chest...do you really think this small change will buy influence? I don't, why would it? :shrug:

[msongs]

6. another deceptive headline....

the headline says "from the industry" while the article details "employees" of the industry.

Msongs

[John Q. Citizen]

16. High level employees. That's means upper management. Are you suggesting

Clinton is weak on defense?

Or do you believe she strong on defense?

I don't understand what your problem is. The article is quite informative. Do you feel it is somehow unfair?

[SaveElmer]

7. Do you believe every employee working for one of these companies...

Is behaving immorally?

Is the simple act of being employed by say Northrop Grumman, immoral?

[emilyg]

8. Butchering the headline is very low. Grow-up.

[saracat]

13. Nothing is lower than the this.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Lower than What? The link has the same headline as the OP. Is it low to report

on candidates contributions?

I don't get what you are objecting to.

[saracat]

18. Nothing is lower than taking cash from the US Weapons Industry.I think it is disgusting of Hillary!

[Karmadillo]

19. Is it disgusting for Obama to accept money from the US Weapons Industry?

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

<edit>

Former Senator John Edwards (D-N. Car.) raised $12,200 and Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) took in $10,000.

[wyldwolf]

20. well, that's different because... because... he's Obama...

[rinsd]

30. Actually saracat supports Edwards who took in more weapons money than Obama.

I guess the fake outrage has been exposed.

[saracat]

32. Link please? And then point to where Edwards has pushed for war

in order to profit his donors. and no the IWAR vote doesn't count. As I recall Clinton came in for a lot of criticism on her Kyl/Lieberman vote recently as her vote was not defensible unless one buys the argument it is only a false front to "fool" GOP voters!

[rinsd]

34. "where Edwards has pushed for war" Too easy....

But no.

"no the IWAR vote doesn't count."

Of course it doesn't nothing Edwards did prior to Oct 2005 seems to count.

"As I recall Clinton came in for a lot of criticism on her Kyl/Lieberman vote recently as her vote was not defensible unless one buys the argument it is only a false front to "fool" GOP voters!"

She's also cosponsor of Webb's bill preventing funds to be used for the Iranian war.

So just to recap, its horrific that Hillary took in nearly $60K but Edwards taking in $12K (about the ratio of their other fundraising) is just an example of weapons manufacturers embrace of the Edwards anti war message.

Your fake outrage is here for all to see.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3622535&mesg_id=3623449

Former Senator John Edwards (D-N. Car.) raised $12,200 and Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) took in $10,00

[saracat]

35. Oh Please.Nothing Hillary does effects you.War votes ,criminal associates

illegal campaign contributions, participation in smear campaigns,nothing. Hillary could eat dead babies and you would find a way to justify it. Even comparing the scope of Edwards and Obama contrubutions is a joke. Really. The Ny Senator is clearly involved with a lot of corrupt individuals from Hsu to Penn and others. Whatever.She is your choice and she will never be mine.

[Leo 9]

43. Blame THE INDEPENDENT.

They did the headline.

[Nimrod2005]

11. She is dangerous, I am telling you.....nt

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Hillary is a hawk. She's never denied it, in fact, she cultivated it. If you want a hawk

vote for Hillary, because that's what you will get.

If you harbor the hunch that she's just pretending to be a hawk, but really isn't, then you are fooling yourself.

Just so you know what you are getting.

Some people want a hawk and want to see massive military spending. They should definatly vote for Hillary.

Just remember, you can't have it all. Every dollar that goes into a military buildup is one less dollar for healthcare, education, housing, etc.

So know before you go, to vote that is.

[Alamom]

21. $103, 900 to Dems. $52, 000 to HRC....the rest went to ????????

If we don't tell the truth and we don't talk about other Democrats taking money from the same sources, then HRC will look bad and the other Democrats won't.... :sarcasm:


The "BIG LIE". Available everyday on DU.












Employees of the top five US arms manufacturers – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon – gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900.


......Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees.

[Vinca]

22. Doesn't her plan for getting out of Iraq involve staying in Iraq?

If we have troops there for another 8 years they're going to need weapons. Of course the weapons industry is donating to Hillary.

[Zandor]

23. What a bullshit story

A 17k discrepancy between Republicans and Democrats.

These contributions are from EMPLOYEES not the companies.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

42. Many of whom are probably contributing through their company's PAC. nt

[Ethelk2044]

24. They know they will benefit. She wants to stay in Iraq and push for Iran

[MethuenProgressive]

25. $104K to $87K? Big fucking deal.

But expect the usuals from the usuals anyway...

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Do you suppose that's all there will be? It's still early.

Just out of curiousity, what would Senator Clinton have to do to get you to consider not voting for her?

[MadHound]

26. Well so much for getting out of Iraq during her first term

And every dollar she receives simply ups the odds that she'll get us into Iran. After all, her Kyle/Leiberman vote set the stage.

[IndyOp]

28. .

[Tellurian]

29. We know the Clintons won't be taking orders from Bush/Cheney...

their puppet Obama, not so much!

[saracat]

33. Relly? How do we know this? Hillary seems to have done a wonderful job along with Bill of "sucking

up" to them.Where has Hillary stood up against Bush? Her IWAR vote? The KYL /Liberman vote? ? Did she defund the war? And Bill and Poppy are such "good friends" Puhleeze.

[Tellurian]

38. As if you are a trusted source for information..

[saracat]

40. And you are? Hah!

[L0oniX]

41. I don't think Hillary sucks or Bill wouldn't have had Monica do the job

[denem]

44. Wake up and smell the freedom

Thanks Rush.

[L0oniX]

36. Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far The Favorite

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

[Hieronymus]

39. This article tells the story. Those employees of weapons manufacturers

were by far the top level employees. It's pretty obvious they want to
keep their well paid jobs.
I keep thinking of Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex.

[Alexander]

37. When your only principle is money, you can justify anything.

That's what the DLCers have in common with Republicans.