From the Campaign Trails + A Lump of Coal

Here's a sampling of some hot news today:

This new ad -- "Stakes" -- runs in Iowa and New Hampshire starting tomorrow  (via Mark Halperin's The Page, a constantly-updated site on all the campaigns):

NEW VIDEO:  Stakes

Also from The Page:  "Union-Backed Pro-Edwards Group Hits the Airwaves in Iowa": Day after Christmas, Alliance for a New America $750,000 ad buy causing recent Obama-Edwards spat goes on the air. (Edwards is my second choice.)

That Lump of Coal:

John Edward's campaign issues section has a strong, clear message on coal, "Calls For Ban On New Coal Plants Lacking Technology To Capture Carbon Dioxide Emissions."  Sen. Clinton's energy issues section calls for the "nation's stakeholders" to contribute to global warming clean-up: "... oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy ..."  But Sen. Obama? Southern Illinois has massive coal reserves (but they're high in sulphur). Obama joined Kentucky GOP senator Jim Bunning to introduce the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007."  Writes the Grist's Muckraker:

... Obama joined with Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning to introduce the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007." Coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology uses a highly energy-intensive process to convert coal into diesel fuel for cars or jet fuel for airplanes -- an appealing prospect to the coal industry in Obama's home state of Illinois, but not to enviros and others concerned about global warming. Obama, who got a 100 percent approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters for his environmental voting record in the Senate last year, is now getting grumbles from greens and thumpings from the press for backing the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. -- From Grist.org's Muckraker news:

[NOTE: Obama also introduced a bill in 2006: S.3325, the 'Coal-To-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act Of 2006." -- From his Senate site.]

In June, Ohio's Cincinnati Post reported:

Obama said people would rather fill their car with coal than oil:  "'The people I meet in town-hall meetings back home would rather fill their cars with fuel made from coal reserves in southern Illinois than with fuel made from crude reserves in Saudi Arabia,' Obama said."

Then Obama started to backtrack. But watchdog groups called him out on it. Clean Air Watch told the Washington Post on June 24:

'That's a rookie mistake for a presidential candidate, to think you can get in the middle of a controversial issue, and no one will notice' "'He was trying to throw a bone to the southern Illinois coal interests ... and was surprised when people started saying, "What the heck are you doing?"' said Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. 'That's a rookie mistake for a presidential candidate, to think you can get in the middle of a controversial issue, and no one will notice.'"

And Obama left his coal industry buddies "confused."  From the same WaPo story:

"In recent weeks, Obama's new friends in the coal industry have seen him start to drift: On June 12, he introduced a proposal modeled on the California approach to reducing the carbon diox-ide content of tailpipe emissions. He has endorsed reducing all carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. His Senate office quietly sent out a clarification of his coal- to-liquid position, saying he would support subsidies only if the fuel could be created with 20 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions than petroleum-based fuels. The statement dismayed those pushing coal-to-liquid, who noted this would require technologi-cal leaps beyond perfecting carbon storage. 'He's absolutely flip-flopped. We're totally confused,' Rentech chief executive Hunt Ramsbottom said."

I think Clean Air Watch's statement hits the problem on the head: It's a rookie mistake.  And I reiterate that Obama has a great future in national politics. He just needs more seasoning, more time, and more hard work before he runs for president.  He's young and has a bright future.

:::::::

Lastly, here are some more items from the campaign trail (speaking of which, The Page has a daily list of the schedules of ALL the candidates, which itself makes for a fun read):

  • Huckabee Takes Cash Money for Words -- "Politico: Silver-tongued Arkansan still giving paid speeches as candidate."
  • And here's a sweet story that also reflects the candidate's view on women and children, from the WSJ's A-1 article today on a key Clinton campaign strategist and scheduler, Patti Solis Doyle, a 42-year-old daughter of Mexican immigrants:

    While working in the White House, Ms. Solis married Jim Doyle, a corporate lawyer. Mrs. Clinton, on a trip to Chicago, met her aide's parents and praised Mr. Doyle to them. When Ms. Solis Doyle had her first baby, Mrs. Clinton urged her to bring her crib into the White House. Often a "baby sleeping" sign would be hanging on her office door.

::::::::

Reprinted, with changes, from No Quarter.



