This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 7, 2008 8:12 AM. The previous post in this blog was Path of lease resistance. The next post in this blog is Calling NASA. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, January 7, 2008

Fat cats' favorite

It has been duly noted that the trial lawyers of America have thrown big money behind John Edwards.

Guess whom the big money corporate counsel are supporting.

Comments (11)

Corporare America doesn't vote with its heart. Right now, and for the past few months, it's become apparent that Obama is a viable candidate, which inevitably leads to corporate support. Unless you're running a "corporations are evil" Nader-type campaign, corporate America will get behind any front runner.

Thanks for the attempted spin, but that corporate money came a-pourin' in long before last week. B.O. was not the "front runner."

Of course the $20,600 given to BO by corporate counsel is *bit* less than the reported $4.5 million given thus far to JE by trial lawyers.

not "attempted spin," Jack -- I'm actually GOP and supporting either Giuliani or McCain. i couldn't give a rip whether Obama or Edwards gets the nod, so I'm not trying to spin anything. i think my point is somewhat bolstered by the fact that the article also points out the corporate counsel's donations to the GOP candidates have been minimal to date and much more evenly split, reflecting the fact that most people still don't know who is going to emerge from the pack. wait until after Super Tuesday on the GOP side, and the money will start to go to the front runner. And on the Democratic side, you can bet that if Hillary had actually gained traction this fall, she would be the leader in corporate counsel donations.

There isn't a single "real" contender at this point that doesn't have huge corporate support.

To me, pointing it out is like spitting in the wind. The whole system is broken, so pointing out that broken-ness in one candidate just means you didn't bother to point it out in all the other candidates.

The grand majority of the interests that owned the last president are going to own the next president, with exceedingly little variation.

It can be interesting to track but to me, in the end, a bit of a useless exercise.

ps: My candidate is Edwards as well.

"The whole system is broken" well said Bp.
It matters not whom gets elected The Financial interest, Corporate, has ownership of all.
So awfully sad the want-to-be's must grovel to us peons for our measly vote.

Obama = Viable candidate who can win the general election.

Clinton = Bad/evil person who will divide the country big time.

Edwards = Nice enough guy, would get slaughtered in the general election though.

Edwards = Nice enough guy, would get slaughtered in the general election though.

By whom?

In all honesty, I also feel like Edwards' worst competition is within his own party. If he won primaries (unfortunately doubtful) I think he'd have as good a chance as any of the dems of winning, which is real good. Real real good.

I'm always amused and saddened that pundits (usually conservative)continue to deride Edwards for being a trial lawyer. How predictable that pro-corporate/deregulation conservatives would go out of their way to assail labor unions, the ACLU, and trial lawyers... Edwards has internalized populist values and is obviously a threat. That being said, if he was the eventual dem nominee, corporate donors would grit their teeth and cut a check. The reality is, these guys will hedge their bets to avoid not putting some money on the winning horse.

Speaking of 'populism', I don't want to hear one more insane comment from the media that Huckabee has a populist message. Why, because he was a governor rather than a senator? Because he's 'folksy'? Remember what happened the last time we thought that was the most important quality for a candidate?

Clicky Web Analytics