There's buzz around that Hillary should not be voted for because she is actually a big friend of big business.
I find this hard to believe.
This accusation seems to be based on the fact that Hillary has received money from certain companies, and the accusation ignores other reasons why such companies might support her candidacy.
For example; Hillary's work in raising awareness of women's health issues has, and does work to the benefit of the health care industries.
More awareness means more people going for diagnosi, more conditions being diagnosed and more treatments given.
It's the kind of healthy, capitalist, win-win that we Americans want between health care industries and us the consumer. People get treated effectively; and people make money for treating them. That is the way it is supposed to be.
The worst scenario, the one we have increasingly been seeing too often, is that people pay money to insure treatment and then don't get treated effectively, or don't get treated at all. This is the scenario where only industry wins; and they win bigger.
... but back to Hillary ...
To my knowledge, there has never been any accusations that Hillary took money, trips, gifts or meals from any lobbyists, there has never been a whisper that Hillary's private life is supported by any corporations or lobbyist(s), and I've never seen her in the press for constantly vacationing, golfing or hunting with big business folks.
Also, Hillary's reputation does not include the passing of bills that decidedly favor big business -- like the reputation of so many within 43's administration.
My memories from over the years, of what people mostly had to say bad about Hillary, was that she was a shark from the lawyers tank; part of the "lawyers in love" crowd; a yuppie with social action work that she wore on her sleeve.
Everyone has also always said that she was smart and shrewd.
Well, if Hillary is smart, and she has been on the side of corporations all this time, and only out for herself, wouldn't she have already left the low six-figured halls of Washington for a high six-figured CEO or lobbyist position?
...like so many of 43's administration has.
With the long standing reputation of being one sharp tack with annoyingly dogged perseverance, (and being a lawyer), if it were about money and power to her, wouldn't Hillary have already abandoned public service for the huge money and more awesome powers found in America's glass and steel offices?
People from both red and blue parties say that she's not stupid. If that's true, and if personal gain is really what matters the most to her, wouldn't she have long ago sailed off on one of the offers that likely ported and called to her ear; as so many of 43's administration answered.
Hillary's base, at least the parts I've known well, are the equality crowds; the women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, impovershed rights crowds. It's also been my limited understanding that she's a friend of small business, the entrepeneurial sectors and the work at home folks.
Please note that none of the above are notoriously friendly with big business and/or corporations.
Concerns about Hillary have also been raised over that fact that some special interest PACs that have previously been exclusively Republican donors are currently funding her.
Given what was witnessed in Ohio's most recent gubernatorial race (2006), I'd say this as a case for celebration, not a warning cry.
In Ohio's 2006 gubernatorial race a large number of normally Republican financiers made a big show of endorsing Democratic candidate Ted Strickland.
This was taken as a sign that those contributors did not want to back the highly controversial conservative Christian Republican nominee Ken Blackwell; a candidate with STRONG ties to 43's election, re-election, ideology, methods and policies.
So why is it not possible that these campaign contributors might have decided to fund a Democratic candidate instead of a Republican one; mot because they think that Hillary is actually a Republican at heart, but because they see her as a better choice than any Republican candidate?
I'd say that having the other side's supporters switch their position and back Hillary is actually a powerfully positive statement for Hillary; and perhaps a powerfully negative statement against the NeoCons.
No. The idea of Hillary being connected to lobbyists, or in the pocket of big business, or being a Republican in Democratic clothing just can't be embraced by me; at least not without a solid paper trail and a gaggle of witnesses.
Implying that Hillary is in bed with big business is hard to believe.
Bill being in bed with some secretary from big business, would be much more believable.
--
10 January 2008
--
Bill's Spirit is honored to have been selected as a member of Gather's "Election 2008 People's Press Corps"
Bill's Spirit is an Artist, Writer, Poet, Philosopher currently wordsmithing from a humble digital forge in small town Ohio.
The works of the man behind Bill's Spirit have been published in small alternative and amateur presses since 1986. Before that, they just filled notebooks, took up space on walls and gathered dust in piles and boxes.
--
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 41
"For example; Hillary's work in raising awareness of women's health issues has, and does work to the benefit of the health care industries." It sure does, Bill. The health care "INDUSTRIES" are making a bundle by make us more "aware" of our ailments.
