Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

New Clinton Radio Spot Goes After Obama on Energy Policy

created at TagCrowd.com

Updated 10:01 p.m.
By Garance Franke-Ruta
The above image, called a tag cloud, highlights the top 20 words used in Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's just-released Pennsylvania radio advertisement, "Real Life," criticizing Sen. Barack Obama. The critical ad comes in response to a television ad Obama has been running in the Keystone State, saying "I don't take money from oil companies," and notes that it has been illegal for presidential candidates to take money directly from corporations, as opposed to the individuals who work for them, for most of the past century.

The Clinton spot also reminds voters that Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill, which the ad calls "a piñata of perks and the best energy bill corporations could buy."

The Obama ad, released March 28, along with a transcript of today's Clinton response spot -- and a response to that from the Obama campaign -- follow the jump:

Transcript of "Real Life" radio ad provided by the Clinton campaign:

In his TV ads, Barack Obama sounds like he'll take on the oil companies.

"I don't take money from oil companies."

What he doesn't tell you is that "no candidate does....they cant," according to the Annenberg Center's Factcheck.org...It's been against the law for companies to donate to candidates for a hundred years.

Listen to Barack Obama some more.

"Now Exxon's making forty billion dollars a year and we're paying three fifty for gas."

Obama also doesn't mention that he voted for the Bush Cheney energy bill.

It was called a piñata of perks and the best energy bill corporations could buy.

Hillary Clinton voted against that bill.

She's the one who will make the oil companies pay to set up a new strategic energy fund that will cut our dependence on foreign oil .invest in new clean energy, and create five million new jobs.

It's time for president who takes on the oil companies in real life, not just on TV.

The Obama campaign's response, from spokesman Hari Sevugan:

"Just like her last tall tale about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, Senator Clinton has misfired with her latest negative ad. The fact is, Barack Obama takes no money from Washington lobbyists or PACs while Senator Clinton has taken more than any Democrat or Republican in this race, and that includes oil companies. Obama has been a Senate leader in fighting for higher fuel efficiency standards, alternative fuels and for the repeal of tax breaks for oil companies. Until this year, Senator Clinton opposed higher fuel efficiency standards and in 2004 she supported a huge tax break for the oil industry. This just another example of the broken Washington politics that Barack Obama is running to change."

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 9, 2008; 4:39 PM ET
Categories:  The Elements of Advertising  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Emerging Economic Message
Next: Where It All Began for Obama

Comments

FRED
You are a broken record with a bumper sticker recorded onto it. You are worse than a telemarketer. At least with those folks there is a small chance we might want to buy what they are selling. You on the otherhand cannot argue the merits of any of your repetitious propaganda as evidenced by the mental beatdown you recieved from Emily. I have no problem with disagreements over policy, meaningful discussions about the issues. You however are simply a bumper sticker. Simple message with no dialogue. Try saying something meaningful and based on SOME facts and accurate sourcing, instead of your repatative board mongoring vile posts

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Two reasons that the race will not be won by Hillar:

#1: Reveral wright was never running for President.

#2: Bill Clinton is not the Clinton running for office in this election.

Posted by: eljefejesus | April 10, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

you might need to study some economics and government if you think that forcing everyone to buy (literally purchase) "universal" health care won't drag down the economy and the quality of care in America, not to mention reduce people's individual freedom in a society already suffering from erosion of civil liberties...

Posted by: eljefejesus | April 10, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

You Might Be an Idiot!
if you think that Clinton did half as much as the rise of new technologies and their benefits to productivity to make the 90's economy strong...

Posted by: eljefejesus | April 10, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

don't be afred,

you forgot to add one to your "you might be an idiot" series:

You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that touting Hillary Clinton's miserable failure in attempting fruitlessly to reform health care previously does anything to make people want to for her.

It is a reminder that Hillary's experience has been with failure. However, Obama wishes a clean campaign and wishes her lots of luck, I don't know why if she's resorting to so much mud-slinging though people such as Fred. She promised to run a clean campaign... and she broke her promise. Another legacy of her experience in Washington politics?

Posted by: eljefejesus | April 10, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

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...

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. Naughty Girl. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse



Thomas B. Edsall
"The campaign press statement accompanying the release on Friday of Hillary Clinton's 2000 - 2007 tax returns includes some useful summary data for the media: Bill and Hillary Clinton's total income over the past 8 years, $109 million; her Senate salary, $1.1 million; his presidential pension, $1.2 million; her book royalties, $10.5 million; his book royalties, $29.6 million; and his speaking fees, $51.9 million.

One big line item is missing from the press summary however: the $15 million paid to Bill Clinton between 2003 and 2007 by Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund.

In fact, the Burkle payments, buried deep in the income tax forms themselves, were the only real news in tax documents, which were made public for the first time.

The Clintons' huge book profits, her salary and his speaking fees, were all well known. Hillary Clinton has been required to disclose details on many of those sources of income in the annual financial disclosure statements she has to file as a member of the U.S. Senate.

But until the release of the tax returns on April 4, the only disclosure Hillary Clinton had made about her husband's financial relationship with Burkle was the fact that Bill Clinton earned "more than $1,000" annually from the partnerships.

