Friday, September 07, 2007

Hillary Clinton and The Club

Over at BlueOregon in comments I tried to make the point that there are things to look at in campaigns that have much more to do with what you're going to get than the resume. One thing I mentioned is "who" thinks they have something to gain from a candidate and one of the best measures of that is money. Let's take a look at some of Hillary's money.

#1 @ $293,400 is DLA Piper who provide global legal representation to business clients
#2 @ $160,500 is CitiBank and if you think it's just a bank...
#3 @ $138,953 is Emily's List a woman's issues PAC
#4 @ $134,960 is Skadden, Arps, et al a law firm specializing in mergers and acquisitions
#5 @ $134,050 is Goldman Sachs a big advocate of privatizing SS
#6 @ $116,575 is Cablevision Systems
#7 @ $116,550 is Kirkland and Ellis an international commercial law firm
#8 @ $113,700 is Morgan Stanley
#9@ $102,500 is Viacom
#10 @ $100,200 is Greenberg Taurig LLP specializing in lobbying and commercial law
#11 @ $98,100 is Time Warner
#12-20 ranging from low of $78K are mostly financial organizations and commercial law

So, who thinks they stand to reap benefits worth investments of $78K to almost $300K? How does that stack up with what your ears hear? Just exactly who is invisible and who is visible? These are the top 20 donors, totalling $2,286,288 which is something other than chickenfeed.

If you're curious about individual contributions you can go to Open Secrets to find who has donated and who they work for, starting at $9200 and moving down, 2 pages to get under $6900.

I know that most candidates have to go to PACs and businesses to get funding, but maybe there's some illumination here. You might want to remember that NAFTA was a Clinton deal (hey, she wants credit for First Lady & Bill) and that the common worker took that one in the shorts.

Agribusiness $305,350
Communications/Electronics $3,018,328
Construction $844,550
Defense $52,950
Energy & Natural Resources $383,800
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $7,781,040
Health $1,663,317
Lawyers & Lobbyists $6,582,595
Transportation $263,497
Misc Business $5,184,947
Labor $44,850
Ideological/Single-Issue $415,173
Other $4,584,920

Suppose I get rid of the small change and un-categorized contributions

Communications/Electronics $3,018,328
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $7,781,040
Health $1,663,317
Lawyers & Lobbyists $6,582,595
Misc Business $5,184,947

OK, I'm a Lefty Democrat, I admit it, my sympathies are with those who do the work to build this country and those who are left out of the economic system. I look at BushCo with vehement criticism on that basis, I know who has won and lost under their idea of an economy. Funny, most of the usual suspects show up right here on Hillary's list. You have strange ideas if you think these folks are funding their own losses and the loser's gain.

Maybe if you look at Hillary's vaunted experience and see who won under her votes...

Will I help her Primary campaign? No. Would I work for her campaign in a General Election? No. Would I stop criticizing her in a General? No. Would I vote for any of the Republicans? Not even if Hell froze over. So, yes I'd have to vote for the least horrid, gads - again??? Not if you back the people who speak to Democratic values and tell the truth about this dynastic endeavor. Which ever of the other candidates you like, not one of them is Hillary. Let's kill the media "inevitable candidate" buzz.

4 comments:

KISS said...

Would I vote for any of the Republicans? Not even if Hell froze over. Ron Paul would easily get my vote over the dimmo bunch you mention.Only Dimmo you don't mention is the best of all Mike Gravel. Or are you a wring the hands dimmo and say he has no choice? Better to vote a good man than a repug in sheep clothing.

Chuck Butcher said...

Gravel and Paul are men with priniples who have virtually no chance. This is not my doing, I have done nothing to harm their efforts and in fact I've stated that Paul is the best of a poor bunch. You might want to take a close look at Paul's issue statements, there is plenty there that would, if pursued, harm you.

Do I expect to have to vote for the least obnoxious? No. But this has something to do with accepting that not all policy statements will please "me" and working for the one with the most congruence. There is a difference.
Voters had better wake up to the actual differences between the candidates or we will wind up with Hillary.

Anonymous said...

Just do what I did and swallow your pride and register Repub to vote for Paul in the primaries. Im a Lefty too but I can appreciate Pauls principles. Theres just no one else. Makes me sick to vote red, but I have to vote the man not the party. Paul surprised me and his success so far is quite startling.

Chuck Butcher said...

Look, I admire having principles and standing up for them, particularly in the face of rabid opposition, but admiring them doesn't mean agreeing with them. Paul is a libertarian and I'm not, I do not adhere to the policy of "I've got mine, screw you." I'm not going to vote that way, I know plenty of people I admire that I don't want making policy decisions based on their ideology.

You need to do more than just make an emotional connection with someone, you need to understand where it is they want to go and quite seriously the "lib" in libertarian has nothing to do with liberal, it is as much the direct opposite as you can get without diving off the end of reality.

No thanks, there are actual acceptable alternatives to Hillary in the Democratic campaign without going "that" direction. I may have some serious disagreements with pieces of their policy ideas but that's a different thing from agreeing with two pieces - BOR and war.