"More awareness means more people going for diagnosi, more conditions being diagnosed and more treatments given." Right again, Bill. Conditions being diagnosed and more treatments given......and those conditions are being self-diagnosed by the patient; having been fed every symptom on earth by way of mass marketing! And making sure we know what drugs and treatments to ask for the next time we walk into our doctors' offices.
micky d. - If this is true, please cite your sources so I can verify and stand corrected.
Spencer T. - You are exactly right. I struggle to see how any amount of money Hillary may have accepted from anyone could equal the windfall positions that some of 43's people have taken.
Jeff Tuthill - Interesting. I'm trying to view the recent past through the lens you've just given; and I'm not coming up with anything. What favors did the congress owe 43, 42, 41, 40 ... during the election cycles running up to their elections?
43 seems to be the one who has given the most to his fellow party members in congress. Shall I assume this means that he had made the most promises to his fellow party members in order to get elected?
I can see where some members of congress might owe the Senator from New York a few favors, she has been in office and active in politics for several decades; but I am not sure what favors congress could possibly owe the young Senator from Illinois. He has only been there two years (as far as I know) and has never been a power player (also, as far as I know).
Although some of the programs she says she wants to institute are being labeled socialist by her opposition, they are not, in fact, socialist. They are civilianist.
In order to be socialist she would have to be championing a change that would make all citizens wards of the state. What she is pushing for is that every civilian have a way to receive whatever health care they need, regardless of their individual ability to pay.
Garden Witch - What you seem to be railing against are that actions of corporate America and not the actions of Hillary.
I can't do anything about the fact that you don't trust her, but I appreciate the fact that Hillary has raised the public's awareness over health issues. I do not want us to return to the days when women were not diligent about getting checked for breast cancer and cervical cancer, or were afraid to insist on the use of condoms and the pill, or had to perform their own bathroom abortions.
There is no connection between Hillary and the anti-depression, pro-sex drug advertisements. that I know of.
Too bad these other "guys" that made comments could care less about common sense.
What's amazing to me that in the year 2008, all of the complaints about Hillary are from men. They are so afraid that a women will win that they will go to great lengths to show her crooked, weak and a blubbering fool.
Ok guys... cool it. Let the women go forward because I got to tell you, you are pissing off the women and we are about to show you how doggone powerful we are.
The more stupid the remarks are, the madder we get... and the closer we are to forgetting the issues and vote Hillary in regardless of whether she is the right man for the job.
Be a good little men now, and shut up.
Julie
Being tired of hearing people parrot what Fox News has to say about the Clintons or what they have been accused of in the past, I welcome what Bill's Spirit has to say. If people will research before commenting, we won't have that sheep mentality that is so detrimental in chosing the right person for the Whitehouse.
Let's all be a bit more discriminating and stop letting your emotions make your important descisions.
Patricia R. - It's always nice to hear someone praise my writing. Thank you.
To be honest, I do not always know what I am talking about.
What I do is try to always think about what I'm talking about before, during and after I start talking about it, and I always seek to be as open, honest, correct and accurate as my limitations will allow me to be.
Patricia J. - I did not give Hillary credit FOR those things. I awarded her points for carrying the standards and banners that have further facilitated, maintained and broadened the scope of those things.
I'm not here to try and convince you to vote for her. Although Hillary is one of my favorite candidates, she is not decidedly "the one" for me, and I'm not here stumping for her. I just think the air should be as clear as it can be.
How can you even say that she doesn't represent Big Business? I could tear my hair out when I hear misinformation like that.
We cannot move all of our manufacturing overseas and still expect to be the largest consumer. We cannot allow globalism to turn into a pollution riot. We can take technology (especially medical technology) to third world countires and do it responsibly.
I'm not saying that I know Hillary is for all these things, but it is my sense that she is for these things. I can't put my finger on it, but it seems to me that she has always been a friend of the Green, Social Justice and Progressive Thinking crowds; as opposed to the nature rapers, landscape polluters and humanitarian abusers.
I'm a moderate. I do not think that all industry is bad. I have to expect that any and every president will have ways in which they work with big business. I just don't want someone who works FOR big business. The president, like all government officials, are supposed to be working FOR the people; meaning all of us.
I guess I just haven't seen, and don't see, this evil side of Hillary that I hear so many people talking about. She seems shrewd and professional, maybe a little cold and stubborn at times, but I can respect that in her because I've yet to see any truly dark or catastrophic thing come out of her work. She does always seem to be plugging away for the nation's greater good, and she doesn't seem to neglect the little people.
