- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It isn't a conspiracy theory boet. Check out where the money is coming from.
http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006/05/rupert-murdoch-backs-hillary-clinton.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080204/pl_bloomberg/apnpwl7xnjik
So lets see: We've got the person who is directly linked to the most biased source of news in America (Fox News) raising money for Hillary Clinton, we have the lobbies backing Hillary to the tune of double what they paid towards McCain's campaign, and you have the corporate owned mainstream media going out of its way to attack Hillary Clinton on things which frankly, irritate the electorate in her favor.
Hillary tearing up? Didn't win her any votes. But the rightwing media trying to paint her as weak and manipulative over it? Won her New Hampshire.
The gender issue? Outright sexist remarks aren't costing Hillary votes - they are winning her votes.
Meanwhile look at Edwards. He had the most progressive policies of the bunch, his message was distinctly what America needs right now, and when he came second in Iowa, beating Hillary, the race was still between Hillary and Obama. Edwards was the most anti-corporate of the top three.
It isn't a conspiracy, it is just paying attention to the news. While Hillary Clinton likes to talk about a vast rightwing conspiracy against her, the corporates are backing her to a hilt in money and coverage. Obama isn't a saint - but he is more hostile to lobbyists than Hillary and thus gets "Milder" treatment, resulting in him getting less protest votes.
