Explain This - Sen. Obama!

In a new ad running in Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama claims that he does not "take money from oil companies or lobbyists." Throughout his campaign, he has tried to differentiate himself from Sen. Clinton, because she does take money from PACs and lobbyists, stating that he doesn't take money from those sources because he doesn't want "any strings attached."

Listen to the ad for yourself.

You heard it plain as day! I hope you didn't take him at his word though. According to the Center for Responsive politics Sen. Obama has, as of February 29th, taken in over $213,ooo from oil and gas companies, including but not limited to Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron! To be fair, Sen. Clinton has taken in over $306,000 from these same donors over the same period.

Hillary Clinton Press Release

MSNBC - First Read

The important distinction here is Sen. Clinton has admitted that she accepts money from many groups, and asserts, quite legitimately, that accepting these funds does not mean that she would act in any way other than in the public interest.

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had consistently and repeatedly stated that he does not accept PAC money or money from federally registered lobbyists, but as you can see, this is not true.

In 2005, Sen. Clinton opposed Dick Cheney's energy bill.

In 2005 , Sen. Obama supported the bill, despite having previously criticized Cheney's support for the oil industry and the bill and having decried the secret meetings that resulted in "energy laws that were good for Exxon-Mobil."

So, when all is said and done, who do you support?


From the Accountable Strategies Blog, there is an interesting article about the role of bundling with regard to evading campaign spending reform Reining in the Campaign Bundlers.

The article advises that the loopholes in the campaign reform efforts

has led to the emergence of “bundlers,” who increasingly operate on behalf of businesses and wealthy special interest groups. While individuals are legally limited to spending $2,300 on a particular candidate, bundlers can round up contributions from numerous individuals from a single business or industry.

Currently, bundlers have to disclose their roles only if they personally hand over these checks to the campaigns, according to Public Citizen. The campaigns get around this rule by employing a tracking system that enables the bundlers to cover their tracks. Campaigns give bundlers a tracking number, which the bundler asks the contributors to write on their checks. This allows the campaigns to know who the bundler is, but keeps the public in the dark as to the bundler’s identity.

Interestingly, and as of the information available today at WhiteHouseForSale.org, Sen. Obama has raised $192,757, 721 with the assistance of 361 bundlers and 14 lobbyist bundlers, and Sen. Clinton has raised $152,751,856 with the assistance of 322 bundlers and 22 lobbyist bundlers.

The obvious conclusion to me is that Sen. Obama cannot legitimately use this as a point of distinction from Sen. Clinton.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, oil industry (all tags)



Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!
Whoa! Senator Saintly caught in a lie?? It will be interesting to hear how he spins this.
Thanks, cj. Good job.
by VegMom 2008-03-29 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Picking on the energy industry is a standard part of Obama's stump speech, where he harshly criticizes the 2005 energy bill and the Vice President Dick Cheney's efforts in passing it.

"Exxon Mobil reported more than $10 billion in quarterly profits," Obama told a town hall in Greenburg, Pa. today. And then referring to Cheney, he added, "He met with the oil and gas companies 40 times. So is it any wonder than that the energy laws that were written were good for Exxon-Mobil but they are not good for you?"
The Problem...in 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the very same Dick Cheney energy bill, written in secret with the oil industry.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-29 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

I don't like Obama's vote for the energy bill.

I also don't like Clinton's votes for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the war in Iraq.  I didn't like President Clinton's support for NAFTA, or media deregulation.  I certainly did not like the major losses sustained by the party during and after his tenure due to the top down, cave to the Republicans, only big states and big donors matter, give up on the south and the west strategies he put in place.

After comparing the two sides thoughtfully, I came to the conclusion that even a relatively unknown option like Obama would be better than voting for another Clinton.  I have been pleasantly surprised by what I have learned about the man, his views, his family, and his life story since I decided to support him.  We're very lucky to have him as a candidate.

by Renie 2008-03-29 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Fair enough.  But how about addressing the content of this diary? It is quite clear that the ad is telling a pretty big whopper, don't you think?

by Denny Crane 2008-03-29 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

No, it isn't -- He hasn't gotten money from the companies.  That's absolutely true.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 03:23PM | 0 recs
Nor did he lie to the Iowa voters
claiming he passed a nuclear safety bill that didn't pass.
The NYT is the liar, right?
And then Obama took over $250,000 from nuclear interests and wrote a bill to protect them against the constituents in his own district.
He's for nuclear safety alright - the company against the people.  As long as his wife gets to buy herself full length white mink coats.
by earthoat 2008-03-29 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

thehill.com/editorials/obama-on-k-street -2007-03-28.html:

while Obama's campaign is not taking donations directly from lobbyists, it is telling lobbyists it likes their networking and won't turn down money from their spouses.

Obama has a big and strong but semi-secret organization of boosters on K Street. Given that time is money, what is the margin between accepting their work and accepting their money? Not much.

The point is not that there is something wrong with accepting help from lobbyists -- quite the opposite. The point is that when it comes to K Street, Obama is finessing the issue and making distinctions where there appears to be no difference.

by suzieg 2008-03-30 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

This is the quote from the article:

"One lobbyist who supports Clinton -- and who therefore, admittedly, has an agenda -- suggests that while Obama's campaign is not taking donations directly from lobbyists, it is telling lobbyists it likes their networking and won't turn down money from their spouses."

It doesn't sound a credible source to me. My wife works in DC and deals with a number of lobbyists. None of them likes Obama. That was actually one of the reasons why my wife (and I) support Obama.

by ges69 2008-03-30 04:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

thehill.com/editorials/obama-on-k-street -2007-03-28.html:

while Obama's campaign is not taking donations directly from lobbyists, it is telling lobbyists it likes their networking and won't turn down money from their spouses.

Obama has a big and strong but semi-secret organization of boosters on K Street. Given that time is money, what is the margin between accepting their work and accepting their money? Not much.

The point is not that there is something wrong with accepting help from lobbyists -- quite the opposite. The point is that when it comes to K Street, Obama is finessing the issue and making distinctions where there appears to be no difference.

by suzieg 2008-03-30 03:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

I wasn't responding to the diary I was responding to the comment.  I posted a comment on bundling below.  If you would like a direct answer to the diary here it is:

The number of dollars donated by employees of a company don't concern me unless you have a situation in which you see secretaries maxing out with $2300 contributions.  Dean was accused of the same thing in 2000 and he had a similar fundraising strategy.

As for the bundlers, I don't like their participation in ANY candidate's campaign.  I volunteered at high dollar fundraising events for Dean, and I didn't like the access that big dollar donors were able to get.  Even so, I also realize that the fact that he gave common people any access at all was a big shift compared to the status quo for our party, much less politics as a whole.  As a volunteer I was able to talk with him several times throughout the campaign, and I liked that they held conference calls with grassroots organizers.  My point in mentioning this is that even though it is true that he took money from bundlers, it is also true that he ran a very different kind of campaign, and the small donations allowed him to say things that he might not otherwise have been able to say.

I didn't like Obama's vote on the energy bill, and I certainly don't like the idea that energy bigwigs are donating to him if this is true.  Even so I don't think that it is complete hypocrisy for him to talk about fundraising in a different way because he is doing that.  While I don't like the roll that big money donors play in any campaign, I think that the small donor numbers do give him a freedom which Dean had, and which other politicians do not have.  I think he is entirely justified in talking about this and in advertising himself as a different kind of politician on this front.

I'm glad that Hillary has finally started trying to utilize small donors in her campaign.  My concern is that she may be doing this because she sees it as a way to gain additional funds rather than as a way to change the political system.  Her friends (Carville and the DLC crowd) have been very dismissive of grassroots activism and that makes me cynical about her as a candidate.  I very much see this election as a referendum on old style politics in which the views of the elite are the only ones that matter.  I realize that the old ways are not gone completely, but I have "hope" that if Obama wins it will at least in part be due to grassroots supporters, and he will have some responsibility to keep them happy.

by Renie 2008-03-29 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Fair enough.  But how about addressing the content of this diary? It is quite clear that the ad is telling a pretty big whopper, don't you think?

No no, you haven't yet considered the context in which he said it.  You're only hearing his actual words, not his innermost thoughts, so how can you even try to judge Him, the One, He who cannot be criticized?

