Hillary Clinton & the "Citigroup Caucus" - No to Hillary in 2008

[gulfcoastliberal]

Do progressives really want her as a 2008 candidate? Her largest corporate money backer is Citigroup. Citigroup is one of the most criminal megacorporations out there. It is controlled by the Saudi royal family. And it wasn't a creation of the Republicans. It was Bill Clinton & the dem congress of 1998 that legislated & approved the deregulation schemes that allowed this monster to be created:

Sins & the Citi

In the deregulated realm of US banking and finance, crime does occasionally pay for its foul deeds, not in prison time but by making modest rebates to the victims. On June 10 Citigroup, the largest and most flagrant of Wall Street offenders, agreed to provide $2 billion to the injured investors in Enron, the colossal corporate hoax whose ingenious balance-sheet deceptions were engineered by financiers at Citigroup and other leading banks. Another major culprit, JP Morgan Chase, settled a few days later for $2.2 billion. This sounds like a lot of money, but it's trivial alongside the $40 billion or more that shareholders and pension funds lost in the Enron swindle. Citigroup had already paid even more--$2.65 billion--for its role in the WorldCom swindle. No contrition required; pay out some money, get on with business.

snip

At the dawn of early capitalism five centuries ago, the merchant princes of the Roman Catholic Church were absolved of mortal sins--usually the sin of usury--by paying handsome indulgences to the church. American democracy appears to have re-created a similar system, reflected in Citigroup's rap sheet. In addition to Enron and WorldCom, Citi was implicated in fraudulent collaborations with Global Crossing, Dynegy, Adelphia and a bunch of other corporations. Its high-flying stock touts--most infamously Jack Grubman of its Salomon Smith Barney subsidiary--took care of the corporate insiders by gulling the sheeplike investors and awarding lucrative IPO shares to favored customers and friends. The SEC investigation noted lawsuits alleging that Citi analysts' research reports on companies were "without a reasonable basis in fact." Citi paid $400 million for forgiveness, then paid additional apologies for allowing mutual funds and other institutions to harvest under-the-table profits.

Citigroup is a monstrosity created in its current state wholly by the Democrats, not right-wing Republicans, just as the original financial deregulation enacted in 1980 was achieved by a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, not Reaganites. That legislation abolished interest-rate controls and decriminalized usury (for an example of legalized usury, check the interest charges on your credit card). The 1998 legislation that created all-purpose megabanks was achieved by Bill Clinton, but with advanced regulatory approval from Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin--author of Clinton's finance-friendly economic policy--then returned to New York to chair Citi's executive committee. When the Enron fiasco broke in 2001, it was Rubin who phoned a Treasury official to suggest the government come to Enron's rescue. The Bush Administration wisely kept its distance.

Without a political party to voice a critique and rally demands for reform, the popular rage was smothered and diffused. People felt shame for losing their savings and deeper cynicism about Washington. The political club responded clubbily to the financial disaster. Faced with a crime spree on Wall Street, Democrats looked the other way. Rubin and Wall Street friends remain trusted advisers to party leaders, including presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton. More to the point, Rubin manages a major flow of Wall Street political money, financing not only candidates but much of the influential policy infrastructure now forming around the party. Grassroots Democrats who believe getting Republicans out of power will restore an equitable system need to understand this. After they defeat the right, they will then have to take on the Democratic Party's own "Citigroup caucus."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050704/greider

Privacy Issue Bubbles Beneath the Photo Op
By Robert Scheer
Published November 16, 1999 in the Los Angeles Times

You can't be a successful lawyer and not work for banks, Hillary Clinton once said in defense of her shenanigans as a Little Rock lawyer on behalf of the Madison Savings and Loan. Or a senator from New York, or a president of the United States, her husband might have added.

Last Friday, the White House photo op offered a broadly smiling President Clinton surrounded by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and other financial movers and shakers as Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act into law. With that flourish of his pen, Clinton gave the fat cats of Wall Street everything they've long wanted, sweeping away consumer safeguards enacted at the time of the Great Depression, suddenly making it legal for banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers to affiliate as one company.

Clinton also granted these new conglomerates the power to collectively exploit the information their varied affiliates have collected on their customers--health records, stock transactions and credit histories, for example--shredding the basic American right to privacy.

"The White House really pulled the rug out from under consumers by agreeing to weak privacy provisions in the banking bill," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). He, along with conservative Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), unsuccessfully tried to amend the financial bill by requiring consumer approval before private information was bandied about.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/99_columns/111699.htm


FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Citigroup, AOL TimeWarner have big Saudi investors.

