Why Obama must be destroyed:

[Laelth]

and why Hillary Is Willing To Do It.

For several days now I have been in an uncomfortable state of subdued panic. The reason is this: I sense a very real threat to the Democratic Party. To be blunt, I think the party is in danger of self-destruction. This is the first time that I have ever felt this way in the twenty-seven years that I have been politically sentient, and I am deeply alarmed.

The more I have tried to identify the source of this feeling, and the more I have studied the events of the past couple of weeks of this primary, the more alarmed I have become. I have found scant evidence that my instincts are wrong and that my alarm is unfounded.

It seems obvious that the Obama phenomenon has caught many by surprise, not just Hillary Clinton. Deeply entrenched interests are absolutely terrified that Obama may actually become President. It is clear that Clinton is being encouraged to stay in the race and is being aided in her efforts by forces that do not have the interests of the Democratic Party at heart (including Rush Limbaugh, no less).

What has puzzled me, and what I can not explain, is why? Finally, on that score, I have come to a conclusion. I don't like my answer, but it rings true to me, nonetheless.

I believe that "the powers that be" inside the beltway deeply fear a candidate who has a million donors. That includes the Clintons, the Bushes, the McCains, the lobbyists, the journalists ... nearly all of those involved in the machinery of government. The fact is that the whole system is driven by lobbyist money, but candidate with a million donors doesn't need lobbyist money. He can not be bought. For this reason, he is a dire threat to the entire system.

And that is why, it seems, Obama must be brought down ... even if the whole Democratic Party has to go down with him.

This is the only answer I have found that explains what I have seen these past few weeks, and while I would have never believed that Hillary Rodham Clinton could be a willing participant in an orchestrated attempt to destroy Obama, the recent Mother Jones article on Hillary's faith has altered my view of her entirely.

It's long, but it's a fascinating read: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillary...

If, as I have speculated, the oligarchy or "the powers that be" have decided that Obama must be destroyed, the Mother Jones article explains why Hillary might be willing to do it. Read it and see if you agree.

-Laelth

[stellanoir]

1. Chill hon

okay?

[Laelth]

8. Thanks for the concern.

Seriously.

-Laelth

[niceypoo]

55. Listen to Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller...

...Tweety, Keith Olberman, take your pick, for five minutes then ask yourself just who is trying to destroy whom.

[Laelth]

66. No doubt, the truth has some allies in the media.

But they are few and far between.

And neither Schultz, nor Miller, nor Matthews, nor Olbermann is a Democratic candidate for President who prefers McCain to her opponent.

-Laelth

[Road Scholar]

224. It's sorta like what Minnie told Mickey.........

"I think somebody is fucking Goofey"

[Laelth]

231. Thanks for the laugh. I hadn't heard that one.

-Laelth

[CherylK]

92. That is an insulting, unproductive response

Condescending, at least that is my opinion.

[stellanoir]

94. How is recommending that someone relax

condescending?

Just saying that we've still got a long way to go.

However I share similar concerns in truth.

[CherylK]

143. Saying "relax" to someone implies that he/she is hysterical

Unless it is a situation with a crazy overreaction I disagree with using the word "relax". It sounds very condescending. This is just my opinion.

[George II]

164. Advocating bringing down the Democratic Party isn't "hysterical"?

[Laelth]

167. Who's advocating bringing down the party?

I am concerned that certain forces are trying to destroy the party, yes. If anything, I am advocating preserving the party.

Is that not obvious from my OP?

-Laelth

[George II]

175. Two quotes directly out of your post:

"Why Obama must be destroyed"

"Obama must be brought down ... even if the whole Democratic Party has to go down with him."

It appears that Obama could very well be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Your post calls for him to be destroyed (not physically, we certainly hope) and if it takes bringing down the whole Democratic Party to do it, you want that to happen.

So, that isn't "advocating bringing down the party"? If not, it's a bizarre perspective on what you said at the top.

[Laelth]

177. That's not what I want to happen.

That's what I fear "the powers that be" want to happen. I am sounding an alarm in hopes of preventing that from happening.

In case it's not clear to you, I am an Obama supporter.

-Laelth

[George II]

233. Then you should have put both of those statements in "QUOTES"

[frogcycle]

243. or you should learn to comprehend

prose written above the third-grade level
the context and author's meaning were blatantly obvious

sheesh

[jgraz]

287. We really need a DU code to display a post in crayon

Seriously, how much more obvious does a poster need to be?

[Dr.Phool]

216. I think that there's a problem with reading comprehension around here.

What the OP was saying is that certain elements in the party are trying to destroy Obama at all costs.

Read the article he linked to COMPLETELY, and you'll understand what the OP is saying.

[jjr5]

226. Yeah, what's up with George II?

I think there is a major problem with some people posting on this thread. Where are they from and why are they diverting the actual conversation? Laelth obviously cares about the Democratic party and is expressing concern and calling for us to unite our party.

[George II]

235. The intentions of the OP should have been clearer....

[Laelth]

236. Thanks.

And welcome to DU!



-Laelth

[Maureen1322]

321. Ok, that's how I understood it.

[TK421]

219. HAH!!!!!!!!

[CherylK]

221. What is with the double response everyone time? :)

eom

[stellanoir]

195. We all get worked up from time to time.

[Brundle_Fly]

225. oh relax.

[Yurovsky]

257. It's pretty reserved compared to the original post....

I would suggest that you back up about 100m for a better perspective.

[stellanoir]

281. Please consider relaxing over my usage of the word "relax."

It was employed to encourage patience and in the spirit of offering up a modicum of assurance.

Would you prefer that I recommend "panic?" That always works. /sarcasm

After what we've all had to endure and observe over the last 8 years or so, if one is not periodically a bit hysterical, one is not paying attention.

The OP didn't seem to be at all offended.

Sheesh.

[Riktor]

107. Yes, it certainly was...

... and it was deserved, too. The OP smacked of of fan-boy hero worship; just another tired Hillary/Obama diatribe about how one is the "real" candidate, while the other is just part of the "establishment." Those of us keen enough to realize that BOTH candidates are "part of the establishment" are, frankly, rather tired of bullshit threads like this.

[Laelth]

117. I am concerned about the health and welfare of the Party.

I was an Edwards supporter, originally.

I grow tired of people who so obviously think they know everything and are willing to pompously insult others who they deem deluded or just plain stupid.



-Laelth

[SOS]

137. Your concern is well founded

Our party is ripping itself in half while the Republicans coalesce around McCain.
Bodes very poorly for our chances in November.

[Riktor]

286. Hmpf...

... so, if Hillary wins the primaries, all the Obama supporters are going to do what, pray tell? Vote for Alfred E. Newman?

This primary is business-as-usual. We're going to piss and moan and fight amongst ourselves like teenagers bitching over who's favorite band is better. Then, when all is said and done, we're going to realize that no matter who is on our ticket, they'll be preferable to another right-wing asshole running the country for yet another four years.

Furthermore, if a Republican wins the '08 elections, he'll sure as shit deserve it. After all, he'll have the deck stacked against him. Historically, incumbent parties are not reelected during recessions, and, generally, the endorsement of a president with an approval rating hovering around 20% won't get you many votes.

[Riktor]

283. It is rather cliche...

... to assert that anyone who corrects an incorrect statement is a "pompous know-it-all". That's the same bullshit tactic Kansans use to assault those fancy East Coast liberal scientists who dare suggest man and ape share a common ancestor. It is fallacious to attack the personality of your opponent rather than the factuality of his argument, no matter how big a prick he is.

So, to get back to your point, you are concerned with the "health and welfare of the Party"?

Why now?

The DNC, like the RNC, is an old-boy network filled to the brim with people who owe people favors. It has been like this for as long as the party has been around, and it is unlikely to change. The fact Hillary is using her clout within the DNC to hammer Obama doesn't in any way imply there's a contingent of "corrupt" Democrats, to which Hillary would inexorably belong, and a contingent of "genuine" Democrats, which would count golden-child Obama amongst their numbers. All this story implies is that Hillary has been playing the game longer, has more connections within the DNC, and is using them just as any other presidential candidate would. In a way, this move is no different than Obama pulling on the clout of Oprah to help get his name out.

I'll continue to support the Democrats because they most represent my political sympathies. However, as the heart and soul of the party, it is up to us to look at them objectively, and criticize the ever-loving hell out of them when they step out of line.

[Laelth]

292. I must have missed the "factually incorrect" statement.

I didn't see that you were correcting any "factually incorrect" statement when you called this a "bullshit" thread and characterized my concerns as "fan-boy hero worship." And suggesting that I am naive because I can't see, as you can, that both candidates are "part of the establishment," doesn't sound like correction of a "factually incorrect statement" to me. Thus, my snark in response.

My point, here, is that Obama may no longer be as beholden to his big-money donors as they would like. As I explained to knight-of-the-star, below, I was initially a John Edwards supporter. In part, that was because I was concerned, as you rightly point out, that both BO and HRC looked to me like "establishment candidates," beholden to special interests. I was seriously worried about the amount of special-interest money that both BO and HRC had collected. I was concerned that they had already been "bought off."

The theory that I advance in this thread is that these same special interests have come to realize what I have. Now that Obama has a million donors (and that figure is growing), he is no longer beholden to these interests. They thought they had effectively bought him. Now they realize that they were wrong. Perhaps he doesn't need their support any longer.

That, I think, is why he is a threat, and that is why these same interests want him destroyed. Hillary's continued refusal to accept that she can not win and that, even if she did win, she would split the party, is what has me confused. I can't see why she would do that if she really values the ideals of the Democratic party. The MJ article suggests that HRC works for a "higher power" than the Democratic party, and that explains why she might be willing to throw the whole party under the bus.

This has me very concerned.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--spelling.

[Riktor]

336. ... and I reiterate....

The fact Hillary is being backed by big name Democrats may have nothing to do with Obama's financial support. Instead, she has played the game longer, and has amassed key allies within the party. Who they are taking money from is irrelevant.

Now, onto the DLC...

The Democratic Leadership Council's sole purpose is to push a centrist agenda in order to make Democrats more palatable to the general public, in order to take away swing voters wooed by the Republicans during the Reagan Administration. In other words, Democrats ditching ideals for the prospect of empowering "the party". Hillary, having, gee, a HUSBAND, who was on the DLC, is now being endorsed by the DLC. Is Obama really a threat? -OR- Are Bill's old golf buddies pulling a favor for him?

[knight_of_the_star]

168. I have to agree with that

Neither candidate walks on water or even comes close to that in my opinion, they both represent the establishment the only real difference is what part of the establishment they came from.

[Laelth]

174. I was initially a John Edwards supporter.

In part, that was because I was concerned, as you are, about our candidates being beholden to special interests. I was seriously worried about the amount of special-interest money that both BO and HRC were receiving.

The theory that I advance, here, is that these same special interests have come to realize what I have. Now that Obama has a million donors (and that figure is growing), he is no longer beholden to these interests. They thought they had effectively bought him. Now they realize that they were wrong.

That, I think, is why he is a threat, and that is why these same interests want him destroyed.

-Laelth

[knight_of_the_star]

194. Just because he has a million donors does not mean he isn't beholden to those interests anymore

I would rather look at proportions of money and where it is coming from. The number of donors does not sway me at all, what would catch my attention would be if you could produce something more persuasive like how much money came from those special established interests as opposed to how much came from those million donors, I'm willing to bet it is much more in favor of the former than the latter. I would also like to see the names of those donors to find out if it isn't a large proportion of members of the establishment you claim he isn't a part of.

That and there's been things coming out about Obama that make me doubt that he really is fit to be President and that he isn't just a creation of the Chicago Machine, particularly the recent article that highlights how key bills he got credit for passing were transferred from the people who did all the leg-work to Obama at the last minute to give him the glory without all the work as well as his work disqualifying every single other candidate in the election that put him in the State Legislature from being on the ballot winning by playing the rules not the hearts of the voters.

And as a response to your OP I do not think this is going to be war to the knife for the party, Hillary may be determined but she isn't stupid and knows if she torches the party and still can't get the nomination there is no way in hell she will get it in 2012.

[Laelth]

201. I certainly hope you're right about Hillary's intentions.

I regret that I do not have access to the data you seek. I appreciate your concerns about Obama's fitness. Here, amongst allies, that kind of discussion is not only appropriate, but crucial to our choosing the best nominee for the party.

I have no idea whether or not Obama actually "is" beholden to any given special interests, but I suspect he's making K Street nervous by his independent ability to generate cash. Talk about campaign finance reform? Obama may be achieving it, in fact, without actually having a bill passed through Congress. The way Washington runs may just be "changing" before our eyes. If so, I am not surprised that certain established interests are nervous about it.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[RaleighNCDUer]

261. I don't think she cares.

Obama's candidacy is what the DLC was created to prevent. No more insurgencies taking the process out of the hands of the monied interests. As long as the DLC can retain its grip on the party's balls, they don't care WHO is in the WH.

Why do you think they sabatoged Gore and Kerry, leaving it in Republican hands?

[TK421]

222. Love your avatar, by the way...we need a Ripley to calm things down

and maybe kick some ass around these parts sometimes...

[Riktor]

284. Thanks...

... I've been a fan of the "Alien" flicks since I was a kid. My wife thought it very progressive of me to choose her as an avatar, but I salvaged my masculinity by claiming I only chose it because DC doesn't have a picture of Indiana Jones up yet.

[George II]

162. ....to an insulting, unproductive OP!

Condescension is the least of my emotions about that negative, destructive post.

[Laelth]

169. Thanks for the level-headed and constructive response.

-Laelth

[George II]

172. Be happy that's all I said there, considering you're advocating the election of John McCain in Nov.

[Laelth]

176. I am advocating no such thing.

Please read the post before you respond again.

-Laelth

[verges]

206. Did you read the OP?

She expresed legitimate concerns. She did not advocate the overthrow of the party. She did not advocate support for McCain in any way. Or any other Cackamaie thing you can think of.

[still_one]

2. There were unamed Democratic forces that bring Dean down if you remember

However, it isn't going to work this time.

[seabeyond]

12. shit they did everything to take kerry down thru out the whole campaign

all the way thru to the little black boxes

[ChiciB1]

52. And John Kerry & Ted Kennedy Along With Tom Daschele Have Been

"behind the scenes" for OBAMA for a really long time! But I will agree, that "the powers that be" HAVE been working behind the scenes doing all sorts of inner hijinks! FWIW... they BOTH have their cadre of INFLUENTIALS who are working feverishly to win this "inner battle!"

The only problem I see is that those behind the scenes, the powers that be AND the D.C. Elites have embroiled themselves in this tug-of-war just so their candidate comes out on top! I also feel they decided quite some time ago that the Democrats needed "to make History in 2008" and any and all other candidates running NEVER HAD A CHANCE!