When Obama says something which doesn't correspond to reality, even when you (or ESPECIALLY when you) have the evidence in front of your eyes on video, you must realize that it is you who are deficient, your intelligence shown wanting, your inability to grasp his nuanced views which has caused the problem.

Not Him.

No never, not Him.

by switching sides 2008-03-30 04:20AM | 0 recs
The Corporate Shill here is Hillary NOT Obama

McCain, Clinton wins may soothe Wall Street worries

Michael Darda, chief economist at MKM Partners LLC, in Greenwich, Connecticut, said the two are also seen as more moderate in terms of fiscal policies. "They are more centrist, so there wouldn't be as stark a difference between them on fiscal policy than you'd see with some of the other candidates," he said,...

Hillary is the Shill here.

Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry

The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-29 01:41PM | 0 recs
who is Leonard Doyle?

another Bob Johnson sock puppet?

by earthoat 2008-03-29 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The Corporate Shill here Obama NOT Hillary

Different view here:

The Obama Bubble: Why Wall Street Needs a Presidential Brand

Despite Barack Obama's claim that his campaign represents a mass "movement" of "average folks," the initial core of his support was largely comprised of rich denizens of Wall Street. Why would the super wealthy want a percieved "black populist" to become the nation's chief executive officer? The "Obama bubble" was nurtured by Wall Street in order to have a friend in the White House when the captains of capital are made to face the legal consequences for deliberately creating current and past economic "bubbles." Wall Street desperately needs a president who will "sweep all the corruption and losses, would-be indictments, perp walks and prosecutions under the rug and get on with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of Wall Street." Who better to sell this "agenda to the millions of duped mortgage holders and foreclosed homeowners in minority communities across America than our first, beloved, black president of hope and change?"  

Read on...

by jen 2008-03-29 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

My understanding is that these are actually small donations from regular people who happen to work at places like Exxon.

When you make a donation, you have to name your employer. Obama has raised more money than anyone, so it's to be expected that some of the individual donors happen to work for oil and gas companies.

The ad is misleading because it makes it seem like Obama is taking money from Exxon's CEO, when in reality, it could be from the CEO's secretary and the cafeteria worker who makes the CEO's lunch.

by jdusek 2008-03-29 02:19PM | 0 recs
Good Ad

Looks like a 60 minutes special

by CardBoard 2008-03-29 09:56AM | 0 recs
At least "60 Minutes" is believable...

Whereas cjbardy just proved that this Obama ad can not be believed.

by atdleft 2008-03-29 10:12AM | 0 recs

Proved?  I don't think you know what that word means.

There is NO proof in this article.  Nothing.

by bawbie 2008-03-29 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Proved?

Er, Obama did vote for Cheney's energy package. I'd say that's proven.

His original environmental platform was also very weak, including support for corn-based ethanol and liquid coal. A month or so into the campaign, this changed to reflect a more standard "Green" position. But I concluded either he hadn't thought much about the environment before or didn't care much about it.

by OtherLisa 2008-03-29 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Proved?

and isn't one of his big advisor's a federally registered lobbiest? could have sworn he was...

by zerosumgame 2008-03-29 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Proved?
Former Gephardt advisor Mercado was indeed a former lobbyist, but Obama insisted he quit lobbying before he came to work for him.
by jere7my 2008-03-29 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Proved?

wink, wink, nudge, nudge

the same way he didn't' spend at least a million in ad buys that covered Florida and did hold at least one press conference there, unlike HRC who did neither and she still won there?

by zerosumgame 2008-03-29 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Proved?
Mm, yes, vague insinuations are always better than facts. Let me know how that works out for you.
by jere7my 2008-03-30 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Proved?

he has been shown to have lied and broken the 'rules' he whines about now. not one vague thing in there bub.

by zerosumgame 2008-03-30 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Proved?
"Wink wink nudge nudge" is the vague insinuation in question.
by jere7my 2008-03-30 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Proved?

"There is NO proof in this article."

Oh c'mon... this is how it's done. Of course Obama is going to tell everyone that these $2300.00 contributions came from the janitors at Exxon, that is the PURPOSE of using bundlers, to hide the corporate origins of the donations. Obama uses just as much, if not more money from these sources. It is the way things are done. Not that it shouldn't change, of course it should, we need campaign finance reform yesterday. But please don't be so naive as to think this is not corporate money.

