Let's face facts - Obama got in because the corporations WANTED him in

[TwixVoy]

Let's be real here. NO ONE gets to be president with out the support of the corporations. Obama literally came out of no where and quickly rose through the ranks in an incredibly short period of time. You know what that means? He had BIG MONEY backing him. I don't care what anyone tells me - no one rises through the ranks that fast to the office of president with out the full 100% support of the top 1%. If you are in delusion that it works any other way don't even bother responding because I am old enough to have figured this game out by now, and have no desire to argue with anyone who hasn't figured the game out.

Health care reform was about one thing - preventing bankruptcy of the health care sector. I firmly believe the country is heading for rough economic times which we haven't seen since the early 1900's, and this was designed SOLELY to keep at least some health care going in this country during the coming 2nd great depression. You know how that is done? A LOT more money has to be sucked up from the masses and deposited in the health insurance bank accounts. Get this clear - it was NOT about YOU getting affordable health care. It was about keeping it generally available to the Americans who have at least "some" value to the corporations. A LOT more businesses are going to go under in the next few years, and the government can't allow health care to be one them during a major economic down turn. This legislation could have been more appropriately called "TARP for the Health Care Industry". It was a PRE-EMPTIVE BAIL OUT for what is coming down the line. This time for a sector other than the banking sector.

Take a look at the expansion of the wars. You know what that's about? It's about continuing the Bush era policy of stealing oil and resources so that we Americans can continue to CONSUME on CREDIT at other nations expense for a few years longer. Guess what? If we want to continue that life style it requires plundering from the rest of the world. I would not at all be surprised to see boots on the ground in Iran or Pakistan within the next few years.

Have you seen any job creation? What was the result of the job creation forum that a big deal was made out of? It was "Oh gee it will just have to be up to private business to fix". Give me a break.

I am tired of being played by these rich fucks, and I will not sit around and remain silent while they are plotting our demise to enrich themselves.

It amazes me at how easily they manipulate the masses. I would not at all be surprised to see another false flag event to get the masses in to full scale war mode. Gerald Celente brings up a good point.... we are killing a LOT of people in the middle east these days. You don't think someone who had his whole family blown apart by a predator drone wouldn't want some revenge? Wouldn't want some pay back? If a foreign nation sent a predator to your house and blew up your family what would you want?

I would not at all be surprised to see someone try to get revenge with a few terrorist plots and all of a sudden we are inside the borders of another middle eastern nation or two.

It's so obvious what is going on and the direction we are being led it is pathetic. Yet 99% of the population doesn't seem to have any clue that they are being played for fools.

[arcadian]

1. I'm gonna have to agree

Nobody becomes President unless they have corporate backing and a nod from the syndicate.

[Electric Monk]

2. Hard to argue, unless you're also bought and paid for

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html

If sixteen-headed purple unicorns don't exist, then I would be miserable, so they must exist

[Nikki Stone1]

3. And we have a winner

But then a lot of us know this.

[Laelth]

4. k&r for the truth, however depressing. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[ipaint]

5. Exactly, Just look what happen yesterday.

Treasury uncaps credit line for Fannie, Freddie


Thursday, December 24, 2009; 5:11 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration pledged on Thursday to back beleaguered mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae <FNM.N> and Freddie Mac <FRE.N> no matter how big their losses may be in the next three years.

It also jettisoned a demand that the two companies cut the size of their mortgage-related investment portfolios next year, allowing them to provide even more support in the near term for a housing market recovering from its worst slump in decades.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=389&topic_id=7320529&mesg_id=7320529


Treasury Okays Unlimited Slush Fund For Fannie, Freddie
By: Jane Hamsher Thursday December 24, 2009 4:00 pm


Forget raising the cap to $800 billion for Fannie/Freddie. They announce (on Christmas eve no less) that the slush fund for picking up toxic mortgage is unlimited:

"Treasury uncaps credit line for Fannie, Freddie

The Obama administration pledged on Thursday to back beleaguered mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, no matter how big their losses may be in the next three years.

It also jettisoned a demand that the two companies cut the size of their mortgage-related investment portfolios next year, allowing them to provide even more support in the near term for a housing market recovering from its worst slump in decades."

As Ian Welsh notes, now that the Fed might actually be audited, what better place to stash all those toxic assets than at Fannie and Freddie, where there is no independent auditor since they sacked their own Inspector General?

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/24/treasury-okays-unlimited-slush-fund-for-fannie-freddie/



A backdoor extention of tarp with no oversight, inspector general (obama got rid of him and hasn't replace him), director accountability or minutes that the FOIA can get a hold of (obama won't allow it).