Unfortunately, I fear they have made another BIG MESS and in the end it will be "we the people" who will get screwed and left holding the short end of the stick!

JMHO!!!

[seabeyond]

68. "we the people" who will get screwed ....

i have been having a sleezy feeling about the mccain/bush/clinton connection over the last four years since the 2004 race. i just really think these three are connected and i dont want any of them in anymore.

[ooglymoogly]

98. amen nt

[pleah]

251. You are absolutely correct! It is the same old same old. Choose the lesser of the two evils!

[SammyWinstonJack]

182. Once again.

...and in the end it will be "we the people" who will get screwed and left holding the short end of the stick!

Yet again.

[ChiciB1]

239. Ny Thoughts... But Thank You For Noticing. I So Wish My Belief In This

REALITY certainly isn't a welcome thought. However what I'm seeing is troubling. This "feeling" of being left out will either generate more APATHY, or if we are the least bit lucky "we the people" will rise up and say NO MORE!

If I had to bet, my preference would be the latter, still I must realize the the former is pervasive. So I'd have to split the difference and say it's 50-50 with no expectations that the numbers will change.

[Laelth]

14. I do remember ...

... and The Good Doctor laid the groundwork for the 50 state strategy that, coupled with Obama's natural charisma and superior organizational skills, allowed him to have over a million donors.

I certainly hope you're right about the end result here, but I am truly worried.

-Laelth

[still_one]

23. 50 state strategy, using the internet to attract small donners

Called the Iraq war WRONG, WAY before it was popular to do so

[Laelth]

121. He's a class act, for sure.

People simply can't forgive him for being right. The venom that some Democrats spew at him truly amazes me.

-Laelth

[Cha]

138. Oh yeah...hilary's out there sayin'

all Obama can give is a speech when she and mccain have the experience..how Orwellian is that when their combined experience sent thousands of our Soldiers to die and be maimed for life and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to be bombed and killed on their soil.

Obama had the courage to speak out at a time when the War On Iraq was really popular thanks to the mass homicidal maniacs in the m$$$$m. hilary wanted to shore up her toughness for a 2008 pres run and mccain loves wars anytime anyplace. But, hilary didn't do too badly with the yea vote on the kyl-lieberman bill.

[Laelth]

141. Good point.

Some Democrats can't forgive Obama for being right, either.



-Laelth

[Cha]

147. Yeah, because he's winning and they're

not. Now Obama's campaign has to circumvent the m$$$m who are pumping mightly for hilary's death march.

[Laelth]

150. Frank Zappa said ...

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."

Perhaps the illusion has finally become too expensive to maintain?



-Laelth

[Cha]

152. We can

HOPE

[SwampG8r]

255. frank god bless rip

anyone who quotes zappa gains my trust and respect
the greatest musician of the second half of the 20th century
a patriot and well thought well spoken ideas
my favorite frank minute?
testifying before congress about music lyrics he told tipper gore
thats mrs al gore btw (she was asskissing to the right during the reagan years )
and i try to quote
"almost all the songs ever written are about love. if music has the power to influence behaviour shouldnt we all love one other?"
rest in peace frank
if theres a rock and roll heaven
you know they got one hell of a band

[Laelth]

275. Zappa made the world a more beautiful place.

In more ways than one. I hope people will be able to say the same about me when I am gone.



-Laelth

[hell-bent]

160. Does the venom

spewing from the Obama surrogates amaze you as well? Bill Clinton was the best president since JFK. I suspect many of the young Obama supporters on this site don't know much about the prosperous period during President Bill Clinton's presidency. Perhaps they were more concerned during that period about their acne and the latest Michael Jackson album. These are the same kind of supporters that got George McGovern nominated which ended in a crushing defeat.

[Laelth]

165. Hmm ... I am not sure how to respond.

I guess I am not sure what you're really asking me. I said in my post that I was astounded at the venom spewed at Howard Dean. I didn't say where that venom was coming from. I am amazed by the venom spewed at Howard Dean because I think he is a good party chair, an honorable person, and someone who has been unfairly attacked.

You ask if I am astounded at venom spewed by Obama supporters, but you don't identify any specific venom, nor do you tell me who the target of the venom is. Until I know what specific person or behavior is being "venomized" I can't tell you whether I am outraged by it.

Does that make any sense?

-Laelth

[hell-bent]

183. Touche'

I must apologize as I assumed that you were talking about the venom directed at your candidate. However, since we are talking about "venom" being spewed; would you not agree that there has been venomous postings disproportionately directed at the Clintons by the Obama surrogates? Why the hatred? Are these real Democrats or just some over zealous, young supporters that don't remember the contributions that the Clintons have made to the middle class and the underprivileged citizens of our country? Does that make any sense?

[Laelth]

193. Yes, it does make sense, and thanks for clarifying.

I have to admit that many of the new arrivals at DU are, to put it mildly, "trigger happy."

One particularly enthusiastic Obama supporter attacked me in this very thread. Usually, I write this behavior off. I suspect many of these supporters are new to this online community and are trying to "score points" against the opposition. That's natural, probably, but irritating nonetheless. If I were a Hillary supporter, I think I would be quite frustrated, because "trigger happy" responses indicate a lack of concern and a lack of interest in open dialog. When someone responds in anger or too quickly they are communicating to you that they didn't listen to you. The Obama supporter who attacked me in this thread clearly didn't really read and digest what I had to say. That's frustrating to say the least, and I am sure it feels worse when you're a Hillary supporter.

But the party needs this new blood. It takes a while to learn how to play nicely. I don't want to run them off, but I don't condone all their behavior, either.

As for the Clinton years, which I followed closely, I was quite pleased with 1993 and 1994. I remain pleased with Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. I loathe NAFTA and TANF (welfare reform). Perhaps Clinton's greatest achievement was balancing the federal budget, and Bill Clinton deserves much credit for that. But I must take issue with your claim that Clinton was the "best president since JFK." IMHO, Lyndon Johnson accomplished more in his tenure than any President since FDR, and, being a native Georgian, I am rather fond of Jimmy Carter.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[GoneOffShore]

279. Sorry - we have Clinton to thank for so many things

NAFTA, DMCA, Welfare Reform, DLC, Triangulation.
Had he had the courage to do so he would have used his veto more than he did.

No, I think history will judge him to be mediocre at best.

And just so you don't think I'm some newbie, I've been voting since 1969. (And Democratic)

[Maddy McCall]

17. Yeah. That force was called "voters."

[HughMoran]

200. lol - hey! no reality in this post

This post is for the paranoid mrans that have taken over DU and turned it into a shit-pile.

[cameozalaznick]

271. You don't think...

That the MSM playing "The Scream" (although I thought it sounded closer to a yodel) on a continuous loop for like three weeks, along with the entire punditocracy basically calling him wacky, didn't have a little something to do with those voters' perceptions?

[dansolo]

76. I think the same forces kept Gore out of the race in 2004

It was obvious that Gore was itching to enter the race, but something held him back.

[Riktor]

108. Those "unnamed" forces...

... didn't keep him from becoming chairman of the DNC. Care to explain?

[Liquorice]

3. This seems awfully conspiratorial to me. Obama has a lot of support inside the Beltway. nt

[Laelth]

6. It is conspiratorial.

That's exactly what the Mother Jones article suggests.

-Laelth

[Liquorice]

18. There have been so many crazy conspiracy theories

about Hillary and Bill Clinton that I don't even pay attention to them anymore. I used to research each and every one just because I like to know the truth about things, but none of those conspiracies amounted to anything. Ever. It's all a big waste of time. Hillary is running for president because she wants to be the president. She isn't doing it to destroy Obama for lobbyists and other insiders.

[Laelth]

37. Not all conspiracy theories are crazy.

And I have definitely heard some that are.

But do you not sense that something strange is going on? Honestly?

In the spirit of genuine, open dialogue.

-Laelth

[Liquorice]

39. Strange in what way? nt

[Laelth]

41. Big smile.

That's my problem. I can't put my finger on one, single factor that's causing this feeling.

Evidently you don't share my feeling, and that explains your response. Thanks.

-Laelth

[Mme. Defarge]

140. I share

your sense of uneasiness. When I (metaphorically) step back, to get a broader perspective, I have to admit that I sense a sort of cosmic dimension to the battle we are witnessing, with the forces of evil lining up against the forces of good. Now I know that sound ridiculous, but when you consider what is at stake for both sides -- the corporate over-class and powerful politicians versus government "of the people, by the people, for the people", how could it be otherwise?

In my world view, evil is a real force in the universe, and it's presence can be discerned not only when there is deceit, injustice and exploitation and, but also when there is confusion. And while it is possible that Obama is a part of a big deception, when I step back and allow myself to take in the magnitude of the attack against him, as well as the hysteria surrounding the Clinton campaign, while he remains steady and focused, not to mention magnificently prepared, I am persuaded that he is for real.

And may the heavenly hosts be on his side.

[snappyturtle]

148. I'm sixty years old and this is without doubt the strangest election

season I've ever seen. I think both sides are strange. The Republican candidate is a strange choice. Couldn't the republicans have done better? You can't tell me there isn't an old-time conservative type out there in Republican land that would have been more attractive to those of conservative nature. McCain? The candidate that admits he knows nothing about economics. They put up McCain to give him the chance he's probably always wanted but he's possibly a sacrificial, but malleable, lamb.
None of their hopefuls seemed to meet the standard of credible, sincere, but not credible enough, to be a winner to me but then, I'm not a Republican.

Now, with the above aside, what about the Democrats? I think all the candidates on this side of the aisle were/are credible. As the candidate field formed though I had this feeling that it was a set-up. Hillary was just supposed to win! Whatever the powers to be are,they didn't plan on Obama's appeal. He screwed up the plan. The last few weeks we've seen an escalation of Hillary's tactics to gain advantage and the escalation doesn't appear to be working. This is a problem for the "powers".

I think Hillary has now accepted the mission of destroying the Dems chances of winning the president's office this fall. She is doing all she can to de-escalate Obama's "Mo" and will take election matters to court, if need be, to seal the destruction and set up McCain as President. The "powers" would probably have been happier with Clinton in the White House however, McCain will do....the military industrial complex and 21st century imperialism will survive.

I am yet to read the article....will now. Anxious to see the drift there.

***************************
Now I've read the article and not much clicks! Other than her Republican roots, which pop through from time to time, and her need for a power base, I don't "see" much relevence. I do believe that Hillary is a student of religion much as some people study psychology...see's looking for "something" to give meaning to her life.

[Laelth]

149. I agree with you about McCain. I think he's token resistance.

I argued the same here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/18

It seems to me that the "powers" just assumed that Hillary would win, and they were OK with that. The Obama phenomenon seems to have taken a lot of people by surprise.

Curious to hear what you think of the Mother Jones article.

-Laelth

[snappyturtle]

153. I went back and edited my reply with my response. I wish you

could tell me how you think her beliefs effect her message. Sorry...maybe I'm looking too hard, but I don't see much of the ol' time religion in Hillary Clinton.

edit: To explain more about what depths HRC may go too, I found this OP of yesterday interesting. Maybe you will too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Laelth]

154. Well, it's not that her beliefs effect her message.

That's not what concerns me. It's that this particular religious group affects her political actions, much moreso than I ever would have believed.

Take a look at post #26 below. The quotes I list there worry me. I don't want a President who is under the influence of that group or involved with it in any way.

-Laelth

[snappyturtle]

186. I agree....those quotes are truly scary. Too messianic for my liking.

I am no longer formally religious....spiritual, but not religious, so maybe I'm more easily concerned about the dangers of religion permeating secular decisions.

I remember seeing a teevee program on the History Channel or PBS a year ago or so about Hillary and her "prayer group". It stuck me as odd because I don't think of HRC as being devotely religious, at least overtly,...but now, after reading what you've written and linked, I find her religiousity frightening because we don't hear much about it. Will it guide her actions if elected president? My guess is, yes. Religion has been a cause for war throughout history. Now I think of her part in securing over a billion dollars for the state of NY in 2006 in military expenditures troublesome... and yet she says she will end war.

It's almost too much to think about, and then I remember that we knew so little about G.W. prior to his election I don't want to see us making the same mistake again. Thanks for this post.

[Laelth]

203. My pleasure.

Thanks for carefully considering what I had to say.



-Laelth

[KoKo]

158. Here's an article from Steve Soto.. re this: John Edwards was a member of the fellowship, too..

Sunday :: Sep 2, 2007
Faith And Hillary
(Steve Soto "The Left Coaster" wrote this interesting piece when the Mother Jones article was coming out)


by Steve Soto

According to the current issue of Mother Jones magazine and reporters Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet, Hillary Clinton has been participating in bible study and prayer groups since she came to Washington in 1993, first as part of a Washington wives group while she was First Lady, and then as part of an exclusive weekly Senate prayer group when she joined the Senate. That news, in and of itself is not startling given Clinton’s long-standing faith and religious background. Hillary’s willingness to seek out and associate with people of faith, even in such a cutthroat environment as Washington is certainly not disqualifying. But seeking a faith-based area of common ground with those on the other side of the aisle, including many who could easily be described as her and her husband’s enemies does however raise questions about her judgment and what exposure she has as a result of these supposedly confidential associations.

Many will find it understandable and laudatory that she seeks spiritual guidance and reinforcement, and has for years. But what may startle people, including her supporters, is that the group she has associated herself with since 1993 which sponsors these groups as well as the National Prayer Breakfast is very conservative and exclusive. Known now as the Fellowship, it is a group that reporter Sharlet knows very well given his past investigative pieces in Harper's Magazine several years ago, and a Rolling Stone piece about Sam Brownback in 2006. Digby has written about this group as well. Even though Mother Jones will not post the piece online until Tuesday, I have been given permission to post segments of the piece in the extended entry. I encourage all of you to buy the current issue and read the piece for yourselves, because Hillary’s association with the Fellowship may lead some to question her judgment and true beliefs, given what the group stands for. Having said that, keep in mind that the Senate prayer group has been attended by other Democrats, and seems to be the only group of its type operating on Capitol Hill, which itself raises questions.

Ignorance cannot be an excuse here, because a Google search would tell you the Fellowship believes that Christian elites have a duty to rule the world, and serve Jesus Christ in a higher calling than their duties as leaders of nations. Plainly put, according to Sharlet, “the Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.” The notion that Christian elites should rule the world for the rest of us, and should lead their countries not for the benefit of all, but to pursue God’s plan as defined by the Fellowship and founder Doug Coe runs contrary to what this country was founded upon, and is anything but progressive.

