Hillary Camp Responds To Trippi Blast

Comments (23)

Outside the beltway wrote on September 18, 2007 1:39 PM:

why don't you guys do some reporting and sneak a video camera into the event..

check out Jones Day's clients..

this is what edwards means by corporate democrats

http://www.jonesday.com/firm/clients/

RonK, Seattle wrote on September 18, 2007 1:50 PM:

Right. Trippi's an expert on looking good in Iowa. :|

james wrote on September 18, 2007 1:51 PM:

Oh my god, you mean this company serves FTD? Are we really going to make enemies with the Florist lobby?

Come on, it's 2007. Corporations are not evil - their full of progressives just like the rest of us. To stand back and say, "Evil Corporation! Evil Corporation!" is just juvenile. You can't change them all, but if enough progressives would get off their asses and work for a living, they might actually do more than just stand there with placards and be ignored.

I'm sick and tired of the corporate democrat schtick. Unless we can enact full on communism, we're always going to have corporations. We can either work to change them from the inside out or be ignored. I'll take the former thanks.

john mccutchen wrote on September 18, 2007 1:57 PM:

The lady doth protest too much methinks
Bush-Clinton-Bush-CLINTON?!?!?!!

Same old pigs...same old trough..same old slop

js wrote on September 18, 2007 1:59 PM:

Trippi is an expert on what? Name a subject that Trippi is good at. Oh I forgot Trippi is good at spending Dean's money.

Jeremy wrote on September 18, 2007 2:00 PM:

james, you are right that there will continue to be corporations. A corporation is a legal entity that is required by law to maximize shareholder value. We should not entrust corporations, therefor, with safeguarding the public interest. Nonetheless, corporations have disproportionate influence in government. Railing against corporations as evil is good red meat for Edwards campaign, but it is not a plan for government reform. Hillary seems to have no interest and certainly no track record in government reform. To reform our process so that we have more control Obama is the only candidate worth mentioning. Government reform has been at the center of his campaign and it has been the number one priority of his entire career as a legislator.

Anonymous wrote on September 18, 2007 2:03 PM:

According to clinton's people, all of the other campaigns are flagging.

NCSteve wrote on September 18, 2007 2:15 PM:

The issue isn't whether corporations are evil or whether rich people are morally deficient as a class. The issue is whether corporations, and the wealthy and powerful in general, have more influence over policy than is good for the commonweal.

The concentration of more than half the wealth of the country into the hands of less than 1% of the population, combined with the ongoing impoverishment of the bottom 50 or 60% is one of the two greatest dangers to our democracy we face. (The other danger being the risk of a terrorist nuclear bomb going off in a U.S. city.)

The snowballing rapacity of the hyper-wealthy in this country is following a depressingly recurrent historical pattern. Historically, once income inequality reaches a certain tipping point, the people at the top use the power that comes with their wealth to promote policies that further increase income inequality at an ever accelerating pace. The fact that this is contrary to their long-term self interest is invariably lost on them.

At a certain point, they either end up getting liquidated in a revolution or they turn to a tyrant to save them from that revolution. Which, in turn, is also self-defeating, because, like King Stork, such tyrants tend to end up dining on the very same rich people who put them into power.

Can anyone look at the last six years and not see that this is where we are now? Events like this one are a part of the problem.

js wrote on September 18, 2007 2:22 PM:

NCSteve: Ok, do you insurance for anything? Do you pay phone bills? Do you pay for any kind of servive? We do have corporations in this country. You think you or anyone else can eliminate ATT or Allstate?

NCSteve wrote on September 18, 2007 2:45 PM:

js,

What in the heck do your questions have to do with what I said in my post?

I do not want to get rid of corporations. I never said, or implied, or said anything from which it could be implied that I was against corporations.
Corporations, and other business entities that limit risk and provide a mechanism for capital formation, are essential to the functioning and success of a modern economy. And yes, they're absolutely entitled to a voice and to be heard in politics on issues that concern them.

My point was that income inequality is snowballing out of control and, ultimately that will be bad for everyone, regardless of income or wealth. How exactly you got from that observation to the apparent conclusion that I'm some sort of Bolshevik is quite beyond me.

D.K.C. wrote on September 18, 2007 2:46 PM:

Read Naomi Klein's new book "The Shock Doctrine." There are excerpts at The Guardian. Of course there are and have always been corporations. I have one. Edwards isn't anti-business, He's anti- crooked business and anti-bad business. Since 9/11, Klein talks about "Disaster Capitalism" that is being practiced in Iraq and in New Orleans. It's business that is built on taking tax payer money and using it to spy on us, to charge us when a disaster hits by offering rides out of flood zone, to pay for Blackwater in Iraq, to buy bulldozers for Halliburton. It's insidious and sneaked up on us, she said. It combines the information technology business with the spying business. It's corporatism which is a nice way of saying "facsism". It's an unholy marriage of big business and big government "to regulate and control the citizenry".

