Krugman has concerns about corporate money going to Dems, particularly mentions Hillary Clinton

[flpoljunkie]

Death of the Machine
by Paul Krugman

The sudden burst of corporate affection for Democrats is good news for the party’s campaign committees, but not necessarily good news for progressives.

<>Right now all the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination are running on strongly progressive platforms — especially on health care. But there remain real concerns about what they would actually do in office.

Here’s an example of the sort of thing that makes you wonder: yesterday ABC News reported on its Web site that the Clinton campaign is holding a “Rural Americans for Hillary” lunch and campaign briefing —at the offices of the Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, which lobbies for the agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto. You don’t have to be a Naderite to feel uncomfortable about the implied closeness.

I’d put it this way: many progressives, myself included, hope that the next president will be another F.D.R. But we worry that he or she will turn out to be another Grover Cleveland instead — better-intentioned and much more competent than the current occupant of the White House, but too dependent on lobbyists’ money to seriously confront the excesses of our new Gilded Age.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Obama collects more Wall Street $$ than Rudy Guiliani

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ajK1PQvX6tk4&refer=home
"The New York senator brought in $748,896 from the firms in July through September, compared with $177,456 for Obama, an Illinois senator.
The former first lady ran even further ahead of top Republicans, led by Giuliani, who brought in $149,925, and Romney, who raised $133,875, federal regulatory filings show."

"Clinton's and Obama's take on Wall Street represents a switch from the second quarter, when Obama, 46, raised $739,579 and Clinton followed with $424,545. The top Republican recipients, Giuliani, 63, and McCain, 71, each received a little more than $330,000 from the same group of top banks in that quarter."

[flpoljunkie]

3. Old figures. "Hil's Wall Street 3rd Qtr. take -$748,896-more than Obama, Giuliani, Romney combined

[MethuenProgressive]

4. "Oct 17th" isn't "old". Obama got more Wall St cash than Guiliani.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ajK1PQvX6tk4&refer=home

If it's "dirty" money, will he give it back? :eyes:

[flpoljunkie]

6. So? Giuliani received $149,925 to Obama's $177,456--both of which dwarf Hil's take.

Who was it said recently that Obama was more the candidate of Main Street--not Wall Street.

[William769]

8. So? Kind of shoots the shit out of what your implying.

:rofl:

[MethuenProgressive]

9. So where's your phony outrage over Obama getting corporate $$?

The situational ethics invoked by some people is deserving of hearty laughter.
Or a derisive cackle, at least.

[flpoljunkie]

25. Outrage? Just the cold hard truth.

[MethuenProgressive]

30. That Obama takes Wall Street $$ than Republicans do.

Your attempted smear doesn't pass the truthtest.

[BridgeTheGap]

2. Read this commentary from E.J. Dionne on the

special election just held in Mass.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x315575

[flpoljunkie]

5. Am afraid that it was immigrant bashing that got him so close, that and running against Washington-

along with his affable personality and personal history.

[BridgeTheGap]

12. Yes, and the immigration issue isn't going away any time soon

It might also be another reason why the corporate money is going toward the Dems.
The fact that there are "affable" repubs out there doesn't make every democratic party candidate a "slam dunk."

[cobalt1999]

7. Corp money goes to the ones they think will win.

It's good news for the dems, not bad.

It simply means that corporations are reading the tea leaves and placing their money accordingly. Right now, the signs all point to a big democratic victory in 2008 so the money follows.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. And Wall St. is backing Dems this time. That's good for our party,

[flpoljunkie]

11. It's good news only if the Dem prez puts the public interest first--not corporate special interests

As Krugman put it in his column today...

I’d put it this way: many progressives, myself included, hope that the next president will be another F.D.R. But we worry that he or she will turn out to be another Grover Cleveland instead — better-intentioned and much more competent than the current occupant of the White House, but too dependent on lobbyists’ money to seriously confront the excesses of our new Gilded Age.

[hedgehog]

17. But you forgot the second and more important reason:

Corporate money also goes to the ones who the corporations think are on their side. Why give money to someone who is against your interests?

[cobalt1999]

21. Money follows power.

The expectations of influence may be lower with democrats vs. republicans, but the money still flows to the ones with the power.

The republicans are finding that out the hard way. All the corp help they've given and the corp money has left them overnight to follow the new masters.

[antigop]

13. Hey, Paul -- are you reading DU? I said on another post -- we are having a Hoover moment...

we need to elect an FDR.

Thanks, Paul!

[SaveElmer]

14. Unless Republicans are planning on disarming themselves...

We will play by the rules as the stand...

[wyldwolf]

15. why won't "many progressives" accept the simple facts

There isn't anything happening in this country that calls for the measures FDR took. There is no depression. There is no World War. There is no group of people Democrats want to round up and put in prison camps.