We are being robbed blind. And the excuse for funneling all this taxpayer wealth to fannie and freddie- it'll help poor people stay in their homes. Bullshit.

We have an average of 10% unemployment and we are funneling 800 billion plus (to start) into a slush find to buy more toxic worthless shit. How about some decent jobs to help people stay in their homes.

This elite meme that it is ok to rape pillage and plunder because the poor get thrown a few crumbs and that's the best we can do is asinine and those who parrot it back at every opportunity are tools.

[Upfront]

6. I agree with you.

We are now,and have been for many years, been played for saps. You said it well.

[quaker bill]

7. it is clear that "big money" did not oppose him

I don't think "big money" makes a President. I am however sure it destroys many wannabes, perhaps deserving, well before we ever get to know them.

The problem with your theory is this, it is unclear that there is an economy of significance that is not "big money". Getting groceries and energy to 300+ million people is not a "mom and pop" undertaking anymore, and perhaps never could have been. We have built a society dependent on these large organizations for its very survival. Bailing out the banks, like it or not, given how intertwined they are in the overall supply system, was probably essential to the lives of a great many people who are by no means bankers or even modestly wealthy. You may not like this, and I am not overly fond of it either, but truth is truth.

On the notion of wars for oil, I will not argue that this was not a consideration for Bush, but like most of his other thoughts, it has failed. It would have been vastly cheaper to buy the oil at any price they could have reasonably or even modestly unreasonably charged. If we are "plundering" one thing is abundantly clear, we aren't very good at it.

[TwixVoy]

10. The problem is you are not looking at the big picture

Bailing out the banks, for example, is only causing a delay of the inevitable. The fiat money system is fundamentally broken at this point due to too much debt.

A BIG reason we moved in to Iraq was because Saddam was considering pushing for dumping the petro dollar. Remember that? Most people don't, and most never paid attention to it. You're right it would have been cheaper to pay more DOLLARS than a full on invasion, but dumping our dollar from the oil markets would have caused our entire monetary system to collapse. We are stealing oil not through brute force, but via monetary policy backed by our military. Dumping the dollar sounds a lot less appealing when US soldiers are on the ground in your nation.

The problem is people believe that these bail outs and moves to protect our dollar have actually fixed the problem. They haven't. They have prevented a sudden and massive collapse - I will grant you that. But they have not changed the fact we continue to import goods and consume them on CREDIT while not PRODUCING nearly any goods here. The only reason the vast network supporting 300 million people you speak of works is because we have a fiat money system that allows us to import cheap goods on credit.

The problem is that credit is fast running out, and when it finally does run out that system will come to a grinding halt.

Remember all the talk of getting credit flowing again ASAP? That's the crux of the matter. In order to prevent a massive collapse we are having to print money like pre WW2 germany. The problem is we have extremely limited PRODUCTION capability to PAY IT BACK. It is phantom money. Essentially we are screwed.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. I always found truth to be the greatest gift.

A fitting Christmas message, Twix.

[snagglepuss]

39. I second that. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Saddam Hussein had virtually no leverage over dumping the petrodollar whatosever

His country was under extremely stringent UN sanctions after the first Gulf War and thus he was only allowed to export a small amount of oil under the oil for food program. Thus he was in no position to try and influence OPEC policies.

And our exports were worth $1.84 trillion last year, so that's not exactly nothing.

http://www.trade.gov/press/press_releases/2009/export-factsheet_021109.pdf

Eventually we will have to consume less and produce more to pay back the debt but the numbers don't add up to this currency catastrophe you are forecasting.

[theFrankFactor]

81. U.S. China Merger is Coming - Corporo Fascism the Easy Way

[quaker bill]

102. Sorry, but I am actually looking at a larger picture

yes, I do recall the discussion of basing the oil trade in Euros, and yes, I did pay attention to it. It was never sufficiently relevant to actually matter. The reason is that Saddam never controlled anywhere near enough of the oil supply to matter, his "WMDs" were more of a threat, and it was clear to those paying attention that he did not have them either.

The pending collapse of fiat money is a lovely dystopian fantasy, little more. Because of our trade imbalance, lots of soveriegn wealth funds have massive holdings in U.S. fiat money denominated instruments, such as treasury certificates. Regardless of whether your economy is based in resource shipments (like crude oil) or cheap manufactured goods (India and China), it is profoundly not in your best interest to see U.S. fiat dollars fail. So, this simply will not be allowed. I am sorry to disappoint, but the time to dump dollar denominated investments is long past. Any such action now will cause the investment holders more damage than it will cause us.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with military power or the application of it in Iraq.