* “His name is Alwaleed bin Talal. His grandfather was Saudi Arabia's founding monarch. With huge stakes in companies ranging from Citigroup Inc. to the Four Seasons luxury hotel chain, he is one of the richest men on the planet....Last year, Forbes magazine ranked Alwaleed the fifth-richest man in the world, with a net worth of nearly $18 billion. His Kingdom Holding Co. spans four continents. Over the years, he has acquired major stakes in companies such as Apple Computer Inc., AOL Time Warner Inc., News Corp. and Saks Inc., parent of retailer Saks Fifth Avenue .” Richard Verrier, “Disney's Animated Investor; An Ostentatious Saudi Billionaire Prince Who Helped Bail Out the Company's Paris Resort in the Mid-'90s is Being Courted to Do So Again,” Los Angeles Times, January 26, 2004.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=20

Citigroup funds terrorists:

Terror Inc.
Robert Lenzner and Nathan Vardi, 10.18.04

A tale of suicide bombers, Saudi princes, cash payments to terrorist groups--and how Citigroup got caught up in all of it.
On America's war on terror, cutting off the financial flow to the bad guys is a key goal. But it is a particularly elusive one. Even when a patriotic U.S. bank spots something suspicious, it may be hard-pressed to do much about it.

And so it is that Citigroup, the world's largest financial institution, finds itself confronting the fact that a bank it partly owned and managed in Saudi Arabia may have funneled thousands of dollars to terror groups and to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers--at the behest of the Saudi royal family.

The allegations involve Saudi American Bank, also known as Samba, the Riyadh-based affiliate in which Citi had a 20% stake. In late 2002 Samba was added as a defendant in a federal lawsuit filed by relatives of Sept. 11 victims against prominent Saudis and charities to which they appeared to be connected.

The suit, prosecuted by Washington, D.C. lawyer Allan Gerson, among others, alleges that Samba "participated in the fundraising campaign in Saudi Arabia for collecting donations to the heroes" of the Palestinian uprising. Samba has filed a motion to dismiss.

http://www.forbes.com/business/global/2004/1018/016.html


Hillary Clinton largest corporate contributors:

2006:
1 Citigroup Inc $110,470
2 Metropolitan Life $85,000

2004:
1 Citigroup Inc $190,150
2 Goldman Sachs $137,170

Via opensecrets.org

No to the corporate DLC candidates! Unless you want more of this kind of criminal, pro-corporate legislation!

[William769]

1. She's got my vote.

[gulfcoastliberal]

3. Good for you.

NT

[usregimechange]

45. No to Hillary for America, yes for NY.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

5. Not mine . . .

I'd actually like to win in '08, instead of having to listen to more mouth-breathers issue reports on what happened when they shot the watermelon THIS time in order to prove Hillary killed Vince Foster.

Just say "No" to vanity campaigns.

[AtomicKitten]

43. I will vote for the Democratic candidate.

And if "progressives" don't like Hillary, I suggest they use their time, money, energy, and resources to find their own goddamn candidate instead of knocking themselves out trying to tank Hillary or whatever other Democrat they don't approve of. I'm getting damn sick and tired of third party types going after Dems more than Repubs. What the hell is that all about anyway?

If you don't like the Democratic Party and the democratic process by which a candidate is chosen, form your own goddamn party and piss off. If you can't work from within the Democratic party and can't abide by the democratically chosen candidate, i.e., one chosen by the majority of voters, then get out now.

If it's your way or the highway, do us all a favor and choose the highway.

[William769]

46. Bravo!

:hi:

[JNelson6563]

57. Oh don't you worry

If you don't like the Democratic Party and the democratic process by which a candidate is chosen, form your own goddamn party and piss off. If you can't work from within the Democratic party and can't abide by the democratically chosen candidate, i.e., one chosen by the majority of voters, then get out now.

Here's the bad news for those who happily or through willful ignorance support these Dems who sell-out like GOP corporate whores: There are plenty of us progressives who are working within the party to change things. We are gaining power and bringing more and more like minded souls along for the ride. We are seizing county, district and state parties and making them much more inclusive. Additionally we are fighting hard to seize the control of the primaries away from the machine that is so comfortably nested in a couple of states that have no business speaking for the Democrats across the nation.

Mark my words, the days of magical, invisible powers-that-be making our decisions for us is coming to an end. DLCers be afraid, be very afraid.

Julie

[AtomicKitten]

64. Bay-bye.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Corrections:
1. We do not give consent nor ignore what YOU feel are faux Republicans in the Democratic Party. There is plenty of room within the Democratic Party for a difference of opinion. We just don't threaten to hold our breath and turn blue when politicians don't act or say exactly as we scripted it.
2. Not everyone who disagrees with your kvetching is a DLC'er.

But your self-righteous gross generalizations are, as always, amusing.

[JNelson6563]

67. No threat to hold breath here

just lettin' you know the plan that's being worked. The Dem party is being seized by the people so it can better serve the people.

And we ain't doin' it by big talkin' on the internets either. :toast:

Julie

[AtomicKitten]

68. May I add

You throw the word "DLCer" around like the Republicans do "traitor."

And I hate to break it to you, princess, but the "we" you speak of in the Democratic Party include a hell of lot more people than you include in your SWAT team. And until your jihad against fellow Democrats is put in check with a more reasoned, seasoned view of the way politics go, i.e., majority rules, you will be banging your head up against the wall.