Will wrote on September 18, 2007 2:46 PM:

You can't change them all, but if enough progressives would get off their asses and work for a living, they might actually do more than just stand there with placards and be ignored.

Wow.

tarheel74 wrote on September 18, 2007 2:48 PM:

like I had commented on an earlier post, Edwards' campaign is one of demagoguery. Joe Trippi is only trying to do amends for his disastrous Dean campaign. But all in all we would do the democratic party a great disservice if Edwards won the primary. For an ultra-rich person to rail against corporations and sound like he is the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin is just plain hypocritical. The only candidate who has the credentials to be against big corporation is unfortunately not in the race.

oleeb wrote on September 18, 2007 3:43 PM:

Now tarheel74, it's understood you don't like Edwards but you're sounding pretty Republican when you write:

"For an ultra-rich person to rail against corporations and sound like he is the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin is just plain hypocritical."

That's precisely what they said about FDR---another good for nothin, pandering,
"hypocritical" demagogue who was nothing if not the prototype of "ultra-rich" and whose feigned compassion for the poor did the Democratic party a "great disservice." The same could pretty much be said about JFK, RFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton (who got rich by being in the White House), Jay Rockefeller, and a whole host of past and present Democrats who stood up to corporate power and for the poor. Right?

The only Democratic President I can think of in anything like modern times who WASN'T ultra-rich by everyday standards was Harry S. Truman. As for today's crop of potential Democratic candidates for President, none of them are living paycheck to paycheck---Certainly not Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton. Their income and holdings do not by any means make them hypocrites automatically when they talk about the poor or less fortunate (albeit they do so much less than Edwards does).

These days, nobody who isn't rich even gets to think realistically about running for President of the United States. The whole, "he's rich and so therefore is hypocritical" complaint is pretty lame and not just for Edwards, but for any Democrat.

You may not like Trippi either, but his criticism of Hillary's cozy relationship with "the powers that be" among lobbysists and corporations is without question fair game.

The criticism he makes is wrapped up in the whole issue of corporate influence in the Democratic Party. What the Edwards camp has done is shine a bright light on what most Americans consider a very shady, seedy, and ill-advised practice by politicians and I must say I like seeing such pressure brought to bear upon all those Democrats who sup with those who would screw the average American at the drop of a hat. This naturally makes the Clinton camp (in this case) and all the other allies of corporate interests in the Democratic Party uncomfortable to some degree.

Our party does not have to be anti-business in order to refuse to be a captive of corporate power. That's the whole point being made by Trippi (seems to me) and it's a damn good one IMHO no matter where or from whom it comes from.

kenga wrote on September 18, 2007 3:47 PM:

Come on, it's 2007. Corporations are not evil - their full of progressives just like the rest of us. To stand back and say, "Evil Corporation! Evil Corporation!" is just juvenile.

Other titles Hannah Arendt should have considered:
Eichmann at GE
Eichmann at Union Carbide
Eichmann at Exxon-Mobil
Eichmann at United Fruit
Eichmann at W R Grace

Too subtle?

Mike Hickerson wrote on September 18, 2007 4:27 PM:

"Eichmann at Union Carbide" ( who are STILL fighting against paying compensation to the survivors of Bhopal) Yikes. That nails it. It's not the corporation we are against, it's the misuse and malfeasance that the bad ones pursue in the same of profit. The ultimate goal for such a corporation is control of the government where it operates. This is classical fascism, and it really seems to fit the Bush administration bent. Hillary? I'm dubious. That's quite a reach, but the point is that there ARE Democrats who aspire to "broker" the party platform to accomodate corporate largesses. They call it the DLC, and Hillary is among their anointed. I'm a former member, who realized after several years that the third way talk is just smokescreen for this simple attempt to catch some of the dollars exchanged for influence.

How else can you explain every candidate, Democratic and Republican, proposing Health Care plans that continue to accomodate the swollen tick of the health insurance industry that is fixed on the health and general welfare of the people mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution?

johnd wrote on September 18, 2007 4:44 PM:

Attacking Edwards as a rich hypocrite is either calculated deception or ignorance.

Whenever the wealthy "liberal elite" card is played it cracks me up.

It's always some narrative like "he might say he's for the down trodden and the poor, but he can't be because look how rich he is!"

The readers are expected to not be able to string two thoughts together because the policies that liberals (rich or poor) espouse almost universally, make an effort to flatten out income disparity, ease the plight on the less fortunate and let the common man have a bigger voice in the political process.

John Edwards, Hillary, Barak and pretty much all the Dems agree on most of this stuff, but Edwards has a history of being a strong advocate for workers and the poor.

Obama's most recent policy declaring seniors making less than $50K tax free seems quite political to me. It's so far totallly unrepoted that I know of but it's very likely that it will let some very financially comfortable elderly keep a decent amount more of their money and provide very little relief to younger but less financially secure citizens.