Now that the Clintons have disclosed that the former president received from 250 to 500 times "more than $1,000" each year since 2002, the glaring question that remains unanswered is: What did he do for all this pocket change?

Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson provided a statement that did not reveal much:

"The President provides his best advice on potential investments, advocates generally on behalf of the funds, and seeks to create opportunities for investors to consider investing in these funds or in the investments the funds make."
In more common parlance, this translates to "rainmaker" and "door opener."

Burkle, who is worth at least $2.5 billion according to Forbes, and Clinton are business and social partners, often traveling the Los Angeles social circuit together.

Burkle specializes in putting together funds that invest in city and other businesses. Burkle and Magic Johnson are working together on creating an urban investment fund.

Burkle and Yucaipa have been involved in a number of controversies that have reportedly prompted concerns in Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign that her bid might be damaged by resulting adverse publicity.

Bill Clinton was, according to sources close to both Burkle and Clinton, deeply angered by a September 26, 2007, front page Wall Street Journal article detailing some of Yucaipa's questionable dealings. The story, which broke on the same day that heads of state and business leaders convened in New York to discuss the Clinton Global Initiative, described plans to invest millions of dollars in a venture to buy up Catholic Church property.

Clinton, according to aides, intends to sever his financial ties with Burkle, although he may do so only if his wife wins the nomination, an increasingly unlikely prospect."

Posted by: Vicki Iseman | April 10, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

For Fred,

Hillary at Wal-Mart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA

Posted by: Yolanda | April 10, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Fred,

You are a complete fraud.

Who is your candidate? I don't think you have one. You are probably just a paid stoodge trying to stir up hate and fear. We are not voting for Reverend Wright. We are voting for an intelligent, hard working person who will work on the issues that are important to us. 1. Iraq, 2. The Economy, 3. Healthcare,4. Education 5. Repair of our decaying infrastructue. 6. Restoring the United States to its rightful place of respectability among the nations of the worls.

We've seen and heard all your stories- and we've seen and heard Senator Obama. We've made our choice- and it is not to continue the divisive hate talk that your old style politics engenders. I'm done with you, Fred. I used to look at your stuff, but no longer. Crawl back under your rock and take a long nap. Good riddance.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S LATEST PASTOR PROBLEM: THE ANTI-GAY RACIST REV. MEEKS
http://tinyurl.com/2w3rcj

Posted by: Fred | April 10, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S RADICAL RELIGION: BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY
http://tinyurl.com/226dgo

Posted by: Fred | April 10, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA MISLEADS ABOUT REV. WRIGHT ON THE VIEW
http://tinyurl.com/2geasp

Posted by: Fred | April 10, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S LATEST PASTOR PROBLEM: THE ANTI-GAY RACIST REV. MEEKS
http://tinyurl.com/2w3rcj

Posted by: Fred | April 10, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Vicki: I agree that no matter how many facts are presented to most Obama supporters, they will continue to believe as they must. Because they fell in love with him without knowing anything about him, and now they cannot bear any violation of their infatuation with facts. Obama could not run on his experience, because he has very little. So, instead he chose to run on "change" and his ability to "unify" the country. The articles which I post speak loudly to the fact that Obama in no way represents change. If anything, he is the most ruthless and deceptive politician since George Bush. As far as his ability to unify the country, his 20 year relationship with a racist and anti-American pastor, along with constant use of the race card, pretty much dispels that notion.

Posted by: Fred | April 10, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Vicki: John McCain is not my choice. Fred

Well who is, so we can google some trash on your candidate. It's all there. Just because it's in print or on your beloved (tinyurl) "the tin urinal." does not give it credibility. Your constant parroting of anti Senator Obama trash is not going to effect anyone's vote. If anything it will give the Senator Obama's supporters more resolve- it certainly has done that for me.

Posted by: Vicki Iseman | April 10, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S NEW PASTOR COMPARES REV. WRIGHT TO JESUS
http://tinyurl.com/2wkutu

Posted by: Fred | April 10, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

REV. WRIGHT GETS $1.6 MILLION HOUSE PLUS $10,000,000 OF FUN MONEY
http://tinyurl.com/2j4o4a

Posted by: Fred | April 10, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

REV. WRIGHT'S RACISM AGAINST ITALIANS
http://tinyurl.com/2ckflp

Posted by: Fred | April 10, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Shame on you, Thomas.

This story was totally debunked in February. The mentally disturbed individual was paid $10,000 by a porn firm to take two lie detector tests with a guarantee of $100,000 if he passed and they could use his story. He failed both times. He has since recanted his story. He is suffering from a brain tumor and says he only has a few months to live.

Shame on you, Thonas for putting this filty garbage on a respectable message board. Not even the National Enquirer would touch this diseased individual.

Posted by: Margaret | April 10, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Goodgracious: Thank you for the compliment (I mean insult). I regret the fact that you feel dumb; maybe it's because you fail to read any of the articles I've posted. At any rate, please don't get any dumber, you might just cast two votes for Obama, instead of just one.