Are we to assume that Hillary endorses what the Fellowship stands for, given her 14-year association? Alternately, is it possible that she doesn’t literally accept what the Fellowship espouses, or that she associates with them out of a lack of egalitarian and progressive faith options for senators and representatives inside Washington?

In raising these questions about Hillary’s judgment and motivation, fairness dictates that her opponents be held to the same standard. John Edwards likewise was a co-chairman of the same Senate prayer group when he was in the Senate, so he also must have known about the Fellowship’s goals and objectives. As for his judgment, Barack Obama singled out far right GOP senator Tom Coburn,☼ a member of Hillary’s Senate prayer group as someone whom he can do business with, notwithstanding Coburn’s documented extreme positions on women and gays. Does Obama’s desire for a new kind of politics with such people, and Edwards’ and Hillary’s association with the Fellowship disqualify them from progressive support? Or is it an unfortunate sign of the times in Washington that our top three candidates associate with and tolerate those like Coburn and the Fellowship, instead of shining a light upon such beliefs?

While they tout their commitment to progressive values, Hillary and Edwards should clarify whether or not they endorse what the Fellowship stands for. And Obama has a duty to tell us why a "new politics" requires the submersion of Coburn's views for the sake of a Liebermanesque bipartisanship.

But there is another question that deserves an answer as well. Why is it acceptable for both the National Prayer Breakfast and the singular Senate prayer group to be sponsored by a group advocating Christian theocracy and elitism?

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:mxSqtwdu9usJ:www.th...

[Laelth]

161. That is very interesting.

And, for me, it raises serious church/state separation issues when it's that deeply intertwined with our national political processes.

-Laelth

[KoKo]

179. I think Soto was being fair in this article in the questions he asks..

I wish that DU'ers would "discuss" and do more research. Because we're becoming as "close minded" as the Freepers who rely on one piece of news to influence their opinions and get themselves worked up in a frenzy shutting out any other opinions.

Anyway...I'm sure few will read this or care. They would rather trash Hillary as the Devil the way the RW has made it's living off doing.

I'm neither a Hillary nor Obama supporter. I see little difference between them in their corporate or religious views. I think that either one will run the country like Bill Clinton did...and frankly that was still better than what we've had the last 8 years. But, I do feel that Clinton's should be held accountable for their "deregulation" and Trade Policies that set the stage for Bush II. If either Hillary or Obama said they'd re-regulate and go after the Wall St. Corporatists who have been raking the money in while our country has gone to hell...could I trust them?

I don't think Kucinich ever went to those Prayer Breakfast but there were liberals who didn't like him because he was a Catholic and they though against abortion. So...there's always something we can find if we really don't like a Candidate.

[Emit]

305. And here's what one of the authors, Sharlet, says about Edwards and the Fellowship

September 5, 2007 2:44 PM
Jeff Sharlet said:

`snip~

But as for your comment about Edwards, yes, you're right. The Senate Prayer Breakfast is by far the least ideological activity of the Fellowship, though it still tends to be very minority Democrat. Real fellow travelers, tho, don't just go to the Senate breakfast; they meet separately with smaller cells (their word, not mine) of like-minded folks. Hillary had such a cell at one point, as we write. Edwards, to the best of my knowledge, didn't. I've never spoken to Edwards, but I asked Bob Moser, who wrote a great profile of him for The Nation, about those religious connections. In Edwards' case, he said, it really was just politics -- which is fine.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/09/05/the-rel... /

scroll down to the comment section

[nolabels]

262. The republican establishment needs another compromised helpless one like *

They care little about his profile except that he is compromised. He has the same M.O. as other people who were prepared by economic hit-man. McCain was probably much easier to capture than the Clinton's but rest assured they are all traveling in the same boat.

As for Obama, if he does manage to get that ticket and grabs the golden ring they will get him sold out in a certain amount of time or eliminate him (the latter is probably what happened to JFK).

[SwampG8r]

259. i know whats strange

the powers that be are shocked to see guys like me who sit on fences and try to make their decisions on the long range picture going to obama
i am pro choice
pro civil union
pro defense
pro civil rights
i want an accountable immigration system
on almost all domestic issues you would call me moderate to liberal
and on foreign policy i tend to be much more conservative. this causes me in most national elections to go with the gop candidate because (and i mean because only in reference to my opinion) they represent my international ideas better. im not saying they are right or that they are successful only that in many elections during my looooooong life i have had to place my bet on who would keep the bogyman out better and lets face it the dnc makes the choice easy if you look at the people they have run since 1972 (my first vote)and reference to better foreign policy. better equating to americas commercial interests are met for our economic sake
but you know what?
im fed up
cant take another bite of the shit sandwich
i want to see someone i know is untainted by national experience. thats right ,tainted! anyone who has been a lifer at the tit of america is off my ballot they have no difference in ideas or goals as hillary clinton showed by recently endorsing mc cain
i have at this late age come to the realization that my dad was right there isnt a cup of spit worth of difference between the 2 parties
so im voting obama because he ,to me, represents the single best chance we have as voters to make a grab for our own power back and here in my district im making these clowns answer questions
befoore they get my previously automatic vote
back to the point in re why ruin obama
im why they have lost me and they cant scare me back and im not alone the dem party is undergoing a climate change and the gop will too
i hope we both clean our houses
and that scares the shit out of them all

[Laelth]

293. "that scares the shit out of them all"

As well it should. I'm all for cleaning both our houses. I have a sense that, once we break away from the control of special interest money (which BO is showing can be done), we might actually be able to do it. And before this election, I didn't see it ever happening. Now it's a real possibility.

-Laelth

[Riktor]

113. In short, NO

There isn't anything even remotely strange going on at all. The same crazy "conspiracy" scenario could have been just as easily applied to the Bush-McCain rivalry during the 2000 primaries. The fact of the matter is, politics is about connections. You scratch someone's back, they scratch yours. Hillary has been around long enough to have scratched a whole lot of backs, so expect to see people returning the favor.

This isn't to say that Obama is the better candidate. It just means he hasn't had the opportunity to scratch as many backs as Hillary.

He will, though.

[sandnsea]

24. Not everyone inside the beltway is the same n/t

[Liquorice]

25. That's true. There are insiders who prefer Obama, and insiders who

prefer Clinton. It's not a conspiracy though.

[sandnsea]

46. No

There are DLC insiders who are for corporatism and global militaristic domination, and Democrats who still support the people and the traditional values of this country.

[Liquorice]

47. That's simplistic and untrue. nt

[sandnsea]

54. What an insightful rebuttal n/t

[Quixote1818]

4. I think it's interesting that Rush is helping Hillary. I don't think that is just for fun

There is something fishy about that whole thing. We already know Hillary and Rupert Murdock are best buddies. Perhaps Rush just knows his ratings will go up if Hillary wins? The Clinton's made him in the 90's.

There is a lot of bull shit that goes on and when I hear things like the Secret Service stopped looking for weapons in a Texas Obama rally, I get chills running up my spine. And to think people we think are on your side could be a part of something like this!

[Liquorice]

9. Republicans are bored with their nominee and

are looking to stir up trouble in our primary in any way they can. That's all this is about.

[anigbrowl]

19. self-delete - posted under wrong message

[Liquorice]

21. I'm talking about how Rush is involving himself. That's just the way

republicans behave. Don't you know that by now?

[anigbrowl]

Yeah, I misread the thread list - sorry.

[Liquorice]

28. No problem. :-) nt

[Laelth]

Bored?

They dislike McCain, certainly, many of them. But boredom does not explain an organized attempt to destroy Obama. I have to believe there's more to it than that.

-Laelth

[ClayZ]

43. Hmmmmm?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillary...

[sun zoom spark]

96. GOP-based tactics of personal destruction

Listen to the messages slamming HRC: "I want a woman president -- just not Hillary." (Imagine: "I want a black president, just not Obama.") The t-shirts: "Get out of my village, bitch." Even on DU boards: "Hillary, just leave!" messages are everywhere. Until this year, these would be discounted Republican taunts from GOP-trolls. The close primary run means I may have to actively consider Obama as the Dem nominee. From his base, unfortunately all I hear is the "peasants with pitchforks" reasoning: vote Obama or else. Saying that, I really hope the Obama fan base is genuine in its numbers for the Dem party, and that they will vote...I am beginning to wonder if the "Obamasurge" is being subsidized by GOP operatives, like the "Rush-driven primary wins": packed cheering houses, rabid Obama base responses on discussion boards, the clear Hillaryhate. I've never seen personal destruction like this in the Dem party -- ya gotta wonder. It's the GOP hallmark, not the Dems.

[AgadorSparticus]

5. ABSOLUTELY!! We were just talking about this too.

You'd think something as simple as her "experience" would be one of the first things discussed and verified. So far, I've yet to hear anything that would substantiate her claim of 35 yrs blah blah blah.

[Laelth]

133. It just makes no sense to fight on that turf.

Experience is McCain's strength. She's throwing the whole party under the bus when she makes that the battleground. If she weren't so smart, I'd consider it a sloppy tactical error, but she is smart. This attack is intentional, and it only helps McCain, regardless of which of our candidates becomes the nominee.

So, I suspect her motives. Glad to see I'm not alone.

-Laelth

[xchrom]

7. Apocalyptic visions growing in the wake of the Anointed One.

[Laelth]

11. I hope you're right. I honestly do. n/t

-Laelth

[Johnny__Motown]

10. Hillary's comments about McCain being CIC is the source of the damage to our party, It is her fault

[FogerRox]

13. Right

http://www.youtube.com/v/ou4JnWQsxKw

[Laelth]

45. And she keeps saying it over and over.

I would cut her some slack if she had only said it once, but her behavior is inexcusable at this point.

-Laelth

[hell-bent]

163. It's always the Clinton's fault,right?

Isn't that the mantra of the Rethugs?

[kid a]

15. just finished ...this bothers me:

Near the end...

"But the senator's project isn't the conversion of her adversaries; it's tempering their opposition so she can court a new generation of Clinton Republicans, values voters who have grown estranged from the Christian right. And while such crossover conservatives may never agree with her on the old litmus-test issues, there is an important, and broader, common ground—the kind of faith-based politics that, under the right circumstances, will permit majority morality to trump individual rights."

[Laelth]

26. How about this part?

"The Fellowship isn't out to turn liberals into conservatives; rather, it convinces politicians they can transcend left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics. Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move rightward."

or this ...

The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

and this ...

hen Clinton seeks guidance among prayer partners such as Coe and Brownback, she is not so much triangulating—much as that may have become second nature—as honoring her convictions. In her own way, she is a true believer.

All that scares the dickens out of me.

-Laelth

[kid a]

33. Those too.

yea- your #2 there sounds a lot like the dumbya we have taking spiritual guidance from Jesus in the WH now.

yikes!!!

[Georgie_92]

77. Now that's scary!

[syberlion]

232. Reading this quote reminds me...

"The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan. "

This is the mentality of royalty, that God ordained they would lead. This is the reason we broke from that system 232 years ago. Thinking men saw the flaw in that type of thinking and said enough with tyranny. Here we are back where we started. The average citizen relegated to non-person status by virtue of non-representation.

"The Body" (corporations) are being represented and granted full access, even to the level of writing the bills for those in the house and senate to pass, have you as an average person ever contributed even one paragraph, a sentence, or even a word to any legislation?

If someone came to you and asked if you wanted to be the next Hoover (president, not Vacuum) would YOU want that job? We are in the midst of an economic down-turn and it usually is for historians to label a period, boom or bust. Hard to see when you are standing at the bottom of the well.

Back to the quote. We left Europe to create something different, something better here in America. I for one think it's time to throw out those usurping this constitutional government. It's time to remember what elitism did to those struggling back in the 1700's and what torture it's doing to us now. The will of the people, that's what it means by WE THE PEOPLE.

[Laelth]

238. Hear, hear!

And welcome to DU!



-Laelth

[FogerRox]

16. KNR, even if it is old news

[Laelth]

253. Old news in a new context, perhaps?

The Mother Jones investigative report makes more sense that ever in light of Hillary's kitchen sink strategy.

imho

Thanks for the k&r.

-Laelth

[babylonsister]

20. YES! He's a bad man that might mindfuck the powers that be! Woe is us! nt

[Laelth]

139. It's even worse!

He might be a good man who will advance the interests of the people over the interests of the rich and the corporations.

For goodness sakes, we can's have that!

-Laelth

[question everything]

Funny, I think exactly the opposite

Yes, from where did Obama all of a sudden surface? And how come Ted Kennedy so quickly came on his side?

There are clearly "the powers that be" in the Democratic party who have loathed the Clintons from the time Bill came to office but reluctantly had to accept his successful presidency, yes, even with the impeachment. He is the first Democratic president to be re-elected since FDR and left office with the highest approval rating since these have been measured. Not to mention taking the, by then, largest Federal deficit and replaced it with surplus.

But "the powers that be" are scared to death of the Clintons returning to the White House. So they desperately sought someone to stop her and they found Barack Obama, nurtured him and supported him and offered their endorsement.

[anonymous171]

27. LOL! The Clintons ARE the powers that be.

Stop fooling yourself.

[question everything]

30. Tell this to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Tom Daschel (eom)

[greyghost]

32. Spot on, my friend, spot on.

[Laelth]

34. I hear you, and I know Obama has powerful Dem. friends.

But I'm talking about more than just "the powers that be" within the Democratic Party.

I have long perceived the DLC to be a tool of the oligarchy ... their own branch of the Democratic Party, and I know that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are both DLC. And I know that the true liberals of the party loathe the DLC and are none too fond of the Clintons, but what I am seeing out of Hillary is beyond DLC. Even the DLC wants to preserve the Democratic Party.

It looks to me like Hillary is willing to sacrifice the party. This is more than an in-party squabble over the best candidate.

imho

-Laelth

[tandem5]

36. I don't think that...

I know it.

The only thing I'm unsure about is if Obama is to be the permanent choice or will he be dropped once he gets the nomination in favor of McCain because, well, you know, this whole "powers that be" thing goes well beyond democrats.

[Laelth]

48. I expect Republicans and oligarchs to trash Democrats.

My suspicions get aroused when a Democrat whose mathematical odds of winning are slim starts trashing the likely nominee and saying that the Republican nominee would be a better choice. I have never seen that before.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--number error.

[tandem5]

173. I know what you mean...

the way Obama and his wife have grouped Bill Clinton's presidency within the larger context of "old Washington politics," a context I might add that includes these last seven abhorrent years, not only puts down the prosperity of the 90s but also implicitly raises, in validity, Bush's terms in office.

We must show a unified front against the republicans.

[maddiejoan]

188. Yep.

You got it!

