Sure, Democrats will argue, as the 2008 selection closes in, Hillary Clinton is less than perfect—but she’s better than the mob boss stand-in Rudy Giuliani or the Manchurian candidate, John McCain. In fact, we can bet the farm Democrats will once again take the blue pill, believing whatever they want to believe. Democrats will vote en masse, not unlike lemmings stampeding to the precipice, for Hillary or Obama, most likely Hillary as not so subtle indicators reveal she is the One.
Sure, Democrats will argue, as the 2008 selection closes in, Hillary Clinton is less than perfect—but she’s better than the mob boss stand-in Rudy Giuliani or the Manchurian candidate, John McCain. In fact, we can bet the farm Democrats will once again take the blue pill, believing whatever they want to believe. Democrats will vote en masse, not unlike lemmings stampeding to the precipice, for Hillary or Obama, most likely Hillary as not so subtle indicators reveal she is the One.
Ari Berman, writing for the Nation, attempts to whack Democrats out of their blue pill slumber, for all the good it will do:
"Her lengthy support for the Iraq War is Clinton’s biggest liability in Democratic primary circles. But her ties to corporate America say as much, if not more, about what she values and cast doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion. She is “running to help and restore the great middle class in our country,” Wolfson says. So was Bill in 1992. He was for “putting people first.” Then he entered the White House and pushed for NAFTA, signed welfare reform, consolidated the airwaves through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (leading to Clear Channel’s takeover) and cleared the mergers of mega-banks. Would the First Lady do any different? Ever since the defeat of healthcare reform, Hillary has been a committed incrementalist, describing herself as a creature of the “moderate, sensible center” whom business admires and rewards. During her six years in the Senate, she’s rarely been out front on difficult economic issues. Given her proximity to money and power, it’s not hard to figure out why she keeps controversial figures close to her—even if their work becomes a liability for her campaign."
Indeed, Berman is correct on all points, but none of this matters much to Democrats, as simply being Democrats reveals the depth and severity of their stepfordized condition.
Come the 2008 selection, when voters are allowed to vote for the selected, it will not matter Hillary Clinton attends Bilderberg meetings, along with Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, daughter of the SS officer Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld, “life member” David Rockefeller, fellow Democrats Dianne Feinstein and John Edwards, George Soros, Alan Greenspan, Melinda Gates, former World Bank loan shark James Wolfensohn, and no shortage of Council on Foreign Relations members, transnational corporate CEOs, international banksters, and other lovers of one-world government.
“Clinton’s rarely been the threat to the business community that many on the right typically allege,” Ari Berman continues. “She’s often partnered with Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist. In 2002 she backed a harsh position on welfare reform reauthorization that put her at odds even with conservative Republicans like Orrin Hatch. She persuaded her husband to veto the bankruptcy bill in 1997, voted for a similar version in 2001 and missed the vote in 2005, when Bill was in the hospital. She advocated weakening the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, telling Feingold to ‘live in the real world.’ Unlike Edwards and Obama, she accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists and corporate PACs.”
Of course, for Hillary and her corporate backers—including Rupert Murdoch, who is fond of throwing fund-raisers for Clinton—all of us must “live in the real world,” that is to say a one-world as envisioned by the WTO, IMF, Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank, the so-called global financial services sector, the entire neoliberal panoply of thievery, looting, fire sales, and other criminal aspects of the “market fundamentalist” religion.
Democrats want ever so much to believe—and that is why they overlook the fact a “bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm—the Glover Park Group—that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton’s campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons’ closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton’s economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay.”
Never mind the blue pill Democrats are steadily losing grip on that once hallowed ground known as the Great Middle Class. Instead, they are tilting toward the New Serfdom, enforced by a scientific dictatorship and monitored by panopticon industries.
Not to worry. Because there will be any number of placards to hoist and shiny balloons to unloose come 2008 at the Pepsi Center in Denver, never mind the venue or its all too appropriate name.
Ari Berman, writing for the Nation, attempts to whack Democrats out of their blue pill slumber, for all the good it will do:
"Her lengthy support for the Iraq War is Clinton’s biggest liability in Democratic primary circles. But her ties to corporate America say as much, if not more, about what she values and cast doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion. She is “running to help and restore the great middle class in our country,” Wolfson says. So was Bill in 1992. He was for “putting people first.” Then he entered the White House and pushed for NAFTA, signed welfare reform, consolidated the airwaves through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (leading to Clear Channel’s takeover) and cleared the mergers of mega-banks. Would the First Lady do any different? Ever since the defeat of healthcare reform, Hillary has been a committed incrementalist, describing herself as a creature of the “moderate, sensible center” whom business admires and rewards. During her six years in the Senate, she’s rarely been out front on difficult economic issues. Given her proximity to money and power, it’s not hard to figure out why she keeps controversial figures close to her—even if their work becomes a liability for her campaign."
Indeed, Berman is correct on all points, but none of this matters much to Democrats, as simply being Democrats reveals the depth and severity of their stepfordized condition.
Come the 2008 selection, when voters are allowed to vote for the selected, it will not matter Hillary Clinton attends Bilderberg meetings, along with Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, daughter of the SS officer Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld, “life member” David Rockefeller, fellow Democrats Dianne Feinstein and John Edwards, George Soros, Alan Greenspan, Melinda Gates, former World Bank loan shark James Wolfensohn, and no shortage of Council on Foreign Relations members, transnational corporate CEOs, international banksters, and other lovers of one-world government.
“Clinton’s rarely been the threat to the business community that many on the right typically allege,” Ari Berman continues. “She’s often partnered with Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist. In 2002 she backed a harsh position on welfare reform reauthorization that put her at odds even with conservative Republicans like Orrin Hatch. She persuaded her husband to veto the bankruptcy bill in 1997, voted for a similar version in 2001 and missed the vote in 2005, when Bill was in the hospital. She advocated weakening the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, telling Feingold to ‘live in the real world.’ Unlike Edwards and Obama, she accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists and corporate PACs.”
Of course, for Hillary and her corporate backers—including Rupert Murdoch, who is fond of throwing fund-raisers for Clinton—all of us must “live in the real world,” that is to say a one-world as envisioned by the WTO, IMF, Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank, the so-called global financial services sector, the entire neoliberal panoply of thievery, looting, fire sales, and other criminal aspects of the “market fundamentalist” religion.
Democrats want ever so much to believe—and that is why they overlook the fact a “bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm—the Glover Park Group—that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton’s campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons’ closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton’s economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay.”
Never mind the blue pill Democrats are steadily losing grip on that once hallowed ground known as the Great Middle Class. Instead, they are tilting toward the New Serfdom, enforced by a scientific dictatorship and monitored by panopticon industries.
Not to worry. Because there will be any number of placards to hoist and shiny balloons to unloose come 2008 at the Pepsi Center in Denver, never mind the venue or its all too appropriate name.
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following comment