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S CHURCH'S WEBSITE IS SCRUBBED TO FOOL AMERICAN PUBLIC
http://tinyurl.com/yssq48

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Adelaide Adelaide, there you go again. For the most part, I am merely posting links to articles about Obama. How does that make me a liar. If you think that all of the various reporters who are writing these articles are liars, merely because they are criticizing your lord and master, then take it up with them. Otherwise, stick to the facts.

Vicki: John McCain is not my choice.

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

I feel dumber every time I read the comments here, with few exceptions. Way to go JakeD, Fred, rat-THE, and the usual cavalcade of ignoramuses.

Posted by: good gracious | April 9, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

FRED, OH, FRED or is it JAKED?

Please watch your candidate John McCain in this piece about the Keating 5. Remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F1IuoR-o24&feature=related

Thos who cast stones would do well not to live in glasshouses. The only difference is that this is a true story.

Posted by: Vicki Iseman | April 9, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Iindependents like me just don't like Hillary, end of story.

McCain's not so bad, but Obama will trounce him.

Hillary, bring on the attack ads, nobody really believed your promises to hold a respectable campaign anyway...

Posted by: eljefejesus | April 9, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Shame on you Barak Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

Posted by: Thomas | April 9, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

GO BARACK OBAMA, bring on the attacks, the race is already over. This is much different than when the Iraqi government was defeated by our millitary. This is an inter-party phase that is already out of Hillary's reach.

Pennslvania can make history and make the final decision for Barack Obama to get the nomination. Too little too late to help Hillar do more than tread water a little longer...

Posted by: eljefejesus | April 9, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

"FRED LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING"

"FRED LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING"

"Mom, tell him to stop it."

Watch the blinking eyes. Not this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F1IuoR-o24&feature=related

Posted by: Adelaide | April 9, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA ON HOW DON IMUS SHOULD BE FIRED
http://tinyurl.com/24lsxt

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

A VERY GOOD ARTICLE FROM FACTCHECK.ORG ABOUT OBAMA'S SENATE RECORD VS. HILLARY'S
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
April 1, 2008
A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama's bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton's. Don't believe it.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

What both Clinton and Obama have failed to show is that they are the most effective challenger to John McCain. Attacks on each other are pointless. Democratic primary and convention voters will be more impressed by effective ads against John McCain, the ultimate opponent.

Posted by: Walter L. Johnson | April 9, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

A VERY GOOD ARTICLE FROM THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER ABOUT OBAMA PLAYING THE RACE CARD:
http://tinyurl.com/3cxskw

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA AND SURROGATES STAND IN THE WAY OF FLORIDA RE-VOTE
http://tinyurl.com/25atnq

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA HIDES HIS 8 YEARS OF RECORDS AS STATE SENATOR
http://tinyurl.com/yts7r3

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA SAYS HE "GOOFED" ON CONTROVERSIAL VOTES IN STATE SENATE
http://tinyurl.com/2x6auf

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

The Obama activists, that is, the extreme left wing of the party (MoveOn, Democracy for America, DailyKos, Keith Olbermann etc) are threatening to do to the Democratic Party what they did to us in the Connecticut Senate race. They got Ned Lamont to beat Lieberman in the primaries only to see the former get wiped out in the real race. Now, since I don't care much for Lieberman I tought that was rather cute. Big mistake. I had no idea how malicious these guys are. Their sunny fronts like Politico and MSNBC are trying to shut Hillary down. I say to all those who have been penalized for fighting tough battles. To all those who have paid their dues only to see a cute, ambitious upstart stroll in and steal the show. To all those who favor substance over style. To all those who have had to work so hard only to see the tall and young and good-looking get the credit. To all those who are sick of seeing hard earned experience get wiped out by "charisma". To all of you: MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO HILLARY RIGHT NOW.

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=2390

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES ABOUT KENNEDY'S ROLE IN HELPING HIS FATHER
http://tinyurl.com/32ys3q

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Noticed, some Obama nuts are still epileptic over Hillary's Bosnia remarks. On the other hand, we Clinton supporters hardly get a chance to go ballistic over any one single statement of Obama because his contradictions and lies just keep piling up. There's hardly any time to reflect on one lie because you are hit right away with another one.

E.g.

Obama said he was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American.

He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it.

He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.

He rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning."

He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time.

He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.

At first he knew of no controversial remarks from his pastor. Then he knew it. Then he knew some but not others.

At first the "union" that brought him into this world was caused by the bridge crossing/civil rights movement in Selma which, by the way, actually happened 5 years afterwards. Long after he was born.

He flattered Kennedys by crediting them for funding his father's arrival to US when the Kennedys had nothing to do with it.

Don't even get me going over the questionnaires he has filled indicating positions he has completely contradicted during this campaign cycle.

List keeps on growing.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA CHANGING STORIES ABOUT REZKO; $60,000, $150,000 OR $250,000?
http://tinyurl.com/3orfut

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

FRED THE ODDS ARE YOU ARE A WOMAN WHO HATES HER LIFE AND THINKS HILLARY CAN MAKE IT BETTER FOR YOUR LONELY SELF. BARACK OBAMA DOES NOT LIE IT IS YOUR CANDIDATE WHO HAS PERFECTED THAT ART. I AM GUESSING YOUR REAL IDENTITY IS ALONG THE LINES OF ELLEN AND YOUR NAME IS PHYLLIS.