I think it's fair to say that Seniors as a group vote in very high percentages and tend to vote on personal pocket book issues frequently. Seniors, who already don't pay alot of the the 15% (worker+ employer) payroll taxes younger wage earners pay (much of their income is largely non-wage like pensions, dividends annuity distributions, ss payments, & cap gains) also have the highest per capita net worth as an age group. I think the best way to help seniors in need is shore up social security and medicare with special attention to the less well to do elderly, not pass out blanket tax cuts that presumably would apply to the first $50K of earnings for ALL seniors, no matter many villas they own.

Edwards gets hammered for ligitimately making the case that Clinton is quite corporate. Obama gets a pass for pandering to a wealthy voting block.

DonnaG wrote on September 18, 2007 6:29 PM:

Thanks for the link and the Trippi memo. I will make my own copies of the description of Hillary's fundraiser to distribute in Iowa this fall, with a lead-in paragraph about the similarity between Hillary and Cheney kowtowing to 9/11 profiteers and doing it with similar nose-thumbing toward the common citizens.

Does Hillary now feels so secure in getting the nomination that she is carelessly blatant about inviting her corporate supporters to PAY HER to hob-nob with congressional committee chairs? Common folk need to learn about this, because this is beyond the pre-digested spin put on it by the like of Ben Smith who prefers that it just be about 'intramural conflict'.

tarheel74 wrote on September 18, 2007 7:31 PM:

I see all these Edwards fans here. Let me make my points why Edwards' criticism of corporations is misdirected. Firstly corporations are here to stay and unless he proposes a revolution it will not go away. So is globalization. People do not like a global economy but that is the ground reality...either you accept it or get left behind. The reasonable policy for any candidate would be to work with corporations more constructively. All corporations have a vested interest in shaping government policy but the trick is to work in a way that serves the interest of everyone. Without them where will people get employment? There are numerous corporate big wigs who have been doing genuine good. Bill Gates being one. He is not a bolshevik but he is prepared to accept a higher tax burden and also his track record as a philanthropist is exemplary. So antagonizing corporations is not the answer...why? because they control the purse strings of the nation. None of the presidents who have had a track record of doing something for the poor (why just the poor, everyone including the middle class) did so without antagonizing business interests (current administration aside, because they gave a free pass to the big business and rich people in general shafting everyone else).
Now what I have against Edwards is this: Tell me what exactly is his track record of helping the poor except giving speeches? He skipped out after his first term as senator and in effect gave up his seat to the Republicans. For the longest time he ran as a Southern moderate and even supported the war very vocally not because he believed in it but because it was more conducive to his presidential ambitions. Then he came back to the NC and began what was effectively his second presidential campaign. Granted all politicians with ambitions for higher office are like him but he behaves more holier than thou. His talking about poverty and anti-corporation is like Barack saying that he is from the 'hood (which he does not). Frankly none of the Dem candidates are beyond criticism or reproach. The only candidate who could have come and been really exciting is Al Gore but he says he will not run. So we are stuck with this lot. Edwards would have been much more appealing if he toned down his socialist rhetoric and talked like a realist.

john mccutchen wrote on September 18, 2007 8:52 PM:

* Clinton sees lessons in past failure

“Fools say that they learn from experience. I prefer to learn by other people’s experience.” Bismarck

colonpowwow wrote on September 19, 2007 8:59 AM:

Is Fortress Investment Group attending any of these Clinton fundraisers? Honestly, you can't even buy good loyalty anymore! Witness all of the 2004 corporate donors tipping the weight of their contributions to the Democrats this time. They must be hedging their bets or something.

And they're actually courting the front-runner Clinton now! And, she's actually taking the money!! Mercy, I think I'm getting the vapors. What kind of corporate capitalist society we running here anyway?

(Stilted segue-alert!)>> Speaking of hedging - Fortress is the company with the offshore hedge funds that Edwards went to work for after his miserable failure as the vice-presidential candidate on the 2004 Dem ticket (and after campaigning actively and often against such off-shore tax dodges).

I'd say that this is just another in a quite long string of Edwards' do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approaches to the hoi polloi (no elitism here, move along), but his supporters would just whine about how I'm just being negative - not emulating their gentle and focused approach to those other leading candidates favored by us idiots (ie: most Democrats).

I agree that it's probably poor form to keep jumping up and down on the deck of his Titanic campaign.

I'll stop now.

oleeb wrote on September 19, 2007 10:29 AM:

Thanks Colonpowow because your carping is really tiresome.

colonpowwow wrote on September 19, 2007 5:44 PM:

oleeb

If you call the poster a name and shrug your literary shoulders with resignation, you don't have to even address the issue of Edwards' laughable $400 haircut brand of populism.

Snark aside, my above post contained an error of fact exactly where?

Oh, and my 7th grade English textbook says it's "Hear, hear!", not "Here here."

You're welcome.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)