[sandnsea]

22. DUH n/t

[grantcart]

29. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I don't agree with the premise that the Clinton's religious experience is an essential part of her existential identity. It may or may not be an important part of her ontological identity. In other words I don't think it is something that permeates the thread of her basic life questions, but it could be a very sincere part of the structure of things that she does. She goes to Bible Study because it is something well rounded people in her background do, and doing it makes her feel better and gives her some helpful experience.

An alternative theory would be its just a sham. I prefer the first explanantion.

Your delema however is much more interesting.

Why is she doing this. Why one minute is she begging to be VP and the next taking a blow tourch to his resume? An increasing hum of schitzophrenia, the Sybil diagnosis which has been put forward with stunning effect by Larry David, is building but again, I think not. And then their is the thought that a conglomerate response of big interests has identified Obama as a threat that must be stopped. Who would this group be exactly? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs?

And yet you do hit on a very troubling question - how do we integrate all of these bizzare actions from this campaign? I am puzzled too. The only thing I can come up with is:

They are astonishingly out of touch. Living in a Govenor's mansion, in the Whitehouse, making $100,000 a speech, $ 5 million a book. Having everyone you ever meet want to take their picture from you. Their world view has become completely warped and their political instincts microwaved.

How smart of Obama to want to run while he is still unaffected by the Senate - not even moving his family to Washington.

[Laelth]

53. And thank you for a thoughtful response.

Just in case it needs saying, I don't think there's anything wrong with faith. It's just this particular group, "The Fellowship," that makes me nervous. And while I hear you when you say that you don't believe Hillary's faith is a motivating factor for her, and I have no idea whether it is or not, the essay to which I refer suggests that her faith and "The Fellowship" do, in fact, have considerable influence over her actions.

Consider these quotes from the article that I posted above:

"The Fellowship isn't out to turn liberals into conservatives; rather, it convinces politicians they can transcend left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics. Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move rightward."

"The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan."

"When Clinton seeks guidance among prayer partners such as Coe and Brownback, she is not so much triangulating—much as that may have become second nature—as honoring her convictions. In her own way, she is a true believer."

These authors don't believe she's triangulating here, and the fact is that her voting patterns seem to prove that this circle of power is expressing its power through her, politically. Her rhetoric remains fairly progressive, but her actual political record has grown more conservative.

Now she prefers McCain to Obama as CinC. What's next?

-Laelth

[Speck Tater]

31. Not only did I hear the same crap about Dean, but...

... in the final analysis, the president has little or no power over the lobbyists, who will continue to get their way no matter who is in the White House. They don't really give a shit who wins, not only because it won't change anything in the long run, but because a president's term is only four years anyway, which in the long run, is just the blink of an eye.

My advice to you is get a hobby and just forget all about politics for a couple of years. Maybe go on a religious retreat in a cave on a mountain top somewhere. You're taking this whole thing WAY too seriously.

(on edit: typo)

[Laelth]

40. Dean was neutered before his campaign got this far.

But I hear you. It's true that the President is not as vulnerable to lobbyists as Congress.

If you saw Michael Moore's Sicko, you'll remember MP Tony Benn reminding us that a frightened, sick, and demoralized people are easier to govern (i.e. control). The oligarchy keeps us sick by preventing the institution of universal health care, they keep us frightened with "terra," and they keep us demoralized by squashing populist candidates before they even have a chance to be elected.

How is it "crap" to believe this is being done to Obama?

-Laelth

[FlyingSquirrel]

35. I believe you are on to something

And I believe it's too late for them. Someone will have to do the unthinkable now to the new JFK in order to stop him.

He's won. If he gets just 47% of the remaining delegates he'll be MI-proof and FL-proof. He's gotten 53% so far - that would be quite a fall. And after that he'd need only 42% of the uncommitted supers to vote for him and lock up the nomination. Clearly he'd get it and more.

So it's too late for them to stop his nomination in any way other than something that hasn't happened in a very long time.

God help this nation if it happens.

[Laelth]

42. If you're right, and I hope you are ...

... then why isn't Hillary dropping out? Whose work is she doing, here?



-Laelth

[anigbrowl]

38. An interesting related article

It's about the Clinton campaign, but this particular page touches on Obama's fundraising strategy and how he got off to a strong early start. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyl...

Of course, Obama is doing exactly what Howard Dean did - and indeed what Ron Paul has been doing, but without the political skills to make effective use of it - take his campaign directly to the voters and rake in money over the internet.

And another interesting article from 2004: http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/check-bounce/

[lisainmilo]

44. Destroyed? a little harsh......

Seems Hillary is the spoiler in the Democratic Party. You never know who she is or where she stands, I guess it depends on the audience she stands in front of.





Obama is the GREATEST thing that has happened in America in a VERY LONG TIME!

[Laelth]

252. What's odd is that the MJ essay suggests Hillary hasn't changed.

It suggests she's always been driven by a kind of Calvinist, liberal Christian ideology. Could have fooled my parents-in-law who still think she's an agent of Satan.

Obama, on the other hand, is a true phenomenon, and he has done wonders for energizing the Democratic Party. If we dismiss him now, we will surely pay for it to the tune of millions of lost votes ... if not worse.

-Laelth

[cooolandrew]

49. I am unnerved to.All Dems in congress against rove tactics must unite and speak in press conference

... and repudiate what is harming us it would be so powerful.To be non partisan say either candidate who may do this.

[Laelth]

308. Hillary and Bill still have a lot of power.

A lot of Democrats owe them favors. Too many people in leadership positions owe them loyalty, so while I would like to see a public and unified repudiation of Hillary's campaign tactics, it simply can not happen now. What's sad is that more damage will have to be done to Obama first.

I hope Hillary quits before that becomes necessary, but it seems unlikely that she will give up any time soon.



-Laelth

[Jamastiene]

50. ...

[surfin]

51. Have the same feeling as you

Does anyone know how to get the list of names of all the fbi files that the clintons took illegally? It would be interesting to see how many super delegates are on it. I am sure they did not get Obama's as he was too young.

Watch the press and one key thing is this pitch for him to be her vp. If he except that, they have something on him and I will not vote for him if their both on the ticket.

[Raine]

56. Interesting and I agree

I think it makes perfect sense.

[aquarius dawning]

57. I'll admit it, I don't want to see him beaten anymore, I want to see him utterly ruined.

because his supporters are hell bent on doing the same thing to Hillary.

[sendero]

60. Dream on..

.. it's over Johnny, it's OVER.

[aquarius dawning]

64. obviously you're the one dreaming because it's far from over.

[Laelth]

82. You're right. It seems far from over.

The problem is that the fight for the nomination should be over, and it's not. Why?

The answer to that question is what has me concerned.

-Laelth

[George II]

166. Nice sentiments...if we're not good enough for you maybe you should find another party then?

[chknltl]

58. Interesting

I agree that Senator Obama's recent almost logarithmic surge in popularity has taken the 'establishment' by surprise. I suppose we are stuck with a wait and see as to how things will play out from that.

For what it is worth, I was thinking back when bush signed that executive order giving himself the power to declare Marshall Law in case of an "emergency", that the only thing standing between us and that "emergency" was the certainty of Senator Clinton becoming President.

It is not like this revelation will change anything...hell it likely won't even change a single opinion here in the DU. On the other hand, we who posted our partial concurrences and agreements in this thread, will be thought of as...well..."imaginative", to say the least. (In my case, I'll not be worrying about that!)

Thank you for this revelation Laelth.

[Laelth]

214. My pleasure.

Thanks for taking the time to consider thoughtfully what I had to say.



-Laelth

[VotesForWomen]

59. OMG. O has been given the seal of approval by the powers that be, or he would have been out of the

race a long time ago. please grow up.

[bklyncowgirl]

61. Maybe something has changed. Maybe the POWERS THAT BE never thought he'd get this far

I do believe that Barack Obama, if he were to do the sort of things he talks about in his speeches, would create a movement for change that would seriously alter the balance of power in this country. His ability to raise money from small donations is already a huge threat.

I also believe that the POWERS THAT BE would be seriously opposed to that sort of major change.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have always been members of the club. A second Clinton presidency would tweak a few things here and there, and certainly be more efficient than the Bush disaster, but the balance of power would not be seriously effected.

I'm wondering if Obama's attacks on NAFTA may have shifted the balance between him being somewhat acceptable to the PTB and him being not acceptable. It's pretty clear that to the PTB, trade deals are sacrosanct. What's ironic is that it may well be this Canadian NAFTA scandal--where now it appears that Clinton approached the Canadians with reassurances first and that Obama's economic advisor said nothing that was outside of his candidate's public statements--may be the thing that takes him down.

As a long time observer of the POWERS THAT BE this is classic.

[Laelth]

91. LOL.

If being rude and thinking I am smarter than everyone else on Earth is what it means to "grow up," I hope I remain an infant forever.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[JoFerret]

62. Basic American paranoia

It's pervasive.

Imagine none of that stuff is true. The divide would still be there.

[Laelth]

69. Would it? To which divide are you referring?

-Laelth

[NashVegas]

63. How Deeply Entrenched Is Goldman=Sachs?

BO's top 15:

Goldman Sachs $474,428
Ubs Ag $298,180
JP Morgan Chase & Co $282,387
Lehman Brothers $274,147
National Amusements Inc $265,750
Sidley Austin LLP $251,657
Citigroup Inc $247,436
University of California $239,944
Skadden, Arps et al $228,520
Exelon Corp $226,661
Harvard University $225,891
Jones Day $213,825
Google Inc $192,808
Time Warner $190,091
Morgan Stanley $190,026

HC's top 15:

DLA Piper $490,800
Goldman Sachs $426,100
Morgan Stanley $368,670
Citigroup Inc $353,900
EMILY's List $283,142
Lehman Brothers $254,400
JP Morgan Chase & Co $231,220
National Amusements Inc $217,500
Skadden, Arps et al $198,610
Greenberg Traurig LLP $185,400
Kirkland & Ellis $182,550
PricewaterhouseCoopers $173,650
Merrill Lynch $165,750
Time Warner $163,650
University of California $161,318

[Laelth]

70. He took their money, no doubt.

And that's why I supported Edwards before he "suspended" his campaign. I was seriously worried about the amount of special-interest money that both BO and HRC were receiving.

My theory is that these same interests have come to realize what I have. Now that Obama has a million donors (and that figure is growing), he is no longer beholden to these interests. They thought they had effectively bought him. Now they realize that they were wrong.

imho

-Laelth

[psychmommy]

180. how deeply entrenched is greenberg.traurig

abramoff's people. yeah i feel more confident in her now.

[GalleryGod]

65. Yup. Follow the Money!

It's ALL about Obama's THREAT to K Street!

[L0oniX]

95. "follow the money" is what Mike Gravel said at the begining.

[Laelth]

97. Molly Ivins, "Deep Throat," and John Edwards

It's always sound advice.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

67. Further evidence:

Take a look at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

It really does look like Hillary's trying to throw the whole party under the bus. Perhaps this is the last, dying gasp of the DLC. "It's our party or nobody's party."

Make them go away, please!

-Laelth

[Ameridem]

71. I want my party and my government back

Which candidate will most likely do that? Obama, Clinton or Mc Cain? Ask yourself this and come to a reasoned conclusion. Then vote!

[Laelth]

73. Welcome to DU!

I have already voted.

-Laelth

[sueragingroz]

72. Excelon - big contributor... trust me it's not just individuals and their 10 dollars...

The Pinocchio Test

Obama has exaggerated his legislative accomplishments on the campaign trail. He misspoke last December when he told Iowa voters that he had "passed" a nuclear notification bill. There are certainly legitimate questions to be asked about his dealings with senior Exelon executives, who have poured large sums of money into his campaign.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/oba...

[Laelth]

74. Thanks for the reply.

Please reference post #70, above.

-Laelth

[zulchzulu]

277. In February 2008, Exelon paid Burson-Marsteller (Mark Penn CEO) $230,627.05

If you want to make Excelon an issue and are a Hillary Clinton supporter, you may not want to go down that road.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marst...

[Bullet1987]

75. A week or two ago someone posted another article

about how certain elites may be getting worried about Obama's insane number of small donors. I think it's a real threat to some people. But not only that, just the sheer amount of popular support he has with Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans.

[Laelth]

79. I'd like to find that article.

Any info you can provide to point me in the right direction? I'd like to source the idea, if possible.

Thanks!

-Laelth

[Scurrilous]

78. Kick

[CitizenLeft]

80. when you say "TPTB" you don't mean the party itself, do you?

I understand your concern, but I don't think that the majority of the party leaders are that enamored of the Clintons - and that includes superdelegates. The Clintons have never, ever been team players, and I don't see the superdelegates throwing this election away just to please them. It's not going to happen. They will follow the "leader," as their political instincts dictate, and the leader, at the moment, is Obama. Unless some catastrophic event happens to turn this primary on it's end, ultimately, the party will back the winner. They will NOT risk alienating all those new 1 million donors, all those young people, and a whole demographic, African-Americans, who are - let's say it together - the single most loyal segment of the Democratic electorate in the history of the party - who will be determined to turn out in shocking numbers this very election. Period. They won't do it, and I don't believe they want to.

If I'm wrong, I'll be shocked, LOL. And they might very well lose THIS poster, who has been unswervingly loyal to the party my entire life and would never even consider not voting.

They are not stupid. Don't worry.

[Laelth]

81. The DLC wing of the party is now openly part of TPTB.

Or so it seems to me. And it looks to me like the DLC is willing to throw the whole party under the bus for their candidate.

But no, I am not saying that the non-DLC Democratic Party is part of TPTB (except to the extent that they, too, are controlled by K Street). Most of them, I hope, are not.

Hope that answers your question and clarifies my position. Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[CitizenLeft]

83. DLC - gotcha

But they won't prevail this time. At least, I hope not.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. Ummmmmmm, Uhhhhhh, Hmmmmm, Ahhhhhh, Errrrr, Ummmmm, How To Say This...

That'll work...

[Laelth]

87. LOL. I hear ya! And I hope you're right, but ...

Did you read that Mother Jones article? Some conspiracies are real.

-Laelth

[stillcool]

85. The struggle within the Democratic Party...

The sides lining up. The third way against the left.

[Laelth]

228. Essentially, this is what it boils down to.

But the sense I have is that both sides think they are the "true" Democratic party, both the true left (serving the interests of the people, as much and as well as they can without being assassinated) and the DLC middle (serving the interests of corporations and the wealthy while also attempting to serve the interests of the "little" people, since, after all, they're all "constituents").

The problem I have is that the "third way" is lining up very openly and unabashedly with the Republicans against the left. Their doing so may split the party.