[JNelson6563]

69. No jihaad here

But I am prying open the doors and letting the "little people" in as best I can. What do you know, the "little people" ain't so hot on corporatists and sell-outs representing the party anymore.

"SWAT team" eh? They're called "voters", FYI. "Democratic voters" who have been too long disaffected by their own party. They are the silent majority who are sick of watching the debacle that has been the Dem party for too long now. Frankly I've been amazed at their willingness to work and donate, not to mention the plethera of talents they bring to the table.

We're filling the big tent alright and it's with common-sense, blue collar, salt-of-the-earth type folks who are sick of bullshit.

See you at convention! :hi:

Julie

[AtomicKitten]

70. You require little provocation to launch your platform, don't you?

It doesn't even matter who you're talking to. You assign them a political point-of-view (without knowing what it really is) and then go off on your righteous crusade.

Here's a clue: I don't like the DLC. I didn't like John Kerry as the nominee but I voted for him and worked for him after the primaries - because I work EVERY election. I don't particularly care for Hillary's hard right turn, nor Joe Biden's. I don't want Kerry to run again. I would LOVE it if Al Gore ran again. Why? Because HE is progressive, and eco-friendly, and he was robbed. Oh, yeah, I worked for Paul Hackett's campaign. I am very active locally here in San Francisco politically as are my friends because I don't have time to hang with people who aren't passionate about politics.

So, you launched your spiel on an old-timer, a believer, but it was fun watching you climb up on your soap box and inflate your chest.

My point? I loathe people who make pledges to not vote for this candidate or that three years in advance. It would behoove people to acknowledge from the get-go that they WILL vote for the Democratic candidate and work backward from there. Rather than trashing candidates you don't like, build up one you do. And then there's a primary and someone is chosen. Now Dean is working feverishly to change the primary process which will totally change the way a candidate is selected, and I think that is brilliant and totally support it.

Bottom line? Hillary isn't MY candidate of choice for the nomination, but if she is chosen in the primary I will bend over backward to see the Republican candidate defeated by working for the Democratic nominee.

That's it. Peace out.

[JNelson6563]

71. We have much in common

however, after working more than full time hours last year for a candidate I had little faith I have given it a lot of thought. I don't think I will do the same next time through.

If a sellout such as Hillary is the nominee I won't tear her down but I won't be hauling ass for her either. If the party once again plays sucker and goes with the media's choice then fine, we'll let the suckers do the work.

And I reckon you know full well how helpful and industrious the armchair warriors from the corporatist branch of the party are.

On this exchange between us, your rant about "third party types" coupled with your if-you-don't-like-it-leave attitude was what warranted my initial response. Many of us true-blue Dems have had enough and won't take it anymore and that doesn't make us third party people but we're not ready to give up and leave things entirely to capitulators. I happen to think this party should represent the people and I am more than willing to work hard to achieve that. I happen to think it's easier to take over the existing power structure than to start from scratch so I do what I can do discourage folks from leaving the party. For us to nominate the likes of Hillary will handily undo all those efforts to keep a mighty schism at bay.

Julie

[AtomicKitten]

72. My 'tude about "third party types" comes from experience

I used to write a political column for a Green paper. Although we had much in common, when election time came around things got ugly. I totally support Green candidates locally because the party must be built from the ground up to grow. But, unfortunately, realistically it will be a Democrat that will defeat the Republican in 2008, and we need to come to terms with that. I am thoroughly disgusted with the "yes" votes on the Iraq Resolution. It was done by blackmailing the Dems right before the 2002 election, and most didn't have the balls to say no. Our deal Paul Wellstone stood up and called bullshit, and look what happened to him. I don't think that was an accident. If the rest of these knuckleheads don't change course, admit they were wrong, in my opinion they cannot be a real representative of the party, the people, who for the most part called bullshit on the WMD claim. That's why Al Gore is pristine. He doesn't have the stink of the vote on him. I think he is sorely needed and hope he considers the proposition.

My experience with the push and shove of politics makes me stand firm and deflect what I view are unreasonable oaths to work against candidates within the party. I found the "third party types" more intent on sabotaging the Dems than the Repubs. and I could never square that in my mind. Rather we must work hard for the candidate we choose to back in the primary and try to be just a little more civilized than what I have seen here sometimes at DU about the others.

Because the truth is I'll bet most people here will throw their hearts into the campaign in 2008 to rid this country of the worst thing that ever happened to us. Our differences with our ultimate nominee will seem like minutia in the bigger scheme of things.

[JNelson6563]

76. I agree on "third party type" intentions

it is to do harm to Dems in order to further their own cause. While no longer willing to go all out for candidates I have no use for, I would never do any harm. I prefer to focus my efforts on candidates I do have some faith in so that's what I'll be doing.

In the meantime I work to bring new people in who aren't part of the old school, go-along-to-get-along, do-it-for-us mindset. The more of this we can do the harder it is for corporate media and party corporatists to ram their chosen ones down our throats.

Cheers,
Julie

[LaurenG]

2. She doesn't have my vote

She had better stay put. She will split the party even further. IMHO it would be a mistake for her to leave NY.