Display:


Re: From the Campaign Trails + A Lump of Coal (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for the update from the campaign trail! I'm quite sure our girl Hill can make it in the homestretch! :-)


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:52:42 PM EST

Re: From the Campaign (2.00 / 2)

THANK YOU, ADT.  I think she's going to do very well.  Our country needs her leadership and experience badly.  


by susanhu on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the Campaign Trails + A Lump of Coal (2.00 / 4)

I really like this new ad.  Hillary is confident and prepared to face our challenges.  I feel very comfortable with her at the helm.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:58:06 PM EST

I also like the new ad... (2.00 / 3)

It demonstrates so well in only 30 seconds why we need Hillary. Times are tough, and we need a REAL agent of change who's ready to lead on Day 1. That's why Hillary's the one for us. :-)


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I also like the new ad... (2.00 / 2)

Exactly.  :)


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the Campaign Trails (2.00 / 3)

It's clean and simple -- but at the same time substantive with clear signals to people that these are the issues she is worried with, along with all of us, and that she wants to tackle.

The music is gorgeous -- and it's refreshing to have an ad that's not too "talky," and draws the viewer to look at the screen because of the beautiful, lyrical music.

It's also nice and short.  

It's a great ad.


by susanhu on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the Campaign Trails (2.00 / 3)

Exactly susanhu, nice and short.

I actually got a tear or two in my eyes upon viewing it. It's a tear jerker, but in a good way.


by lonnette33 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:43:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the Campaign Trails (2.00 / 2)

Yep, I'm still so amazed how Hillary can make such a complete case for herself in such a concise 30 seconds! It's just so easy to make a good case for Hill. :-)


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's fundamental lack/loss of integrity (none / 0)

that many of these Obama attack diaries display.

Obama voted against Bunning's amendment when it came up for a vote, and voted for Tester's improved CTL bill (as did HRC). Not mentioning that  most important fact is basically vile bashing of Obama.

"Obama said people would rather fill their car with coal than oil:  "'The people I meet in town-hall meetings back home would rather fill their cars with fuel made from coal reserves in southern Illinois than with fuel made from crude reserves in Saudi Arabia,' Obama said.""

Yes, absolutely, if CTL can be produced with the same footprint as gasolene and made usable in cars, then I WOULD rather fill my car with that produced in the US (using environmentally friendly coal mining methods) instead of depending on foreign oil (which in addition is fueling wars killing millions of people, costing the country in every which way. In that regard, we know which ones voted for the IWR and who among the Democratic candidates voted for Kyl-Lieberman, don't we?).

But, heeding environmental groups' concern, Obama set a goal of 20% reduction in CO2 footprint (vs gasolene) for CTL he'd support:


    "Today's incorrect story in CongressDaily 'Senate Debate Is Likely To Test Party, Regional Priorities,' misstates Senator Obama's position on the development of coal-to-liquid fuels.  Senator Obama recognizes that global warming is one of the most significant problems that we face.  He supports an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from all sources by 2050 and a 10% reduction in the carbon emissions of transportation fuels by 2020.  Senator Obama supports research into all technologies to help solve our climate change and energy dependence problems, including shifting our energy use to renewable fuels and investing in technology that could make coal a clean burning source of energy.  However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.  If an amendment is offered on the Senate floor that would provide incentives for - or mandate the use of - coal-to-liquid fuels without these environmental safeguards, Senator Obama will oppose the amendment."

Obama's vote against the Bunning amendment:

Roll Call

Question:  On the Amendment (Bunning Amdt. No. 1628 )
Amendment Number:     S.Amdt. 1628  to S.Amdt. 1502  to  to H.R. 6  (CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 )

Illinois:    Durbin (D-IL), Nay    Obama (D-IL), Nay

Obama opposing strip/mt. top mining of coal:


Obama Says that we MUST find a way around MTR!

Obama: "Strip-mining is an environmental disaster. We have to find more environmentally sound ways of mining coal, than simply blowing the tops off mountains."


Obama has an excellent environmental record in both the US and IL senates, despite being from an heavy industrial state of IL: link here.

Obama also has a stellar progressive record all around: links.

He is an honest progressive that tells you like it is, instead of pandering.

Every time I see a dishonest diary Obama bashing diary such as the present one, I cringe because of the fact each such is a nail on the coffin of the netroots movement, for if we can't be honest with facts, we cease to be progressive, much less remain or evolve into any movement that's worth the label.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:27:22 PM EST

Re: It's fundamental lack/loss of integrity (2.00 / 3)

But he cosponsored a bill.  You are referring to an amendment to a bill.  

He remains inconsistent on coal, as he is attempting to satisfy the lobby and those who desire a clean and renewable energy future.  


by truthteller2007 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's fundamental lack/loss of integrity (none / 0)

I think Bunning offered the same bill as an amendment, and Obama voted against that.

