Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank, RFK Jr. They've all endorsed Hillary.

[Jackpine Radical]

They're all people I think of as good, solid liberals, far to the left of HRC.

What the hell is going on here? Why is she picking up these endorsements? Why are Barney Frank and Rupert Murdoch behind the same candidate? What don't I get?

Maybe all those good liberals just know which way the corporate/M$M wind is blowing and are bowing to the inevitable?

I guess I just never was cut out for Realpoltik.

[book_worm]

1. maybe they think she would be a good president?

[MonkeyFunk]

2. rupert Murdoch hasn't endorsed Clinton

for president.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I didn't claim he endorsed her. I said "behind her."

He provided her with financial support. I think it's reasonable to describe that as being behind her. Maybe he's supporting other candidates too, for all I know. It's obviously possible to be "behind" more than one candidate. Like you can be invested in more than one stock.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. But not for her presidential run

he held one fundraiser for her last senate race.

[MADem]

14. His News Corp is HQ'ed in NYC. I got bad news for you--he's "behind" every pol in NY,

He does that shit for everyone, because he wants the NY delegation to Congress to think well of him, or at least not despise him--but the Democrats get lousy breakfasts, the Republicans get dinners. Faux, for all of its odiousness, contributes to the economy of both the city and the state, and not in a small way.

[Swamp Rat]

3. no one's perfect

:)

---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PJ21m2PfhU&feature=PlayList&p=2DA58911C5AD4921&index=13 <---

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Jesus. I've committed people who were saner than that guy.

[robinlynne]

4. I'm not believing RFK's endorsement until he says it.

[ElizabethDC]

10. His endorsement was announced today

http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=7426180

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) _ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. He'll announce his support today in a series of appearances in eastern Iowa.

The endorsement was included in a statement provided to The Associated Press last night. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer in New York, is a son of slain New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Clinton, who's locked in a close race with Democratic rival Barack Obama for Iowa's leadoff caucuses, returns to Iowa on Saturday.



It's announced on Hillary's blog as well: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=17217

[robinlynne]

13. announced in a tiny little neighborhood Iowan paper? i saw that link. So I wrote to RFk

to ask him if it is real. If it is it will be on bigger news sources by tomorrow. But I'll look at H's blog. Oh darn. I don't want to look at H's blog.

[MADem]

19. Hate to break it to you. It's true, unless a couple of hundred papers are lying.

The New York Times: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/rfk-jr-endorses-clinton/

November 29, 2007, 4:12 pm
Will Kennedy’s Remarks Hog the Attention in Iowa?
By Patrick Healy

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president today, and headed out to campaign for her in Iowa — a state where he once told residents, “large-scale hog producers are a greater threat to the United States and U.S. democracy than Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.”

AP story, blanketing the papers/net: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8T7LB600

Clinton picks up endorsement from environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed for president Thursday by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental activist and scion of one of the nation's most prominent political families.

Kennedy's father, Robert F. Kennedy, was a New York senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination when he was assassinated in 1968.

Clinton also collected the endorsement of the 180,000-member Amalgamated Transit Union on Thursday, giving her more workers to help her campaign in the early primary states.

[robinlynne]

21. SHIT! That is disappointing. I love RFK.

[MADem]

25. I'm guessing he has his reasons, and wants HER support when, if she wins the WH,

he runs for her seat, as is rumored. As I said, her record and reputation are at odds, at least from what I've seen thus far.

And I haven't chosen a candidate yet--I just notice that the people who don't like her are continually misrepresenting her positions in order to justify their dislike.

Despite RFK JR's name recognition and NY-by-way-of-Daddy's-Senate-Seat pedigree, he'll need Clinton to help sell him as her replacement out in the hinterlands. And the only way she'll do that is as President-Elect and President.

Quid pro quo. That's politics.

[robinlynne]

31. could be. I judge based on facts. I don't like that she is receiving money from AT&T

and teh Carlyle group, at all. Theses are the people who need to be reigned in. The fact that her spokesperson also works for Blackwater is terrible. I don't like it when Democrats get close to the far right; vide most of the DLC people. What they are doing I do not support.