The whole system is set up to hide the real sources, and it is done well enough that the politically unsophisticated voter may be taken in by it.

by 07rescue 2008-03-29 05:11PM | 0 recs
Thank you BO. I love spending $4.00

a gallon on gas.  Thank you Thank you Thank you.

by Shazone 2008-03-29 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you BO. I love spending $4.00

haha, yes, Barack Obama is now responsible for supply and demand, now where's my pitchfork?!?!

by amiches 2008-03-29 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

It cracks me up how so many of Hillary's arguments boil down to "don't vote for Obama, he's almost as bad as me!"

The donations you refer to are hundreds of small donations from people who happen to work at those companies, they're not from lobbyists or people expecting favors.

Let me put it this way. I'm a graphic designer, and I donated to Obama. Does that mean I expect him to pull strings for the graphic design industry once he gets elected? Of course not!

This is more silliness from Clinton. I hope she has something better up her sleeve, if not she's in trouble.

by animated 2008-03-29 09:59AM | 0 recs
That's not the point.
The point is that he says things that are untrue. I read the link in First Read, but that link also talks about his bundlers in the industry. Do I think it would be best if our current system would make it unnecessary for candidates for public office to take mney from special interests? Absolutely! But we are not there yet. Both Obama and Clinton take that money. The difference is Clinton doesn't pretend she doesn't, and Obama does. Obama supported the Bill. Clinton didn't.
by cjbardy 2008-03-29 10:04AM | 0 recs
Yep, yep, yep...

To paraphrase Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign:

"It's the hypocrisy, stupid!"

Obama can't say he doesn't take money from lobbyists when he actually does. He can't say he does no business with "special interests" when major corporate executives bundle so much money for him. THAT'S the whole problem here. Obama can't continue saying one thing while doing something completely different.

by atdleft 2008-03-29 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, yep, yep...

It's a pretty silly argument to suggest that because we found one or two cases where Obama got donations from such and such industry, we should choose Clinton instead, who is awash in such donations, just because she doesn't brag about it.

Bush doesn't pretend not to be corrupt either - does that make him better than Obama?

Obama has a right to talk up his record on ethics. He passed ethics reform. He voted for earmark disclosure, which Clinton voted against. He doesn't take money from PACs, while Clinton does. Having individual employees who donate from one industry or the other isn't the same thing. Nor is having fundraisers who work in one industry or another (who raised pretty tiny amounts compared to his $55 million haul last month, BTW) the same.

Let's look at the Clinton record on special interests. Renting out the Lincoln bedroom. Pardoning Marc Rich for questionable quid pro quo. Organizing fundraisers that are basically "meet and greet" sessions for lobbyists and lawmakers. Letting Mark "Blackwater" Penn run your campaign.

Yeah, I think I'll take Obama over that.

by animated 2008-03-29 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, yep, yep...

The Clinton record on special interests?  That is Bill Clinton renting the bedroom, isn't that a tipical republican attack line?  Are you a democrat or are you really a republican troll, its so hard to tell with these O supporters, you know, they all say the same attack lines, I can't tell them apart, all the lies are the same old personal destruction attack lines of the 90s.

by democrat voter 2008-03-29 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, yep, yep...

Oh c'mon. Are you a Republican for attacking Obama? Of course I'm a Democrat and I agree with the Clintons on many things, but ethics and special interests is clearly a MAJOR weak point for them. Am I not allowed to point that out? Silliness.

by animated 2008-03-29 12:24PM | 0 recs
Thats not true..

Obama's only advantage is that he's NEW.. but he is no angel and thats obvious..

by architek 2008-03-29 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: That's not the point.

The point is that he LIES.

by Montague 2008-03-29 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: That's not the point.

Obama doesn't lie, he just gets taken out of context.


by switching sides 2008-03-30 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Obama VOTED FOR the 2005 Energy Bill that GAVE huge profits to the Oil companies. HE is directly responsible for the mess we are in today. DIRECTLY! He can attempt to hide behind his cloak of purity all he wants but INTELLIGENT Americans will not be HOODWINKED by this guy.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-29 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Apparently your sorry ass has been hoodwinked already. He voted for that bill because it included increasted funding for alternative fuel research for his home state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-robe rts/what-does-the-2005-energy_b_83130.ht ml

Oh the pain! The pain!

