Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 04/11/2008

The Pot and the Kettle

By Michael Dobbs


Molly's gas station, Manheim, Pa., March 31, 2008.

"What Senator Obama does not tell you is that..he has taken roughly $213,000 from the employees of oil companies. The senator has not been upfront, open, and honest with the people of Pennsylvania with respect to this ad. He does not tell us that two of his bundlers are top executives of oil companies."
--Clinton campaign conference call, April 9, 2008.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns have got into a rather petty dispute over a television ad that the Illinois senator is running in Pennsylvania. The Clinton camp says that Obama has not been "upfront" about the amount of financial support that he receives from oil company employees and executives. The Clintonites have a valid point. On the other hand, they are conveniently overlooking the even larger financial contributions to their candidate from representatives of the oil and gas sector.

The Facts

Last month, the Obama campaign unveiled a TV ad in Pennsylvania entitled "Nothing's Changed" that included the line "I'm Barack Obama, I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more." The University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Political Fact Check pronounced the first part of the claim "a little too slick." It pointed out that political candidates are legally prohibited from taking money from corporations under campaign finance laws. The independent group added that Obama had taken $213,000 from oil company employees and that two of his "bundlers"--the term used for people who raise large sums of money for a candidate--are oil company executives.

Predictably enough, the Clintonites seized on this finding. This week, they put up a radio ad in Pennsylvania entitled "Real Life" that dismissed the Obama ad as empty TV rhetoric. They also organized a conference call with reporters to demand that Obama take down his "misleading" ad.

The Clinton conference call featured Pennsylvania State Democratic Chairman T.J. Rooney accusing Obama of failing to tell voters about the contributions from oil company employees. Rooney omitted to say that Clinton has taken $309,363 from oil company employees, nearly $100,000 more than Obama, according to the website opensecrets.org.

Rooney also criticized Obama for failing to "tell us" that two of his bundlers are oil company executives. He omitted to say that a prominent Clinton bundler, Kase Lawal, is chairman of the private energy company Camac International while a second, John Catsimatidis, has extensive oil interests. Both Lawal and Catsimatidis are designated "Hillraisers," meaning that they have raised more than $100,000 for the Clinton campaign.


The Pinocchio Test

The Clinton campaign is on solid ground in making fun of Obama's meaningless claim that he does not take any money from oil companies. But it seems hypocritical to criticize the Land-of-Lincolner for failing to talk about financial contributions from oil company employees and executives while avoiding any mention of similar contributions to Hillary Clinton. This seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Two Pinocchios for each candidate.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | April 11, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Barack Obama, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Still no light at the end of the tunnel
Next: Bill Shoots from the Hip

Comments

Barack Obama does not accept money from Oil Company PAC's or from federal register lobyists and of course also not directly from Oil Companies.
The only thing you can say about the ad text is that BHO says "oil companies" in stead of "oil company pac's".
Although the text is factually correct, the distinction between BHO and HRC is that HRC does accept money from oil company PAC's and from federal lobyists.

Barrack Obama never promised to exlude private donations from citizens working for oil, health care or any other industry. Those donations are not oil money, they are private citizens money. His ad is correct on the facts and his restaint on accepting money is a relevant distinction between him and the Clinton campaign.
So the Pinnochio's for the Obama campaign do not match with your scoring system.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama does not accept money from Oil Company PAC's or from federal registered lobyists and of course also not directly from Oil Companies.
The only thing you can say about the ad text is that BHO says "oil companies" in stead of "oil company pac's".
Although the text is factually correct, the distinction between BHO and HRC is, that HRC does accept money from company PAC's and from federal lobyists. Everyone following the presidential race '08 knows what BHO has promised on this issue.

Barrack Obama never promised to exlude private donations from citizens working for oil, health care or any other industry. Those donations are not oil money, they are private citizens money. His ad is correct on the facts and his restaint on accepting money is a relevant distinction between his campaign and the Clinton campaign.
So the Pinnochio's for the Obama campaign do not match with your scoring system.

P.S. Sorry, hit the submit button to soon.

Posted by: hebi | April 11, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

Illustrates again why I'd never vote for HRC. She has taken to slamming Obama as a campaign tactic - a way to get elected. This "politics of smear" shows that she is "nothing new." Nothing new at all - business as usual. Her smears might have impact but for her own sorry state of truth-telling. You just can't believe her. Whatever she actually believes, she is showing that she will do anything at all to get elected. Nothing else matters.

Posted by: Cindy | April 11, 2008 7:19 AM | Report abuse

What a typically b.s. article. Obama can only get two pinocchios for the most transparently false ad campaign, just like he got two pinocchios for other outright lies.

What does it take to get 4 pinocchios out of this guy? -- Your last name has to start with a "C" then he'll throw them around!

Furthermore, the article goes on to compare and contrast Obama's oil industry support with Clinton's, as if there's some crime in that. But there's not.

Clinton hasn't lied about her oil industry support, and it's Obama's blatantly misrepresentative ad campaign, that has no point or purpose but to market implications that are totally false, that is the point of a fact check, not whether or not Clinton has any such support.

It's unbelievable that this fact-checker is trivializing this faux marketing campaign. This is a big, expensive ad buy and it's totally misleading.

After weeks of making credibility an issue (this fact-check column revisited Clinton's Bosnia story over and over which was very odd), suddenly credibility isn't important?

Posted by: Annette | April 11, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Why haven't you even looked into the facts that Obama lied about Rev. Wright for so long, and then contradicted himself about that in his Great Race Speech (that actually said nothing substantive)?

Posted by: Annette | April 11, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

once again Obama is LYING, but you somehow try to blame clinton.
stop pretending you're a journalist.

Posted by: Trey | April 11, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Sadly, I can't get past the poor use of the English language in this piece. I just can't abide glaring grammatical errors in a Washington Post publication, by someone who, I would imagine, is actually being paid to...well...write the English language.
"The Obama and Clinton campaigns HAVE GOT into a rather petty dispute over a television ad that the Illinois senator is running in Pennsylvania." Sorry, but this is too simple, and too great a mistake to ignore. Call me petty, but I expect folks who get paid to write the English language, to actually write it correctly. When did this cease to be a "given?" Isn't checking grammar part of an editor's job?
Tacky, tacky, tacky...

Posted by: Anon | April 11, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

This is a rediculous article. While I might criticize both candidates for taking such lofty money, only one is out there stumping that he isn't doing it. So to call the Clinton campaign out for pointing this out is simply ludicrous. They never made the claim they weren't raising money from these coffers. But Obama's campaign did. You get 10 Pinocchios for this article.

Posted by: chris | April 11, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

"Why haven't you even looked into the facts that Obama lied about Rev. Wright for so long, and then contradicted himself about that in his Great Race Speech (that actually said nothing substantive)?"

Poor Annette, the world is against her and Hillary. Hang onto your candidate, Annette; but there is no need to attack Obama's speech with the ridiculous claim that "nothing substantive" was said in the speech. Clearly, the majority of people feel that there were some substantive statements made in the speech.

Moreover, could you be a little more specific about how being a member of a church and stating that you are a church member and have been for 20 years can constitute "a lie"? Precisely, what part of Obama's speech contradicted the fact of his membership?

Just how many Pinocchio's would you like for Obama to have? Or, is it that you would prefer for Hillary not to receive any Pinocchio's?

Annette, just stick by your candidate; you don't need anyone else's approval; Pinocchio's aren't important. Remember:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me ... Naive, though I may be; I'm voting for Hillary. And, facts will never stop me."