It is true that the trade imbalance needs to be fixed. This structural problem, if left long enough, will drive standards of living consistently lower for the working class.

The reason we are not "screwed" has very little to do with policy as it has been practiced since Reagan was elected. The republican party efforts should have caused a massive collapse at least a decade ago, perhaps more. The reason we have not seen the true collapse dystopians and Ron Paul fans get all hot and bothered about, is that it is not in the interest of foriegn governments that we fail. The cheap goods we buy on credit employ a great number of people in China and make the Oil Sheiks rich beyond measure. It is really just that simple.

In the current scenario, corporations are how people get fed, and not only here, but worldwide. One would like to believe, (and indeed I would) that the fate of corporate entities could be isolated from the fate of societies and stability of governments. I am sorry to say that time is long past.

The reason that governments work with multi-nationals is not because they want to or because of corruption, it is because there is little other choice.

[Frances]

8. Who do you dislike more: Bill Clinton or Obama?

[countingbluecars]

9. Why not just back McCain then?

Further deregulation would have been so much easier with a republican in charge. And we would probably be stealing oil and resources from Iran by now.

[ipaint]

11. Our policy stinks but their policy is worse.

Unfortunately the former just takes a bit longer than the latter to reach the same conclusion.

[DemReadingDU]

13. I so agree with you

That puts me in the 1% who has a clue what is coming. Spend extra time with your loved ones, enjoy the holidays. Future Christmases are going to be different, not necessarily bad, just different than what we have been used to for the past 25 years.

[KittyWampus]

14. And Freemasons run the country. After all, a black man couldn't WIN the presidency

Nope, the rich white men had to give it to him.

That's why they threw Rev Wright on him for weeks on end.

[SOCALS]

23. Actually they made sure Wright couldn't

be used against Obama in election by breaking this story during primaries. Don't you think it is a bit suspicious that they used their ace so early?

[Hannah Bell]

67. you're saying modern presidents get elected without the support of big corporations & big money?

you're saying the belief that corporate money is of primary import in the presidential election is equivalent to belief that freemasons run things?

you're saying the OP's post on corporate $$ applys only to black candidates?

you're saying only white men sit at the top rungs of corporate pyramids?

[Hydra]

15. It was such a smooth campaign, wasn't it?

So many people convinced of the message...even as he supported gutting FISA.

So I suppose when he said there was a "Hunger for change" what he really meant is that there was a hunger for delusion.

[HipChick]

16. While we're reaching..lets throw in 14 families,Illumati too..

:sarcasm:

[WinkyDink]

49. You DO know that the Bushes and the bin Ladens are business partners, as in, legal, don't you?

[Hannah Bell]

69. you're saying that the belief that big corporate money is crucial in US elections is

like belief in the Illuminati?

I'd say the belief it's NOT crucial is like belief in the Illuminati.

But nice smear on the OP.

[CoffeeCat]

100. The Illuminati is looney consipracy...what the OP said...

...is happening right in front of our eyes.

Obama was paid millions by big Pharma during his campaign. He met with them and now--we can't import affordable
drugs from Canada. Big pharma invested in Obama, and now they have their return.

Obama was paid millions by the health-insurance industry his campaign. In return, we didn't get meaningful health or
a public option--which would have forced prices down and cut into health-insurance profits. These companies
invested in Obama--and that healthcare bill is their return. We are now mandated to purchase their products, or we are fined.

It would be lovely if all of this wasn't happening right in front of our faces. Pick up a newspaper for God's sakes.

I only wish that all of this was as undetectable and mysterious as the Illuminati or the Lochness Monster. Unlike
the Illuminati or the Lochness Monster---all of this is happening right in front of our eyes.

[theophilus]

17. Bollocks.

Why don't you wait until the end of his first term before making such pronouncements?

[Individualist]

18. K&R

[Imagevision]

64. manipulate the masses? --> piece of cake...

[TheWatcher]

19. +1,000,000,000,000,000

But hey, the Apologists got their "win."

Remember, it's all about "The Football Team", not the country, rule of law, Constitution, Bill Of Rights, greater good, or any of that "quaint" shit.

It's Packers VS. Bears.

THAT'S the mentality, or perhaps mental illness, we're faced with.

And it's only going to get worse.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Yeah

His election was always assured, right?

:sarcasm:

That wasn't the election I watched but I guess that people can believe what they want to believe. Corporations could have completely prevented ANY reform with McCain/Palin. Also, why didn't they support Hillary more? Her plan was already supporting mandates. Oh and I suppose they crashed the economy on purpose to help Obama too, right? C'mon.......:eyes:

[noiretextatique]

40. republicon brand was tarnished

and obama had too much support. no way could they get away with another soup/stolen election.

