The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Ad Watch

Obama Ad Ignites Questions on Oil Money

By Howard Kurtz
It all depends on the meaning of the words "oil companies."

In a new ad airing in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama uses a gas-station backdrop to declare: "Exxon's making $40 billion a year and we're paying $3.50 for gas. I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I won't let them block change anymore."

This drew an e-mail blast from Hillary Clinton's team, which accused him of "false advertising." Clinton aides said Obama's presidential campaign has received more than $160,000 from oil and gas companies -- including $8,400 from Exxon and $12,370 from Chevron just last month. And two oil-company chief executives have acted as Obama fundraisers.

But the Illinois senator does not, as his campaign was quick to note, accept donations from corporate political action committees or lobbyists. The contributions flagged by Clinton's side come from individual executives and employees in the oil industry. That distinction, of course, may be lost on viewers who see Obama say flatly he takes no money "from oil companies."

An Obama spokesman accused Clinton of "negative and misleading tactics" and said the energy legislation the freshman lawmaker voted for -- derided by Clinton aides as "the Dick Cheney energy bill" -- raised taxes on oil companies.

Posted at 5:31 PM ET on Mar 28, 2008  | Category:  Ad Watch
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: McCain Casts Himself as President Americans Are Waiting For | Next: Clinton: Get Some Popcorn and Settle In


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



vs_sv,

I feel so sorry for you.
I don't know if you are an ignorant racist or just ignorant.

Posted by: Ifekeene | March 30, 2008 3:06 PM

Bundling and contributions from individuals employed by companies are two different things. [Of course, fraud can occur in any system, but that is not the fault of the candidate - any candidate.]

Those who wish to pretend there is no difference are doing so primarily, IMO, because the candidate they support gladly and gleefully accepts and perhaps solicits money from folks whom she claims she will later be fighting against.

That doesn't pass the laugh test!!!

Posted by: Ifekeene | March 30, 2008 3:01 PM

I don't know if Democrats are suicidal or just plain stupid. You partisan Hillary and Obama supporters are electing John McCain for Cheney's third term. If you spent the same time and energy building up the Party instead of destroying it from within, Bush and McBush wouldn't be dancing jigs in the Rose Garden.

Blind Obama and Hillary supporters are selfishly stupid. Neither of you deserve to have your candidate win.

Posted by: coloradodog | March 30, 2008 12:56 PM

It is easy for Obama to attack the oil companies. Dumb Americans eat this stuff up. Of course the real reason Gas prices are so high is the free falling dollar. That is caused by the Goverment spending so much more money than they are taking in.

Seems to me the people he should be attacking are himself, Hillary, McCain and GW.

Posted by: atomicfront | March 30, 2008 11:57 AM

Watching the Clinton camp go into hysterics is getting amusing. When are we going to see her tax returns? She said she would release them but still hasn't. Is that another fantasy just like her sniper attack in Bosnia? She keeps moving the goalposts, changing the rules of her campaign, trying to get others to go along. If any of us had kids who acted that way we'd (hopefully) be trying to correct their behavior. She's setting a great example for her daughter, no? On that note, she's also unfortunately showing young women that women can behave just as despicably as men when it comes to political ambition.

Posted by: Exfan | March 30, 2008 11:53 AM

Bundling is in fact a way to make contributions without it looking like it is the company itself. A legal "loophole" to get those contributions. And yes, Obama knows this. "He was born in the dark, but it wasn't last night". (to quote a song phrase). He says that he does not take any special interest money, but he does. He can try to fool you, but it is only because he depends on the fact that many won't realize what bundling is. I think people should support for who they want to, but it would be nice if those who support their candidate would understand what they are really voting for.
Obama's "judgement" call is becoming weaker. There is much we do not know about this "new" guy. The more I research, the more I find that he is not so above the frey. "Hope and Change" is not new. Many others have used this for the campaigning prior to Obama.

If you take away what he says, and then do the research on what he actually did, there is not much there.

Posted by: cyberaim | March 30, 2008 10:08 AM

What is common with Obama, Mugabe, and Idi Amin ?

Rev Wright and other racists would say they are all brothers but the truth is they stop elections mid way and rig votes to win as it is happening in Michigan and Florida.

