Even worse, John Edwards makes speeches like this: "America was built on an idea – that all of us are equal," Edwards said in a town hall in Ames. "The idea that how hard you work, and what kind of choices you make will determine the kind of life you build, and what you pass onto your children – but not the circumstances you're born into, never that. The greatness of America is that promise – that every generation will leave its children a better life. That is our social compact with the middle class – the promise that if you work hard and do what's right, you'll be able to build a better life for yourself and your family. But today, that compact is being threatened. "Here's what's happened," Edwards continued. "Corporate greed and political calculation have taken over our government and sold out the middle class. Our government is selling out their future at the command of lobbyists and their corporate clients and we have to rise up together and stop it. "We need a president who will take these powers on and fight to get you your voice back, and your government back. We need a president who is going to fight every day to make sure that all Americans can find good jobs, save for the future, and be guaranteed health care and retirement security. We need a president who is going to lift up the middle class." Can't have rabble rousing like that getting broadcast out to the electorate, can we? The corporate media , as worried as the rest of the corporate elite, are doing their best to convince Americans that John Edwards doesn't even exist as a candidate. This year the media wasted no time in getting on the case. In an even more shameful intrusion into the political process, they narrowed the field to two, as though it were a fait accompli, offering us the rather titillating choice of whether a white woman or a black man should be picked to run against the Republican nominee.
Even though she has the highest negatives of any Democrat, Hillary Clinton was an obvious pick for this ploy because of her name recognition and talent for fundraising. Barack Obama needed considerable more media attention before he could play his part in this point/counterpoint duet. Both are considered “safe” by the elite because both have ties to the corporate-based Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the organization responsible for elevating Bill Clinton to national prominence in 1990-91.
Which candidates does the corporatocracy like? We're talking corporations here, so follow the money to find out. From Reuters: Asked which candidate their clients most support, corporate lobbyists were unsure. Clinton has cautious backing within the corporate jet set, as do Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they said. ... "My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.
"Knows where a lot of funding has come from." Isn't that a fine state of affairs for a democracy? Corporations don't have a vote on election day, but they do have huge sums of money that can be used to influence elections. The media and the money people chose Bush in 2000 and voters went along with them -- didn't that turn out well? Let's not get fooled again. |