[area51]

21. I fear you may be right. (n/t)

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ikonoklast]

25. Riiiight.

Divisive Try...Fail.

[SOCALS]

27. Why is it divisive? Is debate not allowed any more?

[Ikonoklast]

33. Name one job created by Bill Clinton, outside of government.

His policies actually cost this country millions of jobs, via NAFTA and GATT.

Presidents do no create jobs.

They create policies that affect job creation.

What happens after those policies are implemented are largely due to market forces.

[shellgame26]

80. oh it's allowed

but it's still bullshit. Nobody says you can't spout a bunch of crap around here. Hillary was no champion of liberalism so I'm not sure what campaign you were following.

[WinkyDink]

51. He knew enough how to create a surplus and keep us out of major wars.

[NashVegas]

86. Now Maybe Some of DU Can Understand Why I Backed Clinton

At least we would have known what to expect.

[donheld]

24. Yes I believe that

[LostInAnomie]

26. Jesus fucking Christ! Were you people not around in '08?

Obama raised HUGE amounts of money from million of small donors. He out-campaigned his competitors in an incredibly well ran campaign.

His main competitor in the Democratic Primary was one of the biggest corporate darlings in the Democratic Party who is married to probably the biggest corporate darling.

His challenger in the general election was a big money darling and a total corporate whore.

It is ridiculous to think that corporations would have selected Obama. We put him in office because he was the best candidate. This childish shit flinging and demagoguing is fucking pathetic.

[krawhitham]

31. [phone]

[TwixVoy]

47. You forget

You forget that campaign contributions are still public record. Corporations gave him TONS of fucking cash. That is 100% confirmed.

You are so naive I would swear you sound like a 15 year old. If private money from small donors really did a damn thing then candidates like Dean would have made it through in the past. They shot his ass down though.... and now I can see why seeing as he is one of the ONLY national level dems to oppose this ongoing shit.

[SOCALS]

55. Looks like Obama simply used the

million of small donors and then dumped them.

[Hannah Bell]

73. "Report says Obama's small-donor base claim is off"

WASHINGTON — Despite attracting millions of new contributors to his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama received about the same percentage of his total political funds from small donors as President Bush did in 2004, according to a study released today by the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute.
The analysis undercuts Obama's claim that his supporters "changed the way campaigns are funded" by reducing the influence of special-interest givers.

"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said Michael Malbin, the institute's executive director. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

About $156 million, or a quarter of Obama's record-shattering campaign account, came from donors of $200 or less, according to the institute's analysis of federal election reports through Oct. 15. That compares with $205 million, or about a third, from those who gave between $2,300 and $4,600, the maximum allowed by law.

The small-donor percentage is lower than figures previously reported in news stories because the institute's analysis accounted for people who gave several small donations over the course of the election that added up to a larger sum, Malbin said.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in an e-mail that the campaign had more than 3.95 million donors, and "91% of our contributions were in amounts of $100 or less. … There's no doubt that small-dollar contributors played a critical and unprecedented role" in Obama's victory.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-11-24-obamadonors_N.htm


CFI Analysis of Presidential Candidates' Donor Reports

REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004

Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors

It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought. Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less.

The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated.

"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216




The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign.

To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported.

Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments.

"Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries.

Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403


July 17, 2007

Behind the Obama Small Donor Numbers

Last week I noted the very large number of small donations Senator Obama has received, especially compared to other first tier presidential candidates.

Today the NY Times sheds some light: "Like other candidates, he has worked hard to cultivate a network of bundlers, who can solicit the checks from individual donors for the legal maximum of $2,300 that are the mainstay of any major campaign.

But to capitalize on his celebrity, Mr. Obama's campaign has also employed novel tactics--- like counting sales of $5 speech tickets or $4.50 Obama key chains as individual contributions-- to pump up his numbers and transform grass-roots enthusiasm into more useful forms of support. No other campaign is known to have listed paraphernalia sales as donations."

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008890.html

[Aviation Pro]

93. +Google

....

[Greyhound]

28. Watching your transformation over the last year and a half has been amazing to me.

You give me hope, thanks.

We will get through it, believe that.
:thumbsup:

[firedupdem]

29. Yup...

They ran a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama from the southside of Chicago to carry out this devious plan.

:eyes:

Pathetic is an understatement

[shellgame26]

82. seriously!!!

