Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
August 5, 2007 12:40 PM
Following YearlyKos Debate, Edwards Uses K Street Corruption to Frame Race as Him vs. Clinton
I'm just back from the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, and wanted to point folks to two YouTube clips of what were the best and most telling moments - by far - of the conference's presidential campaign interchanges. As you will see, after John Edwards pushed Hillary Clinton into a corner about her ties to Washington corporate lobbyists at the debate, he continued on the theme in his town-hall-style breakout session - a sign that, coupled with his history from 2004, shows that he is aiming to use the issue as a way to frame the race as him vs. Clinton. If I were Clinton's campaign trying to, for instance, paint American politics' top recipient of health care industry money and lobbyist cash as the candidate of "change," Edwards' line of attack is exactly what I would be most afraid of.
Watch the first clip from the debate - and watch how Hillary Clinton gets laughed at, not only by the audience, but by Barack Obama who is sitting next to her. This is about as revealing a moment as you will find on which candidates do - and do not - represent change:
In the face of Edwards' discussion of how both he and Obama don't take money from K Street, Clinton actually goes on record bragging that she will continue raking in massive campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists, and claiming that "lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans."
But my favorite line was when Clinton claimed, "I don’t, I don’t think based on my 35 years in fighting for what I believe in anybody seriously believes I am going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest group." Oh really? How about, as just one example, Clinton's vote for the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill? You remember that bill - it was the one written by the credit card industry that allows them to jack up interest rates on low and moderate income Americans who are struggling to pay their bills. Are we really to believe that vote wasn't "influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest group?" Please.
Sure, Edwards voted for that bill, too - as did most of the senators, Republican and Democrat. He's also since said that, "Like a lot of Democrats, I voted for a bankruptcy reform bill before [and] I can't say it more simply than this: I was wrong." But that's not even the point - the point is that whereas he acknowledges that the campaign finance and lobbying system itself is rigged to regularly create votes like that, she's actually trying to deny that anything is even wrong, which beyond any one bad vote, is the real problem and the real contrast.
Following the debate I attended Edwards town-hall-style breakout session. As you can see from the video I got below, Edwards continued hammering the lobbyist theme and used it to draw a sharp distinction between him and Clinton, using more clear-cut terms than I've seen any of the candidates use in trying to frame the race. Watch the clip here:
Edwards frames the race as a choice. "If you believe we’re gonna get the change that we need in a system that’s rigged, and that that change is going to come working with people who rigged the system, and that’s what these Washington lobbyists are – then you have one choice," he says, in a clear reference to Clinton. "If on the other hand you believe we should reform not just the government we should [also] reform the Democratic Party, we should make it clear that we are not with those people, that we are not the party of Washington insiders" then, he says, he's your choice.
You may recall, this theme is nothing new for Edwards. In 2004, he aggressively campaigned against the influence of lobbyists and insiders in Washington to the point that K Street threw public temper tantrums about him being named to the Democratic ticket. My guess is that now that Clinton has provided a TV-commercial-ready soundbites bragging about taking cash from lobbyists and claiming "lobbyists represent real Americans" Edwards will continue pounding on the issue as he did immediately following the debate, and that K Street will react by ratcheting up a defense of Clinton and attack on the former North Carolina senator. Stay tuned - it's starting to get good.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression
- Maddow Busts Morgan Stanley Board Member for Conflict of Interest
- Viva Las Vegas?
- Gov. Paterson Is Either Deliberately Deceptive Or Grossly Uninformed
- We WERE Punked
- CO-SEN: Potential Huge Differences Between Candidates Have National Implications
- Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change?
- Maddow: Did America Get Punked On the Bailout? Yes...Now Here's What to Do.
- Becerra Turns Down USTR
- In a Recession, Should States Raise Taxes Or Slash Spending?
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
February 17, 2009 -
February 10, 2009 -
February 4, 2009 -
January 27, 2009 -
January 20, 2009
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
The King of Hedge Funds (Obama) taking on the Queen of PAC's (Clinton). If one believes the audacity that Obama is somehow the peoples candidate they should spend some time looking at where his money comes from.
The Chicago Tribune has a web based program that breaks down contributions from the top 3 of both parties. Obama sweeps the house with large contributions. I find it hilarious he as seen as a candidate who gets most of his money from large contributors.
Its nice to see Edwards separate himself from the corporate owned Billary and Obama. However I fear that it may not be enough for Edwards to stop Billary from getting the nomination. She's a media darling and the talking heads go easy on her - I think she's their 'chosen one' to use a label.
As for Obama, he is in a odd situation, he won't stop taking corporate cash so all he can do to differentiate himself is make idiotic statements like attacking Wazirastan, talking to tyrants etc. Basically his foreign policy sounds like a throwback to the Reagan era with a mix of hippy style foolishness. He's showing himself to be as incompetent as Bush on foreign policy.
If Obama had any brains he'd sit down with Carl Levin and get schooled about foreign affairs. The man knows his stuff. He'd tell Obama for starters that Saudi Arabia is the real engine of Islamic terrorism in terms of money(madrassas, and Mosques) and providing Salafist Imans to the new mosques they just built. Not to mention providing the vast majority of suicide bombers in Iraq.
Thanks again to DS for giving us the real poop. She's bought and paid for. But how many people know and care. My guess, not many. It's pretty depressing.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the progressive wing of the Democratic party continues to hold out any hope at all for the "top tier" candidates. All of them take corporate and PAC money--none of them take positions that are particularly progressive.
There is one candidate who has been consistently articulate, honest, courageous, and--most of all--correct on all the issues that are important to us progressives. His name is Dennis Kucinich. It is particularly distressing that Sirota, in particular, has virtually ignored his candidacy, choosing, instead, to seek flashes of progressivism in mainstream candidates and trying to wish them into acceptability.
It seems that in almost every column written by a progressive there is a line bemoaning the fact that the democratic candidates are taking decidedly un-progressive positions, "except for Representative Dennis Kucinich". No leading Democratic candidate has taken a position in favor of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and the renunciation of war as an instrument of foreign policy, "except for Representative Dennis Kucinich." No leading Democratic candidate has taken a position in favor of universal single-payer healthcare, "except for Representative Dennis Kucinich." No leading Democratic candidate has taken a position in favor of impeaching Dick Cheney, "except for Representative Dennis Kucinich." The list goes on.
If no leading Democratic candidate takes progressive positions on the issues, "except for Representative Dennis Kucinich," why is it that we are not uniting behind his candidacy now, when we have a chance to really achieve something, instead of bemoaning the lack of good candidates and trying to find something--anything!--good about the three stooges: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, all of whom either voted for or voted to fund an immoral and illegal war that--if we applied the Nuremburg principle--would be cause for hanging Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell.
But I digress. The point is that we progressives are throwing away our best chance in decades for achieving real progress on our issues. Sirota, among others, will say that Kucinich is just a "minor" candidate, that he "doesn't have a chance" What these "realpoliticians" fail to understand is that Kucinich is a minor candidate for only so long as we make it so. We can make him a major candidate. But we cannot do so for so long we are willing to be dictated to--for so long as we are willing to let Sirota, et al. tell us who the real candidates are.
We simply cannot afford to settle for "Republican lite." We need a real progressive. Please, support Dennis Kucinich--now, while there is still time.
Edwards may sound and look better than Obama and Hillary BUT he's no match for either Gravel or Kucinich. Come on David, you know that Gravel and Kucinich are closer to the progressive ideology than Edwards, Obama, or Hillary are. Besides, why should anyone trust Edwards who took years to finally admit his mistake in voting for the Iraq war in the first place? I don't about you but I'm voting for either Kucinich or Gravel even if I have to write in and if neither of them win, I'm voting for Nader or similar 3rd party candidate even if that means the GOP wins because they're already winning even in the minority especially with the way the LAME Senate Dems voted to allow Bush to spy on America. Nixon should have waited for 33 years to get his wish !
Doug Hyden,
Much as I love Sirota's posts, I cannot stand it when Sirota keeps hoping with optimism that the Democrats will ever come around on anything when it's obvious that they are RAPIDLY DETERIORATING from Charlie Rangel's going to bed with K-Street to Democrats caving in on almost every piece of legislation especially the recent bill on spying on the American people like a dictator. To hope that the Democrats will ever come around is as good as an abused individual hoping that his/her partner will come out of their abusive ideology just like that. I've been shot at for advocating 3rd party and have been told that it's best to fix the Democratic Party. We just did that last year and look what's happening. The party's still caving in to the Republicans and even most of the pro-Democratic blogosphere REFUSES to actually reform the party let alone the rank-and-file. I'm sorry but it's time to SHOOT and BLOW the party down and rebuild a new one rather than keep it on life support just like the rightwing tried to do on Terri Schiavo !
Thanks to TV and the stupid debate format, Presidential elections are essentially beauty contests and issues don't matter that much, personalities do. Sure to the informed citizenry issues do matter, but they are a small minority of voters. The bulk of the populace however couldn't care about issues as long as they gas for their cars, sports on the boob tube and cheesy puffs to gorge on. They'll vote for whom ever the magic box in the living room tells them to. Think Homer Simpson.
This is also why Kucinich will go nowhere. He doesn't have charisma to win over anyone except those informed voters agree with his take on the issues. BTW I agree with Kucinich more than Edwards on many issues except foreign policy.
BTW the presidential debate format is a disaster as it reduces candidates to sound bytes and destroys in-depth answers to complex problems. Each candidate ought to have 4 90minute Q&A sessions on national TV and no youtube retards doing the Q&A. If we had a format like that Kucinich would shine.
Personally this upcoming presidential election looks to be one the sorriest in a long time.
Speaking of the wiretapping bill, of the 16 Democrats who caved in to Bush's way, 4 of them including Webb were voted in last year ! As much as I would detest Grant loudly protesting the Democrats, I am afraid that he is correct. If one thing hasn't changed, it's that the Republicans almost always vote together while the Democrats stay DIVIDED. While I don't know that voting Independent is going to solve everything, the more Democrats cave in to Bush legislation after legislation, the more I feel forced to give up voting for any Democrats whosoever and vote outside the two parties although I would probably not vote Nader unlike Grant. If the Democrats can't put the progressive ideology out in full force, then we'll just have to find/form an Independent Party that will. Sigh ... :(
I agree with waltc's analysis of Kucinich's shortcomings. He doesn't belong in a beauty contest. Like it or not the corporations are going to own the next president because people are not informed enough to understand the progressive agenda ...if there is one. There needs to be one with a candidate attached. I have proposed one in my book Parity Democracy and a new party called the Parity People's Party. It can be found at Amazon or B&N. The Dems and the GOP belong to the corporations. There needs to be a real viable alternative unless the corporations can be excised from the equation. What we should be having are massive demonstrations against representative dictatorship, the system we are now living under. We need demands for public financing and other political reforms that will change us back to representative democracy. Until this overthrow of our political system is reversed nothing is going to change.
You may build a third party that isn't considered so far out in left field that it's not in the same town by the voters, but it won't happen in time for this election or any other election in the immediate future. Especially not one with a viable presidential candidate.
The voters started reforming the Democrats last year, but turning around an organization as large as a national party takes time. Especially when you consider that the Senate takes at least three elections cycles to clear out the dead wood.
Anyone who thinks that clearing out the "good 'ol boys" in an established party should happen over night, or forget it, certainly does not have the patience, organizational skills, or perseverance to take the time and effort to build a viable, and responsible, third party.
The Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and system of checks and balances have been under attack for the last 7 years, and need to be shored up now, not at some indefinite time down the road.
The only way get the job done is to work through the Democrat Party.
That doesn't mean support the DNC/DLC, that means send your money directly to the candidates of your choice to ensure the right people get the money, and work for their campaigns.
This is what a grass-roots movement does. Work to establish enough of a populist majority, and fire enough Republi-lite sell-outs that the party leadership changes.
It doesn't happen overnight. If everyone goes kiting off trying to start their own third parties, it'll never happen and we might as well just hand the government over to the oligarchs.
What makes any of you think there will even be an election in 2008..?
After all it will interfere with the "Continuity" of Bush's Dictatorship..!
Go read NSPD-51..
Also don't think The Supreme Court now the Federalist Society Court won't support this move to establish The Unitary Dictatorship of G.W. Bush..!
Ok feel free to talk amongst yourselves..
Butte
The thing with reforming the Democratic party is that its not happening. Sure some populists got installed but thats it.
Look at the big Democratic/liberal blogs like Dkos, Atrios, etc. Is there any call to throw the bums out or real reform of the party? No. The Democrats didn't even have the nerve to shitcan Jefferson. The blogosphere doesn't care that Dingel is owned by GM, or Rangel and Hoyer owned by K Street or Pelosi's secret trade deals.
The problem with the Democratic party is that its divided into two parts: Its liberal activist segment comes from the upper middle-class and wealthy parts of society. They don't care about economic issues or corporate encroachment or K Street. Basically they are too well off to be concerned. This is reflected in many Democrat and liberal blogs where economic issues and Democrats owned by K street are seen as irrelevant.
The other part of the party - the working class doesn't have a voice in it. They just provide the votes. Its also why people are leaving the party and becoming independents and why Democrats are now dependent on this group for success.
The working people need to find a way to boot out the liberals and take back the party. For too long liberals have been allowed to set party agenda and all its gotten us is a gutted country and a dysfunctional government. These people need to go.
Butte,
What do you have to say about the 4 out of 16 Democrats voted in last year who allowed Bush more power to eavesdrop on the American people? Webb, Casey, McCaskill, and Klobacher were supposed to be pro-populist Democrats but their vote in the Senate shows they're NOT ! I myself am totally sickened to the core that we all went through the trouble of electing new Democrats in hope of checks and balances but now it's obvious that there are no checks and balances no matter who controls the House and/or Senate.
P.S.: My wife tore the Webb sticker off her car after Webb caved in on the eavesdropping bill of allowing Bush more dictatorship powers as if he hasn't had enough already !
Get an Edwards sticker in it's place..
The Democrats are divided. There are the real populist Democrats and the Republi-lite sell-outs, which includes the Blue Dog Republicans.
There needs to be a grass-roots movement to throw out the Republi-lites, and institute real election and campaign reform.
We must refuse to send money to the DNC/DLC, DCCC and DSCC and contribute directly to the populist candidates, as well as volunteer to work for their campaigns. Start write-in campaigns if their candidates don't get through the primaries. In other words start a grass-roots rebellion against the corporate sell-outs.
If more people had been willing to do this before we wouldn't have such a problem in the Democratic party.
People who talk third party aren't usually willing to do any of this. Most third party supporters I know will talk loudly, disrespect everybody who doesn't agree with them, and sit on their butts. I'm not even sure that they vote. I've never seen them in a peace march, or having their own rallies or even get their candidates' views out in front of the people.
Which is why they aren't wanting to work for the Democratic candidates, they'd rather sit around and bitch, instead of working for what they claim they believe in.
Which is one of the reasons that third parties will fail.
The other reason to not go third party is that they aren't established parties with name recognition, which the Democrats are.
There's already a network of populist Democrats started in the legislature as well as at state government level, and the freshman Senators and Representatives who got elected in 2005 won't be freshmen after January 2009.
Third parties don't even have freshmen legislators in the Congress, and the number of third party state governors and legislators is insignificant.
Most importantly we don't have time to grow a viable third party from scratch, a third party which doesn't carry the "kook" label, because if we take time to do it, we will lose our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our freedoms, and our government.
Join the Discussion