If I was a zillionare, I would prefer to be King!

What is the big deal? So another person running for office to become president, who relates to me like I am a bug.  Maybe Meg Whitman can get Palin to teach her to gut a Moose while nursing a baby, then the NRA would vote for her.

Wonder if she knows what it is like not to have Medical Coverage, or be unemployed or not to have a private Jet?

If one is to vote for an elite person why not vote for Meg Whitman, how more elite can one possibly be? Well, I need to catch up on my who’s who in the jet set elite circles.

Well if I lived in California, such a hoyty toyty rich state, were peoples poo don’t stink, I would never vote for someone like Jerry Brown, he just is not elite enough.

I wonder if Cris Hedges is going to keep his
weekly posts talking about religion and Christian
fascism.

Sadly, Meg Whitman is the governor California deserves. There is no doubt that she will fulfill her campaign promises to the letter. Like a stern mother she will give her sick child California a dose of cod liver oil, without remorse or guilt or self recrimination. 

If she wins liberals will once again be clueless as to why she won, since to them liberal ideology is self evidently true, and conservative Ideology self evidently false. (This makes it easy to avoid examining the consequences of your actions.)

Feminists should be happy that she will be our first female governor. No doubt a big help to Sara Palin when she runs again.

How hypocritical of a state that worships money, to condemn someone who has so much. Instead Californian’s should worship her as a goddess.  All hail Meg, our savior!

So when she wins liberals need to take a good look in the mirror, because you made it possible.

Hey Meg! Ya know that if ya woulda sent that $81 mil. down to the Gulf to kinda,Ya know, help out all those folks who are now victims of somebody else’s “business savvy”, Ya woulda surely been endorsed by both halves of our glorious one party dictatorship and won in a landslide! Just a thought. By the way, is the govenorship of Calif. payin’ that good these days or are Ya just real, real, real altruistic?

“At least Meg Whitman went out and earned her own money. Parasite Jerry Brown has fed at the public trough all his life. Meg for Governor!”

Yup, “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”: since she “earned her own,” who cares what her actual politics are?

Hmmm…

I believe it was a good American spectacle, it is what
we deserve…...we asked for this..!!!

  Over in Arkansas, another political show, thats all it
was there tooo

  and a way for the Democrat Party to rifle $10,000,000.00
from the union lobby.,,,,they knew durn well what they
were doing,  basically , the unions pissed 10 mil away.
The Dem and Pub fascist are laughing hard at this ...
10 they can’t spend on progressives that could have won.
Does everyone understand what is really going on in their
country???? These elections don’t mean jack….jack….

Why bother with the election?

Why not just appoint the candidate who can assemble the most money in a given period and save us all a lot of time and BS?

Until elections are publicly funded with each candidate allowed/restricted to spend, in cash or in kind, ONLY that set amount or be disqualified from the race, the whole process is bogus.

The kind of money Whitman made is usually not ‘earned.’  Unless you consider that CEO’s actually deserve their salaries, and there is nothing honorable or ethical or moral about making (not earning) a s***load of money.

At least Meg Whitman went out and earned her own money. Parasite Jerry Brown has fed at the public trough all his life. Meg for Governor!

Spoiled brat.  Thinks she can buy what she wants, and what she wants is power.  It’s even better than money when money gets boring.

It’s strange that she feels no shame in spending that kind of money to get herself elected.  If she was popular, she should expect to get contributions.

Sheep like being led by sheepdogs that bark.  Those who can buy the best televison barking dogs will lead the sheep.  it is that simple.  The only way to stop this madness is to ask the simple question why 81 million was needed….to buy advertising.  If the media, television and radio was required to give equal blocks of advertising time to candidates based on the population of electorate, because the airwaves they use to make a prfit are owned by the public, AND all political advertising for offices like governor would require that only the candidate appear in person in the advertising touting their talking points (eliminating movie style productions with voiceovers) and private advertising is not allowed, then we would have fair elections based on the ideas and policies not the advertising dollars spent.  Media news is not going to rock the gravy train by pushing for reforms that take money out of politics because all money gets funneled to them, making news reporting of elections biased and actually conflicts of interest.

Yes, and just remember Californians when you go to the polls in the fall, Orly Taitz wants to be your Secretary of State!  If ever there was a raison d’etre to keep these people out of office think: privatized government, less corporate regulation, ENRON STYLE pricing!  Oh boy, your fun is just beginning…...

Good comments (with one exception). The woman is a creep. Feminism never meant the equal right to suffocate people with your voluminous ego.

Meg Whitman attacks big government.  However, she got rich off of government.  The Internet was a government invention.

Next time you go to vote just think of what your modest contribution to your
candidate of choice means versus what big money people and business invest in
candidates.  It may make you change your mind about voting at all.  How can this
be a democratic process?  Campaign reform is urgent -it may not automatically
produce paradise on earth but it may make us feel less like sheep and more
realistic about what the country is all about.

Hmmm…

-The SCOTUS decision in Citizens United allows for unlimited corporate/union money.  (Though it admittedly did not help to unseat Blanche Lincoln.)

-Former corporation bigwigs Meg Whitman (EBay) and Carly Fiorini (H-P) win (though admittedly mostly on their own money), and Linda McMahon (WWF) is likely to win the nomination for U.S. Senator in CT.

-New SCOTUS decision overturns matching funds in AZ, allowing the sole wealthy candidate to outspend all others.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09wed1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print)

Anyone see a pattern here?

We need a lot of stuff the take this country out
of the hands of fascist that have it in a strangle hold
around the neck.

Election reform a first, total election reform, not
just the financial mess.  The federal primaries need
to be standardized and all held within three months of
eachother.
Levin and Nelson of Florida had a good bill after the
Florida scam of the last primaries, however as soon as
the DNC and the Florida Democrat Party had their little
under the table compromise,  they quickly scrapped that
bill.  It only was on the table for about a week.
They got rid of it quick

I’ve never really understood why or how mere money can win an election.  I still don’t and it still does.  And now that SCOTUS has given the go-ahead to unlimited spending by factions that have unlimited amounts to spend, the only ‘qualifications’ for public office will be merely how much money one can spend to buy the office.

As a Californian, I’m ashamed of us.

Ah, yes. Another generic repug touting the benefits of reaganomics. Conservatives still believe that reaganomics, like slavery, has just been marketed poorly and just needs a little more time.

Running a state government is not the same as running a major corporation. Just ask Jon Corzine.

A prime example of why we need serious financial reform in politics.

PAC’s, lobbies, corporate sponsers, zillionaires with nothing better to do with their money.