The insanity around here is mind-boggling:thumbsup:

[krawhitham]

30. I see Bat Shit Crazy is no longer owned by the right

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. You just realized that?

I realized it early in 2007, when the MSM were ALREADY talking about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the "frontrunners."

Mind you, at this point, not one vote had been cast anywhere, except, I suppose, at the $25,000-per-person fundraisers.

[HipChick]

34. At least the R/W sites have got one thing right..

from site-that-shall-not-be-named: It's very simple: Hatred, self-loathing and depression. It's what DUmmies thrive on

[varelse]

35. This is why campaign finance reform is so important

Thankfully we at least have a term limit in place. Imagine what our country would be like by now if we did not.

[robdogbucky]

36. I read this by Chomsky just before the election

It resonated, as most of his observations do on America.

This is precient in parts. There is another one of these interviews that I read that is more on point about why Obama will win with the approval of the corporatists (about 6 months before the election occurred) that I haven't located yet. I saved it somewhere though and I will link it when I find it.

Chomsky:


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583454,00.html

Interview with Noam Chomsky
'The United States Has Essentially a One-Party System'


SPIEGEL: “Change” is the slogan of this year’s presidential election. Do you see any chance for an immediate, tangible change in the United States? Or, to use use Obama’s battle cry: Are you "fired up”?
Chomsky: Not in the least. The European reaction to Obama is a European delusion.

SPIEGEL: But he does say things that Europe has long been waiting for. He talks about the trans-Atlantic partnership, the priority of diplomacy and the reconciling of American society.
Chomsky: That is all rhetoric. Who cares about that? This whole election campaign deals with soaring rhetoric, hope, change, all sorts of things, but not with issues.

CLIP

SPIEGEL: Is there nothing about McCain that appeals to you?
Chomsky: In one aspect he is more honest than his opponent. He explicitly states that this election is not about issues but about personalities. The Democrats are not quite as honest even though they see it the same way.

SPIEGEL: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform?
Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party....



Read the whole interview, very interesting as always.



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[MetaTrope]

38. Yeah, it wasn't hard to "read" the news media at all

Falling all over themselves to push Obama forward, coming just short of giving him the "halo" photographs they blessed Bush with for years, setting up a fake horse race with Clinton, whom they would have been just as happy with.

Meanwhile handing "liberal" mouthpiece Huffington Post an exclusive on Edwards to cut him out of the race, and of course ignoring all progressive candidates as "unelectable".

We won't be seeing anything different in the coming years.

[KittyWampus]

43. Reverend Wright for weeks was "falling all over themselves"?

[robdogbucky]

37. Chomsky after the election:

Noam Chomsky: “What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the World”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections

"...In some ways, the election—the election was surprising in some respects. Going back to my bad prediction, if the financial crisis hadn’t taken place at the moment that it did, if it had been delayed a couple of months, I suspect that prediction would have been correct. But not speculating, one thing surprising about the election is that it wasn’t a landslide. By the usual criteria, you would expect the opposition party to win in a landslide under conditions like the ones that exist today. The incumbent president for eight years was so unpopular that his own party couldn’t mention his name and had to pretend to be opposing his policies. He presided over maybe the worst record for ordinary people in post-war history, in terms of job growth, real wealth and so on. Just about everything the administration has touched has turned into a disaster. The country has reached the lowest level of standing in the world that it’s ever had, and the economy was tanking. Several recessions are going on, not just the one on the front pages, the financial recession, but there’s also a recession in the real economy, the productive economy, under circumstances—and people know it. So 80 percent of the population say the country’s going in the wrong direction. About 80 percent say the government does not work for the benefit of the people, it works for the few and the special interests. A startling 94 percent complain that the government doesn’t pay any attention to the public will. And on like that. Under conditions like that, you’d expect a landslide for the opposition, almost whoever they are. And there wasn’t one, which has raised some questions. So one might ask why there wasn’t a landslide. And that goes off in an interesting direction.


In other respects, the outcome was pretty familiar. So, once again, the election was essentially bought. Nine out of ten of the victors outspent their opponents. Obama, of course, outspent McCain. If you look at the—and we don’t have final records yet from the final results, but they’re probably going to be pretty much like the preliminary results a couple of months ago, which showed that both Obama and McCain were getting the bulk of their financing from the financial institutions and, for Obama, law firms, which means essentially lobbyists. It was about over a third a few months ago. Probably the final results will probably be the same.

