Same Clinton, Different Gender: Hillary Clinton Launches Corporate-Backed Bid For White House

[ProSense]

Same Clinton, Different Gender: Hillary Clinton Launches Corporate-Backed Bid For White House

By Steven Wishnia
From the February 1, 2007 issue | Posted in National | Email this article

Hillary Clinton is neither a lesbian witch nor a feminist heroine. Like her husband, she’s an ambitious yuppie corporate lawyer.

Whatever principles she has probably stem from that. And whatever principles she has are far overshadowed by her market positioning, in which she constantly calculates stances that pay lip service to the desires of Democratic voters, please the party’s financial backers, and occasionally pander to Republicans.

Her entry into the presidential race does not bode well for the idea that 2008 might be the year in which a strong grassroots movement could swing the Democratic party to advocate getting out of Iraq, rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, developing serious alternativeenergy and national health programs, and reversing the Reaganomic-corporate assault on working people. Specifically, her decision to forego public financing for her campaign and rely entirely on massive private donations is likely to accelerate the trends that have made it difficult for grassroots movements – or even primary voters – to influence who the nominee is.

Snip...

In the last 20 years, however, the skyrocketing costs of campaigning and the “front-loading” of the nomination process have meant that the race has often been effectively over by the middle of March. And when the campaign begins more than a year before the first primary, power shifts from voters and activists to financiers and the “Washington consensus,” the nexus of money, media and power that anoints the front-runners, separating the “serious” from the “fringe” candidates based on who’s amassed the most funds and who possesses the intangibles of establishmentarian credibility. In 2004, Howard Dean, the Democrat who attracted most of the antiwar movement’s electoral energy, was doomed before a single actual vote was cast. The Beltway world deemed him demented after the repeated airings of his terminally unfunky attempt to rouse a crowd of supporters dejected by his loss in the Iowa caucuses.

Snip...

If there is anything satanic about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, it’s Rupert Murdoch’s not-so-tacit support; he held a fundraiser for her last year, and the New York Post has become surprisingly kind to her. Criticizing Hillary for this is considered left-liberal purist paranoia, but there’s a reason for it. Measured by the global wattage of his intentions and power, Murdoch is the most evil figure in the media world, with his metastasizing-tumor greed and willingness to turn any outlet he owns into a spewer of far-right propaganda. Witness Fox News’ broadcasting of the dubious allegation that Barack Obama had attended an Islamic-fanatic madrassa in Indonesia as a child. When a CNN reporter went to Indonesia and found that it actually was a public elementary school, a Fox pundit wondered if he’d seen the kids “in any terrorist training camps.” (Any knowledge of recent Muslim history would reveal that there wasn’t much of a jihadist movement when Obama was in second grade.)
Murdoch is probably betting that 2008 will be a Democratic year, so he wants a candidate he can work with. If he can’t get a Margaret Thatcher, he’ll take a Tony Blair; Murdoch’s Sun, his British flagship paper, endorsed Blair for prime minister in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections. Blair, as Bill Clinton did with Ronald Reagan, left Thatcher’s domestic depredations largely intact, ameliorating a few and intensifying others. And John Lydon has provided the best description to date of Blair’s role in Iraq: “Bush’s poodle.”

link

[globalvillage]

1. The money is obscene.

And the Murdoch connection is scary.

[leftwingnut]

2. The money is obscene...

politics.

The only "Murdoch connection" again is...politics.

She's running for President. With realistic chances.

[SaveElmer]

3. The Murdoch connection is overblown...

He supported her in her Senate race...and said he was not going to support her for President...

Fact is she has gotten precious little money from Murdoch or Fox...folks like Kennedy, Boxer etc have gotten contributions from him too

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Yes, but, how many times does a Clinton allow themselves to be

eviserated in public by these clowns before they realize that they have to change their tactic?