If Florida and Michigan is not counted, this nomination is flawed and should be rejected. Obama wants to keep Florida and Michigan out which in terms of population is equal to keeping 20 states out ( like Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Washington DC and Wyoming).
I am surprised not a single Obama maniacs are responding to this math and they are the ones with the so called "mail order degreed" supporters who drink only at Starbucks. These 2 states are more important than the 20 rigged caucus states which Obama has "won".

Posted by: vs_sv | March 30, 2008 9:22 AM

Always interesting to see how Obamafans resolutely walk right around any evidence of mendacity or wrongdoing on the part of their hero. Look up 'bundling', okay? Just give it a shot - it's a pretty easy concept to understand. That's how Obama is trying to skirt the issue of whether or not he takes money from oil companies. Answer: he does.

Posted by: Kat10 | March 30, 2008 12:32 AM

The BEST line in the NY Times Article 'The Long Defeat' ...

" She possesses
the audacity of
hopelessness. "

LOVE OBAMA '08

Posted by: dopera2004 | March 29, 2008 11:45 PM

I can see you Obominites have nothing better to do on a saturday night
Good night I'm going out for a drink and some intertainment

Posted by: cowboy66 | March 29, 2008 10:08 PM

Once more. Obama was never a law professor. The University tried to cover his butt, but had to tell the truth.

Obama did NOT "hold the title" of a University of Chicago law school professor.

WASHINGTON--The University of Chicago released a statement on Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school--but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.

"He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the school, on East 60th St. in Chicago

The U of C statement was posted on the school's website two days after the Clinton campaign issued a memo headlined "Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements." The memo was generated by the Clinton campaign as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was put on the defensive for claiming incorrectly that she dodged sniper fire while First Lady when her plane landed in Bosnia.

Another university spokesman, Josh Schonwald, said the Obama campaign did not request that the statement be generated and that it was posted because reporters were calling the school with questions about Obama's status. However, the Obama campaign was interested in making sure reporters saw the U of C statement.

The university statement said, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." The school probably did not mean to imply that Obama became a University of Chicago professor a year out of law school. But the word "served" is key--Nagorsky said Obama carried out, or served, a function of a professor--teaching a core curriculum course while a senior lecturer--while at the same time not holding down that rank.

Posted by: brigittepj | March 29, 2008 9:09 PM

ne_voice: Try to comprehend that the way big corporations get around donating directly to candidates is by having their "individual" employees make the contributions.

I'm contunally shocked at how many Obama supporters who post here and elsewhere know so little about either Obama or Hillary, and have so little understanding of the system. It makes it pretty clear to me that Obama's campaign claim that "educated" people favor Obama is either more insubstantial hype, or a sad commentary on the deplorable state our education system has fallen into.

Hillary in '08!

Posted by: Torch2008 | March 29, 2008 7:45 PM

Chalk of another Bold Faced Lie for Obama!

Ha ha. This is SO deceptive:

1) As the Clinton Campaign points out, and which can be seen on any campaign funding transparency website, Obama accepts a lot of dough from oil companies.

2) Exelon, the Illinois energy giant which focuses on Nuclear has always been one of Obama's major financial backers.

Put the above 2 points together and you can suddenly make sense of:

3) Obama voted FOR the Cheney backed 2005 energy bill, despite his glowing speeches about green energy. This bill gutted environmental protections, thus opening the door for the building of Nuclear power plants (since the bill was passed, 29 plants have been planned). The bill also gave the Oil companies huge tax subsidies to buffer their already burgeoning profits.

Compare Obama's voting records to his rhetoric for the good of the nation. The man is a pretty-faced liar and will give us 4 more years of pandering to big-money interests and none of the social and ethical reforms he touts.

Posted by: Torch2008 | March 29, 2008 7:37 PM

As a former assistant professor, I say titles matter. No genuine academic would call him- or herself a professor if his or her title were "Senior Lecturer."

U of C appears willing to help with damage control, but the fact is, Barry ain't no professor and never was.

Posted by: heathertml | March 29, 2008 5:50 PM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 29, 2008 4:24 PM

The Clinton campaign makes me so sick to my stomach. Taking a donation from an individual, which is capped by the way, is not the same as PAC and lobbyist fund raising. Richardson, Casey, Bloomberg even looked mighty supportive. I know it's breaking Clinton supporters hearts. But lets all be dems about this and beat McCain in the fall.

Posted by: ne_voice | March 29, 2008 4:02 PM

davestickler, that's a very good one!