Posted by: SANDRA WINTERS | April 9, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Both Clintons and soon Senator McWar will try anything to create FEAR in the mind of of AMericans. They want Barack Obama and in y opinion the United States to lose for their own personal gain. Obama is the real deal and prepared to lead u into some positive CAHNGE for once. All Americans who are ready to take part in a great change for our country an sacrifice something anything for the greater good of our nation welcome aboard the Obama express next stop POTUS.

Posted by: JUDITH CHINGWA, SGT US ARMY | April 9, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES ABOUT HIS HEALTH PLAN
http://www.newsweek.com/id/107897

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES IN DEBATES ON VIDEO ABOUT HIS PRIOR SUPPORT FOR A SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH PLAN
http://tinyurl.com/4plwpl

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has been proven to be a liar and bender of the truth to the maximum amount. She learned these skills from the man who did not know the meaning of is remember him? She is also the biggest recipient of PAC Corporate money. She is upset because Barack Obama turned fund raising on its head and has received contributions from over 1 Million Americans. If some of the 1 million are oil company employees then so what lady. Might be better if she takes some of that 109 Million she has made working the late shift and put it into her failed campaign. Hillary you lost TEXAS and have no shot at the nomination so stop taking money from our citizens and start supporting the winner of the context in the Democratic party.

Posted by: Anna Stedson | April 9, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES IN DEBATES ON VIDEO ABOUT PHARMACEUTICAL REP IN CAMPAIGN
http://tinyurl.com/6kv232

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

All you geniuses are useful for one thing only -
A GOOD LAUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kinda like a barnyard full of chickens
cackling madly away about who the farmer's wife likes best, while she's in the kitchen sharpening her knives.......

chicken soup, anyone???

Posted by: oldphilosopher | April 9, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

IT IS SUCH A PLEASURE TO READ COMMENTS FROM IDIOTS WITH ROOM TEMPERATURE IQ's. I used to try and post some comments of interest, but it has gotten to the point where the only things you read are personal attacks. I am quite surprised as to how many stupid people there really are.

Posted by: Ron | April 9, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

One of the sad parts about the energy bill that was passed in December was that it had absolutely nothing in it to encourage the burgeoning solar panel industry in this country. We need to correct that mistake as soon as possible. There have been major breakthroughs in technology to produce affordable solar power, but because of the current regressive energy policy and the very enlightened policy of Germany and Spain nearly our entire national production of solar panels and technology are being exported. It is great for the balance of trade but a disaster for the many small businesses that are trying to deliver renewable energy products here in the US. I have no stake in these businesses. I want to buy their products but can't because everything being produced is going overseas at a premium price.

I would like to see all three of our Senators running for President do something now, not next year, to fix this travesty. Let's see an energy bill amendment that encourages rapid growth of solar cell production and produces incentives to use them here in the US now. Show some real leadership now and you will earn a leadership position come election time.

Posted by: Jim Reed | April 9, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Emily,
Your point about contributions by individuals versus political action committees was right on the mark. May I suggest that you lost your opportunity to be heard when you then went on to call Fred either a complete moron or a compulsive liar and to attack him as possibly an impostor. I don't think your candidate is really trying to encourage this kind of discourse. Stay focused on the issue, you make good sense.

Posted by: Jim Reed | April 9, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

The last seven years have been an embarrassment from so many perspectives. But looking back at what Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Powell, and Rice have done or who supported them when and how, candidate or not, is really irrelevant. We have a mess to clean up politically, economically, environmentally, and socially. So candidates and your advisers and supporters, what can you realistically do to fix these problems. How are you going to use your leadership skills to get everyone working together to solve the problems? Can you enlist the wide range of business leaders, union leaders, environmentalists, church leaders, and social activists to work together to solve these problems. Stop pointing fingers, people, and let's focus on the real problems and their solutions. What's done is done. Now what are we going to do? Candidates, how are you going to LEAD the country? How are you going to make sure that all the citizens are represented as these problems are addressed ? The candidate that does that is going to get this independent's vote. I encourage all of us to get this campaign focused on the issues that really matter to us.

Posted by: Jim Reed | April 9, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

The last seven years have been an embarrassment from so many perspectives. But looking back at what Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Powell, and Rice have done or who supported them when and how, candidate or not, is really irrelevant. We have a mess to clean up politically, economically, environmentally, and socially. So candidates and your advisers and supporters, what can you realistically do to fix these problems. How are you going to use your leadership skills to get everyone working together to solve the problems? Can you enlist the wide range of business leaders, union leaders, environmentalists, church leaders, and social activists to work together to solve these problems. Stop pointing fingers, people, and let's focus on the real problems and their solutions. What's done is done. Now what are we going to do? Candidates, how are you going to LEAD the country? How are you going to make sure that all the citizens are represented as these problems are addressed ? The candidate that does that is going to get this independent's vote. I encourage all of us to get this campaign focused on the issues that really matter to us.

Posted by: Jim Reed | April 9, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Fred, I read your factcheck article and it is nothing new. It says that the contributions came from INDIVIDUALS- i.e., EMPLOYEES.

"Obama has, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.

Again Fred, I have given over $700 to Senator Obama's campaign and am going to give another $100 tonight because of your obstinacy. I work for the airlines and must put that down. That does not mean the "airline companies" are backing Senator Obama. Get it.

You are either a complete moron or else a compulsive liar if you cannot see the difference.

I still think you are probably JakeD= the old Mccain provacateur.

Give it up. It won't work this time.

Posted by: Emily | April 9, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Why are we wasting time attacking each other about what campaign ads say or imply? They have limited time to get the message out. The campaign ad designers are the ones trying to spin issues and manipulate the public. Let's force our candidates to address the issues not in sound bites to be played over and over but with some thoughtful, well presented logic. Each candidate has done a good job in certain areas. But we will only really know what they think, not from ads but widespread availability of their full speeches in their full context. When they are available on C-SPAN and responsible websites in their full context and we watch them in their full context we get a lot better feel for who these people are. The cable channels, like CNN, have dedicated programs like the Ballot Wars or the like but all they are doing are playing sound bites or at best excerpts of the speeches and often focusing on inane parts rather than the meat of the message. Latching on to sound bites and then harping on inaccuracies is such a waste of energy and pointless.

Posted by: Jim Reed | April 9, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

"do you approve of Rumsfeld and the other Bush appointees?" Fred

Fred, I'm just wondering if you ever studied logic or can read things as they are written or hear things as they are spoken. When you say someone is in the "mainstream of American politics" it does not mean that you approve of their actions or policies.

No, I do not approve of how Donald Rumsfeld carried out his job as Secretary of Defense. I don't approve of how George Bush has carried out his job as President. There are a few Bush appointees that, in my opinion, have done a fairly good job- Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve is one of them.

I voted for John Kerry last time. Al Gore before that, Bill Clinton before that ( I didn't agree with many of his policies or his moral behavior as it turns out,) and Ronald Reagan before that, and will be voting for Senator Obama in this election. How about you? Who do you "approve of?"

Or do you just google and find things that you can distort about Senator Obama?

Posted by: Emily | April 9, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Emily: I can't explain it any more clearly. Since you are still having a hard time, I suggest that you read the factcheck.org article outlining Obama's dissembling, and then if you still have a problem with their analysis, please take it up with them. Thank you for your cooperation.
http://tinyurl.com/35s7f5

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

No Fred,

Senator Obama does not receive money from any "Interests."

Employees are not "Interests." Get it? You have to say who you work for if you contribute to his campaign. If Joe works for a Baskin and Robbins ice cream parlor as a counter person, he has to put down- "employed by Baskin and Robbins." That does not mean the dreaded Ice Cream companies are supporting Senator Obama. Get it?

Probably not. You will misinterpret any googled story to spread your lies about a very good man. Why don't you spend your time telling all of us why your candidate would make a good and decent President? You are not going to change anyone's vote by spreading your vile and hateful garbage. Not this time.

Posted by: Emily | April 9, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Our energy policy needs to focus on solving the problems that prevent ALL energy sources to be used most effectively, safely, environmentally sound. Coal costs less that all other sources to produce electricity because it is getting a free ride for not having to pay the pollution prevention costs and miner safety costs. Fix these issues and use the coal in ways the make sense with the CO2 and other pollutants eliminated. It costs money but then it is truly competing with cleaner energy production. I would rather pay more for clean energy than pay for foreign energy with the other risks that come with it. Similarly, fix the nuclear waste issues and encourage it's use responsibly. Wind power is great but let's address not ignore the migrant bird issue with innovation. Solar costs are coming way down but we can not buy panels this year because they are being exported to Germany. Why? An energy policy and exchange rate that makes exporting better business. There are lessons to be learned by watching what Germany and Spain are doing to encourage renewable energy while continuing to use their fossil fuels.

Posted by: Jim Reed | April 9, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Emily: Well, then, do you approve of Rumsfeld and the other Bush appointees, minus their stance on the missile defense system? Since your lord and master said that, I assume the answer is a big YES.

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

"VIDEO OF OBAMA APPROVING RUMSFELD AND OTHER BUSH APPOINTEES" "Fred"

Fred, you are a vicious liar and an ignorant fool. Unless of course, you are partially deaf. Senator Obama said he didn't agree with their "missile defense policy," but that Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush appointees were not out of the "mainstream" of American politics." He would say the same about Hillary and John McCain. That does not mean that he approves of their policies by any measure.

Get a grip. Vote for anyone you want, but stop the lies. You are so very pathetic. It won't work- not this time.


www.barackobama.com


Posted by: Emily | April 9, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"VIDEO OF OBAMA APPROVING RUMSFELD AND OTHER BUSH APPOINTEES" "Fred"

Fred, you are a vicious liar and an ignorant fool. Unless of course, you are partially deaf. Senator Obama said he didn't agree with their "missile defense ploicy," but that Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush appointees were not out of the "mainstream" of American politics." He would say the same about Hillary and John McCain. That does not mean that he approves of their policies by any measure.

Get a grip. Vote for anyone you want, but stop the lies. You are so very pathetic. It won't work- not this time.


www.barackobama.com

Posted by: Emily | April 9, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA WATERS DOWN NUCLEAR LEAK BILL AFTER OVER $227,000 IN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EXELON
http://tinyurl.com/2kpwsw

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

LET ME HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THIS: Here is the ad as you posted it -- "I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.
I approve this message because it's time that Washington worked for you. Not them."

Now, if Obama were honest, he would have said right after the phrase "I don't accept money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists" BUT I DO ACCEPT MONEY BUNDLED BY MY SUPPORTERS FROM THESE INTERESTS.

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I find it curious that so many of the Obama blog supporters are using the same verbiage, in two cases exactly the same with different names. Looks like a well organized campaign staff is at work monitoring the blogs and responding. It is just a little too obvious.

I wish we could have these discussions on the issues without the hate filled attacks on individuals whether they be candidates or interested responders. It's time for a change in the way we conduct our national business and our national discourse on the issues.

Posted by: Jim Reed | April 9, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Correction... on PAC contributions to candidates...

Hillary
Transfers from Committees: $10 million
Non-party, other Committees: $1 million

Obama
Transfers from Committees: $0 (zero)
Non-party, other Committees: $0 (zero)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

VIDEO OF OBAMA APPROVING RUMSFELD AND OTHER BUSH APPOINTEES
http://tinyurl.com/528yrl

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Check the Federal Election Commission web site for finance reports filed by both candidates. You will that Hillary "sniper-fire" Clinton received $10,000 from PACs, and Barack Obama received $0 (zero) from PACs.

Posted by: Dave | April 9, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Each candidate, Republican and Democrat has impressed me and disappointed me. I am less concerned about whether a oil company lobbyist is involved in establishing energy policy and more hopeful that lobbyists and interested citizens from the renewable energy and environmental lobbies are also involved, publicly. I want to see them them all work together to do the best for the country in the long run. If any of them are not willing to work together to find a common ground solution, I would hope the LEADER we elect will invite them to leave the table so that real work for the national interest can succeed.

Posted by: Jim Reed | April 9, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Justin, you need to get your facts right to, and not suck up to Obama any further. Funny how you people in the media exaggerate as well, because Hillary never stole from employees. That source was provided by the pro-Obama Boston Globe.

Posted by: Kevin | April 9, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

You people in the media are STILL pathetic

Posted by: Kevin | April 9, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

"the issue is the Obama lies when he says he doesn't take ANY money from the oil companies." "Fred"

I think Fred and JakeD are one in the same- mainly a broken record of lies. Again.

Senator Obama does not take money from PAC's or oil company lobbyists- which is exactly what he said in his ad.

I work for the airlines and contribute regularly on www.barackobama.com. That doesn't mean "the airline industry" supports Senator Obama. Get a life you old fool, and stop your lame attacks. It just shows everyone what a curmudgeon you must be.

"Bill Burton, press secretary for the Obama campaign, reaffirmed the ad's message, saying "Senator Obama is the only candidate in the race who doesn't accept campaign contributions from special interests PACs and Washington lobbyists, and that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists."
"The energy bill that Senator Clinton has already been criticized for misrepresenting -- one that Clinton supporters Representatives Murtha and Kanjorski also backed -- actually raised taxes on oil companies and made the largest investment in renewable energy in our nation's history," said Mr. Burton in a statement. "Instead of continuing with the negative and misleading tactics that voters everywhere are rejecting, Senator Clinton should get behind the Obama plan to ease the burden of rising gas prices on working families."
Here's the script for "Nothing's Changed":
Since the gas lines of the '70's, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing's changed -- except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas."

"I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.
I approve this message because it's time that Washington worked for you. Not them."



Posted by: Emily | April 9, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES IN NAFTA AD ABOUT HILLARY
http://tinyurl.com/2u4w7k

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Wow, what a great plan. 5 MILLION new jobs, reduced foreign oil and clean energy. All at the evil oil companies expense. Sounds almost too good to be true.

Two problems though. First, companies don't pay for anything, the consumers do. If the government requires them to spend money they don't want to then they have no choice, and every right, to pss it along to the consumer at the pump.

More importantly, if this plan is as good as it sounds then why wait till you are President. Hillary can introduce it as a Bill TODAY, it will surely pass both houses and she can vote in it's favor. As President, she would be able to do neither.

Posted by: RSH | April 9, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S FIVE CHANGING STORIES AND LIES ABOUT NAFTA AND THE CANADIAN EMBASSY INCIDENT
http://tinyurl.com/396v3b

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA: DIRTY POLITICIAN FROM THE START --
http://tinyurl.com/2zwwte

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Do you mean Hilbama's lies?

Posted by: mitchs | April 9, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

It's not about the support; it's about Obama's lies.

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Boy, now I'm really mad. I'm gonna boycott the oil companies. I'm not gonna buy anything made with petrolium. They shouldn't be allowed to support any candidate for office. Any candidate who associates with anybody who takes oil company money needs to drop off the ticket. Hello? anybody left? Helloooo

Posted by: MITCHS | April 9, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

The issue is not who has taken MORE money from the oil companies; the issue is the Obama lies when he says he doesn't take ANY money from the oil companies.

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
http://tinyurl.com/2nu85r

Posted by: Fred | April 9, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

The facts:

Obama does not take money from oil companies.

All three candidates have received money from people who can be traced back to oil companies (employees and relatives of employees).

Clinton and McCain have each received more money from people who can be traced back to oil companies than Obama has. (Obama: 213,000; Clinton: 306,000; McCain: 291,000)

Posted by: DoTheMath | April 9, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Lawrence is absolutely right. In real life - not on radio- though, it is Clinton who has taken more money from oil and gas company employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01).
And it is Clinton who accepts PAC funds from energy corporations, while Obama does not.
Don't worry, it is just her next habitual misstatement.

Posted by: AU | April 9, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, it is Clinton who has taken more money from oil and gas company employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics . And it is Clinton who accepts PAC funds from energy corporations.

How about that for the pot calling the kettle.....

Posted by: ana | April 9, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

In reality, it is Clinton who has taken more money from oil and gas company employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Also, it is Clinton who accepts PAC funds from energy corporations. Obama does not.


Posted by: Lawrence Craig | April 9, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

"She's not LYING about taking that money though" JakeD (who else?)

Why are you defending Mrs. Clinton, JakeD, I thought you were a diehard McCain supporter?

She is lying. Senator Obama does not take money from PAC's or oil company lobbyists- which is exactly what he said in his ad.

I work for the airlines and contribute regularly on www.barackobama.com. That doesn't mean "the airline industry" supports Senator Obama. Get a life you old fool, and stop your lame attacks. It just shows everyone what a curmudgeon you must be.

"Bill Burton, press secretary for the Obama campaign, reaffirmed the ad's message, saying "Senator Obama is the only candidate in the race who doesn't accept campaign contributions from special interests PACs and Washington lobbyists, and that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists."
"The energy bill that Senator Clinton has already been criticized for misrepresenting -- one that Clinton supporters Representatives Murtha and Kanjorski also backed -- actually raised taxes on oil companies and made the largest investment in renewable energy in our nation's history," said Mr. Burton in a statement. "Instead of continuing with the negative and misleading tactics that voters everywhere are rejecting, Senator Clinton should get behind the Obama plan to ease the burden of rising gas prices on working families."
Here's the script for "Nothing's Changed":
Since the gas lines of the '70's, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing's changed -- except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas."

"I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.
I approve this message because it's time that Washington worked for you. Not them."

Posted by: Emily | April 9, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's husband Bill Clinton closed down ANWR. The oil still sits in the ground to this day. The reason we don't have any new energy, is because of her husband, and the stupid environmental lobbyists, who stop any form of energy from being developed.

Build nuclear power plants. Replace the combustion engine with electric cars with replaceable batteries. The batteries can be exchanged at any convenience store....and the nuclear power plants can supply the energy to run them.

How hard is this to figure out.
Yucca Mountain can handle the fuel rods. A Plasma burner can be used to dispose of the batteries.

And Hillary hasn't promoted anything other than alternate this, and alternate pipe dreams. Bill would of already done something, if a Clinton was going to change anything. They are the status quo candidates. More of the same.....lies comes to mind.

Posted by: Steven Wilson | April 9, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have no shame or honor. They are deceitful and dishonest at every turn. I was planning on voting for her if somehow she wrested the nomination from Senator Obama in a fairly honest and fair manner- but after the last round of lies about "his plans on withdrawing from Iraq as "just talk" and this utter nonsense about employees contributions- I have had it with the Clintons.

They had their chance on healthcare and she totally fouled it up. No more scandal or drama in the White House- at 3 AM or at any other time. They've made their $109,000,000- that's enough. Bill is just going to set up shop in the Lincoln bedroom and "do what he does best."

Posted by: Emily | April 9, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

> She's not LYING about taking that money though. See the difference?

So you're saying Clinton just "misspoke"?
Was she under sniper fire at the time?

Posted by: Joe | April 9, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was for the war before she was against it.So which Hillary do we get? Bill got $200,000 to pass the Colombian free trade bill. I did not know that he was a registered lobbyist , which is required to take money form foreign firms for the purpose of lobbying. If he is taking money to lobby her and he is putting that money in their joint accounts, isn't that a bribe?What kind of White House can she run if he is promising one thing at the back door and she is saying the opposite at the front door?

Posted by: majorteddy | April 9, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

This blog must be full of people who can't read. The energy bill that Hilary Clinton talks about was 90% perks for oil and coal companies. Anybody that says differently clearly did not read it.

Posted by: Truthful | April 9, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Two questions for Obama

1) Your father was from Kenya, but the only father figure in your life until your teenage years was your stepfather, who is your stepfather?


2) You have stated that Pastor Wright converted you to christianity some twenty years ago, what was your religion if any prior to being converted?

Posted by: Julius silva | April 9, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

A tax on US corporations is passed on to US citizens. Why is it that no politician of either party is willing to annually increase TARIFFs on imported oil and use the revenues to fund tax credits and grants for domestic renewable energy production???????

Posted by: Ray | April 9, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

As people start to become more and more focused on the general election, Hillary's ads like this one are hurtful to her party. A show of evidence would be the Hillary supporters on this forum and others, clucking about how they will be supporting John McCain in November.

Right now she can be of use to her party by staying focused on the issues.

Posted by: Melissa Towne | April 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton is right why did it take so long for her to bring out the message. She could have brought it up in Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, and in so many other states where she could have won. But she didn't do it because this is all made up right now, especially to fool the people of Pennsylvania.

Hillary and Bill are the biggest snake oil sales people in this country. Hillary says she opposes the Columbia free trade. But Bill supports it. That is why Mark Penn is still in their campaign payroll even after he fessed he messed up. Bunch of crooks we have in the Clintons. And to lick their behinds we have the potty mouth Carville guy who looks like the ugliest of the hairless cats.

Posted by: Clint | April 9, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Annenberg Center's Factcheck.org needs to be explain their research.

No company can contribute directly to a campaign. Obama's is not referring to this. He referring to the bundled money received from PACs and special interest groups. Any American citizen is allowed to donate to a presidential campaign as long as they donate no more than $2300 in the primary and no more than $2300 in the general. This includes donors who range from oil executives to Grandma Jane.

Sorry Hillary your credibility is gone.

Posted by: AJ | April 9, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

He's not lying either. "Oil companies" in this context means anyone from a gas pump attendant to a guy on an oil rig. Are those guys part of Big Oil? Either they are (making it a silly definition) and Clinton is more in their pocket, or they aren't and Obama is correct.

Posted by: Steve | April 9, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

At least the Hillary campaign is "sort of" getting back to issues. These poor Hillary-supporters are uninformed and led easily astray by Hillary's gift of mis-speaking.

The Energy Bill did several things as opposed to "fight and get nothing done" which the Hillary argument. The Energy Bill raised mileage standards on future vehicles, net increase in taxes on oil companies, increase the mandated use of alternative fuels, and did some other positive things. Was the bill perfect? No. Was it a better option than doing nothing? No.

Posted by: AJ | April 9, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Steve:

She's not LYING about taking that money though. See the difference?

Posted by: JakeD | April 9, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Funny, Clinton took more money from the employees of Oil companies than Obama. Maybe she should factcheck that too.

Posted by: Steve | April 9, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Justin, for your nuanced (and in such little time!) look at the bill and your resistance against partisan dichotomies. A critical look at that bill finds that, despite its imperfections, it encourages oil companies to search for ways to curb use of fossil fuels in the interest of alternatives, which will, ultimately, end our foreign dependence on oil.

Posted by: Jared | April 9, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

You really need to learn a little about your government. It might help you make an informed decision.

The energy bill Clinton is referring to significantly increased taxes for oil companies and most of the incentives were tied to alternative energy sources. Clinton even supported the bill during most of it's authoring and deliberation. In the end she chose to vote against, but Obama--along with a bipartisan majority--voted for the bill because it was better than what we had previously.

Was it a perfect bill? No. It was the best compromise that they could get through Congress and signed into law. However, the alternative was to continue to under-tax the oil industry and not promote alternative energy research. Given the situation, I'd say Obama a decent call.

Posted by: Chen | April 9, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

linda and nickyle,

You really need to learn a little about your government. It might help you make an informed decision.

The energy bill Clinton is referring to significantly increased taxes for oil companies and most of the incentives were tied to alternative energy sources. Clinton even supported the bill during most of it's authoring and deliberation. In the end she chose to vote against, but Obama--along with a bipartisan majority--voted for the bill because it was better than what we had previously.

Was it a perfect bill? No. It was the best compromise that they could get through Congress and signed into law. However, the alternative was to continue to under-tax the oil industry and not promote alternative energy research. Given the situation, I'd say Obama a decent call.

Posted by: Justin | April 9, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Wait till the response ad, I wish they would do a takeoff on Hillary's prediliction for stretching the truth when it suits her purposes

Posted by: nclwtk | April 9, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama has lied about "Big Oil" from the beginning. He has all these lame reasons for voting for the Bush/Cheney energy bill and going AGAINST the Democrats who wanted to IMPROVE the bill... but Obama's vote was BOUGHT AND PAID for... to the detriment of actually getting a good national energy policy.

It is about time that Obama got called out on it. Go Hillary.

Posted by: nickyle | April 9, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

how about an in depth article on the Cheney Energy bill that Barak voted FOR.

Posted by: linda | April 9, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Two weeks out: Hillary's slipping in the polls. Cue the negative adds.

Last time the Obama campaign deflected her with kid gloves. This time I doubt they'll be as nice. They have a huge amount of ammo against her with the CAFTA mess and her ongoing streak of "misstatements." Plus they have the money to air counter attacks non-stop.

It's shame that the Clintons chose to take things in this direction. I guess Bill Bradley was right. The Clinton's are entirely tactical; they're just incapable of thinking strategically.

Posted by: Justin | April 9, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama ... ignorance is bliss. He knows nothing about foreign relations or the economy,but he sure does know how to spend other people's money

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary DIANE Clinton!!!

Posted by: JakeD | April 9, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company