What in his statement is not simple and plain english (besides his actual vote against Bunning's amendment)?


Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels. If an amendment is offered on the Senate floor that would provide incentives for - or mandate the use of - coal-to-liquid fuels without these environmental safeguards, Senator Obama will oppose the amendment."


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then why did Obama... (2.00 / 1)

Cosponsor Bunning's bill? I remember Obama making that statement on coal. But still, it doesn't explain why he cosponsored Bunning's bill.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:06:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama responded to the concerns (none / 0)

of the environmentalists and improved his position from his original CTL bill co-sponsorship.

His rationale originally was:

Obama said people would rather fill their car with coal than oil:  "'The people I meet in town-hall meetings back home would rather fill their cars with fuel made from coal reserves in southern Illinois than with fuel made from crude reserves in Saudi Arabia,' Obama said."

which apparently came from him not knowing the CO2 footprints at stake on CTL production methods and usage.

BTW, I wrote an "open letter" right here at mydd asking him to change his position when Gore came out opposing CTL.

In response to such concerns by many (including several longtime Obama supporters at DKos), Obama clearly changed his position, as I've posted above.

Bunning's bill never made it out of the committee. Apparently that's why Bunning introduced it as an amendment to HR.6 (the energy independence and security  act) , which Obama with his new position, voted against. He voted for Tester's improved amendment (HRC had the same NAY/Aye votes on these amendments).

Obama has come through on CTL after hearing disappointment from concerned people and never actually voted for any bad CTL bill. That's why bashing him on it now is really not founded in any relevant and applicable facts. It's basically counterpunch.org style nitpicking of stuff that is no longer applicable or matters.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama responded to the concerns (none / 0)

Has Obama removed his name from the legislation?  No, he has not.  And introducing another bill with different goals only serves to expose the hypocrisy undergirding his stance on energy.

His position remains ambiguous, and this, I believe, is relevant as we determine who is serious about drafting policies that will shape this country's energy portfolio.  Because Obama has articulated contradictory stances with coal while having Nevada coal lobbyists raise funds for his campaign, I do not believe he will be able to enact such policies.

Obama is beholden to the coal industry, which in my opinion is dirty and regressive.


by truthteller2007 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama responded to the concerns (none / 0)

Maybe he forgot to withdraw his co-sponsorship. He should withdraw, but if the bill hasn't come up for a vote, how material is a  bill languishing in a committee?

"Obama is beholden to the coal industry, which in my opinion is dirty and regressive."

IL has a HUGE coal industry and provides employment for many, I'd imagine, and Obama is an IL representative and has to factor in the employment aspects of the state he represents to some degree. In the short run, he is obligated to ensure that no loss of jobs occurs. If I were a US senator from IL, even if I don't take a dime from the coal industry, I would still factor in the impact of decisions made on coal into legislation I'd support. Wouldn't you factor jobs and consider the picture? If you wouldn't, then you shouldn't be IL's senator.

Therefore, doing it sensibly so as to do good for the environment and people currently dependent on coal for jobs does become a balancing act.

I am sure that HRC had done a bunch of things to help NY state, being a senator representing that state. She has to do that some degree that is reasonable. Bashing her on those things could be petty as well, unless the degree is excessive.

A balance between local and global, short and long terms is what is required in these matters.

I think Obama's improved approach (supporting CTL only if 20% CO2 reductions are made and as Tester's amdt requires. And his overall 80% target for emissions reduction by 2050 is what everyone is talking about).


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:16:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama responded to the concerns (none / 0)

He nonetheless articulated two conflicting stances on carbon caps and coal technologies.  Hillary has been consistent, and she even collaborated with a group of scientists from the university of buffalo in order to study the possibility of underground carbon sequestration for a coal plan in upstate new york.  in other words, she desires to invest in technologies immediately to reduce carbon emissions.  obama, on the other hand, has essentially confused both the coal and the environmental lobbies with his legislative history and public statements.

we need clear and bold leadership, not equivocation.  and we certainly do not need a president whose major fundraisers are coal lobbyists from nevada.


by truthteller2007 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary was defending and fending for (none / 0)

lobbyists at Yearly Kos. Video.

So, give me a break on lobbyists.

