[calibraxis]

That's not democracy. That's doublespeak. The US's "Founding Fathers" hated democracy and stressed it was a republic. Those slaveowners wanted to protect minorities against majority rule — the wealthy minority. (Obviously they didn't mean African Americans and women.)

Later politicians coopted the term "democracy", as marketing. One source to learn more is Graeber's "The Democracy Project". (http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/democracy-what-is-it-good-...)

Pushing a button every few years for your new corporate-sponsored king isn't meaningful democratic participation.

[rhino369]

Hating democracy is a massive overstatement. It was designed as a democratically elected representative republic. They didn't want a mob ruling, but at the base, the people select the representatives. That is how virtually every democracy runs itself.

[MarcusVorenus]

Obama is a union-sponsored king actually, so it's all good I guess.

[lumberjack]

Neither Obama nor Clinton are sponsored by unions. Their major sponsors are Wall St, universities, SV and Hollywood, i.e. typical wealthy democrats.

http://www.opensecrets.org/PRES08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

Maybe you were thinking about Bernie Sanders?

[MarcusVorenus]

Unions don't donate directly, they make independent campaign expenditures through Super PACs. Look in the Independent Expenditures tab in the page you gave me.