Corporate sponsorship of the Democratic National Convention

Why hasn't Obama denounced this ?
As ignorant as this may sound on my part, my opinion is if you are making an issue out of distancing your party from corporate influence then why not denounce this, and insist the convention that is nominating you and your platform also be free of any corporate influence.

Uhm, it seems like they donated money for the right to show off their beer cars and sells beverages at the convention and related events.

Exactly what's wrong with this?

Considering the Coors family's connection to right wing politics (including Iran-Contra), their ties to various racist groups, and their own (alleged) racist hiring practices it does seem like a strange choice.

I think what I see as a conflict is the above quote from that article. Somehow I do not believe the intentions of Coors are honorable.

Might want to also keep in mind that the convention is being held in Denver . . . the city owned by Coors. Chances are, the company already has a stake in the convention hall to begin with.

It's just beer.

Again, the Coors name has been associated with the super far right and racism...I don't want them associated with the candidate I'm voting for.

Also: It's not a bad thing to criticize the Democratic Party occasionally.

Blasphemy!!

Yeah, Coors can go fuck itself.

I don't have a problem with corporate sponsorship in general. But I never drink/buy Coors products, and anyone who cares about anything good or decent shouldn't either.

Which should be pretty easy to do, seeing as how shitty their beer tastes. I've had sour milk that tasted better.

Don't confuse the convention with the campaign. We do not live in a socialist country, where the government might/would/could pay for convention of sorts, and so these events have always been paid for by corporations.

I agree that I am not wild about this, but to write off the entire COORs family as republican is not accurate. ALSO, the Obama campaign is proud of the fact that many of their votes and donations have come from *GASP* republicans -- especially socially moderate republicans from western states.

NO WAY would Obama's campaign diss the COORs empire. There are supporters among them.

remember?

Ugh. Socially MODERATE? Really? Coors? It's not hard to research the Coors family. They're more than just republicans. They have a long history of racist hiring practices. They've supported KKK members and ex-Nazis. They've continually funded anti-affirmative action groups. They're EXACTLY the sort of people that I don't want my candidate to be associated with. Hell, I don't want the Republican Party associated with them either.

You guys are free to salute anything the Democratic Party chooses to do, but I really don't like the association with coors even a little. Fuck them. And fuck the whole "Money is money" attitude.

I was under the impression that there wasn't anything inherently evil about Coors, but now that I do know I have to agree that they should have found sponsorship elsewhere.

explain please.

Let me try again:

1) There are no political conventions without corporate sponsorship, and guess who doesn't get to choose which corporation gets to sponser the convention? THAT is RIGHT -- the candidate, his staff, his delegates, his staff, his volunteers, his voters + anyone else on SG who doesn't like this = doesn't get to choose.

2) The Coors corporation and Pete and Joe Coors are reprehensible.

However, there are individuals in the grand Coors dynasty who are not proud of their family, nor the corporate legacy, and some are liberals who have given cash to Obama and have caucased for him, and will vote for him.

Let's say we could choose who sponsored the DNC convention. Would you pick Microsoft or Ben & Jerry's? Explain your choice in 100 words or less

Ben & Jerry's is to ice cream what Coors is to beer. Breyers plz thx.

Really? I didn't know that!

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I think I should be the one to choose. Why even bring that up? Do you think that you shouldn't be allowed to criticize something that you yourself don't get to decide on?

I'm saying that they (the people who do decide) chose poorly. They chose a company that is (in your own words) reprehensible. I have a problem with that. I guess you don't.

Nah, it's just Self-righteous Saturday! We're all playin'!

I was directing the "we don't get to choose" to any/everyone, not just YOU, though I quote you.

obviously you is no uneducated foo.

Yes, they did choose poorly, but I was TRYING TO BE FUNNY actually by trying to come up with any corporations with a democratic aura, much less without a flawed history. I was considering naming Nestle, but thought everyone would be too young to get it.

I have no problem with your criticizing COORs or the DNC.

But like, this convention was planned before Obama declared... and I take umbrage at the idea that anyone thinks HE has a choice, and I also have a close friend who is a COORS heir living in a more progressive 'hood in colorado, and I took offense on that person's behalf that all members born to that dynasty would be considered republican facists supporting the KKK and nazi's...

that's all.

My point is the Democratic National Committee was accepting specific types of donations which Obama made a point to cease once he was the party's" leader" after the primaries,etc. So, that said, would he not also have the ability to apply that ideal to the convention as well. I interpret access to prominent Democratic politicians as being given the ability to influence legislation the politicians are involved in if any. I see this as hypocritical to what Obama clearly states he is against. My opinion is there is not much difference in a product gift or cash.

There's a good chance that if Obama tried to get rid of Coors, he and the DNC would get sued for breaking a contract.

Yeah, as was stated before, plans for the convention were in place before Obama was even considered to be a possibility for the nomination, much less the nominee himself.

There's really nothing Obama in particular could do, though you should certainly hold the appropriate parties accountable, whoever they may be.

A). Howard Dean is chairman of the DNC, which I think qualifies him as the 'party's leader', though I could be wrong on this point.

B). As Lost Lucy pointed out, arrangements for the DNC 08 Convention were made long, long ago, before Obama even declared his intent to run for the presidency. This late in the game, there is very little he and his team could reasonably do to alter the Convention arrangements to address these concerns.

I don't think anyone's going to disagree with you there, but as stated above, it's too late to do anything about this Convention. Hopefully, Obama will see that this sort of practice is done away with at future conventions.

TROLL

First, let's not forget that the Democratic National Party has NOT appointed Barack the nominee, and doesn't do that until the CONVENTION.

AND, Barack is not head of the DNC.

1)Try to get your head around what the convention would cost,
2) where the money would come from, and
3) what sponsers would agree to give up that kind of money.

Once you've found the perfect corporation who is willing to pay for it, or the list of private donors willing to do so, please do let me know.

Until then, let's instead whine about something where we have the facts in order.

I never implied he was head of the Democratic National Committee. He has been referred to in the press as the leader of the party though, which happened when the primaries ended and he was called the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States. That is why the word leader was in quotes. Would figurehead have been a more suitable word to use?

I suppose if Obama wanted to really stress his principle of not accepting corporate money then he could boycott the convention due to corporate sponsorship. I don't see why he has to be there to get the nomination since he does have the delegates. He could give his acceptance speech via satellite feed. He is all for doing things differently, or so he says repeatedly. What could be more different than that.

The only reason I am voting for him is he is less full of shit than Clinton or McCain and he has an eloquent way of phrasing his sales pitch. He would have made a great snake oil salesman.