Posted by: Gwendolyn | April 11, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama's money didn't come from oil companies. Any other conclusion is a lie. Why did this site lie about where the money came from? Its understandable why the Clintons lie, their liars!

Posted by: Bob | April 11, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Well, now the lead by Obama and Clinton has shrunk to a statistical tie I'm considering the next series after the project post mortem on the Clinton campaign:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/project-post-mortem-ii-money-and-credibility/

The next will be: Why it all went wrong. The portait of a party who failed again (working title). Really, we are shaking our European heads over here.

Posted by: old_europe | April 11, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Hilary says Obama should have left his preacher, then she should have left her lying, cheating husband! But she didn't!

Posted by: Angie | April 11, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

What a sad group of commentaries on another non-story from the campaign. Don't you all see how shrill you are? And how mean the comments and how meaningless it is compared to the real issues that face the country? I'm not convinced that Obama is the savior, but Clinton's shrill, mean-spirited campaign has turned me off totally (and I enthusiastically voted for Bill both times). I am a senior citizen who has seen it all since FDR and perhaps memory fails, but I can't recall a time when civility has been so lacking and when substantive discourse has been so sidetracked by inconsequential drivel. Get a life, folks! And, by the way, McCain is a sorry old pol with empty promises and a disturbing lack of grasp on reality.

Posted by: Joel Vance | April 11, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Old-Europe you are the man. The fact is that, Obama does not take money from Oil Companies. If an Iranian American donates money to Hillary Clinton would it be that Hillary clinton takes money from Ahmedinajad? No!!! So if Obama takes money from Oil Company employees, does not mean he takes from Oil Companies. On the other hand, if Hillary Clintons White house schedule shows that she worked for the passing of the NAFTA Bill and still insist on saying she was against NAFTA, then there is nothing to think about her other than, a BIG LIAR.
All the same I do not really have to talk about Hillary Clinton as a Liar, because Americans must have known that, she is a persistant LIAR and when that 3.00am Phone call comes, she may be flat on her stomach; so that, she does not get wounded by Sniper Fire.
Americans should please talk about the issues and forget about, distractions. Obama is a God sent Leader for the American Nation and if Hillary Clinton and her likes, would use their smear tactics to prevent Americans from having what they are due, then its a pity.

Posted by: Chrys1 | April 11, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Hillary should leave Bill if Obama should leave his preacher? Has Obama madethe same vows to his reverand as Hillary has to Bill? Did he vow to love honor, etc. the man who says God damn America and accuses America of all sorts of crimes against humanity? If any president in the last forty years has been a friend of black people, it is Clinton. Hillary's haters in the Republican party say she is just like Bill. Her opponents in the Democratic Party say she is just blindly ambitious. I say they are both dead rong.

Posted by: Don | April 11, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Sen Obama should have said that he did not take money from oil company pacs; or Wahington lobbiest for oil companies. Can HRC make that statement. Last night Bill lied in Indiana about Hillary and her Bosnia adventure claiming she only misspoke once it was late at night ect. ect and she is 60 years old and when your 60 you misspeak. While none of those statement is accurate . It is conforting to think that according to Bill late at night she misspeaks when that # am call comes in can we count on her being ready to speak accuratly

Posted by: Vin | April 11, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

With you wife a paid advisor to the McCain Campaign, shouldn't you disqualify yourself from commenting on any Democrat?

You've certainly steered clear of any critical comment on John McCain.

Posted by: fjschmitz | April 11, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama's camp is a tad over the line here, but when you are up against a candidate whose husband gets millions for setting up his buds with energy deals in the Caucasus and elsewhere, Hillary's serial mistatements should be ahead by a nose here.

Posted by: Geppetto's uncle | April 11, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Here is the difference. Hillary has not run her campaign on no "special interest" money. Remember when this campaign turned negative with Obama and Edwards accusing her of accepting "special interest " money. Saying, she would have to be beholden to them. They said they would not take it for that reason. (Yep Obamaman is above the fray.)

How can you get two pinicchios when you have not denied taking special interest money and you opponent has, even though he promised not too. At least two bundlers with Exxon/Mobile gathered $240,000 each. In that debate, he said you could not take special interest money and not be obligated. Maybe we need to define what special interest is. Like is is. Yep, Ole Obamaman is going to change politics in Washington. The man of words is going to do the usual and then change the name of it. Yep, a man of words.

Mr fact checker, how can you lie about something you have already admitted. You folks just can't be fair to Clinton can you. The hate must run deep.

Posted by: Chief | April 11, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Gathering money contributions does not equate to the values Americans should consider in selecting a president ;although money makes it easier to speak loudly. Shouting over another's voice does not make the words true, accurate or pertinent. It's not the money - people! Could Bill Gates buy the presidency with all his money? It is a poor measure of presidential ability. I don't care about how or from whom the candidates get money or even if they are completely honest about it. I care about what a candidate will and can do as a president. That includes action for things yet to come...previously unknown issues that every president has had to address. People who vote with money, are trying to buy something. Informed people who vote their conscience value citizenship and its responsibilties. My $.02

Posted by: Ken Brahmer | April 11, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Obama's camp is a tad over the line here, but when you are up against a candidate whose husband gets millions for setting up his buds with energy deals in the Caucasus and elsewhere, Hillary's serial mistatements should be ahead by a nose here.

Posted by: Geppetto's uncle
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So you're saying Obama's word and above the fray comments should be ignored because his opponent doesn't play fair. In the MSNBC debate when the negative campaigning started(Yep, Obama and Edwards started it, something you sheep won't admit) they said they would not accept special interest money. He lied. Of course the snake oil salesman changed the word (man of words) to bundlers. Yep, trust me. Many fools still do. Amazing.

Posted by: Chief | April 11, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

The obama canabals are out in full force again.Worshiping their God is their sole purpose for being.Over on the HuffPo there are some disgruntled canabbies who are really upset because they "really,really wanted to be delegates",but were eliminated,"how could their god do something like this?".They are beginning to realize that he is,after all just another politician.There is still hope.

Posted by: Nannie Turner | April 11, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

"What does it take to get 4 pinocchios out of this guy?"

Posted by: Annette | April 11, 2008 7:33 AM


How about tell a bald face lie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4

"I don't remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac"


After weeks of making credibility an issue (this fact-check column revisited Clinton's Bosnia story over and over which was very odd), suddenly credibility isn't important?
Posted by: Annette | April 11, 2008 7:33 AM

It was weeks because Hillary kept trying to cover up her lie, almost even calling Sinbad a liar in the process. Then she lied when she said she misspoke.

THIS IS MISSPEAKING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWbHwQJRpJ0

She just flat out lied, has Chelsea lie for her, and now has Bill lying for again.

That's how you get 4 Pinocchios. You don't get 4 Pinocchios by making semantic errors. You get them by falsifying actual events. "There was no welcoming ceremony."

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 11, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

What a stipid article. As several commenters have already pointed out, the Obama ad is truthful and doesn't deserve any Pinnochios. Perhaps he should have said "oil company PACs" but the ad is still truthful. And taking money from individuals who just happen to work for a particular industry is a rather common occurence.

Meanwhile...why nothing on flip flop McCain? The guy has been getting a free ride from has "base" (i.e. the media).

Posted by: docbox | April 11, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama's money didn't come from oil companies. Any other conclusion is a lie. Why did this site lie about where the money came from? Its understandable why the Clintons lie, their liars!

Posted by: Bob
____________________________________________

Two Exxon/Mobile executive served as bundlers for Obama. They raised $240,000 each from fellow Exxon executives , executives families, and employees.