Exploring the Clintons and their lobbyist connections is probably a whole sage by itself, which I don't have the time to dig into, but her votes for  the war and K-L tell me all I need to know about how she does her politics and political calculations.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary was defending and fending for (none / 0)

she was discussing lobbyists that represent unions, teachers and other ordinary citizens.  obama receives lavish funding from nevada coal lobbyists.  and yes, the naacp represents ordinary people.  as does afscme.

obama, however, believes nevada coal lobbyists represent ordinary people.


by truthteller2007 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where is your evidence (none / 0)

(only original sources, please, not third party spinmeister stories) that Obama took money from Nevada coal lobbyists during this campaign when you say "obama receives lavish funding from nevada coal lobbyists"?


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HRC tops lobbyist funds: (none / 0)


Open Secrets

These are direct contributions from registered lobbyists.

"she was discussing lobbyists that represent unions, teachers and other ordinary citizens."

Are you saying that most of her lobbyist money has come these nicey nice groups? if so, please provide (non-spinmeister type) evidence of that.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC tops lobbyist funds: (none / 0)

the lobbyists for mining in Nevada are not registered lobbyists in DC, which explains why your chart is somewhat useless.  these lobbyists for mining represent the industry in Nevada, which explains why the money they have raised for Obama will never appear on your little chart.

Obama-Mining Lobbyist Ties Scrutinized

Democrat Barack Obama opposes a bill that would change the nation's 135-year-old mining law -- the same stance as mining industry executives who employ a Nevada-based lobbyist advising the presidential candidate.

One of his advisors, James Vassiliadis, is a Nevada lobbyist who also sits on Obama's Nevada Steering Committee.  He has also contributed the maximum to Obama's campaign.

I quote the remainder of the article, which outlines how Vassiliadis's role in Obama's campaign creates a conflict of interest.

Vassiliadis, a longtime Nevada power broker, is a member of Obama's Nevada steering committee and has contributed $2,300 to his campaign. He is a lobbyist for the Nevada Mining Association at the state level and the chief executive of the advertising and lobbying firm hired by two mining companies to lobby for them in Washington.

Denver-based Newmont Mining Co., one of the world's largest gold producers, hired Las Vegas-based R&R Partners' Washington, D.C. office in January. The firm has represented silver and gold miner Coeur d'Alene Mines Corp., in Washington since 2006.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Vassiliadis has advised the campaign only on politics, never policy.

"I have not had a single conversation, not one, with anybody in the Obama campaign about mining," Vassiliadis said.

Vassiliadis is not a federally registered lobbyist. His firm, R&R Partners Inc., generates most of its revenue from advertising and public relations, Vassiliadis said. It's best known for developing the Las Vegas tourism tag line, "What happens here, stays here."

Obama regularly assails the relationship between special interests, lobbyists and politicians. He has called for more transparency in government and separation from lobbyists' influence is a central tenet to his claims as the candidate of change.

"If everything is out front, you know who is doing (lobbyists') bidding and who is doing the bidding of the American people," Obama said recently in New Hampshire. "And that's the kind of politics we need to set up."

Obama does not accept campaign donations from federal lobbyists.

Obama says he believes mining reform is necessary and has called for increased dialogue to forge a compromise.

Dan Randolph of Great Basin Mine Watch said the senator's position "implies that Senator Obama is really only listening to one side of the issue."

Notice that Vassiliadis is connected to lobbyists, but notice how he is not registered in Washington, DC.  I guess a loophole was exploited.  But notice how the mining interests of Nevada have raised money for Obama's campaign with the guarantee that Obama would not support legislation that would affect their industry.  As Dan Rudolph of Great Basin Mine Watch succinctly states, "Senator Obama is really only listening to one side of the issue."  In other words, Obama has succumb to the special interests who are bankrolling his campaign.


by truthteller2007 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:02:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a weasely AP hit job on Obama, (none / 0)

apparently:


Thu, Nov 15, 2007 5:45pm ET

Send to a friend Print Version
AP claimed Obama's "mining lobbyist ties" are "raising questions" but did not say with whom

   Summary: Associated Press reporter Kathleen Hennessey wrote that Sen. Barack Obama "opposes a bill that would change the nation's 135-year-old mining law -- the same stance as mining industry executives who employ a Nevada-based lobbyist advising the presidential candidate," which Hennessey said is "raising questions." Despite the suggestion of impropriety, Hennessey offered no evidence or allegation of wrongdoing. Hennessey's article is the latest in a series of media reports on Obama that have suggested possible wrongdoing on his part, but, at the same time, failed to identify any allegations or evidence that he acted improperly.

