RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Yee-haw
October 18, 2007 10:06 AM
So later this month, according to THIS INVITATION, the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is holding a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the end of this month….
..but she's holding it in Washington, DC….
…at a lobbying firm…
… and specifically, though it's not mentioned in the invitation, at the lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs…
…which just so happens to lobby for the controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto.
You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and "outrageous" pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred "Superpig."
…A company that the website "Ethical Investing" labels "the world's most unethical and harmful investment."
Holding an agri-summit in the plush halls of the lobbyists for Monsanto doesn't sound like the kind of "rural Americans" a presidential candidate would necessarily want to be photographed with.
Particularly if Clinton's two primary opponents -- former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. -- don't take money from lobbyists and are trying to depict the frontrunner as too much a part of the corrupt Washington system, lobbyists, corporate America, et al….
But then again, it doesn't say Clinton will attend this luncheon -- just senior staffers and congressional endorsers! (Is that better or worse?)
Response from the Clinton campaign to come….
But what do you think?
-- jpt
UPDATE: An Edwards supporter sends along this cover of the Raleigh News & Observer showing the Carolinian -- by contrast -- "Get(ting) his Boots Dirty as he Woos Rural Voters," per the headline.
UPDATE 2: Clearly the Edwards campaign reads this blog.
Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis just issued a statement saying:
“While John Edwards was in rural Iowa yesterday talking about his plans to help family farmers, the Clinton campaign was in Washington, DC planning an event with the lobbyists from the biggest corporate agriculture company in the world. The difference between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton could not be more clear. Here’s some news for the Clinton campaign, when folks in rural Iowa talk about the problems with hog lots, they don't mean parking lots on K Street.
“John Edwards believes family-owned farms are critical to America’s future and that the corporate greed that’s killing the family farm is hurting America. Apparently, Hillary Clinton doesn’t feel the same way. While John Edwards has introduced policies to ensure family farmers can compete against big agribusiness, protect the food we eat and preserve farming communities, Hillary Clinton, beholden to Washington lobbyists, is tailoring her rural policy to reflect the needs of big agribusiness. While corporate America and lobbyists may want someone like Clinton in the White House, regular Americans are ready for someone who will stand up for them and fight for real change.”
Ouch.
UPDATE 3: Phil Singer with the Clinton campaign points out that Fortress Investments, the hedge fund Edwards used to work for, has invested in Monsanto. And one of Edwards’ top advisors, Peter Scher, is the managing partner for Mayer Brown, a firm that lobbies for Monsanto.
Singer says: "When Edwards was in the Senate, he frequently split from Hillary and supported the views of corporate agribusiness over family farms."
Singer adds, "In 2004, John Edwards said 'If you are looking for the candidate that will do the best job of attacking the other Democrats, I am not your guy.' But he’s become that guy now that his 2008 campaign has stalled."
October 18, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (39)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Dawn: Your points are well-taken, but they are not evidence that Tapper's story is not worthwhile; rather they are evidence of how ridiculous the event is.
You are correct that Clinton has been successful in winning over rural upstate voters who initially rejected her. That being the case, why have some ridiculous, contrived event like this one?
Harkens back to Bush Sr's "Message: I care."
Posted by: DKNY | Oct 18, 2007 2:35:24 PM
cordelia525 - California Rolling Blackouts were started in the Clinton term, and it is not the Federal Governments fault, it is California's.
Stop Blaming Bush,
Dawn - Clinton won because the City not Rural NY and also the fact no strong Republican went up against her.
DKNY - Wow I agree with you.
Carol - True but one problem is she was President when Bill was suppose to be. as recently reported she would demand Bill to do things.
Carla - Correction she is a Socialist!
Linda D Bryant - Yes America will elect an African-American but one that is qualified far more then Obama. See I would like to see Rice or Steele run. and she is far from a Republican
Hank - Would you say the same if it was Pres. Bush
Jake Getting better, but you need some blogs about Hilary and her connections to the Socialist teacher she had and her leanings.
Posted by: spock | Oct 18, 2007 2:19:12 PM
lol dkny.
i think everyone should have their own personal Common Sense Arbiter ,especially considering the tone/content of most of the posts i read on the news blogs...
Posted by: bah | Oct 18, 2007 1:54:37 PM
Silly story. If Sen. Clinton had not held and planned to hold many events in rural America, if this was her entire plan for addressing the issues of rural America, if she hadn't wooed and twice!!! (once more than either Obama or Edwards) won over an entire region of famously skeptical rural Americans (in upstate New York), what a great point you'd have. As it is, I guess you've got a blog to get out.
