Why have Wall Street, Drug companies, the defense industry, Rupert Murdoch and convicted felons like Peter Paul and Norman Hsu supported Hillary Clinton more than any other presidential candidate? Please read on for explanation and poll.
The sketchy people in the photo above didn't just make big donations to Hillary's campaign, they were or are major bundler's and have held personal fund raisers for Hillary. Peter Paul was convicted for possession of 15 pounds of cocaine and fraud, years before he produced Hillary's largest gala fund raiser in 2000. Hillary and Bill managed to stiff Paul for at least $600,000 to pay for the event. Norman Hsu allegedly stole $60 million dollars and was black mailing investors into donating to Hillary's campaign and was scheduled to hold a major fund raiser with Quincy Jones in late September, 2007 before he was caught as a fugitive felon, wanted for fraud. Candidates may not be able to check every donation they get, but they certainly should be responsible for checking out the people who are bundling hundreds of thousands of dollars for them and holding major fund raising events that the candidate actually attends.
Rupert Murdoch is the creator, owner and CEO of the "Republican Attack Machine" FOX News and the NewsCorp media empire, responsible for tearing down Democrats and putting George Bush in the White House two times. Hillary actively courted Murdoch and last year he held a personal fund raiser for Hillary in the FOX building and earlier this year bundled money for Hillary from his family and top NewsCorp executives and this alone should be inexcusable to every Democrat in America.
We know how to fix global warming and pollution with greater efficiency, conservation and renewable energy. We know how to fix health care by restructuring the outrageous profit incentives for long term drug treatments and by focusing more on prevention and cures. We know how to fix weak levees and bridges before they break and cause major catastrophes. We also know how to help people after a hurricane or flood with rescue and evacuation planning and by implementing those emergency plans without red tape.
We know how to fix our massive $9 trillion dollar debt by cutting spending and raising revenues with a simplified tax code that eliminates loopholes, by adjusting tariffs on imported products and by investing in real economic growth. We know how to fix illegal immigration by cracking down on companies who hire undocumented workers. We know how to fix the outsourcing and off shoring of jobs and manufacturing by stopping companies from outsourcing and off shoring jobs and manufacturing.
We know how to protect ourselves from dangerous products by cracking down on companies who produce dangerous products. We know how to fight terrorism by going after the terrorists who actually attack us. We even know how to prevent wars with greater diplomacy.
The United States of America is by far the wealthiest country, with the largest market place in the world and we have all the leverage and knowledge we need to solve all of these problems but we don't do it. Why is that? What is it that keeps us from fixing the problems we already know how to fix?
Why do we let the media lead us around by the nose with distractions about Brittany, Paris and Lindsey, with all of these real problems hovering over us and our children? Why do we let politicians tell us how bad our government is and then we elect them so they can prove it? And why do we fall for this same crap over and over again?
We even know the answer to these questions and that answer is: Our system is rigged by big money special interests who control our government and the media and they tell us who we can and can not elect and their main goal is to keep our government working for their interests and maintain that status quo as much as possible. I'm not talking about a conspiracy, there is no need for that. I'm talking about the mutual self-interest of Wall Street, defense contractors, big pharmaceutical, big oil and energy companies and the mainstream media, who are owned by those same companies. They all have the same interest of keeping our government working for them, (which it does) and maintaining that status quo and this includes preventing any major changes to their rigged system.
So how do they do this? How did they pick George Bush in 2000 and again in 2004? Like any school of fish, they look at which candidate moves in their direction, supports their agenda, makes them self "open for business" and who needs their support and then they line up behind that candidate. In 2000 and 2004 it was George W. Bush.
So what about 2008? Who is Wall Street, defense contractors, big pharmaceutical, big oil and energy companies and the mainstream media, lining up behind in this next election? Who have they chosen to be the establishment candidate to maintain the status quo as much as possible?