What should any sane individual conclude on where the money came from. Fairyland?

Man, it has been all over the news. Need to get the facts before you call folks liars.

Explain why that money didn't come from Exxon, I'll listen, but I don't think I'm as dumb as you.

Posted by: Chief | April 11, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Both Hillary and Bill have been liars for years. Some things never change. They are a tough duo and down right nasty. If they get in the White HOuse the middle class will be done. They cater to their millionaire friends.Not quite as much as Bush but a close second.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Sen Obama should have said that he did not take money from oil company pacs; or Wahington lobbiest for oil companies.
Posted by: Vin
_____________________________________________

Words? He has consistently said he would not accept money from "special interest". He has used PACs and lobbiest as examples. He kept that part of his word. Then he went directly to the heads of the Oil Industry and made them campaign members,(bundlers) right. Now, that is not special interest is it? Yeah, right.

Hillary has never denied using special interest money. Never.

Can you see the difference?

Posted by: Chief | April 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Two Pinocchios from Hillary is as close to the truth as she'll ever get. The witch can't distinguish, or is delusional, but in either case, she is an embarrassment, and I wish she'd switch to the party that deserves her, the republicans.

Posted by: jeffp | April 11, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

The truth is: Obambs claims he doesn't take money that he takes. The issue is not what he left out, it's the falsity of the claim.

The truth about the Great Honey Dipper is coming out. Americans are waking up to the truth about Obambs as can be seen in the new AP poll showing that he is dead even with McCain in a head to head match up. Every day Americans are waking from the dream that Obambs will change DC and realizing that with him it would be the same old same old, only worse.

Posted by: norconian | April 11, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

its very misleading
how much has the oil company PACS given each of the three candidates?

and oil company employees donated as private citizens to each campaign?

and why are you totally leaving out the mcCcain comparison?

we need to see all the facts.!


Posted by: macdoodle | April 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"Can you see the difference?"
Posted by: Chief | April 11, 2008 10:15 AM

Yeah Chief the difference is the executives are not a Political Action Committee. The fact that the money also came from employees and family members of Exxon dilutes its influence on the candidates policies.

PACs have the power using the old way. Obama's way the candidate has the power.

Can you see the difference?

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

clinton has never taken the moral high ground about not taking corporate/lobbyist money. in fact, she was criticized and mocked last fall for defending her stand of taking money from the "evil corporate sector".
obama on the other hand evokes this evil corporate, moneyed interests theme everywhere, all the time (including in his speech defending his crazy pastor, where he said america should focus instead on the evils of special interests and the corporate lobby).
it is he who needs to defend taking money from the same evil people he regularly criticizes in his stump speech, not hillary.
four pinocchios for him and four for WAPO for misleading people on this one!

Posted by: ad78 | April 11, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

BTW, we know why you guys are whining about this.

We should see the breakdown between primary and GE of the $20 mil raised in March. Also, we'll see if the unpaid bills to the small businesses and health insurance have been paid next week right.

We're all prepared for some "creative" accounting because when it comes to HRC, its always, "We report, you decide if its accurate or not."

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 11, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Can we do some fact checking on some of McCain's statements, please? Or is that forbidden?

Posted by: AMM | April 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Every time I read of something Hillary or her sleazy campaign says, I feel like I need to have a shower. Folks, this is the Washington that has failed us for years. Leave it behind.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I guess it is OK if you get the Sunnis confused with the Shiites, they both begin with an S.

Posted by: AMM | April 11, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Yo Chief,

Cut down on the sodium in your diet. Sorry about the four pinocchios and counting that Hillary got for Tuzla. Bill added another wart or two last night in Boonville IN for that one.

The Clintons like donations in big, Elton-esque packages, as the consensus here indicates. I think a draw on this one is fine, but don't compare a small donor driven campaign with the hot air spinning Penn-less Wolfson brand of the Clintons.

Posted by: Gepettos Uncle | April 11, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Yo Gepettos Uncle, Cut down the Obama Kool-Aid in your diet.
Turns out that small donors account for a little less than half of Obama's total campaign money This is still a noteworthy achievement, thats for sure. But he would not be bashing the Clinton political machine without the other half that comes from the Evil people on the Dark side, I am pretty sure. So tell your Messiah to take a chill pill and stop complaining about the hands that feed him and his lies.

Posted by: ad78 | April 11, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama clearly is the liar here. He lies everywhere he goes. He has said he is anti-gun; now in PA he says he is pro-gun; he said he takes money only from small donations; he takes it from big oil, however you want to phrase it -- the money is coming from the same place. Sinbad is a joke and doesn't know what he is talking about, and to compare Bosnia, a minor incident in which Hillary admitted she misspoke (while she visited 80 countries and was in fact told to wear a flak jacket) to the things Obama has lied about is sickening. He lied during his speach and if you think the majority of Americans think he repaired things, you are dead wrong. He turned me and millions of others off more than ever. He lied about his own grandmother (which you would know if you took the time to read his stupid book) in the speech. Of course, he might not "remember" since he was on crack half the time when he was a teen. He lied when he said he wouldn't run for president this term; yet here we are stuck with him. To compare anything Hillary has done, as you try so hard to do, to Obama's ties to Wright, or possibly worse to Ayers (the terrorist), Rezco (the indicted buddy of his in Chicago), his anti-American wife (notice how Obama is the only candidate to always have a flag behind him? trying to prove something there, bud?), and now Larry Sinclair (just Google it and you'll see what I mean); is all ridiculous. You will find anything Hillary does to discredit her, but still continue the lovefest with Obama. It's going to be egg on all your faces if/when he ever wins the nomination. If it weren't so serious, I'd laugh. But the thought of that man anywhere near the White House terrifies me, so instead I'll just keep hoping you'll come to your senses on Hillary (although she was set back again last night when her brand-new Indiana headquarters burned down). If not, as I have always said, I'll vote for McCain, the only other candidate with the experience and integrity to run this country.

Posted by: Independent of O's | April 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Chief posts:
"Two Exxon/Mobile executive served as bundlers for Obama. They raised $240,000 each from fellow Exxon executives , executives families, and employees.

What should any sane individual conclude on where the money came from. Fairyland?"

The total oil company donations, as stated in the article, was $213,000 - let's see, $480,000 (2 bundlers at $240,000 each) goes into $213,000 how many times?

What's really pathetic (besides the math) is that all of the waving of arms and gnashing of teeth on both sides is sheer idiocy. This is a non-issue folks; it represents just the latest example of the meaningless, "I ain't got anything intelligent to post about, so I'll create a non-issue that everyone can fight over" pseudo-journalism which passes for commentary these days, especially in the Post blogs

Obama has received donations from millions of individuals (Hillary from at least the undreds of thousands). If the same exercise of combining donations based on the donator's industry was applied to all of these individual donations, I'd bet we'd find that both candidates were beholden to the auto industry, the airlines, the janitorial service industry, the used car sales industry, etc. It's voodoo statistics!

This is a non-issue; it's an example of lousy journalism; if this is the best you can fight over, maybe you'all should wake up and realize that you really don't have anything to fight over.

Posted by: jk5432 | April 11, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

BO's campaign tells us several times daily he is the candidate who will change the way 'politics' is represented. The BO campaign includes the no money from lobbyists line in every fund raising plea they send out. After using the rhetoric every day..change, honesty, transparency..and building his entire Presidential platform on the rhetoric, he asks us, to decide join him in his quest for accountability in government. They are lofty words from someone who has never been honest in this regard since his legislative years.
Secondly, none of the other candidates ever made that claim..no money from lobbyists....only BO. He should return all of the money since that is his claim...not after the campaign-like the REZKO money...but, now-since millions of 'folks' are waiting to hear his truth in government.
All of the BO 'folks' can argue, posture, parse until they are blue..he is just another politician using them for his personal gain. Just like he used Rezko to buy a house, Rezko's friend Auchi for the money, Rezko's lawyer Sreenan to get the lot, Emil Jones to put his name on congressional bills which he had nothing to do with and lastly just like he used Reverend Wright and that controversy to hide his Muslim affiliations from all of you.

Posted by: MMiller | April 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Hey ad78, cut down on the Hater-Aid. Donations under $200 account for 50% of Obama's fundraising. That does not mean that all the people giving over $200 are large donors. Many of Obama's supporters are on a monthly plan and he doesn't need to post some fake fundraising goal as soon as you hit his website to get people to give.

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 11, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

This fact check was meant to be about Obama, why bring Hillary into it? What gives??? I sense a bias somewher!!

Posted by: Dayo | April 11, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA TAKES MONEY FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS LIKE ALL THE OTHER POLITICIANS DO. Get over it. He is playing the game well... including, Special Interests now no longer exist (the Obama God has spoken) they are hence forth "Bundlers".

He and Hillary (she has more) are almost even in the several hundreds of thousands of dollars they have received from "bundlers". THE DIFFERENCE IS SHE IS NOT RUNNING ON A PLATFORM THAT SAYS SHE DOES NOT TAKE THIS MONEY.

Barak says he doesn't take this money WHEN IN FACT HE DOES! WHERE IS ALL THIS INTEGRITY HE WANTS US TO BUY!!!!! It's part of the public record for all to see. Is he so stupid he doesn't think anyone will notice this??

With all the lawyers and Wall Street suits throwing money at him he's more Republican than anyone out there. Those boys really think they're too smart for the rest of us folks and that we won't figure this out. I'll say it again... Barak O TAKES MONEY FROM BUNDLING SPECIAL INTERESTS like everyone else. HE IS NO DIFFERENT AT ALL... OH WAIT, maybe he is different. He's in complete denial about who he is and who supports him.

No Thanks to his B.S.

And about the Bosnia thing... for God's sake, she said she mis-spoke. I'd like to hear BO just once admit all of his mis-speaking.... re: campaign aide Canada & Nafta, Rezko, Wright, and these are just the big ones. Get real, the guy misleads, denies, and misrepresents on a daily basis.

For all those that are addicted to hate and continually accuse Hillary of dishonesty, your guy is double guilty ... because he IS FEEDING OFF OF THE ILLUSION OF BEING BETTER THAN THE REST... when he is acually just bottom feeding. WAKE UP!

Senator Hillary Clinton is a Politician, is good at it, and admits it. More Power to Her! She is also Brilliant, Qualified, Compassionate, and Tough. She will get our Country back on track and put people first... health care, veterans care, elder care, and our economy. MILLIONS LOVE HER and are rooting for her to be our 44th President. Go Hill Go!

Posted by: hummingbirdv | April 11, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The comments are much more fun than the original article. It's great to see Democrats are consistent.... They are as nasty with each other as they are with the Republicans.

Posted by: BarbNM | April 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Even when Hillary is right, she ends up wrong. She should just shut up and go away.

Posted by: rvloser | April 11, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Will Huma Abedin be First Lady if Hillary should win the general election?

Posted by: Huma Huma | April 11, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"But it seems hypocritical to criticize the Land-of-Lincolner for failing to talk about financial contributions from oil company employees and executives while avoiding any mention of similar contributions to Hillary Clinton."

Technically speaking, it's only hypocritical if she had made similar claims about not accepting oil money, which I don't believe she did. Still a bit oily for her to cuff Obama for doing something she's also doing though.

But even oilier for Obama supporters to claim that he never said he wouldn't accept money from anyone connected to the oil industry -- the implications of the ad are quite clear.

Three Pinnochios for Barack. One for Hillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

This article doesn't do any justice to the American people. Obama can't & shouldn't have to funnel out & stop ordinary American's from donating to his campaign. The most any one American can donate is $4,600 a year.

Why don't you look at this in a large scale picture? He has raised almost $200 Million & his average contribution is around $100. If you breakdown what the percentage of contributions is from those employees of oil companies (not their companies) have donated, it works out to less then 0.1%. You do the math!

Clinton & McCain on the other hand is a different story all together.

Clinton has taken more money from these bundlers then McCain & Obama combined for one.

As for John McCain. He is breaking the law right now by accepting Public Financing to keep him in the election 6 months ago, then raising even more then he is allowed to under the Public Campaign finance agreement. What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by: David Troupin | April 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I misspoke on the $240,000. The total is $200,000, the maximum a bundler can raise. I read last week two of Exxon' bundlers had raised the maximum from their fellow executives and Exxon employees. That is still $400,000. Today's companion article doesn't mention Exxon, unless I missed it. I'm sure all those non-special interest, your "words", individual fell for Obama when he said hello to them too.

I've learned one thing in this campaign. If you run on words you can define them any way you want, but they are still lies.

Posted by: Chief | April 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

When did a little bit illegal become better than a lot of illegal. Strange way to make an argument. It is sort of like say, I'm only 3 months pregnant not like Sue who 9 months pregnant. Whether either or both are cheating doesn't really matter. If you are fact checking on one candidate than what the other candidate does or doesn't do is irrelevant. At least I would think so. Some how is more moral to accept a smaller amount from an oil company so that vindicates me. Please explain as I am not catching what this is about.

Posted by: RetCombatVet | April 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

What's really pathetic (besides the math) is that all of the waving of arms and gnashing of teeth on both sides is sheer idiocy. This is a non-issue folks; it represents just the latest example of the meaningless, "I ain't got anything intelligent to post about, so I'll create a non-issue that everyone can fight over.
======================================

So you're saying a campaign promise isn't important. Just say anything and do what you want, like everyone else. I run on hope and change, but don't change. That doesn't bother you. Lies don't matter.

I'll bet Hillary's lies matter to you.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

If you expoect an appropriate reader analysis, then include equal time to include McCain and his campaign in your Fact Checker. without including McCain, your Fact Checker has little value to me.

Posted by: George Harbin | April 11, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

The fact is, Obama's not taking money from PACs or federal lobbyists means two things:

1) Obama was taking a chance. He was betting that average Americans would fund his campaign in such numbers, it would offset the advantage his opponents would have in PAC/lobbyist money. He was rewriting the book on campaign finance, and guess what? He was right.

2) When we elect President Obama, we can rest assured that the days of business-as-usual, when the lobbyists write the legislation, are OVER.

Think about the kind of change you want, and vote accordingly.

Posted by: David Higuera | April 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the Factcheck and the unbiased analysis. You seem to be the most balanced fact checkers in the media.

Posted by: Mara | April 11, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I think the difference is that Clinton takes money from Oil and gas company lobbyists, while Obama has received money from individual donors who happen to be employees. Clinton has said she supports Washington lobbyists because they support her. Obama has said he will not allow Washington lobbyists access to his White House.

http://www.cafepress.com/wetnoodle

Posted by: radiocboy | April 11, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

2) When we elect President Obama, we can rest assured that the days of business-as-usual, when the lobbyists write the legislation, are OVER.

Think about the kind of change you want, and vote accordingly.

Posted by: David Higuera
===========================================

BS. Dumb and dumber.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Dearest Hostile and Angry Chief.

No need for excessive personal rancor. Ah yes, the analogy of the day. Kool aid. If you can think things through and reason your way to Obama, it doesn't matter. You are a cultist, a kool aid drinker, a bot.

To follow up on the fact checkers words, "conveniently overlooking" is a specialty of the Clintons. And the ratio of oil money, as the fact checker notes, is not something Hillary supporters should be lifting the rug on.

Hillary's strategy is paying off. Her supporters, encouraged and abetted by the campaign, are submarining their competitor 2-1 in those who won't support the eventual dem candidate, which will likely be Obama.
This is a minor issue, and neither candidate has much high ground here.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has said he will not allow Washington lobbyists access to his White House."

Oh yeah -- um, one word, eight letters, starts with a "B."

Special interests will ALWAYS play a role in Washington -- it's a fact of life.

For Obama to say otherwise is either disingenuous or naive -- neither of which is a particularly attractive trait in a presidential candidate.

Posted by: jblog | April 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

With all the buzz about Rev. Wright and Obama's relationship to him, no one has asked the more important question: Do the muslims consider Obama to be a muslim? After all(pariarchal religion),his father was a muslim, his six step brothers and their families are muslim, and his Kenyan grandmother (one of many wives)is a muslim. When Obama visited Kenya (which by the way is one of several muslim countries he visited) in his famous picture released on the Drudge report and spread by the mainstream media as a condemnation to the Clinton campaign....they all failed to mention that Obama was wearing a Chieftan's uniform. The media has focused on Rev. Wright and christianity. They know how to play us because this is a christian country. The Trinity church welcomes both muslims and christians. The Trinity church has dedicated the man of the year and lifetime achievement award to Farrakhan. Obama dresses like one of Farrakhan's preachers with a dark suit and white shirt. I am not against Obama, Inot only want to know more about the person everyone thinks will be the next president but I also want to know what the Osama Bin Ladens think of him. Either I am missing something or the press once again has played with our minds.

Posted by: Rif | April 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

BO does take money from lobbiests, but he makes them funnel it thru the various States, instead of the Fed level.

Wonder if that iincreases his wifes cut of the $$

Posted by: Typical White Person (except I'm not | April 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

This is an old political ploy unbecoming of a candidate who supposedly is running a different, up-front, honest campaign.

Sen. Obama's ad said that he doesn't take campaign donations from oil companies, which is illegal so no candidates take from them. He knew most people don't know that, so if the Clinton campaign hadn't pointed that out, the assumption would have been that Sen. Clinton was taking money from oil companies instead of from their employees, which is legal.

Those kinds of ads are devious in that no matter what they say the implication is that their opponent is guilty of the charge. When a politician says "I am not a Communist," it's assumed his opponent is or if he says "I don't beat my wife" or "I don't accept money from oil companies," the implication is the same.

Since Sen. Clinton never pretended she didn't take donations from the employees of oil firms, which is legal, the "holier than thou" ad of Sen. Obama certainly doesn't pass the "smell" test.

Posted by: Betty W. | April 11, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Barak Obama vote for the recent oil company tax breaks? Where can I check that? Anyway, when all is said and done, in terms of policy, there is only about a hair's width difference between obama and clinton. So just vote for who you like best and quit bickering.

Posted by: Laura | April 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is so stuck in the past that they don't get the future of campaign finance. Hell, judging from Hillary's comments about Bosnia, they can't even get the past right.

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

In the US, a political action committee, or PAC, is the name commonly given to a private group, regardless of size, organized to elect or defeat government officials or to promote legislation. Legally, what constitutes a "PAC" for purposes of regulation is a matter of state and federal law. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election.

When an interest group gets directly involved within the political process, a PAC is created. These PACs receive and raise money from the special group's constituents, and on behalf of the special interest, makes donations to political campaigns.

Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents or organized groups. Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOBBYISTS/PACs AND INDIVIDUAL DOANERS NOW?!?!?!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I Don't take Bribes, or Donations from Lobbyist, Corporations or those seeking power, control, favoritism or monopoly and that is the honest, Dialectic, Relative Truth!
In the Middle Ages there were competing classes or "estates" that vied for hegemony and control of the peasants and serfs. There were the 1) ecclesiastical clerics, 2) The nobility of Dukes, Earls, Counts and Barons, 3) the Monarch and his appointed court officials and the wealthy bankers and merchants. Each order of these elite aristocrats alternatively contended or cooperated with the other upper classes for control of power and money. We have such an oligarchy of elite caste contending today, with similar collusion of wealthy financiers funding the contending Duke and Dutchess of the Democratic Party. Wealthy Governments, Political Parties ( mostly socialist or Communist) and a variety of wealthy financiers are investing in either of these two candidates for the monopolies that the winner of this election will grant or how the winner will eliminate the competition by rules, regulations, carbon credit restrictions their bureaucracies will enact. Membership in the new Progressive Parliamentary House of Lords is by utter devotion to the Party and its Sybaritic Socialist agenda. The intention of the Democrats is to insure the domination of the politically correct elites, who will rule the world through their subservient, socialist judges, bureaucrats. Business that support the claim of the political Estate will be awarded chartered monopolies, lots of carbon credits, and exemptions from the rules and regulations imposed upon any competitor.
The Republicans are equally supportive of an aristocracy, but their primary landed gentry, controlling caste will be the plutocrats.
We the people end up with a choice of whether we wish to be subservient proletariat to a one-world politburo or whether we are serfs and peasants in a neo-Confederate plantation/hacienda extending from Columbia to Canada

Posted by: Michael Guy | April 11, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Laura,

that legislation actually raised taxes on oil companies slightly and appropriated billions of dollars to alternative energy research (the most any legislation has ever had.

Posted by: christian | April 11, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

When will YOU the media stop slanting the truth in favor of the expensive siut filled with hot air.
Obama has so many bundlers from big business working for him, that one looses count.
It will be a very sorry day in America if Obama and his posse get to the white house.Do you think that by trying to mingle with the 'Po folks for about a minute, will bring this beautiful nation of ours to worship at his feet.
Open your eyes, and come to your senses before it is too LATE.

Posted by: Tammie from Princeton NJ | April 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOBBYISTS/PACs AND INDIVIDUAL DOANERS NOW?!?!?!

NO I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT A "DOANER" IS?!?!?!

Posted by: ANNONYMOUS SHOUTING GUY | April 11, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Dobbs: I think you are being fundamentally unfair and placing Obama in an impossible situation.

(1) When he says he doesn't take money from oil companies I think that everyone understands that he means that he doesn't take money from their entities which seek to influence legislation -- their PACs. PACs are the legal way in which corporations support political candidates. His statement as accurately conveys his policy to the viewer as can be done in a 30 second commercial. If he made the same technically correct statement about a corporate entity but DID take money from their PAC, then that would be misleading and in every way deserving of Pinocchios.

(2) Almost everyone who is in a position to contribute money, unless independetly wealthy or retired, works for someone. My daughter's significant other works for Exxon. He hates them and thinks they are scum, but he has to make a living and right now this is the best living he can make. He has contributed to Obama and therefore is counted among Obama's "oil company contributors". His contribution, no doubt along with numerous others like him, has nothing to do with ingratiating his company to Senator Obama and he would be horrified to think that it might have that effect. Similarly, I work for a non-profit organization which is prohibited from political activity. The contribution I have made to a presidential candidate represents my own views, not those of my employer. Would you accuse my favored candidate and my employer of of skirting the law simply because I have, beyond the control of my employer, chosen to support that candidate?

Considering that Senator Clinton has received half again as much as Senator Obama from oil company employees, why is this even a topic of discussion?

Posted by: Stonecreek | April 11, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Annette wrote:

What a typically b.s. article. Obama can only get two pinocchios for the most transparently false ad campaign, just like he got two pinocchios for other outright lies.

What does it take to get 4 pinocchios out of this guy? -- Your last name has to start with a "C" then he'll throw them around!

Furthermore, the article goes on to compare and contrast Obama's oil industry support with Clinton's, as if there's some crime in that. But there's not.

Clinton hasn't lied about her oil industry support, and it's Obama's blatantly misrepresentative ad campaign, that has no point or purpose but to market implications that are totally false, that is the point of a fact check, not whether or not Clinton has any such support.

It's unbelievable that this fact-checker is trivializing this faux marketing campaign. This is a big, expensive ad buy and it's totally misleading.

After weeks of making credibility an issue (this fact-check column revisited Clinton's Bosnia story over and over which was very odd), suddenly credibility isn't important?

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE, ANNETTE-WHAT IS UP WITH THIS POLITICALLY BIASED FACT-CHECKER, HUH? OVER AND OVER THE BOSNIA STORY APPEARED, IT THEN APPEARED IN NEWSPAPERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, BUT NOTHING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA SAYS IN THE WAY OF A LIE IS TREATED AS ANYTHING BUT INCONSEQUENTIAL. ANNETTE IS PERFECTLY RIGHT FACT CHECK-IT ISN'T THE FACT OF WHICH CANDIDATE TAKES OIL MONEY, IT IS THE FACT THAT A CANDIDATE-OBAMA-AS USUAL-OUT AND OUT LIED ABOUT TAKING OIL MONEY! THAT'S THE POINT, WHICH YOU DISINGENUOUSLY TWIST TO MAKE HRC LOOK BAD FOR POINTING OUT HIS LIES! SHEESH-FACT CHECKER-YOU DESERVE 5 PINOCCHIOS FOR DISINGENUOUSNESS!

Posted by: Schmetterling | April 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

This article is also misleading.
The facts are this.
Obama said in his ad that he did not take money from oil companies.
Hillary Clinton did NOT say that she did not take money from oil companies.
So, fact check finds that Obama's ad is a lie, The Clinton campaign points that out and explains that if you twist it the way Obama has then no-one is actually taking money from oil companies.

How can you now say they both were mis-leading. I cannot believe that people can be so obviously biased. Barack Obama lies, and lies, and lies, and his supporters blame Hillary Clinton. It is unbelievable.

Posted by: cheryl | April 11, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

A PAC is limited to a maximum contribution of $5000 to a candidate committee.

If I go and collect contributions from my friends to give to a candidate does that make me a PAC?

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 11, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is quite naive. Washington, DC is full of special interests. Be real. Vote for experience. Vote for Senator Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Maria | April 11, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

The clear difference is Clinton never ran an ad saying I don't take money from x y z.

Fact: Obama IS running an ad saying I don't take money from Oil companies. He's running is entire campaign on being a new kind of politics and there lies the hypocrisy.

Posted by: Frying Pan | April 11, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

This thread must be nearing its end. A hillbacker introduced the dreaded ALL CAPS I AM POUTING MAD routine. Confirmation bias, folks. You see what you want to see, and if the facts--or fact checker--doesn't match up, you take the easiest way out. Regurgitate the opinion you had to begin with. Till next time...

Posted by: Gepettos Uncle | April 11, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"Fact: Obama IS running an ad saying I don't take money from Oil companies. "

I thought that was illegal. :)

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 11, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

He doesnt take money from Oil companies.

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 11, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

If you take money from senior executives at oil companies, you're taking money from oil companies.

He can weasel-word it anyway he likes, but it still comes up baloney.

And don't kid yourself.

Posted by: jblog | April 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

you mean HE DOESN"T TAKE MONEY from oil COMPANIES. and THEY BOTH GOT TWO PINOCCHIOS. so THIS IS A LOSE-LOSE proposition. there. that's the ticket. till next time--really, one pinocchio for me for my earlier miswritten post.

Posted by: Gepettos Uncle | April 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"If you take money from senior executives at oil companies, you're taking money from oil companies."

Its illegal for Oil companies to give directly to a campaign. So, are you charging that the contributions are illegal too?

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I work for a large Telecom company. Their politics are different from my own and I do not contribute to the PAC...but I have contributed to Obama. Does that mean that big telecom is supporting Obama? My $100 came from me..not the people that pay me, this is BS.

Posted by: WHAT? | April 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a flat tire.

IF you say you are going to be different, BE different.

Fact is, you can't.

Obama has nothing else to tout (except that he wants change).
We need a LEADer/Doer, not a DREAMer/flat tire.


Posted by: cate | April 11, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama takes money from state and local lobbyists, and from well known DC lobbying firms (the friend down the hall from the actual registered lobbyist).

He also takes money from people who work at oil companies, and don't we all know that one of the nation's largest nuclear power providers gave him some seed money to start his campaign.

He also just pared down his California delegate candidates to those who donated the most, by challenging 900 (nine hundred, mind you) potential delegates out of the lists of people eligible. That's not an action truly democratic candidate would take. That's the action a man who wants to reward bundlers would take.

Obamamaniacs can scream and protest about Clinton all they want, Obama is the guy who's playing fast and loose, and claiming he's above it all.

Posted by: auntbeth | April 11, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"Its illegal for Oil companies to give directly to a campaign. So, are you charging that the contributions are illegal too?"

Perhaps not legally, perhaps not technically, but certainly morally and ethically.

Playing those kind of semantic games is not "change" -- it's the same old thing. And they make Obama a liar.

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

OK people.

Haven't you realized that the press is MORE interested in controversy than education?

FACT: NO CANDIDATE can raise $ without strings.

When a candidate states that he is NOT taking money from special interests, QUESTION THAT.

tHINk. It is not a painful exercise.

PS. WHERE is all this money coming from? Voters can hardly afford gas for their vehicles? DUH.

Posted by: jake | April 11, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The media throws us a 'bone' ... we jump on it like flies and get DIStracted from the issues.

Stay focused:
1) the ECONOMY (we want a budget surplus -again).
2) HEALTHcare (it is our most important act).
3) WAR (we can't afford it).
4) VOTES (make all votes count - Fla and Michigan included).

NOW, who can do THAT best?
Stay focused. This is an important civic duty we are doing.
Hillary '08

Posted by: ben | April 11, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA, IS NOT THE MAN HE WISHES US ALL TO THINK HE IS.HE LIES AND HE HAD HIS RECORD EMBELLISHED IN ILLINOIS.WHAT ABOUT LARRY SINCLAIR? WHY HAVE THE NEWS MEDIA NOT CARRIED THIS STORY , NOTHING WRONG IF HE IS GAY, EXCEPT HE IS MARRIED AND PRETENDING TO BE A REGULAR GUY.WHEN WILL THE PRESS COVER THAT OR WILL THEY WAIT LIKE THEY DID ABOUT THE PASTOR WRIGHT STORY.AYERS IS ANOTHER STORY THAT GETS IGNORED . REZKO IS BIGGER THAN OBAMA ADMITTED TO.ALL HIS FRIENDS ARE LINKED THROUGH LYBIA11 SOMETHING TO PONDER

Posted by: PAT | April 11, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign never claimed to not have taken money from oil companies, but Obama's words in the ad inferred that he did not. Pennsylvanians don't want a game of semantics. I am surprised you do.

Posted by: Jack | April 11, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Here's a paradigm idea for 'change':

Campaign reform.

No contributions, no obligations.

That's change that matters.

Posted by: james | April 11, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Get over yourselves. HRC is a liar, her husband is a liar and Chelsea is a liar.
Did you not see the clip that shows them deplaning in Bosnia, walking across the tarmac and being greeted by dignitaries and a girl whi had written a poem? She was tired and misspoke? She misspeaks when she is tired? And you want her to run the country. Give me peace!
Read the policies of each; Reve. Wrights actual sermon; Michelle Obamas actual statement before posting a comment. You Republican'ts only show your ignorance.
Dems who would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee are very small, narrow-minded people. They are not interested in what is best for our country only in not voting for a black man. BTW Chelsea was a teen when she went to Bosnia with HRC. She most certainly remebers what the truth is and lies anyway.I am white, a woman, 64 and am not wealthy Obama in 2008!!

Posted by: Katerina Deligiannis | April 11, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Typical anti-Clinton bias.

Obama claims not to take money from oil companies. Clinton says that's misleading--he does. And she's right-- he was misleading, intentionally. Some people call that lying.

Did she ever imply that she doesn't take oil money herself? No. She's calling out Obama on his hypocrisy, not the donations themselves.

Obama can't even lie without you guys trying to blame Clinton for it.

Posted by: Steve | April 11, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

What a minute! "A case of the pot calling the kettle black"? Isn't that "racist"?

Posted by: Curliquedan | April 11, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Steve is right. Clinton didn't claim not to, but Obama did, and he lied. What kind of bias gives Pinocchios to Clinton when she said only the truth?

Posted by: mary | April 11, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama increasingly gets caught in more and more lies and his self placed halo is tarnishing right in front of the voters. He has been given a free pass on so many of his lies because the press runs to see if they can find a Hillary story to counter-act it. What a bunch of fakes-both Obama and the press. Obama's fancy footwork, to gloss over his getting caught with his "hands in the cookie jar" is getting old. He is looking less and less
like a candidate and more and more like the
fake that he is-an Elmer Gantry for the twenty first century.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh well, Mark Penn, Bill Clinton and Hillary....these people have got to be put away - they lie, distort, whine, complain, twist, turn, brag, and on and on and people are still falling all over them trying to get on their wagon. Who wants these people in the Whitehouse? Good Grief..wake up. We have an opportunity to elect the best candidate this country has seen in decades, and all we can do is argue with a group of left over, washed ups from the 90's! WOW

Posted by: Dane | April 11, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Of course, Obama takes money from the oil industry. If he is not going to help them, then he took money under false premises. The same with the money he got from the nuclear industry for looking the other way and letting the "leaks go bye".

He takes money from the steelworkers unions and never did anything for them, either. That's why the Wall Street billionaires support him so much and get so much money for him. The steelworkers should be aware of that fact when they cast their votes. Voting along with your union is okay, IF your union tells you true and the bosses aren't doing it for the money and prestige. This goes on a lot.

Posted by: Katherine | April 11, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

hmmm...it is simply sad to see a journalist twist the arguements to fit his agenda...trey and chris are right...

Posted by: sarvast123 | April 12, 2008 3:55 AM | Report abuse

This blog is ridiculous. Obama lied and the Clintonites pointed it out. What is wrong with it?
It has nothing to do with Clinton's contributors. Are you afraid to say something bad about Obama without somehow criticizing Clinton?
In this case he lied she didn't.. it is simple. He deserves some Pinocchios Clinton doesn't.
If you cant stick to the facts don't play fact checker.

Posted by: evelyn3091 | April 12, 2008 4:55 AM | Report abuse

Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems odd that you throw in a dig at Hillary when you are analyzing an ad about Barrack. This is yet another example of the bias in this race. Of course Clinton does not acknowledge any contributions she has rec'd, no political candidate does when running ads against their opponent. It is disingenuous of you to suggest that she does. Where does this double standard come from in a male dominated culture...makes you wonder.

Posted by: flyguy14222 | April 12, 2008 6:41 AM | Report abuse

You have lost all credibility. Your cheerleading for Senator Obama is so unprofessional that I and my colleagues will begin a campaign to boycott anyone who sponsors your news in any way. Those companies should realize that poor black people and the college kids don't support your sponsors.....we do and we're not going to anymore.

Posted by: lezah2 | April 12, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

spin it any way you like...the fact still remains that Obama LIED!...while claiming to be this new kind of politician who doesn`t lie, etc...which is the biggest lie of all...this makes his lies far worse than any Hillary may`ve told...if only because she`s not running as this better, faster, stronger, superior etc., kind of candidate...she`s not making any such false claims...

btw, you appear to have fallen for the oldest trick in the book...and Obama knows all of them...he switched the subject to Clinton and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker...

the main issue here remains the same...it`s still that Obama was caught in an outright lie...not how much more Clinton gets just because the Obama camp just happens to bring it up...

Posted by: Jim | April 12, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I don't understand the fact-checker gave Clinton two Pinoccios, if the claim in question is against Obama. Being a hypocrite is not the same as lying.

Posted by: Andrew | April 12, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Hilary says Obama should have left his preacher, then she should have left her lying, cheating husband! But she didn't!

Posted by: Angie | April 11, 2008 8:47 AM

Another instance of Obama people comparing oranges to apples. You need to get your heads out of the clouds (I know he is walking on top of them) and listen to reason.
Senator Clinton did not run an ad that claimed to not accept money from oil companies. Obama did and was called on it.
To compare Bill Clinton to Jerimiah Wright is showing your stupidity.

Posted by: Ohio Joe | April 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Billary loves to look for a "misstep" and then take it all out of context and run with it. So does McCain. A sure sign to me that they are running scared. Neither can attract the followers and the financial support that Obama does.
God bless our country with honest selfless leadership.

Posted by: kr inPA | April 12, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

If HRC insists on hypocrisy and empty attacks it's time to get out of the race. You are hurting the Dem. Party.

Posted by: altus in camp hill | April 12, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama is black? gee I guess his mother dosent exist and never did no he is not black he is a racist if the Caucasian guy got up and made such an imbecilic statement that would be the end of the campaign as it well should be such disrespect for your parents shows your true charactor.

Posted by: Al | April 12, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to comment on this comment: Illustrates again why I'd never vote for HRC. She has taken to slamming Obama as a campaign tactic - a way to get elected. This "politics of smear" shows that she is "nothing new." Nothing new at all - business as usual. Her smears might have impact but for her own sorry state of truth-telling. You just can't believe her. Whatever she actually believes, she is showing that she will do anything at all to get elected. Nothing else matters.

Posted by: Cindy | April 11, 2008 7:19 AM

What do you think Obama was doing in his ad that he didn't take oil money?? He was insinuating that Hillary Clinton does. Duh!

Posted by: Nan | April 12, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to comment on this comment: Illustrates again why I'd never vote for HRC. She has taken to slamming Obama as a campaign tactic - a way to get elected. This "politics of smear" shows that she is "nothing new." Nothing new at all - business as usual. Her smears might have impact but for her own sorry state of truth-telling. You just can't believe her. Whatever she actually believes, she is showing that she will do anything at all to get elected. Nothing else matters.

Posted by: Cindy | April 11, 2008 7:19 AM

What do you think Obama was doing in his ad that he didn't take oil money?? He was insinuating that Hillary Clinton does. Duh!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 12, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

What is really irritating about this is this implication that oil companies, or oil monies, are a bad thing. Oil companies provide all of us our prosperity; If it were not for them our economy would grind to a halt. I for one think that it is wonderful that oil companies are successful. Would you rather have them go out of business? Heck no! If I were a politician I would welcome all oil monies no matter where it came from. All of this back and forth about who got what oil money is just pandering to the hand-wringers and sob-sisters of this country. (I do not work for any oil-related company).

Posted by: Richard | April 12, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

"It is not wise for a blind man on a blind horse to wander around a deep pond". I think it's more of the media than the candidates. I give more credit to the people, we know the truth, and so do you. Deep down inside, we all know we need the change Obama is bringing to the table. Even he cannot do it, he's only the messenger. the truth is the light. Hillary, try and think about someone else, like the turmoil you're creating, or should I say perpetuating, for your future generations.

Posted by: LE Callahan | April 13, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

I hope we will elect a leader who really understands the enormous problems facing not just the U.S., but the whole human community and one who can put together a team of the best minds to develop strategies to deal with those problems. Call me an elitist, if you like, but I do not think anyone putting himself (or herself) forward as a great leader should STOOP to either making non-substantive charges or responding to such charges. Many of the comments I am reading here are silly and uncivil. Many of the charges made by Hillary are silly and uncivil. We know that Obama's comments were on target. Perhaps he should not have used the word "bitter," but I can't think of one better. If a candidate dares to say something meaningful, he opens himself to vicious attacks. Can politicians be blamed for usually choosing Polonius's approach and saying little or nothing? By the way, I also expect more from the press. I expect them to model logic, rationality, civility . . .not use Jerry Springer tactics to bring out the worst in us.

Posted by: Janice Hatfield | April 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

DROP THE STUPID PAC/LOBBYIST ARGUMENT- IT MAKES UP LESS THAN 1% OF HRCs MONEY TOO! MCCAIN/FIENGOLD DIMINISHED PAC/LOBBYIST INFLUENCE YEARS AGO- IT'S ALL ABOUT BUNDLERS NOW- AND >50% OF BARAK'S MONEY IS FROM BUNDLERS

yes, even your diety is a politician!
Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | April 14, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Cindy,
So what do you think he is doing in his campaign- he is not smearing her? He has talked almost zero about his policy proposals or compared them to hers- he has talked ALL about how she campaigns. As for the threat of never voting- think about what your priorities are- her policies are as or more progressive than his generally- would you really prefer McCain?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 14, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

10 pinnochios for Obama, Zero for Clinton on this one. Clinton wasn't claiming to NOT taking money from oil companies and therefore misleading voters. Obama was. Get it right WP.

Posted by: Penny lane | April 15, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I am reading Obama's supporters comments and it seems they conveniently are reading only part of this article. Which part did you not understand?

It is against the law to take money directly from the oil corporations. None of the candidates have taken money directly from any of the oil corporations because it is against the LAW!! However, it is legal to take money from each oil corporation executives and their employees. And multiply each contribution ($2300) times each member that contributed it can add up. The contributors could be the board members, top executives, highly paid management that felt forced to contribute, family members threfore it can add up.

This is the reason Obama has received almost a quarter of millin dollars from oil corporation executives members, families and management employees.

The whole issue here is that for the umpteenth time Obama was being DECEPTIVE,
when he said in an ad "I don' take money from oil companies" indicating everyone else did. In addition he failed to tell the public although he did not take money from the oil companies he did take
BUNDLERS contributions from oil executives, management, family members.

This method was started by BUSH JR during his Presidential campaign to go around the loophole of the law that did not allow them to take money directly from the oil corparations.

Posted by: JenniferLynn | April 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama is an arrogant, deceptive, lieing, devious, moran, evil, cult leader!!

Posted by: LIndaGR | April 15, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

WOW...

No matter if they work for oil companies, those people are private citizens. Obama statement is true; if you want him to be a little clearer, he could say he doesn't take money from oil company PACs.

Once again the fact checker gets it wrong... Do they pay you to poorly analyze things?

Posted by: gavin930 | April 15, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is beholden to many. Obama had it right - it is scary to see who she'd be toasting if she can smear her way through this.

Obama is belholden to 1.3 million - and rapidly growing - supporters, most of whom are everyday individuals contributing small dollar amounts.

Is it Tuesday already? How about June 3rd? It's already decided - Clinton mega-manipulations notwithstanding.

Let the voters speak already.


Posted by: DonJulio | April 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Here are some facts:

When Bill Clinton left office the country's budget was creating a surplus, unemployment had dropped over 3 percentage points below Ronald Reagan's "structural" rate, and consumer confidence was at the highest level on record.

This despite his pushing "the biggest tax increase in history", which lost him the congress. Despite that, he was reelected for a second term probably because, true to his word, he was the only president in more than 50 years to submit a balanced budget.

Despite lack of congressional support he tried to take out Osama Bin Laden, but the Pentagon couldn't come up with effective hardware. In Bosnia, and Somalia he demonstrated a mature, compassionate approach to foreign affairs.

And when he left office, he was extremely popular all over the world.

Despite "Monicagate", he did the job the people paid him to do very effectively.

The idea of Bill Clinton around to advise Hilliary is the main reason I support her.

Posted by: Ed S. | April 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Are Jews the reincarnation of modern day KKK?

The powerful rightwing Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee is vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's refusal to accept special interest money. The concern is that the Senator's policy prevents them from exerting influence or extracting favor from his administration should he become the next President. Senator Obama has offered his assurance to Jews that he is not a foe- yet this does not seem to allay their resistance to his candidacy.

Hillary Clinton's campaign saw an opening to exploit the Jewish community's apprehension and began stoking the anti-Obama fire behind the scenes. In collaboration with the Clintons, they [the Jewish Lobby] dispatched a number of "candidacy assassinators" including former Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis, Florida congress woman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, California congress man, Brad Sherman, CNN news anchor, Wolfe Blitzer, Senator Joseph Lieberman and others to torpedo Obama's nomination bid. The above mentioned Jews continue to fan the flame of hateful passions against the Illinois Senator using demagoguery and pushing the Reverend Wright issue so that it remains in the foreground. The strategy is to convince the voters and the Democratic Super Delegates that Obama would be unelectable in November due to his optics and simultaneously promote Hillary as the only friend of Israel. It is also reported that Democratic Jews are being counseled to vote for John McCain- should Senator Clinton not get the nomination.

Take a look at the YouTube video where Rachel Maddow from Air America recently discussed the topic on her show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYzGzvXO0U

Civil Rights and black organizations have dubbed the Jewish Lobby's anti Obama campaign, "mean spirited" but so far have opted to remain tentative. Elected Democrats have also taken note and are increasingly becoming frustrated with Senator Clinton's controversial tactics. They are appalled with her alliance to hawkish groups including John McCain to annihilate a democratic colleague and worry that it provides damaging ammunition to the republicans that could derail Obama's candidacy should he become the nominee. Some Democrats are even calling the conduct treacherous and privately accuse her of deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic Party because of the unlikely odds of her fairly winning the nomination. The question is- who is willing to bell the Cat? Thus far, a healthy concern for political reprisal has prevented any of the party leaders from offering any public criticism. The Jewish Lobby for decades has effectively manipulated the holocaust to keep politicians beholden to their agenda. Those who oppose are usually labeled anti-Israel or Bigots in order to gain their compliance. In this instance, however, they run the risk of having the tables turned against them if blacks are able to expose hypocrisy in what many view to be a Jewish lynching of Senator Obama.


Posted by: mia | April 16, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company