Posted by: old_europe | March 29, 2008 3:02 PM

So he's taking money from Big Oil if the guy who works at the counter of my local Shell station gives $15?

Posted by: davestickler | March 29, 2008 2:36 PM

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race... Several sources in her own camp admit that she has virtually no chance of winning the nomination except if she succeeds in finding James Hoffa's body and moving it in Obama's flower garden to put the blame on him.

Since there is little chance for the body to be found, she makes all these negative assertions. The goal seems to be the 2012 election. By putting enough doubts on Obama, Hillary is hoping that he will lose to McCain and that she or Chelsea (who is also an experienced leader after her journey at the White House mansion) will be able to run in 2012. The Clintons might then be able to capitalize again with the rental of the Lincoln Bedroom to big lobbyists.

Whatever happens, since the Judas story with Richardson, we know that Hillary believes in ressurection; she or her husband Bill would be Jesus if I understood correctly the story. So, we can assume that Hillary will not hesitate to play the kamikaze with this election or the next one since she will probably reborn again, as the savior.

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race before she hurts herself or others.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 29, 2008 1:19 PM

The Clinton campaign surely has not given up on its desperate misleading tactics. They are trying to confuse voters. It's true that Obama has not taken money from Oil campanies as corporates. The funds that the Clinton's campaign is talking about in their misguiding attacks came as individual donations to the Obama campaign from people who happen to work for the oil campanies. She needs to check the facts right and not open her mouth every time with the clear intention of biting and hurting Obama with her lies. That's why she always ends up hurting her own campaign. She really is desperate. JUST QUIT and stop hurting the party's opportunity to win the general election.

Posted by: btemedi | March 29, 2008 1:07 PM

Obama:
I haven't taken any money from oil companies.
I only took 150 grand er 250 grand from Rezco.
I didn't hear any of Wright's incendiary remarks in the 20 years I was a member of his church.
My campaign doesn't say one thing to the public and another to Canada regarding Nafta.
I never promised to accept public funds in a general election.
I didn't vote present over 200 times.
I did hold a meeting this year.
I have a lot of experience.
Dear Americans-you are being taken for a ride.

Posted by: thejaner | March 29, 2008 11:02 AM

Obama may not take Contributions/NO MONEY from Registered Federal Lobbyists?
HOWEVER, it's a Lawyer Speak/Trick of: Speaking a Small truth covering up a Big Lie.
Obama , doesn't take money from REGISTERED FEDERAL Lobbyists, BUT he
DOES take money from STATE Lobbyists, Not Registered Lobbyists, BUT he receives contributions from the wives, husbands, law partners, aunts, uncles cousins...of Registered Federal Lobbyists. He is sneaky about how he GETS money from the same big corporate donors the same as most candidate.

Obama's campaign finances are involved in the prosecution (by Patrick Fitzgerald)and trial of his friend of 20 years Antoin Rezko. Some of the funds... allegedly...extorted by Rezko went into Obama's campaign coffers. Curiously, Iraqi Power Plants and fraud are also involved in Rezko's trial. (Google: Obama -Rezko- Alsammarae-Auichi- IRAQ POWER PLANTS) * Auchi was Sadam's right hand man and his Money Launder. Obama has met him thru Rezko.

GE & the same wealthy corps, who bankrolled Reagan & Bush/s 1 & 2 - are behind the massive ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN to sell you OBAMA.
Do you want a President who has close ties to Sadams old friends of very questionable background.
Obama voted for the same energy bill as Cheney. The same energy bill that will keep Exon making tons of money if Obama wins.
WE do NOT know enough about Obama
I am pretty sure he could NOT pass a background check to work in the White House as a Clerk , Cook, Janitor or a Gardener. NOT with his close ties to Rezko ( Auchi )
Obama sent out letters to IL Govt to help Rezko receive $1.4 million to rehab buildings in the inner cities in Obama's district. Rezko did very little repairs NEVER fixed the heating systems. The Tenants had NO HEAT from dec. to Mar and many people froze to death. Goggle Obama's slum
1- Click here: YouTube - Obama and Rezko
2- Click here: Eric Lee: Obama's slum-lord friend
3- Click here: MyDD :: FACT CHECK: Obama, His Contributor Rezko, the Slum Landlord Business
Bill Ayers the former terrorist, who bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, & NYC Police Headquarters.
His Mentor Minister and friend Rev Wright visited with Castro in Cuba and With Farrakhan visited with Moamma Gadhafi in Libya, Tripoli. Why is his minister so tight with our ENEMIES. Is this why Obama flies a Cuban Flag at so many of his headquarters.
1- Click here: You Tube - Obama Communist Flag In Office!
2- Click here: You Tube - Obama and the National Anthem
Start doing your own research and share it with friends because Obama is in the most of the media's pocket do NOT expect them to tell you the truth.

