Hmm?
McClatchy reports that Wall Street donates millions to top presidential candidates:
…Democratic candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois were the leading recipients of cash from employees of these firms, collecting half the $7.4 million in donations to 15 major presidential candidates.
Through Dec. 31, Clinton had collected more than $2 million in donations from employees of 12 banking firms caught up in the sub-prime mess. She received $373,020 from Morgan Stanley workers, $316,001 from Goldman Sachs employees and nearly $290,000 from Citicorp. workers.
Obama got $1.7 million from the same firms, including $288,835 from Goldman Sachs employees, $242,395 from UBS workers and $226,805 from Lehman Brothers employees…
I’m sure these are just public spirited workers who are hoping that the the government will clean up some of the excesses that led to the subprime meltdown, and has nothing to do with any pending legislation, law suits, criminal investigations, etc. that surround the problem.
It is interesting that the two final candidates for the Democratic Party received half of the donations.
26 comments
It is interesting that the two final candidates for the Democratic Party received half of the donations.
It’s hardly surprising really. I have been saying for a few years now that Hillary, especially, is doing a lot of deals with many of the same people the GOP have. You can bet that if Hillary wins the Presidency, many GOP sins will be forgiven (or forgotten). And I guarantee she just about orgasms at the thought of getting her hands on the power and control the GOP will leave behind. Under Clinton, it will take a very long time before anything is fixed. And yes I know, it’s not that simple, and this is a simplistic view of a very complex system. Call it an introductory summary. 🙂 She will probably tinker with a few of the more visible problems, you know “being seen to be doing something”.
Obama… Wouldn’t surprise me with him either. He’s learning fast. Sadly, he’s learning the wrong lessons and bad habits.
Same old…. yada.
I just came across this. Interesting. 🙂
continued…
The illusion of choice in US elections: Does it herald the dissolution of these United States of America?
yabbut…much as i don’t want a republican-lite in the white house, i’m pretty sure that electing ron paul president would probably bring about the dissolution of the u.s. quite a bit sooner than would electing either obama or clinton for our next president.
under the present neocon regime, and possibly under a clinton or obama presidency, the big corporations use their money to get laws written to benefit the big corporations. under a hardcore libertarian regime a la ron paul, those laws would just be nonexistent. either way the biggest, meanest corporations with the mostest money are free to run over the rest of us.
The corporate media has the ultimate control by limiting access to publicity. They won’t talk about John Edwards except to criticize him, they ignore Ron Paul, they promoted Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson well beyond any basis for their candidacy, they have never covered Dennis Kucinich.
Bill Richardson was the most experienced and able candidate for either party, followed by Mitt Romney on the experience side because both were/are governors, but Richardson was ignored and Romney has to buy his press.
We need to compress the process and control the spending. Right now you need 50+ million in the bank to start a serious campaign for the Presidency, and that is too much money. It needs to start later and end earlier. They only people who can run are those who can raise the cash, and raising that cash is selling access.
overall, the finance/insurance/real estate sector has donated slightly more to democrats than to republicans this election cycle. of the individual industries in that sector, only insurance and accountants have donated slightly more to republicans than to democrats. commercial banks, savings and loans, credit unions, finance/credit companies, securities and investment [subheadings: venture capital, hedge funds, private equity and investment firms], and real estate [subheading: mortgage loans] have all donated more to democrats than to republicans.
dennis who?
The rats are moving to the other other side of the ship and lightening the load by throwing the GOP overboard. It wouldn’t have happened if Tom DeLay et al. hadn’t been so greedy. They paid dearly for everything they got, but they got it.
They are hoping for the same deal from the Democrats and with people like Raum Emmanuel, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer they’ll probably get it.
Not a liberal in the bunch, DLC all the way.
I agree with Kryten42, but I am more hopeful that Barack Obama will not be a disappointment. While he may not be everyone’s first choice, he got it right on the Iraq war, and he seems to have real momentum now that can carry him through November.
The rats are indeed shifting.
Sigh….I remember back in the day when Hillary was holding all those closed-door meetings about health insurance, how our insurer-of-the-day was suddenly all wonderful customer service and “yes ma’am” promptitude to address any concerns. They were obviously spooked by the prospect of being – gulp – reined in and reformed.
Happily for them, “Harry & Louise” quite effectively shut down any efforts to reform the system and they’ve gone their merry, money-making way ever since.
The late great Molly Ivins always said (I’m paraphrasing, not quoting) that unless an effective, rigorously enforced public campaign finance system were created, money from the special interests would spell the death of American democracy. Anyone want to bet against her now?
Money has become the obvious limiting factor in running for any office. If you don’t the cash, you can’t respond to the lies. If you don’t have the cash, the media will ignore you.
Cash is the only way the media keeps score. That’s how Rudy sustained his place at the table – he had a lot of cash when he started.
I saw this earlier at Larry’s No Quarter blog. It’s since been updated.
Krugman: If Obama Is President, There’s No Chance for Universal Health Care
Well… What a choice. *sigh*
Here’s another, a Daily Kos Diary by RonK Seattle.
It’s a long diary, but well worth a read.
The Audiology of Hope: DLC Dogwhistle Economics
Soooo… What’s the difference between the DLC and the GOP?
Not so much.