-Laelth

[dailykoff]

86. Oh sure. The big oil, weapons and logistics outfits

(Halliburton etc.) -- call them the Texas nexus -- were behind LBJ and Bush, and now they're behind Hillary.

[stillcool]

88. I didn't know this...

Unlikely partnerships have become a Clinton trademark. Some are symbolic, such as her support for a ban on flag burning with Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and funding for research on the dangers of video games with Brownback and Santorum. But Clinton has also joined the gop on legislation that redefines social justice issues in terms of conservative morality, such as an anti-human-trafficking law that withheld funding from groups working on the sex trade if they didn't condemn prostitution in the proper terms. With Santorum, Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act; she didn't back off even after Republican senators such as Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter pulled their names from the bill citing concerns that the measure would protect those refusing to perform key aspects of their jobs—say, pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions, or police officers who won't guard abortion clinics.

Clinton has championed federal funding of faith-based social services, which she embraced years before George W. Bush did; Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, says that the Clintons' approach to faith-based initiatives "set the stage for Bush." Clinton has also long supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that has become a purity test for any candidate wishing to avoid war with the Christian right.

[Emit]

116. Check out these articles in Rolling Stone and Harper's by

Jeffrey Sharlet, a guy who went inside the group and writes about it:

God's Senator
Who would Jesus vote for? Meet Sam Brownback

JEFF SHARLET
Posted Jan 25, 2006 1:09 PM

Nobody in this little church just off Times Square in Manhattan thinks of themselves as political. They're spiritual -- actors and athletes and pretty young things who believe that every word of the Bible is inerrant dictation from God. ... And hunched over on the stage in a red leather chair is an old man named Harald Bredesen, who has come to anoint Brownback as the Christian right's next candidate for president.

~snip~

Brownback was placed in a weekly prayer cell by "the shadow Billy Graham" -- Doug Coe, Vereide's successor as head of the Fellowship. The group was all male and all Republican. It was a "safe relationship," Brownback says. ...

They were striving, ultimately, for what Coe calls "Jesus plus nothing" -- a government led by Christ's will alone. In the future envisioned by Coe, everything -- sex and taxes, war and the price of oil -- will be decided upon not according to democracy or the church or even Scripture. The Bible itself is for the masses; in the Fellowship, Christ reveals a higher set of commands to the anointed few. It's a good old boy's club blessed by God. Brownback even lived with other cell members in a million-dollar, red-brick former convent at 133 C Street that was subsidized and operated by the Fellowship. ...

Brownback still meets with the prayer cell every Tuesday evening. He and his "brothers," he says, are "bonded together, faith and souls." The rules forbid Brownback from revealing the names of his fellow members, but those in the cell likely include such conservative stalwarts as Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, former Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma and Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma doctor who has advocated the death penalty for abortion providers. Fellowship documents suggest that some 30 senators and 200 congressmen occasionally attend the group's activities, but no more than a dozen are involved at Brownback's level.

The men in Brownback's cell talk about politics, but the senator insists it's not political. "It's about faith and action," he says. According to "Thoughts on a Core Group," the primary purpose of the cell is to become an "invisible 'believing' group." Any action the cell takes is an outgrowth of belief, a natural extension of "agreements reached in faith and in prayer." Deals emerge not from a smoke-filled room but from a prayer-filled room. "Typically," says Brownback, "one person grows desirous of pursuing an action" -- a piece of legislation, a diplomatic strategy -- "and the others pull in behind."

In 1999, Brownback worked with Rep. Joe Pitts, a Fellowship brother, to pass the Silk Road Strategy Act, designed to block the growth of Islam in Central Asian nations by bribing them with lucrative trade deals. That same year, he teamed up with two Fellowship associates -- former Sen. Don Nickles and the late Sen. Strom Thurmond -- to demand a criminal investigation of a liberal group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Last year, several Fellowship brothers, including Sen. John Ensign, another resident of the C Street house, supported Brownback's broadcast decency bill. And Pitts and Coburn joined Brownback in stumping for the Houses of Worship Act to allow tax-free churches to endorse candidates.

The most bluntly theocratic effort, however, is the Constitution Restoration Act, which Brownback co-sponsored with Jim DeMint, another former C Streeter who was then a congressman from South Carolina. If passed, it will strip the Supreme Court of the ability to even hear cases in which citizens protest faith-based abuses of power. ...

~snip~

One night, while his family was sleeping, Brownback got up and pulled out a copy of his resume. Sitting in his silent house, in the middle of the night, a scar over his ribs where cancer had been carved out of his body, he looked down at the piece of paper. His work, the laws he had passed. "This must be who I am," he thought. Then he realized: Nothing he had done would last. All his accomplishments were humdrum conservative measures, bureaucratic wrangling, legislation that had nothing to do with God. They were worth nothing.

Brownback turns, holds my gaze. "So," he says, "I burned it."

...

"I'm a child of the living God," he explains.

I nod.

"You are, too," he says. He purses his lips as he searches the other tables. Look, he says, pointing to a man across the room. "Mark Dayton, over there?" The Democratic senator from Minnesota. "He's a liberal." But you know what else he is? "A beautiful child of the living God." Brownback continues. Ted Kennedy? "A beautiful child of the living God." Hillary Clinton? Yes. Even Hillary. Especially Hillary.

Once, Brownback says, he hated Hillary Clinton. Hated her so much it hurt him. But he reached in and scooped that hatred out like a cancer. Now, he loves her. She, too, is a beautiful child of the living God.

* * *
~snip~

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods...

Jesus Plus Nothing:
Undercover Among America's Secret Theocrats
TYPE Article
BY Jeffrey Sharlet

~snip~

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family's leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.”

~snip~

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

[stillcool]

119. Thanks!

[Emit]

125. Sure, and here's one other

According to this article, Brownback confessed to hating Clinton at one of the 'Family' meetings he was to speak at when he spotted her there, and asked for her forgiveness...also, notice the reference to the Clinton/McCain drinking contest below:

How Hillary Clinton turned herself into the consummate Washington player

by Joshua Green
Take Two: Hillary's Choice

Of the many realms of power on Capitol Hill, the least understood may be the lawmakers’ prayer group. The tradition of private worship in small, informal gatherings is one that stretches back for generations, as does a genuine tendency within them to transcend partisanship, though as with so much that is religiously oriented in Washington, the chief adherents are the more conservative Republicans.

~snip~

One spring Wednesday, a few months into the term, Senator Sam Brownback’s turn came to lead the group, and he rose intending to talk about a recent cancer scare. But as he stood before his colleagues Brownback spotted Clinton, and was overcome with the impulse to change the subject of his testimony. “I came here today prepared to share about this experience in my life that has caused great suffering, the result of which has deepened my faith,” Brownback said, according to someone who watched the scene unfold. “But I’m overcome now with only one thought.” He confessed to having hated Clinton and having said derogatory things about her. Through God, he now recognized his sin. Then he turned to her and asked, “Mrs. Clinton, will you forgive me?” Clinton replied that she would, and that she appreciated the apology.

“It was an extraordinary moment,” the member told me.

~snip~

Despite this chaos, Clinton managed to insinuate herself into the inner culture of the Senate almost immediately. Her operating belief seems to have been that the more her colleagues saw and knew of her, the more they would like her. This has indeed been the case. Almost every senator—especially every Republican—has a story of an early encounter with Clinton that, like Byrd’s and Brownback’s, invariably emphasizes the disparity between what they thought she would be like and what they saw when they actually met her.

Often Clinton’s dogged outgoingness—itself a subversion of her caricature—worked to reverse these old impressions, or pushed incidental encounters into prosperous partnerships. One of Clinton’s most enthusiastic and least likely fans is Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who, when he was still a congressman, served as one of the most energetic managers of her husband’s impeachment.

Some of these odd-couple partnerships have their roots in symbiotic benefit: Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Frist all made common cause with Clinton as a means of moderating their partisan image, just as she has used alliances with previous conservative critics to moderate hers. But Clinton has also displayed a subtler touch in the Senate than anyone could reasonably have expected, making especially good use of the ever-dwindling opportunities for casual commingling of members of the opposing parties. The Wednesday-morning prayer group is one. Another is the congressional delegation (“CODEL,” in Hill jargon), on which members travel together and wind up spending lots of time in close proximity. The story of one such trip, to Estonia, recently brought to light by The New York Times, gives a flavor of what Clinton is like in these settings. At a casual dinner with Senate colleagues Graham, John McCain, and Susan Collins, all Republicans, the waiter followed local custom by bringing a bottle of vodka and shot glasses, whereupon Clinton reached over and began pouring; a drinking contest ensued. McCain’s staff seemed pained by the revelation, and declined my request for an interview, because the last thing a Republican presidential hopeful wants floating around in the media is word that he’s becoming booze pals with Hillary Clinton. And McCain denied the story to Jay Leno. But when I recently intercepted him walking through the Capitol, McCain lit up at the recollection. “It’s been fifty years since I’d been in a drinking game,” said McCain, who as a former naval aviator knows whereof he speaks. He added, admiringly, “She can really hold her liquor.”

This repentance fostered an unlikely relationship that has yielded political bounty. Clinton and Brownback went on to cosponsor one measure protecting refugees fleeing sexual abuse, and another to study the effects on children of violent video games and television shows. “That morning helped make our working relationship,” Brownback told me recently. “It brought me close to someone I did not ever imagine I would become close to.” Since then, Clinton has teamed up on legislation with many members of the prayer group.

~snip~

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary

[WillyT]

89. It's Happened Before...

[TwilightGardener]

90. K/R--spot on. I see it too.

[City Lights]

93. Interesting post, Laelth.

Something is afoot. No doubt about it. America's entrenched powers quake at the thought of the government being returned to the people.

The MJ article is a must-read for everyone. Despite being posted here before, it has yet to receive the attention it deserves. Maybe it's time to add it to my sig line.

[Laelth]

101. Thanks.

In fact, I must have missed the MJ article when it was first posted here. It was referenced in another thread earlier this week, and that's when I first read it. It never occurred to me that the essay might be old news because it seems so relevant now.

Power to the people!

-Laelth

[Emit]

99. I had no idea that HRC was involved in The Fellowship aka 'the Family'

The following Harper's article has been posted on DU in the past -- it's well worth a look:

Jesus Plus Nothing:
Undercover Among America's Secret Theocrats

~snip~

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family's leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.” 11. The Los Angeles Times reported in September that the Fellowship Foundation alone has an annual budget of $10 million, but that represents only a fraction of the Family's finances. Each of the Family's organizations raises funds independently. Ivanwald, for example, is financed at least in part by an entity called the Wilberforce Foundation. Other projects are financed by individual “friends”: wealthy businessmen, foreign governments, church congregations, or mainstream foundations that may be unaware of the scope of the Family's activities. At Ivanwald, when I asked to what organization a donation check might be made, I was told there was none; money was raised on a “man-to-man” basis. Major Family donors named by the Times include Michael Timmis, a Detroit lawyer and Republican fund-raiser; Paul Temple, a private investor from Maryland; and Jerome A. Lewis, former CEO of the Petro-Lewis Corporation. The Family's only publicized gathering is the National Prayer Breakfast, which it established in 1953 and which, with congressional sponsorship, it continues to organize every February in Washington, D.C. Each year 3,000 dignitaries, representing scores of nations, pay $425 each to attend. Steadfastly ecumenical, too bland most years to merit much press, the breakfast is regarded by the Family as merely a tool in a larger purpose: to recruit the powerful attendees into smaller, more frequent prayer meetings, where they can “meet Jesus man to man.”

In the process of introducing powerful men to Jesus, the Family has managed to effect a number of behind-the-scenes acts of diplomacy. In 1978 it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a worldwide call to prayer with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and more recently, in 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a clandestine meeting, leading to the two sides' eventual peace accord last July. Such benign acts appear to be the exception to the rule. During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. “We work with power where we can,” the Family's leader, Doug Coe, says, “build new power where we can't.”

At the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, George H.W. Bush praised Doug Coe for what he described as “quiet diplomacy, I wouldn't say secret diplomacy,” as an “ambassador of faith.” Coe has visited nearly every world capital, often with congressmen at his side, “making friends” and inviting them back to the Family's unofficial headquarters, a mansion (just down the road from Ivanwald) that the Family bought in 1978 with $1.5 million donated by, among others, Tom Phillips, then the C.E.O. of arms manufacturer Raytheon, and Ken Olsen, the founder and president of Digital Equipment Corporation. A waterfall has been carved into the mansion's broad lawn, from which a bronze bald eagle watches over the Potomac River. The mansion is white and pillared and surrounded by magnolias, and by red trees that do not so much tower above it as whisper. The mansion is named for these trees; it is called The Cedars, and Family members speak of it as a person. “The Cedars has a heart for the poor,” they like to say. By “poor” they mean not the thousands of literal poor living barely a mile away but rather the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom: the senators, generals, and prime ministers who coast to the end of Twenty-fourth Street in Arlington in black limousines and town cars and hulking S.U.V.'s to meet one another, to meet Jesus, to pay homage to the god of The Cedars.

There they forge “relationships” beyond the din of vox populi (the Family's leaders consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride) and “throw away religion” in favor of the truths of the Family. Declaring God's covenant with the Jews broken, the group's core members call themselves “the new chosen.”

The brothers of Ivanwald are the Family's next generation, its high priests in training. I had been recommended for membership by a banker acquaintance, a recent Ivanwald alumnus, who had mistaken my interest in Jesus for belief. Sometimes the brothers would ask me why I was there. They knew that I was “half Jewish,” that I was a writer, and that I was from New York City, which most of them considered to be only slightly less wicked than Baghdad or Amsterdam. I told my brothers that I was there to meet Jesus, and I was: the new ruling Jesus, whose ways are secret.
* * *

~snip~

The Family was founded in April 1935 by Abraham Vereide, ...Vereide had decided; his mission field would be men with the means to seize the world for God. Vereide called his potential flock of the rich and powerful, those in need only of the “real” Jesus, the “up-and-out.” ... In 1944, Vereide had foreseen what he called “the new world order.”

~snip~

Former president Eisenhower, Doug Coe would later claim at a private meeting of politicians, once pledged secret operatives to aid the Family's operations. Even in Franco's Spain, Vereide once boasted at a prayer breakfast in 1965, “there are secret cells such as the American Embassy (and) the Standard Oil office (that allow us) to move practically anywhere.”

Much more at link -- long but insightful, given the info in the OP

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

[Laelth]

100. I had not seen that before. Thanks.

Note that Nelson is on the list, and look who's fighting for a clear violation of party rules to seat Hillary's Florida delegates.

Confirms my suspicions. This group is willing to throw the whole Democratic Party under the bus to elect one of its own members.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--added the Nelson observation.

