The old adage that 'money talks' has never been spoken more truly than in US politics. As a 32-year long Democratic supporter and former staffer for congress and a president, a relic from the days of grass-roots campaigning when the Democratic candidate was always beholden to working people, not corporations, this development saddens me. Truly, until we get Big Money out of our elections, 'change' and 'hope' are simply marketing slogans.
I like Barack Obama, and would vote for him in a general election, though I consider him a show horse as opposed to a war horse, which is what I believe the Democrats must ride into the White House on if they are serious about changing our corrupt political system in any meaningful way. But in the end, the voters will decide, and just as corporations sell US consumers new cars and ever-bigger flat-screen TV's by flooding the airwaves with commercials to convince us that we cannot live without their product; just as Wonder Bread and Budweiser are the pre-eminent brands in their respective market niches, voters will most likely be sold a corporation-approved candidate in 2008.
As I have repeated over and again, I am a Gore supporter who will vote for John Edwards, NOT because I consider him a paragon of virtue, but because he is the closest thing we have to a true Democrat in the race. You see, unlike Ted Kennedy, I am not fighting a political war to keep the Clintons from retaking the Democratic Party, so I can afford to directly support the candidate who hasn't raised tens of millions of dollars from the corporations that are undermining not only working class Americans, but democracy itself.
That said, I am very moved by Barack Obama's stirring rhetoric, and I argue over and again with my elderly family members who can't imagine a black man in the White House that Obama IS NOT a danger to them and HE CAN win against a republiscam, though perhaps not as easily as Edwards. In fact, the idea that we have finally overcome the shadow of doubt that makes us wonder whether we truly believe that all are created equal, is thrilling to me. I almost tear up to think that with one election we can move on past the racial divide that has kept us from fully realizing the promise of our Constitution: that freedom is for everyone and justice plays no favorites.
But then I think about how Obama came to Washington 3 years ago, how corporations were putting millions of dollars into his 'HopePac' before he was even elected; money which he subsequently doled out to Congressional Democrats and candidates. Tammy Duckworth, a Ram Emmanuel/pro-war candidate was one such recipient of Obama's largesse. It helped her defeat Chris Cegelis, the grass-roots/net-roots anti-war candidate. It helped Joe Lieberman defeat Ned Lamont, giving Joe thousands of dollars and a much-needed boost in his race against the anti-war candidate.
Yes, it is true that HRC has a $95 million leadership PAC that was almost twice as large as Obama's, and that she has bought the vote, I mean support' of even more Congressional Democrats and Super delegates, with that corporate money, but nobody ever claimed that the Clintons were against lobbyists and corporations.
I urge Kossacks to read a 2006 article in Harper's Magazine entitledObama INC. The article is basically positive for Obama, but it does document a curious affinity he has for corporate largesse and the corporate agenda.
"[Historically] Senators were creatures of their states and reflected the cultures of their states. Today they are creatures of the people who pay for their multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. Representative democracy has largely been taken off the table. It’s reminiscent of the 1880s and 1890s, when senators were chosen by state legislatures who were owned by the railroads and the banks."
Obama keeps bragging that he takes no money from PACs, but the truth is, HE IS A PAC!
Accordingly, as corporate money has grown increasingly important to candidates, we have seen the rise of the smothering K Street culture and the revolving door that feeds it—not just lobbyists themselves but an entire interconnected world of campaign consultants, public-relations agencies, pollsters, and media strategists.
All of this has forged a political culture that is intrinsically hostile to reform.
Still, I don't believe that Obama is in any way personally dishonest or corrupt, even though the article documents that he employs anti-union lobbyists to raise the funds for his HopePac--it seems that politicians in general receive more money from corporate donors if they hire staff who have expertise in ruining the lives of working families. Rather, I believe he is bent on winning, that he has a large, healthy ego, and a true desire to change the world. But the soaring rhetoric about changing the tone in Washington appeals more to voters and pundits who have consistently been anti-progressive in the past 20 years.
Does it strike anyone but me as strange that NOW as the repuglyscam coalition is coming apart at the seams and their corrupt little party is almost over, NOW the corporate media and the corporate Congressional shills are extolling the virtues of compromise, sitting down at the table with us NOW THAT THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE! That is what Obama is selling us, folks, with their blessing!
John Edwards was part of this corrupt system for 6 years. He probably made a political calculation NOT to take corporate $$ because he needed to differentiate himself in some meaningful way from the 2 'historical' candidates, who had no monetary constraints. But his fidelity to populism should have no bearing on my fidelity to it. Populism will always be the underdog; that is its strength and weakness. We who support it do so NOT simply to win, but because to do otherwise makes victory meaningless.
That is the corporate strategy: to make victory meaningless by buying up both sides of the equation. It comes as no surprise that corporations use iconic figures, heroes of popular culture such as Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods, to sell us cars and flat-screen TVs. At the conclusion of the Harper's article the true face of 'change' is revealed by, of all people, a D.C. lobbyist:
On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a "player." The lobbyist added: "What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?"
NOTE: This diary is updated from a previous diary.