[MADem]

33. Obama has a Carlyle lobbyist on his staff. So what?

Don't make the mistake that way too many acolytes make. A lobbyist who works for Sick Kids one week can be working for an outfit pushing a nuclear power plant in a national park the next week.

Organizations HIRE firms to lobby for them. A 'Carlyle lobbyist' could well be representing ten other accounts as well. It's just a fucking JOB.

Lobbyists are PEOPLE. I know quite a few of them--they lobby for all sorts of shit, from craven business interests, like aviation and medicine, to environmental issues, like the Sierra Club and Ducks Unlimited, to advocacy, like Parkinson's disease, Autism, and veterans' health issues.

The broad brush never works. What does your "fact" actually mean? How do these people need to be REINED in? What have they done, SPECIFICALLY?

Can you show me what the terrible lobbyist did, or what her supposed Blackwater employee's backstory is? Is he just a helluva PIO, who can sell ice cubes to Eskimos?

That IS, like it or not, the sort of staff you need if you feel like winning. I don't blame Clinton or Obama for hiring the best big guns their campaigns can afford.

That idealism shit is overrated when you're sent home at the first cut.

[robinlynne]

34. At&T specifically has been spying on Americans since FEBRUARY of 2001

illegally! And is fully backing the Bush administration and trying to kill all the lawsuits. I don't want any Dem candidates to accept money from At&T. At&T DESPERATELY needs to be reigned in by our government. subpoenas need to run.
The same goes for Blackwater.
And oil companies (hence the Carlyle group)
and insurance companies.

Don't tell me you can trust Hillary to reign them in. And if you aren't aware that big corporations need to get their toes stepped on big time, then you aren't reading about America. I know you are a DUer, so how can you ask what AT&T and the Carlyle Group are doing wrong? They are both part and parcel of the Bush legacy.

[MADem]

35. So have ALL the phone companies. Sheesh.

Why do you think VERIZON wanted immunity? Bell South is on the list of bad companies, too. QWest? Ya gotta keep UP. AT and T is just a face in a very large crowd. Stop repeating bullshit you've "heard" and start verifying stuff yourself. Get those facts in order, and provide proof--if only for yourself, so you don't continue to perpetuate falsehoods. MOST candidates have taken cash from TELCOM companies. And all the TELCOMS cooperated with BushCO. That dog ain't hunting.

They're reading your emails, too, those gubmint clowns. And they're using a bigass computer program to decide if you're scary or not.

I haven't picked a candidate yet, but as far as reining them in (reins, like horsies) I think one's pretty much the same the as the next on that TELCOM score. YMMV.

As for the Carlyle Group lie, you're probably the tenth person today who has misrepresented that relationship. She hired someone who worked for the lobbying firm that AMONG OTHER ACCOUNTS, serviced Carlyle. Hell, Obama hired a guy from the Carlyle Group to serve on his staff, too. So what? Lobbyists are people.

Here's some light reading: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2224621,00.asp

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2193059,00.asp

Now, because I prove what I assert, let us have a look at just who has been getting money from these TELCOMS, ALL of whom are "guilty" of rolling over when BushCo told them to...

Not just 'evil Hillary...'--oh, no, no--a lotta folks from both sides have their paws in the TELCOM pie: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=B08&cycle=2008
Telephone Utilities:
Top 20 Recipients

Scroll DOWN now...ALL the way down....

Rank
Candidate
Office
Amount

1
McCain, John (R)
Pres
$176,800

2
Clinton, Hillary (D)
Pres
$106,300

3
Obama, Barack (D)
Pres
$87,236

4
Emanuel, Rahm (D-IL)
House
$47,450

5
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)
Senate
$44,500

6
Giuliani, Rudolph W (R)
Pres
$38,150

7
Pryor, Mark (D-AR)
Senate
$25,450

8
Romney, Mitt (R)
Pres
$25,200

9
Terry, Lee (R-NE)
House
$24,500

10
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Senate
$23,900

11
Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr (R-MS)
House
$22,500

12
Thompson, Fred (R)
Pres
$21,950

13
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Senate
$21,000

14
Durbin, Dick (D-IL)
Senate
$20,350

15
Edwards, John (D)
Pres
$18,761

16
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Senate
$16,250

16
Boehner, John (R-OH)
House
$16,250

16
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY)
House
$16,250

19
Dingell, John D (D-MI)
House
$16,000

20
Paul, Ron (R)
Pres
$15,100

----------------------------
Now, let's have a look at TELCOM donations to JUST Presidential Candidates:

