http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lobbyists-on-obamas-08-payroll-2007-12-20.html
By Alexander Bolton and Brittney Moraski Posted: 12/20/07 TheHill.com
"Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.
The California Supreme Court's opinion specifically rejected this sort of argument. Chief Justice Ronald George wrote:
Whether or not the name 'marriage,' in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes -- by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership -- pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry. ... [B]ecause of the long and celebrated history of the term 'marriage' and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples.... Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term "marriage" is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of secondclass citizenship."
[B]ecause of the long and celebrated history of the term 'marriage' and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples....
Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term "marriage" is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of secondclass citizenship."
From the website White House for Sale:" This Web site allows you to follow the money trail of campaign bundlers – or people who funnel money to campaigns – as they collect thousands, and sometimes even millions, of dollars from other people for the 2008 presidential candidates. It reflects the most comprehensive data Public Citizen’s team of researchers can obtain. It also explains a little about how we got to this record $1 billion campaign season – and what we can do about it by renewing our dedication to public funding of presidential – and congressional – elections."I first became aware of Public Citizen through Pam Marten's article from CounterPunch, Bankrolling a Presidential Campaign: The Obama Bubble Agenda.
Please look through this very fascinating website, Open Secrets, run by the Center for Responsive Politics.
It is a nice compliement to Pam Marten's article "Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street."
Marten's uses the Center's data in her article.
"So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called “Rocopoly Money” (like a sick board game), after “blitz” nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle?
Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation’s poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline."
Jeremiah Wright's soundtrack, Nina Simone and Sam Cooke by Monroe Anderson, Campaign for America's Future:"Rev. Wright...was an old-fashioned black nationalist who had disappeared into the faith but still holds the liberation movement close to his heart and deep in his soul.
...[T}here is an entire generation of journalists; editors and reporters that have no connection or understanding of the black liberation movements of the 1960s. Nor do they understand that while there are the Oprahs, Bob Johnsons and Bill Cosbys, blacks with plenty of wealth and influence, far too many African Americans are no better off, no more embedded in the American dream than their parents were a generation ago."
The McCain Health Plan: Millions Lose Coverage, Health Costs Worsen, and Insurance and Drug Industries Win By Roger Hickey, Campaign for America's Future:
"...McCain wants to tax workers’ health care premiums that are paid for by employers. Ask any expert, conservative or liberal...on the impact of McCain's plan: “I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years,” says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers.
...McCain and his corporate advisers don’t dispute this. The massive upheaval that would result – millions of families losing their health coverage on the job and then having to try to find an insurance company that would sell them a new policy that would cover their families—that’s not an unintended consequence of his proposal. ...McCain wants to abolish the regulations that currently exist in most states that require companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, provide benefits that don’t exclude some medical conditions, and prevent them from charging huge premiums for crumby benefits. ... “giving people the freedom” to buy insurance in other states with weaker regulations. You can bet that most of the big insurance companies are now shopping around for the state that wants to become the corporate headquarters state for the new deregulated health insurance industry – if President McCain wins."
'The big issue in this campaign is the economy and jobs. But if you were to ask most voters how Senator Obama plans to fight for them on this crucial matter, you’re likely to get a blank stare,' wrote Times columnist Bob Herbert last Saturday. 'He should be pounding that message home with a jackhammer. Give the voters an economic program to wrap their arms around. Let them know: ‘I’m for you! And this is what we’re going to do!’ Sounds like reasonable advice.
As I listen to and read the campaign speeches it’s clearly not what’s happening and I think that’s just what those who don’t want us to think about the economic pain – and how the way the wars in the Middle East hamper our ability to do anything meaningful about it – would have it. That’s the reason for the deliberate effort to turn the contest into one about race. While the media concentrates its attention on Obama’s pastor’s clumsy – but not entirely inaccurate – views, and the candidate’s clumsy – but not entirely inaccurate - sociological take, Sen. Hillary Clinton gets attention for her views on the economy. It’s not much to hug; she’s still in the trust-me-I-feel-your-pain mode with nothing to offer that in a meaningful way confronts the seriousness of the situation.
Race to the Bottom by Betsey Reed, The Nation, May 1:
" The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable, but there's reason to be concerned about her becoming the vehicle for a feminist reawakening. ...what has the most serious implications for the feminist movement--is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival's race against him. In the name of demonstrating her superior "electability," she and her surrogates have invoked the racist and sexist playbook of the right...seeking to define Obama as too black, too foreign, too different to be President at a moment of high anxiety about national security. This subtly but distinctly racialized political strategy did not create the media feeding frenzy around the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that is now weighing Obama down, but it has positioned Clinton to take advantage of the opportunities the controversy has presented. And the Clinton campaign's use of this strategy has many nonwhite and nonmainstream feminists crying foul."
Bill Moyers: 'Beware the Terrible Simplifiers': "My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being.
But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. public health service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test.
Does this excuse Wright's anger? His exaggerations or distortions? You'll have to decide for yourself, but at least it helps me to understand the why of them."On this note, the book, Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present by Harriet A. Washington, just won the National Book Critics Circle Award. It will certainly put Rev. Wright's comments into perspective.
Adolph Red Jr is a profesor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and an editor of The Progressive. Reed writes an interesting article in this month's issue, Obama No, that one does not have to completely agree with without acknowledging some excellent points. Also, the comments section makes for some intriguing reading.
Adolph Reed: "I’ve never been an Obama supporter. I’ve known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal."
Corporate America Hearts Obama "Obama’s campaign message, filled with lofty promises of change and hope, is also filled with repeated reassurances to the corporate elite." - By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted on AlterNet, April 30, 2008.
This article reminds me why a year ago I was a Kucinich supporter...
The myth of the "battleground" states, and other frequently asked questions from the campaign trail. by Matt Taibbi
This ran a few weeks ago on Rolling Stone's Blog - but it makes for some great reading and analysis regarding Hillary's continued bid for the nomination.
URL: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_edit/_new/k9Vq2
Both links discuss the harsh judgment being metted out to Pastor Wright as compared with Republican presidential hopefuls' pastors and/or churches views. Even Stephen Colbert is taking notice!
From Alternet.org:Colbert Reminds Us of McCain's Embrace of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell
From the Huffington Post:Different Standards for Black and White Preachers
This article came from my Portside subscription - Although, like any email subscription, Portside can clog up your email with communiques, there is always a gem of an article that I would otherwise have not of noticed.
This article on Obama's church being praised so highly by the wider Church of Christ community is certainly worth a read.
Chicago's Trinity UCC is 'great gift to wider church family' - From the United Church of Christ
The first article I got from reading Tom Rideau's blog - it's from the New Republic from March 6 by John Chait titled "Go Already!" The second article is by Richard Cohen of the Washington Post and was published 2/26/08, titled "Hillary's Diminishing Returns." The comment section of Chait's article provides some pretty good reading too.
Both give excellent anaysis on the relationship of Hillary and Obama and McCain in terms of their potential in the general election and offers suggestions as to Hillary's specific campaign motives as they appear in her public comments and actions. Excellent reading.
I found this article by Tim Dickinson, he raises some interesting points about "controling the news cycle" as a significant part of campaign strategy.
Obama's Media Deficit - From the 3/6/08 issue of Rolling Stone
