Political Punch

Good to see them mixing it up.

One has to wonder if this is connected to Hillary's (and Edwards') endorsement of GM food labelling, which was reported by the DesMoines register last week

It was obvious that Monsanto would never let them get away with this, so perhaps this hastily put together forum on 'rural America' sponsored by Monsanto's lobbyists will be the expected 'backtracking' on the issue. It will be interesting to watch...

This working woman will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton, if she won the primary, I'd vote for the republican.. and for me to say that, well, it shows how terrified I am of the prospect of a sham like her getting into office. Bush never would have been able to get away with so many of the things he has, had Bill Clinton not pushed through NAFTA, etc..

I'm voting Edwards in the primary, we should all hope he wins, because he is our last hope.

And in case anyone missed it, this is not the first time Shrillary has been found in cahoots with PR firms that are also representing firms running amok on taxpayer dollars in Iraq.

First Blackwater, now Monsanto. Does anyone know the name of the PR firm that represents Halliburton? Given the current pattern, he's bound to be scuttling around Clinton HQ somewhere.

OK then please explain why they had rolling blackouts in the 90's?

Because someone worked for a company that there were crooks in does not mean he is a crook. Also please keep in mind the crooks did not start during Bush's term, that is when they were caught, so this blaming Bush for his DOJ catching these crooks is pathetic, why was it ignored during Clinton.

It is a small world and the Political World is even smaller.

Dawn,
I respect your views. i just wanted to say I think it was unfair to thing that Mr Tapper is out of line by commenting on his own blog. He has every right to just as you have a right to start your blog and I promise you people may also comment on it. It is called the FREE WORLD. I appreciate your response to my comments but we should be OPEN enough to know that there is a right for free speech and the author of this blog is exercising that. I think you should talk to the HRC campaign about this issue of having lunches or fundraising at a lobbying firm. I am surprised that after all the comments about HRC accepting lobbyists money, her campaign would be damn enough to host an event at a lobbying firm. i genuinely dont think it is a non-issue, the issue of using a lobbying firms facilities by a presidential campaign especially on the democratic field. You know it is one thing for HRC campaign to put their heads in the sand and think this is a non-issue for american voters but it is another for its faithful supporters who know theis lobbying stuff will kill HRC campaign to go about pretending it is a non-issue. That is what we do with barackobama.com we let barack know where his campaign is wrong and they work to fix it. Maybe you can do that for HRC. The fact that Monsito hires thousands of workers does not always mean any ills associated with its effects on rural america can be ignored. Its like saying smoking shhould be encouraged among staff that work for tobacco companies, coz the tobacco companies employ them. Cmon. I rest my case

Okay, before I go, I couldn't resist this one: the Dawn (a Hillary-corp donor) vs fred thing. Dawn accused fred of calling her names. I re-read his post, and the only thing he called her was implying that she might be a Hillary intern. That's hillarious ('hillarious'--a word that has 'hillary' as its root, for good reason). Dawn just claimed being called a Hillary intern was an insult. I couldn't agree more.

Dawn, it's too bad Jake has a blog that people read, and you don't have one. But the internet is wide open. Why don't you start a blog? Then you can tell us all how great Hillary is for 'Rural America'--a place you might like to visit some day, unless Monsanto has bought it all up, at Hillary's request. While you're there, you might see a cow. Those are animals that Hillary claimed she didn't know anything about after that inside-info cattle futures investment scandal of hers was exposed by those darn journalists a few years ago. You might not remember that one, Hillary-corp fans--I'm sure that was a non-story to you, too.

fred:

I don't believe I questioned Mr. Tapper's right to have a blog -- I just pointed out what easy money it is for him to belch out his thoughts and create false controversies as long as he omits facts available to anyone capable of a 5- minute Google search.

I am certainly not an intern of Sen. Clinton's, nor am I in any other way officially connected to her campaign (of course, I donate to her campaign because I think that citizens should support the causes they believe in). I support Sen. Clinton because I believe that the facts and analysis indicate that she's the better candidate. If you disagree, then your remedy is show me why the facts I cite are wrong or incomplete and my analysis is flawed. Calling me names and making unsupported assertions about how "indoctrinated" I am won't keep me from commenting on the laziness of reporters or analytical flaws on their blogs, or anything with which I disagree in other postings. Speaking of rights, this site is open to everyone, but if you don't want to hear opposing opinions and feel "dominate[d]" when you do, then there must be sites that would suit YOU better.

This is the second time this week Hillary's campaign has really ticked me off. Someone from her campaign actually said that Hillary is the one listening to rural Iowa, and that Edwards should spend more time doing the same, instead of criticizing Hillary.

Except that's such nonsense! Edwards is out there in iowa all the time, talking to people in rural areas, places that Iowa's governers don't even campaign!
This is such a Karl Rove tactic that Hillary is campaigning with! Even if I am supporting Edwards, she is steadily losing my respect for her entirely.

While Hillary and Obama are spending millions on tv ads in Iowa, Edwards hasn't put out a tv ad in Iowa yet as far as i know. His idea of reaching out to rural America is talking to people. In person.

And here Hillary's idea of getting in touch with rural america is holding a lunch in DC for a monster of an agri-giant corporation. Sure, big corporations hire people, but this company is not in the buisness of supporting family farms.

Do not confuse these agri-giants with a company like General Motors--unlike them, their workers are typically not unionized. Edwards would stand with the unions. Here, Edwards stands with family farms. And family farmers lose their farms to these corporations.

Cargill is the one I've despised for a while--they are notorious, in the US and abroad--they only exist like this because family farmers have been losing money hand over fist, being forced to sell their farms to them. Kinda the way Wal-mart works to destroy small businesses but worse. And the government is not enforcing the laws these companies break, either in the US or overseas.

Oh, sure, this hedge fund gave money to this company, but guess what? Edwards no longer works there. Where's Hillary's money going? Apparently, to buy these people lunch...

Cmon dawn,
Anybody has a right to have a blog. If you dont feel that this blog is fair then spend more of your time in the hillaryclinton.com blogs that are highly vetted and scrutinized by clintonistas before anything is published unlike at barackobama.com. You see to dominate all the discussions about Hillary and it makes people think that maybe you are one of Hillary;s interns who have been so indoctrinated that they have been blinded to the evil side of Hillary. Of course Hillary has her pockets lined with lobbysts money and you will have to do a better job indoctrinating people wherever you go on the so called good sides of Clinton. Unfortunately for you most people have brains and will npt blindly follow what Hillary tries to say to suit her audience!

So let me get this absolutely straight. Jake Tapper blogs on the non-story of Sen. Clinton holding a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch in Washington at a lobbying firm. He speculates about how bad this is going to make her look next to Senators Edwards and Obama who don't take money from lobbyists, but take as much money as they can get from the people who hire lobbyists. (To be fair, in Sen. Edwards' case, he can't get very much.) He does mention this lobbying firm works for Monsanto. He does mention that Monsanto has legal problems in rural America. So we know that he's done some research.

He doesn't mention that Monsanto hires I'm sure literally thousands of "rural Americans," many of whom would not be thrilled if Monsanto moved itself out of "rural America," and into, say "rural China." So, not too much research.

And he certainly doesn't mention that John Edwards worked for Fortress Investment, which invests in Monsanto. Nor that (I believe), Sen. Edwards still has over half of his personal fortune invested in Fortress (please correct me if I'm wrong). Or that one of his advisors is a dreaded Monsanto lobbyist. So ..., exactly the amount of research needed to push the story-line that Sen. Clinton is for big business and John Edwards fights for the little guy.

And John Tapper gets to call himself a journalist and have himself a blog and everything. Not to mention people post comments telling him what a great "story" this is. Yes, I'm sure any day now Mr. Tapper will see fit to engage in some real journalism.

spock, Bush picked an Enron exec to head up FERC to ensure that the grid would go unregulated. Regulatory oversight would have prevented the worst of the blackouts. Watch Smartest Guys in the Room.

While the irony of holding a fundraising event for "Rural Americans" at the K Street headquarters of Monsanto makes for great copy, what I find most disturbing is that once again Clinton is using Members of Congress to getting money from lobbyists. What exactly has she promised these Members of Congress? How much campaign debt for them is she covering in exchange for these performances?

John Edwards has lost his lead in Iowa. Now that has to have him very frightened indeed.

And the more he and his wife trash Hillary, the better she does in the polls.

Warms my heart so it does.

John Edwards is now so desperate that he has become a daily hate-spewing machine. My family and I look forward to the final demise of his campaign.

To ch and Dawn....it is good to hear from Hillary supporters. I've rarely encountered them, even on the internet. The polls showing her in the lead don't translate into support--many people vote 'the lesser of eight evils', which she may turn out to be. That doesn't mean those voters support her. The polls that matter to me are the many polls that show Hillary with huge negative numbers--meaning millions and millions of people don't like her or don't trust her, even as some of them vote for her, with a sigh. She won't increase that trust level by holding a 'rural' support event at a plush, chic, D.C. lobbyist's living room and pajama lounge. I don't hate Hillary. I do laugh at her ineptitude--like holding this event. Mostly, I'm concerned about her deviousness, and her ties to the pork barrel industry. Pork is about as rural as she gets.

Spock:

Let me be more precise. Sen. Clinton won over enough upstate voters (she lost upstate by less than 10%) so that her win in NYC would be enough to give her the whole state. You can't win NY State if you lose upstate by a lot because that's where 45% of the people in NY State live.

In 2006, Senator Clinton won 58 of 62 counties. So, she didn't win re-election "because [of the] City. Also, in 2006, no strong Republican ran against her because she was such a formidable candidate everywhere in the state, including upstate.

DKNY:

Like it or not, winning the rural vote won't just mean winning the people. To win in rural America, Senators Edwards, Obama, or Clinton will have to figure out how to respond to the interests of big employers in the area. There's nothing unusual about that. You can't win in Michigan by ignoring General Motors.

DanielleClarke:

If you are a liberal independent who is angry at the Clintons because you feel they showed insufficient concern for the poor, Ron Paul is not your guy. He's a libertarian (who somehow manages to rationalize his opposition to choice). He would even outsource war, something that, until now, even the craziest conservative agreed was one of the government's (very few) core responsibilities.

Hey i am a liberal independent turned democrat for the primaries!!!

and i would
""NEVER EVER"" VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON.

At least with Bush we know what screwing we are getting unlike the results of the laws passed (1994 clinton crime bill + welfare to work without proper funding for moms + kids) or not passed (crack cocaine increased sentence) during the clinton administration which hurt single mothers and children and keeps prisoners in a revolving door which we tax payers pay over 20k a prisoner a year for while Slick willy and his privatized prison investors make a bundle off us all.

Besides we need to reinvestigate the clinton ties with Mena airport and the cocaine connections.

I would vote ron paul over hillary clinton any day.

However, i am going with intelligence and decency

GOBAMA

Lots of sour grapes here. The Hillary haters must be fuming at the success of her campaign. Poor Ken Starr must be on suicide watch! She’s polling above 50% for the democratic nomination which is amazing in a field of 8 candidates. Meanwhile, the GOP “frontrunner” Giuliani can’t even muster 30% amongst the weak GOP field.

Plus she’s raising more money than anyone reflecting the fact that many people are excited about her candidacy. Can’t wait for her to take the oath of office in 2009!