Rank
Candidate
Amount

1
McCain, John (R)
$176,800

2
Clinton, Hillary (D)
$106,300

3
Obama, Barack (D)
$87,236

4
Giuliani, Rudolph W (R)
$38,150

5
Romney, Mitt (R)
$25,200

6
Thompson, Fred (R)
$21,950

7
Edwards, John (D)
$18,761

8
Paul, Ron (R)
$15,102

9
Richardson, Bill (D)
$14,450

10
Dodd, Christopher J (D)
$10,450

11
Biden, Joseph R Jr (D)
$1,000

11
Gilmore, Jim (R)
$1,000

11
Huckabee, Mike (R)
$1,000

14
Gravel, Mike (D)
$500

15
McKinney, Cynthia (3)
$356




OK, so who's without sin here? Who, who has ANY CHANCE of WINNING, is without sin?

Anyone? Buehler? Anyone?

[robinlynne]

36. only 2. AT&T and Verizon. Bell is owned by AT&T. Qwest refused to spy and

was subsequently bought by... the Carlyle Group. An AT&T whistle blower came forward, and talked about AT&T, by far he largest spying operation ever in America. They are tracing all at&T calls and all calls made by other companies to AT&T.

You are wrong.
First of all neither Kucinich nor Edwards received one cent from ANY corporations or lobbyists. Not one cent.
You are listing money received, not money from lobbyists and corporations. only Hillary from AT&T. No other Democrat. At&T is on the firing line right now. It is not ALL the telecoms. Verizon is evil too, but not Qwest, nor any other phone companies.
why do you say sheesh?

No-one is talking about lobbyists working for a candidate, (except for mark Penn, and i do not approve of that either). we are talking about lobbying money from multi-national corporations to candidates. If AT&T felt threatened by any candidate they would attack them, not fund them.

I think blackwater, at&t, the carlyle group represent the OPPOSITE of the interests of this country. there is no doubt about it. Anyone who plays nice with those companies will continue the Bush Legacy.

sheesh!

[MADem]

37. No. More than 2. From those links of 'light reading' I offered above plus a few others:

Verizon, AT&T and Qwest Communications International all contend they acted in reliance on existing federal, state and local laws. The carriers are also under a federal court order to neither confirm nor deny their participation in the program.

The carriers also contend that the issue is between the White House and Congress. "Current law … provides a complete defense to any provider who in good faith relies on a statutory authorization," AT&T wrote in an Oct. 12 letter to lawmakers. "If the government advises a private company that a disclosure is authorized by statute, a presumption of regularity attaches."

-----------------------

AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have been singled out in a number of accounts as having provided the NSA with access to millions of customers' telephone and Internet records without the customers' knowledge or consent. The Bush administration has admitted the program existed, but has been vague about details.


The link from OPENSECRETS I provided said Edwards took TELCOM money. So, what? They're Big Liars too?

Here are a few more wiretapping links, for your edification:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2198914,00.asp

Verizon—without a warrant or subpoena—turned over customer records of telephone calls and Internet activities to federal officials more than 700 times since 2005, according to the nation's second largest telecom carrier.

In an Oct. 12 letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Verizon officials said they acted under the emergency provisions of FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). The committee is seeking information about the country's telecom carriers' cooperation, including possible violations of U.S. privacy laws, given the Bush administration's admitted domestic wiretapping program.

AT&T, of San Antonio, Texas, and Qwest Communications, of Denver, also responded to the committee's request for information, but provided no details, pointing out that they are under a federal order to not disclose any information about their activities. ... All three carriers are involved in what AT&T characterized as a "maelstrom" of litigation over the domestic spying program. The New York Times first broke the story of the administration's warrantless wiretapping and USA Today later added that the National Security Agency is using information provided by telephone carriers to data mine tens of millions of calling records.

