Reply #53: One, but only one factor in my judgment of Hillary: I judge people in part by the company they keep.

[JDPriestly]

Hillary talks the Democratic talk. But then so did Lyndon B. Johnson. And Johnson delivered in many areas -- civil rights, War on Poverty, Medicare. But, like Hillary LBJ owed his rise to corporate donors-- primarily Brown & Root which we call Halliburton. We owe the Halliburton century to LBJ. I voted for LBJ. I don't want to make that mistake again. I do not want to vote for another product of the corporate culture. I want to vote for a candidate who relies on my vote and my money, not corporate money and the votes it buys.

When LBJ ran for president, I was young. It never occurred to me to look at who supported him, who he relied on for his campaign funds. Had I done so, I might not have voted for him.

Now, Hillary is running. I think back on LBJ, and while, as I said Hillary talks the Democratic talk, I do not like some of the people whose company Hillary keeps. First, there is Mark Penn. He works for Burson-Marsteller, a company that everyone on DU has read about. The folks at Burson-Marsteller are bad news. That company prostitutes itself for anyone who pays enough for their services. That has included the government of Argentina during the repressive regime of the military and, more recently, Blackwater. Burson-Marsteller people are, in my view, not good people. All the candidates except Kucinich have one or more "bad guys" they have hung around with. But Hillary has the most.

Another one of Hillary's major guides and supporters is James Carville. Watch the movie, Our Brand Is Crisis, then read the chapter in Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine on Carville's role in Bolivia's elections and finally, reflect on the fact that Carville is married to Mary Matalin. Lots of good Democrats are married to active Republicans. But Carville's being married to Mary Matalin causes me to question whether he cares about Democratic principles at all. That's like being married to the uber-Republican. She is just as extreme as they come.

And on top of that Hillary is accepting money from corporate lobbyists. Why should I vote for the favorite Democrat of the corporate lobbyists. Those lobbyists are not on my side.

I also have big questions about Hillary's stance on wiretapping on surveillance of electronic communications. This is because I read a German website that claimed that the Bill Clinton administration pressured the EU to do away with laws that prohibited surveillance and recording of European electronic communications. The Clinton administration argued that communications needed to be under surveillance to prevent copyright violations. Hs Hillary said anything clear about this? Have any of the other candidates for that matter?

And what about habeas corpus. Edwards has stated that he will ask Congress to change the laws that got rid of it. What specific changes will the candidates make to the Patriot Act? Edwards issues statements on every issue. If anyone wants to know his, I will try to find his statements. If you want to help your candidate, post the candidates views on the crucial issues here rather than fuss about stupid side issues. Thanks. I will gladly read them. Thanks.