Clinton Backers Have Ties to Media Firms (AP)

[Eugene]

Clinton Backers Have Ties to Media Firms

The Associated Press
Thursday, February 22, 2007; 9:48 PM

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Two more black South Carolina lawmakers endorsing Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton have ties to a media consulting firm hired by the White House hopeful.

However, both the lawmakers and the campaign said Thursday their support has nothing
to do with any business dealings.

Clinton's campaign announced this week that state Reps. David J. Mack III of North
Charleston and Terry Alexander of Florence, along with several other black politicians,
had endorsed Clinton for president.

-snip-

Mack and Alexander operate offshoots of Sunrise Communication of Columbia, which is
owned by influential state Sen. Darrell Jackson. The connection was first reported by
The (Columbia) State in Thursday's newspapers.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022200929.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Surprise!

This is why Mrs. Clinton is raising all of that cash - it's amazing what folks will do for a few shekels.

I hope that someone's keeping track of all of this in one handy website we can refer to.

[wyldwolf]

2. HOW DARE SHE RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!

[AtomicKitten]

20. that really is uppity of her

doncha know

[PhilipShore]

3. Why does it matter, if she has ties to media firms?

It is common knowledge that large corporations run the DLC, why would a small media firm that works for Clinton, merit a Washington Post article?

Is there a new campaign financing rule or something?

[sandnsea]

5. Endorsements are bought??

Isn't that something you would like to know about how the political game is played?

[jen4clark]

4. An interesting look at media contributions:

Who's the Number One recipient of media contributions in 2006 cycle?:
_________________________________________________
Media donations in general
Hillary Clinton

Media donations to all Senators
Hillary Clinton

Books/ magazines/ newspapers
Hillary Clinton (receiving 3 times the #2 recipient)

Cable TV
Hillary Clinton (receiving over 2 times the #2 recipient)

TV/ Movies/ Music
Hillary Clinton

TV / Radio stations
Hillary Clinton (the other 4 of the top 5 are all Republicans)

Communications/ Electronics
Hillary Clinton

TV Production
Hillary Clinton

And in the year 2000-- she was NUMBER 2 in Media Donations to ALL recipients following
#1: Al Gore.

All data from opensecrets.org
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=B02&Cycle=2006&recipdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorder=U

h/t ms in la

[PhilipShore]

8. Warmongering corporation GE funds TV/ Movies/ Music?

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=General+Electric&year=2006

GENERAL ELECTRIC
Client Summary, 2006
Major Political Contributor

A special interest’s lobbying activity may go up or down over time, depending on how much attention the federal government is giving their issues. Particularly active clients often retain multiple lobbying firms, each with a team of lobbyists, to press their case for them.


Industry
Total

TV/Movies/Music
$400,000


_________________________________________

GENERAL ELECTRIC

By John Summa
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1988/05/mm0588_12.html

GENERAL ELECTRIC (GE) HAS, for more than thirty years, cultivated a benign public image, starting in 1954 with the hiring of Ronald Reagan to host its television series, the GE Theater. The then-floundering actor preached the virtues of private enterprise, and warned Americans of the "slow invisible tide of socialism ... engulfing America, held back only by a few brave businessmen." It was during this time that Reagan went from being an "adversary of big business to one of its most ardent spokesmen," says Reagan biographer Lou Cannon.

GE is ranked as one of the top ten military contractors in the U.S. It is the largest consumer products corporation involved in military production for the Pentagon, both in conventional and nuclear arms, and is a leader in the production and worldwide sales of nuclear power plants.

[nolabels]

108. Mega corps, having to support 2 or 3 or even 20 candidates so one can win?

Yep, they do it to get their people in so they can have their way. Don't think they are not doing this because they are, because that is how they work. The peanuts they put in they get back a ten-thousand fold or better

[DainBramaged]

6. Wow, is this part of the RNC "media campaign" against her?

I read the playbook today. Pick, pick, pick until the scab is an open wound.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Media firms aren't stupid, they contribute to ALL the leading candidates. nt

[ShortnFiery]

11. But all their money can not MAKE the American Constituent vote for her.

They may get their dream: To have a Republican President.

Bank on this: The right wing swift boater's long knives will be brought out immediately after she is anointed as our Democratic Candidate.

Way back in the "reality" of her intelligent mind, HRC knows this. But she (and her DLC and Third Way Sycophants) are banking on the fact that the M$M can sell a HRC Presidency like they sold the war.

My Point: The M$M will turn on her as soon as HRC gleans the Democratic Nomination. Never forget that until the end of this term, the M$M's first loyalty is to The Unitary Executive who is promising great rewards (further media consolidation) after the inauguration of the next Republican President.