AP and AP reporters like Solomon have repeatedly smeared Gore (I tracked these for some time), Edwards (the haircut story),and this hit job on Obama. There is a pattern here: they all were/are potential threats to HRC's presidential ambitions.

On  a related note, AP also skews many stories on Iraq and the war to be more pro-war (I have  come across posted about some egregious ones). So, is this part of the payoff to Hillary for her support for the war and Kyl-Lieberman?

In any case, the article says:


Democrats will vote in presidential caucuses Jan. 19, and Obama's position could help him against rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, who have not taken a clear position on the bill.

Why hasn't she taken a position on the bill? If she has done so,  after this hit job, please post a link that states her position.

If she hasn't taken a position, where exactly the "bold leadership" you were talking about?


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:48:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a weasely AP hit job on Obama, (none / 0)

I guess siding with the mining lobby is a winning strategy, especially when that lobby bankrolls a campaign.

You did not invalidate the claims articulated in the article I cited.

Obama's steering committee is packed with Nevada mining interests.


by truthteller2007 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a weasely AP hit job on Obama, (none / 0)

"You did not invalidate the claims articulated in the article I cited."

The weasel article was summarily rejected by mediamatters.

As they said, this nothing but a smoke and mirrors weasel hit job on Obama. Enough said.

Where are Hillary's position and bold leadership on the mining reform bill?

"Obama's steering committee is packed with Nevada mining interests."

Harry Reid opposes the reform bill. And Reid's son' Rory Reid run's HRC's NV campaign. It seems that Rory is a former lobbyist and the entire Reid family apparently has connections with the mining lobby. If blowing smoke is your "truthtelling" agenda, there is plenty of smoke on HRC's side with regards to mining reform that you tried to smear Obama with.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:23:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a weasely AP hit job on Obama, (none / 0)

Vassiliadis still serves on the Nevada steering committee, and his firm stands to benefit from Obama's opposition to the mining legislation.  Because I desire ethics in government, I do not believe a lobbyist in Nevada who has a vested interest in legislation proposed in the US Senate should serve on the steering committee of Presidential candidates who serve in the US Senate.


by truthteller2007 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:21:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BTW, (none / 0)

I do think (based on preliminary understanding) that mining reform bill should be passed, i.e. I disagree with Obama's position. But, at least he has taken a position. Hillary and JRE should do so as well.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:29:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BTW, (none / 0)

I am sure Vassiliadis and other mining lobbyists are satisfied with Obama's resoluteness.  


by truthteller2007 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:20:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

either lobbiest money is bad or it is not (none / 0)

Clinton is honest about taking lobbyist money, Obama is not.   And yes she gets huge amounts of money from "good lobbyists" such as teachers, Unions etc.... Obama would love to get the endorsements and money she does from unions and women's organizations.  It doesn't matter how much was from what group, if we are arguing lobbyist money Obama is guilty of pandering and being a hypocrite.  He has said he takes no lobbyist money, but he does and then he writes legislation favorable to that industry.  He has SAID his position changed, but he has not removed his name from the legislation.  He is trying to have it both ways as usual.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:06:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: either lobbiest money is bad or it is not (none / 0)

"He has SAID his position changed, but he has not removed his name from the legislation.  He is trying to have it both ways as usual"

He voted against the Bunning version of the amendment. He is clearly on record opposed to CTL. He has a good environmental record (despite being from IL). HRC had a poor rating in 2006 from LCV (71%), Obama had 95%:



LCV 2008 profiles

Material evidence shows that Obama is better on the environment than HRC and JRE.

I expect Gore supporters to be basing their views and discourse to be based in hard evidence of facts, Mollie :)


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:57:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hats off to the background music though :) (none / 0)

The music in her Christmas ad (which seems to be George Winston's piano) as well as the score in this new one (is it from the Titanic?) are some of my familiarly favorite tunes.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From the Campaign Trails + A Lump of Coal (2.00 / 1)

Love the new Hillary ad- as we've seen these past few months- a great ad is not as easy as it would appear- but this one is great- I'm a bit torn about 'just the music' because many like me watch TV and are on the computer at the same time- or sometimes just 'drift' during commercials- so it is sometimes helpful to have those vocal cues to have us look up or what-not but it's definitely a great ad.


by reasonwarrior on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:23:28 PM EST

Re: From the Campaign Trails + A Lump of Coal (none / 0)

a great add.  


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:11:25 AM EST

parle vous, sue hu? (none / 0)

Are you the admin at Big Pink?


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 12:39:49 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.