Purple Girl

Just for kicks, read a book.

I have far more faith in Obama to begin the De- privatization of many of the entities which have been instrumental in the downfall of our economy and the restoration of our fundmental Principles. Of course i twill not happen ALL on day one- but I think we can begin to dismantle the Beasts which have plagued our country for Decades- the last Century .
The so called ‘Fed’s’ are not the only ones who need to be Fired, revamped and striped of power. the FCC,the SEC, the IRS....It’s time these Departments take on their own Jobs. and Wall street & investment banker no longe rallowed to gamble on essential human resources- Food, energy, labor and Futures, let them bet on Unnecessary commodities to human life and planetary welfare- Iphone & Xboxes.

Poor John or is it ‘Dear John’
too bad we saw through your rhetoric, actually looked at your record and Know exactly what Hedge funds ahve done to this Country’s economy. So sad we Knew the “Patriot Act ‘ Was unconstitutional but you didn’t. Too bad you Union Members swa you for what you were -merely a costly middle management prototype llke the one who laid them off, then drive off in their BMW to catch his Tee Off time.
Oh and there are alot of Doc’s who love to milk the hell out of private insurance companies and Medicare, without regard to patient care or even medical necessity- Don’t you just hate those County Hospitals filled with the uninsured filling you Er and Wasting you precious time with their ‘Minor’ needs. but of course once you’ve had to go through such a system you begin to recognize the Problems, short falls and Greed- Oh that’s Right you have some of the best coverage in the Nation- You’re Rich and a politician wife.There are alot of poor people who died because they did not have the same access or resources for Pricey medication. Let one of their family members lead the healthcare and Poverty fight
Please stop trying to ‘help’ US You are both Clueless!You lost because no one bought your Acts!

I never said people weren’t stupid enough to give the man money, i was just pointing out that his not taking money from lobbyist stuff is half truth at best. I also believe a lot of people are giving him money out of hated for the Clintons which I share with them.

We could also argue the value of endorsements, but the fact is (just as he dropped out of the race too soon) Edwards lacks political will. Even though his message is often spot-on, and he has done great work for this country (I’d certainly never impugn him personally) he just doesn’t have the ability in the political forum.

His campaign wasn’t dynamic, and neither is his political ability. He’d be a great candidate, but everyone’s gotta recognize Edwards short-comings too.

I read the article scottk, and jbart has done the math. So, what about it? Do we peons and our little nickel and dime contributions to Barack Obama mean NOTHING?

And, of those 14 BIG corporate powers, how many of us peons do you suppose are working for them, whether we want to or not? (I’m not any longer, but I know a whole bunch of folks who still work those corporate slave plantations, because they don’t have any other options).

Meantime, it’s curious about you and Nadar. Do you live somewhere where he’s actually campaigning? He used to be very popular here in my state, back some decades ago, when he was doing some good work for consumers. Nobody knows him now. If you say Nadar around here, anybody under the age of 40 would say, “WHO”?

Anyway, I guess it’s good that you think for yourself, since you’ve already indicated that you think for the rest of your family/friends/neighbors and everybody else as well. They’ll vote for Nadar because you tell them to, whether they’ve ever heard of him or not either, right?

Jackpine,

You write, (and I appreciate your consistency)

• “Furthermore, i agree with John Edwards that replacing corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats changes nothing but the bunting.”

Now, I can say without a doubt, that I agree with this as well.

HOWEVER, my question is: what indications do you and John Edwards have that this would in fact be the plan for an Obama administration? Now I know you can’t speak for John Edwards, (and I admire him myself, except for his lack of guts in this decision) but can you cite some names or circumstances that lead you to believe that Barack Obama is that tied to the Corporate Oligarchy? (other than innuendo) OR, does that just follow from your assumption that anything that is either democratic or republican is automatically corporately compromised?

And, I really am interested in knowing this, because I’m as heavily invested as many other long term democrats are, in changing the nature of that party, which has admittedly been corrupted by much of the same as the repugs have.