When they went after Bill in the 90s, they didn't just destroy Bill, they destroyed the Democratic Party's unity and strength. Divide and conquer. So, what are they going to do with Hillary? And is the Democratic Party smart to maybe find a better national leader to hold it together this time if the GOP targets the next Democratic president for seduction or for removal?

[SaveElmer]

22. In politics you take your advantage where you can get it...and you

do what you have to to neutralize the enemy...

Murdoch supported her for her Senate race, quieting down the criticism for a time...

Hillary knows how to handle these attacks...the right wing sleaze machine is going to attack anyone we pick...with Hillary we have someone with successful experience dealing with it...

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. How is she successful? By doing what they want?

Is that how you measure success? A go along to get along Democrat?

That might have been okay in the old days when Senators played along domestically so they could win more money for their state, (Kennedy was brilliant at selling us out on a national level, for example), but now the stakes are higher. Even Kennedy gets it now.

[SaveElmer]

30. Hardly...

That is a ridiculous assertion...

Hillary is a moderate to liberal Democrat with very "poor" ratings from such stalwart business interest groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce...while receiving stellar ratings from traditionally progressive and progressive leaning organizations...

Murdoch did not want to piss off an increasingly powerful Senator from the state where he does an enormous amount of business, and Hillary wanted to get Murdoch's papers off her back for a while...

I am sure they will be back to their normal antagonistic relationship soon enough...

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. Anyone who pisses off the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

can't be all that bad. :-)

[SaveElmer]

37. I agree with you there...nt

[wyldwolf]

24. Howard Dean got money from him

[Captain Hilts]

4. Obama voted 'for' Tort Reform, so he'll be getting his. Just wait. nt

[mtnsnake]

5. How would you like it if people started posting bloggers negative opinions about Kerry

like you do about Hillary 24/7. You'd be whining and complaining on your little JK forum how awful it was that anyone could say something negative about Mr Perfect.

Funny how all the propaganda pasted about Hillary always comes from one of two places: opinionated blogs or one's imagination....but rarely from a reliable source.

[leftwingnut]

11. Puhleeze don't tell me this is about Kerry!

Last thing I heard was that he lost. He's Done. He actually didn't even have a chance.

Why? Why are we concerned about Kerry right now? He just needs to go away before he turns away more independent voters to the right.

[ProSense]

12. The article isn't about Kerry, it's about Clinton.

As to your last point, are you suggesting that Kerry will have an impact on Clinton's campaign, or do you intend to blame him if she falters?

[leftwingnut]

14. Clinton doesn't need Kerry.

Personally I would prefer if he backed Obama or Edwards. Let them have some of the Kerry 'Mystique"

[ProSense]

16. Then it's all cool! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

23. oh your campaign here is all about Kerry

and the fact that he couldn't keep up with the big kids

[ProSense]

26. What's your campaign about? "Sniveling"? n/t

[AtomicKitten]

31. shining on a spotlight on yours ....

Don't ever, any of you K-bots ever, snivel about anyone saying anything about JK again. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Just as you turned me off JK in a big way, you are putting me squarely in Hillary's court with your ugly campaign here.

You don't even have a candidate anymore. Your mission is demolition.

So, remember:

[ProSense]

35. You must grow up and accept that democracy is not a lockstep endeavor.

Candidates are open to scrutiny and constructive criticism.

[AtomicKitten]

36. you first ! --- Let's start by scrutiny of this bit of hypocrisy.

Let's start with you explaining your sig line:

"Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face, or losing votes, or losing legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives." – Senator John Kerry

Wow, that seems odd. When JK was worried about votes, this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

and when JK wasn't worried about (his own) votes, this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/washington/21kerry.html?ex=1308542400&en=7365d0778da8cc1d&ei=5088&

It appears you should do some housecleaning before casting aspersions on others and calling bashing of others scrutiny, and ironically calling scrutiny of JK bashing; no doubt the irony is lost on you.