Until the system changes candidates are stuck taking money from where ever they can get it. Unless of course they are independently wealthy and can finance their own campaign. Sad, isn’t it?
Obama may be a democrat, but he is not that liberal. He usually votes the party line, and I generally agree with him (unless he votes present so he doesn’t have to take a position). But voting on bills and actually setting policy as president are quite different. I like him, but I don’t see him as the cure-all that we need. I’ve been listening to his book this weekend; he’s pretty clear on his positions. He believes in compromise and cooperation. I don’t know if it’s possible anymore, but then, I’m cynical. In Illinois, Repubs and Dems often work together; but they work together to screw the people. We have some of the most dirty politics in the country here. And he spent about 8 years in the Illinois Senate, so he’s seen it in action.
Hillary is more liberal; I think she has toned it down the past few years in an attempt to appeal to the independents. I agree that she has the best chance of getting a universal health care plan passed. But now she is getting thrown under the bus from a number of sources. And every day the media keeps score… Obama is gaining, Hillary is losing. I’m getting tired of hearing it. One more day.
The history is clear that the Republicans in Congress are going to do their very best to block and obstruct anything that might help the country recover and the media will go along with them. They have demonstrated clearly that they will not compromise, so you ignore them and move ahead. You make them irrelevant by ignoring them, not pandering to them.
Obama didn’t keep his promise to the people who voted for him in Illinois about finishing his term in the Senate, so why believe he will keep any other promise he makes.
He has sold his soul to get the money to run, and people will be disappointed but he’s already admitted he’s a scorpion in his references to “Chicago politics”, so caveat emptor, don’t complain about being stung.
You know, I respect you Bryan but your opposition to Barack Obama is just so hard to reconcile. Do you have the exact quote of some promise he broke, or did he say something about his intentions. Because most politicians don’t promise not to run for higher office in the future, they just say they don’t intend to, and then people say they promised, but it wasn’t a promise.
If we have to start parsing language it’s going to get difficult to communicate.
Michael, the other Michael at Musing’s musing lives in Illinois and has the information from when Obama ran for the Senate. I don’t like the policies or positions of either Obama or Clinton. Neither is ready to fight for people, and both are to the right of the country.
We are in serious trouble and playing nice is not going to solve our problems. Their stated economic policies are not going to solve out problems. Their positions on foreign policy are not going to solve our problems. The only thing to recommend them is that they aren’t as bad as McCain.
I would really like to just once before I die vote for someone, rather than against someone else. I would just like to have a candidate I wasn’t ashamed to be associated with. This is not going to be that election.
I think you’re looking for pearls in the wrong place.
We are the ones who will need to construct the policies and positions, we should not look for politicians to have the solutions but to exercise good judgment in implementing them as our representatives.
No president of any party can stand up against entrenched interests unless the people are with him/her. We the people are the sovereigns. We command, and the government obeys. At least that is how it should work, but the people have been confused and deprived of independent will.
No president of any party can stand up against entrenched interests unless the people are with him/her. We the people are the sovereigns. We command, and the government obeys. At least that is how it should work, but the people have been confused and deprived of independent will.
nicely stated, and i agree with you on all that. wholeheartedly.
obama’s a skilled orator, and he’s certainly energized the under-30 crowd, which is excellent and implies that there’s truly some hope for our future.
i’m not in the least opposed to electing a ‘cult of personality’ president if they’re not going to squander their political capital once we put them in office. obama’s record, his rhetoric, his choice of advisers, and even his written statements on his website all suggest he’ll consider it a success if he wrings just a few concessions from big business in favor of the little people.
there’s always the possibility that once he’s in power and has a lot of us behind him, he’ll set aside his present incrementalism and make some bolder moves. preferably favoring people over corporations. 🙂
it’s entirely possible that that truly is the best we can hope for for now, no matter who we elect, the rock star obama or the pragmatist clinton, or even one of my first choices.
hipparchia, it is possible obama may not do everything we would want him to do, or even achieve everything he sets out to achieve. but it is possible for the people to stand behind obama, because it is possible for us to believe obama when he speaks.
The president of the united states must be above all trusted.
The president of the united states must be above all trusted.
I think GW Bush has proven once and for all that is a very foolish belief, and i can think of several other Presidents in that same boat. The history of the USA is littered with examples of Presidents that couldn’t, and shouldn’t have, been trusted. And many other countries are in the same situation.
Perhaps the statement should read: “The president of the united states SHOULD be above all trusted.”
Sadly, I think that’s a thing of the past, if it ever existed at all. A Politician is a Politician. Just because he becomes the President (or any head of state), doesn’t automatically make him a saint and honest and trustworthy. Trust, no matter who it is, must be earned.
I stopped trusting politicians when LBJ tried to get me killed, and I have never had reason to regret that decision. Thinking about the Presidents, and there might be a couple I might trust, but I didn’t live at the time, so I don’t know what sort of side deals were being cut. Grant was an honorable man, but his friends were some of the biggest thieves to ever serve in government.
I know entirely too much to ever trust any politician.
Kryten, you’re absolutely correct and I should have phrased myself better, clearly I trust George W Bush about as far as…not at all. And I do not mean to suggest that anyone should trust any politician blindly, but some politicians have a better record of honesty and integrity than others. And some have a better record of standing up against wars, versus starting and authorizing wars. It’s not a hard question for me.