Glinda she's not, but neither is she the Wicked Witch of the West. Something in between, I expect.
If she don't owe anyone any favors where did she get all that money to run? When a PAC, or Lobist, or Corporation donates large sums they don't do it for kicks.
BILL GAVE US NAFTA, GEORGE GAVE US CAFTA. Grandpaw Bu$h, (Prescott) was fired from The Union Banking Corp, N.Y. for selling diesel to the Germans in WW2. He also gave (sold) and anti-knock compound that made it possible for the nazi war machine to put their war-craft planes in the air.
So what does that have to do with Hillary? Well her agenda, as well as the W is a global, outsourcing, open borders, North American Union. If you go to the CFRs website, there is a 178 page PDF BOOK that you can download that explains HOW BOTH PARTIES ARE GOING TOMAKE THIS HAPPEN!!
WHILE teary-eyed Hillary can pull some votes by cryin' Bill used the BOO-HOO approach.
GWB was on CNN today "BOO-HOOin" about his "Christianity".
BOTH PARTIES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN FIXING AMERICAN FIRST...
Do some research, Bill, Hillary, GWB (BOTH PARTIES) are interested in making their lives at ours...As far as GLOBALISM HAPPENING WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, it is our responsibility to quit giving a damned about Brittany (OR HER PREGNANT SISTER) and focus on the issues. A nod or concent is AN ENDORSING MECHANISM, don't be guilty of "it's goin' to happen whether or not we do something about it.."
GLOBALISM IS A PRODUCT OF PROPAGANDA, DON'T swallow it, unless you're for open borders and a NAU,...,
Morally she is bereft and in her zeal to be seen as a loving family person she brings in her mother and daughter to help and when it doesn't she sheds tears to gain sympathy. This tactic should speak volumes about how well she will handle international issues. Will she cry and make people want to do what she wants? Will she call in her mother and daughter to make her look better? Will she call in Bill in to bad mouth them?
Her first attempt to run the country was her health care program fiasco just after Bill got elected. It failed. Why? Because:
A. She was trying to be the president without being elected and she was ready to begin running the country the way she thought it should be run. Thankfully, she was thwarted.
B. Putting the burden of health care on the government doesn't work. It doesn't work where it is in effect today (ask the Uk'ers and Canadians who are waiting for needed surgeries and health care issues to be taken care of) and it won't work here unless you and I (aren't the people actually the government of the US?) are willing to pay for it. Yes, the government of the USA cannot run a health care program without taxing you and I. So every program they would put into effect would add to your tax burden.
I for one cannot stand another tax from the government without being added to their rolls for free health care, food stamps and other freebies.
At least Obama has put the onus where it belongs. His plan is to make the health care institutes (insurance companies) provide health care to those people who do not have it, at a cost they can afford. (wow, making people actually be responsible for themselves - what a concept). Thus taking the burden off the already over taxed USA citizen and putting it on the people who have screwed up the health care system so they could make more profits. I'm happy to let big insurance cover the costs of health care just as they have to do with car insurance. Each insurance company has to agree to cover 'un-insurable' drivers in a 'pool' so that everyone can have coverage. If it works for car insurance, it will work with health care just as well.
I'm amazed that people think Hillary is for anything but Hillary. That probably tells you whether or not I'd vote for her.
bonnie w
This process of debate among all of us Americans is the way we try to prevent electing a president like 43. We want to be sure we don't just rush to elect someone else, only to have them turn out to be just as bad, or worse, or not effective at all, than who we are replacing.
Carol LeHane - Yes, I'm sure Hillary's gender is an issue for some. I'm just not one of those. I won't say I could care less about any candidate's gender, gender is just one part of each person's overall makeup. I guess I'm saying that gender or race or religion (etc) are not disqualifying pivotal points for me, they are only points I must consider in the candidate's mix.
Vickie F. - You're welcome. :-)
I'm saying that all a person needs to do to be considered politically active is to be politically active.
As for the PACs, lobbyists and corporations; of course they don't donate large sums just for kicks. Some of them contribute because it seems in their best interest to support this candidate or the other. But not all campaign contributions are bribes or purchases; they can merely be support for the person you prefer.
Al Trautman - Aren't the Clintons and the Bushs (as well as John Kerry) members of some group called skull and bones?
Thanks for bringing the Council On Foreign Relations to my attention. I will give this a look. It could turn out to be a real sore spot for me. I do not favor upper class whoop-te-doos who go around thinking that the citizenry is a fungible asset, or a mere pie chart statistic, that exist solely for the making of whoop-te-doos' money.
