While the public polls show a public disgusted with the two party duopoly on power and demanding change, the same figures are emerging as the choices for the next president. The most obvious is Hillary Clinton who is reportedly positioning herself now as a candidate of change — a curious role for one of the most establishment figures on the political scene. The other leading candidate is Joe Biden who has been a source of continued gaffs as Vice President and viewed as the other leading candidate of establishment interests. However, there is an effort to reinvent Clinton who supported various wars under Bush and Obama and did little to stop torture and surveillance programs. Indeed, the new MSNBC host Ronan Farrow has proclaimed that the “Clintons represent a style of honesty that the public craves.” Farrow does not appear to remember Bill Clinton’s public and sworn denials in the Lewinsky affair or other scandals. Indeed, the new Hillary Clinton is already attracting the type of influence seekers associated with the two parties. Just this last month, Goldman Sachs gave Clinton almost a half of million dollars for just two speeches in one week. The event is made more curious by fact that speech was described as “prepared remarks” followed by limited questions. It is doubtful that Clinton informed Goldman Sachs of anything other than the most predictable remarks from a politician — not some critical re-orientation of their investment strategy. UPDATE: Chuck Schumer has already endorsed Clinton to be the next president.
In speeches on October 24 and October 29, Goldman Sachs gave Clinton $200,000 a speech. Thursday’s speech was a closed door meeting with Goldman and its clients. The prior Tuesday she spoke at a session hosted by Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein.
From Goldman Sachs to the Carlyle group, business interests are lining up to give huge amounts of cash to the Clintons personally for such speeches.
In the meantime, the two parties are moving to ensure that the same faces and choices will be given to voters despite overwhelming discontent over the two-party monopoly on power. With a system protecting incumbents and control of the two main parties, such public opposition remains largely immaterial and business interests are already putting money down on candidates like Clinton — and the “style of honesty” that they crave.
Alan Cranston died a long time ago. However, he still votes in Chicago every election.
Bron, She will spend many millions of dollars running away from Obama and Republicans will spend the same attaching your slogan to her. The slogan is more accurate than her spin will be. She is as polarizing as Obama has become, probably more so. This thread is a micro example.
Which is in turn W.’s fifth term, Bron.
Come on, Hillary used Monica to play victim just like those using Monica against her. Monica swings both ways, as it were.
Hillary is Obama’s third term.
The money quote comes from David Geffen, a former big Clinton supporter. “Everybody in politics lies, but they do it so well it’s alarming.” This thread is a microcosm of just how polarizing she is.
Gene,
I think it is the military-industrial complex that has gotten out of control. That old closet queen, J. Edgar Hoover created the blackmail model for controlling his own bosses.
The M/I complex has now morphed into the intelligence-industrial-military-prison complex. As Will Rogers once asked, “Who’s minding the store?”
I don’t blame Obama entirely, because the above named entities make sure he is in a hermetically sealed bubble. I seriously doubt he reads any blogs, but only gets the pre-digested summaries fed to him by the minions. He is a registered user at Daily Kos, but only wrote two diaries and has made no comments at all. His most recent blog activity was October 2005. He closed that last diary with this:
I should note that his candor did not include engaging the blog community with any comments or discussion, despite the fact that particularly diary garnered 843 comments.
The question becomes, who owns the minions? It is a truism that all kings are at the mercy of their courtiers.
“The question becomes, who owns the minions? It is a truism that all kings are at the mercy of their courtiers.”
OS,
Perfectly put, but too many people like to pretend it isn’t that way and the ego of politicians is such they deny it even to themselves.
We could all vote for former Gov. Jesse Ventura and Howard Stern and really upset the Bankster whores and the NWO.
The problem with Bill Clinton wasn’t lying about sex, it was NAFTA, welfare reform, the ending of Glass Steagall and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He was bookended by the Bushes who are a legitimate American Crime Family that would horrify the Cosa Nostra with its wanton brutality. Barack Obama is what we used to call a “Republican moderate” in the good old days where the political spectrum didn’t lean towards fascism. Why would anyone suspect that Hilary would be any different than her husband? The opportunity here for those who cherish the concept of a country where the people have a say in the government is that the opposition to Hilary unites people of diverse political views and perhaps a third force can emerge. The depressing part of her candidacy is that people like Jeb Bush, or Ted Cruz will be supported out of opposition since they represent no alternative and in Cruz case even a bleaker prospect.
The true lesson of our politics is that there ain’t no heroes in a Corporatist system heading for feudalism. There are but two years available to mount a viable opposition and I don’t mean Ralph Nader. Right now there are only three people I can think of that I would support: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alan Cranston, but I doubt any of them will run. However, far more important than who is running for President is whether there is a possibility for changing anything when they get there. I believe that our Military and our Intelligence Communities are beyond any President’s control at this point. Only the expression of the strongest sentiments of national disgust with this Corporatist system might have an effect for change. That need is what both excites and depresses me. The fact that people are disgusted with their lack of power to effect change is heartening. However, the
reality is that those in power have used superficial nonsense to divide us and that separation unfortunately is the source of much unseeing rage as we blame the wrong people for this state of affairs.