Posted by: USAalways | March 29, 2008 10:18 AM

This is a comment from another story in Washington post yesterday: "Hillary appeals to the lesser educated among us. It shows, it really shows."

The comment on this was: "While reading your comment my first impression is that you are one of them, but I am certainly wrong. However, do you mean that only ""educated"" people are allowed to talk or write?"

It´s true that poor and uneducated people are severely disadvantaged. Most of them cannot afford to buy a computer and most of them don´t know how to use internet. Young people with rich parents are born alongside a computer and knows how to use it before the age of six. Young and well educated young people (Obamas base) also knows how to communicate and they know how to use their computers to contribute economically to Obamas campaign (straw-doners).

Posted by: royrichard | March 29, 2008 9:53 AM

With most of the media" pimping for Obama & lying about the Clintons-it is amazing enough voters are smart enough to see thru the Media-Created Obama movement & for Hillary Clinton to still be in the race.

GE is the 2nd largest corporation in the world, & the nuke industry/wealthy know they will get Billions of your money via 29 new nukes IF either Obama or McCain is elected President
Obama is backed by GE and its WHOLLY-Owned subsidiaries NBC & MSNBC...along with Westinghouse & its subsidiary CBS...while slamming the Clintons all day every day, With the help of CNN, NBC,/FOX/ and a lot of newspaper & radio media dependent on advertising $$.)
.
Obama is in with the Nuclear Industry: Excelon Corp of Illinois has been one of his largest contributors from his entry into politics to the present. Excelon is the largest nuke operator on the planet;owns Con-Ed of NY; more nukes in Illinois than any other state.
GE, Westinghouse, Excelon & 3 consortiums of other companies are planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants. Their Wholly-Owned & Wholly Influenced "News" media are selling the Obama Product because Obama is in favor of Nukes.

Obama Voted for the Cheney Energy Bill-despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default on the nuke loans at 50% or greater. Is this what GOOD JUDGMENT ??

Clinton Voed AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill and said her Energy Plan does not include nuclear.
Look to the past and the problems of Obsloete 50 yr old nuke power plants-the dirtiest most expensive kind/centrally-controlled MONOPOLY POWER-instead of inventing New, Clean, Green De-Centralized inexpensive Energy.
True Solar or Green is cheap and big Corporations will not make tons of money off of it.

Read about the 100's of BILLIONS of gallons of nuke waste at the Hanford Washington dump; 140 tons of plutonium stored at Rocky Flats, Colorado; Barnwell, South Carolina; leaking into groundwater and rivers; plutonium released into the air around Denver from 500 instances of fires at Rocky Flats; stored on-site at every nuke reactor in America...presenting hundreds of potential "dirty bomb" targets for terrorists.


Posted by: USAalways | March 29, 2008 9:41 AM

I think this should open up a good case to why The clintons have not yet turned in there tax returns. So we can see were all the Money they get comes from. Please MSNBC CNN And FOX Thats fair is fair

Posted by: pwolfram | March 29, 2008 9:13 AM

Hi JakeD - trying to encourage Republicans who want to vote for Clinton just to muddy the waters? We all know that those Republicans are not going to vote for her in November - they just want to draw out the Democratic bloodletting - but I guess you are ok with that huh?

Posted by: JayKay2 | March 29, 2008 9:07 AM

I've donated to Barack Obama numerous times, and I work for an insurance company. Will the Clinton campaign now say that "Obama takes money from insurance companies"? An individuals support of a candidate can be for many reasons, and usually have little to do with where they work. Let's stop the ridiculous criticism of our own party and let the voters decide on issues and integrity.

Posted by: WLHSMom | March 29, 2008 8:58 AM

Actually, over 2 million individual donors to the Obama campaign now. I so knew that once this claim by the Clinton camp was looked into it would turn out to be individual employees. As individual citizens they can donate whatever they like - the litmus test is whether or not they are buying influence for their company. They are not - end of story.