The plan is genius in it's simplicity, and it just may work. :(

I hope NOT, but fear that I will have the opportunity to say, "I told you so."

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

10. Wow...just....wow

:freak:

[ShortnFiery]

12. No, but the fact that HRC's people are vigorously campaigning ($$$) for Black Rep's support

should tell you something about the moral bankruptcy of SOME in the HRC camp's political ambitions.

[k_jerome]

13. sorry, we minorities support the Clintons in large percentages...

the more we see this hate, the more we will too.

[FrenchieCat]

15. What minority to you represent?

Just asking'?

[k_jerome]

17. as far as you're concerned, all of them...

racial, sexual orientation, take your pick. and as long as i see a double standard applied with respect to my fellow minorities, i will respond. we wish some others would join us, but it is not surprising when they do not.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Where's your poster, child?

You can NOT speak for *all minorities* but you already know that, don't you?

[k_jerome]

27. i didn't claim to speak for anyone...is this a debate you are having with yourself?

i have spoken of my racial background with those that i have had civil discourse with. that is absent in this thread, thus my long winded way of saying nunya damn business.

funny, i don't see all these other minorities when gays are getting attacked in GD, or a racist homophobe like Robert Byrd is being deified. oh well, to each their own. after all, there are minorities that oppose equal rights and support Byrd. you can never say all.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Well, your testimonial is all that it is ... speaking as one mere case. n/t

[k_jerome]

30. well sure it is. i never said otherwise...nt.

[ShortnFiery]

33. Then you mistyped when you put "WE" in the "we minorities" meaning just YOU? n/t

[k_jerome]

39. no...we...

google first black president.

we. not you. we.

[ShortnFiery]

42. To Quote Forkboy: "Wow...just....wow"

:freak:

In all sincerity, have a good evening for further exchanges would be fruitless. :hi:

[Forkboy]

52. Could have saved yourself six posts by following my lead

:evilgrin:

[ShortnFiery]

57. Yes! You are now my message board role model. :-)

:yourock: :hi:

[Forkboy]

60. That'll be your second mistake

:D

[FrenchieCat]

25. Well seeing that you're from Iowa.......

Colored and colored people (or colored folk in the plural sense)

The term "colored" in particular (along with "Negro") has fallen out of popular usage in the United States over the last third of the 20th century, and is now archaic and potentially derogatory, except in certain narrow circumstances such as the name of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored

[k_jerome]

29. i'm not from iowa, i live here...

and the reference is a deliberate use of a racist euphemism, in order to make a point. i don't use smilies to let people know i'm being sarcastic.

do i need be more clear?

[ShortnFiery]

31. Simply put: Yes, it would help if you were more clear. n/t

[k_jerome]

37. since i don't ever see you guys....

in threads that pertain to bigotry and discrimination, either racial or based on sexual orientation, i can somewhat understand.

however, i won't use smilies and i won't hesitate to call racism or bigotry where i see it.

[FrenchieCat]

So you must have seen it in your post.....the race baiting.......

Too bad you didn't call yourself out....

Additionally, its best you don't attempt to tell me what I've done or not done.....as you have no clue.

[k_jerome]

45. no, the accusation of racism...

is not race baiting.


maybe thats why i don't see you in the gay bashing or racism threads...maybe next time?

[Forkboy]

55. Because we all know that anyone who doesn't post in those threads is racist and homophobic

I mean,it's completely obvious.

[k_jerome]

58. no, some people don't think it exists..

or don't care to get involved. some do...i can't control it.

[Forkboy]

61. And many do think it exists and care about it

There's hundreds of posts here and you're throwing the fact that someone didn't post in a few of them as an implication they don't care.

Hillary would be proud of such a morally bereft tactic.

[k_jerome]

63. i'm saying that many are absent...

when bigotry rears its head here...especially when the majority are engaging in the bigotry.

[Forkboy]

65. Your all too clear implication was that FrenchiCat didn't care

I know you're still upset over the Byrd thing but don't broad brush the "majority" of DU.

[k_jerome]

67. what Byrd thing?

the one where a lot of people realized what kind of guy he really is....and how many here would support a racist? yeah...that was sweet.

[Forkboy]

72. Yeah,that Byrd thing.

You seem disgusted by DU so I have to wonder why you're here.I'm definitely NOT trying to get you to leave,but it's clear this has made you very bitter about DUers.If you really think we're so bigoted and racist here why waste your time?