[Larkspur]

4. Hillary did not have my vote before I knew about this information

Another good reason to not support her.

[Puglover]

6. If she's the democratic candidate I'll vote for her...

however I will NOT support in the primary's.

[gulfcoastliberal]

7. I'm saying - she shouldn't have progressive support in the primaries

She is not a progresive. She is shrewd and collaborates with republicans.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. I agree--- not in the primaries -- general elections a different story

The general election is a whole different story. Then the name of the game will be stopping a complete reactionary -- far worse than Hillary.

The primaries are the time for progressives to support progressives. It's the closest thing to the equivalency of proportional representation will have and probably ever will have.

[WA98296]

9. If she's the dem candidate, its because Repubs wish it to be so.

[McKenzie]

8. One of the best posts for a while there

Damned good stuff you posted there because it destroys the illusion that simply voting for a "Democrat" will change anything as regards the interests of the disadvantaged. That is not on the agenda of the financial elite.

Why do big financial interests contribute campaign funds? Rhetorical question, isn't it? Like a waiter who gives good service they expect a tip...except the tip in their case runs to more than a couple of dollars.

[gulfcoastliberal]

11. Thank you for that. This is why the DLC must be cut out of the party.

Their interests are opposite those of progressives and I dare say, even moderates. Unless the "moderates" have hundreds of millions in assets.

[rpannier]

10. 2008 is still too damned far off

I'm still donating money to the '06 candidates.

[oasis]

31. You're right. Hillary's running for re-election to the senate in 2006. She

will win easily despite the attempts of some short- sighted Democrats joining with rethugs to attack her.

[drummo]

53. Well, it's New York. No big deal. Of course she wins easily.

After Bush's approval rating went down below 40% and only 2% blacks support him of course a Dem in New York is running high. Especially if her name is Clinton. (For whatever reason most Dems still don't understand that Clinton's zipper gave the WH to Bush so they still like Clinton.)

But America is not New York. And the Senate is not the White House.

[oasis]

56. "Clinton's zipper gave the WH to Bush". Actually it was SCOTUS. Pay

attention next time.

[acmejack]

12. GLC nailed it corporate money is the enemy.

As history has demonstrated, party affiliation is merely a convenience. Someday folks will understand what the game really is-class warfare!

btw, we workers are being routed...

[papau]

13. If Hill runs, she has my vote - story is a bit slanted since City Bank was

GOP from the get-go.

In the 80's the City bribed GOP hero's like Kissinger with $250,000 fees for Breakfast "world updates" (I saw the money flow).

The Bank bill of the 90's did what to whom? The info could always be exploited - perhaps Sheer does not know the law. What was new was you did not need to avoid a sub's use of the data from another sub under your control when the sub was in a different financial services area.

The Pru in 68 combined data on insurance and investing in the files kept in AZ. I never heard of any ruling that said Pru had to undo such files, but there were questions about how they could be used. There were rulings on privacy that implied you could not use the same info for marketing if your part of the financial services group had not collected the data. It was a wierd world of what was "using info for marketing", what was "private",and " do insurance privacy rules apply to banks" depended on the lawyer you spoke to.

Sheer's dump and William Greider's dump both seem a bit of a strech of the facts.

[Village Idiot]

14. If Hillary and the DLC are the future of the Democratic Party...

then we're DOOMED.

[ChiciB1]

65. KICK!!

NO, NO.... HILLARY!

Go Away MSM!!

[Coastie for Truth]

15. Say again

"It is controlled by the Saudi royal family"

like Robert "Mohamed El-Said" Ruben and Sandy "Mohamed El-Said" Weil.

They are also the only "US Money Market" bank to fund Gaza and West Bank Palestinian entrepreneurs.

And I would not put Prince Talal in the militant terrorist wing.

[gulfcoastliberal]

19. They are corporate officers, not owners of controlling blocks of stock

And Ruben placed the call to the WH asking them to step in and help Enron as they went down the tubes. They're the ones behind Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. Did you read the post? They are officers of one of the most criminal corporations ever - one that has cost thousands of Americans their life savings. But I guess that's ok with you.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. My crooks, their crooks

I grew up in politics in a northeastern, rust belt, Democratic-Mafia "machine" city -- and my mother's family was from Youngstown OH (of Jim Traficante infamy).

Even Jim Traficante was good for the elderly and the poor.

There's "my crooks" and there's "their crooks" -- and nice guys don't win. Rickie Santorum beat Doug Walgren and Harris Wofford. Nuff said.

[Le Taz Hot]

40. But what's important is

that she is a Democrat so, we like, HAVE to vote for her 'cause she's, you know, a Democrat. :sarcasm:

[elehhhhna]

26. Yep. Citibank is really SAUDIBANK. Forget Hil she's no Democrat.

I've met Democrats and HRC is NOT one of them.

[formernaderite]

16. Should you really be posting

the truth?

