Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Playing Politics -- With Oprah?

By Anne E. Kornblut
Is the McCain campaign playing politics -- with Oprah Winfrey?

A Drudge report item surfaced on Friday about Oprah's programming plans -- saying her staffers were divided over having Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, on as a guest.

The rumor seemed designed to force Winfrey's hand and call her out as a partisan. Winfrey -- whose largely female audience is a prime target for both parties -- took heat during the Democratic primary for backing Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Winfrey swiftly knocked the report down, calling it "categorically untrue."

"There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show," Winfrey said in a statement. "At the beginning of this presidential campaign, when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

By Lexie Verdon  |  September 5, 2008; 6:00 PM ET
Categories:  Sarah Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Ad for Florida
Next: Obama and McCain to Make Joint Sept. 11 Visit to Ground Zero

Comments

The republican veep candidate is probably more popular then oprah at this point. I think oprah did her a huge favor by not having her on.

Posted by: RoundWorld | September 10, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Oprah released a statement, (I have chosen not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates.) Are you kidding me. She could interview Palin as a woman, not as a candidate. It's time people of both parties make up their own minds based upon their own convictions and stop following celebs around like a bunch of sheep. It's obvious Oprah speaks of womens issues, until it doesn't line up with her beliefs. Oprah is in it for Oprah.

Posted by: Truth | September 10, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I think Sarah Palin should say -Thanks but NO Thanks to Oprah Winfrey.
But I do think she should go on every other show out there.
You would soon see the Queen change her tune.

Posted by: mimi362 | September 9, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Ahhh, remember the "Good ol' Days" for the liberal left? Things were SO much easier back then.

When the Democrats only had to say "Look, we've got a women on the ticket, we 'get it'!"

or, when Oprah didn't have to show her "true colors" by having to choose between a women or race.

or, when the National Organization of Women (NOW) didn't actually have to PROVE that they represented women (which they don't).

...the list goes on and on.

McCain has done more than just show great judgment by picking an excellent running mate.

McCain has begun to expose the rabid hypocrisy that permeates the liberal-left and Mainstream Media (MSM).

As the days, weeks and months go by, watch for yourself how the left tries to weasel-word their way out of the holes that they're digging for themselves.

Don't buy any of it!

Posted by: Poser Exposer | September 9, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter and I resent having Oprah Winfrey or Denzel Washington or Nancy Pelosi telling me that I can't vote for the McCain/Palin ticket-(that it's not the SMART thing to do.) If only someone would have told Obama that he was being immature and arrogant to dismiss the 18 million voices for Hillary Clinton but instead he chose to ignore us and the things we stand for. I now choose to ignore Him and what, if anything he really stands for.

Posted by: mimi362 | September 9, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

If Oprah is at rock bottom, why do you McCain supporters want palin on her show?

If Palin gets indicted for using her power to fire her brother inlaw, an Alaskan state troper, because he was involved in a bitter divorce with Palins sister, McCain could lose the election..

btw: a poll taken in alaska, by an alaska newspaper revealed 87% of Alaskans believe she is lying about "Troopergate"
(see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQx42Tsz5NQ&feature=related )

The governors office should never be used as a tool for settling personal scores.

And dsending 20 something emails to the Safety commisioner complaining about her brother in law is an obvious attempt to use her influence to settle a personal score.

Think people: TWENTY 20 e-mails??? The woman is obesssed and incredibly vindictive. She cant be trusted with authority.

Thats why I am voting for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, a strict constitutionalist and principled man who opposes abuse of power. (Barr is is also pro-life.)

Posted by: cucich | September 9, 2008 3:23 AM | Report abuse

AH ha ha,
I just laughed out loud at myself.
I posted the anonymous post below.
I thought it would automatically put in my user name.

But as i said,
There are some seriously ignorant and racist people posting on this thread.

This is what happens when you let cowards post anonymously.

Posted by: julieds | September 9, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

There are some seriously ignorant and racist people posting on this thread.

This is what happens when you let cowards post anonymously.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Yeah! Oparah turns out to be a biggest racist in America for her own closet racist sentiments.

Posted by: martha | September 8, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Is afternoon TV talk queen Oprah Winfrey a misogynist, a hater of women? Or does this talented entertainer who earns $100 million per year via mostly-white female audiences only undermine white women such as Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton?

How else can we explain Oprah’s dogmatic refusal to interview Palin, GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s running mate, who could become the first female vice president of the United States?

Posted by: johnson | September 8, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Why is it OK for Leno to have McSame on a zillion times without every reciprocating but Oprah can't decide whom to have or not have on her show. Personally, I'd love to see Palin get ripped to shreds on Oprah's show!

Posted by: Lee | September 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like a lot of these broke arse Oprah bashers are real jealous of Oprah's success. I am sure she don't give two quacks about your useless opinions...Her show is still a sucess and oh by the way, did I forget to mention that she is still one of the riches and most powerful individuals in the country....Is that why I smell a lot of jealousy and hatred? lol!!

Posted by: Kim | September 8, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Oparah helped? go figure..

Essentially she took money from me and you and our friends in the name of donations and used it for her racial causes... This isn;t going to happen any more.. I am not paying a dime to her.

She is the biggest racist bigot and b***h in entire america. I am happy that her show ratings are on floor :)

Posted by: linda | September 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse


She has already "used" her show as a "platform" for a political candidate. Who would know her or her support of Obama if not for her show?

If a hack like O'Reilly can have Obama on, this gasbag can make up her politics-related ratings losses by interviewing the most discussed woman in the entire country.

Posted by: Chicago1 | September 8, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I love Oprah....she has done more to help the less fortunate than any republican that I can think of and even more than the Bush Administration has done to help Americans in the past 8 years!

Posted by: Republican for Obama | September 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

That's right Ophra....don't let those republican lying arse thugs try and push you around. They got to NBC...but that is your show and McCain and Pallin can both rot in he$$!! You don't need her redneck arse on your show....Why don't you do an interivew with Hillary Clinton this week!! She is not a candidate...Now that's change we can count on! Love ya Oprah...keep up the good work...You should also do an interview on McCain's background. McCain comes from a large family of slave owners!!! He is a hypocrite...Most republicans came from a large number of slave owner family members!!! That's why the Bush Administration did absolutely nothing to save or assist Katrina and stood by proudly while they watched more than 1600 Americans die on their watch due to weather devastation! They are inhumane!

Posted by: Kim | September 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse


BROs BEFORE HOs

Posted by: Obama | September 8, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Republicans murder children

Posted by: kk | September 8, 2008 6:11 AM | Report abuse

###

Why would America REWARD complete Republican failure ?

We WONT.

###

Posted by: PulSamsara | September 8, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Big deal! Oprah is all in with Obama, she has already given all her support to the possibly the first black president, who can blame her. The interview would have been biased and unfair to Palin and put Oprah in a difficult position.

Posted by: abe | September 8, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

The last three are more Neo-Conjob post for those who are ignorant enough to believe otherwise. I think the third one down might even be one of the off shore goons based on spelling and gramar.

I can't be counted as ever being an Oprah fan, but she has every right as a private individual to support whoever she wants. If you don't like it, tough, that's a democracy. Of course the Neo-Cons only want THEIR type of democracy.

Don't fall for these pinheads who post incessantly.

Posted by: Oh brother! | September 7, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

I lost respect of Oprah when she used her influence to prop up an unqualified candidate just because of the race. Doesn't seem fair to me.

Posted by: independent heart | September 7, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Oprah USED to be a respectable person, but with all the power she wields, she's sort of has gone overboard these days(this of course has nothing to do with Palin not being on the show). She's sort of has her own CULT following which has become dangerous, having people read certain books, promoting new age thoughts (yet claiming it's Christianity), controlling thoughts of innocent victimized women (through her "counseling"). I think she's a good person and all and wants to do good, HOWEVER, she's crossed the line into mind games and manipulation of people and media. But many women have started to open their eyes (at least the ones I've spoken with). With the whole "world of Oprah", her confidents, advisers, "friends" maybe having influence on her that has made her stray from her roots. I guess the old saying "POWER" corrupts, and with her wealth, and daily Oprah shows, one has to be VERY CAREFUL how one is mesmerized and hypnotized by her "teachings".

Posted by: OprahIsSoYesterday | September 7, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

What can I say? I can just laugh at this brainless b**ch who made her fortune with that show which can only happen in this great country but yet deminished herself to a racist bigot.

She only cares about Africa not America that is why she opened her school in Africa. .now they run prostitution in that school to make more money.. She is a pimp too.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

GOP-08 "Give us 4 more years even though we screwed up the last 8 years"!!!!

Posted by: randygoetz | September 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

scott

You really are pathetic. I hope the Neo-Conjobs aren't spending too much for your services. Come to think of it maybe YOU are one of those off-shore, outsourced workers since you just keep posting the same lies over and over so they are up at the top.

What a frakin' joke!

Posted by: Oh brother! | September 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Have you guys seen new evidence emerging about Obama? go search on google "my muslim faith". He said it, Obama on national TV and admited who he actually is.

Keep this guy out of oval office.

God bless america.

Posted by: scott | September 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Oprah is a closet racist bi**h. Who cares any more whom she interviews?

Posted by: martha | September 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Oprah should just invite both Biden and Palin to her show...turn it into an unofficial debate on women issues. Let them invite a family member to soften all the political talk. It would be fun to see Piper and Joe's kid.

And for all the conservative spam being posted; it's really poor internet manners to comment on subjects that has nothing to do with the original article. So, all conservatives spamming all the blogs, learn some manners. Don't be pigs. I'm sure your mothers raised you better.

Posted by: Todd K. | September 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Let's speak the truth!

Oprah is a racist, but only to ignorant whites, yep, aren't we all at times. But her Pick for Obama is what the world needs.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The Oprah thing isn't news; this is NEWS!

According to an investigation by the New York Times, ***McCain married into an organized crime family***:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/politics/23mccain.html
Key words: Felony convictions, race tracks, asasination (msp on purp),… and it doesn’t even get into Keating or, more importantly, ***who Marley and Hensley worked for and with.*** The word is that the mob's regional network was Phoenix/Vegas/LA and that it included Meyer Lansky and other well known hoodlums. Bonanno retired in Arizona.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 7, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Why shouldn't Oprah make her viewpoints known? Isn't she a citizen just like everyone else? Isn't Rush Limbaugh an "entertainer" that uses his shock techniques to "entertain" and get people involved in the dialogue --- oh, also to make millions of dollars for himself and his advertisers????? Why would you be swayed by him anymore than you would be swayed by what Oprah says? If you don't like what someone is saying then change the station. But don't say they can't hold a political opinion. Personally, any radio station playing Rush Limbaugh or any tv playing Oprah is turned off in my house. Neither is my type of entertainment.

Posted by: MMDE | September 7, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

For those of you screaming "racist" at Oprah.....please give me some concrete examples of this supposed racism. Or do you just scream this because you don't agree with her and have no well-founded arguments?

Posted by: MMDE | September 7, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Oprah is no different from racist Sharpton and Jackson.

Posted by: linda | September 7, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I used to be a fan before knowing her well. Now I hate her because, who she is today can happen only in America and she forgot that fact and become a typical racist.

Posted by: Anna | September 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

gals, have you seen Oprah without her makeup? you can see the true racist feelings on her face. She is the most disgusted show host in today's time and her show ratings are at floor. I have stopped watching her show long time back and I just change channel during her show time.

Posted by: martha | September 7, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

The day that pop culture entered politics has arrived. Now, we have pop politics and its pop candidate Barack Obama. “Oprah is regarded as one of the most prominent and influential public figures in the United States” state the report from the U of Maryland. Her endorsement could deliver 1 mil. votes in primaries. However, entering the pop politics does not come without risks and such a business woman like Oprah made a business mistake: “Oprah’s talk show ratings had fallen for a third straight year, her
magazine circulation was down 10%, and her favorability ratings were down from her pre-Obama endorsement days.” American people understand that celebrities should stick to what they are good at, mainly entertaining us. However, telling them what to do is another matter. They do not like to be
told by people in power what to do. Oprah’s days are over, unless her business acumen prevails and she declares on her show that she made a mistake and should never enter the pop politics. Oprah should apologize to her viewers for betraying their trust. This reminds me of Paris, not the city, but Paris Hilton and her entrance of the pop politics, with her declaration that she is just hot and she is running for the President of the USA. That is the high point of the pop politics, just another way to be a center of public attention. What about Obama then? He is just a blip on the pop politics radar. Our celebrities are tired of entertaining the American people and being the center of attention, now they want the American people to actually serve them by giving them the political power. Is this called Demopop? Maybe researchers from the U of Maryland should find out.

Posted by: Wiel | September 7, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"Oh and all you idiots dumping on Obama for having "styrofoam pillars" like what the hell would have been acceptable to you, maybe a slave shanty?"
-voting Dems
*************

Hey Voting Dems-

You miss the point- The styrofoam columns and hairplugs just represent lies and feelings of UNREALISTIC SELFIMPORTANCE- you know, like Obama -Greek Emperor (with no clothes) or Young Biden- whose lies are getting really sad by now-
case in point:

"...The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries....
"Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock....

"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

By RACHEL KIPP • The News Journal • September 4, 2008


Posted by: Scott | September 7, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Another Biden Lie- (it's really getting sad)

"...The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries....
"Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock....

"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

By RACHEL KIPP • The News Journal • September 4, 2008

Posted by: Scott | September 7, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Brokaw got Biden on the MBNA scandal on Meet the Press!!!!!
My faith in NBC is restored.
He showed all the Obama commercials against lobbyists, then read a Delaware newspaper front page from today calling out Biden for siding with MBNA the company his lobbyist son Hunter received $500,000 over 5 years from. Biden also received hundreds of thousands in campaign funds and VOTED AGAINST OBAMA on bankruptcy reform.

Posted by: Scott | September 7, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I never had much respect for Oprah, but she needs to be honest., if she is going to play politics., Sarah Palin Should be the GOP nominee, not McCain. The Republicans are much more excited about palin then mccain., The new most famous person in the world. Uh Oh, Wonder if she is a Muslim too? Or worse, the anti-christ?

This site has the inside scoop about the Palin Dui Secret, http://www.duihelpguide.com Why hasnt the news covered this?

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

This site has everything about her scandals, Levi the Boy Friend, what really happen with ebay plane. http://www.hotpres.com

Despite all of this, and her lack of experiance she would probably make a much better president then McCain., Because like Obama she hasnt been corrupted by washington yet.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Still no takers?

A-C-C-O-M-P-L-I-S-H-M-E-N-T-S (any?)

****************
Who is Obama?

What has he done for our country?

Posted by: rick | September 6, 2008 10:22 PM
**************

Rick, I'll tell you.........

I don't know- but that's not the problem. The problem is that you can ask his supporters those questions and THEY don't know. There are large portions of Obama's life- in Indonesia and at Harvard Law for example that we never hear about....why? McCain has fellow veterans vouching for his character at the convention. WHERE ARE OBAMA'S FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES? (other than quid pro quo politicians). I have asked dozens of times on these blogs for any Obama supporter to quote one act of any significance (you know what I feel about his weak ethics and loose nukes bills- not much) that he's performed for our country- name one family he helped organize and how???? They can't. They tell ME to go find out for them! Perhaps the best thing Obama did for this country was to admit on Bill O'Reilly's show that the surge worked- honesty is a good start. In admitting this fact, he provides one of many answers to the question of what John McCain has done for this country.

Obama is the Emperor and Camp Obama is embarassed to say that they don't see any clothes (accomplishments).


Posted by: Scott | September 7, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Yeah I just love all of the false posts. What a riot! Con-jobs posing as dems and independents. Yup, you must think we are all really stupid folk. Where do I sign up?

Posted by: Oh brother! | September 7, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

You know, posting "news" items from right wing web sites doesn't impress anyone or sway their vote. I guess Obama was correct, you people must think we are all stupid. How much do you get paid for this job? I could use some extra income.

The old telephone scam repackaged for the net. What a joke!

Posted by: Oh brother! | September 7, 2008 3:30 AM | Report abuse

Drudge Report makes up a story and everyone talks about it. I guess it is a test to see what else we all will swallow. Expect the next one to be a doozy. If Palin is another Ann Coulter then for God's sake ignore her. It is our right to ignore idiots and venom spewing dolts.

Posted by: Anon | September 7, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

YES WE CAN!

YES WE CAN!

YES WE CAN PUT DOWN WOMEN!

YES WE CAN CHEAT OUT WOMEN!

YES WE CAN KEEP THEM AT HOME WITH THEIR CHILDREN ......IF WE DECIDED TO LET THEM HAVE CHILDREN!

YES WE CAN KEEP WOMEN OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!

Obama and the DNC cheated Hillary Clinton and Obama played the racist and sexist card. We are through with this sexism in the "equality" Democrat Party.
We will NOT put up with this sexism now aimed at destroying Sarah Palin. We will not. ENOUGH! This Democrat is proudly voting Republican.

Howard Dean, What were you thinking when you FORCED this man on the Democrat Party? IF I WERE YOUR BOSS, I WOULD FIRE YOU!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama's 2007 campaiging for an Islamic Terrorist in Kenya using US taxpayer money under the guise of a fact finding trip is stridently unnerving.
Barack Hussein Obama campaigned in the Kenyan Presidental election for his cousin Raila Odinga.
Odinga lost the election and his supporters killed thousands and routed 350,000 people out of their homes.
In a more pointed scene they locked 50 women and children up in a church and set it on fire, burning everyone to death, except; those who tried to escape the fire they killed with machetes.
Odinga had promised to change the Consitution of Kenya to support sharia law after he won the election. Obviously the people hadn't wanted that.

These are the criminal terrorist people Barack Obama hangs out with, campaigns with and supports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 03, 2008
9:35 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Barack Obama and Raila Odinga

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has continued to support Kenya's Raila Odinga, even after Odinga has been blamed for inciting tribal violence and slaughtering Christians, according to an explosive new book written by WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi.

In "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," Corsi argues that Odinga's protests following his loss to U.S.-backed Mwai Kibaki in Kenya's 2007 presidential election led to a wave of tribal and religious violence aimed against Kibaki's majority Kikuyu tribe.

The violence Obama's ally was blamed for included the slaughter of some 50 Pentecostal Christians.

As WND reported earlier, during his first visit to Kenya as a U.S. Senator in 2006, Obama openly campaigned for Odinga, to the point where Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua accused Obama of meddling inappropriately in Kenyan presidential politics. Mutua charged during a television news video that Obama had become a "stooge" to Odinga during the Kenyan presidential election campaign. Obama's father belonged to the same Luo tribe as Odinga.

In the disputed Dec. 27, 2007, presidential vote, Odinga charged he was denied winning the presidency by voter fraud.

After the election, Odinga pressed for a power-sharing arrangement in which he would be the prime minister in a government where Kibaki was president, with the two factions sharing a 50-50 power split in the cabinet.

Odinga's claim led to widespread fighting that killed more than 1,000 people in the weeks after the election, leaving more than 350,000 Kenyans displaced.

While proving involvement is difficult, many in Kenya assumed the post-election violence was supported, if not organized, behind the scenes by Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement party.

(Story continues below)

In a horrifying incident following the election, at least 50 people, including women and children, were killed when an angry mob forced Kikuyu Christians into an Assemblies of God Pentecostal church and set fire to the church, hacking with machetes any of the Christians who tried to escape the flames.

The violence occurred in the village of Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi. The massacre in the church was part of youth gang violence aimed at harassing the Kikuyu Christian minority, which before the election numbered around 20 percent of Eldoret's 500,000 people.

After the church burning, the vast majority of Eldoret’s Kikuyu Christian minority fled the city, in fear of their lives.

A Reuters video documented the Eldoret church massacre:

Christian missionaries report over 300 Christian churches were severely damaged or destroyed in the violence that swept the country, but mosques were left undisturbed.

Another horrific report came from the Telegram in London, reporting the wave of post-election violence involved members of President Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe being attacked in Nairobi slums by ethnic groups including gangs of Luo tribe youth and men who were engaging in gang rapes of women and sodomizing boys as young as five years of age.

The Telegraph reported the vast majority of the victims were assaulted in their homes and all had been targeted because of their Kikuyu tribe membership.

Mobs slashed their way into homes, attacking everyone they found with machetes and clubs. Youths raped women in front of their husbands and many wives were then dragged from their homes and killed.

In the final days of the New Hampshire Democratic Party primary, after the post-election violence in Kenya, Obama told reporters he had telephoned Raila Odinga by telephone.

Obama sided with Odinga, indicating Odinga was willing to meet with Kibaki.

"Obviously he [Odinga] believes that the votes were not tallied properly," Obama told reporters, almost as if he were running for election in Kenya. "But what I urged was that all the leaders there, regardless of their position on the election, tell their supporters to stand down, to desist with the violence and resolve it in a peaceful way with Kenyan laws."

Reporters asked if Obama had telephoned Kenyan President Kibaki.

"I have not spoken to President Kibaki as yet," the senator answered, "but I hope to get in touch with him some time soon. I want to see if I can be helpful."

It is unclear whether Obama ever spoke with Kibaki, after a rough initial meeting during Obama’s 2006 Kenyan trip.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama is not qualified to be President. Period. He does not have the qualifications.
And Americans needs to wake up to the fact that uneducated Oprah is not qualified to tell us what to read, who to like, what to wear, and certainly not who we should vote for as President of this country.

She and Obama are both more concerned with Africa than America. READ HIS BOOKS!
Oprah, you are so full of it you actually make hot air bags Obama look more real. And to think you made your money off the white middle class Americans. The same ones that the candidate you endorsed listened to degrading and spews of hate. You have no shame. Keep sending your money to Africa and building their schools, but then you need to keep your mouth shut about the schools and problems here at home. You are a hypocrite.

NOBAMA
NOPRAH

Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

"Scott,

What qualifies Obama to be President is ..."
Deep Blue
*********
Nice diatribe...lacking a certain je ne sais qua...wait, I do know what it's lacking-
ANY DISCUSSION OF OBAMA'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS!!

That's why he ISN'T qualified to be president of this country- he'd be the first with No Significant accomplishment-
John Bonjovi has vision too, but, sorry he's not qualified to be president either.
But at least he's accomplished something.

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

A previous poster said that the democratic policy is "progressive, intelligent" while the republican is "stone-age".

Being progressive is a good thing, but it should encompass all citizens and not just a select minority group. They say they support women, but truly it's only LIBERAL women. They say the support blacks, but it's truly only LIBERAL blacks. White men and women seem to be ousted from the party actually... only to push and manipulate a scenario where not the most qualified wins the Primary... but rather just someone "new"... even if that person has no record in the senate (do nothing for 1.5 years, and campaign for the highest position for the other 1.5 years). The Democratic party seem to punish those who work hard... while promotes those who speaks well. That doesn't sound progressive to me, nor does it provide any incentive for people to work hard. Their policy to distribute wealth provides no incentive for a free market culture that we want in the U.S. Just as their inside push for less experience while dissing those who have spent their lives working hard. If you don't belong in the elite Harvard, Yale group... don't expect to be a leader in the Democratic Party. Doesn't sound progressive to me.

Posted by: K | September 6, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Pat said: I look forward to my first year ever as a Democrat to voting for a Republican or Independent. Nobama must be stopped. Corruption must be stopped. I have never witness such a terrible display of corruption as I did in this 2008 Democratic Primary. Clinton was ousted by these thugs and that is why I will not reward thugs with my vote. Protect democracy, vote against NObama! ******** Great point!! And it's scary to see.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

We all know that Oprah is a closet racist. Her show rating is touching floor. I do not know who cares about her any more?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Oprah is a hypocrite!! How can she say she will not get political! What a joke. I supported Clinton and I don't believe for a minute that she supports Obama... nor do I. Even though the dems don't want to believe it, women like myself are angry that Obama dismissed Clinton. McCain has my vote.. and I don't care if it is purely out of spite !!!!!

Posted by: former dem | September 6, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Have you guys and girls seen this "Vote Reaper " on YouTube ? this kids got potential !!!!!!!!!!!!! more under Macho Sauce Productions

Posted by: J.C. | September 6, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

I think one of the best critiques of Sarah Palin comes from Gloria Steinem. For those who didn't see it:
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/gloria-steinem-deconstructs-sarah-palin.html

And, if you are as tired of the phony 'maverick' label as I am, you will love the following 1-minute video found at You Tube. It's a hoot:
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/maverick-mccain.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 6, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH!


DEMOCRATS RECONFIGURE PRESIDENTIAL TICKET BY BOOTING OBAMA, AND INSTALLING AMANDA JACKSON, AN AFRICAN AMERICAN SENATOR FROM DELEWARE, TO REPRESENT THE PARTY COME NOVEMBER.

IN A DIMLY LIT BACKROOM, HOWARD DEAN IS SEEN HAVING HIS CAKE, AND NEARLY CHOKING ON IT TOO!

Posted by: Tom Jefferson | September 6, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

life is simple.....go sarah go!

Posted by: razgirl | September 6, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

****


You've all the term "Catch-22"?

It goes like this,

Slam Palin, more will flock to her, it's our human destiny to protect the women,

Give her a pass, and the left will look week, which is already the case anyway,

So there, damned if you do, and damned if you don't!

Which is why I've been saying all this week,

Joey B and Barry Who?

And please, spare us the copy and paste garbage off the legal office backup cache..., as,

You're really smarter than that, right?

Enjoy


jd


****


Posted by: Johnny Democracy | September 6, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Deep Blue,
Your itchin' for a lickin' of bad surprises in November - particularly if your boy does win.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

What qualifies Obama to be President is that he stands for the best traditions of the democratic party and is willing to fight against the corrupt status quo so that our people can have peace, prosperity, health care, education, energy independence, and a sound environmental policy.

McCain is for war and a war economy that will bankrupt us.

His hostilities towards Russia are incredibly stupid and shortsighted. If the two major threats to Western Civilization are Islamic Extremism and Nuclear Proliferation then surely we are better off partnering with Russia, who can help us in those areas, and have two small threats rather than baiting Russia, who is often a partner on energy deals with us, in their own backyard, making an enemy of them and have THREE LARGE PROBLEMS to deal with.

Bush looked into Putins eyes and saw his soul: he saw the mirror image of the arms dealing oil man that they both are. Putin and Russia have benefited greatly thanks to Bush fanning the flames of tension in the middle east- higher prices and a world that increasingly doesn't trust the way we project our power plays directly into the Russian's hands. Bush doesn't get it. And McCain is Bush on steroids.

Obama would have a nuanced view of foreign policy, a policy that would make our allies remain our allies. I've lived overseas, and I'll tell you, you and safer walking the streets of an inner city in America than you are walking into a pub in Europe singing God Bless America these days.

So I guess you could say, I have my reasons for voting for Obama and believing that he'll be a MUCH better POTUS than McCain. They have to do with peace, prosperity, and the other policies that I believe are in America's long-term interests: health care, education and energy independence.

Gotta run, enjoy your wonderfully fulfilling Republican worldview.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Deep Karen,

First of all, it would be refreshing to read something you've written that doesn't sound like every smear email I get from both sides. I am voting for McCain and have said so since the 2 parties gave us our choice. Hre is the reason: I have a family, and I have not been convinced from word one that Obama can deliver much of what he promises. To be fair, he has no record of Accomplishment, other than good grades, job interviews and elections. I have been introduced to no families he helped as an organizer, no scholarly works of note as a law professor, and no really significant laws as a senator. His ethics bill makes it forbidden for lobbyists to sit with Senators, but not for them to stand and have lunch together (inserting index finger inside cheek and pulling)....and I don't see many terrorists in former soviet states handing their loose nukes into Sen. Lugar....so I'm betting my families future on walk not talk. McCain is the most middle of the road republican for whom I can vote. He has shown independence and good judgement in most of his 26 years in the Senate. I suppose I am secretly hoping some of his move to the Right has been, as it was with Bill Clinton, in hope of getting elected. I see him appointing Souters and O'Connors. Anyway- you asked- I believe we might get our points across better with civil discourse....but one way or the other, I see it as my responsibilty to my family to do my part in trying to prevent what I believe is a reenactment of "The Empereror's New Clothes".

SO DEEP- You're ignoring my point after I addressed yours?

WHAT ACCOMPLISMENT qualifies your candidate to be president?
What family did he help as a community organizer?
What law did he write that's helping our country?
Did he hold any hearings on the one committe he chairs?
Well?

At least the undecided voters are looking into this glaring lack of accomplishment- Gallup's down again to the margin of error 2% and CBS poll's a tie....see, those styrofoam pillars belie the truth...(I suppose Biden's hairplugs do as well)

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

All you have to do it switch the radio between NPR and Rush Limbaugh to know the difference between the progressive, intelligent democratic policies and the backward, stone-age republican nonsense.

Question to the board. The Republican politicians have the power and get the kickbacks, the Republican (BIG) businesspeople get the corrupt loot. What do you Republican voters get for selling our country down the river? Why is educating and providing health care for our people (our people!) so we can compete with the Chinese supposedly *socialist*?

I thought that good capitalists understood the importance of efficiency, which would mean an intelligent, healthy workforce that can compete in a global, knowledge-based economy...

It is stupid to keep our people stupid; sick to keep them sick. We should do better for our people. Our people!

Charlie Wilson, of Charlie Wilson's War, wrote a piece called Charlie Wilson's peace and he extolled the benefits of us spending billions to build schools and hospitals in places like Afghanistan. Places like Afghanistan.

Well. How about a place called AMERICA?


Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, Oprah is a racist and that is why I can't stand her anymore. How many millions did she give to Nobama? I look forward to my first year ever as a Democrat to voting for a Republican or Independent. Nobama must be stopped. Corruption must be stopped. I have never witness such a terrible display of corruption as I did in this 2008 Democratic Primary. Clinton was ousted by these thugs and that is why I will not reward thugs with my vote. Protect democracy, vote against NObama!

Posted by: Pat | September 6, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Deep Karen,

First of all, it would be refreshing to read something you've written that doesn't sound like every smear email I get from both sides. I am voting for McCain and have said so since the 2 parties gave us our choice. Hre is the reason: I have a family, and I have not been convinced from word one that Obama can deliver much of what he promises. To be fair, he has no record of Accomplishment, other than good grades, job interviews and elections. I have been introduced to no families he helped as an organizer, no scholarly works of note as a law professor, and no really significant laws as a senator. His ethics bill makes it forbidden for lobbyists to sit with Senators, but not for them to stand and have lunch together (inserting index finger inside cheek and pulling)....and I don't see many terrorists in former soviet states handing their loose nukes into Sen. Lugar....so I'm betting my families future on walk not talk. McCain is the most middle of the road republican for whom I can vote. He has shown independence and good judgement in most of his 26 years in the Senate. I suppose I am secretly hoping some of his move to the Right has been, as it was with Bill Clinton, in hope of getting elected. I see him appointing Souters and O'Connors. Anyway- you asked- I believe we might get our points across better with civil discourse....but one way or the other, I see it as my responsibilty to my family to do my part in trying to prevent what I believe is a reenactment of "The Empereror's New Clothes".

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

First of all, it would be refreshing to read something you've written that doesn't sound like every smear email I get from both sides. I am voting for McCain and have said so since the 2 parties gave us our choice. Hre is the reason: I have a family, and I have not been convinced from word one that Obama can deliver much of what he promises. To be fair, he has no record of Accomplishment, other than good grades, job interviews and elections. I have been introduced to no families he helped as an organizer, no scholarly works of note as a law professor, and no really significant laws as a senator. His ethics bill makes it forbidden for lobbyists to sit with Senators, but not for them to stand and have lunch together (inserting index finger inside cheek and pulling)....and I don't see many terrorists in former soviet states handing their loose nukes into Sen. Lugar....so I'm betting my families future on walk not talk. McCain is the most middle of the road republican for whom I can vote. He has shown independence and good judgement in most of his 26 years in the Senate. I suppose I am secretly hoping some of his move to the Right has been, as it was with Bill Clinton, in hope of getting elected. I see him appointing Souters and O'Connors. Anyway- you asked- I believe we might get our points across better with civil discourse....but one way or the other, I see it as my responsibilty to my family to do my part in trying to prevent what I believe is a reenactment of "The Empereror's New Clothes".

Posted by: Deep Karen | September 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Palin makes all conservatives feel good about their votes now. BushMcCain was getting these votes anyway.They are inspired now.This will not add more votes,just a good feeling.Bottom Line-Barack Husein Obama is the next president of the United STates. This Country cannot survive another 4 years of the same politics and everybody knows that. We need a president that will represent the People. We need someone that will care about every class of people. Our country at one time looked out for the poor and the middle because it was understood that the rich would continue to get richer. America's People need to gather as a Nation with one voice for the people and not for political or personal gains. The future of America is at risk and the Republican have failed to keep the people as the center of concern. Now, all you Republican have something in common with us Democrats because all of you have HOPE too(Palin)!!!!!!

Posted by: marvin | September 6, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

The fact is that McCain married into an organized crime family. He's crooked.

Bonanno retired in Arizona. The Iran-Contra-Crack Cocaine scandal of the 80s? You wonder why McCain visited Colombia earlier this year? Why Lindner is such a strong force in the GOP.

Do you know why they are called Banana Republicans?

Crooked. They use politics to lie, cheat and steal for their business network. Always have and always will. They don't want to tax us, they just want us taxpayers to bailout their crooked schemes. And for the regulators to turn a blind eye as they wreak havoc on the economy.

They spent $400million dollars to lobby and overturn Glass-Steagall so they could pull a sub-prime mortgage scandal. Guess who pays for that bailout? And it WON'T be just 25billion. Try $500 billion. Crooked. Major League Crooked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/politics/23mccain.html

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Deep- Obama was schooled in Indonesia in Islam, but he's still not a Muslim...McCain's father in law built a business from nothing- was he a crook...who knows? Did Obama applaud Rev wright when he said "G-d Damn America"? Who knows???

THIS I do know

Barack Obama voted FOR THE BUSH CHENEY 2005 ENERGY ACT

John McCain went against his party and Bush and voted AGAINST it!

Public Citizen on the Cheney- Obama supported 2005 Energy bill

"The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill


On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into the law the energy bill; on July 28,the U.S. House of Representatives voted 275 to 156 to approve the energy bill; and on July 29, the U.S. Senate voted 74 to 26 to approve the energy bill.

Since 2001, energy corporations have showered federal politicians with $115 million in campaign contributions—with three-quarters of that amount going to Republicans. This cash helped secure energy companies and their lobbyists exclusive, private access to lawmakers, starting with Vice-President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force, whose report provided the foundation of the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush on August 8.

This energy bill will do nothing to address America’s energy problems; rather, it will make matters worse. The United States is one of the largest producers of energy—for example, we are the third-largest producer of crude oil in the world—so our problem is not that we don’t produce enough energy, but that our rates of consumption are among the highest of all countries. Our economic competitors in Europe and Asia typically use half the energy per person than we do, which helps explain why the United States alone uses 25% of the world’s energy every day. Reflecting the fact that energy companies helped write the legislation, the energy bill lavishes these lucrative corporations with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, while doing little to curb energy demand.

In addition to providing billions of dollars to already wealthy oil, nuclear and coal companies, the energy bill abandons consumers by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), one of the most effective consumer and protection laws governing the power sector. With this law now gone, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and oil companies will now be allowed to own utilities, giving these new corporate owners license to raid the utilities’ guaranteed revenue streams for use in leveraging non-utility acquisitions, opening the door to price-gouging of ratepayers.

Below is a summary of the major components of the energy legislation:

OIL & GAS SUBSIDIES: $6 BILLION
Section 1329
Allows “geological and geophysical” costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. The provision claims to raise $292 million from 2005-06, and cost taxpayers $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. It originated in the House (there was no such provision in the original Senate bill). Record-high oil prices should provide a sufficient incentive for oil companies like ExxonMobil to drill for more oil without this huge new tax break.

Section 1323
Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery’s capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15). This provision was added by the Senate. Record high prices for oil and gasoline, and record profits by refiners like ExxonMobil and Valero should provide all the incentive needed to expand refinery capacity without this huge tax break.

Sections 1325-6
This tax break allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices—not tax breaks—should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines.

Section 342
Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.

Sections 344-345
Waives royalty payments for drilling for some natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Section 346
Waives royalty payments for drilling in offshore Alaska.

Sections 353-4
Waives royalty payments for gas hydrate extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in Alaska.

Section 383
Allows oil companies drilling in federal land off the coast of a particular state to pay the state 44 cents of every dollar it would have paid to the federal government for the privilege of drilling on federal land.

The royalty-in-kind provisions in this section allow corporations drilling for oil on public land to forgo paying cash royalties to taxpayers. Instead, companies provide an amount of the oil as an in-kind contribution to the federal government. Since federal land supplies one-third of the oil and gas produced in the United States, expansion of this program could have a significant impact on the federal treasury.

This proposal has its origins in Bush’s National Energy Policy, which requested that the Secretary of the Interior “explore opportunities for royalty reductions.”

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, however, criticizes the current royalty-in-kind program, concluding that the government is unable to determine whether taxpayers receive a fair shake from the program. For example, the GAO notes that the pilot program currently “relies upon royalty payors to self-report the amount of oil and gas they produce, the value of this oil and gas, and the cost of transportation and processing that they deduct from royalty payments” (emphasis added). The reporting system caused the GAO to express concern about “the accuracy and reliability of these data.”

Indeed, the industry’s cheerleading for the royalty in-kind program stems from recent court decisions that found U.S. oil companies, equipped with an “honor system” self-reporting system, routinely underreported the volume of oil and natural gas removed from taxpayer land, therefore allowing the companies to cheat the public. By seeking to end cash payments for the privilege of drilling on public land altogether, it appears as though the oil companies are attempting to hedge their losses from the embarrassing court decisions.

In 1998, the Mineral Management Service estimated that similar provisions would cost taxpayers between $140 million and $367 million every year.

There was a vote on April 21 in the House to strike the section providing a suspension of royalty payments for offshore oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico, but it failed, 227 to 203.

Title IX, Subtitle J
This section would provide $1.5 billion in direct payments to oil and natural gas corporations to drill in deepwater wells. This section is a pet project of Texas Republican and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It would designate a private entity, Sugar Land-based Texas Energy Center, as the “program consortium” to dole out taxpayer money to corporations. The Texas Energy Center has strong ties to Tom DeLay, with six different executives (Herbert W. Appel, Jr., Robert C. Brown, III, Philip E. Lewis, Thomas Moccia, Ronald E. Oligney, and Barry Ashlin Williamson) giving a total of $8,000 to DeLay’s campaign since March 2004. In addition, three of the Center’s executives have given a total of $4,500 to President Bush’s 2004 re-election effort.

The Center’s lobbyist is Barry Ashlin Williamson. In 1988, Williamson went to work for the Reagan administration and became principal advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Energy in the creation and formulation of a national energy policy. President George H.W. Bush later chose him to be the U.S. Department Interior’s Director of the Minerals Management Service, which managed oil and gas exploration and production on the nation’s 1.4 billion-acre continent shelf. Williamson then served as Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission from January 1993 to November 1995.

The Texas Energy Center will play host to The Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, whose members include Halliburton and Marathon Oil.

OIL & GAS REGULATORY ROLLBACKS
Section 322
Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called “hydraulic fracturing,” a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s. This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground. Only 16 companies stand to significantly benefit from this exemption from clean water laws: Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO. These companies gave nearly $15 million to federal candidates—with more than three-quarters of that total going to Republicans. Moreover, the 16 companies spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress.

Section 323
Provides an exemption for oil and gas companies from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for their construction activities surrounding oil and gas drilling.

Section 311
The section severely limits the ability of local communities and states to have adequate say over the siting of controversial Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. The section states that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal” under the Natural Gas Act (emphasis added).

The language is clearly aimed at a July 2004 lawsuit filed by the State of California claiming that FERC illegally ruled in March 2004 that states have limited jurisdiction over the permitting and siting of LNG facilities inside their borders. The lawsuit is being closely watched by other states, where officials have expressed alarm about the inability of state and local governments to have adequate input into these projects. LNG projects are particularly controversial because liquefied natural gas is extremely volatile and dangerous. Even if one supports increasing the number of LNG terminals in North America, there is absolutely no justification for limiting the ability of states and local communities to have control over the permitting and siting of these facilities. (See our Liquid Natural Gas section.)

LNG proponents claim that states still can veto LNG projects, as they retain jurisdiction over the facilities under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. But these three acts have very limited jurisdiction (for example, LNG facilities don’t really pollute the water or air, so states have no real ability to raise objections under these laws). The broadest possible law is the Natural Gas Act, so it is no surprise that natural gas companies and their allies in Congress pushed to give FERC “exclusive authority” under the one law (Natural Gas Act) with the most sweeping power.

Language added during the conference committee (meaning it wasn’t in either the original House or Senate bills) gives the Department of Defense veto authority over LNG projects proposed near military bases, directing FERC to “enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of ensuring that [FERC] coordinate and consult with the Secretary of Defense on the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities that may affect an active military installation.” FERC is further required to “obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before authorizing the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities affecting the training or activities of an active military installation” (emphasis added).

But a similar proposal in the Senate to provide states with these exact rights now given to the DoD was rejected by a vote of 52 to 45 (a “yea” vote is bad, in that it was a vote to kill, or table, the amendment that would have forced FERC to get the approval of states to permit LNG facilities).

The House also rejected an amendment that would have removed this section entirely, thereby preserving the status quo and allowing the state of California to continue its challenge in federal court (so an “aye” vote is good, as it was to remove the entire LNG section).

Section 357
Authorizes a survey of the oil and natural gas available underwater off the coasts of states. This is the first step in opening these areas to more drilling. There was an amendment to strike this language that failed 52 to 44.

Section 390
Increases the ability to exclude a broad range of oil and gas exploration and drilling activities from public involvement and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Section 381
Limits the ability of states to protect their coastlines from oil and gas exploration by limiting their appeals process under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Section 369
Mandates that the federal government make available oil shale and tar sands extraction on federal land for oil companies.

COAL SUBSIDIES: $9 BILLION
Section 1307
Provides $1.612 billion in tax credits to invest in new coal power plants.

Section 1309
Provides $1.147 billion in tax breaks for owners of coal power plants to install pollution control equipment.

Section 401
Authorizes the appropriation of $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to help build a new fleet of coal power plants.

Section 421
Authorizes the appropriation of $3 billion of taxpayer money to help build a new fleet of coal power plants.

Section 962
Authorizes activities that will cost $1.137 billion of taxpayer money to help make coal power a cost-competitive source of power generation.

Section 963
Authorizes the appropriation of $90 million to research ways to sequester carbon dioxide emitted from coal power plants.

Section 964
Authorizes activities that will cost $75 million to help develop new coal mining technologies.

Title XVII
Authorizes spending of hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees to build new coal and nuclear power plants. The Senate voted on June 23 by a vote of 76 to 21 to keep this section in the bill.

Section 411
Provides taxpayer-guaranteed loans for a coal project. The most likely beneficiaries of this provision are North Dakota-based Basin Electric Power Cooperative and Ohio-based Nacco Industries. Basin Electric Power Cooperative owns the Great Plains Synfuels facility in Beulah, North Dakota, an alternative fuels plant originally financed mostly by the federal government and later sold to the Cooperative for a fraction of the amount invested in the plant. The plant gasifies lignite coal to produce synthetic natural gas as well as fertilizers and other chemicals. Nacco Industries would benefit from the loan guarantees because it has long-term contracts to supply Basin Electric with lignite from the nearby Freedom Mine, which Nacco owns. In addition, Basin Electric and Nacco Industries co-own the Antelope Valley Station, a coal-fired power plant at the same location as the Great Plains Synfuel Plant and the Freedom Mine. Since 2001, Basin Electric and Nacco Industries have contributed over $100,000 to federal politicians, with contributions evenly split between Republicans (51%) and Democrats (49%).

Section 412
Lends $80 million to the Healy Plant in Alaska to convert an existing “clean coal” plant into a regulator coal plant.

Section 413
Senator Larry Craig, on behalf of Senator Ken Salazar, got Section 413 into the energy bill by unanimous consent on June 23. Corporate lobbyists representing Pacificorp and Xcel recommended the language to Sen. Salazar. While the intended recipient may be Pacificorp and/or Xcel (for unannounced projects), another company qualifying for the loan guarantee is the Medicine Bow Fuel & Power project in Wyoming (the section requires that the project “be located in a western State at an altitude greater than 4,000 feet”) The section explicitly states that “the demonstration project shall not be eligible for Federal loan guarantees”—making the relationship between this section and the very similar-sounding loan guarantee project outlined in Section 1703 a little unclear. Medicine Bow, Wyoming is at an altitude of over 6,500 feet. Medicine Bow is owned by DKRW, a Houston-based firm led by four former Enron executives, including Thomas White. White served as Secretary of the Army from May 2001 to March 2003. Prior to that, he served as vice chairman of one of Enron’s largest divisions, Enron Energy Services (EES).

Under White’s tenure, EES played a major role in the California energy crisis. In 1998, the year he became its vice chairman, EES was America’s 61st largest energy trader. When he left, his division was the 28th largest energy-trading firm in the country. Until March 2001, the trading operations of EES were separate from the rest of Enron’s Wholesale Energy unit—meaning White was responsible for a huge trading operation that played a significant role in California’s energy crisis.

Also, under White’s direction, EES severed at least two large retail contracts in California in January and February 2001 during the height of the energy crisis, which Enron helped create. Based on the evidence on hand, it appears that EES took the power that had been obligated to serve these retail consumers and sold it in the wholesale market where EES could fetch higher prices than it could by continuing to sell power at lower, fixed rates to retail customers. This significant wholesale trading operation, combined with White’s decision to break retail contracts in California, made the division a major player in California’s deregulated wholesale market.

Section 414
The recipient of Section 414, has not yet been identified. The provision authorizes the federal government “to provide loan guarantees for a project to produce energy from a plant using integrated gasification combined cycle technology of at least 400 megawatts in capacity that produces power at competitive rates in deregulated energy generation markets and that does not receive any subsidy (direct or indirect) from ratepayers.”

Section 415
This section provides “loan guarantees for at least 5 petroleum coke gasification projects” which have not been identified.

Section 1703
Subsection (c)(1)(B) describes a project almost exactly the same as what is described in Section 413, except that the demonstration project grant outlined in Section 413 does not allow the recipient to also receive a loan guarantee. So, the most likely recipients are the former Enron executives with DKRW or Xcel Energy.

Subsection (c)(1)(C) provides $800 million in federal loan guarantees to controversial Excelsior Energy for a coal power-generating plant (ConocoPhillips is a partner in the project). The DOE awarded the company a $36 million in October 2004 during an event that appeared to be designed to boost the image of President Bush in Minnesota just weeks before the election.

Subsection (c)(1)(D). There are two general possibilities for the recipient of this federal loan guarantee. One could be Lexington, Kentucky-based EnviRes to build a coal gasification facility to create fuel in East St. Louis, Illinois. The total cost of the project is $254.2 million. EnviRes is a joint venture of three companies, including Triad Research, which is controlled by Robert Addington of AEI Resources, a huge coal conglomerate.

The other possibility is Pennsylvania-based Waste Management & Processors Inc. On October 26, the Bush Administration announced a $100 million grant for a “clean coal” project in the swing state of Pennsylvania, benefiting Waste Management, headed by John Rich. His family and company employees have contributed over $60,000 to candidates for federal office since 2001.

While Waste Management is the lead company on the project, they have teamed up with several other companies: (1) Shell Global Solutions U.S., as gasification technology supplier; (2) Uhde GmbH, a Dortmund, Germany-based global engineering company; (3) Sasol Synfuels International, as liquefaction technology provider; and, (4) Nexant, Inc., as owner’s engineer.

NUCLEAR POWER SUBSIDIES: $12 BILLION
Section 1306
Production tax credit of 1.8-cent for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first eight years of operation, costing $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025. Considered one of the most important subsidies by the nuclear industry.

Section 638
Authorization of $2 billion in “risk insurance” to pay the industry for any delays in construction and operation licensing for six new reactors, including delays due to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or state agencies, litigation, sabotage or terrorist attacks, or other events. The payments would include interest on loans, operation and maintenance costs, the price of power, and taxes.

Section 951 and Section 952
Authorization of more than $432 million over three years for nuclear energy research and development (R&D), including the Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Power 2010 program to construct new nuclear plants, and its Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs.

Section 951 and Section 953
Authorization of $580 million over three years for DOE’s program for R&D of nuclear reprocessing and transmutation technologies, which reverses the long-standing U.S. policy against irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing and needlessly augments security and environmental threats.

Section 951 and 954
Authorization of $149.7 million over three years for DOE to invest in human resources and infrastructure in the nuclear sciences and engineering fields through fellowships and visiting scientist programs; student training programs; collaborative research with industry, national laboratories, and universities; upgrading and sharing of research reactors; and technical assistance. This program would further subsidize the nuclear industry and entrench nuclear power research within the university system.

Section 951 and 955
Authorization of $420 million over three years for DOE to develop a plan to improve infrastructure at national laboratories and for nuclear energy R&D, including a plan for the facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Section 951 and 957
Authorization of $18 million over three years for DOE to survey industrial applications of radioactive sources and develop a R&D plan for developing small particle accelerators.

Section 971 and 972
Authorization of $1.1 billion over three years for the Fusion Energy Sciences program for fusion energy R&D. Authorization for DOE to negotiate an agreement for the United States to participate in the ITER (International Fusion Energy Project). Requirement of DOE to submit a plan for a domestic burning plasma experiment if ITER becomes “unlikely or infeasible.” The fusion process requires deuterium and tritium, and would produce low-level radioactive waste.

Section 1001
Requirement of DOE to use 0.9 % of its applied energy R&D budget for matching funds with private partners to promote “promising technologies” for commercial use, which could include nuclear power technologies.

Section 1101
Authorization of $60 million over three years for DOE to give grants to train technical personnel in fields in which a shortage is identified, including the nuclear power industry, which has been very vocal about its shortage of skilled workers.

Title VI, Subtitle C
Authorization of more than $1.25 billion from FY2006 to FY2015 and “such sums as are necessary” from FY2016 to FY2021 for a nuclear plant in Idaho to generate hydrogen fuel, a boondoggle that would make a mockery of clean energy goals.

Section 625
Exemption of construction and operation license applications for new nuclear reactors from an NRC antitrust review.

Title XVII
Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of an “innovative” energy technology project, including building new nuclear power plants. Authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but if Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy could potentially cost taxpayers approximately $6 billion (assuming a 50% default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as Congressional Budget Office has estimated).

Title VI, Subtitle A
Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, extending the industry’s liability cap to cover new nuclear power plants built in the next 20 years.

Section 608
Incentives for “modular” reactor designs (such as the pebble bed reactor, which has never been built anywhere in the world) by allowing a combination of smaller reactors to be considered one unit, thus lowering the amount that the nuclear operator is responsible to pay under Price-Anderson.

ELECTRIC POWER SUBSIDIES
Section 1308
Will allow a monopoly electric industry to save $1.239 billion over the next ten years by depreciating property at a much faster rate. This makes no economic sense because current owners of transmission lines qualify for the tax break, meaning that no additional investment to improve reliability is required.

Section 1305
Provides $452 million in tax breaks to owners of transmission lines from 2005-08 (it will raise $471 million from 2009-15) if they sell their lines to anti-consumer Regional Transmission Organizations. These multi-state organizations seek to control transmission for use by power marketers, and not for consumers or reliability.

Section 1311
This is a provision inserted by Senator Max Baucus, and it only benefits one company: Xcel Energy. It will cost taxpayers $134 million from 2006-08 (and claims to raise $81 million from 2009-15, for a net loss to taxpayers of $53 million). This allows Xcel to get tax credits for transmission and pollution control investments the company had already been required to make and was already planning on making.

OTHER INDUSTRY BENEFITS IN ELECTRICITY TITLE
Section 1221: Siting of Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities
Overturns nearly a century of local control over the siting of electric transmission lines. It authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to overrule local and state governments in the siting of transmission lines and allows such projects to acquire rights-of-way through eminent domain. The section also authorizes the FERC to issue a permit for a facility if a state takes longer than one year to review the application, or if a state places certain conditions on the permit for approval.

Section 1241: Transmission Rate Reform
Allows a monopoly industry—transmission line owners—to charge consumers more by replacing cost-of-service ratemaking with incentive-based rate making. But cash “incentives” are meaningless in an inherently monopolistic industry like transmission. Rather than improve reliability (as is its stated purpose), this incentive-based ratemaking will simply act as a tax increase on consumers—with consumers receiving no guarantee that the higher rates they will be paying will lead to better service. This rate increase on consumers will be charged not only by builders of new transmission lines, but owners of existing lines will be able to now pass on higher rates for routine maintenance and operation costs. The August 2003 blackout was caused not by inadequate transmission line capacity but by poor management...


Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Deep- Obama wasschooled in Indonesia in Islam, but still not a Muslim...McCain's father in law built a business from nothing- was he a crook...who knows? Did Obama applaude Rev wright when he said "G-d Damn America"? Who knows???

THIS I do know

Barack Obama voted FOR THE BUSH CHENEY 2005 ENERGY ACT

John McCain went against his party and Bush and voted AGAINST it!

Public Citizen on the Cheney- Obama supported 2005 Energy bill

"The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill


On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into the law the energy bill; on July 28,the U.S. House of Representatives voted 275 to 156 to approve the energy bill; and on July 29, the U.S. Senate voted 74 to 26 to approve the energy bill.

Since 2001, energy corporations have showered federal politicians with $115 million in campaign contributions—with three-quarters of that amount going to Republicans. This cash helped secure energy companies and their lobbyists exclusive, private access to lawmakers, starting with Vice-President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force, whose report provided the foundation of the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush on August 8.

This energy bill will do nothing to address America’s energy problems; rather, it will make matters worse. The United States is one of the largest producers of energy—for example, we are the third-largest producer of crude oil in the world—so our problem is not that we don’t produce enough energy, but that our rates of consumption are among the highest of all countries. Our economic competitors in Europe and Asia typically use half the energy per person than we do, which helps explain why the United States alone uses 25% of the world’s energy every day. Reflecting the fact that energy companies helped write the legislation, the energy bill lavishes these lucrative corporations with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, while doing little to curb energy demand.

In addition to providing billions of dollars to already wealthy oil, nuclear and coal companies, the energy bill abandons consumers by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), one of the most effective consumer and protection laws governing the power sector. With this law now gone, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and oil companies will now be allowed to own utilities, giving these new corporate owners license to raid the utilities’ guaranteed revenue streams for use in leveraging non-utility acquisitions, opening the door to price-gouging of ratepayers.

Below is a summary of the major components of the energy legislation:

OIL & GAS SUBSIDIES: $6 BILLION
Section 1329
Allows “geological and geophysical” costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. The provision claims to raise $292 million from 2005-06, and cost taxpayers $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. It originated in the House (there was no such provision in the original Senate bill). Record-high oil prices should provide a sufficient incentive for oil companies like ExxonMobil to drill for more oil without this huge new tax break.

Section 1323
Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery’s capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15). This provision was added by the Senate. Record high prices for oil and gasoline, and record profits by refiners like ExxonMobil and Valero should provide all the incentive needed to expand refinery capacity without this huge tax break.

Sections 1325-6
This tax break allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices—not tax breaks—should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines.

Section 342
Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.

Sections 344-345
Waives royalty payments for drilling for some natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Section 346
Waives royalty payments for drilling in offshore Alaska.

Sections 353-4
Waives royalty payments for gas hydrate extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in Alaska.

Section 383
Allows oil companies drilling in federal land off the coast of a particular state to pay the state 44 cents of every dollar it would have paid to the federal government for the privilege of drilling on federal land.

The royalty-in-kind provisions in this section allow corporations drilling for oil on public land to forgo paying cash royalties to taxpayers. Instead, companies provide an amount of the oil as an in-kind contribution to the federal government. Since federal land supplies one-third of the oil and gas produced in the United States, expansion of this program could have a significant impact on the federal treasury.

This proposal has its origins in Bush’s National Energy Policy, which requested that the Secretary of the Interior “explore opportunities for royalty reductions.”

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, however, criticizes the current royalty-in-kind program, concluding that the government is unable to determine whether taxpayers receive a fair shake from the program. For example, the GAO notes that the pilot program currently “relies upon royalty payors to self-report the amount of oil and gas they produce, the value of this oil and gas, and the cost of transportation and processing that they deduct from royalty payments” (emphasis added). The reporting system caused the GAO to express concern about “the accuracy and reliability of these data.”

Indeed, the industry’s cheerleading for the royalty in-kind program stems from recent court decisions that found U.S. oil companies, equipped with an “honor system” self-reporting system, routinely underreported the volume of oil and natural gas removed from taxpayer land, therefore allowing the companies to cheat the public. By seeking to end cash payments for the privilege of drilling on public land altogether, it appears as though the oil companies are attempting to hedge their losses from the embarrassing court decisions.

In 1998, the Mineral Management Service estimated that similar provisions would cost taxpayers between $140 million and $367 million every year.

There was a vote on April 21 in the House to strike the section providing a suspension of royalty payments for offshore oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico, but it failed, 227 to 203.

Title IX, Subtitle J
This section would provide $1.5 billion in direct payments to oil and natural gas corporations to drill in deepwater wells. This section is a pet project of Texas Republican and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It would designate a private entity, Sugar Land-based Texas Energy Center, as the “program consortium” to dole out taxpayer money to corporations. The Texas Energy Center has strong ties to Tom DeLay, with six different executives (Herbert W. Appel, Jr., Robert C. Brown, III, Philip E. Lewis, Thomas Moccia, Ronald E. Oligney, and Barry Ashlin Williamson) giving a total of $8,000 to DeLay’s campaign since March 2004. In addition, three of the Center’s executives have given a total of $4,500 to President Bush’s 2004 re-election effort.

The Center’s lobbyist is Barry Ashlin Williamson. In 1988, Williamson went to work for the Reagan administration and became principal advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Energy in the creation and formulation of a national energy policy. President George H.W. Bush later chose him to be the U.S. Department Interior’s Director of the Minerals Management Service, which managed oil and gas exploration and production on the nation’s 1.4 billion-acre continent shelf. Williamson then served as Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission from January 1993 to November 1995.

The Texas Energy Center will play host to The Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, whose members include Halliburton and Marathon Oil.

OIL & GAS REGULATORY ROLLBACKS
Section 322
Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called “hydraulic fracturing,” a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s. This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground. Only 16 companies stand to significantly benefit from this exemption from clean water laws: Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO. These companies gave nearly $15 million to federal candidates—with more than three-quarters of that total going to Republicans. Moreover, the 16 companies spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress.

Section 323
Provides an exemption for oil and gas companies from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for their construction activities surrounding oil and gas drilling.

Section 311
The section severely limits the ability of local communities and states to have adequate say over the siting of controversial Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. The section states that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal” under the Natural Gas Act (emphasis added).

The language is clearly aimed at a July 2004 lawsuit filed by the State of California claiming that FERC illegally ruled in March 2004 that states have limited jurisdiction over the permitting and siting of LNG facilities inside their borders. The lawsuit is being closely watched by other states, where officials have expressed alarm about the inability of state and local governments to have adequate input into these projects. LNG projects are particularly controversial because liquefied natural gas is extremely volatile and dangerous. Even if one supports increasing the number of LNG terminals in North America, there is absolutely no justification for limiting the ability of states and local communities to have control over the permitting and siting of these facilities. (See our Liquid Natural Gas section.)

LNG proponents claim that states still can veto LNG projects, as they retain jurisdiction over the facilities under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. But these three acts have very limited jurisdiction (for example, LNG facilities don’t really pollute the water or air, so states have no real ability to raise objections under these laws). The broadest possible law is the Natural Gas Act, so it is no surprise that natural gas companies and their allies in Congress pushed to give FERC “exclusive authority” under the one law (Natural Gas Act) with the most sweeping power.

Language added during the conference committee (meaning it wasn’t in either the original House or Senate bills) gives the Department of Defense veto authority over LNG projects proposed near military bases, directing FERC to “enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of ensuring that [FERC] coordinate and consult with the Secretary of Defense on the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities that may affect an active military installation.” FERC is further required to “obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before authorizing the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities affecting the training or activities of an active military installation” (emphasis added).

But a similar proposal in the Senate to provide states with these exact rights now given to the DoD was rejected by a vote of 52 to 45 (a “yea” vote is bad, in that it was a vote to kill, or table, the amendment that would have forced FERC to get the approval of states to permit LNG facilities).

The House also rejected an amendment that would have removed this section entirely, thereby preserving the status quo and allowing the state of California to continue its challenge in federal court (so an “aye” vote is good, as it was to remove the entire LNG section).

Section 357
Authorizes a survey of the oil and natural gas available underwater off the coasts of states. This is the first step in opening these areas to more drilling. There was an amendment to strike this language that failed 52 to 44.

Section 390
Increases the ability to exclude a broad range of oil and gas exploration and drilling activities from public involvement and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Section 381
Limits the ability of states to protect their coastlines from oil and gas exploration by limiting their appeals process under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Section 369
Mandates that the federal government make available oil shale and tar sands extraction on federal land for oil companies.

COAL SUBSIDIES: $9 BILLION
Section 1307
Provides $1.612 billion in tax credits to invest in new coal power plants.

Section 1309
Provides $1.147 billion in tax breaks for owners of coal power plants to install pollution control equipment.

Section 401
Authorizes the appropriation of $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to help build a new fleet of coal power plants.

Section 421
Authorizes the appropriation of $3 billion of taxpayer money to help build a new fleet of coal power plants.

Section 962
Authorizes activities that will cost $1.137 billion of taxpayer money to help make coal power a cost-competitive source of power generation.

Section 963
Authorizes the appropriation of $90 million to research ways to sequester carbon dioxide emitted from coal power plants.

Section 964
Authorizes activities that will cost $75 million to help develop new coal mining technologies.

Title XVII
Authorizes spending of hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees to build new coal and nuclear power plants. The Senate voted on June 23 by a vote of 76 to 21 to keep this section in the bill.

Section 411
Provides taxpayer-guaranteed loans for a coal project. The most likely beneficiaries of this provision are North Dakota-based Basin Electric Power Cooperative and Ohio-based Nacco Industries. Basin Electric Power Cooperative owns the Great Plains Synfuels facility in Beulah, North Dakota, an alternative fuels plant originally financed mostly by the federal government and later sold to the Cooperative for a fraction of the amount invested in the plant. The plant gasifies lignite coal to produce synthetic natural gas as well as fertilizers and other chemicals. Nacco Industries would benefit from the loan guarantees because it has long-term contracts to supply Basin Electric with lignite from the nearby Freedom Mine, which Nacco owns. In addition, Basin Electric and Nacco Industries co-own the Antelope Valley Station, a coal-fired power plant at the same location as the Great Plains Synfuel Plant and the Freedom Mine. Since 2001, Basin Electric and Nacco Industries have contributed over $100,000 to federal politicians, with contributions evenly split between Republicans (51%) and Democrats (49%).

Section 412
Lends $80 million to the Healy Plant in Alaska to convert an existing “clean coal” plant into a regulator coal plant.

Section 413
Senator Larry Craig, on behalf of Senator Ken Salazar, got Section 413 into the energy bill by unanimous consent on June 23. Corporate lobbyists representing Pacificorp and Xcel recommended the language to Sen. Salazar. While the intended recipient may be Pacificorp and/or Xcel (for unannounced projects), another company qualifying for the loan guarantee is the Medicine Bow Fuel & Power project in Wyoming (the section requires that the project “be located in a western State at an altitude greater than 4,000 feet”) The section explicitly states that “the demonstration project shall not be eligible for Federal loan guarantees”—making the relationship between this section and the very similar-sounding loan guarantee project outlined in Section 1703 a little unclear. Medicine Bow, Wyoming is at an altitude of over 6,500 feet. Medicine Bow is owned by DKRW, a Houston-based firm led by four former Enron executives, including Thomas White. White served as Secretary of the Army from May 2001 to March 2003. Prior to that, he served as vice chairman of one of Enron’s largest divisions, Enron Energy Services (EES).

Under White’s tenure, EES played a major role in the California energy crisis. In 1998, the year he became its vice chairman, EES was America’s 61st largest energy trader. When he left, his division was the 28th largest energy-trading firm in the country. Until March 2001, the trading operations of EES were separate from the rest of Enron’s Wholesale Energy unit—meaning White was responsible for a huge trading operation that played a significant role in California’s energy crisis.

Also, under White’s direction, EES severed at least two large retail contracts in California in January and February 2001 during the height of the energy crisis, which Enron helped create. Based on the evidence on hand, it appears that EES took the power that had been obligated to serve these retail consumers and sold it in the wholesale market where EES could fetch higher prices than it could by continuing to sell power at lower, fixed rates to retail customers. This significant wholesale trading operation, combined with White’s decision to break retail contracts in California, made the division a major player in California’s deregulated wholesale market.

Section 414
The recipient of Section 414, has not yet been identified. The provision authorizes the federal government “to provide loan guarantees for a project to produce energy from a plant using integrated gasification combined cycle technology of at least 400 megawatts in capacity that produces power at competitive rates in deregulated energy generation markets and that does not receive any subsidy (direct or indirect) from ratepayers.”

Section 415
This section provides “loan guarantees for at least 5 petroleum coke gasification projects” which have not been identified.

Section 1703
Subsection (c)(1)(B) describes a project almost exactly the same as what is described in Section 413, except that the demonstration project grant outlined in Section 413 does not allow the recipient to also receive a loan guarantee. So, the most likely recipients are the former Enron executives with DKRW or Xcel Energy.

Subsection (c)(1)(C) provides $800 million in federal loan guarantees to controversial Excelsior Energy for a coal power-generating plant (ConocoPhillips is a partner in the project). The DOE awarded the company a $36 million in October 2004 during an event that appeared to be designed to boost the image of President Bush in Minnesota just weeks before the election.

Subsection (c)(1)(D). There are two general possibilities for the recipient of this federal loan guarantee. One could be Lexington, Kentucky-based EnviRes to build a coal gasification facility to create fuel in East St. Louis, Illinois. The total cost of the project is $254.2 million. EnviRes is a joint venture of three companies, including Triad Research, which is controlled by Robert Addington of AEI Resources, a huge coal conglomerate.

The other possibility is Pennsylvania-based Waste Management & Processors Inc. On October 26, the Bush Administration announced a $100 million grant for a “clean coal” project in the swing state of Pennsylvania, benefiting Waste Management, headed by John Rich. His family and company employees have contributed over $60,000 to candidates for federal office since 2001.

While Waste Management is the lead company on the project, they have teamed up with several other companies: (1) Shell Global Solutions U.S., as gasification technology supplier; (2) Uhde GmbH, a Dortmund, Germany-based global engineering company; (3) Sasol Synfuels International, as liquefaction technology provider; and, (4) Nexant, Inc., as owner’s engineer.

NUCLEAR POWER SUBSIDIES: $12 BILLION
Section 1306
Production tax credit of 1.8-cent for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first eight years of operation, costing $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025. Considered one of the most important subsidies by the nuclear industry.

Section 638
Authorization of $2 billion in “risk insurance” to pay the industry for any delays in construction and operation licensing for six new reactors, including delays due to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or state agencies, litigation, sabotage or terrorist attacks, or other events. The payments would include interest on loans, operation and maintenance costs, the price of power, and taxes.

Section 951 and Section 952
Authorization of more than $432 million over three years for nuclear energy research and development (R&D), including the Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Power 2010 program to construct new nuclear plants, and its Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs.

Section 951 and Section 953
Authorization of $580 million over three years for DOE’s program for R&D of nuclear reprocessing and transmutation technologies, which reverses the long-standing U.S. policy against irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing and needlessly augments security and environmental threats.

Section 951 and 954
Authorization of $149.7 million over three years for DOE to invest in human resources and infrastructure in the nuclear sciences and engineering fields through fellowships and visiting scientist programs; student training programs; collaborative research with industry, national laboratories, and universities; upgrading and sharing of research reactors; and technical assistance. This program would further subsidize the nuclear industry and entrench nuclear power research within the university system.

Section 951 and 955
Authorization of $420 million over three years for DOE to develop a plan to improve infrastructure at national laboratories and for nuclear energy R&D, including a plan for the facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Section 951 and 957
Authorization of $18 million over three years for DOE to survey industrial applications of radioactive sources and develop a R&D plan for developing small particle accelerators.

Section 971 and 972
Authorization of $1.1 billion over three years for the Fusion Energy Sciences program for fusion energy R&D. Authorization for DOE to negotiate an agreement for the United States to participate in the ITER (International Fusion Energy Project). Requirement of DOE to submit a plan for a domestic burning plasma experiment if ITER becomes “unlikely or infeasible.” The fusion process requires deuterium and tritium, and would produce low-level radioactive waste.

Section 1001
Requirement of DOE to use 0.9 % of its applied energy R&D budget for matching funds with private partners to promote “promising technologies” for commercial use, which could include nuclear power technologies.

Section 1101
Authorization of $60 million over three years for DOE to give grants to train technical personnel in fields in which a shortage is identified, including the nuclear power industry, which has been very vocal about its shortage of skilled workers.

Title VI, Subtitle C
Authorization of more than $1.25 billion from FY2006 to FY2015 and “such sums as are necessary” from FY2016 to FY2021 for a nuclear plant in Idaho to generate hydrogen fuel, a boondoggle that would make a mockery of clean energy goals.

Section 625
Exemption of construction and operation license applications for new nuclear reactors from an NRC antitrust review.

Title XVII
Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of an “innovative” energy technology project, including building new nuclear power plants. Authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but if Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy could potentially cost taxpayers approximately $6 billion (assuming a 50% default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as Congressional Budget Office has estimated).

Title VI, Subtitle A
Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, extending the industry’s liability cap to cover new nuclear power plants built in the next 20 years.

Section 608
Incentives for “modular” reactor designs (such as the pebble bed reactor, which has never been built anywhere in the world) by allowing a combination of smaller reactors to be considered one unit, thus lowering the amount that the nuclear operator is responsible to pay under Price-Anderson.

ELECTRIC POWER SUBSIDIES
Section 1308
Will allow a monopoly electric industry to save $1.239 billion over the next ten years by depreciating property at a much faster rate. This makes no economic sense because current owners of transmission lines qualify for the tax break, meaning that no additional investment to improve reliability is required.

Section 1305
Provides $452 million in tax breaks to owners of transmission lines from 2005-08 (it will raise $471 million from 2009-15) if they sell their lines to anti-consumer Regional Transmission Organizations. These multi-state organizations seek to control transmission for use by power marketers, and not for consumers or reliability.

Section 1311
This is a provision inserted by Senator Max Baucus, and it only benefits one company: Xcel Energy. It will cost taxpayers $134 million from 2006-08 (and claims to raise $81 million from 2009-15, for a net loss to taxpayers of $53 million). This allows Xcel to get tax credits for transmission and pollution control investments the company had already been required to make and was already planning on making.

OTHER INDUSTRY BENEFITS IN ELECTRICITY TITLE
Section 1221: Siting of Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities
Overturns nearly a century of local control over the siting of electric transmission lines. It authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to overrule local and state governments in the siting of transmission lines and allows such projects to acquire rights-of-way through eminent domain. The section also authorizes the FERC to issue a permit for a facility if a state takes longer than one year to review the application, or if a state places certain conditions on the permit for approval.

Section 1241: Transmission Rate Reform
Allows a monopoly industry—transmission line owners—to charge consumers more by replacing cost-of-service ratemaking with incentive-based rate making. But cash “incentives” are meaningless in an inherently monopolistic industry like transmission. Rather than improve reliability (as is its stated purpose), this incentive-based ratemaking will simply act as a tax increase on consumers—with consumers receiving no guarantee that the higher rates they will be paying will lead to better service. This rate increase on consumers will be charged not only by builders of new transmission lines, but owners of existing lines will be able to now pass on higher rates for routine maintenance and operation costs. The August 2003 blackout was caused not by inadequate transmission line capacity but by poor management...

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

McCain married into an organized crime family. He's crooked. Those are the facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/politics/23mccain.html

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Oprah.. dividing America once again..
Obama is so much like bushboy.. "you're either with us or against us"

We don't need an Obush

Posted by: former Oprah fan | September 6, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey deep blue and all of CAMP OBAMA (you know there really is a camp obama- indoctrinations and kool aid dispensary- I was invited when I signed up for my 3:00AM vp email announcement)-

You're theme of McCain and organized crime is as refreshing as Obama and Islam- I suppose you can distort morsels of truth from a deranged lie if you want- makes you as deceitful as that photo of Obama in full muslim regalia that you can google as well if you care to- pssst, keep it up-you're really fooling the independent voters of Ohio and Wisconsin.....

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama's 7 Glass Houses
1. Supports corn Ethanol and therefore global warming (7x less efficient than sugar cane ethanol)
2. Against Infant Protection Act- preventing doctors from providing medical attention to survivors of abortion attempt
3.Never held a hearing on the one subcommiitee he chairs
4. Voted for Cheney's Energy Act of 2005- removing restrictions on hedge funds buying utilities and trading on their assets
5.Tony Rezko- saved $300,000 in personal funds on the purchase of his home, voted for 14 million to Rezko's businesses, donated $200,000 of campaign funds to charity...huh?
6. Claimed his kids played with William Ayres' the American terrorist's kids who are 20 years older...what were they playing?
7. Attended Rev. Wright's Church for 20 years and never heard a discouraging word

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Think about this too. Oprah open a school in Africa because if she had opened it in America she would have had to allowed other than black kids in her school. We have plenty of kids in America who need education but only Black kids are worth educating to her. Racist I'm threw with her. I'm not watching her show anymore.

Posted by: Kelly | September 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Palin won't speak to the media because she can't...

I get a kick out of all of the goofy Wingnuts acting like Palin is all of a sudden credible because she read a coherent speech that was written for her by Karl Rove. What a bunch of crap, she's an ethics challanged creationist thug who's used to bullying here way around in small little ol Alaska where no one notices it. She's a small time Dick Cheney and she knows that she can't go off script or she'll be sunk.


Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 6, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe this is even a story.

McCain married into a corrupt organized crime family. Google: McCain Hensley Marley Lansky

Why doesn't the media report on that?

McCain is corrupt. To the bone. And the boys in Phoenix/Vegas/LA? What did they call themselves- merder inc?

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

What amazes me about Oprah is how she has been able to pull off the charade she has for so long...
She has no family values whatsoever.
She represents personal irresponsibility.
Her own mother running up credit card bills she can't pay.

Oprah and Obama represent more of the same irresponsibility that the irresponsible left has heaped upon the USA for decades.

Infanticide is the tip of the iceberg of irresponsibility and Oprah's sponsorship of its greatest promoter demonstrates she is very shallow person...

Posted by: Archarito | September 6, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Well, just wait a bit red-neck twigs! Paline's extra-marital affair is just getting public. She switched 6 times in 6 years before graduated. What an accomplishment!

She has a lot under the rug! Wait, the fun will be over! McCain's soul-mate soon will be his sour-mate!

Posted by: Palindrome | September 6, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

****

Joey B and Barry Who?

jd


****

Posted by: Johnny Democracy | September 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Have O & O heard the news today?

Palin drew more household viewers for her Vice-Presidential candidacy acceptance speech than the Messiah did for his, and it was his supposedly Presidential speech! Moreover, she did it without BET, TV One, or Telemundo; media outlets that the Messiah had to his advantage....Wow! We can only imagine what her numbers would have been with these stations at her disposal.

It's true about there being something wrong with this picture!

Perhaps, many were turned off by the Greco-Roman styrofoam columns, and decided to watch Animal Planet instead. In any case, the Palin train is a rolling, and nobody's going to stop it now, not even her cherished pregnant daughter, or a disgruntled Alaska state trooper.

God Bless of all you!

Posted by: CRL | September 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It wouldnt change my opionion though, I think Sarah Palin Should be the GOP nominee., not McCain. The Republicans are much more excited about palin then mccain., The new most famous person in the world.

This site has the inside scoop about the Palin Dui Secret, http://www.duihelpguide.com Why hasnt the news covered this?

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

This site has everything about her scandals, Levi the Boy Friend, what really happen with ebay plane. http://www.hotpres.com

Despite all of this, and her lack of experiance she would probably make a much better president then McCain., Because like Obama she hasnt been corrupted by washington yet.

Posted by: pastor123 | September 6, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

And all these liberals just didn't like Hillary,.....hmmm?

Well, guess they'll have to pay again for their stupidity.

Long live Howard Dean, the biggest idiot of all))))))

Posted by: zombie | September 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

****


Joey B and Barry Who?


jd


****

Posted by: Johnny Democracy | September 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

This Oprah bs is just the latest example of the McCain campaign's cynical and divisive media strategy.

Drudge might as well be on McCain's payroll after this hit job. And the article in the Wall Street Journal that basically says that Michigan is going Republican because we are all closet racists, and that is OK....

Republicans are appealing to the worse angles of our nature. History will not judge the kindly.

In fact, when this election is over McCain and his top tier of advisors are going to come under heavy scrutiny for being the greedy, corrupt jerks that they are.

Enjoy the spotlight and the high times while you've got it. When the music's over, we'll turn out the lights- and then some.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 6, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm an old retired guy and I can honestly say it won't matter to me in the long run who wins this election. I do believe however that the current administration has been the worst in my lifetime (born during FDR).

If "small town working class" rust-belt voters in Ohio, Pa., Michigan and Indiana help re-elect the GOP then I don't want to hear anymore whinng from them about their disappearing jobs and livlihoods, the high cost of college and gas, lack of health care etc. Let Johnnie's "patriotism" put food on your table.

Screw 'um. Cling to your guns and religion. Pray to Jesus when you go hunting for a meal. You will deserve what you get.

I got mine already. I put my girls through college. I live comfortably in the sunny south on a golf course, got my steady income, my "socialist" medicare and prescription drug coverage. We won't run out of gas before I go and the planet won't get too hot.

As Johnny Carson used to say - I upped my lifestyle - up yours!

God helps those who help themselves - if you're in deep doodoo economically and you vote Republican for their "values", you deserve it.

Posted by: toritto | September 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Come on people, get real. Read what is says rather than knee jerk react. It states: "A Drudge report item surfaced on Friday about Oprah's programming plans -- saying her staffers were divided over having Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, on as a guest."

How could it even be at most anything but pure speculation on their part she would even be on the show unless they have the power to make people materialize on Oprah? Seems kind of premature don't you think? I doubt Palin will even be on Rush (pardon me while I abuse more OxyContin) Limbaugh's show let alone Oprah. Pure planted lies and spin. You don't HAVE to be a zipperhead, you do have a brain, use it.

Posted by: wes1155 | September 6, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

So Palin cannot win votes for McCain without Oprah. These people is making Palin looking stupid that she wants to be in the show no matter if they harass the host.

The Show is not a political show. She endorsed Obama as a person not as a host of the Show.

She doesnt want any politics in her show especially now that it's campaign months if that was the case Obama should have been in every Oprah show until election day if she wants her show to be politicize.

Posted by: Wendy | September 6, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

All these low-lives disparaging Oprah calling her racist without using their heads to think through her decision.

Why will she give advantage to the GOP 2 weeks before the election?

If she wants to sell her self to voters, then she should appear on real news talk shows on ABC,CNN,NBC and even Fox and defend her record.


Why did she and McCain refused to appear on CBS 60 Minutes after formal request from CBS? We even learn that she turn down C-Span

Posted by: MollyMay | September 6, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Why, OH WHY DON'T WE PEOPLE JUST WATCH AND HAVE FIATH BECAUSE, WE DON'T RULE THIS WORLD YES,CHANGE IS,HAVE,ALREADY,COME TO THIS LAND THAT WE ARE ALL TAKE A PART OF BUT, WE DO NOT OWN. SO DON'T BLAME ANYONE,BUT, FOR, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT, TO ACCEPT WE ALL WERE CREATED TO BE WHO AND WHAT THE CREATOR INTEND TO BE. PLEASE VOTE WITH WISDOM..CHOOSE THE GOOD AGAINST THE BAD CHANGE 'SINCE ONE HAS CHOOSEN TO PIGGYBACK ON THE ORIGINAL'. LOVE613

Posted by: love613 | September 6, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Palin is the new star of US Politics and In fact Oprah should beg her to come on show to increase the viewership. I can't wait for Palin to reject Oprah show invite for interview.

Oprah is the biggest racist under the hood and her acts enough to be called anti-american

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Race over gender I guess.I never thought much of this Winfrey lady any way.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

I never had much respect for Oprah, but she needs to be honest., if she is going to play politics., Sarah Palin Should be the GOP nominee, not McCain. The Republicans are much more excited about palin then mccain., The new most famous person in the world. Uh Oh, Wonder if she is a Muslim too? Or worse, the anti-christ?

This site has the inside scoop about the Palin Dui Secret, http://www.duihelpguide.com Why hasnt the news covered this?

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

This site has everything about her scandals, Levi the Boy Friend, what really happen with ebay plane. http://www.hotpres.com

Despite all of this, and her lack of experiance she would probably make a much better president then McCain., Because like Obama she hasnt been corrupted by washington yet.

Posted by: pastor123 | September 6, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Am I the only one who wonders why this is "news"?

Posted by: ezr1 | September 6, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Even if Oprah did want her as a guest, how could palin possibly go on the show when her campaign won't allow any interviews?

This whole discussion is hooey. It's Oprah's show and she has every right to select who appears, and who doesn't.

Posted by: Julianne | September 6, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Hello? The same racist diatribes are being repeated ad over and over until it becomes true- this a Rove Fox news internet meme smear. Palin is under a gag order by order of McCain campaign until after the election is over. No one, not even Oprah Winfrey, was ever going to interview her. This story has been concocted by spin masters with a divisive agenda. They are hijacking Oprah's celebrity to inject energy into Palin and help cast her as victim of bias. If you believed the faux story and are reacting to it by calling Oprah a racist, and tying Obama together with Oprah while doing so, then you are very gullible and the GOP knows just how to harness the willful ignorant. Can't you see that the Rove tactics to divide the country are at work here? How can you believe that Oprah is a racist? Her audience is over sixty percent Caucasian! Rove wants her audience like he wants Hillary Clinton's. The GOP is so smug they actually think women are stupid enough to fall for this. The scary thng is in reading this, a whole bunch of you are.

Posted by: Kermit | September 6, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Hey Oprah- Did you know that the Cheney- Obama supported Energy Act of 2005 changed our energy policy in the following way? According to Public Citizen...

"In addition to providing billions of dollars to already wealthy oil, nuclear and coal companies, the energy bill abandons consumers by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), one of the most effective consumer and protection laws governing the power sector. With this law now gone, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies and oil companies will now be allowed to own utilities, giving these new corporate owners license to raid the utilities’ guaranteed revenue streams for use in leveraging non-utility acquisitions, opening the door to price-gouging of ratepayers."

Did you John McCain voted Against Bush and the Republican Party on this Bill? How can Obama lie to us like this? How can you be behind him?

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I learned something this week by Oprah's actions. To her it's very apparent that it's more important to be BLACK than a WOMAN. I am done with this biased "platform".


Disgusted in DC.

Posted by: Disgusted with O | September 6, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I think Oprah has stepped in on this without letting things play out. She is very influential but by weighing in so early, she shut down what would have been an interesting forum for the candidates. http://www.boppoll.com Register to Vote!

Posted by: mgultch | September 6, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/65hxld

Saturday, September 06, 2008
What Are The Duties of The Mayor of Wasilla?

Given that Sarah Palin has been Governor of Alaska for less time than John McCain has been running for President, and that, given McCain's age, she could well become President, it is important that we look at the duties that she had in her major position in government--Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

Here, direct from the City of Wasilla, are the entire duties of the Mayor of Wasilla (population 9,700). These are the complete duties, as listed by the city:


The duties of the Mayor of Wasilla can be found in Wasilla Municipal Code 2.16. For your convience, the duties are outlined below from WMC 2.16:

Chapter 2.16 MAYOR

2.16.020 Power and duties of mayor.

A. The mayor is the chief administrator of the city, has the same powers and duties as those of a manager under AS 29.20.005, and shall:

1. Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council, but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;

2. Act as ceremonial head of the city;

3. Sign documents on behalf of the city;

4. Appoint, suspend or remove city employees and administrative officials, except as provided otherwise in AS Title 29 and the Wasilla Municipal Code;

5. Supervise the enforcement of city law and carry out the directives of the city council;

6. Prepare and submit an annual budget and capital improvement program for consideration by the council, and execute the budget and capital program as adopted;

7. Make monthly financial reports and other reports on city finances and operations as required by the council;

8. Exercise legal custody over all real and personal property of the city;

9. Perform other duties required by law or by the council; and

10. Serve as personnel officer, unless the council authorizes the mayor to appoint a personnel officer.

B. The mayor may appoint a person to the position of administrative assistant and deputy administrator. If appointed, the positions may not be eliminated during the mayor’s term of office without prior consent of the mayor. (Prior code § 2.16.010)

From
Head of State
Cite: http://tinyurl.com/65hxld


Posted by: Robert Hewson | September 6, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

It's quite obvious that Oprah is a racist.

I hope that after Palin becomes VP Oprah tries to get her on her show and Palin tells her "no thanks I have more important things to do than appear on your show."

Posted by: Steve | September 6, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

"Obama had 38 MILLION viewers for his acceptance speech. Any guesses on what McCain will pull in?

If you go by past examples, McCain will be lucky to get 2 Million people to tune in.

Posted by: Tim | September 4, 2008 4:13 PM"
**************

THIRTY NINE MILLION TIM!!!!!!

Hey Camp Obama- Keep underestimating McCain- Your candidate's novelty has worn off- Palin's hasn't and her presence on the ticket merely highlights Obama's realtive inexperience (you know, executive- he's running to be the next Warren Harding)....makes people feel that they should be debating as VP candidates, while the adults top the ticket....by the way, who IS running for dem. VP? Oh, yeah Joe Biden, who's newest gaff is really sleazy- he's on the trail looking for sympathy by telling audiences that the truck driver involved in his family's fatal accident was driving drunk: the man was tested at the time and was exonerated of alcohol, drugs, and all wrongdoing. The man's family and a superior court judge in Delaware who was the ADA on the case are speaking out against Biden....keep it up Joe- I'm glad You'll be debating Palin!!!

Posted by: Scott | September 6, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

two items:

1. Obviously whoever is writing on this blog hasn't read the latest polls. You call Oprah biased and/or raciest yet 65% of white men are voting for John McCain....HELLO...talk about that for a while.

2. Oprah stated when Barack began his campaign that she was supporting him and no one else was going to be on her show. Look where he has gotten with her help. Talk about the others she has helped with their careers...many. More than the people blogging here saying she is doing nothing except helping people in Africa. Oprah is well respected and does have power as one of the FORBES wealthiest people in the world - the issue just came out.

Read a little oh sorry that might be hard with Palin fighting with the Wasilla Librarian to throw books out of the library system that she didn't like.

Posted by: rstar2 | September 6, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse


You forgot to mention.

Obama was on her show two times!!!

So it is clear she is using her show for politics!


Maybe when it over Obama and Oprah can go back to that hate filled church they used to belong to...

She cried at Obama acceptance speech. She is just biased, and does not want to give anybody a chance unless they are obama

Posted by: time | September 6, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Interesting that the first public stance to support a politician she ever took was a black man still attending a racist church she belong to. I guess no other one was worthy maybe we weren't black enough.

Posted by: Nancy | September 6, 2008 6:41 AM | Report abuse

I from Chicago and I heard of rumor that the real reason she left the church is for economic reasons she knew if anyone found out she was attending it would hurt her financially. This is a woman who won't even share her money with her mother and help her pay her bills when she has billions of dollars. What do we really know about her except she is selfish.

Posted by: Susie | September 6, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

Thats very true if a white man went to a church that was for the white religion and heard that rheoteric everybody would call him a racist. Does anyone know why Oprah has not denounce Reverend Wright and what he has said. And now this a pattern is forming.

Posted by: Stan | September 6, 2008 6:24 AM | Report abuse

I agree somewhat with the last argument it seems that the black community is far more racist against the white look at Barack's Church which Oprah also attended and did not denounce either. It appears something is seriously wrong we should really ask some hard questions of Oprah.

Posted by: Jill | September 6, 2008 6:21 AM | Report abuse

Its interesting that 95% of blacks are voting for Obama. Maybe they don't like the white guy. Hmmm who is truly racist if 95% of whites voted for McCain we know what YOU people with say. Now she discriminating against a white woman.

Posted by: Angela | September 6, 2008 6:17 AM | Report abuse

I've watched Oprah regularly for over 20 years and, as we've matured together,
I've learned from her journey and been inspired to be my own best self.

Having been mutually victimized by discriminatory practices, it never occurred to me that Oprah would embrace anything so fundamentally despicable as racism.

But I find the statement that she made her decision not to use her show as a platform for any of the candidates frighteningly disingenuous and perfectly illustrative of the how insidious racism can be.

The painfully stark reality is that, to date, Oprah has had one and only one presidential candidate on her show - the candidate who shares her race.

And likewise to date, and after over 25 years in the public eye, Oprah has publicly endorsed one and only one presidential candidate - the candidate who shares her race.

The revelation of Oprah's embrace of racist practices has been devastating, and I mourn for the good she might otherwise have done in the world had she not chosen to embrace and propagate such a devasting and destructive evil.

I will dearly miss Oprah - or at least I will miss the figment of my imagination that I thought was Oprah.

But I am glad that my eyes have been opened. I have no wish to expose myself to racist practices and beliefs, particularly when they are so subtly disguised and attractively packaged, and would strongly urge others to do the same.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Its interesting even Barack's Hussein Obama own preacher of 20 years called him a liar. You people don't get it but he finally did. He has a reason to feel about America and thats why he says does things now I guess he has a reason to feel why Barack Hussein is a liar. And you won't listen.

Posted by: glen | September 6, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse

"Their [sic] coaching Sarah to look like she knows about the issues. Their coaching her on the debate with Joe Biden in hopes that will make her look like she knows what she's talking about but in realty she really doesn't. Palin is a fraud and is dangerous to this country. NO Palin/Mccain"

No, this is what I think:

Their [sic] coaching Obama to look like he knows about the issues. Their [sic] coaching him on the debate with John McCain in hopes that will make him look like he knows what he's talking about but in realty he really doesn't. Obama is a fraud and is dangerous to this country. NO Obama/Biden

Posted by: Truth Detector | September 6, 2008 5:20 AM | Report abuse

Their coaching Sarah to look like she knows about the issues. Their coaching her on the debate with Joe Biden in hopes that will make her look like she knows what she's talking about but in realty she really doesn't. Palin is a fraud and is dangerous to this country. NO Palin/Mccain

Posted by: Carol | September 6, 2008 5:09 AM | Report abuse

Palin is a fraud. Talks tough from the campaign stump and cant hold a press conference. More tough talk but no action to back it up. Send this radical right wing back to Alaska. How is she supposed to shake up Washington when she can't even hold her own during a interview.

Posted by: Bridgette | September 6, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

Palin is a fraud. Anybody thats new on the seen should show transparency. She has all these radical views and against womens rights and that why the Mccain campaign wants to hide her from reporters and having interviews. If Mccain thinks people are going to vote for a ticket when they dont' even know the VP he's crazy. This Mccain/Palin ticket is a fraud.

Posted by: Betsy | September 6, 2008 4:58 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin addressing the Alska Independence Convention.

"Keep up the good work." Their "work" is to separate the state of Alaska from the United States of Anerica.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI&feature=related

No wonder they sent her home for a couple of days in order to avoid the news media.

This moose hunter is not going to fly.

Posted by: Joan | September 6, 2008 4:57 AM | Report abuse

Jews for Jesus Sarah:

If you really want to see the type of "thinking" that this hockey mom has been educated in, watch this talk from the Jews for Jesus founder delivered at Sarah Palin's church with her in attendance.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8uz_nPFfjYo&feature=related

The second video is of Sarah Palin addressing the congregation on the same date. It's very evident that she didn't have the services of the George Bush writer her wrote her acceptance speech. Pathetic.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k&feature=related

and http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=k84m2orSOaM&feature=related

Please people- wake up and send this pretender Ms. UnCongeniality back to Wasilla.

There are no moose in Washington D.C. for her to shoot with her automatic assault weapon.

Posted by: Lydia | September 6, 2008 3:58 AM | Report abuse

Letter to a fellow Alaskan blogger

"When Sarah was getting all of her "executive experience" as mayor of Wasilla, wasn't John Cramer actually running the City while Sarah was out chasing after the City Librarian, the Wasilla public safety commissioner...and trying to grab money to build a sports complex? Can you delve into that a little bit? How about the people she's surrounded herself with in her current administration as governor of Alaska? Can we dig into THAT a little bit...never before have so many Alaskans of so few talents been moved so quickly from Wasilla to Juneau to take high-paying state positions -- and the only qualification being simpering and unwavering loyalty to Sarah. Can you profile some of her staff, maybe? Let's hear more about her (lack of) judgement, her CHARACTER. I don't care who you ask (supporters and detractors) her experience *is* pretty thin, and I'd like to know more about who she IS because that's going to end up being more important than her experience. Let's face it, I'm an Alaskan like you, but there are more people living in some suburbs of Chicago than live in the entire state of Alaska... I mean, just try this one on for size: a woman who has stepped up to attempt a run at the US VP position spent an inordinate amount of her time (during her "formative executive years as mayor of Wasilla") on a witch hunt after the City Librarian because that Librarian wouldn't pull books from the shelf which Sarah found personally offensive to her religious beliefs and personal views... Let's hear some more about stuff like that... because what I got out of this speech was a real and incisive look at her character: catty, vindictive, petty and self-aggrandizing... Prom Queen. All the way. I heard popularity platitudes as she pandered to the crowd. I heard a lot of negativity but I DIDN'T hear much at ALL about what Sarah was FOR, what she and McCain are going to *DO* for this country. She's good at back-biting and she can cut 'em down as good as any "mean girl" in any given high school cafeteria and at the end of the day, that's her character. That's what we'd have as a VP, and God-forbid, should the frail Sendator McCain croak, our President."

Posted by: Lydia | September 6, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

"No We Can't" (break the glass ceiling that is)

That's what Obama has made REALITY by not choosing the best Democrat to be his VP, Hillary Clinton! How could he mop the floor with her, pimp her out for his campaign, and then not even put her on the ticket? Was it arrogance, was it fear, was it spite? How about all of the above?

The Biden choice was one made out of fear and inexperience.

So here's how to fix the problem:
Vote for McCain / Palin this round. Why not? Lots of other women will!

Here's why:
Once you smash the glass ceiling by voting in Gov. Palin as your VP, the ticket for 2012 will most surely look like this:
Hillary vs. Palin vs. Napalitano vs. ?

Give Hillary a chance, sooner! Vote McCain / Palin 2008!

Posted by: Jackie | September 6, 2008 3:01 AM | Report abuse

Palin is now over 41 million viewers counting PBS, and without styrofoam columns,

Posted by: Slingo | September 6, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

Time to go to Tyra Banks show instead! Ha!

Posted by: Jodie | September 6, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

Nice political cover up Oprah.... just a little TOO good in fact, did you happen to get a call from Obama today?

So I wonder if Oprah will invite Carlie F.(former CEO of HP) or Meg Whitman (former CEO of ebay)... they gave speeches for Mr. McCain. Some how I doubt it.

Posted by: Kareem | September 6, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Governor Palin is going to eat Joe Biden alive. And she'll do it even BEFORE he crams his own foot in his mouth.

Humor:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DsM19YOqs7hU&usg=AFQjCNEgUXheGoOP-SNRKo4hT1ASMhlH6w

Oprah is political, and she's already endorsed Obama. What's funny is that I don't remember her saying why? Hmmm.

Posted by: Jenny | September 6, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener | September 6, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Heart condemns McCain-Palin use of 'Barracuda'
Posted: 08:41 AM ET

Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart.
ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) — Blasting through the Republican convention hall is the 1977 hit "Barracuda" by rock band Heart.

It's a shout-out to Sarah Palin. When she played basketball in high school, the soon-to-be Republican vice presidential nominee earned the nickname "Sarah barracuda" for her fierce competitiveness.

Some of her opponents revived the "Sarah barracuda" nickname after she became mayor of her hometown, Wasilla, in 1996, defeating a three-term incumbent.

UPDATE: Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart said Thursday night that Universal Music Publishing and Sony BMG have sent a cease and desist notice to the McCain-Palin campaign over their use of 'Barracuda.'

"We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music. We
hope our wishes will be honored," the group said in a statement that said they "condemn" the use of the song at the Republican convention.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 6, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Palin is a shooting star who will fade out once real national issues are put in front of her. Joe Biden has already said Palin seems like a "deft and smart politician" who would be a formidable debater.

Biden is setting up the media expectations and Palin's on self-confidence to smack her down hard in their debate. It doesn't matter if Joe "The TRADER" Lieberman is coaching her, he won't be there to whisper the correct answers in her ear like he did for McCain.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 6, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I would like to put the Blame right on Dean, the DNC for the dumb sh*t Obama giving the election to McCain and Palin!

Thank you Dean and the DNC for Fu**king up the next four years and beyond!
By eliminating Hillary Clinton the only one that would of been able to win against the evil re pub-cons!

But NO DEAN and the Dumb-Sh*ts of the DNC took away the real winner of the primary.

" A WOMEN" Hillary Clinton WON Obama by *Two Hundred thousand*
MORE VOTES then Deans man Obama~!
********************************
So sad it is to be right.
We tried so hard to warn you. Now you see what the re-pubs-cons are going to turn Obama into !

Dr. Dean and The DNC could not stand she was the real winner they were to good to have Hillary Clinton as are nominee even though SHE was the true winner of the primaries. They turned their backs on the Women of the Democratic party and shoved Obama down our throats! Now the country and the planet will pay!
Thanks Dean and the DNC!!!!!

Posted by: I hate to be right | September 5, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Karen said: Sarah a Palen is a disgrace to all women. She sold out everything women stand for by supporting an anti-women, anti-gay, pro-war, ant-environment, andti-health care party. Bravo Oprah. you have gained my respect. *********** Absolutely NOT a disgrace for this woman and many I know... BTW, we're not the uneducated ones that the liberal women say that will vote for Palin either.

"anti-women", "anti-gay", "pro-war", "anti-environment", "anti-healthcare"... seriously, although we don't agree in politics... please tell me Karen is NOT a representative of the democratic party. I refuse to believe there's someone this dim on the democratic side. I have many liberal friends, but they're never this dim to make this statement.

These words are similar to me saying that Obama is Pro-assassinating babies, he is pro-dependent culture, anti-business ... which I recognize sounds silly.

Posted by: Aurora | September 5, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Palin is the worlds biggest celebrity extremist....

This could be true if you replace "Palin" w/"Obama"... he made speeches to the world in Germany and France remember? While ignoring England, who is perhaps our biggest ally.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

I have no issues w/whomever Oprah wants to vote for, it's her choice. But it would be nice for her to allow her viewers a chance to make up their own decisions too.

But I won't sign the petition b/c I still won't watch it even if Oprah does invite Palin. Lets assume she ever does invite Palin, I hope Palin turns her down.

She went from Pro-women regardless of race, to Pro-blacks many years ago. As an Asian woman, I saw this transition... and was saddened b/c she did a fab job many many years ago. I used to love her b/c of her fairness, after the change... I haven't been back, and neither has any of my family and friends. The blatant racism is only now noticed by other women.

Posted by: Kim | September 5, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Palin is just another Jesus-freak nazi (Bush). Palin believes Jews deserve to die for not converting to Christianity. Palin also wants to teach creationism drivel in public schools.

Our latest headline reads: "Stocks fall as jobs data stirs fear about economy".

Good job Republicans. I love these arseholes that say our economy is only screwed up because Bush inherited an economy that was already in recession, as if 8 years wasn't enough time for him to fix things. Not only have things not improved since Clinton left office, they've gotten much, much worse. Go ahead and vote for McCain so things can continue getting worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU&feature=related
.

Posted by: Ethics Challenged Creationist Cheerleader

Posted by: Ethics Challenged Creationist Cheerleader | September 5, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

****


Given that Palin's acceptance speech, shown on neither Bet, TV One, or Telemundo, and given the fact that she still drew over 37 million viewers, only relatively, slightly less than Obama's 38 million, and she's a vice-presidential candidate nonetheless, well, if you're a Democrat, you're definitely thinking there's something wrong with this picture.

Maybe the headline on Oprah's show should now read:

Joey B and Barry Who?


jd


****

Posted by: Johnny Democracy | September 5, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

ratings for oprah show has touched bottom. I am not sure why the channels still keep her on air? Its long due to kick her out.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama is never available for media vetting.. that is why he is still unknown. Who knows what he truely believes.

We know McCain and his service record. We can trust him to keep us safe from Islamic Fundamental Terrorists.

I strongly doubt Obama on national security

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

TIME TO CANCEL OPRAH'S SHOW!!!

Posted by: BYE OPRAH | September 5, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign, says Palin won't be available to the press for about two weeks. His defense? She might make "a mistake."


"If she goes out and makes a mistake, that is something that [voters will] care about, and that's something that will haunt [McCain] for awhile, so I think this is a smart move."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AV_54517R8&eurl=http://www.jedreport.com/


This has got to be one of the craziest messaging decisions ever: Harris is conceding that Palin's not even ready to be a vice presidential candidate, let alone be president.


I just don't see how they can sustain two weeks of keeping Palin in hiding. Every day the McCain campaign keeps her away from reporters just highlights the fact that even they don't think she's ready.

Cheney must be giving Palin a crash VP course since she doesn't even know what the Vice-President does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9pnzQ96kWA

Posted by: Bu$h + McCain = "W"orthless | September 5, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Radical pastor wright is the pastor of oprah as well. She also support his anti-american sentiments.. She left the church so that people watch her show..nothing else

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Sign the petition to not watch Oprah until she allows Palin on the show!

http://www.nooprah.com/

Posted by: DROCK | September 5, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Anne Kornblut asserts without evidence that McCain is Drudge's source. Kornblut, go back to journalism school.

Posted by: Andrew | September 5, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

It's stunning how shallow people can be. Why did she start a school in Africa? My family was able to trace their European genealogy back to the 1600s, on both sides. Do you realize most black people in this country don't even know what part of Africa they came from? (Not that you sound like the kind of person that would care). Tracing their ancestry is virtually impossible, except for the new genetic testing that can give them some idea of maybe where they came from. Don't you think a lot of people in this country feel a connection to their ancestral homeland, and even to their names? I guarantee you they do. Africa is a country that is consumed by challenges, where people live in conditions beyond your wildest dreams. What she's doing is a wonderful thing. It sounds like you oppose helping anyone less fortunate than yourself - and that is appalling. Educating impoverished girls to help improve their lives and the lives of others is a wonderful thing. Shame on you for such a despicable comment.

Posted by: dascenzo | September 5, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone want to go on Oprah? Everyone knows she's just an extension of the Obama campaign (except she at least had the good judgement to leave the First Chicago Church of God Damn America).

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Opara is a disgrace to america. She started a school in Africa, why not in america? if she loves the country so much?

There are so many childern in this country who need support for education.. she never even bother to look at them.

I would say this qualify her to be called anti-american too. I was a fan long time back but all my friends stopped watching her show... now the ratings are at bottom

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Do you even "KNOW", what it means to vote present? Unlike John Mccain who just never even bothers to show up and vote. To vote present means you are here and ready to vote but what you are voting on is not ready to be voted on in your opinion. There are things in it you support and things you don't. You want to see it worked on some more so instead of just voting "YES" like a lot of senators do who are too lazy to fight for what they believe in. Or voting "NO" and killing what may be a good bill if it was just worked on, you vote "PRESENT" meaning "Im am here and ready to vote but not on what has been presented to me".

IT IS A "GOOD" THING TO VOTE PRESENT, IT MEANS YOU ARE THERE READY TO WORK AND TAKE YOUR JOB SERIOUSLY BUT NOT SOME STOOGE WHO WILL JUST SIGN ANYTHING MANY TIMES THINGS THEY DIDN'T EVEN READ.

If you see someone who has no present votes, they were probably not even there half the time. "LIKE JOHN MCCAIN"

-------Does it not seem that Obama's campaign for the last 18 months comes across just like another one of those TV Reality Shows. I mean the guy can talk - I give him credit here. Give him a shoe and he'll sell it to anyone guranteed but there is no substance, no biographical history to the man in which we are considering as our president. My concern is that he will talk his way into the Oval Office and then have no idea what to do. He has no executive experience, and no real leadership experience that suggests that he is ready for the presidential spot. Even in Obama's term in Senate when it came to casting votes and taking positions on issues Mr. Obama would consistantly vote 'present'. Again, my concern is that how can we elect a president that can not take a position on issues on the Senate floor.

I certainly have issues with candidates on certain ideals however, in the end it is the president that we vote for and not the vice president. I hope that America looks at the substance and character that makes up each candidate and makes a decision based on those values versus an inspiring speech because it's each to be an inspiring speaker but much harder to be a person of substance.

Posted by: Michael | September 5, 2008 8:33 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse


Do you even "KNOW", what it means to vote present? Unlike John Mccain who just never even bothers to show up and vote. To vote present means you are here and ready to vote but what you are voting on is not ready to be voted on in your opinion. There are things in it you support and things you don't. You want to see it worked on some more so instead of just voting "YES" like a lot of senators do who are too lazy to fight for what they believe in. Or voting "NO" and killing what may be a good bill if it was just worked on, you vote "PRESENT" meaning "Im am here and ready to vote but not on what has been presented to me".

IT IS A "GOOD" THING TO VOTE PRESENT, IT MEANS YOU ARE THERE READY TO WORK AND TAKE YOUR JOB SERIOUSLY BUT NOT SOME STOOGE WHO WILL JUST SIGN ANYTHING MANY TIMES THINGS THEY DIDN'T EVEN READ.

If you see someone who has no present votes, they were probably not even there half the time. "LIKE JOHN MCCAIN"


------------
Martin, lol
If one thinks as a 7 year old, perhaps that's the way they would communicate.
If you don't even get that statement, it's no wonder you don't get the rest/real picture.
Senator McCain has a record in the senate. Obama's record is saying present 130 times.
Too deep I'm sure

Posted by: More constant than bitter | September 5, 2008 6:49 AM-------
Does it not seem that Obama's campaign for the last 18 months comes across just like another one of those TV Reality Shows. I mean the guy can talk - I give him credit here. Give him a shoe and he'll sell it to anyone guranteed but there is no substance, no biographical history to the man in which we are considering as our president. My concern is that he will talk his way into the Oval Office and then have no idea what to do. He has no executive experience, and no real leadership experience that suggests that he is ready for the presidential spot. Even in Obama's term in Senate when it came to casting votes and taking positions on issues Mr. Obama would consistantly vote 'present'. Again, my concern is that how can we elect a president that can not take a position on issues on the Senate floor.

I certainly have issues with candidates on certain ideals however, in the end it is the president that we vote for and not the vice president. I hope that America looks at the substance and character that makes up each candidate and makes a decision based on those values versus an inspiring speech because it's each to be an inspiring speaker but much harder to be a person of substance.

Posted by: Michael | September 5, 2008 8:33 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 9:17 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

THE EXPERIENCE MYTH OF OBAMA

I have worked with the Obama campaign on a local level since December and have met and spoken with Obama numerous times. Anyone who thinks Obama is not prepared for the office of president does not know Barack Obama. I don't think the campaign has spoken about it, although there have been articles written, maybe because it may have seemed kind of presumptive doing all this so many months before he even had the nomination, but that is not how Obama works.
Little is left to chance. So here is what the deal is:

Does Obama have the experience to be president, is he ready? It would be hard to say anyone is ready to be president, but what prepares one for the job?

Obama has been getting ready when his nomination was still no more then a dream. Obama has an advisory staff of over a 300. Most all are the top people in their fields. 4 of his staff are the top people on middle east politics in the world. He has numerous people on pretty much everything you could think of from global warming to world economics to energy and foreign policy to the military. Generals to scholars you name it, he has been working with these people for more then a year. Obama is a brilliant man, who easily knows more right now then any candidate who ever ran for the office of president. He is so up to speed it is astounding. John Mccain does not know or grasp a fraction of what Obama does. Mccain is in effect, a dinosaur, compared to Obama now. Mccain has no real practical experience or understanding in many of these areas at all. Just being in Washington for many years does not necessarily make you an expert nor knowledgeable in "Anything".
Bill Clinton said it best when he said,
"No one is really prepared to be president".
He was right and Obama understood that better then anyone long before he even began his journey for the presidency. So for over a year he has been quietly preparing. Like anything such as being a doctor or lawyer or any profession, your first introduction is academic, you go to school. Obama will by no means be learning on the job, he has been in school for more then a year. When enters office, Obama will be the most well prepared and ready president to ever walk into the white house.
He will also be surrounded by the finest staff ever assembled by any president in history.

If you do not want to vote for Barack Obama I can respect that, but by no means think he is not ready to be president. He will be the most ready man to ever win the office.

Thanks for listening
A Florida Obama worker
======
Does it not seem that Obama's campaign for the last 18 months comes across just like another one of those TV Reality Shows. I mean the guy can talk - I give him credit here. Give him a shoe and he'll sell it to anyone guranteed but there is no substance, no biographical history to the man in which we are considering as our president. My concern is that he will talk his way into the Oval Office and then have no idea what to do. He has no executive experience, and no real leadership experience that suggests that he is ready for the presidential spot. Even in Obama's term in Senate when it came to casting votes and taking positions on issues Mr. Obama would consistantly vote 'present'. Again, my concern is that how can we elect a president that can not take a position on issues on the Senate floor.

I certainly have issues with candidates on certain ideals however, in the end it is the president that we vote for and not the vice president. I hope that America looks at the substance and character that makes up each candidate and makes a decision based on those values versus an inspiring speech because it's each to be an inspiring speaker but much harder to be a person of substance.

Posted by: Michael | September 5, 2008 8:33 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Given the tone of the comments, I just hope everyone registers to vote and gets over it after the election. And, for a little stress relief, http://www.boppoll.com. McCain seems to be doing well in this poll. Where is Team Obama?

Posted by: mgultch | September 5, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Oprah is a racist? Maybe she's got a clue what it's like to be on the receiving end of racism, but she isn't racist towards other people. Not even a little bit. I've recorded Oprah on my DVR for years and I watch her every day, so I think I probably know more about this than you do. Keep trying.

Posted by: dascenzo | September 5, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

There is no doubt that Oprah is a racist and americans have realised this fact. no wonder why her rating are at bottom base and who cares anyway about her show any more.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Are you people going to make it that easy for them?

After months of right wing propaganda about so called "Disenfranchised" Clinton supporters that proved to be all hype and no reality (the Republican mantra)

The Republicans take their roll call vote after hours when no body is watching, and while John McCain gave his "change" speech to 3500 cheerleading sycophants and partisan hacks, less than a mile away Ron Paul rallied 14000 "true believers" Where was the media on that? Totally AWOL!

Posted by: Average joe | September 5, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Obamamania is biting the dust before our very eyes as the Media eats it creation. Folks, we're witnessing the greatest collapse by a presidential candidate in history.

Posted by: J. Strummer | September 5, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't think she's going on Oprah or giving ANY interviews it seems. The Republicans aren't letting her near reporters because they know if she's asked any kind of question about her personal views or foreign policy it will be CRYSTAL CLEAR what a radical she is, and how little she knows about the world outside of Alaska. That will be the end of their ticket. So I'll bet they're going to keep her under lock and key as far as the opportunity to have anyone actually ask her questions. Do a google news search for Cheney and look at all he is doing. Do you really think Sarah Palin can travel to these countries and do what Cheney does? LOL, no she can't. She will be an embarrassment, and we will (once again) be the laughing stock of the entire world. I'm no Cheney fan but at least he has a clue what is going on outside of ... ALASKA. Palin is a joke and for all the criticisms by the Republicans that Obama is just an unqualified celebrity, that's exactly what Sarah Palin has become in the span of a few days. So she can read a speech (which was written for her by a Bush speech writer). Sorry, I'm not impressed by that. I'm also not impressed by her holding a rifle in a red, white and blue bikini, and in fact I find that revolting. It is clear from what she's done in Alaska that she will be forcing her unqualified personal views upon women, scientists, environmentalists, and our educational system, and I hope all these views are made CRYSTAL CLEAR to people before the election so they know exactly what they are voting for. McCain sadly just desperately wants to win, once and for all, but with his age and previous bouts with cancer, everyone needs to look at Sarah Palin as a potential president. I respected that he acknowledged climate change and was against drilling in places that should be protected. I respected that he was pro-alternative energy and he was actually a Republican that cared about this planet and the FUTURE human beings that would be living on it. Well, it seems he has finally given in to the oil grubbers in his party (I guess the pressure was just too much for him), which is proven by Sarah Palin as his VP choice. What about health care? What about jobs going overseas to China? What about our financial system crumbling, and making plans NOW to get OFF foreign oil? His answer to all our problems is to drill and curb pork barrel spending? Obviously, having "their side" win is all that is important to some people. Not what will happen afterwards, and that is as sad as it is scary. So please, SOMEONE interview Sarah Palin, unedited, uncensored ... because people need to see exactly what this woman is really about. And as far as Ellen interviewing her? Maybe, but I doubt with the anti-gay stance Sarah Palin has that she'll be getting Ellen's vote, especially since she just married her girlfriend. Keep trying though ... I wouldn't be surprised if the only interview she gives is to Bill O'Reilly.

Posted by: dascenzo | September 5, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Does it not seem that Obama's campaign for the last 18 months comes across just like another one of those TV Reality Shows. I mean the guy can talk - I give him credit here. Give him a shoe and he'll sell it to anyone guranteed but there is no substance, no biographical history to the man in which we are considering as our president. My concern is that he will talk his way into the Oval Office and then have no idea what to do. He has no executive experience, and no real leadership experience that suggests that he is ready for the presidential spot. Even in Obama's term in Senate when it came to casting votes and taking positions on issues Mr. Obama would consistantly vote 'present'. Again, my concern is that how can we elect a president that can not take a position on issues on the Senate floor.

I certainly have issues with candidates on certain ideals however, in the end it is the president that we vote for and not the vice president. I hope that America looks at the substance and character that makes up each candidate and makes a decision based on those values versus an inspiring speech because it's each to be an inspiring speaker but much harder to be a person of substance.

Posted by: Michael | September 5, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener | September 5, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse


Don't forget that Oprah belonged to the same church as Obama. You know the one with Rev. Wright saying things like the KKK of America, and G_d Damm America.

She supports Obama and probably is afraid that he will lose.

Is she biased? Seem obivious, but draw your own conclusion

Posted by: lucky | September 5, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse


Don't forget Oprah was a member of the Rev. Wright church. She supported Obama had Obama on her show.

Maybe she picked up hatred from the church, and thinks America is evil.

Is Oprah biased? Not much to think about in my opionion.

Posted by: dean | September 5, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Trueth is the GOP is shopping around for a show to land a soft "interview" for the untested Pilan. They're trying to shield the beauty queen from the national press.
So the (Drodge) report was a pre-emtive move to tie down Oprah without knowing that she is in fact not hosting political/campaign guests on her show.

Posted by: drew | September 5, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Sarah a Palen is a disgrace to all women. She sold out everything women stand for by supporting an anti-women, anti-gay, pro-war, ant-environment, andti-health care party. Bravo Oprah. you have gained my respect.

Posted by: Karen | September 5, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Oprah is a racist - she loves having white women gravel at her feet.

Posted by: cdub | September 5, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse


Oprah is just like every other liberal, she doesn't know how to play fair.

The libs lose again because america hates hypocrits. And this smacks of reverse racism.

Oprah's value as an entertainment brand dropped in half overnight.

Posted by: julie | September 5, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see from these comments that race and gender are the only important things in this country.

Posted by: Tim | September 5, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Good old race-baiting John McCain.

Posted by: mnjam | September 5, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are keeping racism alive and well in the US

Posted by: Paul | September 5, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Let's speak the truth!

Oprah is a racist that has her full support including economical for Barack for the one and only reason that he is black!

Since Oprah has taken sides against women in favor of a black man should be a strong reason for Women to take sides and stop watching Oprah's show and switch over to Ellen's show, who I predict will take the opportunity to have the formidable Sarah Palin in her show.

Women for Sarah Palin!

Posted by: Manolete | September 5, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Ms Winfrey is correct to not use her show as a political platform. If President George Bush had not been humanized on Ms Winfrey's show, Vice President Al Gore would have won the election despite "hanging chads" in the State of Florida.

Posted by: Stewart20002 | September 5, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

One more thing while I'm here.

I find it completely ridiculous that Americans are willing to buy into the GOPs fear tactics yet again. Apparently, only a war hero can protect us, as if he'll be fighting the Taliban himself. And never forget that this war was waged under false pretenses, and cost 10x the GOPs original estimate (http://zfacts.com/p/447.html).

No wonder McCain wants to distance himself from the last 8 years.

Posted by: Rick | September 5, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have us at war in two countries as a result of Republican lies and deceptions, and we might be in two more wars--Iran and Pakistan--by November. We have alienated the entire Muslim world and most of the rest.

The dollar has lost 60% of its value against the euro, and the once mighty dollar is losing its reserve currency role.

The Republicans' policies have driven up the price of both oil and gold by 400%.

Inflation is in double digits. Employment is falling rapidly.

The Republican economy in the 21st century has been unable to create net new jobs for Americans except for low wage domestic services such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks and hospital orderlies.

Republican deregulation brought about fraud in mortgage lending and dangerous financial instruments which have collapsed the housing market, leaving a million or more homeowners facing foreclosure. The financial system is in disarray and might collapse from insolvency.

The trade and budget deficits have exploded. The US trade deficit is larger than the combined trade deficits of every deficit country in the world.

The US can no longer finance its wars or its own government and relies on foreign loans to function day to day. To pay for its consumption, the US sells its existing assets--companies, real estate, toll roads, whatever it can offer--to foreigners.

Republicans have run roughshod over the US Constitution, Congress, the courts and civil liberties. Republicans have made it perfectly clear that they believe that our civil liberties make us unsafe--precisely the opposite view of our Founding Fathers. Yet, Republicans regard themselves as the Patriotic Party.

The Republicans have violated the Nuremberg prohibitions against war crimes, and they have violated the Geneva Conventions against torture and abuse of prisoners. Republican disregard for human rights ranks with that of history's great tyrants.

The Republicans have put in place the foundation for a police state, which they have no problem using against fellow citizens!

We must get the Republicans totally out of power, or we will have no country left for any of us!


Posted by: Franky | September 5, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Mc/Pains little lady sure made an ass of America an Senator McCain and Palin just a praising him??. How fast you all forget that if Iraq was not attacked, there would be no threat from Alquida in Iraq now. Remember, scratch your heads, Sadam hated Bin laden and would have crushed him in a minute. America gave him Iraq on a silver platter But don't fret she will have McCain gutted and mounted in a year. Then she well gut America just like your President. And, think and scratch again. Her son will not see the true battle ground. He will be placed away from harm. Loud mouth little girl, no Barracuda, that's for sure. Palins in for a big surprise. Yawn. How you all forget how much you have suffered since 911, and Iraq had not a thing to do with it. May your god protect you and bless all your fallen and injured Heros for years to come. Oprah should have been Obamas VP. From a white., a believer in one god for everyone, and a respect for all cultures.

Posted by: justadad55+ | September 5, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Palin is the worlds biggest celebrity extremist.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 5, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Lisa: You apparently don't understand the dynamics here. Palin (or anyone else from either party) would give their left arm to be on Oprah - her reach with females is phenomenal.

I'm pro-Obama, and nothing Palin said would change my mind. I find it amusing that many of her female supporters like her because she could be 'one of them'. Whatever happened to hiring the most skilled/competent person for the job, instead of hiring someone just because you can relate to them?

Obama has a law degree from the best school in the world. What of Palin's education? I want someone smarter than me running this country, and Palin isn't it.

Posted by: Rick | September 5, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

A woman running for the Republican VP spot for the first time was never even discussed as a possible show? That's obviously a lie. Bros before hos indeed, eh Oprah?

Posted by: MikaFromDenver | September 5, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

What about this shows "[g]rotesque, cowardly and blatant bias"? She's not having any of the candidates on the show despite backing Obama publicly. Is that inappropriate?

Posted by: Rich | September 5, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Palin is now a bigger pull than Obama. Oprah wouldn't be able to get her.

Posted by: Lisa Reed | September 5, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Grotesque, cowardly and blatant bias on Oprah's part. The Obama camp is terrified of Palin, for good reason.

Posted by: E. Y. | September 5, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company