don't scream - I have to ask this question

[donsu]

if Obama gets the prez - will the white, male neo con Barons be able to manipulate him?


I'm sure they think they can.


(and if they can't will they do worse? of course they would)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Whoever gets the White House

will be beholden to those who got them there. If this includes special interest lobbyists, rest assured that on Jan. 21 they'll be stepping up asking for quid pro quo.

[cali]

2. Obama doesn't take lobbyist money

and this meme is sooo over simplified.

[donsu]

6. I wasn't speaking of lobbyist - oil Baron pharma Baron coal Baron

insurance Baron, etc. etc.

the Barons themselves.

[cali]

8. The percentage of money from those sources is no greater

for Obama than for your sainted JE. And it's percentages that count- not the raw numbers. Furthermore, JE has the largest percentage of his funding coming from one special interest group- lawyers.

a very small percentage of Obama's money comes from pharma- under one percent.

There's really no way to answer the supremely simplistic question in your OP.

[donsu]

18. I wasn't talking about money given to Obama

will and/or can the Baron himself attach a string to Obama and then pull it? as prez he would deal with the Baron and not the Baron's lobbyists.

[Occam Bandage]

23. Okay, so, why single out Obama in particular?

Why are we only asking if Barack Obama will be manipulated by the rich white establishment?

[KoKo]

43. Here are Obama's Top Contributors as of October '07 last filing...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300

Percent of Contributions Coded:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Who said I was talking about Obama?

I was making a general comment about lobbyists and what they expect. That's why it is important to make sure whoever is nominated doesn't have ties to them.

Edited to add: My candidate is Kucinich, not Edwards, Clinton, or Obama. I don't have a dog in this fight.

[mnhtnbb]

36. Obama is up to his a$$ in lobbyist backing.

If he thinks he's going to get away with it because he's differentiating between state and federal lobbyists, well, just remember the trouble Bill got into with "depends upon what the definition of 'is' is"

These lobbyists are not fighting for us. They're fighting for corporate interests. Period.

And as far as Obama's grandiose claim "The truth is, in his six years as a U.S. Senator, John Edwards did not propose or accomplish a single thing to reduce the power of lobbyists while Barack Obama passed the most sweeping lobbying reform since Watergate."

I suspect Obama did not pass this legislation single-handedly. And what good has it done?

Read his book and he makes more grandiose claims of achievements that couldn't have happened without
others.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx

Edit to add link that disappeared.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. That's why the PEOPLE need to put Edwards in the WH.

(Though I must admit, my heart still belongs to Dennis.)

[Little Star]

4. If he did not wear wife beaters maybe we would have stayed

with him. His actions spoke louder than words. No place to low. Now I will go back to the silent majority room.

[redqueen]

10. What? What actions? Wearing a certain style of shirt?

:wtf:

[Occam Bandage]

15. While I agree that to me, Edwards' actions speak louder than his words, what on Earth

do you mean by "if he did not wear wife beaters?" Are certain undershirts now forbidden?

[Little Star]

20. They just represent what has transpired.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Could we be a little less vague?

[Little Star]

25. Tag teaming a woman is a clue. Back to the silent treatment with me.

[Occam Bandage]

27. While it was politically idiotic, it wasn't sexist.

[Little Star]

30. Right. Hahahahahaha

[Occam Bandage]

5. Yeah. Poor naive colored boy, in over his head.

[donsu]

7. that's not what I was thinking.

nt

[Occam Bandage]

12. It's a rather ridiculous question. What makes you believe Obama

would be a noteworthy target of "barons?" He doesn't accept a higher proportion of interest-group money than any other candidate.

Obviously power attracts the corrupt; any President would find the "barons" attempting to influence him. Why do you believe Obama would be a target of note--and why bother mentioning their race?

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Interesting questions indeed

[donsu]

22. from the Baron's point of view - neo con Barons have been flying high

for 7 plus yrs. they will make trouble. hope Obama can fight.

[Occam Bandage]

24. Okay, so why single out Obama? Couldn't the question be asked of any candidate?

[Little Star]

42. Back to bare foot and pregnant for women! What issue.....

is a person more vested in? For me I choose.......oh, never mind!

