The Politics of Hopelessness

"You were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart." - Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, 1/22/08

The exchange lasted about 3 seconds -- if you flipped the channel for a moment, you might have missed it. That was the amount of time the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president spent talking about the corporate takeover of our government -- the issue that almost singularly drives American politics and that is at the core of our country's most fundamental problems.

Clinton, of course, declined to address this part of her past - the part where she helped direct Wal-Mart, arguably the most efficiently rapacious, environmentally destructive, and anti-worker creation in all of human history. She cynically parried by mentioning a campaign contributor of Obama's who has been in some legal trouble - as if we are expected to forget the name Norman Hsu, much less Clinton's status as the top recipient of health industry cash in the entire Congress - Republican or Democrat. And thanks to moderator Wolf Blitzer, the debate was quickly shifted to topics less uncomfortable for the corporate media like, say, how Barack Obama voted "present" in one half of one percent of his votes as a state legislator in Illinois. The horror.

Later in the debate, when John Edwards gave perhaps the most eloquent answer of all on a question about poverty, Clinton tried to one-up everyone by saying "when I graduated from law school, I didn't go to work for a law firm. I went to work for Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund." Yes, folks - forget about her time at Arkansas most powerful corporate law firm. Forget that she ignored potential conflicts-of-interest to serve at that corporate law firm even as her husband was governor of the state. Forget her role helping build Wal-Mart into the monster it is today. Forget even her sitting by and cheering as her husband's administration - which she now overtly asks voters to re-embrace with her candidacy - rammed NAFTA and welfare reform through Congress, throwing millions of people into poverty. Yes, just remember that for a few moments right out of college, she worked at a non-profit.

This is truly the politics of hopelessness - a politics mastered by a Clinton machine deft in all the dark arts of corruption and demagoguery.

It is a machine fueled by tens of millions of dollars of corporate cash from moneyed interests looking for the kind of candidate who appears on the cover of Fortune magazine and laughs at workers who were crushed by Clinton administration policies.

It is a machine that is all too happy to champion a former president who, according to today's Wall Street Journal, is happy to personally pocket $20 million windfall from a well-connected crony.

It is a machine headed by a candidate who pushed the country into war, yet a candidate happy to attack an opponent for not opposing the same war more strenuously.

It is a machine only too thrilled to use innuendo to play the race card.

It is a machine, in short, that is ready to once again prioritize the ugliest impulses of two dynasty-seeking egomaniacs using vapid soundbites ("I'm a hand's on leader") and intelligence-insulting slogans ("Delivering Real Change") to run "over the dead bodies" of Americans hoping for something different.

Comments

[OtayPanky]

David - You correctly identify the ROOT problem of our so-called two party system: both parties are bought and paid for by corporate entities.

That does add an air of hopelessness to the process.

Until one party - obviously the dems - renounces corporate sponsorship and chooses to become the party of the people, we will continue to suffer, and to cause suffering to others.

Please keep speaking truth to power.

[Idytme]

Mr. Sirota, I have a lot of respect for you, but I disagree with how you have presented this article.
Fair is fair - and the biggest news out of this debate for me was Obama's vote on the limit of 30% for interest. It seemed to even catch Edwards by surprise, he voted not to have a cap?
Here is a great article on Dailykos about exactly what this is all about.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/22/277/50113/463/440933
The 2005 bankruptcy vote was a big deal to me. It was a big deal to progressives. Most Americans didn't know it passed, much less what it was all about, thanks to the news media.
What I have been noticing lately is that progressives have been giving Obama a gigantic huge pass in the last months, when Obama has the most right leaning economic plan and health plan, is using the most right wing talking points and has said that as President his method of operation will be to negotiate with the republicans for a middle ground - this when we might have a 2/3 majority (or close) in the Senate.
No one has even called him out for admiring Reagan's radical trajectory while not giving one of his own. Forget about how anyone characterizes his Reagan comments, what is the New Big Vision that Obama is giving the Democratic party? Hope? Negotiating more with republicans? Really what is it? Haven't progressives been upset with Clinton for being too centrist?
And Obama voted FOR your big issue - the Peru trade agreement, even though the environmental and labor agreements had no teeth and had the progressives screaming.
The only true progressive is Edwards, but realistically he is not going to win. Progressives need to take just as sharp of a look at Obama as they have at Hillary Clinton.

[thicky]

Good criticism.

When I read some that say the criticism of the Clinton-machine's sleazy tactics are unfounded because it's only "politics", one must say yes but it is a dirty, divisive, and dishonest kind of politics.

