Let's forget the issue of Corporate Power. It's important but who cares?

[Armstead]

Probably the core issue of the last 35 years has been the concentration of wealth and power in what had been a largely middle-class democracy.

It affects every other issue in fundamental ways. The environment, workers rights, economic justice, the survival of democracy, foreign policy, education and -- yes -- the position of women.


Our policies, our politics and our values have been totally skewed. Behavior that would have been considered outrageous and unAmerican (outsourcing, cheap labor, Robber Baron Monopolists, lack of affordable health care, gutting of the safety net, etc.) has become the current standard of behavior.

The role of government and the public sector as protector and advancer of the interests of the majority has been eclipsed by the notion that the only source of wisdom and action are the Holy Free Markets...(Never mind that the real meaning of a free market is undermined by monopolization of the economy.)

Don't like the media? Think it's headed into the ashcan? Tough. We're simply going to give the same bastids more control over the public discourse.

Worried about healthcare? Tough. We can't undermine the position of increasingly monopolistic insurers and health-care conglomerates.

Mothers, worried about your sons and daughters dying in combat? Tough. We'll continue down the path of militaristic interventionism because....well it's good for business. We need those colonies.

Energy prices and the environment? Pish tosh. We'll continue to have symbolic searches for alternative energy, as long as Exxon and the rest of the Big Guys can run the search.


None of it is going to be addressed as long as we Americans allow ourselves to be sucked into a meaningless politics of personality and power. As long as we allow the Beltway Elites and Wall St. Hucksters to control our candidates and political process, nothing will change.

No the REAL ISSUES are drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. And some phony idea that putting a corporatist into the White House is going to be good for women's position in the big picture. What difference does it make if Wal Mart is allowed to continue to underpay workers in the US, and push manufacturing jobs overseas to sweatshops (where women are routinely abused and exploited).

Let's just forget all that shit, and concentrate on what's really important. Like who has the advisors who can come up with the best one-liners in the debates.

[mod mom]

1. Silly you, the real issue is diamond or pearls (ask CNN)

:mad:

[Armstead]

2. Yes, I guess I'd better get my priorities straight.

[fasttense]

3. Well said.

But in defense of the college woman who asked the pearl question, CNN made her ask it to close out their time slot. Poor woman, now she is labeled as an airhead.

[Armstead]

5. She's not to blame

The whole setup of the debates is ridiculous.

Heck, I miss Jim Leherer as a debate moderator. At least he was a neutral referee and he wasn't trying to put more attention on the questioners than the candidates.

[blm]

4. It's the Fascists vs Open Government.

And the fascists have gained the following of the GOP and too many powerful Democrats for us Dem citizens to feel any comfort with the future.

[Armstead]

6. I used to think that would be too strong a phrase

But the more I see us blindly following the same old self-destuctive path, the more appropriate that word seems to be.

[blm]

10. And I used to consider myself a Democrat - an ordinary Democrat, nothing unusual

until I realized how many protectors of the powerful elite have been leading our party. Now I feel the need to specify that I am indeed an anti-corruption, open government Democrat certain that government needs to be accountable to the people.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

And we already have proof that Democrats protecting the powerful elite led us directly to Bush2, 9-11, this Iraq war, and the unholy mess that is Pakistan - and Democrats want to do it all over again?

[Armstead]

11. Yep, I consider myself a moderate liberal, but today that's branbded as "far left"

[asdjrocky]

15. What a great link!

Everyone who supports the Clinton Machine should read this.

[blm]

16. I think it's the most important warning our party and nation has been given by someone

with an enormous amount of clarity and integrity.

[Armstead]

22. Yes, how can we expect supporters of the Corporate GOP Right....

...to bring about change for the better?

The fact that this crowd is managing Hillary's campaign should be a deal killer for any Democrat. But noooooo.

[asdjrocky]

7. I could not agree more.

Whit the MSM running the debates and doing everything they can to shape our opinions, it's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Business as usual.

More info on the Corporate Killing Machine:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller

We should really know who are behind the candidates.

[Armstead]

9. Shhhhh...

Information about who is supporting candidates and running their campaigns is irrelevant.

