Amber Waves

Clinton to hold "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the DC offices of agribusiness giant Monsanto's lobbyists. Of course, invoking the imagery of the family farm and then doing the dirty work of giant companies is nothing new in politics, but this seems like a deliberate effort to stumble into what John Edwards and Barack Obama are trying to say about taking money from lobbyists.

UPDATE: The Edwards campaign is fond of this juxtaposition.

Photo by Flickr user danellesheree used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

This should blow a hole in the stupid notion that Clinton is running a 'great' campaign. She'll get destroyed by the Republicans if she did things like this during the general election.

Posted by Matt Stoller | October 18, 2007 12:14 PM

She officially just doesn't give a fuck.

Posted by Keith | October 18, 2007 12:28 PM

The amber waves of grain are wheat, not corn. No wonder the Dems in DC are inside-the-beltway clueless, and Hillary gets away with a Monsanto ass-kiss with all the Dems smiling.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | October 18, 2007 12:30 PM

Hillary Clinton: "I'd like to welcome all the rural Americans here today who were able to plunk down $3,200 to lunch with me here in this tony DC law office. I hope that both of you will keep your damn muddy boots off the furniture."

Posted by DrFrankLives | October 18, 2007 12:40 PM

She'll get destroyed by the Republicans if she did things like this during the general election."

No offense, Matt Stoller, but that comment indicates you really don't understand the Republican Party at all.

I can't imagine the Republicans attacking someone for invoking imagery of the family farm while taking money from agribusiness lobbyists, because there are roughly 25 states in this country where elected Republican officials have no other purpose in life than to invoke imagery of the family farm while taking money from agribusiness lobbyists.

No, this is exactly why the Clintons have always been so despised by the Republicans... they're working the same turf with the same tricks.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 18, 2007 12:45 PM

Mr. Yglesias your corn crop looks a bit stressed. There's necrosis on the margins of the husk, the long, narrow tip of the ear indicates poor pollination, etc.

Seriously, why is it that political commentators of all stripes have so much prejudice against corn? It is what it is, and what it does in terms of productivity is unmatched by any other crop. (Wheat is ultra cool too) As a result most urban dwellers are able take a their food supply for granted - which is a good thing.

Yes, large corporations have played a major role in aggregating the capitol needed to continue to improve and adapt the crop to our changing needs (e.g. lower energy inputs).

Posted by corn guy | October 18, 2007 1:05 PM

No offense, LaFollette Progressive, but that comment indicates you really don't understand the Republican Party at all.

Would it be hypocritical for them to attack Hillary for talking about family farms while taking agribusiness money? Of course. Is it 100% certain that they will do it anyway? Of course.

Posted by A.B. | October 18, 2007 1:06 PM

"Seriously, why is it that political commentators of all stripes have so much prejudice against corn? It is what it is, and what it does in terms of productivity is unmatched by any other crop. (Wheat is ultra cool too) As a result most urban dwellers are able take a their food supply for granted - which is a good thing."

Give Omnivore's Dilemma a read for more about the increasing use of corn in our diets.

Posted by Mike | October 18, 2007 1:16 PM

Put it this way. If Clinton wins, things will get a lot better in Washington, at least around the edges. But let's be honest, the broad changes we need on issues like health care, agricultural policy, foreign policy, etc aren't going to happen.

Posted by Mike | October 18, 2007 1:18 PM

That won't play well in New Hampshire if word gets out. There really are some family farms left in New England....

Posted by Persia | October 18, 2007 1:27 PM

If nothing else, Monstanto has just practically guaranteed global trade talks will be going nowhere for the next few years. Assuming Hil wins (a fairly safe bet), they'll have the next POTUS under their influence. That means: No to the U.S. lowering or eliminating farm susbidies and no push for tighter regulation of GMOs like the ones which Monsanto's developed.

Posted by Shawn | October 18, 2007 1:35 PM

Now that she is confident that she is the front runner, the true Hitlery can be revealed.

Posted by An Outhouse | October 18, 2007 2:05 PM

A.B.- I seriously doubt it. It doesn't play into their preferred narrative about Hillary, which is to paint her as a dangerous lesbian Stalinist. Criticizing her for ties to big business would not only be likely to backfire on them, but it wouldn't really be their style, either.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 18, 2007 2:54 PM

If nothing else, Monstanto has just practically guaranteed global trade talks will be going nowhere for the next few years. Assuming Hil wins (a fairly safe bet), they'll have the next POTUS under their influence.

What do you think they do at this lobbying firm, exactly? Force Hillary to take a magic brainwashing pill that ensures she will never, ever do anything contrary to the interests of the firm's hundreds of clients? Amazing, all they have to do is host one campaign event and bang, the outcome of global trade talks is "practically guaranteed."

