- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Lamert at Correntewire posted a piece on Friday about Barack Obama touting the bi-partisanship line. Oddly enough, the agent of change seems to have no problem with High Broderism. And weren't Obama and Lieberman friendly at one time?
I always wondered how it was that a first term senator with few accomplishments could get as far as he did without substantial backing. I know he's picked up a lot of individual donors but his seed money had to come from somewhere. Was it Wall Street? How well does he know Bloomberg? Would that kind of introduction get him the funds he needed?
And what does it say about Hillary Clinton? Is *she* the actual anti-establishment candidate? From what I have heard, Bloomberg isn't troubled by an Obama win in Iowa. But Edwards and Clinton would make him jump in. Now, why would he be afraid of Edwards? He doesn't have an organization outside of the first couple of states. But Clinton could win because she's got the bucks. But if Bloomberg is establishment High Broderism, does that mean that Clinton is *not*?
