Des Moines Register endorses Hilary SO the paper is phucked up...

[joeybee12]

...Al Gore gets the Nobel Peace Prize and Rush and his ilk go on for days about how phucked up the Nobel Committee is.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. I heard the Nobel committee is mostly Women

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. No...They are all from Carthage...

~

[maddiejoan]

4. Can you imagine what Obama supporters would say --

--if he was given the endorsement, and it was said that the "editors were mostly black?"

[emilyg]

5. Barefoot and pregnant.

[AX10]

6. I heard that too.

:silly:

[K Gardner]

8. They married their 1st cousins and moved to Iowa, now working at the DMR

[MadBadger]

3. Pleaaaaaaaaase, dont tell me your comparing DUers to Rush and his crew of savages.

[JohnnyLib2]

9. Umm, some days there is a lot of overlap.

Kudos to the OP for making an uncomfortable point.

[MadBadger]

11. Now Ive seen threads get locked for comparing HRC supporters to freepers.

[joeybee12]

14. Wonderful! Another over-reaction!

The comparison is as to tactics...

[joeybee12]

10. What's the difference actually? When you don't like the result, you

both go after whatever doesn't adhere to your opinion...can't be that they might have thought she'd be best, since your Obama is clearly God.

[rAVES]

7. After the way they dismissed Kucinich.. I would say yes.. the paper is phucked up.

[rodeodance]

12. I am beginning to think this board is the Anti-Hil Clinton board!!

[joeybee12]

13. Just beginning to think this!

You must have been out of town for a long time!

[JDPriestly]

15. There is nothing wrong with the Des Moines Register.

They very frankly explain that they like Hillary because she is the most business friendly of the candidates. That is fine. That is honest. That is insightful. Hillary is the most business friendly of the candidates. She is Republican-Lite.

The question is: Do we want another business friendly president? Do we want Bush-Lite? The Des Moines Register thinks we should. They argue that the next president is going to need to be able to compromise with the business. They conclude that a president needs to be pro-business and get along with business.

The reasons for the Des Moines Register's choice is not difficult to figure out. Just look at their income and expense statement. The Des Moines Register's income comes not from the folks who buy the newspaper at far less than it costs to prepare, print and deliver it. They earn their money from advertisers -- business advertisers.

I do not earn my money from business ads. I earn my money from my work, directly or indirectly for business. And, business is not treating me or other American workers very well. I can be as friendly as I want to business. It is not going to be friendly back. So, I don't want a business friendly candidate. I want a people friendly candidate. I have different interests than the Des Moines Register. That is why I disagree with their choice of candidate.

The Des Moines Register has had its say. Now I get mine. Business is what has put Bush in power. Business is what is keeping Bush in power. As I see it, right now, we cannot negotiate toward compromise with business. As Edwards says, if you sit down to the table with the big corporations, they will eat all the food and leave you with nothing.

So, I respect the fact that the Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary. They rightly view her as the most pro-business and conservative of our candidates. But, I am not pro-business. Mind you, I am not anti-business. I am pro-regulation and -legislation and -court appointments that even the balance between business and ordinary people. I am pro-middle class and pro-working class. I am concerned about the environment and the poor. Business is not pro-middle or -working class. It is not concerned about the environment or the poor. I therefore want a candidate who cares more about what I care about than about being pro-business.

The Des Moines Register is to be congratulated for its honesty. It has made the choice of the voters very clear: Do you want to continue the status quo, i.e, a pro-business anti-middle class government in Washington? Or do you want change? We have a couple of good change candidates: Obama and Edwards. I back Edwards. I like the clarity and strength of his message.

The Des Moines Register had endorsed Clinton because she will not bring change. Do you want change? Then forget about Clinton. Forget about the Des Moines Register's endorsement. It is an endorsement of the status quo.

[creeksneakers2]

17. Just like you with your work

the next president will have to work with business. That doesn't mean caving in to all their demands. It does mean doing the best that can be done for them after all the public's interests have been satisfied. It means getting along where possible.

The endorsement didn't say a candidate had to be pro-business. It just says Edwards goes to far to the other extreme. Change is a process, not a declaration.

[JDPriestly]

22. You and the Democrats in Congress who gave the power to Mukasey and

Alioto and Roberts and the rest of the Republican extremists believe in the process. The corporations (and by corporations and business I mean the large powerful multinational corporations like Halliburton, Walmart and Eli Lilly), and those who take their money in order to get elected do not believe in that process. (Small businesses have no more representation than you and I.)

We need a president that does not owe his or her election to the corporate lobbyists. Edwards will be that candidate. Edwards has fought the big corporations all these years fair and square in courtrooms -- by throwing the facts about the wrongful conduct of the corporations as revealed in their own evidence in their faces.

We will never get the kinds of laws and policies we need to protect our environment from Clinton or any president who relies on the big corporations and their lobbyists for campaign funds. It is not going to happen. The same is true with regard to all political issues, from trade to health care. The corporations fund candidates who will not push = toward change. The corporations find the candidates that will play the game according to the corporations' rules. Hillary is such a candidate. That is why I do not want her to be president. I want a president who plays the game according to rules that benefit all Americans not just the corporations.

I am not a socialist. (I am self employed at the moment, but I realize that I indirectly rely on other businesses for my income.) Business is one of the ways that we organize ourselves in society. But it is just one. Businesses have legitimate interests. But right now business dominates our government to an unhealthy extent -- to the exclusion of other interest groups. Our society is out of balance. We suffer the consequences of that imbalance in our homes, in our schools, on our roads, in our housing crisis, in our filthy environment, everywhere in our society.

Business, more precisely the multinational corporations dominate our government because of the money they donate to politicians. Hillary is one of the candidates that business donates a lot of money to. They do not donate that money because they they think Hillary is particularly competent or has a great personality although they may well believe that she is competent and that she has an appealing personality. The multinationals consider their donations to be investments -- in legislation and in regulation that will favor them over us and them over the environment. They cannot give their money away unless it is in the interest of their company to do so.

I do not want to get rid of business. But I want the people who make the rules that apply both to business and to me to be independent and not to owe their livelihoods and political futures primarily to business. That is why I am for Edwards. Edwards does not hate business. He is often criticized for having worked for a hedge fund. He has invested millions of dollars in business. Edwards hates the corruption in D.C. that is being caused by the exaggerated influence of business. He recognizes that business should not be the only party sitting at the negotiation table.

And when you have a president -- like Bush or like Clinton who answers to the corporations, there is really only one party at the negotiating table. You have a corporate employee negotiating with other corporate employees. They all owe their seat at the table to the corporations. Thus, as it is now, big business is actually the only party sitting at the negotiation table. Even the Democrats in Congress at this time are dominated by the interests and needs of business. We the people have no voice. If Hillary is elected, there will be no change in that essential fact. There will be no balance. If Edwards is elected, there will be more than one party at the negotiation table. Edwards will point the finger at those who serve only the corporations and never the people. And then it will be up to us to demand policies that serve the interests of us and of our country.

[madrchsod]

20. gannett news chain

takes good newspapers and turn them into rags for nothing more than profit. at one time the paper was one of the best in america but no more...

[depakid]

16. The paper is lame-

but not necessarily because it endorsed Clinton....

[fightindonkey]

18. Obama Has A Record Leaning Right While Hillary's Leans Left

Get over it.

[depakid]

19. I don't really care about either one of them.

I just think the paper sucks- though I suppose that's a relative term when compared to other American broadsheets....

[Kucinich4America]

21. Left of WHAT, exactly?

About the only thing separating her from the neocons is being pro-choice. And given her association with the Dominionist Prayer Breakfast Club, that might even be a lie.