When I use the word globalism I am not referring to any one set of people's plans. I'm referring to the idea that all of us humans live on the globe and that some trade and cooperation needs to, and will exist between all of us. I am not for totally open economic borders and vast irresponsible trade deals.
America needs to look out for its own first; just like all the other countries do.
Bonnie W. - I do not have the cynicism to believe that the only reason Hillary has stayed with Bill is so that she can be the first woman president.
As a matter of fact, it could well be said that she would have bettered her image as a strong and independent person by dumping the philanderer. In fact, her leaving him after she started receiving recognition would fit more accurately to the painting of her as a self-interested social climber.
I find no amount of irony in accusing a woman of being morally bereft because she stuck with her marriage vows, instead of abandoning her husband over one of those worst traits. It is no wonder family values are slipping in this country when faced with the fact that someone is accused of being immoral for sticking to their marriage vows.
As for trotting out her mother and her daughter while on the campaign trail... Give Me A Break! We see all the candidates family members trotted out before cameras in order to show how "family" oriented the candidates are (well, except Rudy).
Having watched closely how Chelsea interacts with Hillary in front of the cameras, there is no sign that Chelsea is being forced, finagled or needled into showing support. She really and truly seems to want to support her mother in her goal; and that is a serious heartfelt family value, that you support each other in your endeavors.
Hillary's attempt to influence the health care industries while Bill was president had nothing to do with starting a national health care plan. What I remember of those days over a decade ago is that she was pushing for expanding paid sick time off of work and making sure that people were getting the health care they needed from the insurers and medical professionals they were paying. nothing she did then would have added tax burdens to the public.
Thank you for your description of Obama's plan. It sounds very familiar to what Hillary tried to get congress to institute in the 1990s.
The one thing I would point out, that may have nothing to do with Hillary's national health care plan, is that if we had nationalized health care, the tax increase that every citizen might have to live with would be more than offset by the fact that citizens would no longer have to shell out hundreds of dollars per month to private insurers who turn around and deny health care when needed.
An extra $200 in taxes per month for non-deniable full-family health care coverage sounds way better than $500 plus per month for family health care coverage that is heavily restricted and too often denied.
Bonnie w
Bonnie w
The source,---ny sun newspaper article- "hillary rodham gore"- jan. 10 th.
It is my understanding that a nationalized plan would actually REDUCE the amount of money YOU already spend on your own health care. You would not be spending and extra $200 per month; you would be spending ONLY $200 per month.
However, if you are happy to be spending more than $200 per month for health care coverage that requires some office worker to check the companies profit margins before deciding if you qualify for a health care procedure that a doctor has decided you need, that is your business.
I would like to remind that the health care industries have already told everyone that the reason their premiums are so high, the reason medical costs are so high, and the reason treatments are so often declined is because everyone is already offsetting the costs of those people who do not have health care coverage; even though the health care industries all make great profit margins anyway.
"And Bill, Hillary's plan in the 1990's was for government subsidized health care. Her plan was nothing like Obama's."
The plan Hillary was pushing in the 1990s was mainly for managed competition within the health care industries and increased health awareness by the citizenry, not government subsidized health care.
Although there was talk of creating a national health care card that would allow all citizens access to certain core health care benefits, the biggest push then was to find a way to end the price gouging, unconscionable profiteering and denial of claims that was rampant in the medical fields and has continued since.
Her plan then was to inspire the populous to do everything they could to live healthier lives, AND to use government power to pressure the insurance and health industries to cover the citizenry and to pay for the health care needed by their insured, instead of denying payment for treatments or dropping clients for actually using their policies. NY Times, Feb. 12, 1993
I confess, I do not know any of the details of Obama's health care plan. I guess I shall try to research his specifics.
micky d. - I thank you for providing your source. Could you provide another, more unbiased one? If this is as big a scandal as you say it is, numerous news organizations would have written about it.
pharma-money. hilly,270.000 the highest-oil and gas,hilly-220.000-lobbyist-hill575.000-highest-lawyers-9-million, by far the highest, same with banks hilly -1 million the highest.
She is the biggest corporate money taker of both party's, Obama is second in corp. monies. hypocrits??/To evil oil and gas-evil& pharmacueticals Hillary say's "Show Me the MONEY!!! The Center for Responsive Government-bill and donna- check it out.