Smom,
A choice between the lesser of two evils is never positively impacted by making the choice between four evils. Would be theocrats are just another threat to democracy and the Constitution.
And poor Rand Paul, whose hand is constantly out, gets less and less. It’s just soooo dam unfair.
(I always find it extremely funny when men find a way to throw Monica Lewinsky’s name into a discussion on Hillary Clinton.)
David,
Thanks for revealing that you are an anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian pro-oligarch, but we already knew that was your position.
Government, specifically a democracy, works for all the people, not just the people with money and educations.
If that presents a problem, then perhaps a Constitutional Presidential representative democratic republic isn’t for you.
Unfortunately for you, that is the form of government spelled out by the Constitution.
DavidM wrote: “Why would you assume that there is no imbalance in giving the dumb and unsuccessful the same vote as bright and successful people?”
Gene H wrote: “Thanks for revealing that you are an anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian pro-oligarch, but we already knew that was your position.”
I am not anti-democratic. I just think democracy has to be carefully arranged to work well. Democracy weakens government, especially when democracy follows the idea of equal suffrage.
Every government evolves toward oligarchical and Hierarchical. It is simply the nature of organization. Careful steps must be taken to minimize the effects of that trend.
You avoided answering my question. I see a problem with thinking that making everybody equal in their ability to change government will fix everything. Some people are wiser than others and have better ideas on what to do. Some people are too dumb to know that voting for someone who is going to take care of them will bankrupt the nation. Some people are too dumb to know when somebody is lying to them. Some people just do not study the issues at all. They would rather smoke marijuana and live life in a stupor. That person’s vote cancels out your vote. I would rather the vote of someone like you count more than their vote.
Gene H wrote: “Unfortunately for you, that is the form of government spelled out by the Constitution.”
The Constitution originally did not have equal suffrage built into it. Women did not vote. Blacks did not vote. The construction of representation in the Senate versus the House of Representatives was an effort to weigh votes differently between the property owners and the populace.
Just look at how corrupt government has become as we have amended the Constitution toward equal suffrage and granting greater taxation rights to the federal government. Based upon our history and the results of our evolving government, I suspect your concept of what is good for government is flawed.
Can you try to answer my question? Why would you assume that there is no imbalance in giving the dumb and unsuccessful the same vote as bright and successful people?
My reply to Gene H got trapped by WordPress. Would a moderator please free it?
If you don’t like it, then pass the laws taking money out of political campaigns. And it is the Repubs who are the very worst offenders here, working tirelessly to further empower the most wealthy and protecting corporations as people.
lawrence berg wrote: “And it is the Repubs who are the very worst offenders here, working tirelessly to further empower the most wealthy and protecting corporations as people.”
This is not true. I am a Republican, and I do not favor empowering the most wealthy. The wealthy already have enough power. We have to work toward empowering the poor, not the wealthy. This is a Republican ideal. The problem is that the left has been demonizing Republicans with so much false information that it has polarized the country and created the kind of brokenness that exists in Congress today.
Someone will give her a primary challenge but I think it is more likely to be Howard Dean rather than Elizabeth Warren. She has my vote if the alternatives are Cruz, Christie or Paul. If either one of the dominionists, Paul or Cruz, is nominated, moderate republicans will vote for her. Some can say they are all the same but Hillary is not a religious fanatic like Cruz nor a white supremacist employer like Paul.
Reblogged this on The Libertarian Runner and commented:
Meet the next boss, same as the current and old boss.
When Benghazi happened, Hiller hid and sent Susan Rice out to lie to the world about what happened. Now that is true leadership, NOT.
As was mentioned previously, Not a single incumbent gets my vote. Including people who have served previously as Senator, Congressman, or Secretary of State.
Gene, Bravo!
Dem lemmings, please bookmark a great website, opensecrets.org. It gives you where the money comes from. The ones who don’t feed off the trough, like my former senator, Russ Feingold, well they’re voted out.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Two choices is the illusion of choice, not actual choice.
The only way to start fixing that problem is to remove partisan erected barriers to entering elections as anything other than a D or an R. Neither party is enshrined in the Constitution. The rigging of the electoral systems was done by them for them and has nothing to do with the best interests of the American citizenry. First you break that fictional construct. Second, you make a Constitutional amendment that overturns Buckley v. Valeo and recognizes that no, money is not the equivalent of free speech and yes, that unlimited campaign contributions fetter democracy and inherently limit the marketplace of ideas to those with the money to “graft the loudest” and therefor unbalance policy and law. This would consequently also negate Citizens United v. FEC and whatever substantial damage is likely to be done by Mitch McConnell’s pending push to remove all contribution limits (which effectively kills democracy and makes a corporatist/fascist/plutocracy the officially the actual form of government).
Gene H wrote: “…unlimited campaign contributions fetter democracy and inherently limit the marketplace of ideas to those with the money to “graft the loudest” and therefor unbalance policy and law.”
Why would you assume that there is no imbalance in giving the dumb and unsuccessful the same vote as bright and successful people?
Barkin, Goldman was the #2 contributor to Obama in 2008. Microsoft, Citibank, etc. were in the top 10, as was the mega business law firm, Sidley Austin. So there’s that. Give up this Dem horseshit, PLEEEEASE.