:shrug:

[k_jerome]

76. you'll find that many of us "victims"...

will continue to point out the bigotry we see, even though it seems to piss off many here.

and we actually get apologies sometimes.

[Forkboy]

82. Speaking of victims,try being an atheist

A new poll indicates that a majority of Americans would vote for a gay person for president. The Gallup survey finds that 55% of respondents would vote for a gay candidate if he or she were "generally well-qualified."

Given the wide range of backgrounds among the current field of 2008 presidential contenders, the poll asked how willing Americans would be to vote for them, and it included hypothetical candidates for good measure. The results, released earlier this week, reveal that 95% of those polled would vote for a Catholic (the religion of Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani), 94% would vote for an African-American (Democratic contender Barack Obama) , 88% would vote for a woman (Hillary Rodham Clinton), and 72% would vote for a Mormon (Mitt Romney, Republican former governor of Massachusetts).

The only category to poll below 50% was atheist.

I hope to see you in any athiest threads from now on defending them.If you're not on the threads I'll assume you don't care and are a religious bigot.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid42230.asp

[k_jerome]

85. given i am an agnostic...

i would get involved in such a thread....given your penchant for Hillary bashing, i expect to not see you in any threads involving minority issues.

[Forkboy]

90. I see...not liking Hillary = racist

You've got quite the world view there.Hows that workin' out for ya?

[k_jerome]

92. is this where the debate begins to be with yourself? nt.

[Forkboy]

95. Not if you're still responding

Duh!

and on edit,a discussion with myself would be a step up.

[k_jerome]

97. when you start making up posts and responding to them, it is. and over too. nt.

[FrenchieCat]

70. Just read this and understand where some are coming from....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3128767&mesg_id=3129268

[k_jerome]

73. once again, selective in your attacks....

this thread would be a great example of that delusion...


268312, the delusion i see here regarding bigotry and racism...
Posted by k_jerome on Thu Feb-22-07 03:40 PM

be it toward gays or minorities.


269016, Thank-you k_jerome
Posted by Madspirit on Thu Feb-22-07 05:22 PM

I agree with you completely about Democrats being as racist as anyone and it almost worries me more than Republican racists because at least Republicans don't live in denial about it.
Lee

269095, i would go so far as to say...
Posted by k_jerome on Thu Feb-22-07 05:36 PM

the percentages of racists in either party is not that far apart.

[FrenchieCat]

78. You made your point....everything else is bullshit.

You shill for Hillary and use the case that a Black man can't win.

That was your entire point, and you made it. Everything else is bullshit.

And yes when counting racists, Democrats are certainly to be counted in that number.

[FrenchieCat]

35. I don't think you were being sarcastic at all....

I think that you were attempting to shut people up based on the fact that some of the sujects in the post were Black, although that was not the point of the OP.

You were actually attacking the poster by questioning their motive for posting the OP to begin with.

that is what is clear.

[k_jerome]

40. my opinion is that the basis for this OP is racist...

i have stated that. is that the excuse for your personal attacks this time?

[FrenchieCat]

46. Why?

[k_jerome]

49. because i think it is...

it will do no good to go through it with someone that thinks it is not. i have had these discussions before, about Harold Fords job, about Robert Byrds racism and homophobia, about a snickers ad. some agree..some do not. i have convinced no one either way, and certainly will not take the time with you.

[FrenchieCat]

54. In other words, you find enough reason to speak "of " colored people......

and speak "for" minorities, yet on the other hand, you don't feel the need to actually discuss why you were compelled to make a derogatory comment in order to make a point?

So it appears that you have time to post of your concern for the "coloreds" but no time to have an actual discussion with one? Ironic.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

69. No, but I see these posts...in this thread....and yeah, it got locked

and posts got deleted. Problem is that I didn't participate; but you did.

So you support Hillary and you don't think a Black man can win, correct?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=267938#268078

k_jerome (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-22-07 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. i believe that makes it even harder...
a sizeable portion of white Democrats will not vote for a black man, even if 100% of the rest do, and all the minorities. cannot overcome the numbers.

k_jerome (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-22-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. the bradley effect is live and well....
and repubs will not have to fight to keep any states in the south...especially if there is an african american on the ticket to galvanize whites of both parties to turn out.

k_jerome (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-22-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. what percentage vote?
and no, i don't think a black candidate will get 20% of the white vote in the south.

pinto (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-22-07 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
37. Locking.
As stated, inflammatory.
Thanks for your consideration.

[k_jerome]

71. i stand by those posts....

and no, i don't think a black man can win.

for the same reason that this OP has so much support.

