- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
To Juneausmog,
There is nothing disingenuous about Edwards' charge that Hillary represents the status quo. It's actually disingenuous of Hillary to suggest that just because she wants to uproot Bush and change much of what he's done suffices to be a 'change' candidate and not part of the status quo. There are plenty of cases of upheavals in governance, anywhere, which lead to "change" that is more like shifting chairs on the Titanic.
Edwards' campaign has signaled from the start that this is about once and for all, finally finally, ending the stranglehold that Big Money has on our government. If we can finally cut the knot that has our politics endebted to special interests, THAT would be change. Then we could finally and consistently get matters through legislation and signed into law which are not hamstrung by Big Money (Big Oil, Big Media, Big Auto, Big Whoever - the corporations who play Washington like a puppeteer).
And Hillary long ago made her choice -- and has defended it in this campaign -- to accept the fruits of Big Money herself, to take lobbyist money and to defend lobbyists, the very people who by profession seek to put a stranglehold on meaningful legislation and manipulate executive actions to favor themselves and disfavor the average consumer and voter. It was in that context - one which has played out throughout this campaign -- that Edwards drew upon in calling Hillary part of the status quo. The status quo is far bigger than just George Bush. It is anyone who would come into office and still bring with them a beholdenness to the money that got them there.
She defended herself last night and the Clinton Presidency as having been 'change agents' because of how they stood against big interests to change the tax structure and right the economy. True enough. But in just as many ways, Bill Clinton also caved to those Big Money interests and in ways Hillary seems immersed in repeating, alas. For me, the most classic example was his signing of the Telecommunications Act, which literally gave away public airwaves to Big Media for free, when there was never a riper moment for demanding that the Big Media in exchange for such new airwaves available would provide free campaign time to candidates, eliminating 90% of all the outrageous costs of campaigning which in fact lead to the dependence on Big Money. Something in him then -- and in her now -- wants to still keep that beholdenness to aspects of the status quo which make money's inroads in Washington keep on strangleholding.