CLIP

And there is a—the distribution of funding has, over time, been a pretty good predictor of what policies will be like. For those of you who are interested, there’s very good scholarly work on this by Tom Ferguson at UMass, Boston, what he calls the investment theory of politics, which predicts the—which argues essentially that elections are moments when groups of investors coalesce and invest to control the state, and has quite a substantial predictive success, gives some suggestion as to what’s likely to happen. So that part’s familiar. What the future is, as I say, depends on people like you.

Actually, what happened here is understood by elite elements. The public relations industry, which runs elections here—quadrennial extravaganzas essentially—makes sure to keep issues in the margins and focus on personalities, character, and so on and so forth. They do that for good reasons. They know—they look at public opinion studies, and they know perfectly well that on a host of major issues both parties are well to the right of the population. That’s one good reason to keep issues off the table. And they recognize the success. So, every year, the advertising industry gives a prize, you know, to the best marketing campaign of the year. This year, Obama won the prize, beat out Apple Company, the best marketing campaign of 2008, which is correct. You know, it’s essentially what happened..."



Just more centavos


robdogbucky

[EVDebs]

41. And the House and Senate stay in if WE let them in '10 and '12

The money power may have won the battle but they haven't won the war.

[TexasObserver]

42. I regret that I have but one Unrecommend to give to this thread.

Big business would rather have had McCain. They didn't back Obama. They hedged their bets with him, AFTER he became the obvious Democratic pick. Anything other that than is revisionist history.

He's guilty of flaking. He's guilty of not delivering. He's guilty of keeping sordid Bush holdovers and not doing enough to end Bush policies in place. He's guilty of being weak on health care. He's guilty of not doing enough about unemployment.

But the reasons for his failures are partly personal. He simply doesn't know how to lead very well, and has done a piss poor job of it. He doesn't pick a plan and get behind it. He lets others shape policy, and he acts like a mediator, not a leader.

He's got plenty to criticize, but the corporations never wanted him.

[amborin]

44. Facts show Big Biz were HUGE donors to Obama:

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins

[amborin]

45. especially Goldman Sachs

[TexasObserver]

48. Context, Grasshopper. Context.

I just got through telling you they gave much of their funding AFTER they knew he would be the Dem standard bearer, and they did it to hedge their bets.

How sad that you haven't learned yet how corporations make their political bets. They bet both sides in the general election, but they spend more on Republicans.

[amborin]

54. sorry

but Exelon was a big donor when O was senator

[Hannah Bell]

70. Half the Pritzker family were Obama backers *before* he even announced he was in the running.

As well as a slew of other Chicago big-money folks, & the Rockefeller-connected McCormick interests.

"The Pritzker family is one of America's wealthiest, and has been near the top of Forbes magazine's "America's Richest Families" list since the magazine began in 1982."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritzker_family

It's the backing of folks like this that got him into the running in the first place.

[Hannah Bell]

76. GS was a big donor in his 2004 senate run, too:

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.php?cycle=2004&id=ILS2

& finance sector was #1:

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/sectors.php?cycle=2004&id=ILS2

[BigBearJohn]

61. Corporations are smart. They knew the public was clamoring for a big change. So they give them one

or so they thought.

Promise them anything, but give them Arpege.

[NashVegas]

87. Well, There's a Shock

Coming from a poster who was among the first to flamebait anyone who dared point out what Obama was really all about.

[ProSense]

46. Yes, he did just like

Kerry. Oops.

To quote Krugman: "No, Virginia, at this point there is no sanity clause."

[Tim01]

50. Big business donates to MOST of the candidates they think they can buy.

They don't back just one horse. They back all of the useful horses. And anybody who doesn't promise to play ball with the corporations has a very hard time.
I'm pretty sure the corporations would have been happy with any of the presidential candidates, just for different reasons.
Obama was pretty good at denying it, though. He is a very charismatic sales guy.

[johnaries]

52. 88% of Obama's campaign funds came from individual donations.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00009638

[HughMoran]

56. Don't try to argue with a feeling based on a bogeyman belief

It's fruitless :crazy:

[Christa]

53. It makes a lot of sense

sadly

:cry:

We were all played like fools.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Electric Monk]

58. What's an "oprion" and who is "Barry"? While we're at it, what're your favorite pizza toppings?

[AllyCat]

59. They let us have this fantasy of an "election" every couple years.

But really, they pick who they want unless there is a real solid district. But mostly, they know exactly what they are getting and if they are worried the masses might be on to them, they change the line up a little.

[BigBearJohn]

60. All I can is, "it's incredibility is its best invisibility"

[Marr]

62. Obama and Hillary were the "acceptable" candidates.

It doesn't even get as far as primaries. The decision was essentially made before any votes were cast. You can choose between Coke and Pepsi.

[Imagevision]

63. Oh brother!!! - anyone thinking that big business doesn't run this country is flat out stupid...

[amborin]

65. Lots of big bankers in the current administration:

The latest round of Wall Street muckety-mucks now in charge of regulation.

— By Andy Kroll


Here's a short list of Obama officials who got their start in the private sector—many, like Paulson, at "Government Sachs."


Neal Wolin
Deputy secretary of the treasury (Tim Geithner's No. 2)
Exec at one of the largest insurance and investment firms

Mark Patterson
Treasury secretary's chief of staff
Goldman Sachs lobbyist

Gene Sperling
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made nearly $900,000 advising Goldman Sachs

Larry Summers
Obama's chief economic adviser
Made $5 million as managing director of a hedge fund

Rahm Emanuel
White House chief of staff
Made $16 million as a partner at a Chicago investment bank

Herbert Allison
Assistant secretary of the treasury (oversees TARP)
Longtime exec at Merrill Lynch; headed Fannie Mae

Kim Wallace
Assistant secretary of the treasury for legislative affairs
Managing director at Barclays Capital and Lehman Brothers

Karthik Ramanathan
Acting assistant treasury secretary for financial markets
Foreign exchange dealer at Goldman Sachs

Matthew Kabaker
Deputy assistant secretary of the treasury
Made $5.8 million at the Blackstone Group in 2008-2009

Lewis Alexander
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Chief economist at Citigroup; paid $2.4 million in 2008-2009

Adam Storch
Managing executive of the SEC's Division of Enforcement
VP of Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group

Lee Sachs
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made more than $3 million at a New York hedge fund

Gary Gensler
Chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Commission
18 years at Goldman Sachs, where he made partner

Michael Froman
Deputy assistant to Obama, deputy nat'l security adviser
Managing director of a Citigroup investment arm

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/henhouse-meet-f...

[Vidar]

66. K&R.

[TheWebHead]

68. the evidence doesn't seem to match your contention

I remember in late October the market rallied 500+ points towards the close when one of the polls showed McCain had come within 4 percent and you'd frequently see anti Obama rhetoric from traders on CNBC. I think I heard Maria Bartiromo mention Obama's plans to raise capital gains taxes to as high as 28% at least once a day for two months. After the election, the despair continued as we heard of public options, cap and trade, higher taxes, tougher regulations, a stimulus plan that was mostly a bailout for the states and extending unemployment and a social engineering cash for clunkers program - both of which could've gotten much more accomplished with less money had you taken advantage of the efficiencies of the tax code instead.

The 3% after tax margin health insurance industry I doubt is jumping up and down with joy over the prospect of being mandated to cover everyone and pay policyholders for everything no matter what the cost, hardly the policy action of a corporate shill.

[Hannah Bell]

72. Sure, that's why insurance stocks went up, cause they're going to lose money.

[TheWebHead]

75. they went up in relief of not having a public option

and they went up because the overall market has rallied 60-70% from the march lows. they had been underperforming the broader market all year. Wellpoint would have to rise 50% to reach their January 2008 highs while Unitedhealth is off 50% from their 2006 highs. But yeah, if they would've had to compete w/ the government, their stock prices would have dropped, but I don't think hammering the equities of a particular private sector is a good measure of government policy.

[Hannah Bell]

77. Public option was off the table before the rise.

[Kaleva]

74. Are grass roots progressives the unwitting tools of the corporations?

Many here argue that Obama owes his victory to the base, the liberals.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

94. Yes, grassroots progressives were unwittingly used, and now being thrown to the wolves.

[earth mom]

78. Don't forget that Oprah giving Obama her seal of approval had a helluva lot to do with it too.

I often wonder if Oprah really knows Obama as well as she thinks she does.

[peace frog]

84. I wonder if we know Oprah

as well as we think we do. I suspect her politics turned rightward sometime before she became a gozillionaire.

[nofurylike]

79. i am curious why you didn't title this something more like: no one

the corporations don't like can possibly become president.
or, all presidents get in office only because the corporations want them in.

just wondering why title the OP to play into the hands of those who are holding obama to so much higher a standard than they have other dem's? helping them justify vitriol beyond any seen about any other democratic president, or most of the other candidates, here.

just wondering.

otherwise, most of what you say is clearly true. most. the only other aspect is the fact that it is OUR responsibility to do the hard work it will take to change what you describe, not any president's alone, though i am certain obama will do even more than he already has to reform such things. and he has already done far more than many here will acknowledge.

thank you.