[Emit]

105. notice the New World Order reference by its founder Abraham Vereide?

[Laelth]

142. I missed that. Yikes!

This can't be for real, can it?

-Laelth

[Emit]

217. Here's another thread by DUer robertpaulsen that has some interesting info

In a nutshell, it's about the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act sponsored by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Barack Obama and whether the media et al (powers that be?) may not have liked that too much:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[SaveAmerica]

102. 1 K and 1 R because I want to know 'Why is she doing this?' too. It makes no

sense for here to keep this up, there's some bible story about 2 women claiming to be the mother of a baby. The solution is to slice the baby in two and give one half to each woman, of course the real mother doesn't want this to happen and saves her baby's life by saying the other lady can have it. If you are a true Democrat you are not going to keep doing stuff that causes the destruction of your party or its chances in an election. You would give your half over to the other person in personal sacrifice before you allow the destruction of your party.

[Laelth]

104. That may be precisely what Obama will have to do.

Out of real love for the Democratic party and the people it represents.

Good analogy.

-Laelth

[SaveAmerica]

111. I hadn't thought of it going that way, I'm desperate for Hillary to take the high

road and end this farce. I hate that it's almost always the person who is doing the right thing that has to sacrifice. I think we should start a campaign to get everyone who feels the same way to call her office and ask her to step down and let our party start to get back together and fight Republicans.

[Laelth]

120. She may still take the high road, but I doubt she will.

Yes, sadly, it is usually the "good guys" who have to do the right thing.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, after he was elected President in 1800, allowed the Alien and Sedition acts to expire. He could have used those laws, passed by Adams' Federalist congress, to close down Federalist newspapers and imprison Federalist journalists just as the Federalists, when they were in power, had done to his allies. Instead, Jefferson did the right thing and turned the other cheek. The result is that the First Amendment to the Constitution was preserved and is now the cornerstone of our Constitutional rights, but for a while there the Bill of Rights was a meaningless addition to the Constitution. Jefferson chose to make freedom of the press a political reality and not just some ideals expressed on paper.

I hope that Obama does not have to "do the right thing" for the benefit of the party, but, if he is faced with that choice, I hope he does the right thing.

-Laelth

[ooglymoogly]

103. KR. To assume that Hill and Bill are not connected at the political hip

is folly. Bill belongs to the Tr!lLAtteral Com.; The elite club started by the lunatic fringe of the Roket-feller Family trying to bring the world under heel and a new world order in which the very rich devide up the spoils of the earth. He is a member along with B*sh senior, Difi, and most all of the neocons perpetuating this war....and that is enough for me to be very frightened of this candidate. Many consider this group to be the shadow govt. and if you look at its membership you can see why.

[Laelth]

106. You're right, of course.

Hill and Bill are a powerful political partnership, and I toyed with the idea that, perhaps, it was Bill's ego that was driving Hillary's staunch refusal to see the reality that she can not win.

This article from Time explores Bill's strange Bush-like refusal to live in the reality-based world: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717925,...

But I have since come to the conclusion that a more sinister explanation is more plausible.

-Laelth

[PITBOS]

109. *ding* coo-cooo coo-cooo coo-cooo

[Slagathor]

110. The status quo has to go

the Democratic status quo gave us 8 years of Bush, gave us a president whose entire legislative agenda revolved around getting a fat intern to suck his dick, and gave us a sting of weak, gutless and stupid candidates. It's about time the status quo was challenged. Challenged and destroyed. Obama can do it.

[Laelth]

112. Welcome to DU!

I hope you are right.

-Laelth

[Slagathor]

114. Thanks... personally, McGovern was the last true shit raising dem

and I wish we could get someone like him back. Regardless of what people wish for, Edwards isn't McGovern.

[Laelth]

122. No, he's not, but at least he was saying the right things.

-Laelth

[hell-bent]

171. Do you live vicariously

through Bill Clinton's penis? Do you hate overweight females? It appears that you might be the consummate misogynist from that stupid comment,eh.

[Slagathor]

223. She was a fat intern, and she did suck his dick

for shame! She should have lost that excess blubber and he should have taken his job a little more seriously. Or are you defending the Commander in Chief getting an unpaid intern to suck his cock? If he was a General and she was a cadet, he would have been fired. If he was a professor and she was a student, he would have been fired. No sympathy here. Gross abuses of power such as that one, not to mention the sick intergenerational aspect of it, should have resulted in impeachment on its own.

[Lorien]

115. I think if they wanted to destroy him the MSM wouldn't be as easy on him

I don't support either candidate, though I will likely be compelled to hold my nose and vote for whoever is chosen for me come November. The media has been easy on Obama-hell, they've featured very flattering portrait of both him and his wife on several major publications-the same was never true for Kerry or Gore-or even Hillary, for the most part. I see a real media lovefest for Obama, so if beltway insiders are trying to do that their attempts must be very unconventional.

[Laelth]

151. Interesting point.

Perhaps the media were also surprised by Obama's success? If we now see the media start to bash Obama 24/7, I might be forced to conclude that Frank Zappa was right:

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."

Perhaps the illusion of democracy has finally become too expensive to maintain.

-Laelth

[Honeycombe8]

118. You are probably right, at least in part. nt

[krkaufman]

123. Well, if not a bi-partisan "powers-that-be", I'm confident that a Democratic aggregate ...

.... of powers-that-be are behind her. Namely, the DLC. An Obama nomination and victory would spell the effective end of DLC control of the Democratic Party, and they're going all-in.

[Laelth]

309. The end of DLC control of the party?

While I'd love to see that happen, is that enough of a reason for Hillary to go "all in," as you suggest? Is the DLC really so bad that they'd rather destroy the party than to lose control of it?

Perhaps they are that bad (i.e. really just Republicans in disguise). We'll see. The next few months should show us where their loyalties truly lie.

-Laelth

[krkaufman]

312. Well, I expect the DLC doesn't much care what damage is done ...

... as they don't see anywhere for the Democratic voters to go other than to the Republicans, and they likely don't view that as a probability. I'm sure they think that the party will be hurt, but will still rally around a Democratic candidate.

And, agreed, only time will tell. Everything prior is speculation.

[Laelth]

314. You may be right. The DLC may not care what damage they do.

And they're right about those of us on the left. We will, most of us, vote for the DLC before we vote for McCain, but it sure looks like they'd prefer a Republican to Obama, and that worries me.

I seriously wonder about whose interests they serve, and I can't help but wonder if they haven't been given orders by their corporate masters to destroy Obama at all costs. African-Americans are the party's most loyal voting block. We would be insane to alienate African-Americans, and, at this point, if Obama is not the nominee, that is exactly what we will do.

And it might destroy the party.

-Laelth

[krkaufman]

324. Agreed. It seems pretty obvious to me.

I don't see the Dem Party recovering for quite some time if that comes to pass.

[Booster]

124. Don't kid youself that Obama can't be bought. He's a politician.

[Laelth]

126. I think most politicians are good people.

It's not that they want to sell out. I think most politicians are devoted to public service and would prefer to do the right thing, if given the choice. The problem is that the job doesn't pay well, and it costs a mint to run for office. The system is rigged so that they have to sell their souls to get elected.

Obama is dangerous to the establishment because he doesn't have to sell his soul. Sure, he could be bought, if he wanted to be, but he could also refuse to sell out. Other politicians lack that luxury, and that's how they're controlled.

Obama is very dangerous because this lever of control over him is missing. He can appeal directly to the people raise enough money to win.

-Laelth

[Kitty Herder]

127. Laelth, I've come to pretty much the same conclusion. I actually don't

perceive Obama as a huge threat to the status quo. I mean, he's no Dennis Kucinich. But it does seem that the powers-that-be see him as a threat. More reason to vote for him, IMHO.

[Laelth]

130. His stated policy positions are not as liberal as I would like.

In that sense, I agree with you. He doesn't seem like that much of a threat based upon his stated policy goals. Personally, I hope he's "shading the truth," so to speak. I hope he's a closet liberal who's merely staking out moderate policy positions for the purpose of getting elected.

But it's his ability to generate donations from over a million individual voters that makes him a threat to the establishment, I think, because that gives him independence from special interests and makes him much harder to control.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--clarity.

[ms liberty]

128. You're not alone in your feeling...

I, too, have been troubled by the direction this has gone. Neither of them were my first - or even second - choice originally. Hillary's always been my least favorite (for a number of reasons, some of them are mentioned in the mother jones piece) but I've always said I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Until recently, I would have been perfectly ok with voting for her in the GE. Not now. I really don't want her as the nominee, and I won't vote for her in our primary under any circumstances.

There is definitely something strange going on, and the feeling that there's something happening just outside my peripheral vision keeps getting stronger and more worrisome. It's not a happy thought. I appreciate the knowledge that someone else feels uneasy over these developments. I can only hope we're wrong!

[Laelth]

132. I wish I could offer some reassurance, but I can't.

Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't alone.

-Laelth

[ctaylors6]

129. sincere question: why did Obama decide to run 2008 (and not wait until 2012)?

Has he ever been interviewed about that? I'm not implying anything, I was just wondering.

[Laelth]

131. No clue, and I'd like to know the answer as well.

2008 provides a good opportunity, though, because neither a sitting President nor a former Vice-President is in the race, and that's fairly rare.

-Laelth

[Lena inRI]

266. Here's Obama's answer to the question in #129 above

Asked why he is in such a hurry to run, Obama tells Kroft, "You know the truth is I'm not. We have a narrow window to solve some of the problems that we face. Ten years from now, we may not be in a position to recover the sense of respect around the world that we've lost over the last six years. Certainly, when you look at our energy policy and environment and the prospects of climate change, we’ve gotta make some decisions right now. And so I feel a sense of urgency for the country."

"You know, I think we're in a moment of history where probably the most important thing we need to do is to bring the country together and one of the skills that I bring to bear is being able to pull together the different strands of American life and focus on what we have in common," Obama replies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/60minutes/mai...

I agree. . .GOBAMA ALL THE WAY!

[Lena inRI]

Self delete . . .wrong place

[Lena inRI]

269. Obama's answer in post #266

[ClericJohnPreston]

134. You're a joke

The only candidate who threatened the staus quo and was a real danger to Corporations was John Edwards. He was the candidate that was marginalized and who the media shunned.

Obama has been a media darling. You Obamatons have such a skewed version of reality, it is hopeless to even believe you would see how bizzare you look to rational people, yet alone, have any self-recognition.

John Edwards was the one who would have deconstructed corporations. To a real core Democrat like me, your Obama is hip deep with all the wrong people in Washinton. Just being ignorant of that fact is no excuse.

Yeah...everyone is ganging up on Obama. Get REAL.

[Laelth]

136. I find you amusing as well, if also a bit rude and condescending.

As I posted above, Obama's stated policy positions are not as liberal as I would like. In that sense, I agree with you. He doesn't seem like that much of a threat based upon his stated policy goals. Personally, I hope he's "shading the truth," so to speak. I hope he's a closet liberal who's merely staking out moderate policy positions for the purpose of getting elected.

But it's his ability to generate donations from over a million individual voters that makes him a threat to the establishment, I think, because that gives him independence from special interests and makes him much harder to control.

-Laelth

[ClericJohnPreston]

189. Lets try this again, shall we?

OBAMA IS NO THREAT TO ANY POWERS, SPECIAL INTERESTS, OR ANY CONSPIRATORIAL PARTIES.

Why? Obama is knee deep in all those interests you naively believe have no hold over him. Even in your response, you ADMIT that Obama has "moderate" policies, but without REASON, HOPE he will preside in a manner, absolutely inconsistent with his stated policies. What gives you that absurd belief? Sometimes, some things are exactly what they appear to be.

His conduct in Congress and in the State legislature, do not depict a rebel, a rogue or a even a squeaky wheel. Whether or not you Obamites can see it or not, Obama has only a wafer thin difference from Hillary. To Edwards Democrats like me, you are both right of center.

Obama will still be beholdin to special interests. To believe otherwise is to govern your future based on wishful thinking. Then again, isn't that the Obama mantra?

[Laelth]

196. You're right. I don't know what's in his heart of hearts.

But I sense that somebody's desperately afraid of him, and it might be because his campaign has shown it can generate enormous amounts of cash without relying on special-interest, corporate campaign contributions.

Yes, he took gobs of money from special interests. I firmly believe that these same special interests believed that they had him bought off. I thought they had him bought off too. That's why I initially supported John Edwards. But now that it's clear that Obama can generate plenty of money on his own, without relying on those same corporate interests, they're afraid they can't control him any more. And it's the control they want, most of all. It's the lack of control that they fear most.

And that, I theorize, is why they have determined that Obama must be destroyed.

Again ... I hope I am wrong about this because I, obviously, don't want to see him get destroyed. I want to see him nominated and elected President.



-Laelth

[Thepricebreaker]

135. If someone posted that title with Hillary in it - they would be charged with a sexist crime. n/t

[mzmolly]

144. Agreed. Same reasons Dean was taken out.

However, I think Obama has more "people power" and I think he's going to finish what Dean started.

[Laelth]

313. Obama has incredible charisma.

I hope he is able to finish what the good Doctor Dean started. I wonder, though, what the ultimate cost may be.



-Laelth

[ObamaNotClinton]

145. Clinton in November?

Are you a current Obama supporter who (for any reason) will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she gets the Democratic nomination for President?
Then please take a moment to sign this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html

[Laelth]

146. I will vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.

Despite my reservations about her motives, and despite my abhorrence for her campaign tactics, I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November. I suspect that any real Democrat who cares enough about their country to read and post on DU will do the same, regardless of what they might say now, in the heat of the primary season.

-Laelth

[NorthCarolina]

155. They're VERY afraid of Obama's Coattails

which would take not only the White House but also make huge inroads into Congress and the Senate. A huge infusion of bright new "Progressive" faces on the hill. You bet that scares the living shit out of the Repugs and DLC Dems. The media will continue to manipulate public opinion in favor of Hillary. She's clearly behind Obama and yet the media is touting Hillary's suggestion that a Clinton-Obama ticket is something she's thinking about...talking as if she were clearly the front runner, but in reality it is a setup laundered through the MSM to make the public "Think" this is the case and to usurp the "front runner" enthusiasm away from Obama. I'm not sure who exactly writes these "scripts", but in actually they are getting quite transparent and sophomoric.

[Laelth]

209. I agree about Obama's potential coattails.

They could be very long indeed. I made that argument back when I was still supporting Edwards, here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/15

Hillary's negatives would make her a liability on the ticket, whether she's on the top or the bottom. I know her supporters don't want to hear that, but one can't deny that 15 years of constant attack by hate radio and the corporate media have tarnished the Clinton brand.