[ihavenobias]

8. Well Then

Which candidate is taking the most money from special interest groups (by far) and would therefore be most likely to continue this cycle (hint: her husband allowed NAFTA, GATT and the FCC Telecom Act of 1996, a horrible blow to good news/media)?

PS---The number of registered lobbyists prior to Reagan? 50. Now we have over 35,000, a number that was half that size when Bush took office (still I'd be curious to now what happened in the 90's as the number clearly didn't go down).

[MGKrebs]

12. If you want to make dramatic changes in healthcare, the media,

corporations, money in politics, etc, there are many avenues to affect change more likely to be productive than presidential campaign politics. Presidential campaign politics, by definition, is a mainstream dog and pony show. Believing it is anything different, in my opinion, is another grasp for simple answers to complex conditions. "We need a white knight to ride in and fix everything for us so we don't have to do anything anymore".

When WE have elected enough progressive state legislators and governors and then federal legislators, the presidential candidates will follow. Until then, we will get successful candidates who are responsive to what most voters want, and right now that ain't necessarily very progressive or even very substantive. Until then, we will probably only get small little incremental steps on some issues that are important to us, unless the stars align just right and we get a rare opportunity for consensus on something.

That may sound cynical, but I happen to think it's pretty cynical to invest all of our hopes and dreams on one person who is not even a dictator let alone Jesus.

[Armstead]

18. I agree partially, but disagree on some points

I don't expect any one person to save us (or to screw us, unless it's a Republican). Nor is politics alone the answer.

That will depend on grass-roots changes in (for lack of a better word) consciousness and values. That's an immensly complicated and vital part of all of this. And the candidates and office holders on the lower levels are also important.

However, who comes out of the political process at the top of the ticket does have both symbolic and practical importance. It also helps to determine how policies that do affect us are shaped.

Imagine, for example, if someone other than GWB was in the White House during and after 9-11. Someone with half a brain, and who chose to send out a unifying and intelligent response and policies in its aftermath. We wouldn't be in half the mess we're in.

Likewise, an administration that actually cared about pursuing anti-trust policies, and actually led the nation in pushing back against the continuing mergers that have created these powerful corporate beasts.

So on both a practican and symbolic level, we'll continue to get the same old crapola as long as we continue to take the path of least resistance and saddle ourselves with candidates who eitehr support or don't want to tackle such results of corporate values such as the health care mess, media monopolies, Wal-Martification of the economy, etc.

[KoKo]

13. These 'debates' are framed like football coverage.

But,then all MSM news is framed like that these days. ABC's Roone Arlege is laughing in his grave.

[Armstead]

19. Football coverage is much more comprehensive

They actually contain information and the anchors know what they're talking about.

[KoKo]

23. Good Points....but..when Political Media...INFOMEDIA....starts

to be Sports/Info...we got a problem...

[Armstead]

28. I agree totally

[babylonsister]

14. Great post!

What boggles my mind are the people on DU and those informed souls in the rest of the country who still would support a corporatist, knowing what we know. How can they believe things will get better and we won't just have more of the same?

[fadedrose]

17. WHO CARES???

Hillary does. How else could she get nominated?

And the 9 or so Republican candidates.

[AtomicKitten]

20. It was interesting to see Edwards heckled for pointing out Hillary's connections,

but not a peep when Hillary hit back.

After viewing Sicko recently, how can we possibly expect Hillary to do anything meaningful or comprehensive about healthcare with her connections to the corporate healthcare industry? Not even fuzzy math can square that.

[Armstead]

21. "Managed Competition"

That's basically what the "centrists" endorse for health care.

In other words, let the corporations keep their control over coverage and care, but put in a few token reforms to placate the masses.

[blm]

24. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is 'managed competition' dog and pony show

while they screw over both parties' rank and file followers.

[ulysses]

25. thank you for this.

(stop me if you've hear this before. :hi: )

[Armstead]

27. Sloth and Indolence Party rules

[ulysses]

29. and here I thought you might have forgotten...

:7

[asdjrocky]

26. Think on this...

Democratic President, Democratic Senate, Democratic House....

First Lady Hillary, the champion of health care...

Who wins? The corporations, not the American poor or middle class.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."