Most U.S. politicians run parallel campaigns: one public for non-corporate voters concerned with non-corporate litmus tests (abortion rights, church and state, minority rights, gun control, immigration, environment, etc.) and one private for corporations dependent on the government for work, approval or property (defense contracts, financial regulation, foreign aid contracts, transportation infrastructure contracts, energy regulation, import/export approval and tariffs, farm subsidies, media use of public-owned airwaves, healthcare regulation, etc.).
Like most Republicans, some national Democrat politicians mainly represent corporate interests and count on cynically manipulating constituents’ reliance on non-corporate litmus tests. In this sense, blue-state voters not weighing corporate cronyism are like red-state voters since both blindly support corporate-crony politicians who pass a few non-corporate litmus tests.
Though I value "litmus issues" and donated money to some groups promoting and defending litmus views I share, these issues increasingly seem less important as corporations tighten their grip on our government.
Corporations are the de facto government of the United States:
They direct our troops (Marine General Smedly Butler’s confession, "War is a Racket," still applies) and tax revenue. Corporations dictate tax law, industrial pollution limits and penalties, transportation systems (roads over rail), energy policy, monetary policy, credit and bankruptcy law, other civil law, healthcare options, mass media content, mass food supplies and foreign aid (3rd-world countries can have aid as long as they use it to award big contracts to a few U.S. corporations; read "Confessions of An Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins).
But at least we can have abortions and carry pistols. Yippee. Something for both blue and red state non-corporate voters.
Corporations have picked H. Clinton as their Democrat. Her contribution sources prove this. You tally corporate votes by counting corporate contributions. A mere human citizen gets one vote and rarely contributes money. Corporations vote with large contributions of money and perks (use of private jets, etc.) and wield mighty advertising and media influence. Corporations no doubt will gladly endorse any Republican candidate but Ron Paul, and they hope to present voters with their favorite Dem and Repub packaged in non-corporate issues for mass consumption.
The issue of a woman president is overblown and a distraction from the issue of corporate control. The last thing we need is yet another corporate crony, male or female. Regarding woman politicians, California Representative Barbara Lee and Senator Barbara Boxer are not corporate cronies as far as I can tell. California Senator Diane Feinstein is a mild one. Condoleeza Rice and Kathleen Harris are full-blown cronies (Chevron named an oil tanker after Rice for crying out loud, or rather, for not crying out loud). In the context of modern politics, male-v.-female is a red herring.
One of my associates is an H. Clinton fanatic from the original N.O.W. generation and cares little about corporate issues. She’s completely fixated on getting a woman elected and sends gushing emails with photos of her and H. Clinton together at fundraisers. I’m younger, and to me H. Clinton is an extra-smart pro-choice moderate corporate-crony Republican pushing an HMO-enriching healthcare system.
B & H Clinton are incredibly bright and tough, and like B., H. is a skilled corporate crony, as shown by her coddling of Murdoch and corporate lobbyists. With Clinton, 2008 may be reminiscent of 2000 when many Dems voted for a 3rd-party candidate because of exasperation with corporate cronies in both parties. If Clinton wins the nomination, I'll consider writing in my favorite and may change my lifelong Democrat registration to Independent or something else (even if I end up begrudgingly voting for Clinton). I mean, come on! H. Clinton is obviously more than smart enough to have known the truth about Iraq but still voted for war because she subjugated and subjugates her sparkling intelligence and unremarkable moral compass for positive spin and power, similar to Bush, Rice, Rove and Harris (that’s boy, girl, boy, girl, but really all the same).