-Laelth

[ACanadianLiberal]

156. You basically made Obama equates Democratic Party

That's all your statement based on.

"It is clear that Clinton is being encouraged to stay in the race and is being aided in her efforts by forces that do not have the interests of the Democratic Party at heart (including Rush Limbaugh, no less)".

Your bias is revealed completely. I remember there are some kinds of republican' mailer asking their people to do one day dem's work to vote for Obama. Do you really seriously believe Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh gangsters are really behind Hillary? They are the people who most want to destroy Clintons all those years. You claim your 27 political observation, did you see those horrible RW efforts? Anybody under the Dem's camp with fair mind, they will read Rove and Limbaugh's "endorsement" to Hillary oppsitely. You want to follow them to serve your purpose, that's your business, but do not do in in name of Democratic Party defender.

This has been a muddy water, you are making it even muddier.

Do you see that in your standard of accounting (exluding MI and FL), the vote difference they've go is very little. If including MI and FL, you may find your Mr. Obama (my Obama maybe soon) is not in favor of majority.

[Laelth]

240. I did watch the right-wing hate machine attack Clinton.

I watched it, and it made me sick. In many ways, they're still doing it.

But I also think that the right wing would prefer Hillary as President rather than Obama. And, in case it's not clear, I would definitely prefer Hillary over McCain.

My concern stems from the fact that Hillary is now suggesting that she would prefer McCain over Obama, and there's something wrong with that picture. If anyone is "muddying" the water, here, it's Hillary Clinton. She has made me, and a lot of other people, doubt her loyalty to the Democratic party. That's the source of my angst in the OP.

-Laelth

[ACanadianLiberal]

280. Count on more what she has done please.

It's inappropriate for her to say that, but your suggestion that she would prefer McCain over Obama to be president is a bit overstretching. You would rather like to forgive what Obama said about the notion that half country had been against Hillary (implicitly), and beat Hillary to the death for this line. Come on.

How would the right wing prefer her over Obama to be the president? Do you mean that the same RW prefer her real universal health care over the Obama's health care plan that will actually make no fundamental change to the current one?

[Laelth]

I can only suggest that you reconsider the MJ article ...

... to which I linked in the OP. It explains why the right wing would prefer Hillary to Obama better than I ever could.

And I think both their health care plans stink. I really want a single-payer system like you have in Canada. I am hoping that Obama is lying. I hope he's a true liberal who is hiding behind centrist rhetoric to get elected. About Hillary I have no such illusions. She's a true centrist. I don't even have a vague hope that she's a liberal.

-Laelth

[ExtraGriz]

157. politic is nasty and will always be nasty

if anyone think that the rethugs are going to play fair and square in the general election, you're only fooling yourself. obama got called on the nafta communication to canada, his experience, yada, yada......its going to be 1000 times worse so he better toughten up, the rethugs arent going to play into his hope and change theme, and his desire to run a unifying clean race....its not going to happen, they are going to be like taunted pitbulls in a cage.

[George II]

159. This is one PHONY, contrived excuse for attacking Obama.....

this post is worthy of a trash dumpster!!

"Obama must be brought down ... even if the whole Democratic Party has to go down with him."

We don't advocate bringing down the Democratic Party here, OR it's nominee (if it indeed is Obama)

Take your negativity to Free Republic or Drudge, PLEASE!!! You don't belong here with posts like that.

[Laelth]

170. In what way is this post an attack on Obama?

I invite you to read it again.



-Laelth

[Donkeykick]

178. You have persuaded me to drop Mother Jones...

from my prerequisite Liberal reading now. Thanks!

When you get bored of this stuff, may I suggest either the UFO or Conspiracy sections at your local book store!

Think about this for a moment, OK? How many people from the religious right do you see embracing anyone--including Hillary--in the Democratic party?

[Laelth]

181. Thanks for a thoughtful and respectful response. n/t

-Laelth

[Donkeykick]

184. No problem, Laelth.

Just saying what I believe in.

But here is one more thing to consider. If Hillary goes on to actually be our next President, just how many Democrats will actually embrace Mother Jones at their newsstands or mailboxes?

[Laelth]

205. This one looked like a well-researched essay to me.

But between you and me, I can't afford Mother Jones at the moment. Besides, Mother Jones has been a well-run liberal publication for a long time. It doesn't help anyone to shoot the messenger.

Peace.

-Laelth

[Donkeykick]

215. You Too.

[Emit]

213. The point, however, is that it really isn't about the religious right

The Fellowship is an effort beyond the religious right that is more about power and control, not religion.

[shenmue]

185. Paranoid much?

She's evil! She wants to destroy people!

The only people saying destructive things are Obama supporters on DU.

You act like running for office is supposed to be the consistency of a pile of lint. Sorry, it's not.

I'd say the one about the pot and the kettle, but Obama supporters already don't know what that means.

[Laelth]

316. Paranoid much? No. Paranoid now? YES!

As I said in the OP, this is the first time I've felt this worried for the party in the 27 years that I've been politically sentient. In that sense, no. I am not paranoid much. But I am paranoid now! Hillary's current campaign strategy makes no sense. I can't figure out what she's trying to do, other than the obvious, to destroy Barack Obama.

But why? Is it because her corporate masters demanded it? I have to wonder.



-Laelth

[understandinglife]

187. "He can not be bought. For this reason, he is a dire threat to the entire system."

Yes.

Same holds for Al Gore & Howard Dean.

What we are seeing is exactly what Gore, Dean and other true leaders in the party, as well as millions upon millions of Americans have recognized, clearly, since Dec, 2000 - we must go to our roots and re-create our Republic.

The neoconsters, be they a Bush or a Clinton or LIEberman or McCain or ...., along with their enablers, are in_deed aware that they are going to have no where to hide, soon.

Yes. We. Will.-- Be Counted and Elect Obama President.

[ooga booga]

190. Nearly 40 years ago, RFK was stopped by a bullet.....

I DO NOT want to see that happen again. Thankfully, the Secret Service is already travelling with Barak Obama.

I am thinking that the methods were cruder in 1968, but, if the perceived threat is great enough, they could resort to something crude and brutal again.

The more I read Noam Chomsky the more I'm persuaded that we are being played every minute of every day. We're supposed to love Big Brother and be happy with what we're allowed to have.

[GMFORD]

208. My advise, for what it is worth,

stop reading Noam Chomsky. I had to stop because I was having trouble sleeping at night. He tells a truth that is almost too scary to handle.

[ooga booga]

334. Well, you may have a point there....

Since I've only started reading Chomsky, I haven't reached the insomnia phase yet. If I do, I'll probably stop, too.

[mattclearing]

191. Hillary: Ordained by God.

What a fucking nutcase. It's Bush all over again.

[Laelth]

306. I would never have believed it.

But the MJ article is well-written and looks like it was thoroughly investigated. Furthermore, it fits well with what she's doing right now. It explains her behavior.

I am still in a little shock over it.



-Laelth

[Sonnenschein]

192. For reasons nobody can explain, everybody is so infatuated with Obama.

There is very little difference between the 2 in terms of their agendas.

[Usrename]

199. Obama is leading a movement that Clinton wants nothing to do with.

That is the difference. She could have led this movement, but she didn't. She believes Washington works perfectly the way it is.

The lobbyist are the to provide what is best for the masses. Corporations are people too. She doesn't see anything wrong.

[Sonnenschein]

211. What can Obama change in Washington that Hillary can't?

[Usrename]

218. That question makes sense.

The vast majority of Americans want universal health care. But we don't have it. Why?

The vast majority of Americans want us to get out of Iraq. Yet we are still there. Why?

The list goes on and on. Every issue that has broad support of the people has been obstructed by special interests. The war is far too profitable for some sectors. They just purchase influence and they get their way. Gaming the insurance and medical industries is also very profitable for some people. These special interests don't want anything better.

Think back to when Edwards was still in the race. He said many times that none of the three were all that far apart on policy.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all purport to want the same things.

Edwards and Obama think the system is broken. Edwards wanted open confrontation as the tactical method to try and attain these same policy goals. I would have supported him wholeheartedly in that approach. But with the way things are now, with even the courts on their side, I'm not sure how you can put up much of a fight. No matter how one would go about trying to limit the influence of the special interests, the right-wing judges would just let them back in. I know they would. That is WHY Alito and Roberts were installed on the court, not because of anything to do with abortion.

Hillary has said repeatedly that she doesn't see anything wrong with this setup. She thinks the lobbyists are the voice that speaks for the people. She thinks everything is working smoothly with this system, and she thinks she knows better how to serve us all, by continuing to listen to the special interest folks that are paying for her campaign. Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

That gets us down to Obama. He claims that the only way to win this thing is with a movement so popular that it cannot be stopped or even slowed. I am starting to believe he might be right about that. We are fast descending into complete and total fascism and are teetering on the verge of complete and total economic collapse. (Trillions of dollars changed hands when the Soviet Union collapsed.)

I am beginning to think that only an awakening on a national, or even worldwide, scale has any chance of changing our course.

[Sonnenschein]

227. Where did she say that, let alone "repeated"

Quote>Hillary has said repeatedly that she doesn't see anything wrong with this setup. She thinks the lobbyists are the voice that speaks for the people. She thinks everything is working smoothly with this system,

[Usrename]

264. She doesn't try to hide her close relationship with lobbyists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24pDGQF6UW8

(longer version for context http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LY0AqYXZC4 )

She has accepted more PAC money and lobbyist money than all the Republicans combined. Even money from the Northern Marianas Islands sweatshops:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Sonnenschein]

291. If it's legal to accept money from lobbysts, why not accept money from them?

[Usrename]

296. Everything is perfect in Washington and America and the World.

Don't change a thing! It's all perfect the way it is!

[Sonnenschein]

319. Hillary never said everything is perfect in Washington. She welcomes

campaign contribution from you too.

[LaurenG]

335. It isn't that Hillary can't it's that she won't

What about Iraq? Will she shut that war down? I think for me it's about trust and at this point I don't trust her to do anything out of the ordinary. I think we might get some type of health care out of her but other than that I'm not feeling very positive about any changes.

[awaysidetraveler]

197. This is why Obama needs Kucinich as his V.P.

That way, we would all know he'd be every bit as safe as Bush senior and W. were.

[Laelth]

207. I tend to agree.

Obama and Hillary both would need someone way to the left of them to act as an insurance policy.



-Laelth

[awaysidetraveler]

328. Gore already played that part for Clinton, so who will play it for Obama?

Moreover, the republicans get the concept. How else can we explain Quayle and Cheney?

Who chose Quayle? Bush senior... yeah, there's a reason.

[HughMoran]

198. ...or perhaps Hillary just want's to win

Your whole post is rather tin foil hat like.

[Usrename]

202. Describe a plausible path to victory for her.

I'm curious about what you think Hillary's path to victory really is.

How is she going to win this thing? Can she lose the delegate race, lose the popular vote, and somehow come away with a win from the convention?

And this scenario helps the party how? She won't ever win a general if she does that. Her negatives will be even higher than they were when this thing started. A year ago half the people in the country wouldn't vote for her. If she snakes the nomination away from a movement that won more votes and more delegates then she'd be almost guaranteed to lose every state in the general election. Half of the people that can still stomach her now will never vote for her if she continues.

How does she get to the Whitehouse?

Do you have any plausible scenario?

[HughMoran]

204. I didn't say she would win - jiminy fucking crickets

I said she WANTS to win - and she's entitled to keep fighting until Obama shows that he can indeed get the majority of delegates needed to sew up the nomination. There is no need for tinfoil here - these people both have the right to fight on.

[Usrename]

210. What tinfoil are you talking about?

You all but admit that she has no chance at all of winning the Whitehouse. So what is the point?

It's her right to fight on?

It's her right to try her darnedest to ruin a movement that is growing?

What gives her that right?

[HughMoran]

212. You're in outer space

You only see planet Obama in front of you. I don't have time to talk to space-shots.

[Usrename]

220. What is it that you see that I don't see?

Tell me. I'll listen.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

229. Our criminal ruling class elites...

...have an agenda already well under way in the Middle East and other parts of the world, and they're not about to walk away from it now -- they MUST have a U.S. president who can be relied upon to willingly facilitate this agenda, and that's NOT Obama, it's McCain.

If McCain is to become President without them having to assassinate anybody, Hillary MUST be installed as the Dem nominee. I believe this explains why she's still hanging around.

[Laelth]

242. I think you're right except for one thing.

What worries me is that they might be OK with Hillary.



-Laelth

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

297. Possibly...

...but I find it hard to envision them being comfortable with her, given their plans.

Recall former General Wesley Clark's remarks to Amy Goodman in a Democracy Now interview from about a year ago:

...So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”...

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_w...

This is a very ambitious imperialist agenda, and apparently they're running a bit behind schedule -- I don't think they want to chance a president who might balk, question, or in any way delay the barbarous war crimes they're planning to undertake.

I believe they figure correctly that McCain will readily go along with virtually ANYTHING and even serve as an enthusiastic "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" pitch man for all of it.

If I'm wrong, and they do have this kind of faith in Hillary, and further, if it's well founded, then she is much much worse than I'm giving her credit for being.

[Laelth]

303. I certainly hope you're right about Hillary.

I do not and can not know what's in her heart of hearts, but I truly hope you are right.

-Laelth

[LaStrega]

230. Another article ...

A paragraph from the article (concerning the Fellowship):

"But few in the Senate today would deny that, whatever her motives, Clinton is diligent about her work there, and successful in ways that have moderated her image. Her deft touch with conservative colleagues has thus far neutralized the Republican National Committee’s strategy of getting people to put her in the same mental category as bumbling liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. She’s no easy target. Her partnerships were deemed so successful in moderating her image that Karl Rove, according to a source close to him, sent word last year to halt Republican cooperation with her—an edict that has been ignored. As the atmosphere in Washington has deteriorated, Clinton has emerged within the Senate as the unlikeliest of figures: she, not George W. Bush, has turned out to be a uniter, not a divider."

Simple triangulation?

In short, I share the sentiments of the OP.

Full Article

[bluedawg12]

326. When she does it it's triangulation? When OB does it: it's unity? n/t

[Laelth]

327. The essay suggests HRC's relationship with the Fellowship ...

... is not triangulation. Evidently, she's a true believer. I invite you to read it.



-Laelth

[bluedawg12]

331. Laelth- I did read MJ and the reply abve mine that I was respnding to:

excerpts from articles)

>> Nor do skeptical voters looking for political opportunism recognize that, when Clinton seeks guidance among prayer partners such as Coe and Brownback, she is not so much triangulating—much as that may have become second nature—as honoring her convictions. In her own way, she is a true believer<< From MJ

The OP, just above my reply, that I replied to about triangulation.