[gulfcoastliberal]

18. It's early for this attack on Sacred Cows. But it is CLASS WARFARE

And we're LOSING with our "opposition candidates" who are in the pockets of corporate dandies just like the repigs.

We need to TAKE back our party in the spirit of FDR. Hell, I even miss the "Goldwater republicans", at least they were honest:

Summary: The Republican philosophy was once represented by the late Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who opposed Medicare, favored a woman's right to an abortion, and sanctioned a strong defense. Individual rights were implicit as the party's premise --- until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, when religion replaced individual rights as the guiding Republican philosophy.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2979

[jonnyblitz]

17. with DEMs like her who needs the GOP. at least she's pro-choice

:shrug:

[BlueCaliDem]

25. So Is Arlen Specter...But At Least Now I Understand Why That...

...unfair, and potentially disasterous BK Reform bill got so much support from Dems in Congress!

A bill that unfairly disadvantages the least affluent citizens of the United States; written by credit card and financial corporations, and twice vetoed by President Clinton!

This means that the bill passed both the House and Senate--with LOTS of Dem support!--and forced Bill Clinton to veto it the moment it came to his desk (and I bet he pissed off a LOT of his campaign contributors because of it) so for that show of courage, I'll always respect Bill.

Although Bill Clinton favored BK reform, he felt that the bill was tilted too harshly towards the stinking rich credit card, and financial institutions, and put too much on the less affluent in our society.

And with interest and usury charges still untouched and not mentioned in the "reform bill", he publicly stated that it would be TOO unfair.

I guess he was still under the misconception that if there has to be reform, it needs to be for BOTH sides of the issue, not favoring one over the other.

Probably another reason why the Dems in Congress weren't too keen on either him, OR Al Gore in that time...

[Donna Zen]

20. Jerry Springer on AAR

just said that we can take it to the bank...Hillary will be the nominee! Why? Because she has the most money. Notice how she's staying off tv lately, while Bill does the heavy lifting.

So there DUers. We can all save ourselves lots of money and time, the DLC has taken over and knows what is good for us. So next time the Democrats vote like republicans don't bother to ask why. Just know that they can vote how ever they damned well please because when the time comes all they have to say is: Rove is gonna getcha!

This is such a crock of shit! AAR has this kinda sorta pro-Hillary for president riff that they are running.

No wonder we have a Patriot Act and every other thing...we bring it on ourselves.

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. AAR isn't entirely pro - Hillary/DLC

I can guarantee that Mike Malloy, the Majority Report, and Randi won't be shilling for the DLC anytime soon. Franken's their bitch though, unfortunately.

[wyldwolf]

35. Randi draws no distinction

..between who is DLC (or DLC-like) and who is not.

She adores the Clintons.

She's often gushed over Joe Biden.

A little further left than Franken, but not nearly the leftie that Malloy is.

[sarahlee]

66. Yep, Mike is the only one

that is loyal to the issues and the people regardless of party - he calls the Dems on their crimes as much as he does the Repugs. He is bipartisan in his devotion to what American could and should be.

[Andromeda]

80. Yeah, Mike is really a big help...

Calling all those Dems on their crimes.

What crimes are we talking about here?

We need Mike Malloy ranting like we all need an eyeball in the middle of our foreheads or three thumbs.

At least he's a bipartisan hater.

[NCarolinawoman]

52. Stephanie Miller seems to be very pro-Wes Clark lately.

While Ed Scultz is not technically AAR, he recently said he likes Warner, Edwards, Clark....and yes, Hillary.

I know the grassroot Dems that I talk to in North Carolina are not keen on Hillary; and neither are the regular NON-grassroot Dems either.

[superconnected]

21. Do we have anyone NOT corrupt.

I want the not corrupt guy/gal.

I know they don't stand a chance. But still, this is BAD.

With them as backers, Hillary has got to be a sell out. I've been suspecting Bill Clinton as a sell out for years.

[LincolnMcGrath]

22. I predict the dlc Militia will show up here soon. Tee Hee Hee

Listening to Springer this morning and he read some article claiming a Hill-Condi 08 race is a done deal. Yippee! Not

I am concerned with and working hard on 06 right now. We need another Dem Guv here in Ia, and picking up J Nussle's seat is also a priority!


Our State congress has some very important races I am concentrating on. Iowa House is at 51 (r) 49 (D) Iowa Senate at 25 (r) 25 (D)

Elesha Gayman for Iowa House

[gulfcoastliberal]

24. Bring em on!

Here in Florida it's Nelson vs Cruella, and Nelson seems like he'll sail to re-election, assuming there are enough paper ballots. Nelson is not very liberal; he votes with Martinez a lot and is more an old school republican than a true democrat.

[elehhhhna]

27. NO MORE POLITICAL DYNASTIES. Reep OR Dem. NO MORE.

[Tom Joad]

29. Hilary is dangerous.... Supports MORE US troops in Iraq

Though i have not heard her suggest Chelsea join up.

The point is, however, is that she supports a foreign policy based on militarism and US ...imperialism (is there another word for it?)