Well, that shouldn't be too difficult to figure out. After major debacles with Enron and Exxon/Mobile's obscene profits, big oil and energy are more low key this election and hedging their bets with several different candidates but the rest of the usual suspects are pretty transparent. Wall Street is giving most of it's money to Hillary Clinton and Hillary is getting most of her money from Wall Street. Hillary is the top recipient of special interest money from lawyers and lobbyists in Washington and number two in the Senate (after Rick Santorum) in total donations from lobbyists and PACs in the last 2006 race.
Hillary Clinton Reigns as Queen of Federal Pork - Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/finances/index.html
Lawyers & Lobbyists: Top Recipients, 2006
http://www.opensecrets.org
Hillary's recent DC fund raiser / mixer with defense industry lobbyists and Congressional Committee members and her massive 2008 defense bill earmarks and support for military action against Iran should make it clear that Hillary is working hard for the military industrial complex to maintain the status quo as much as possible. Remember, Hillary didn't just vote for the Iraq War, she said "With conviction I support this resolution" and then persistently defended the war until it went bad and claimed it was mishandled and then it got worse and claimed she was fooled by brain surgeon, George W. Bush.
Hillary Clinton Piles on Pentagon Earmarks
http://thehill.com/leading-the
Clinton's Iran Vote Prompts A Harsh Back-and-Forth
http://blog.washingtonpost.com
Oh, and by the way, Blackwater was formed and empowered to do their mission under the Clinton administration and Hillary's senior adviser, Mark Penn runs Blackwater's PR firm.
The Rise of Blackwater
http://news.newamericamedia
Clinton Strategist Represents Blackwater
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes
As for the media, they are giving Hillary a smooth path by ignoring massive campaign financing "problems" and making a huge deal out of leading polls in New Hampshire with only 9% of strongly decided voters and then picking apart polls in Iowa when they show someone else leading. But no one has done more to hurt Democrats and put George Bush in office both times than Rupert Murdoch, creator, owner and CEO of the "Republican Attack Machine" FOX News and the NewsCorp media empire. Hillary actively courted Murdoch and last year he held a personal fund raiser for her in the FOX building and earlier this year bundled money for Hillary from his family and top NewsCorp executives and this alone should be inexcusable to every Democrat in America.
FOX's Rupert Murdoch Holds Fundraiser For Hillary Clinton - CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories
Hillary Shuns Fox Debates, Pockets Murdochs' Money -- Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
There is no doubt that any competent human being in the White House would be a huge improvement over what we have there now. But the only way we will get the change we need to fix the problems we face is to ignore the rigged system and elect a candidate who represents real change, stands a chance of getting elected and who can lead our country in a new direction. If we wait for a candidate who perfectly fits our expectations or support a candidate who has no chance of winning, we will continue to loose our country. We need a candidate who attracts the largest number of donors, not the wealthiest few. A candidate with good judgment, character and the natural abilities to bring people together around common goals, change the status quo and move our country forward.
While I like John Edwards and I believe he is sincere in the strong positions he takes, I don't believe he is the best candidate to make the changes we need. He does not have the broadest base of donors and he did not have the good judgment to oppose the Iraq War before it started and he was badly beaten in the one debate with Dick Cheney in 2004. He does not have the best skills to work across the aisle and bring people together. He is a good person but we need something more and Barack Obama is it.
Obama has attracted the largest base of donors in all of American history, he has the most money to run in this primary and he had the good judgment to oppose the Iraq War before it started. Obama has the character of someone who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, president of the Harvard Law review and could have cashed in and become a very rich Wall Street lawyer but he returned to Chicago to become a Civil Rights lawyer and to teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. That is the kind of character we need in the White House. Barack Obama has written over 800 pieces of legislation and has had over 300 of them passed into law by reaching across the aisle on important and land mark legislation to reform campaign financing, end racial profiling, fix a broken death penalty system and bring transparency to government contracting. That is the kind of experience and judgment we need in the White House.