>>But few in the Senate today would deny that, whatever her motives, Clinton is diligent about her work there, and successful in ways that have moderated her image. Her deft touch with conservative colleagues has thus far neutralized the Republican National Committee’s strategy of getting people to put her in the same mental category as bumbling liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. She’s no easy target. Her partnerships were deemed so successful in moderating her image that Karl Rove, according to a source close to him, sent word last year to halt Republican cooperation with her—an edict that has been ignored. As the atmosphere in Washington has deteriorated, Clinton has emerged within the Senate as the unlikeliest of figures: she, not George W. Bush, has turned out to be a uniter, not a divider."


Simple triangulation?

In short, I share the sentiments of the OP<<

peace

[Laelth]

332. Cool. I thought your post was a direct response to the OP.

Sorry.

-Laelth

[MidwestPerspective]

234. Generation Joneser Obama must destroy Boomer Hillary

If someone needs to be destroyed, it's Hillary, not Obama. After 16 years of Boomer Presidents, the time has come for the next generation--Generation Jones (born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Xers)--to take over leadership of this country. Obama is a classic GenJoneser...which is exactly what the nation needs now.

[Laelth]

311. Welcome to DU.

-Laelth

[question everything]

330. "Destroying?" You are new to DU and your first words are about destroying loyal

servants of this country.

Whatever you may think of the Clintons and, yes, George Bush, they all have chosen to serve the country instead of getting well paying jobs in the private sector.

And, as your pal whiner Jonathan Alter has said, the Boomers are "Velcro" - everything sticks to them, while Obama, like his hero Reagan, is Teflon. He can do no wrong.

I've got news for you. At some point we, at DU, will unite behind one candidate and we will unite to support Democratic candidates. Your mindset of "destroying" other Democrats will not make it easy for you to stay at DU.

I do hope that this is not the reason why you joined. To call for the "destructions" of other Democrats. If this is the reason, you are going to be disappointed.

[DutchLiberal]

237. "Deep entrenched interests" are contributing to Obama. He's their candidate.

Obama is just as much a status quo-candidate as Hillary. That millions of Americans can't see this, is ample evidence of collective delusion.

[Laelth]

245. Perhaps so ...

... but if they're equal, why vote for Hillary? Why not take the chance that Obama will not be a corporate slave because he has broad support from the people and over a million individual donors?

Doesn't that make sense?

-Laelth

[DutchLiberal]

322. He's the lesser of two evils, indeed. But he will be a corporate slave.

All his anti-corporate talk is just that: talk. You can't be anti-corporations after you have accepted contributions from them. And they expect something in return once he's president.

If I could vote in the primaries now, I would vote Mike Gravel. Sure he hasn't got a chance, but his ideas and his record are ten times better than both HRC's and Obama's.

[dailykoff]

246. LIke Harvard and the University of California?

Yes, you might say they're entrenched interests, but they're not as scary as Hillary's secret sugar daddies.

[Riley133]

320. Like Goldman Sachs, who invests in oil and predicts $200/barrell. nt

[DutchLiberal]

323. Like City Group, for example, and like Goldman Sachs as a fellow DU'er just remarked.

[AZBlue]

241. I don't know, maybe they'll try - but if they do, they don't understand.

As I've said when others maintain that Clinton will try this on her own: the citizens of this country are done with having elections stolen. There will be marching in the street - and I'll be one of the march leaders.

[Laelth]

248. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. n/t

-Laelth

[Johnny Potpie]

254. That's what I'm saying

Why even go vote and win majorities for Obama, if Hillary will just make deals with these Super Delgates to appoint her the nominee? Hillary is destroying the process.

[frogcycle]

244. You mean they are afraid of "We The People?"

[Laelth]

247. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

The question is, how far are they willing to go to preserve their power?

And the even more disturbing question is, will Hillary help them?



-Laelth

[frogcycle]

249. Edwards was the one who should have had them scared

but he never got to look like he might make it

He still would be more of a threat than Obama, but, well, it is what it is

[Laelth]

250. Edwards did have them scared, I think.

And that's why he was ignored by the media and was never given a chance.

imho

Words of wisdom, indeed: It is what it is.

-Laelth

[SlowDownFast]

260. Maybe Barack will pick Edwards as the Vice...

Now wouldn't THAT be something?

[Laelth]

276. I favored an Edwards/Obama ticket in the beginning.

I'd be more than happy with Obama/Edwards.

O/E in '08



-Laelth

[SlowDownFast]

258. First thing that came to my mind. n/t

[LadyVT]

256. Actually, according to the NYT, as of today, this is the reason:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.h...

Read it all the way through.

[Laelth]

274. That's why he decided to run in 2008?

OK. I get it. I was confused there for a moment. Thanks.



-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--completely changed to show understanding.

[Az_lefty]

263. I know it's Saturday, but try to go easy on the whiskey...

[Laelth]

278. That was late FRI night ... but I hear ya. Good advice.

How 'bout I stick to beer?

-Laelth

[cjbgreen]

265. 10 + reasons Why I like Hillary

1. She is willing to do what ever it takes to become the president!
2. She likes cluster bombs!
3. She likes kitchen sinks (I apologize in advance for her because this may have sexist overtones, re-read #2.)
4. She is forgiving of repeated infidelities.
5. She answers the phone at any time.
6. She answers her own phone.
7. She likes make up.
8. She likes pant suits.
9. She likes NAFTA.
10. She doesn't like NAFTA.
11. She is demur and makes every effort to reassure OBAMA that she is very proud to be debating with him.
12. She is not afraid to be a victim, two against one, the boys are picking on me, how come I always go first wahhhh.
13. She is not afraid to call someone sexist who says she is claiming to be a victim.
14. She is very comfortable lying.

[cameozalaznick]

267. Read the Mother Jones article and all I have to say is...

Wow! Actually, I'll say a little bit more.

1. Can't say I'm surprised about Lieberman being in a Christian prayer group. Now that we know he's not really a Democrat, I guess we can assume he's not really a Jew either.

2. From the article: "The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan." Gee, who does that remind me of. Oh yeah. BUSH!

Kinda scary stuff

[cjbgreen]

268. Why......I like Hillary?

I forgot,
She likes old men.

[Laelth]

273. Welcome to DU.

-Laelth

[Usrename]

270. You're not the only one who sees it.

The Obama movement may be the only thing they have to fear. Even Edwards would have been impotent, and I think he knew it. That may be why he suspended his campaign. There is no way to fight the special interests the way Edwards wanted to, now that they have bought themselves a Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito). No matter how you would go about trying to curb their influence, this court will always let them back at the table. It's their table. They bought it fair and square.

[Laelth]

298. The Supreme Court is the main reason we need a Democrat.

Funny thing about the Supreme Court ... most of them get more sane and more liberal the longer they're on the bench. Yes, the Corporations bought that table fair and square (or so they believe), but it can change. It does take time, however.

I agree that Edwards (while delivering a populist message) would have been neutered. It will take massive Obama coattails and a re-energized populace paying attention to Washington to get anything done. Obama, at least, has a chance of delivering that.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Usrename]

304. With the right Administration there are grounds to impeach Scalia.

I'd love to see it happen. It would go a long way toward setting things right.

He should have recused himself from the Cheney energy task force case. I think it's enough to take him out. I really do.

He has Cheney stink all over himself now. That, and Bush v. Gore, and he should be an easy mark. I'd sure take a shot if I were leading the Judiciary Committee. Nothing to lose at all, and a whole lot to gain.

[Laelth]

307. I think you're right; he should have recused himself.

He has immunity for his decision in Bush v. Gore. They all do.

I don't know if he could be removed from office, but an impeachment would go a long way towards creating a more "left-friendly" court, even if that tactic is a little heavy-handed for my taste. But there are other possibilities. As FDR said, "If we can not do this one way, we shall do it another way, but do it we will."

But first things first. We need a Democratic President.



-Laelth

[Zhade]

272. Reminds me of Dean. They happily axed him, too.

NT!

[Laelth]

294. Exactly.

I'm speculating that they let Obama go too far before axing him. They, like most of us, were sure that HRC would get the nomination, so there was no need to axe BO. He surprised everyone, and now the "powers that be" are trying to figure out what to do about it.

Because, as the MJ article suggests, Hillary answers to a "higher power" than the Democratic Party, it looks like she's willing to throw the whole party under the bus to preserve the current political dynamic (the same dynamic to which BO is a threat).



-Laelth


{i}Edit:Laelth--spelling, clarity.

[DUlover2909]

282. I voted for Hillary for selfish reasons. I have no problem

with an Obama presidency. It looks like that's how it's going to be. I hope he delivers. I'll vote fo him in November.

[wiley]

285. The Kennedy Family has always had entrenched interests in Chicago

But the reason why Obama receives so much support is precisely because he will serve as a sop for people who will vicariously believe he represents change (like a new contestant on a game show) as opposed to actually being able to create change, while Republicans will continue to control wealth and resources. Sorry to burst your bubble but both Clinton and Obama represent grave threats to many established confederations. Obama supporters just represent a more desired demographic to sell products to. Don't deceive yourself that any Democrat has anything to do with maintaining a power structure. Obama doesn't have a clue how deceived he has been. The sad part is that Obama supporters think a big style war is going on,when even the Democrats in Congress don't seem to be able to do a damn thing about much.

[Laelth]

299. You may be right.

He may only be "a sop for people who will vicariously believe he represents change." Or, he may actually effect change. What's different, this time, is that his million donors give him the real option of choosing not to support the entrenched interests. He has shown he doesn't have to have their money.

At least with Obama change is possible, even if it's not likely. And "neither candidate will be able to do anything" is not a good reason to vote for Hillary.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Vinca]

288. I've been avoiding clicking on this post because of the title.

After finally reading it, you make some excellent points. For the first time in decades there is a powerful movement in the works that could actually change the status quo in Washington. They'll fight to the bitter end to keep the Washington money machine intact. It all revolves around the money.

[Laelth]

300. I admit that the thread's title is provocative.

Glad you read it.

-Laelth

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

289. Your just realizing it now? Welcome to a not so exclusive club!

[Laelth]

301. I did not realize how threatening BO was until ...

... Hillary started showing a willingness to throw the whole party under the bus just to defeat him. Perhaps the signs were there before, but I missed them.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

-Laelth

[TBF]

290. Obama scares people -

I'm not too concerned about the survival of either party (I never have been much for groups), but since this is the way people seem to like to organize so be it.

I did enjoy your post, Laelth, and I think it's not far off. The basic premise that Obama "scares" TPTB is not hard to fathom at all. At a time when 1 out of every 100 people are in prison (the highest rate ever in the US history), a strong, articulate, brilliant black man is running for office, and I imagine that could certainly scare alot of people.

As a white woman who is pretty well off financially I move in social circles (when I have to - I try to avoid as much of that as possible too), where I see what wealthy people are capable of. I don't believe every conspiracy out there, but I can confirm that there is alot people will do to keep the status quo.

I hope Obama keeps on her for those tax returns. Often following the money will lead you to the motivations.

[Laelth]

302. First off, welcome to DU.

Let me add that you're in for a rough ride, here, if you're not too concerned about the Democratic Party. Ultimately, that's the only thing that holds our diverse members together. We fight against one another constantly, and if it weren't for the Party, we would disintegrate and fail, separately. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "We must all hang together, or surely we shall all hang separately." That's why I am showing some concern, in this thread, for the health of the Party.

I'm glad you enjoyed my post, and I am also aware of the lengths to which those in power will go to keep their power. JFK, MLK, RFK? This show could get ugly before the curtain falls.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[TBF]

329. Thank you --

for the response. Yes, it may not be the best board for me. But I am intensely concerned about this country (and particularly the Court) and it appears that the people who I most agree with are in this party, so perhaps eventually I will support it as such.

I'm very concerned for Obama, and he is the reason I am out and about talking about politics. I especially worry about what will happen if "shenanigans" occur in Denver... Rodney King caused riots in LA and he was not half as popular as this guy.

So, it is back to the phones. Pennsylvania will be tough, but an Obama win there may help the process along.

[Laelth]

333. Well I, for one, am certainly happy to have you here.

And I agree that if the convention in Denver is brokered and BO is not given the nomination, the streets of Denver and other cities across America will see some "action." I think it's insane to even consider "dissing" the Democratic Party's most loyal voting block, but that is precisely what HRC looks bound and determined to do. If BO does get the nomination, I think he needs to choose a VP candidate way to the left of himself, politically, to act as an insurance policy.

Good luck on the phones!

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--spelling.

[Truth4All]

295. Transcript

I had to work in S.F. today, and so I was unaware of his newly stated public opinion about Barack Obama until I got back this evening

Just curious Frenchie...are you talking about Clark's statement that Obama is 'unfit' to be CIC that was spread across the Internet and some press reports? Only problem is that he never said that (the quoted part).

For anyone interested, here is a transcript of the actual conference call (or at least the parts where Wes partipated). If interested, there is also an mp3 link of the entire call that can be listened too if you question the transcript:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14964#comment-28953...

I won't be able to respond to any comments since DU doesn't like Hillary supporters on this site and has a habit on banning accounts for being 'disruptors' to their unstated mission goal of seeing Obama elected President, but thought you might be interested in some slim glimmer of truth before the curtains are closed.

[Arkana]

310. I just picture Hillary as the Emperor

and Obama as Luke Skywalker.

Obama: "You've failed, Hillary. I'll never turn to the dark side--for I am a true Democrat, like Howard Dean before me."

Hillary: "If you will not be turned...you will be DESTROYED! *Force lightning*"

Sorry, I realize that was inappropriate.

[Laelth]

317. I have to admit.

I hear the Emperor's voice speaking those words to Obama as well.


http://www.vandea.com/sounds/destroy.wav

But I think Hillary is just the puppet of some other entity (a collective, pro-corporate K street monster). The question I have is why has she chosen to serve that master?

Shouldn't the health and well-being of the Party come first?



-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--added graphic and sound.

[Hieronymus]

315. Hillary supporters will not likely read Mother Jones .. it's Liberal.

[Riley133]

318. Read this article on lobbyists & special interest money and tell me

what you think:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.p...

[Laelth]

325. What I think?

As I said above, he has taken gobs of money from special interests ... less than Hillary, but gobs nonetheless. The difference is that he doesn't have to take that money any more. He can raise plenty, on his own, from his million-plus donors. That's why TPTB (the powers that be, i.e. corporate America) are afraid of him. He is no longer reliant on their money. Thus, he doesn't have to do their bidding any longer.

That's not what you wanted me to say, was it?

-Laelth