It should be clear that she has no redeeming value for the progressives in this country. She was instrumental in persuading Bill to sign the "welfare reform" bill into law.


"And so it is that Citigroup, the world's largest financial institution, finds itself confronting the fact that a bank it partly owned and managed in Saudi Arabia may have funneled thousands of dollars to terror groups and to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers--at the behest of the Saudi royal family."

I can assure everyone that if you support the status quo in Israel/Palestine, you have nothing to fear from Citibank. Saudi Arabia hardly supports the Palestinian cause for justice, and only gives lip-service to it for its own political survival. I also expect that Saudi control over this bank is exaggerated

Hilary has been a very dependable supporter of the worse terror attacks by the state of Israel. She is doing nothing to end US terror against the Iraqi people. The woman is consistent.

[elehhhhna]

30. Did HRC Vote for Bankruptcy 'Reform'? That will settle it in my mind.

Why, yes she did.

Published on Friday, March 16, 2001
Going Backwards
36 'Democratic' Senators Vote For Credit Card/Banking Industry's Bankruptcy 'Reform'
...and they wonder why so many Democrats voted for Ralph Nader.


GW Bush and the credit card/banking industry won a huge victory last night as 36 'Democrats' joined their Republican 'colleagues' and voted to pass S-420 - the Bankruptcy bill.


I've never seen a bill that was so one-sided. The cries, claims and concerns of vulnerable Americans who have suffered a financial emergency have been drowned out by the political might of the credit card industry.


former Dem. Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum now head of Consumer Federation of America
Consumer groups and unions have been aggressive in opposing it, contending that the changes in bankruptcy law will take away an important means of relief for families hit by job losses. Former President Clinton vetoed last year's similar version, saying it would hurt ordinary people and working families.

"This is the most anticonsumer piece of legislation that the Congress is considering," said Edmund Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington, D.C.

"Among Senate Democrats who may vote for the bankruptcy bill are Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), whose state is home to a Citigroup Inc. credit card operation in Sioux Falls that employs several thousand people. Daschle has received $45,000 in political contributions from Citigroup in the last six years." -- Washington Post 3/11/01

The Associated Press is calling it a big win for Bush and "the second business-friendly measure to pass both houses of the new Congress".

And they wonder why Ralph Nader got so many Democratic votes?

The Sell Outs:

Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) [e-mail]
Max Baucus (Montana) http://www.senate.gov/~baucus/EmailMax.htm
Evan Bayh (Indiana) http://bayh.senate.gov/webmail.html
Joe Biden (Delaware) [e-mail]
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) [e-mail]
John Breaux (Louisiana) [e-mail]
Robert Byrd (West Virginia) [e-mail]
Maria Cantwell (Washington) http://cantwell.senate.gov/mailform.html
Jean Carnahan (Missouri) [e-mail]
Thomas Carper (Delaware) http://carper.senate.gov/
Max Cleland (Georgia) http://www.senate.gov/~cleland/webform.html
Hillary Clinton (New York) [e-mail]
Kent Conrad (North Dakota) [e-mail]
Tom Daschle (Sorth Dakota) http://daschle.senate.gov/webform.htm
Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) [e-mail]
John Edwards (North Carolina) http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/contact.html
Dianne Feinstein (California) [e-mail]
Bob Graham (Florida) [e-mail]
Fritz Hollings (South Carolina) http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/webform.html
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) http://www.senate.gov/~inouye/webform.html
Tim Johnson (South Dakota) [e-mail]
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin) [e-mail]
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) http://landrieu.senate.gov/webform.html
Patrick Leahy (Vermont) [e-mail]
Carl Levin (Michigan) [e-mail]
Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) [e-mail]
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) [e-mail]
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) [e-mail]
Zell Miller (Georgia) http://miller.senate.gov/email.htm
Patty Murray (Washington) [e-mail]
Ben Nelson (Nebraska) http://www.senate.gov/senators/ben_nelson.html
Harry Reid (Nevada) [e-mail]
Chuck Schumer (New York) [e-mail]
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) [e-mail]
Robert Torricelli (New Jersey) [e-mail]
Ron Wyden (Oregon) http://wyden.senate.gov/mail.htm

Democrats Who Voted No:
Jon Corzine, N.J.; Mark Dayton, Minn.; Chris Dodd, Conn.; Dick Durbin, Ill.; Russ Feingold, Wis.; Tom Harkin, Iowa; Ted Kennedy, Mass.; John Kerry, Mass.; Bill Nelson, Fla.; Jack Reed, R.I.; John Rockefeller, W.Va.; Paul Sarbanes, Md.; Paul Wellstone, Minn.

Not Voting:
Barbara Boxer (California)


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0316-03.htm

[gulfcoastliberal]

32. Kick

No to big-money & class warfare!

No to the DLC!

[derby378]

33. Kick

This is serious shit here.

[wyldwolf]

34. so... do we not support ANY Democrat who has money from CITI...

...or just Hillary?