Once upon a time, I did some legal work on a pretty important merger in the oil industry. The companies wanted to get FTC approval before year-end so they could close the deal, but the regulators had some concerns and it was looking uncertain. I confidently made a bet with one of my colleagues that the approval would be received in time, reasoning that Big Oil pretty much runs our government, so why shouldn't they get their way? Shockingly, I lost that bet. I've since come to realize that it's not quite as simple as that for a company like Monsanto to snap their fingers and get their wishes fulfilled.

Posted by Steve | October 18, 2007 3:12 PM

Steve, of course, you're right.

But the image matters as much as the reality, and having your rural issues forum in an office around the corner from K Street is so beuatifully symbolic of her approach it is hard to pass up.

Posted by DrFrankLives | October 18, 2007 3:30 PM

Mike,
Corn in our diet is a demand side problem. Corn per se isn't the issue its how it gets used (e.g. corn derived fructose as sweetner). Corn is to junk food as internet is to porn - or something like that.

Posted by corn guy | October 18, 2007 3:59 PM

"I've since come to realize that it's not quite as simple as that for a company like Monsanto to snap their fingers and get their wishes fulfilled."

Perhaps I've overstated the case. Still, my basic point stands: Assuming Hillary wins it all, Monsanto's taken a big step towards protecting their own interests. They'll gain enough access to make sure their side of any argument is heard. If nothing else, this gives them a chance to delay. Again, I may be naive here, but, it seems to me that in national politics, sitting on the ball and playing defense are more important than playing offense. A mega-merger is a change to the status quo. I'm guessing Monsanto wants to maintain it.

Posted by Shawn | October 18, 2007 4:07 PM

Corn Guy, please try to be a little more sophisticated in your reasoning. There's corn in food that no one knows is there. That's not demand. That's just crappy food.

Posted by Mike | October 18, 2007 4:11 PM

Honestly, Corn Guy, we're not talking sweet corn on the cob. There's corn in practically everything. It's hard to escape it unless you are a very conscious shopper and stick to real foods. Almost anything processed, frozen, or package has corn in it, and most people don't even know it. Agricultural subsidies encourage the over-growing of corn, which leaves a surplus on the market that has to go somewhere. Where does it go? Everywhere! They are even genetically modifying salmon to eat corn. Look, our agricultural policies have almost nothing to do with consumer demand for corn.

Posted by Mike | October 18, 2007 4:15 PM

"No offense, Matt Stoller, but that comment indicates you really don't understand the Republican Party at all."

No argument there, LaFollette Progressive.

But what it also means, and this is not well understood, is that Mark Penn doesn't understand the Democratic Party at all.

Penn ran Lieberman's '04 campaign to give some reference here.

All of Penn's "genius" is about looking at swing voters. He's never shown any real evidence that he understands what motivates Democratic primary voters. And many of his moves helming Team Clinton this cycle reinforce that impression.

Posted by Petey | October 18, 2007 5:18 PM

Here's another Edwards comparative on this, with nicely funny title from Ana Marie.

Posted by Petey | October 18, 2007 5:20 PM

Mike,
Mostly, I think the purpose of Ag subsidies is to keep the price of food low and stable so that consumers have security and disposable income to spend on cars, houses, investments, etc. Historically its achieved that purpose with some side effects. Similarly, I presume the oil subsidies (like our $10^10 war in Iraq) are primarily intended to keep the cost of energy low (oops). The way things are going and food and energy resources go still further into competition (i.e. ethanol) things could get even more interesting. And, no I don't think ethanol from corn is a good long-term (or even a short-term) solution. Makes great junk food though.

Posted by corn guy | October 18, 2007 5:31 PM

"A.B.- I seriously doubt it. It doesn't play into their preferred narrative about Hillary, which is to paint her as a dangerous lesbian Stalinist. Criticizing her for ties to big business would not only be likely to backfire on them, but it wouldn't really be their style, either.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 18, 2007 2:54 PM"

That assumes that the Republican narratives in total have to add up to a coherent point that makes sense. How often do the smears in a campaign actually make sense? The average person is not likely to parse the arguments of opposing arguments carefully in a way that easily exposes deep-seated philosophical contradictions. So much of the different bullcrap narratives out there in the world don't make sense, yet people believe them (America is the home of the free and a nation of immigrants! Fear the Mexicans! Gays are deviants who practice filth and are incapable of love! Gay marriage is evil! Secularism at home is bad and un-Christian! Secularism in the Middle East is good unless it's under Saddam! Abortion is killing babies! Letting babies without health insurance die is ok!) Different year, same bullshit.

Posted by Reality Man | October 19, 2007 5:46 AM