And, that’s no secret. I’ve said many times here, that I believe HRC to be republican running as a democrat, and I believed Bill Clinton to be as close to the right as even the most moderate of republicans, and sometimes more so. So as far as I’m concerned, (and have been for over a decade) the Clinton’s are not my idea of the kind of principles originally envisioned by the Democratic party.

So, the PDA among others, (Progressive Democrats of America that is) have long been involved with CHANGING the face of the party that is supposed to represent the principles of a democracy, which obviously doesn’t include ‘corporatism’ in the way that it has been cultivated and employed as the Fascism that it is. (Because corporatism IS a component of a Fascist regime, just like militarism, religiosity, etc, etc)

That said, (and my sincere agreement about the destructive power of corporations) I still am curious as to how you connect the same to Barack Obama. Are there any specific people within his campaign, or acting as his advisors, or any of the rest of that, which would lead you to make such connections? I’ve definitely been ‘on the lookout’ for such signs myself, and quite honestly, I can’t find any of any real significance. I’m also asute enough to know that grass roots organizers don’t generally follow the corporate mindset. I’m also conscious of the fact that the average ‘corporately inclined’ mindset would have chosen that long ago, in the quest for self-enrichment.

In other words, as I watch group after group of scholars and academics leave the the academy with their fields of law or any other such study, (generally owing tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loans) they almost NEVER turn their backs on the BIG BUCKS that the corps put out there, to take the piddly sums of money that come from working in the public sector. In short, IT DOESN’T HAPPEN!! Even those with the most acute sense of conscientiousness and social responsibility, RARELY make a choice to turn their backs on the oodles of money offered by Wall Street or the corps in general, to choose academia or other avenues of the far, far, far less lucrative public service.

So, what have I missed in my own examination of the credentials and other ‘associations’ of Barack Obama at this point, which you have apparently noted, that would put him in deep alliance with the corps?

I’m more than aware of the fact that he has ACKNOWLEDGED the corporate entity, and appreciate the fact that he hasn’t pretended that it can just be dismantled or otherwise swept away. All that aside, I’m still trying to find some indication that would support your premise that he’s as immersed as the old-style democratic party in corporatism. So, help me out if you can.

Thanks.

I don’t buy that whole rumor Elizabeth is for Hillary and John is for Barack. Even if it is true, the reality of the situation is it is not a smart political decision to endorse either for John, and I think he’s playing it smart for keeping his mouth shut. Likewise for Elizabeth. Hell knows if John Endorses the wrong candidate, and then gets run over by a spiteful politico when he could be a great asset to the country.

Sorry, i haven’t read the article, but i visit CounterPunch regularly...so i probably will.  It’s just that i won’t be surprised to learn of a neo-liberal, corporate Obama.  It’s what i expect; the idea of “changing” D.C. with a politician from either party seems unrealistic, at best.  Thanks for the link in any case.

I see your point clearly.  To be sure, Obama looks one thousand times better than Clinton; however, i share your fear about an Obama administration mimicking the Clinton administration.

Furthermore, i agree with John Edwards that replacing corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats changes nothing but the bunting.

But none of this changes our situation.  Until enough of us Americans say “no more”...enough to throw the electoral college into an unwinnable mess...we’re stuck with the lesser of two evils.

I am NOT saying that you should vote for anyone in an attempt to vote against something slightly worse.  Since your vote (and almost certainly mine as well) won’t “count” come November, i would ask you to think of another option. 

Nader has some excellent points, but a protest vote for a quixotic, personal campaign won’t affect any real change.  If we’re going to throw away our votes, we might as well throw them onto something that might build.  Fuck it, vote Green...even if you don’t wholeheartedly support their platform.  The real task for all of us who do not subconsciously write a D or an R after our own name is to build anything that will challenge the two corporate parties.  Unfortunately, Nader won’t/can’t. (The same was true with Perot.)

Edwards will wait until the convention to endorse and vote. You know, after it is safe to know who is winning everyone else over. That’s populism!

Edwards had corporate roots too, even though he tried to keep his hands clean it is impossible in politics. Nader is an irrelevant candidate, and the Green Party is armchair politicorps. While it may not be a great choice of democracy with only two major parties, if people like you were more involved in your local Democratic chapter and brought in friends to create positive change we would have a progressive New Deal Democratic Party again.

I’m not upset by your comment. I’m annoyed by its irrelevance and by the baiting politics of character assassination hidden behind Hillary, Obama, Nader or McCain worship. If you think you’re doing anyone a service, you’re wrong. Dead wrong.

Furthermore, Edwards isn’t endorsing either candidate because he wants the Vice President spot, and you cannot alienate either one of these extremely popular candidates politically at this point in time. Yeah, Edwards is just a politician too, and he’s a pussy for pulling out early when his message was important.

her personal motives i cannot speak to, and don’t think you can either unless you something i don’t which you may. However, i don’t see how her former ties to wall street would give her an ax to grind againist Obama, and I really doubt she is a Hillary support, but she may be, however i believe her politics to be very much to the left of Hillary so i would be suprised, but even if she were a Hillary supporter would not diminish her observations, and remember it was the democrat congress that bailed out the savings and loans in the 80’s. Also her article is filled with quotes for the center for responsive politics and you can check the legistative record to see how Obama voted to limit class action lawsuits, etc.

i wrote my original comment because i was glad Edwards stuck to principles as articulated earlier in the campaign season when he said we should not replace a group of corporate republicans with a group of corporate democrats, and i was demonstrating with the articles Obama is a corporate candidate. Second, i don’t believe or agree with everything i read, however, it is true counter punch does not toe the corporate line so they have so good articles and think for myself, i will, which is why even though i live in a battle ground state, i am supporting and will vote for Nader, as will the many family and friends who trust my judgment in who they should vote for. In regards to Obama I am sorry my comments upset you, I just want people to know the truth about Obama’s corporate roots, after all the the truth will set you free.

What it means is that he’s not planning to affect, one way or the other the voting in North Carolina’s primary. And frankly, I think he finds both Obama and Hillary wanting, particularly on issues that he has been passionate about. See, passion and principle still does exist. It’s just not running for POTUS.

Btw cyrena I actually found your post(this one)very well considered. Keep it up; it helps to keep our (collectively speaking) discussion a little less dismissive and angry.

Max (:

Your comments have little relevance to the article. If you can’t see how posting links about Obama’s corporate funding is not quite germane to an article about the Edwards’ choice to not endorse a candidate, I’d spend a little time introspectively searching for what your purposes are and how to achieve them effectively.

Secondly, congratulations on posting links to popular alternative media sites. It shows you’re an independent thinker.

Well, some people wear the ‘Corporate Lapel Flag Pin’ others don’t.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Scottk,

It’s an excellent article - one the Obama tribe will not read but will comment on to be sure.

You’re words and posts Scottk are wasted on the fanatical.

scottk,

I would be very suspicious of Pam Martens reporting on Obama. As a prior Wall-Street tramp herself, she has a specific axe to grind. No doubt, this Oligarch is also a Hillary fanatic and a troll.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Oh how wrong you are. I will be voting for anything but these candidates, see I have principles and those principles will not allow me to support a candidate who do the biding of corporations over the work that needs to be done to help the American people. Obama is a corporate sell just like Hillary, you will see if and when he gets elected. He just like bill Clinton in 92, he sounds good on the campaign, but when it comes time to governing he is pure neoliberal, pro corporate, you name it and he was for it. Now if you like the DLC you will love Obama but I however do not and so i will not support someone who thinks and believes like they do. As far as McCain getting elected, well maybe one of these day primary voters will wake up and give us a candidate worth voting for, but until then i will voting third party as i suggest everyone to do, these corporate parties cannot keep feeding up crap and expect us to eat it. And as far as Bush has been able to destroy this country, he has plenty of help from the spineless democrats, so no i will not be supporting them. And I will not stop denigrating these candidates until people like you wake up and quit buying the corporate propaganda about these candidates. You may want to check these articles out about your saint Obama:  http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05062008.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html

John Edwards would make a great presisdent. However, the money-crazed system does not allow him. A shame. Hope rests on Obama who is on his way to become the next great president, after Abraham Lincoln. There have been no other great presidents in US history.  Hillary? This woman gives me the creep.

What’s illuminating is the shameless speed and efficiency to which you saw this article as an opportunity to devalue one of the good candidate options we have. I’m really sick of everyone denigrating either candidate. It’s time to just quit the bickering and go forward. One of these two will be our candidate, and it is your duty to support them against McCain.

After Edwards speech this summer about not replacing a group of corporate republicans with a group of corporate democrats, it would have been in appropriate for John to have endorsed either of these completely corporate candidates. Obama supporters should check out the article below its illuminating.

http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html

Symbolism doesn’t put food on the table; however, I’m sure we’ll all be carving pictures of steak and eggs on our tables soon enough. Just as a reminder of what we used to be able to eat.

Maybe we should stop thinking about voting as a symbolic act.  It’d be groovy to have either a black man or a woman. (why not vote McKinney...black AND female?) But neither of those criteria are what we should be considering in voting for a president.  And if we were as enlightened as we like to believer ourselves, they wouldn’t be a consideration.

This whole thing has become a disgusting charade…

Geez, if John and Elizabeth kiss and make up after their tiff on which is better, a Hillary or a Barack, they may have a chance to save the country.

When Clinton and Obama end in a tie, and the Dems decide that any choice between them would render the party asunder, how about:

Edwards/Edwards? That way we get both universal health care, and the poor getting rich.

(No need to decide which Edwards heads the ticket. Let them fight it out over their kitchen table.)

Well, I don’t care about symbolism at this point in time, and I doubt anybody else much does either. Being able to have a ‘first’ Afrian-American or a ‘first’ Female president may have made a difference back in the day, but the fact that this country is over 200 years old, and this is a 2-time ‘first’, is really rather disgusting in my opinion, and any ‘celebration’ of either has happened too late. We don’t have time for the frivolous fluff of ‘symbolism’ - at least not of something this late in the game, that only addresses the backward and reactionary mentality of a nation that is supposedly the most powerful in the world. I think we should be EMBARRASSED, rather than celebrating this double ‘first’ in the 21st century.

On the health care plan, I don’t get why Elizabeth Edwards, a very smart woman that I admire very much, is making a distinction between Hillary’s plan and Obama’s, because they are essentially the same, with the exception that Obama will not force compliance, which CAN’T be forced ANY damn way! Has Hillary indicated how she’s going to FORCE a compliance of her plan, which is essentially forcing people to buy health insurance, and how does she imagine that she’s really going to make people without jobs and/or employer assisted payment for those premiums, actually BUY the health insurance? THOSE are the people who are uninsured now. How is her plan going to change that?

NEITHER of their plans actually assure that ALL people will be covered, and my guess is that for now at least, neither of them have found a way for the government to essentially take over the role of the insurance companies. When that happens, and a system can be set up to operate as a government entity, THEN you can insure everyone.

Now, look how that has worked with the VA. THERE WAS A TIME, when the Veteran’s Administration operated slowly, as a bureaucracy does, but the care was good. There was a time when our County Hospitals were good as well. The entire system is now broken, and it’s going to take more than a policy paper or two to fix it. Again, NEITHER of their plans are perfect, and neither of them are going to provide the immediate correction of the damage created by turning health into a profit making enterprise. But at least they’re gonna do something more than the Repugs have done. I’m very concerned about Hillary forcing a mandate on ALL to purchase health insurance, because I know the nightmares (though probably unintended and NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT in her plan) that can come from that.

Meantime, what does this mean? Isn’t John Edwards a superdelegate? If he’s not, then it doesn’t matter if they don’t endorse a candidate. If he IS, does this mean he’s not going to cast his superdelegate vote? Now THAT isn’t too cool.