It seems the appeals the Clinton campaign makes to vote for her are because she is a woman(feminist) and you are a woman(feminist) too, vote for her. This is negated by the common knowledge that the easiest way to cheat, scam, or fool someone is to use a frontperson of the same gender/race/ethnicity as the mark/voter. Don't be fooled by appearances.

Then there's vote for her because you are too busy or ignorant to recognize the tactic of simplistic lies and coded racial appeals spread by allies in the corporate media to smear your opponent. One thing Clinton did, like Bush did to Gore, was to misinterpret him to the point of a lie, an opponent's complex arguments or discussions, like where Obama's complex Reagan analogy about galvanizing an electorate is reduced to Obama likes Reagan so Obama will ape policies.

and if Bill Clinton is viewed as just a spouse like Hillary Clinton said in the last debate then his dishonest attacks must be looked on as just an outspoken(crazy) relative. However, if he is the President who confers 'experience' on her, not only is "he's just a spouse" a lie but a becomes a direct part of the Clinton campaign. Who are we voting for? Bill Clinton or Bill Clinton's Wife?

The basest appeal of the Bill Clinton's Wife/Bill Clinton/Chelsea 'monicalewinskykryptonite' Clinton's campaign performances are to a cult of personality. An appeal to the primitive need of some people for a tribal leader to worship. Bush worship or Clinton worship, what's the difference?

[freespeach]

More truth from David Sirota!

Corporate power, corporate corruption and corporate influence in government are taboo topics for the new corporate (DLC controlled) Democratic party.

The exclusion of Dennis Kucinich from the process has NOTHING to do with support numbers, and EVERYTHING to do with his truth telling on these issues.

I am pleased to see Edwards try to shift the debate, and I hope he does it more often and with more bluntness.

We know we can count on you Mr. Sirota, to continue with honest relevant writing. Thanks.

[altohone]

The truth about the Clinton's is finally getting some air time (though the corporate media has focused on the spat rather than the substance unfavorable to Hillary).

The Clintons DLC corporatism and Bush enabling helped create the mess we are in.

We can do better than the business as usual ugly power politics and Bush-lite policies.

[MadMadWorld]

Some of you are being extremely annoying with this the clintons are the anti-christ BS.

Hillary is taken to task for every indiscretion of hers and of her husbands, from the time of their birth, but with the other candidates we must all forget their past mistakes, their past votes or non-votes and simply take them at their word.

Edwards has good ideas but he never tried to help any of the poor people he is now suddenly seeing when he was in the Senate.

Obama has never met a controversial bill he couldn't avoid and votes right along with everyone else on every other bill.

If past is proplogue the only one who has gone to the mat for something is Hillary Clinton and it was Universal Healthcare.

Let's keep some perspective here. When Bill was in the White House she was accused of being a co-president, now it's convenient she is told she was merely seating next to him and can't claim the experience. Of the three candidates left, she has been in the Senate the longest so has the most experience.

On all issues discussed thus far she has the best knowledge and grasp of the issues and a detailed plan to address them.

So she can't walk on water or smile and make the sun come out, but quit the BS piling on.

This is begining to look like you all receive an email, everytime she does better than your candidates that you all should attack her to turn her win into a loss (kinda like the MSM did with Gore and Bush).

Why not just advise your candidate to brush up on facts so they can do better next time around?

[MissFortunate]

I'm under forty and I support John Edwards. David hasn't come out to endorse anyone, but he's been an amazing advocate for the courageous stands that John is taking in this election. Edwards was right when he said that talking about poverty may not garner the most votes, but it is the right thing to do.

Thanks David for continuing to champion the moments when John Edwards takes us back to the issues at hand and reminds us that this is a three person race. Edwards continues to make me proud of my choice to support his nomination.

[Clinton]

Good post, apt title. That's the strategy, get everyone to buckle under to the corporations, make them grateful for every little morsel that falls off the table. Convince the public that justice is a pipe dream.

[LeftRight]

Let's give Hillary the benefit of the doubt here. I don't know when she was on hte board, but I do know that early on in the Clinton Arkansas years, Walmart was, in fact, a good company. Sam Walton, when he was in charge, paid his employees, provided for his employees, sold mostly union made American products, and made sure that his company gave back to the country that allowed him to prosper. Toward the end of his life, he passed the company on, and it started to change. Now it's one of the most dangerous organizations in the US, since it has gone out of its way to forbid unions in its stores, it doesn't sell union made American goods, and it pays its employees slave wages. And then fires them when they look to better themselves against it.

[usna73]

You are wise beyond your years. I hope you are pushing those under 40 to get out and vote.

Clinton needs to get off the stage. They are so crafty and duplicitous.

OBAMA '08