[gulfcoastliberal]

39. I'd say any Dem. Citi is a criminal enterprise. Proof is in the OP.

We have the DLC candidates to thank for the telecom deregulation that brings us the consolidated media run by a handful of corporations and the dismantling of FDRs financial monopoly regulations with the "Financial Services Modernization Act", etc as proved in the OP.

Citigroup is dirty company that helped other dirty corporations run criminal schemes that have cost people their life savings. Instead of being prosecuted they get a slap on the wrist. It's like the cruise ship industry: cheaper to pay pollution fines (if they're caught) for dumping chemicals, waste, and oil into the ocean rather than doing the right thing and storing them on board until they could be offloaded properly in port.

Now your DLC candidates who support war aka "muscular foreign policy" have this to worry about:

Pro-War Votes May Haunt Democrats

WASHINGTON - Potential Democratic presidential candidates who voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in
Iraq could face a political problem — they supported a war that their party's rank-and-file now strongly view as a mistake.

"For a lot of activists, this could be a threshold issue. They may be looking for somebody without any taint for prior support for the war," said John J. Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.

Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and former Sen.
John Edwards of North Carolina are mulling over running for the Democratic nomination. All voted in October 2002 for a resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq.

They no doubt will be forced to explain their positions — both then and now — and in doing so could open themselves to attack from candidates who didn't support the resolution or didn't have to cast the politically tricky vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051017/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq_politics

Being "strong on defense" doesn't mean continuing to support a war built on lies and the sacrifice of our troops on an altar of deception and war profiteering.

[wyldwolf]

42. bye bye Schumer and Dean to begin with then...

[gulfcoastliberal]

44. Did I say kick them out? No, I said they should return the money.

Citigroup is a Saudi controlled criminal enterprise that abets malfeasance such as Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc.

They have no ethics, code of honor, etc. They are thugs.

[AJH032]

36. as far as I'm concerned, Democrats can be pro-business/corporation

as long as they don't forget the ones who really make this country run, the American people. If a Democrat can support both, and find a balance between them, then that's great, and to me that makes a good Dem. I don't want anyone who sides completely with one side or the other.

[AX10]

37. "Yes on Wes!"

No to Hillary.

[Andromeda]

38. Until you get corporate donations

OUT of politics you will never be free of candidates who DON'T take money from special interests.

THEY ALL DO.

Change the campaign finance laws to stop the influence of corporate donors. Until then, quit bitching about it and quit singling out certain politicians as unworthy of your support.

Howard Dean is the only politician I know of who didn't take corporate money during his campaign.

[Clark2008]

41. Wes Clark has fewer corporate donations than Dean or

anyone else, for that matter.

[William769]

47. Be careful some people can't deal with reality.

[Andromeda]

79. Huh, what??

Was that snarky reply about me?

"Be careful some people can't deal with reality." Care to explain yourself?

[Andromeda]

77. Wes Clark came into the race late,

and he didn't raise as much money as Dean did from small donors or anyone else for that matter and his small purse hurt him in the primaries.

Dean ran his campaign with grassroots support which was the main theme of his whole campaign.

Howard Dean used "people power" very effectively--more effectively than any of the other candidates.

The point I was trying to make is that Hillary is no worse than any other politician because of the way the political machinations are.

The way it is now puts the people who are supposed to be representing OUR interests indebted to their biggest donors.

[derby378]

48. Citigroup has a vested interest in making Dems look like Repugs...

...because that way, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, the CEO can say, "Who cares? They'll sign the bankruptcy 'reform' bill we push through Congress even if it puts old ladies out in the snow. That reminds me, we need to hire more collection agents for our regional office in Austin."

Our county Democratic Party has a clause stating that if we run for or hold public office, we must support every Democrat on the ballot. Even if a Democrat accepts money from Citigroup.

*sigh*

[Armstead]

49. No we don;t need more Demopublicans

Whu are people so apathetic and cynical about politics?

This kind of stuff is why. You have the Republicans who are obviously shills for the fat cats of finance.

And then you have the Democrats. About half of a potentially great political party constantly undermined by the otehr half who are just as much the pawns of the same masters as the GOP.

[Armstead]

50. No we don;t need more Demopublicans

Whu are people so apathetic and cynical about politics?

This kind of stuff is why. You have the Republicans who are obviously shills for the fat cats of finance.

And then you have the Democrats. About half of a potentially great political party constantly undermined by the otehr half who are just as much the pawns of the same masters as the GOP.

[Armstead]

51. No we don;t need more Demopublicans

Whu are people so apathetic and cynical about politics?

This kind of stuff is why. You have the Republicans who are obviously shills for the fat cats of finance.

And then you have the Democrats. About half of a potentially great political party constantly undermined by the otehr half who are just as much the pawns of the same masters as the GOP.

[drummo]

54. She voted for the war. And if Arianna Huffington's article is correct

she then told her Hollywood friends that she was really against it but without that vote noone would vote for her in 2008 because she would be seen as "soft on defense".

That alone should be enough to kick this indiviual out of the government. And there are Democrats who can't stand Bush for political manipulation, willing to vote for Hillary? Why is she better?