[redqueen]

9. Oh come on!

:eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

14. So then, why does the OP single out Obama?

What makes him, of all the candidates, the one singled out to insinuate the "white, male barons" will be in control?

[redqueen]

16. I didn't read the OP as saying he'd be THE ONLY candidate who they'd try to control.

If anything I read it as saying the person who posted the OP thought Obama would be the one they'd least BE ABLE to control.


I hope the person who posted it will chime in here and explain why they singled Obama out on this question... but I'm sure not going to assume nefarious reasons and I'm CERTAINLY not going to try to spin it as racist.

:puke:

[Occam Bandage]

19. Well, then let's break it down, shall we?

"if Obama gets the prez - will the white, male neo con Barons be able to manipulate him?"

We have no idea on OP's opinion regarding other candidates. However, Obama has clearly been singled out for scrutiny. This thread is only about Obama and manipulation. We are also taking specific note of the race and gender of those who will be manipulating him.

"I'm sure they think they can."

So OP is claiming that the "barons" are going to be attempting to manipulate Obama. Again, no mention of other candidates; we're simply claiming that "white Barons" are going to be trying to manipulate Obama. Now, there are two principal lines of attack against Obama: his "inexperience," and his race/religion/ethnicity/name. It looks to me like both of these fit in pretty well.

Finally, we have:

"(and if they can't will they do worse? of course they would)"

That doesn't mean "Obama would be the one they'd least be able to control." All OP is saying here is, "If they can't manipulate Obama despite trying to, they'd probably do something even worse." Again, we're targeting only Obama, and claiming that even if the "Barons" can't outright manipulate Obama, they'd still end up getting their way.

[redqueen]

26. I'm glad you decided to do so...

"if Obama gets the prez - will the white, male neo con Barons be able to manipulate him?"

We have no idea on OP's opinion regarding other candidates. However, Obama has clearly been singled out for scrutiny. This thread is only about Obama and manipulation. We are also taking specific note of the race and gender of those who will be manipulating him.

Yes, DUH... Obama has clearly been blah blah blah... the non "I'm going to assume the worst and accuse the OP of racism" kneejerking explanation, IMO, would be that there are two ASSUMED contenders for the nom... and one is widely considered to be a kiss up to corporations. Need I go on? Or is that enough to make my point clear?



"I'm sure they think they can."

So OP is claiming that the "barons" are going to be attempting to manipulate Obama. Again, no mention of other candidates; we're simply claiming that "white Barons" are going to be trying to manipulate Obama. Now, there are two principal lines of attack against Obama: his "inexperience," and his race/religion/ethnicity/name. It looks to me like both of these fit in pretty well.

The "Barons" are going to attempt to manipulate or WILL manipulate whoever is in office. Again, DUH!


Finally, we have:

"(and if they can't will they do worse? of course they would)"

That doesn't mean "Obama would be the one they'd least be able to control." All OP is saying here is, "If they can't manipulate Obama despite trying to, they'd probably do something even worse." Again, we're targeting only Obama, and claiming that even if the "Barons" can't outright manipulate Obama, they'd still end up getting their way.

Yes, it's assumed that the "Barons" will get their way regardless of who's in office... which, again, might be due to the OP assuming he would be the least controllable, and therefore speculating on the necessity of them resorting to other means.


Care to continue?

[Occam Bandage]

29. Let's.

The "Barons" are going to attempt to manipulate or WILL manipulate whoever is in office. Again, DUH!

Yes, it's assumed that the "Barons" will get their way regardless of who's in office.

So, again...why is this thread only about Obama? Your only theory is: there are two ASSUMED contenders for the nom... and one is widely considered to be a kiss up to corporations. Need I go on? Or is that enough to make my point clear?

So, the reason the OP started a thread asking if Obama would be manipulated by "white Barons" is that Hillary Clinton is called a corporatist. I'm sorry, but that's a stretch. Suppose we're asking about Obama's credibility on the issue. Well, "kiss up" and "manipulate" are two completely different paradigms. So, Hillary works for the benefit of "Barons." Why, then, instead of asking if Obama will as well, are we asking if Obama will be manipulated by them? Manipulation is very different from "kissing up." In the latter, the candidate remains in control of the situation; in the former, he is being controlled by those smarter and wiser than he.

which, again, might be due to the OP assuming he would be the least controllable

Where do you get this? He has never posted anything to suggest that he believes Obama is not controllable. "will and/or can the Baron himself attach a string to Obama and then pull it? as prez he would deal with the Baron and not the Baron's lobbyists." does not to me read like "Obama would be the most difficult to manipulate."