And there is no one resembling Hoover.

As soon as "many progressives" come to understand there is no impending "progressive"* utopia and a nd angelic leader waiting to lead you to the promised land. After all, who could possibly measure up to the standards they've set?

[pgh_dem]

16. Wildly unnecessary statement

"There is no group of people Democrats want to round up and put in prison camps".
As though that was a reason Democrats voted for FDR, because they WANTED to round up Japanese citizens.
Particularly disingenuous since the clear implication of the OP was that FDR was the kind of Democratic candidate sought to change course away from disastrous repub presidencies.
This leaves only your 'no depression' point intact.

[wyldwolf]

20. FDR wasn't elected to do a lot of things he did.

Nothing at all "disingenuous" about my post. FDR was not the savior "progressives"* make him out to be. He was a great president.

[mod mom]

23. We've had a total transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very top, we

face a climate crisis that will effect us in ways we don't fully understand, we have collapse of our infrastructure, we have CORPORATE POWER RUN AMUK that sends manufacturing jobs overseas (which is a national security issue since the countries which are the recipients of those jobs may not always be our allies), we have a healthcare crisis, we have partisan corruption within both our election system and DoJ, we are embroiled in a civil war in the middle east, ...there there are a few issue for a new president to face.

We do need a visionary leader who is willing to take on corporate power and fight for the people. I can think of several up to the task: GORE, EDWARDS, OBAMA, DODD, BIDEN.

What we don't need is a politician indebted to lobbyists, big business and foreign entities funnelling money through poor immigrants.

[wyldwolf]

24. a lot of exaggeration there, of course, but any Democrat will address these concerns

Amazing that list of visionaries.

The point man for welfare reform, NAFTA, and the Telecom act.
Mr. "I'm sorry for my entire Senate career"
The "I don't take corporate money ever except when I do" candidate
Credit Industry Hero

[mod mom]

26. It sure is an amazing list of visionary Dems-thanks for agreeing. BTW have you checked out

Opensecrets:

Lobbyists -Hillary # 1

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

Oil & Gas _Hillary # 4 (although TOP DEM)

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01

Pharm/Health Products-Hillary # 3 (TOP DEM)

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

WE NEED A POPULIST PRESIDENT, AND NOT THE DLC TYPE OF POPULIST (BTW..DESPITE WHAT THE DLC SAYS GORE WON IN 2000):



Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm





Led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the DLC was the raucous cheerleader for Bush's war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. They lauded the corporate trade policies that have left us with the largest trade deficits in the annals of time, and contributed to stagnant wages, growing inequality and a declining middle class. They championed fiscal austerity—even when the budget was in surplus—leaving us with a looming deficit in vital investments from new energy to modern schools to basic infrastructure. "Inequality doesn't matter," they argued, even as we moved into an economy in which the wealthy few captured all of the benefits from growth. One of their first policy papers was an attack on the minimum wage, which went a decade without being raised.

-snip

"We're all populists now," says the DLC's Will Marshall, but the organization still scorns the populist economics that was central to Democratic election victories across the county last year.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/wrong_right?tx=3

[wyldwolf]

28. sarcasm gets lost on you. Now, I know it is standard "progressive"* technique to divert to the DLC

...typical...

But whatever you pull on Hillary still does not negate the facts about the other candidates.

Al Gore - pushed Clinton on NAFTA, Welfare reform, and the telecom act.
Edwards - WTF? If he apologizes for his senate career, what the hell is he running on.
Obama - He says he doesn't take corporate money - but he does.
Biden - Protected the credit card industry with his life.

Nothing at all visionary there.

[tabasco]

29. An endless bloody quagmire.

Unbridled war profiteering.
A dollar not worth the paper it's printed on.
50 million Americans without health care.
Massive corruption throughout government.
Total loss of national prestige, respect and influence.
Astronomical national debt.

Sure, things are just smooth as gravy. No need to rock the boat! MORE OF THE SAME PLEASE!

HILLARY 08!! WOOHOO!!

[antigop]

18. Here is the link to the "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch on ABC News blog

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/yee-haw.html

[antigop]

19. but, but, but... I'm sure she won't be swayed by lobbyists....nosirree. n/t

[hedgehog]

22. The question is, why do the lobbyists think they can sway her? nt

[mod mom]

27. Thank you I forwarded this around to friends.

[incapsulated]

31. Nice cherry picking there

Found her name in a long OP and picked it out.

She was the obvious choice to be the example but he isn't going after Hillary, it's a think piece on WHY the money is going to the dems (long story short, Bush is such a disaster they have no choice) and what it will mean for the next President, should it be a democrat.

I disagree with him that this is a period where an FDR steps to the fore. I would be happy with a Grover Cleveland after eight years of neo-con fascist goons.