What does she think? A war is a game or what?

Fuck her "tough on defense" image.

[tsuki]

58. Guys, it's time to start worring about '06! eom

[venable]

59. when will Dem primary voters

wake up and realize that we are played like instruments by Repubs and MSM?

During 2004 primaries, Dean was praised to high heaven by Repubs (ON the MSM), and real threats like Edwards were trashed repeatedly. Economic Republicans, Independents, and real progressives all liked the Southern boy with the golden tongue and the genuine biography and the brains to put W in his place...Rove knew this, and so he was trashed as a lawyer lacking gravitas.

And the good Governor Dean was celebrated, as, frankly, was Kerry until he got the nomination. Again, Rove knew that Kerry could not carry the nation, so he desperately wanted him to get the nom.

Rove couldn't give him the nom. I'm not saying that. I am saying that they did their share to fool the Dem primary voters.

Same thing going down with Hillary now, and Dem voters seems to be flocking to her like insects to one of those electric zappers.

[gulfcoastliberal]

61. Republican interference in our primaries is costing us dearly!

Your message is spot-on. I would've loved to see Edwards at the head of the ticket. His "Two Americas" message really hit home for so many people. Instead he has cast as the "hot tub" frivilous lawsuits lawyer - never mind that the hot tub caused a toung girls intestines to be sucked out.

I'm not pushing any particular candidate for 08. But I am AGAINST candidates who are continuing the sellout of our core principles in the name of quick bucks. The voting for an illegal war for political image. If Kerry voted against the IWR he would be president. He voted against Gulf Farce I because he knew it was a sham and knew there was no reason to put our troops in harms way. But since he was running for president he voted for IWR because he thought it would make him look "tough" after 9/11 and perhaps added credence to the Rovian tie-in of Iraq-9/11. Instead it made him look like an idiot, especially when he said he'd vote that way again after knowing the reasons for going to war were lies.

Personally I'd like to see Gore try a comeback. I think we owe it to him since he WAS elected president once, terrible campaign managers and all. Hell, Kerry may have been elected, too but he didn't fight it or acknowledge malfeasance. I like Edwards, too. Anyone not in the pocket of the DLC and their agenda of ending FDR policies and adopting PNAC ones.

[Prodemsouth]

60. I am no Hillary fan but your own opening paragraph is incorrect.

The Democrats were not running congress in 98 Republicans were in charge of both chambers.

[gulfcoastliberal]

62. You're right. But Bill could've vetoed the legislation.

There was a bipartisan amendment to preserve consumer data privacy that was defeated. Clinton should have sent the legislation back.

[WA98296]

63. Thanks!

Great Info.

[tmoore]

73. I say bring back Clinton / Gore

At least the deficit was down and Americans were working. Hell Let Bill run the Tea parties this time. That would be the best. :smoke:

[shance]

74. Hillary has cut off communication with those who don't have the financial

backing or name recognition to help her presidency.

She has become what she seemingly despised most during Clinton's presidency. A snob and an elitist in her own right.

Its heartbreaking and, as a woman, I think her betrayal is more painful for women than perhaps the more consistent betrayals of men.

I wonder what she tells the mothers of slain soldiers.

I wonder if she holds their hand, looks them in the eye, and says she feels bad for what is happening, but she would feel much worse if she didn't become president.

Hillary Clinton is willing to let more young men and women and innocent Iraqi civilians die, so she can insure her nomination?

How else can one see it?

That's it. End of sentence as far as I can see. Is that who we want for our president?

I keep thinking what if that were my son or daughter over in Iraq now?

The ironic thing is Hillary actually would receive a groundswell of support that would more likely lock her nomination in IF she said no to this war.

So why isn't she saying no?

It seems its all politics, schemes and history books for her now.

How much would you support such a calculated goal?

The woman who has a daughter I just don't see any more.

I hope its possible she can return. However I won't invest any further in such individuals any more. Interestingly, I don't think it benefits them either.

[gulfcoastliberal]

78. Great post!

My feelings exactly, just put forth more eloquently!

[saddemocrat]

75. At the end of the day...

They are all demopublicans....unfortunately. I think we have to put our energy behind whatever democratic candidate has the best chance of winning...period. There will be things to criticize on every candidate, but the fact is that Americans want someone exciting and who is charismatic. Look at some of the potential democratic candidates this time around. Kucinich, for example, was a great guy....not beholden to citibank or anyplace else...but he was boring and lacked...pizazz.

Let's not start splitting the party up now....let's all wait and see what happens.

[gulfcoastliberal]

81. Shameless kick. Hillary wants 100,000 more cannon fodder, er soldiers.

Calls by leading Democrats (and by the Democratic Leadership Council) for an increase of 100,000 troops in the Army, and for termination of the senseless ban on recruiting on some college campuses, are vital to restoring strength to our Army and to its leadership cohort.

Hillary is one of them "leading" Democrats. She wants 100,000 more Casey Sheehans for our decades long occupation of the middle east.