Posted by: JayKay2 | March 29, 2008 8:30 AM

Obama is, of course, a liar since he does take money not only from oil companies, but from oil company executives. Two of his biggest fund raisers are oil execs:

http://12counts.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/obama-caught-lying-he-does-take-money-from-oil-companies-and-lobbyists/

His supporters are again misinformed in arguing his oil money is small contributions from individual workers. He lied.

The question is will the media call him on it.

Posted by: DJK1 | March 29, 2008 7:47 AM

to all you people who insist Obama takes oil money, why don't you actually go to opentruth.org and check out how stupid you actually sound. It's all public record for anyone to see. So instead of being stupid and ignorant, educate yourselves.

Posted by: rmartie | March 29, 2008 7:43 AM


SELL OUT ILLINOIS CONSTITUENTS WITH ONE OF HIS FAMOUS WINKS TO EXELON AND THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
___________________________________________
READ WHAT HAPPENED:

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: February 3, 2008 Read complete story at NY Times

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

"I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story.

While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country's largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama's largest sources of campaign money.
___________________

So the Lobbyist becomes a fund raiser, then milks workers in the industry to contribute to the campaign....no footprint of Lobbyist!

Posted by: accountability_in_gov | March 29, 2008 7:26 AM

This is thoroughly ridiculous. I'm a blue collar worker for a utility company and I've donated $96 to Obama, mostly in $10 increments. Does that mean that he's receiving money from the utility industry. I don't think so. This is just BS.

Posted by: keithhood | March 29, 2008 6:48 AM

just more attacks...

Posted by: eljefejesus | March 29, 2008 4:19 AM

I can see from this Comment Section, that US citizens just do not want to get the point.

Are you so blind?

Barack Obama clearly has the best background politics wise and personally, in order to create change. Just the nature of his conversations have already been good for the country. REAL conversation about REAL problems, and clearly offering REAL solutions, that will ultimately lead us to REAL CHANGE!

US citizens need to understand some simple things. Real Conversation is good. It is allot better than REAL WAR!

US citizens have the right to bare ARMS to protect ourselves from both foreign and domestic threats. We are obligated to protect and defend out Constitution!

We are obligated to defend our families from even corrupt government!
Foreign BANKing systems.

WHY RUN UP DEBT that all US CITIZENS must pay back? Who decides what the PRICE OF WAR should be?

AMERICANS are loosing there homes to BANKS, the same BANKS that ultimately issue LOANS to pay for the WAR.

SO we are creating exploding amounts of DEBT while loosing our HOMES, while engaging in WAR that we borrow money from BANKS to pay for.

IT sounds like economic slavery and the RICH get a free pass!

If Americans don't wake up. WAR is coming home!

CIVIL WAR.

Don't we believe in CIVIL WAR?
Don's we believe in owning our OWN bank to stop criminal inflation? Why should we LOAN money from a private BANK when we are the richest country in the WORLD?

WE need our own bank back. A BANK the US citizens own and vote on?

NOT ONE PUSHED ON US!

Posted by: vicbennettnet | March 29, 2008 4:10 AM

Reading these blogs has actually helped me to settle down a bit as I so realize that much of the vile chatter here is simply Republican tricksters trying to stir the pot -- svreader, jakeD, ratthe -- you better change your post names as any experienced blogger here is on to you and your true agenda. It would be nice if you did at least try to fake the idea that you're responding to the blog item in your agitprop posts, but at least I can now spot and scroll through your junk pretty quickly. As for this article -- this is really ridiculous on the part of the Clinton campaign. I worked for Mobil and then ExxonMobil after the "merger." I am a liberal Democrat and believe you me, my contributions to Democratic candidates in no way reflected the interests of my employer -- in fact XOM gave subtle and not-so-subtle encouragement to vote Republican to boost its interests. To somehow charge that individual employees (who include blue collar refinery workers, environmental engineers and all sorts of "regular people") is akin to accepting oil company lobbying funds is an intentionally dishonest swipe -- or sniper hit. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's quite another to intentionally distort easily-discovered facts, and to discount hard-working individuals that frankly risk some criticism from XOM management to support Democratic candidates. Mrs. Clinton should keep her head down for real and stop insulting these oil company employees for exercising their electoral rights.