[FrenchieCat]

74. So, a Black person can't win, you like to use the "N" word whenever it might be possible to

illustrate your point, and talk about the "colored" people and your concerns for them, and add the fact that you speak for "we, the minorities". You point your finger at others telling them that it is they who "do" personal attacks and/or are racist and bigoted or don't care enough to join the debates you feel need joining. To top it off, you call people out without proof and To add icing to the cake, which you take, you offer yourself up as reasoned and righteous.

Yes, as was stated by others...wow, just, wow! Simply a Piece of work! :thumbsdown:

[k_jerome]

79. when i point out racism and bigotry...

i use harsh language, the language used by my opponents...kinda like when you attack those that defend Clark as idiots or the other names you use.

[FrenchieCat]

83. So in essence you feel justified, based on the op to use

derogatory racial slurs?

Amazing!

As for me, I don't use "Idiot"....and as you see, didn't use it on you either.

But until you find me name calling, I'd suggest that it is a myth that you are choosing to perpetuate.

I learned long ago to get my point across WITHOUT calling names...including using racist slurs.

[k_jerome]

87. i use the slurs that bigots use to attack them...

yes. i would tend to see your point if i actually saw you advocating for someone other than Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

101. Actually, I do......

I advocate against the media, against war in Iran, for Clark and Obama.....tend to leave Hillary alone....Sometimes Advocate for Kerry...always say nice things about Gore......and never advocate "for" Edwards.

And so? Who are you, and why would what you determine be what I should do? :shrug:

[k_jerome]

103. i never told you what to do...

you entered into this conversation.

[Forkboy]

75. Interesting

Doesn't seem to have much faith in white people or black people.

[FrenchieCat]

81. Yes....telling!

here, the approach was to label the op having a bigoted and racist agenda.

There, the approach was to label democrats as bigoted and racist.

Yet poster believes that using "Colored", the "N" word, and pointing fingers that others don't "care" enough is worth it to make a point.....but taking the time of having a discussion pointing why the OP's points were so called "Bigoted and racist"...well, no time for that!

I find this more than enlightning.

Hope admin will too.

[k_jerome]

86. you could alert....as you usually do...

but then they would search and see all the minority advocate threads i have started and been involved in and for you...

Hillary bashing threads and Clark worshipping threads...

[Forkboy]

93. How do know who alerts?

You dont.

Admins aren't going to give a shit who posts in what threads.

Try not to break your arm patting yourself on your righteous back.

[k_jerome]

96. as often as a thread or post that poster is involved in gets shut down...

for criticizing Clark, it is deductive reasoning.

[Forkboy]

98. Sherlock would be proud

:silly:

[FrenchieCat]

99. Actually, I don't bash Hillary....

I've searched for the Minority Advocate threads with you in there doing anything good. Didn't find any.

[k_jerome]

102. of course not....

you don't like confrontation.

didn't see you in this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=237747

of course, it doesn't involve Wes Clark and Iran.

[k_jerome]

104. i didn't see you in this one either, about the racist homophobe...

cause lord knows theres no racism or support of racism here..you're right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3119883

[k_jerome]

105. i didn't see you in any of the threads...

where our brethren in the gay community were being accused of playing the victims and whining about discrimination either. i was there, fighting along side them against the majority on this very board.

but i use slurs and confront bigotry head on. thats bad.

[k_jerome]

106. we're done here....good luck with your Hillary hating allies..

wonder how they feel about Bob Byrd.

Later.

[Forkboy]

107. None of the people supporting Byrd were Hillary supporters?

Or do the racists you agree with about her get a pass?

[ShortnFiery]

21. Well, this minority does not! I can only speak for myself.

:eyes:

[k_jerome]

22. as i said...large percentages...not all, so more power to you. nt.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Yeah, right now ... show me a site reference?

to perhaps make up for another thread where you refused to come across with such a request. :shrug:

[k_jerome]

32. site reference to what? nt.

[ShortnFiery]

36. To your implied claim that "large percentages" PRESENTLY support HRC. n/t

[k_jerome]

43. i thought we established in that thread...

you deliberately misrepresent the facts, so i will not do your research for you.


by the way, Murdoch donated to Ted Kennedy too. bwahahaha.

[ShortnFiery]

47. But there you are once again in error: Murdock held a fundraiser for HRC

Plus I asked you to cite the BIG BUCKS that he had donated to Kerry or Kennedy. Why? Because they would pale in comparison to his support of HRC via A FUNDRAISER. You did not come across but that's alright. I'm getting used to it and fear further interactions with you is not "a good thing." So ... later. ;) SnF.

