I dare anyone who supports Hillary Clinton to defend the statement she says at the end of this video.?

Question

I am not an Edwards supporter by any means, Right now Im supporting Gravel, and If it comes down to it my vote will be casted for Obama.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1LY0AqYXZC4

You can fast forward through this video to about the 0:45 mark, then she starts talking, and it just gets worse.

And then, the ultimate proof, straight from the horses mouth, that Hillary Clinton will destroy are contry. right at 2:07.

Someone, Tell me how she is ahead in the polls.

I have made a mistake, I accidentally mixed up Are and Our, I am very sorry.

Actually think about what she said,

Lobbyist represent the people

NO THEY DON'T!!!!!!

Answer 1

She's ahead because of the money from corps that want to sway her vote in their favor. Money talks and it gives her the power to buy TV time, talk shows, ads, etc. Which boils down to.... say it enough times it must be true. Its called brainwashing and a lot of people are easily brainwashed. If that were not so, she would not be ahead in the polls.
But then Edwards is a joke, also. If you believe he gives a crap about the poor people, then he's brainwashed you also.

Answer 2

In theory, she is correct. You CAN take money, and not be influenced by the giver. Furthermore, in theory, there ARE lobbies which support nurses, or teachers, or firefighters, or what have you.

In reality, I would say it's a bit naive to believe the ideals that 1) money doesn't buy time, and 2) all lobbies are equally represented. Now, I don't think Senator Clinton is naive at all about this issue, but I also do think she is strong enough to not be beholden to people who give her money....

...it just means people'll stop give her money. And then, when push comes to shove, she'll have to make the choice herself: money, or independence.

That's the irony of it all: if a person is truly independent, and is not swayed by lobbyist money, then the lobbyist money'll dry up, as they can easily buy off less scrupulous people, and it won't be a matter of choosing whether or not to accept it, you just won't get it.

Secondly, not all lobbies are equal. By any means. The oil, gun, tobacco, defense contracting industries have such wide profit margins, they can AFFORD to pay a K Street lobbyist 100 grand a year to push their agenda. A person (or maybe multiple persons) whose sole job is to schmooze people on your behalf. Can you imagine nurses having the resources to do that? Or teachers?

Or factory workers?

Or janitors?

And again, the irony of it is that those industries have such wide profit margins, because they're given subsidies, or tax breaks, or what-have-you because......DING DING DING....they've got the best, most heard lobbyists. It's a self perpetuating cycle.

I support Hillary because I believe that A) not only is she the most qualified candidate, but B) she lives in reality, but still has that idealist core at heart (no matter how much you Edwards/Obama, and lol, Gravel people think she's got no soul). I think the same was true of Bill. They had/have ideal goals, but they realized the limitations within which they were working in. Something that Edwards and Obama lack (and maybe Biden is more like Hillary in this way), is a knowledge that idealism by itself DOES NOT WORK. There must be a framework, a structure within which it operates. I trust her not to be overly influenced by lobbyist money. Or by the wrong lobby's money, at least.

Don't they teach philosophy and political science at school any more?

Answer 3

I agree with your question. I also agree with the post that said people who say they don't take money from lobbyist are liars. They should do something to get rid of lobbyists buy you can fight without money...

To Elway_the_Cat:
You have to understand that lobbyists, through campaign contributions pick certain personality archetypes. Whether she votes along her own lines or not is not the issue. The issue is that lobbyists control who can support and run an effective campaign. The people who are able to run for office should ideally not be chosen by lobbyists with their agendas.

Answer 4

What on earth am I supposed to defend? That she hasn't let lobbyists steer her vote in their direction? Okay, I'll defend that, the same way she did. In the debate last night, after thinly veiled attacks on her throughout the evening from Obama and Edwards about lobbyist money, she finally asked either one of them to please give one example where her vote has reflected the wishes of the lobbyists who contributed money to her campaign. You know what she got from those two? Silence. Neither one of them could come up with one example.

I listened to the whole thing twice and I fail to hear the fatal moment when she proves she will - what was that? - DESTROY our country. Please, if you don't mind, point out exactly what you are referring to. Could you Hillary Haters be any more exaggerational and irrational when it comes to her?

I don't need to tell you how far ahead she is in the polls, you already know it. That you don't like it is your problem.

EDIT:

rickpeet:

I understand that about lobbyists, but thanks for the tutorial
;-). The problem is that this is NOT what they are calling her on the carpet for. They are calling her on the carpet for taking money from lobbyists that she will then favor with her votes. THAT is what their beef is, and that is what she was defending herself against - the suggestion that she would show special favoritism to the lobbyists who contributed to her campaign. NOT the basic fact that lobbyist money controls the election. Edwards and Obama know that, it's one of the reasons they are so po'd and trying to suggest she's going to play ball with those lobbyists.

Answer 5

She's ahead in the polls because your hero Bill Clinton runs the democrat party.

Answer 6

Anyone that says they will not take money from lobbyists is a liar. So what is your point? And if taking money from lobbyists of any kind will destroy our country, we would have been gone already. To me that is no worse than Bush taking money from big oil.

Answer 7

Can't watch it here at work. Just answering so I can find your question easily when I get home. I'd really like to see it.

Answer 8

"""Now, I don't think Senator Clinton is naive at all about this issue, but I also do think she is strong enough to not be beholden to people who give her money...""

Alokpinto, look up a few names... such as Marc Rich, Johnny Chung, Liu Chao-Ying, Peter Paul, Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, Almon Glen Braswell, Carlos Vignali

Answer 9

So youd vote for dumb and not dumber? Good work!