Jake Tapper: do you ever secretly recognize that feeling in the pit of your stomach as you belch out yet another assignment, as the same one you had sophmore year of college as you tried to write a paper on Hamlet? The night before it was due? Without having read it? I had to listen to guys in that predicament go on and on in class and ... you don't want to know what I think.
Posted by: dawn | Oct 18, 2007 1:53:31 PM
ALEX H. - First of All she is nothing like Pres. Bush whos is an Honest and Respectable man who brought prestige back to the White House that the clintons torn down
Noe Truthfully is anyone surprised, See all Clinton knows is Word Games, and sadly people fall for it, she is a very corrupt individual, um so I guess thats why the Libs love her.
Posted by: spock | Oct 18, 2007 1:47:26 PM
I THINK AMERICA IS TIRED OF THE WORD CLINTON AS WELL AS BUSH AND WE HAVE TO TOO SMART TO OPEN THE WHITEHOUSE TO ANOTHER CLINTON. MORE YEARS OF THEM IS MORE YEARS OF TROUBLE FOR USA.
Posted by: H HARDING | Oct 18, 2007 1:28:51 PM
God help us if Hillary Clinton ever becomes President!!! I hope Americans will have better common sense because she will not be the President, Bill will be and do we want his type of foreign policy, not to mention his immorality back in the White House? I think not. I would rather vote for Mickey Mouse than vote for "Pill"ary Clinton.
Posted by: Isabel Truyol | Oct 18, 2007 1:13:52 PM
No one can ever change the policies of a company by just labeling them bad ... Monsanto is important to much of middle American and has made great progress in the last few years in cleaning up their act. Instead of making people bad and not talking to them, I think it is better to build relationships where dialog can be gained to promote change. Just because Edwards and Obama don't take money from lobbyist hardly means that they can promote needed changes in the way American companies work. I think they are both a little goofy about the whole thing.
Posted by: Hank | Oct 18, 2007 1:11:15 PM
Hillary Clinton continues to give me reasons not to vote for her.
She is nothing but a Republican wrapped up as a Democrat. Once you start accepting campaign money from so called
"special interest" groups, you become their puppet. I can't stand her, and I did not like or trust her husband.
Although I know this country will never elect an African-American man to the presidency--my vote is going for OBAMA.
Posted by: Linda D Bryant | Oct 18, 2007 12:30:44 PM
This is devastatingly embarrassing to the frontrunner. Being so absent-minded of the real issues to "rural Americans" is evidence of contempt for the nominating process. Some things may look fine on paper, but the campaign really must look at the big picture, of what all of this means.
Posted by: reyonthehill | Oct 18, 2007 12:00:27 PM
Who actually believes she supports average americans let alone rural americans - She is big city, big business and BIG TROUBLE if she is elected.
Posted by: Carla | Oct 18, 2007 11:57:52 AM
is anyone surprised? she's probably the biggest phony to run for president in a long time, if not ever. and that's saying something my friends.
Posted by: VAMan | Oct 18, 2007 11:56:05 AM
If Paris Hilton did this we would laugh. Since Hillary is doing it, we are supposed to feel stupid for not understanding how ingenious it is. This is just one more event where Hillary just does not get it. She is embracing the caricature that she has become. If you are not from New York City or Washington, then you don't know how to think, so get out of the way! :)
Posted by: Sean O'Brien | Oct 18, 2007 11:28:43 AM
I would bet that rural Americans are not Hillary supporters. Monsanto is not a rural American.
Posted by: Jerry | Oct 18, 2007 11:06:41 AM
What do I think? Arrogant and disingenuous! But then the Clintons obviously know something the rest of us don't since that seems to have worked for them for quite awhile now.
Posted by: stratula | Oct 18, 2007 10:56:02 AM
I cannot stand this lady so no matter where she appears to me she a waist of time.
I cannot believe I am saying this but rather have Bush then her in the White House because at the very least her husband won't be there again.
Everybody knows that once she's in there he will be President again. That is one way to become President again by coming in the back door.
Posted by: Carol | Oct 18, 2007 10:55:36 AM
Great story Jake. Campaign finance isn't sexy, but it matters and it's underreported. Bush staffed his bureacracy with the industry reps who got him into office and look where that got us: rolling blackouts in CA and lead in children's toys, to name just a few of the most egregious examples.
Posted by: cordelia525 | Oct 18, 2007 10:48:19 AM
and what do you expect from a Clinton?
Posted by: webmaster08 | Oct 18, 2007 10:46:13 AM
The venue is as insulting and ridiculous as the name of the event, "Rural Americans for Hillary." I'm sure those "Rural Americans" will be proud to be so "honored."
Each campaign should have a Common Sense Arbiter. This event would not have passed muster.
Posted by: DKNY | Oct 18, 2007 10:31:30 AM
Post a comment