[k_jerome]

51. in error? Murdoch has donated about 4k bucks to Clinton...

he has donated to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Max Cleland, etc...

the old talking points only work with your fellow Hillary haters. sorry.

[FrenchieCat]

14. As a Black person who likes "making money" as much as the next person,

I believe that your post speaks more about you....and it ain't pretty.

[k_jerome]

16. as someone who has seen the personal attacks you make...

and the reputation you have garnered, i take that as a compliment.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Well, considering my 4 year stay at DU,

Thank you!

But instead of saying what you just said, as you personally attacked me, why don't you find some of those personal attacks of mine that you have seen. Considering my "reputation", should be easy.

I'll be waiting....since you have just now called me out, FAIMC!

[k_jerome]

19. well, i think anyone will be able to see who started the personal interchange we...

are engaged in now.

the threads get locked and the posts deleted. but you know that.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Yes people can see "what" started the "personal" interchange.....

I believe that this is it here....

is it the coloreds making money that bothers the Hillary haters?

But you know that.

[k_jerome]

34. oh, it bothers you that i called the basis for the OP racist...

i see. well, we can't all agree, can we?

is that the excuse for making it personal?

[FrenchieCat]

38. I don't know....is it?

you can certainly answer that one, considering.....

[k_jerome]

41. i don't know...you do it so often...

and always have a different excuse.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Why don't you show us.

Because your word simply isn't good enough.

[k_jerome]

48. again....

the threads and posts always seem to get deleted. at least when you attack me.

[FrenchieCat]

50. I've had maybe 4 posts deleted in my four years......

Anything else ever deleted by admin (like a subtread) that I had anything to do with was at my behest.

Considering that on the one hand you say I do it often....seems weird that you couldn't find a few.....

Your excuses are getting shaky.....

[k_jerome]

56. i have seen your attacks on myself and others numerous times...

shaky ground is in the eye of the beholder. soon a thread criticising Clark will appear again, and you will be there attacking again.

i won't post those attacks either.

[FrenchieCat]

62. So I see....you speak of my "reputation", but yet you can't back up your own words...

In other words, you do the attacking and hope no-one notices.

I may not kiss any ass or take any shit, but I don't ever go out of my way trying to insult other posters "just cause".

And if you think asking real questions about politicians on this political forum is considered attacking a poster, (even if certain supporters don't like it, and attempt to detract from my questions and points by calling my questions attacks and smears) you don't know DU rules.

You may want to think that this is the case, but you can't document it, meaning you're just talking and in essence attacking me AND my reputation.

[k_jerome]

64. no, i've dealt with you long enough to see how you operate...

you attack, then when your target fights back, you complain and it all goes away. i simply refuse to play your game.

[Forkboy]

66. In other words;

"No,I can't prove anything I just said."

[k_jerome]

68. yeah, that. nt.

[Forkboy]

77. Glad you admit it

[k_jerome]

80. sure, glad you support this racist OP. nt.

[FrenchieCat]

84. You used the "N' word, not the OP.....

Who's racist? And why should you be the judge?

Far as I can see, you eliminated yourself from throwing stones.....

[k_jerome]

91. i used the slur "nigger" in reference to Robert Byrd...

because he uses that term. i did not use that term here, i used colored people.

[FrenchieCat]

94. No, you are using the term......and spelling it out! Putting it in quotes

doesn't make you look better.

You see, attributing a vile word to another doesn't make you less cupable....it's called perpetuation. It doesn't wash with me......and I doubt with any others.

No one was talking about Byrd, till you brought him up.

But I don't expect you to understand that.......seeing that you are posting the "N" word again.

[k_jerome]

100. i have posted it...given i am similar to Tiger Woods in heritage...

i will continue to. and its use was in reference to a racist using that term as a regular part of his vocabulary. of course, some were conspicuously absent from those threads.

and i will continue to call racism as i see it.

[Forkboy]

88. Well damn K,that's because I'm racist,sexist,communist and elitist

:eyes:

[Dr Fate]

53. Is this like the "racists" who happen not to like Colin Powell, Rice or Clarence Thomas?

We were accused of "racism" by conservatives and now Hillary sympathizers-should it suprise anyone that similar tactics are used by these two groups?

[FrenchieCat]

89. Further, Poster who I will not name cause I don't even feel the need

accuses OP poster of being Bigoted and racist for posting excerpt from a WAPO article without comment.

Now that's something else! :eyes:

[k_jerome]

109. no, its about articles or OP's that begin "Two more black...."

then again, i am sure you have seen tons of OP's that start with "x more white", haven't you doc?

should it surprise me that it is ok in your mind to begin a piece of "journalism" in that manner? i'm not.