Posted by: Omyobama | March 29, 2008 4:02 AM

Hillary is nothing but trouble for the democratic party. Her campaign is run by the super rich fat boys club who are bullying Nancy Pelosi. Hillary's campaign was built from ground up to be run on mud. She does not know how to take the high road, and she does not know how to play by the rules. All we have seen recently is a constant sleezy attack of her opponent based on what a pastor has said over the past 20 years. None of those words were uttered by Obama. Hillary has not been truthful about her trips aboard. She has a lot of baggage which she is unable to shed.

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | March 29, 2008 3:40 AM

Its' great to see so many Bushbots and dittoheads uniting to help their beloved Hillary win nomination! Whereas, not to long ago they'd have thrown her under the bus --- rather than give up their seat on it to her! Obama must be the right man for the Presidency....your hipocracy toward Clinton, in order to derail him, has convinced many of us thinking individuals of that. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INSIGHTFUL BEHAVIOR!!!

Posted by: rekless1 | March 29, 2008 2:15 AM

To all the nincompoops who are attacking Obama on this issue. There is a difference between individuals who are working in these company's contributing and the company's contributing.
Well.. i guess the Clinton supporters do not have a high school degree.. so what am i expecting...

Posted by: venky1 | March 29, 2008 1:50 AM

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full

The above web-site provides another side of Obama - the arrogant, fraudulant side which he can cleverly hide with his smirk.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | March 29, 2008 12:15 AM

Barry Obama's told more lies than anybody.

From DD --

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 12:09 AM

Obama has been truthful regarding donors and his work as a U of C law professor.

The U of C statement would normally shut the naysayers up. However, the Clinton supporters who are bashing Obama on this site have a maturity and veracity problem.

Everyone should read the David Brooks NYTs column (The Long Defeat) from earlier in the week

Posted by: drmigden | March 29, 2008 12:04 AM

Obama Supporters --

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 12:04 AM

Obama has been truthful regarding donors and his work as a U of C law professor.

The U of C statement would normally shut the naysayers up. However, the Clinton supporters who are bashing Obama on this site have a maturity and veracity problem.

Everyone should read the David Brooks NYTs column (The Long Defeat) from earlier in the week

Posted by: drmigden | March 29, 2008 12:04 AM

Obama has been truthful regarding donors and his work as a U of C law professor.

The U of C statement would normally shut the naysayers up. However, the Clinton supporters who are bashing Obama on this site have a maturity and veracity problem.

Everyone should read the David Brooks NYTs column (The Long Defeat) from earlier in the week

Posted by: drmigden | March 29, 2008 12:04 AM

gmundenat-- Your point is refreshing.
Let's see how this works out. lol

Posted by: rwhipple1 | March 28, 2008 11:43 PM

Posted by: ladya2004 | March 28, 2008 11:13 PM

MRS OBAMA SAYS WE ARE ALL IGNORANT?
It is from a current Hot News report but quoted from a Jan or Feb speech she made at a college.

We don't like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You're not talking to each other, taking advantage that you're in this diverse community. Because sometimes it's easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That's America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?

Posted by: ladya2004 | March 28, 2008 11:09 PM

Don't blast Jake-D

He seems to be unusually constructive.
Use positive reinforcemet.
It's more productive...

And doesn't destroy anything...

...apart from the pride of some pundits.

Posted by: hsibomana | March 28, 2008 10:51 PM

Just another example of Obama wanting to have it both ways and his blind followers in lock step. There is a reason people in the oil industry are giving Obama money. For future favors if he is elected President.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | March 28, 2008 10:36 PM

Obama supporters complain that Hillary Clinton is asking tough questions and bringing up inconvenient truths about Barack Obama.

Hillary's been playing "patty cake" compared to what Republicans are going to do if Democrats make the mistake of nominating Obama, who has never been carefully vetted.

Obama's not only a bad candidate, he's a bad risk for Democrats.

Democrats can't afford any surprises this time around.

The stakes are way too high.

We can't afford to lose another Presidential election.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 10:15 PM

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 10:10 PM

people this is one thing i disagree w/ most pols about. it is easy to vilify " big oil" but our big oil co's are not so large on a global scale. oil is a tough neighborhood, as many countries have nationalized oil companies that actually are larger in capitalization than exxon. china has a oil co worth $ 1 trillion US whereas, exxon is worth about ½ that. plus putin and cronnies are awash in petrol dollars. people don't pick on US big oil b/c we need them strong for our own national interests.

Posted by: jacade | March 28, 2008 9:33 PM

people this is one thing i disagree w/ most pols about. it is easy to vilify " big oil" but our big oil co's are not so large on a global scale. oil is a tough neighborhood, as many countries have nationalized oil companies that actually are larger in capitalization than exxon. china has a oil co worth $ 1 trillion US whereas, exxon is worth about ½ that. plus putin and cronnies are awash in petrol dollars. people don't pick on US big oil b/c we need them strong for our own national interests.

Posted by: jacade | March 28, 2008 9:33 PM

More campaign distortion from Clinton. The distinction between a company or its lobbyist giving money to Obama versus individuals who have a constitutional right to exercise their right to donate time, money or whatever is a difference that matters. Individuals do not always reflect the political positions of the companies they work for and the ability to enjoy this freedom is important.

This is yet another reason why this contest should end. The potential Co-Presidency which learned it's attack strategy from the Bill Clinton Presidency is more formenter of misinformation than Russ Limbaugh. This has resulted in polls showing Obama behind McCain for the first time and Hillary enjoying her lowest favorablity rating among the electorate in her long honesty challenged history. Time for the superdelegates to step forward and kill the Clinton Cancer before it kills them!

Posted by: McHenry | March 28, 2008 9:03 PM

rwhipple1--Cheer up. Hillary's glassy-eyed cadre will all vote for Obama in November. They have nowhere alse to go; despite their snivelling, they will not vote for McCain. They will scream and cry. Some will take their toys and go home. But come November they will have calmed down and come around. Remember, Hillary's supporters are the lesser educated among us.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 28, 2008 9:00 PM

[shrug] He doesn't take money from the industry. I don't see a contradiction. There's a pretty clear distinction between private donors and money funneled from the industry itself.

Posted by: crd203 | March 28, 2008 8:59 PM

To all concerned Democrats, I said it last year when I saw this coming: The vicious personal attacks is going to cost the Dems the election because no matter who wins the nomination, a substantial number of the loser backers have already indicated they will either stay home or worst yet vote for the McSame.

Sorry to break this news to you or better yet remind you of where this is heading. Unfortunately, the whole world is watching this meltdown of the Democratic party.

It has been said by some insiders the Hillary will destroy Obama by any means possible if she can't win the nomination.

If that is true, and she has been acting like Tanya Harding by staying in the "attack mode" against Obama to the glee of the Republicans, then I hope she will be happy her with her spoils of the war.

This time, she will be remembered for the sniper fire as she will have not only wounded herself but the party as well.

Obama will survive and move on as he is younger and may be able to try in 2012 if he choses. Hillary (and Bill) will have to live down their negative legacy.

Come January 2009, Americans will be onward to another 100 yrs in Iraq at 2 billion "shrinking" American dollars a month!

What a country!!

Posted by: rwhipple1 | March 28, 2008 8:49 PM

Just some clarification regarding Obama and the U of C Law School. This is from their website. Since it is public, I assume they will not mind my publishing it here. (see below, following my comments)

The term "professor" appears to be used to mean "teacher" or "instructor," not "Professor" in the sense of "Full Professor." It is not clear from the U of C website whether a Senior Lecturer is the equivalent of an assistant, associate, or full professor. It seems that both Lecturers and Senior Lecturers are what is usually referred to as 'adjunct' faculty because they are not full-time nor tenured positions. It is not clear what 'distinction' there might be between the two, since neither are full time. My guess would be pay scale.

I do not know what scholarly publications Obama might have, but to become a full professor in most universities requires a scholarly book (which he appears not to have) and articles in scholarly journals. Can anybody help with this?

In any case, the use of the term "professor" is misleading if by it one means a full-time faculty member who has gone through the normal promotion procedures and has spent the better part of his career teaching and writing scholarly articles. It use in the U of C annoucement is peculiar, to say the least.

"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

Posted by: Jim2312 | March 28, 2008 8:24 PM

This latest exchange is just another example of how the two Democratic candidates and their respective supporters attack and injure each other.
Unless this stops--and soon, the division within the Democratic Party will be so deep that it will outlive the general election and pave the way for Senator McCain to become the next president.
For more on the likelihood of Clinton's and Obama's supporters helping McCain to win the White House, see:
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/clinton-and-oba.html

Posted by: bn1123 | March 28, 2008 8:00 PM

cbcb1:

Do you know how much Europeans pay per gallon of gasoline?

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 7:44 PM

vance1:

Do you also want to raise the taxes on every OTHER company that made the same (or, wait for it, even LARGER) percentages of profit than oil companies? Short of detonating nukes over major American cities, I couldn't think of a quicker way to make sure our GNP declines for two or more successive quarters.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 7:42 PM

cbcb1:

If that is "the issue" why did the ad continue: "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore"?


Answer..
Because those companies are enjoying HUGE profits by allowing "business as usual to go on"

They are a part of the problem.

Next question....

Posted by: vance1 | March 28, 2008 7:35 PM

ajtiger92 writes: "Obama is collecting money from individual donors with no strings attached. It doesn't matter from which company that work at."

He got $269,000 from employees of one company. With no strings attached! Dontcha know.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | March 28, 2008 7:27 PM

Contrast:
Obama - One million individual donors, among whom are those living on social security, minimum wage, and inflation-shrunken wages, the vast majority of whom have given an average of $100-$200. Some of these are janitors, not just executives, of oil companies. None is bundled by PACs or lobbyists who are, in case those as uninformed as the jaked (D for distorter) didn't know, professional influence peddlers.

Clinton - lobbyists and PACs for military contractors, oil corporations, media corporations. Most individual donors already gave the max in bundling for influence. Many donors gave only to her general election fund; if she loses, it goes to Barack.

Barack's one million donors just made Hillary's big donors obsolete. God bless America!

Posted by: VCubed | March 28, 2008 7:24 PM

cbcb1:

If that is "the issue" why did the ad continue: "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore"?

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 7:05 PM

Obama talks issues - and Clinton fans talk attack. It's exactly what Obama said in his race speech - let's not have distractions that keep us from discussing the issues.

Clinton attacking Obama, taking precious newspaper and tv coverage space, is a distraction.

"Exxon's making $40 billion a year and we're paying $3.50 for gas."

That's the issue.

From out of the U.S., it looks puzzling to see people messing around with such attacks. Dean and the Democratic party should step in. If Dean feels it must play out to see who wins the most votes, it jeopardizes the election for Democrats. This is why he is head of the DNC - he is the super of superdelegates.

We don't need distractions. We need to get one candidate, and get the White House.

Carole
www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com

Posted by: cbcb1 | March 28, 2008 6:52 PM

I don't know; was Bush41 a third Reagan term?

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 6:42 PM

Is a McCain Presidency a third term Bush?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1997

.

Posted by: jeffboste | March 28, 2008 6:39 PM

In any event, the MSM polls say it and my beloved Internet data now also appears to say it- It is Obama for the Dems, like it or not (conclusion at end of the blog);

Obama vs Clinton-
Technorati, Digg, del.icio.us and Reddit Analysis:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=83

Posted by: davidmwe | March 28, 2008 6:36 PM

"Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track."

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 6:23 PM

He was not a FULL-TIME law professor.

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 6:19 PM

Obama is collecting money from individual donors with no strings attached. It doesn't matter from which company that work at. Every American has the right to donate up to a total of $2300 for the primaries.

For the uneducated that don't know PACs and lobbyists bundle up money to express a common goal and directive for that particular PAC and lobbyist group, you have now been educated.

Hillary, give up or go home!

Just like the Clinton campaign to make false claims. The latest Clinton claim that Obama was not a law professor at the University of Chicago has been debunked by the University of Chicago.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 28, 2008 6:16 PM

How very Clintonian of him.

He might even say the same thing about a certain nuclear company. He may or may not have received money from the company itself, but donations from employees of that company are his fourth largest contributor:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007485.html

It's all in the parsing, doncha know.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | March 28, 2008 5:57 PM

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 5:52 PM

I'm sure Obama meant to say, that he does not take any from "Whitey" Oil Company Execs! ;-)

Barack-For the "Brothers"!

Posted by: rat-the | March 28, 2008 5:50 PM

"Operation Chaos" UPDATE:

North Carolina's primary is closed to Republicans, but unaffiliated voters, which account for 12% of the Democratic electorate, can cast ballots for either party. The "deadline" to register as unaffiliated for the Democratic primary is April 25, 2008 (although there seems to be a procedure for One-Stop Registration / Absentee Balloting after that as well):

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/NCSBE/VR/VR%20Forms/form06.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | March 28, 2008 5:44 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company