----------------------------------
http://www.informationweek.com/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=203103309

Carriers Try To Avoid The Warrantless Eavesdropping Spotlight
The telecoms, including AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest, face what AT&T officials have called "a maelstrom" of civil lawsuits over the eavesdropping program.

By Richard Martin
InformationWeek
November 19, 2007 06:10 PM


As Congress pushes forward in its effort to bring some visibility to the Bush Administration's warrantless-wiretapping program, the nation's major telecom companies find themselves in increasing danger of having their own role in the program exposed in court.
Last week both the U.S. House and Senate pushed forward versions of the bill renewing the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would not include so-called "retroactive immunity" for the carriers who acceded to White House demands for customer records of phone calls and Web-surfing activities -- usually without warrants or subpoenas -- in the last few years. President Bush has repeatedly stated that he will not sign a FISA renewal that does not provide the large telecoms with legal cover.

The full House passed the FISA without telecom immunity, on a 227-189 vote mostly along party lines, while the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a similar bill to the Senate floor. That brings the Judiciary Committee into a potential battle with the Senate Intelligence Committee, which earlier approved a FISA version that does provide immunity.

"The full Senate will yet need to resolve the immunity issue," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said in a statement. "While I appreciate the problems facing the telecommunications companies, the retroactive immunity issue to me is not about fixing blame on the companies but about holding government accountable."

The telecoms, including AT&T (NYSE: T), Verizon (NYSE: VZ), and Qwest (NYSE: Q), face what AT&T officials have called "a maelstrom" of civil lawsuits over the eavesdropping program, which the administration has claimed is beyond the purview of either the courts or the congress. Perhaps the most significant of these suits is Hepting v. AT&T, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in the warrantless domestic spying program.

--------------
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/366874.html
The Bush administration wants Congress to give blanket, retroactive immunity to companies — such as AT&T, Cingular, BellSouth, Sprint and Verizon — that allowed the National Security Agency to access customers’ private phone calls and e-mails without a court warrant.

----------------------
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.wiretap17nov17,0,7501156.story
federal appeals court in San Francisco yesterday handed a major victory to the Bush administration, ruling that a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program could not go forward because of the "state secrets" privilege....The appeals court also split off from the Haramain case a separate group of 40 lawsuits brought against AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies over the NSA program. The appeals court had heard oral arguments on the two sets of cases together, but it said yesterday that the facts in the cases were "distinct." The court was expected to issue a separate ruling later on the AT&T case.

Lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the private groups leading the lawsuit against the telecommunications companies, said they were encouraged by yesterday's ruling. For the appeals court to acknowledge that the existence of the NSA program should not be considered a state secret is "a great victory," said Kevin Bankston, a staff lawyer for the electronic privacy group.

Congress, at the urging of the White House, is debating whether to give retroactive immunity to phone carriers that participated in the NSA program. If immunity were granted, it would damage and perhaps kill the lawsuits pending against the companies. That prospect, Bankston said, is "a clear and present danger to the litigation, but that won't stop us from continuing to press our rights in court."








See--more than two. Odds are, all of them, no matter who denies (because the government has told them to). What you don't know CAN hurt you.




Sheesh.

[robinlynne]

38. Qwest is suing the federal government. Qwest refused. Then the federal government

canceled contracts with Qwest, and the CEo got forced out.

[robinlynne]

39. This telecom immunity question is one of the most important questions

facing our nation right now, imho. We need leaders who will NOT let this immunity happen.

[AuntPatsy]

41. I agree with you about those that simply don't like her, its easy to state facts yet

they can't seem to stick with such when attempting to impart venomous catcalling whenever Sen Clinton is named..

Seriously if there are any plants being used, Du sure has it's share.

[MADem]

42. And when I correct a misrepresentation, I invariably get tagged with the

"I bet youse!"

It's not just in Hillary threads, either--but I find it the harshest, almost RightWing-ish, on those threads. It's like they are reading from their well-thumbed copy of the GOP playbook...Examples include

I bet youse:

Are a HillaryBOT;
A Corporatist;
A Fascist winger;
A RACIST (oh, I got that one just today!)

They get pissed off when they don't get their facts straight, so they respond with silly little taunts and childish insults. It's a way of deflecting from their fuckups. Get someone focused on the insult, they think, and no one will notice that they couldn't respond to the correction, because they WERE wrong in whatever they asserted.