[redqueen]

32. Are you serious?

So, the reason the OP started a thread asking if Obama would be manipulated by "white Barons" is that Hillary Clinton is called a corporatist. I'm sorry, but that's a stretch. Suppose we're asking about Obama's credibility on the issue. Well, "kiss up" and "manipulate" are two completely different paradigms. So, Hillary works for the benefit of "Barons." Why, then, instead of asking if Obama will as well, are we asking if Obama will be manipulated by them? Manipulation is very different from "kissing up." In the latter, the candidate remains in control of the situation; in the former, he is being controlled by those smarter and wiser than he.

Please... "kiss up" makes "manipulate" unnecssary...

"paradigms"... :rofl:


"which, again, might be due to the OP assuming he would be the least controllable"

Where do you get this? He has never posted anything to suggest that he believes Obama is not controllable at all. "will and/or can the Baron himself attach a string to Obama and then pull it? as prez he would deal with the Baron and not the Baron's lobbyists." does not to me read like "Obama would be the most difficult to manipulate."

It's the "conventional DU wisdom" that he's one of the "real progressives".

I'm sorry the OP wasn't more clear for you... you'll have to follow up with donsu on the rest... because I'm done attempting to second-guess the person.

[Occam Bandage]

33. "Please... "kiss up" makes "manipulate" unnecssary... "

Not really, no, it doesn't. Unless you suggest Hillary Clinton will, without fail, vote in favor of corporate power, it doesn't at all. Given her exemplary voting record, I don't think that's going to be the case. So, why would she not be manipulated by the white Barons?

They are indeed different paradigms. With "kiss up", the situation is that of a powerful entity and a crafty candidate working deliberately to ingratiate herself. With "manipulate," the situation is that of a naive candidate unwittingly being controlled by a wiser, smarter entity. One of these fits in a racist framework. One of these does not.

It's the "conventional DU wisdom" that he's one of the "real progressives".

And "being progressive" has nothing to do with "being easy to manipulate."

Finally, if you're attempting to second-guess donsu...well, that doesn't mean he was particularly clear to you, either.

[Occam Bandage]

35. And, it was about race after all, as in #34. Sorry OP wasn't clear enough for you.

[redqueen]

38. Ooooh... a victory post...

:rofl:


Gold star for you!

[Occam Bandage]

40. So, in an argument, it is considered bad taste to bring information

that strongly supports your case to your opponent's attention.

A bit thin-skinned, are we?

[redqueen]

41. It is insulting, cause it assumes I didn't see it for myself...

but thanks for your help in pointing out "I was right! I was right! See!"

:hi:

[redqueen]

37. ..."well, that doesn't mean he was particularly clear to you, either."

I never said he was.

I simply didn't kneejerk straight to accusations of racism. But I see you're not the only one. It seems a very trendy thing to do.

[Occam Bandage]

39. My kneejerking seems to have been warranted.

As per post #34. The argument is indeed "the white Washington establishment will attempt to manipulate the black guy."

[donsu]

28. because we know how it goes with Hill, Edwards, Kucinich, etc.

I don't know how it will go with Obama, so was asking

and yes racism is the elephant in the room

[Occam Bandage]

31. Do we really? We know Edwards claims he'll "stand up" to your "Barons". But that's not

what you're talking about. You're talking about manipulation, which is a completely different phenomenon. Why is Obama possibly prone to being tricked into doing the bidding of "Barons," while Edwards and Clinton are not? We know Edwards claims to be entirely against corporations, and Hillary will probably be for some and against others. But that has nothing to do with the degree to which they can be manipulated.

What is it about Obama that makes you wonder if he, in particular, will be manipulated by "white male neocon Barons?"

[donsu]

34. because the neo con Barons are racists and racists think they can

manipulate non whites - arrogant thinking but their thinking

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. He'll be up there shuckin n' jivin' while the record producers...er... I mean white politicians

really run the show....

:eyes: