Obama and Edwards: the "anti-Hillary"?
Justin Gero
Issue date: 10/31/07 Section: Ed Op
- < prev Page 2 of 2
Clinton also claimed she is the candidate to stand up to special interests, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics and Federal Election Commission data Senator Clinton is leading both Democrats and Republicans in accepting campaign donations from lobbyists. As of the latest data on Sept. 30 she has accepted well over $500,000 in donations from lobbyists and still has $4.7 million in undisclosed funds. The senator has defended these donations by saying this money represents "real Americans," but the clear majority (56 percent) of the donations came from businesses, and only a fraction, a mere $75,400 (12 percent) was donated from labor PACs. The majority of donations to the Clinton campaign (65 percent) have been from big donors giving $2,300 or more.
Big donors gave Clinton's campaign life from the very beginning, and it's hard to believe that she will do what it takes to stand up to the people that fuel her campaign. The question in voters minds should be, why trust Hillary when both Obama and Edwards have pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists? We have to keep in mind that bringing about change doesn't just mean electing a Democrat; it means electing a politician that will represent the American people, not big corporations and lobbyists.
The corporate influence in political campaigns and policy decisions is a serious issue, and a stain on our political system. No one spoke more strongly against the corporate influence in this election than Mike Gravel, who was excluded from taking part in the debate. Gravel's supporters were around Philadelphia all day protesting and posting signs urging people to reject "corporate media censorship."
I am by no means a Gravel supporter, but it was an absolute disgrace that he was prevented from attending the debate. NBC justified their actions by saying that Gravel had failed to meet the minimum funding requirements of one million dollars; however, the debate should be a platform for candidates to get their message to the voters, and it is not NBC's place to decide who is worthy of that platform. The Iowa Caucus and the primaries, where the American people vote, is the proper way to decide who is a serious contender.
For the candidates that were invited by NBC, they took a serious stand against Hillary Clinton, and even took a few shots at Republican candidates Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney. There were many excellent ideas proposed by the candidates, and for most there was a willingness to address the issues and speak directly about their ambitious plans for education, healthcare, and foreign policy. It is almost 2 months away from the Iowa Caucus, and voters must recognize that the change that America needs isn't just to the Democratic Party. America needs to reject the corruption and corporate influence that is all too visible in both parties.
Big donors gave Clinton's campaign life from the very beginning, and it's hard to believe that she will do what it takes to stand up to the people that fuel her campaign. The question in voters minds should be, why trust Hillary when both Obama and Edwards have pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists? We have to keep in mind that bringing about change doesn't just mean electing a Democrat; it means electing a politician that will represent the American people, not big corporations and lobbyists.
The corporate influence in political campaigns and policy decisions is a serious issue, and a stain on our political system. No one spoke more strongly against the corporate influence in this election than Mike Gravel, who was excluded from taking part in the debate. Gravel's supporters were around Philadelphia all day protesting and posting signs urging people to reject "corporate media censorship."
I am by no means a Gravel supporter, but it was an absolute disgrace that he was prevented from attending the debate. NBC justified their actions by saying that Gravel had failed to meet the minimum funding requirements of one million dollars; however, the debate should be a platform for candidates to get their message to the voters, and it is not NBC's place to decide who is worthy of that platform. The Iowa Caucus and the primaries, where the American people vote, is the proper way to decide who is a serious contender.
For the candidates that were invited by NBC, they took a serious stand against Hillary Clinton, and even took a few shots at Republican candidates Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney. There were many excellent ideas proposed by the candidates, and for most there was a willingness to address the issues and speak directly about their ambitious plans for education, healthcare, and foreign policy. It is almost 2 months away from the Iowa Caucus, and voters must recognize that the change that America needs isn't just to the Democratic Party. America needs to reject the corruption and corporate influence that is all too visible in both parties.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Barack Obama 2008
posted 11/02/07 @ 12:24 AM EST
Edwards I think has realized that his only chance at being a major part of this election is if he is able to knock down one of the frontrunners in the democrat party. (Continued…)
Barack Obama 2008
posted 11/02/07 @ 1:46 AM EST
Edwards I think has realized that his only chance at being a major part of this election is if he is able to knock down one of the frontrunners in the democrat party. (Continued…)
Post a Comment