[NorthCarolina]

83. They WANTED McCain and believed their best chance, considering the distaste left by Bush

was to have the public media ensure the Dem field was whittled down to the two minorities, the black guy and the woman (remember, this is how the right thinks), and then hope that would cleave off support by racists and misogynists (again, remember these are rightards and they believe the bulk of America holds the same hatred of these minorities they do), enough that compromised voting equipment could make up the slack and give McCain the win. On the side chance that they did lose, they could spend their time covertly race baiting the black guys administration, or attack the woman for being weak on the war (since to them the woman's place is in the kitchen, and not on the battlefield). Enough of the People will always believe the public media when they tell them who is viable, and who is not, and who is a nut that needs to be shunned, and therein lies the rights power to permanently control the direction of this country in spite of the citizens wishes and best interests.

[nevergiveup]

85. What is sad is that you actually believe this.

I live in a very wealthy community and all the big corporate/big business fat cats, without exception, enthusiastically supported McCain. Obama won because of an unprecedented ground-roots organization and everyone knows it. Of course there was corporate money for Obama and believe it or not there would be corporate money for Dennis Kucinich if he got the nomination. That is the way American politics works. You are holding Obama to a standard no president could possibly meet. IMHO this post is total hogwash.

[pipi_k]

90. Exactly, and thank you

Same here.

People with the money supported McCain.

And yes...there will always be big money behind any candidate. It's American politics.

[Enrique]

91. the corporations didn't favor Obama over McCain

they favored Obama/Clinton/McCain over the alternatives.

[Echo In Light]

96. Any of the 'safe' (guaranteed to play by The Rules) ones were ok, but the sell was for unprecedented

Which is why the "election" cycle began so strangely early, and it was either going to be a woman or black man. This was the ruse used to keep people's eye of the ball...meaning, nothing was really going to change all that much from Bush/Cheney policies.

[pipi_k]

88. Must. Vote. Obama.

OMG is that what happened??!!!!


Big corporations invading our sleep at night infusing our dreams with their nefarious message....

Brainwashing us all each and every day until we did their evil bidding...


Oh shit. Next thing we know those evil corporations will be brainwashing us all to go out and spend money we don't have on things we don't need...

People who don't have jobs? They'll be told to steal money from others for money to support the corporations. Then when they're all richer than God, the corporations will convince us all to commit mass suicide so they can live happily ever after on their ill-gotten fortunes.


Corporate mind control...choosing presidents and forcing ordinary Americans to commit crimes against our wills.

We are all zombies!

:scared:

[invictus]

89. K&R

[Echo In Light]

92. This is exactly what is meant when the Establishment deems a candidate "electable."

Phony democracy

[Liberation Angel]

95. NO _ Obama got in because WE WANTED HIM...

Without the left he would not have gotten elected.

Many corportions did realize that Bush was a disaster and supported Obama too and wanted to buy influence


so they supported him to (knowing that McCain might not win).

But CORPORATIONS themselves are not the problem. Corporofascists are the problem. Evene small businessfolks who have not a fascist bone in their bodies can be incorporated and be a corporation. Your claim is misleading and overbroad nd frnkly false.
It is the corporate fascists, the real enemies of change, who opposed and continue to oppose Obama on every front and who manipulate public perceptions.

Corporofascists did NOT want Obama.

BUT, again

Obama was elected ONLY because masses of common people wanted him to get elected. Without us, folks like us at DU and common folks across the nation, Obama could not have defeated the powers of corporate fascism at the polls.

And yes there are corporofascists STILL in positions of power (especially on wall street but also around the world) who influence what can and cannot get done,

They manipulate public opinion.

They support the propaganda that Obama is a liar and snake and secretly works for corporate fascists

so that the left will withdraw their support

and

the president the fascist corporations REALLY want will get elected next time.

[Orsino]

97. Incorrect.

Obama is president because even the corporations couldn't keep a straight face long enough to install the pathetic McCain and the ludicrous Palin. You're right about the massive influence Big Money wields, but this time it wasn't enough, following so closely on the heels of the previous failtrain.

The corporations feared Obama as something of an unknown quantity. They had all but anointed another Democrat early in the primary, but popular desire for something new and inspiring tipped the balance away from the obvious, safe choice.

[Echo In Light]

99. Corporations didn't fear him as those interests know full well our govt would NEVER allow....

Someone to 'get in' to The Club who would actually pose any serious challenge to very long standing systems, policies and value$.

[Orsino]

101. They spent plenty of money to try to install others.

That indicates a certain minimal fear of the semi-unknown quantity Obama represented.

[Aviation Pro]

98. Oh, bullshit....

...they did everything they possibly could to keep him out.

[mdmc]

103. ++