On edit: Have a great evening. Good luck on your campaign.

[windbreeze]

60. I just have to ask

didn't you mean "casting asparagus"?
wb

[Elidor]

63. You choose your candidate based on what his or her supporters do?

Fascinating. That must make for a pretty convoluted decision process.

[AtomicKitten]

64. Did I say that?

In fact, I have stated here repeatedly that I will not vote for anyone in the primary that voted "yes" on the IWR resolution which completely dispels your point. "In her court" means that I will not summarily kick her to the curb based on the tag-team concerted effort to tank her candidacy. I'm almost always suspicious when people break a sweat trying to get people to think a certain way. It reeks of propaganda. That probably isn't nearly as fascinating as you thought; the truth rarely trumps what imagination can conjure.

[Elidor]

65. Yes, actually. You did.

Just as you turned me off JK in a big way, you are putting me squarely in Hillary's court with your ugly campaign here.

Despite your subsequent qualifiers, that is exactly what you said.

[AtomicKitten]

67. Assigning what you think I mean does not make it so.

You have rendered smug criticism based on the presumptuously extrapolated notion that I choose my candidates based on their supporters, which is an utterly false premise. Correct me if I'm wrong but this did come from my keyboard to the internetz to DU;
I said precisely what I meant - in her court clearly means on her side against the barrage of nasty shit posted to purposely tank her campaign. This would cause one to wonder why you would do that sort of thing. It's either purposeful or you are hard of understanding. Who knows. More importantly, who cares.

[Elidor]

68. I'm neither assigning meaning nor being smug.

I'm reiterating what you said. Clearly, you claim not to have meant what you said. You seem rather wound up about it all, yet your arguments against your own words are ranging farther and farther afield. And you're right: who cares.

[AtomicKitten]

69. here's the bottom line

When you post on a message board, your words are out there for people to twist and manipulate and ridicule and distort for purposes apparent only to them ... so, hey, knock yourself out.

Sometimes I spend too much time wondering why people are a-holes for no apparent reason, but ultimately I lose interest because it just doesn't matter and I realize that I, in fact, really don't care.

Peace out.

[mtnsnake]

13. LOL!

[AtomicKitten]

15. we aleady know

what they do:



Here's some JK "love" from Wonkette (or what goes around comes around):
http://wonkette.com/politics/john-kerry/for-immediate-release-kerry-actually-did-something-228443.php
http://wonkette.com/politics/walnuts/kerry-defends-nixon-windsurfing-229450.php
http://wonkette.com/politics/john-kerry/john-kerry-totally-gay-for-tom-brady-as-if-you-needed-more-reasons-to-hate-the-man-229778.php

[ProSense]

18. Uh, Wonkette alert! LOL n/t

[AtomicKitten]

19. Glad to hear you're on board no more double standards.

Just remember:



The gloves are off. Pass it on.

[sandnsea]

66. They did, for four years now

Get used to it.

[William769]

6. You go girl!

:toast:

[illinoisprogressive]

7. Very good article. Hillary has deals with Murdoch and this should alarm any dem.

she should not be trusted and we don't need more corporate bought politicians. Look how well that worked for the country with W. They seem to have alot of stuff in common in this vein. All corporate and big money and can be bought. No real passion for people or the issues. It's all a game of money to them. Hillary hangs with the Fox crowd and I do think that is why the spate of anti Obama crap. Murdoch would want someone like Hillary in WH.
This association should alarm any democrat.

[SaveElmer]

25. Why...Kennedy, Boxer and many other Democrats...

Get money from both Murdoch and Fox News...most more than Hillary...

[fuzzyball]

29. I bet everyone with possible exception of Kucinich are

raiding the corporate hand outs.

[SaveElmer]

32. They are...nt

[DURHAM D]

8. Blah, blah, blah. n/t

[SaveElmer]

9. Well if this "ambitious yuppie corporate lawyer"

Does as well as the last one...I will be very happy...

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

38. yeah NAFTA, GATT, welfare "reform" , Telcom "reform," MFN for China, were just great

at laying the foundation for the next GOP president to swing the country into a rightwing house of horros

[SaveElmer]

39. No...this...

The Strongest Economy in a Generation. Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

21.2 million new jobs were created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs were created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.7 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.8 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Unemployment was the lowest Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs.

Increased the Minimum Wage.

Enacted Single Largest Investment in Health Care for Children since 1965.

Extended Strong, Enforceable Patient Protections for Millions of Americans.

An environmental budget that included a record $1.4 billion for Lands Legacy -- a 93 percent increase and the largest one-year investment ever requested for conserving America’s lands.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2503331

From wyldwolf...couldn't be put any clearer...

[fuzzyball]

40. Also don't forget...

economy was in doldrums during first 2 years of BJC.
The republican congress from 1994 deserves some credit
for cutting spending increases.

[SaveElmer]

41. Every Republican member of the Senate...

Every one voted against Bill Clinton's initial budget package in 1993 that began to reverse the deficit and spur economic growth...the Republicans didn't do shit...

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

42. quickly lost under globalization-the real legacy of bill

his paltry 'gains' didn't speak to the real ecnomy. 12 million new jobs: sure, but how many paid a living wage.

sorry to burst your bubble, but clinton merely was a placeholder for the corportist agneda between bushes.

[SaveElmer]

44. Incorrect of course...what really bothers you...

Is that the most successful President since FDR was not some flaming left-wing liberal, but a centrist member of the DLC...

The facts speak for themselves...as does the 65% approval rating Bill had when he left office...nearly unprecedented...

[ProSense]

46. Sometimes watered down the proposals

don't work.

[SaveElmer]

50. Gosh you mean he wasn't perfect...?

Would you define Washington as a failure because he didn't release his slaves?

Would you define John Adams as a failure after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Would you define Abe Lincoln as a failure for suspending habeus corpus and jailing opposition journalists?

Would you define Teddy Roosevelt as a failure for his advocacy of eugenics?

Would you define FDR as a failure for cow-towing to southern racists, trying to pack the supreme court, and interring 120,000 American citizens based on their race?

The fact of the matter is EVERY President, in fact every politician in the history of this country has done something worthy of disapproval and condemnation...does not mean they were not successful taken in their totality...

So if your point is that not everything Bill Clinton did was a success...I'd agree....if your point is that Bill Clinton was not a successful President...then I would say you are dead wrong!

[ProSense]

57. You believe Clinton was like Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt

and FDR? Not even close.

[SaveElmer]

58. Not surprising...

A typical rhetorical tactic to change the terms of the discussion. As I am sure you well know, I was not comparing Bill Clinton to those Presidents(though an argument can be made he was a better President than John Adams)...I was showing that EVERY President, in fact every politician, no matter how great they are, does things which people can condemn and in some cases are even reprehensible. Does not mean they were not successful Presidents? No, of course it doesn't. On the balance sheet of successes and failures, Bill Clinton's presidency comes out overwhelmingly on the successful side...that is the record

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

47. define success

hell, chimpy was popular when the iraq war launched. it was still a crew-up

and if you have such a problem with liberalism, there is a party for you already. it's called the republicans

[SaveElmer]

49. Bwahhhhaaa...

Sorry I don't conform to your rigid definition of a Democrat...I guess my approval of the job a Democratic President did while in office probably tipped you off eh?

Bill Clinton was the most successful President since FDR...for all of the reasons I gave you...

That the American public believe so is very well summed up by his popularity rating...it was recorded as he left office...after his Presidency was over and people took stock...and his favorability with the public retains that rating...after 6 years out of office...

And as to W's ratings...somehow I don't think he is going to leave office with a 65% approval...and I doubt there will ever be a nostalgic look back at the good old Bush days...

[aquart]

10. As opposed to the others who are funded by the pennies of small children.

And "yuppie" is an amazingly dismissive distortion of the Clintons' history and rise.

Ah, I love the stench of propaganda in the evening.

[w4rma]

17. ... who lacks the charisma of her husband. (nt)

[madrchsod]

20. well one thing is for sure

there is only two democrats that are in the darlings of the big funders-obama and clinton. that`s who we got to choose from..

[fuzzyball]

28. Is'nt democracy grand?

Hey the corporations are willing to bend over, so why not?
If HRC does'nt do it, the republicans surely are'nt going to stop.

[wyldwolf]

33. ahhhh! It's from the "Indypendent!"

Approaching Politics like Indy music since 2000.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

43. you would prefer FAUX News?

or one of the corporate sources that the punditocracy deems 'legitimate?"

The Indypendent is a fine publication.

[snowbear]

45. Faux won't say anything against her ~~ they're supporting her!

During the primary that is..

Rupert is forking out the bucks to try and ensure she wins the Democratic nod!!

And why not?

It's a great strategy if you're an r-THUG. She gets our nomination... the THUGS win in '08.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

48. Exactly. Beltway eleites lover her. They know it screws the left.

It's the true progressives outlets that are speaking out about the Clinton/Carville corporatist hijacking of the left's hard work of rebuilding the party's base after the DLC triangulated it.

[wyldwolf]

56. I would put FAUX news in the same category - agenda driven and slanted.

[OneBlueSky]

51. we need a POPULIST, not a corporatist, in the White House . . .

someone who recognizes the insidious influence of corporate money in American politics and who is willing to DO something about it . . .

someone who understands the immorality of the huge disparity in influence between mega-corporations with virtually unlimited funds and the average guy/gal on the street . . .

someone who also understands that allowing corporations to write the regulations that govern their own industries does not reflect the values of a democracy . . .

someone who actually sees war profiteering for what it is -- a huge black mark on the nation's soul . . .

someone who is willing to actually take on the corporations and push for their STRICT regulation, including price controls where warranted (e.g. in the pharmaceutical industry) . . .

Hillary Clinton is none of these . . .

[oasis]

52. I thank Hillary for her determination in seeking the office of the president. She's quite willing

to put up with all the bullshit the goes along with it.

Thanks Hill. :hi:

[snowbear]

53. They ALL put up with Bullshit... Don't worry about Hillary....

Unlike some of our other candidates, she stays protected and very limited to her access to people.

I will NOT vote for that woman.

We've had enough hats thrown into the right ~~ now we need thoe ****four-stars**** thrown in!!

General Clark is everything we need and MORE ~~ and unlike Hillary, who can win in states out of NY, NJ, and CT.... He'll win in the heartland, the deepsouth, the northwest and everywhere in between!!

Rock on General !!! ~~~ ~~~

[oasis]

54. I'm liking the General too. Dems need him front and center in the campaign.(n/t)

[FreeStateDemocrat]

55. A vote for Hillary is a vote to perpetuate the corporate controlled ruling class.

All of Hillary's little helpers on DU can dance around it all they want but the bottom line is she's a sellout to continued corporate control of our party. She will destroy the Democratic Party for her own ambition. There will be a viable third party candidate in 2008 who may be elected and you can put it at the feet of Hillary for using her huge corporate generated funding to buy the Democratic nomination. It is going to get very bloody in the our party.

[madville]

59. Hillary is their only hope

The Republicans know that they need Hillary as an opponent to energize their voters. People won't be turning out to vote for whatever (R) is running, they are going to want to go vote against Hillary. I had a diehard Republican at work tell me the other day that he was going to change from a registered (R) to a (D) so he could vote for Hillary before he votes against her.

[ruggerson]

61. This guy lost me at his first homophobic sentence

using lesbian in a phrase as a pejorative.

[paulk]

62. a large, steaming pile of fallacious reasoning