Your words; "corrupt pathetic crooks" who take money from "corporations and chinese communists" sounded scandalous to me. I guess I was wrong.
I will not apologize, however, for not being soft-headed enough to just swallow whatever is said to me. I prefer being convinced by logic, reasoning, my own observations and numerous examples from various sources.
The fact that Hillary has received campaign contributions from these people (and it's my understanding that she gave the chinese communists their money back) does not automatically indicate that she's been bought by them or is practicing hypocracy.
Hillary's history, not just her record, seems to indicate that she is a willing middle man (woman) who wants to use government position to interject herself between citizens and industry for the purpose of making sure that the people are being well and properly served; just like Obama, Edwards and Huckabee seem to claim.
If there were any indications that Hillary had coddled these businesses in the past, to the detriment of the populous, then I might share your alarm over the amounts of money she has received.
Without such indicators it is well within the scope of my belief that they want to bankroll her because they expect her to win and are hoping she won't beat them up to badly once she gets elected.
Their investment in her would be in hopes of cushioning the blows they expect her to throw at their industries, as opposed to buying special favors, programs and policies; for compassion rather than favor.
After all, if she wins, she will never need campaign money from them again.
FYI - Yelling at me will not help you sway me.
You may actually think that I am stupid, and you may think that you can badger me into agreeing with you, but calling me stupid, or treating me as stupid will only cause me to ignore you.
Perhaps you enjoy, or are used to being treated with verbal abuse, but it only turns me off.
As for the rest of the things you've listed, I just plain do not know about all of them.
Despite your seeming understanding of who I am, let me tell you that I am not an expert on the Clintons.
On the other hand, you seem to know ALL about them; and here you are telling me what you know with a tone that implies I know all these things, and you say I'm pathetic for only seeing things from my perspective and for not sharing your views.
Apparently you and I are not having a discussion. You are preaching at me like some fire and brimstone know-it-all who is talking to a lower life form.
Thanks for the civility, respect and humanity.
On another note: who would have thought that giving money to Buddhist Monks (a religious sect who has been hunted and slaughtered by the Chinese) would be deemed an evil thing.
In the world of Law of Attraction, what you resist... persists. I hat to tell you guys this, but the more you are resisting Hillary, the more likely she will be elected!
Don't ya just love it. Keep it up! Do you know that women will not come and and state they are for Hillary because they live with men like you all? And you wonder how Hillary got won New Hampshire?
Hey... let me be the first to state publically.. and I'll even say it on my show... I'm voting for Hillary. I'm a women and damn proud of it!
Hugs,
Julie
There are some good candidates, but the issues are getting clouded by emotions. You all should be allowing the issues to be brought out until until it gets down to the final election.
Bill mentioned Ann Coultier... at least she is a women who is ranting about Clinton. A man complaining is NOT, I repeat NOT, taken well. We women are taking it personally. For every man that push us out of a promotion, for every husband who took off and left us with the kids, for every Minister who told us we were beneath our husband, we women are taking it seriously.
All we are asking is that you give this women the respect she deserves for getting out in public, and risking everything she's got. NOT one of you on this list have enough guts to do what she is doing.
Here is a women , going up against all those men candidates and then gets treated horribly by all of them in the debates. Everytime I see the attitudes at the debate, I just get mad.
So again, men... back off and let the real issues come out.
First of all...its Nurse Rached, not Rachet. It really irks me that people say Hillary should have left Bill for his infidelities. Whatever happened to forgiveness, "till death do us part" and those other marriage vows we supposedly value? Thats one of the major problems in this country today, too many people are just way too willing to have multiple throw away marriages, just because they can. No one values commitment anymore, or at least very few. I think it is honorable that she has tried to work on her marriage versus throwing in the towel . Frankly, none of us has the right to even comment on it, unless we have been in her shoes. And how do you know she hasn't had her own dalliances? Maybe they have an "arrangement".. many do.
And by the way...an indictment is not a conviction, unless you count the Bush administration and Gitmo.
"A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton's re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the AIPAC dinner always draws a parade of politicians.
'New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community,' he said. 'If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them.'
Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for AIPAC, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has 'an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro-Israel community.'"
Hillary apparently sang the song that everyone at AIPAC loves to hear, for later in the Sun's article, we read, "While Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have different positions on how to deal with the Iraq war, each has used harsh language on Iran."
-- Doris "Granny D." Haddock