[emilyg]

28. It's true. Was on my news.

[robinlynne]

15. Oh no. It looks true. Oh no.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. perhaps she is worth it

or you could go with a vast left-wing conspiracy that includes Kennedy and Clark.

[Dhalgren]

7. I wasn't cut out for it either.

I guess the hand-writing is on the wall - it's to be Clinton, like it or not. This is going to be a strange, strange year we are heading into...

[Breeze54]

8. Baaaa....baaaaa

I'm not surprised at Barney Frank or RFK Jr.

I don't know anything about Tammy Baldwin.

[rodeodance]

9. yeah Tammy

[MADem]

11. Because she's more liberal than most people think she is. Way more.

She's doing the mirror thing of what BushCo did...her intention is to run right, govern left.

[robinlynne]

17. Do you know her personally?

[MADem]

22. Here, study her actual record. That might help you. I judge people by what they've DONE. And said

Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

The print is small, but study this site carefully.

It has background on ALL the candidates too.

It's a lot more even handed and honest than a lot of the partisan BS tossed here by well-meaning acolytes.

Clinton isn't a monster, Obama isn't an inexperienced idiot, and Edwards isn't an ambulance chaser.

If you relied on DU partisans to give you the scoop, you might get that impression, though.

[Poiuyt]

24. Thank you for that very helpful link

"Clinton isn't a monster, Obama isn't an inexperienced idiot, and Edwards isn't an ambulance chaser."

Exactly. Every one of our candidates would make a fine president. As opposed to the Republican field.

[MADem]

26. I gotta get off my ass, see? And pick a candidate. I've been reading

the threads here, doing my own research, and noticing that people who don't like particular candidates and are supporting a given person do a real shitty job of trying to distort their primary opponents' records or take situations out of context.

It started to get tiresome, so I read up on their records to the extent I can, especially when I see false assertions being flung about.

I've ruled out a couple of candidates, but I haven't picked one to back, yet. The debates are helpful, certainly, too.

[Matariki]

30. Bravo. Good post.

Wish individual posts could be recommended. And I wish we had more discussion of voting records and actual FACTS about the candidates.

[HughMoran]

44. Informative post

thanks for using reasoned argument to make your point.

[robinlynne]

18. If that is true, I will be glad. She sure looks to the right.

[Maven]

45. Nowhere is this more evident than in her handling of defense issues

Some columnist (I can't remember where--I think in the WaPo) astutely observed that when Hillary entered the race, people questioned whether a woman could be warlike enough for America's tastes, and that now she's accused of being too hawkish by the left. It's political posturing, little more, yet many here don't seem to have caught on.

[Generator]

20. Here

One theory, which functions as a kind of cargo cult among some American liberals, is that behind the bland, smiling, exterior and the thick gauze of platitudes, crouches a fiery liberal feminist, ready, when she has finally amassed enough power--say in her second term as President--to spring forth and save the world. (the rest of the article summarizes why this is a fantasy)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/ehrenreich

Some of us don't think so. And if we get eight years of another Clinton I'm more worried about what comes after. The laws, the presidential orders are waiting to turn this into fascism land-is Hillary going to change that? You actually have to change it-not just ignore it and not just make it worse.

[Cha]

23. Remember this

thread and we can ask Tammy Baldwin, RFK, and Barney Frank why they deemed it necessary to help perpetuate this Fascist State we're in.. if in
fact it happens.

Nobody has a crystal ball..all I'm going on is the 7 years I've had hillary as a Senator and the disappointments she's given a lot of New Yorkers. Who knows what RFK, Frank, and Baldwin's reasons are. I don't think they're going to tell what all their reasons are.

[emilyg]

27. They admire her.

[roesch]

29. My money on

they endorse here because her machine and money is bigger not better than any other candidate and they know America is more racist than sexist so.. but why not Biden to cut this awful knot?

[AtomicKitten]

32. They are towing the party line.

[YoungDUer]

40. Simple Reason they are endorsing her!!!

They want influence over her when she comes to office, because they think she'll win. Not because they agree with her. It's not that hard to figure out, guys!

[HughMoran]

43. Damned commies

:rofl: