About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Clinton Hits Obama on Oil Money

The ad wars continue in Pennsylvania, with Hillary Clinton now hitting the airwaves to criticize Barack Obama's acceptance of campaign donations from "executives and employees of oil companies," according to the ad.

"Pocket" lists some of those donors, and their employers, while reminding voters that no federal candidate can accept money from corporations (even though they can accept money from employees of those corporations).

This is a televised version of the radio ad Clinton started running last week that criticizes Obama's acceptance of such donations.

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  April 16, 2008; 8:41 AM ET Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Obama Responds (Sort Of) to "Bitter" Controversy | Next: Clinton Defending American Jobs in New Ad


Please email us to report offensive comments.

So in essence because an employee works for an Oil company disqualifies them from donating to a Presidential candidate?!
H E L L O most of us WORK for a living and are happy to have a JOB in this economy. Should I not be entitled to contribute and vote for the candidate of my choice inspite of the sector I work in.

Please Hilary when was the last time you checked the polls? Your antics are NOT WORKING!

Posted by: susan | April 16, 2008 10:06 AM

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Posted by: PulSamsara | April 16, 2008 10:29 AM

What a transparent (not so) sleight of hand to try and distort the facts. What if he took contributions from auto workers? Is he in the pocket of the Big Three? It's a sad and desperate grasping at straws. Come on Hillary, end it! It's over!

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 16, 2008 10:37 AM

I work for one of the largest telecommunications company in the world. Does that mean my donation to Obama proves he takes money from the Telecommunications Industry ? Thats what she is stating. You are REQUIRED BY LAW to enter your Employer Name and your Job Title when donating to a campaign. Its ridiculous to say the least to think that a gas attendant who works for Exxon is somehow a "Big Oil" Donation. Jeeze enough of this. It is very misleading. Most people work for someone..

Posted by: Roger-Kissimmee | April 16, 2008 10:37 AM

What we will do or say when we are behind. I work for a communications company and I donated to Obama.

Posted by: monica | April 16, 2008 11:24 AM

Pot calling the kettle black. Does Hi-liar-ry have no shame, not a shred of self-respect? She takes hypocrisy to new heights!

Posted by: tydicea | April 16, 2008 11:35 AM

Can she get anymore desparate? How offensive this is to all employees working anywhere that donated to Obama because they believe in him.What an insult

Posted by: dcalhoun | April 16, 2008 11:46 AM

HEY....I think I saw my name on that list...oh, wait...I dont work for an oil company :-(
It's just so very sad to see the mighty continue to fall...she's a walking loser.

Posted by: Mary | April 16, 2008 11:50 AM

Hey of course anyone can donate- but the reality is that the Obama people like to chastise Clinton for accepting lobbyists money and now we find Obama has lobbyists or lawyers who work for lobbying firms as part of his big money bundlers.

So what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Obama and Clinton raise this money and its time that people don't think Obama's hands are any cleaner than Clintons. By the way McCain takes the same money.

It was Obama who made this part of his campaign actually echoing Edwards. Well don't blame Clinton for giving it back to him.

I think it is time for those who drank the Obama coolaid to realize their guy is a politician like Clinton and McCain. I accept that they think he is better and that is what the primary and the election is about. But stop attacking Clinton for telling truths about Obama. All the missteps that Clinton is using in the campaign- the bitterness remark and the cling to religion and guns remarks were made by Obama. He has apologized for them but that doesn't absolve him and Clinton is entitled to use them. He and his supporters haven't stopped using the Bosnia misstatements Clinton made even when she apologized for them. Now an Obama supporter even tried to make the case that Clinton is being racist for using the bitterness remarks. Give me a break.

Obama lied about not having heard Rev. Wright say the things he did and then corrected that in his speech on race where he said he had heard them. He lied about his relations to Rezko and we find out that as the facts came out Obama kept giving more money back. Now today he says he can't remember going to another party at Rezko's house. He conveniently lost all his Illinois legislative records and now won't release his early tax returns from when he began to be in public life but demands Clinton release hers and she did.

Let's stop the nonsense and begin to hold them both to the same standard. Go for it and attack Clinton for her errors which Obama supporters are doing but don't get offended when Clinton returns the fire.

This is a political race for the most powerful office in the world.

Posted by: peter DC | April 16, 2008 11:51 AM

Hillapocrisy alert: the following tidbit is excerpted from the FactCheck.org link you included above (emphasis added):

"Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. THAT'S NOT AS MUCH AS SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, WHO HAS RECEIVED MORE THAN $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount."

Yeah. It's substantially 70% of what HC's taken from the same crowd.

Well, at least we all KNOW Hillary's in Big Oil's pocket, so therefore she's not being hypocritical... right?

Time to take that ad out "behind the cottage" and shoot it with Grandpa's handgun, Hill.

Put your campaign out of its misery while you're there.

Posted by: bitter in PA | April 16, 2008 11:57 AM

Do those people who are upset that Clinton's ad is not exactly accurate really believe that Obama's original ad was accurate or that his recent attack ad suggesting that everybody boos Clinton when she criticizes him for stereotyping people from small towns is an accurate representation of the reaction to Obama's comments or of audiences who come to see her?
Is Clinton's ad more misleading than Obama's repeated claim that she takes "millions" from PACs and lobbyists? That's easy to check.
According to the FEC, as of 29 February, about 0.8 percent of her money has come from PACs, a little over a million out of 151 million, much less than the 5 million she loaned to her campaign. PACs simply have not played much of a role in this campaign. Kucinich took $14,200 from PACs, Biden $129,845, Huckabee $54,423, Richardson $243,179, Dodd $642,898, and Obama $250. Only Edwards took nothing, but, then, he was a "populist."
Obama's campaign claims that most of its money comes primarily from small donors, which is not quite accurate. According to the FEC, as of 29 February, 40 percent of Obama's 192 million came from donors giving less than $200, but 43.5 percent came from those giving more than $1,000, not from people giving $20 or less.
How does Clinton compare? About 24 percent of her money came from donors giving less than $200 and 65.3 percent from those giving more than $1,000.
So the bulk of Obama's money comes from donors who can shell out at least $200, just as the bulk of Clinton's does, with about a third more of Clinton's coming from those able to give $1,000 or more.
This is the best evidence that she is in the pocket of special interests, but it is not very convincing, given that Obama also depends heavily on donors who ante up more than $1,000 each, and most of his money comes from those giving more than $200.
Like it or note, this is just how campaigns are financed these days, and Obama knows this, making his charges against Clinton a bit self-serving.
Bill Richardson, now a stalwart Obama supporter, drew 24.4 percent of his cash from those giving under $200, about the same as Clinton, 1.1 percent from PACs, more than Clinton, and 64.5 percent from those giving more than $1,000, about the same as Clinton.
But I did not hear Obama denounce Richardson as being in the pockets of lobbyists and PACs; he happily accepted his support.
Obama's ad regarding "oil money" is misleading, and his claims about Clinton are wildly inaccurate.
Money has driven this campaign. After all, Obama was not addressing minimum-wage workers in San Francisco; he was talking to people able to ante up big bucks. What does that say about him and his campaign? Probably nothing more than that he has been more successful in raising money than Clinton, and that his supporters include a lot of big donors, including executives of oil companies.

Posted by: Jim | April 16, 2008 12:17 PM

Obama supports funding religious schools with public money. Sounds good if our communities were rich and they had extra cash but they arent and don't. Obama is out of touch with suburbia.

Posted by: hhkeller | April 16, 2008 2:03 PM

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
Last Week's Results Just Posted!
Get Your Vote in For This Week.

Posted by: votenic | April 16, 2008 2:13 PM

Barack Obama President of United States of America. He is! Yeah!

Posted by: JAAFAAHU | April 16, 2008 3:02 PM

Was Hillary Fired for Unethical Misconduct?
The links below say that her boss in the Watergate investigation fired her, refused to give her a letter of recommendation and said she was a liar and did highly unethical things.
I have not seen these statements elsewhere.
Supposedly, her boss says that she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality, that she was an unethical and dishonest lawyer, that he should have reported her to the bar association for disciplinary action, and that she wrote a fraudulent legal memorandum which if submitted to a judge would have gotten her disbarred, and that he could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.
Has anyone been able to confirm or debunk this?


Posted by: swuzy | April 16, 2008 3:16 PM

HUGE line in the sand in D.C. politics between an executive donating to a campaign and a PAC donating. Obama owes nothing to their interests. Once again, Clinton is bending the truth on its ear to win votes for herself and at the cost of the Democratic party.

Posted by: shannon | April 16, 2008 3:19 PM

If Obama alienated himself from everyone he would be virtually ineffective in Washington - that is not what we want -we just want someone who isn't owned by any PAC.

Posted by: Adrian | April 16, 2008 3:20 PM



If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of BITTER!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

Best regards

jacksmith... Working Class :-)


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

You Might Be An Idiot, Too!

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

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

Posted by: jacksmith | April 16, 2008 6:07 PM


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)


jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Posted by: jacksmith | April 16, 2008 6:08 PM

jacksmith, alias average citizen

Spot on dude, but your dealing with wet behind the ears, wet legged stupid shepple whose maturity lay some where south of ignorant.

The Oblapie bots don't hear, don't smell, don't think, don't do anything that requires critical analysis and cognitive thinking.

They respond to hope stimuli, hope someone feeds them, changes their diapers, etc, your preaching to a vacuous bubble of air heads.

Posted by: nightslider | April 16, 2008 10:54 PM

Hillary: the candidate who hasn't found a dollar she is willing to turn down. Imagine, she and her fans trying to set moral standards for the rest of us.

Posted by: svbreeder | April 19, 2008 8:06 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company