In case you haven't been paying attention, gas prices have been going up for the past five years.  Ooops, but Obama wasn't in the Senate then.

Some of you HRC supporters need an education.

by LtWorf 2008-03-29 11:36AM | 0 recs
I think Obama is much more DECEPTIVE in...

the way he presents himself and his campaign.. and that REALLY bothers me because he is specifically targeting people who are DESPERATE for a way out of this mess and he knows HE ISN'T IT but he is determined to LIE and imply to them that he is.



They are just swallowing up his lies..

by architek 2008-03-29 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Obama is much more DECEPTIVE in...

I haven't voted for him yet (I'm in OR), but from my vantage point (single payer or bust), Clinton and Obama's health care positions are basically identical. Obama says he'd start out by making health insurance cheap and available, and if that wasn't enough he'd look at mandates. Clinton says she'd impose mandates, but not until after she'd made insurance cheap and available. The only difference is the framing, and Obama's framing politically better.

by alephnul 2008-03-29 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Obama is much more DECEPTIVE in...

Cite?  Or are you just making stuff up?  And while you're at it, can you provide the evidence that all HRC supporters understand her positions on everything.  This is exceptionally silly.

by interestedbystander 2008-03-30 12:25AM | 0 recs

"In case you haven't been paying attention, gas prices have been going up for the past five years.  Ooops, but Obama wasn't in the Senate then.:

He hasnt even been in the senate five years?

So wth is he doing running for president?


by switching sides 2008-03-30 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: wth?

He has more legislative experience than your candidate.  Then again, we don't want to go down this experience road again, do we?  Sniper fire might break out.

by LtWorf 2008-03-30 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Fleaflicker, PLEASE stop parroting FALSE information.  The 2005 Energy bill did not give huge profits to the oil companies, and in fact raised their taxes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

"It says Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies," another distortion. By the time Congress passed the 2005 energy bill, it raised taxes on the oil industry more than it decreased them and also contained billions for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles. "

by shalca 2008-03-29 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Sorry, I gave you the wrong link.  Here it is:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ youve_got_mailers.html

by shalca 2008-03-29 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Really?  I got troll rated for providing factual information that refutes the diarist's claims? Wow.

by shalca 2008-03-29 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

"It cracks me up how so many of Hillary's arguments boil down to "don't vote for Obama, he's almost as bad as me!"

You nailed it

by mikeinsf 2008-03-29 12:36PM | 0 recs
You just don't get it..

And you never will..

I have SERIOUS doubts that many of you are even Democrats.

by architek 2008-03-29 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: You just don't get it..

So sayeth the demonstrable liar.

Seriously, the level of discourse to which much of this site (you included) has devolved is bordering on pathetic.  We're at the point where you're posting lies that can be debunked with a simple Google search, and trying to change the subject when it gets pointed out so the threads degenerate into nothing more than pie fights.  If that's your idea of political debate, then kindly blow it out your ass.

by Jay R 2008-03-29 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

"It cracks me up how so many of Hillary's arguments boil down to "don't vote for Obama, he's almost as bad as me!""

The point is that Obama is lying about the source of his campaign contributions. Hillary is not.

The system sucks as far as campaign finance goes. No one thinks it is legitimate or truly ethical. But until we change it we must fight the battle on it's own terms. You cannot unilaterally disarm, it would be catastrophic to the party.

by 07rescue 2008-03-29 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

No, he's not.  Receiving contributions from individuals working for a company is not the same as recieving money directly from that company.  It is intellectually dishonest to call Obama a liar on this point.

by shalca 2008-03-29 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

No, it's not at all.

by 07rescue 2008-03-29 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

The explanation is simple.  If you are a secretary working for Exxon and you contribute $50 to Obama or Clinton, that is marked as a donation from the Oil & Gas companies.  This distortion of FEC campaign donation reporting has been tried throughout the campaign.  The only way the Oil Industry can donate to a campaign in a way which could be representative of a quid-pro-quo arrangement is through a PAC.  Obama does not take PAC money, Clinton does.  

by Piuma 2008-03-29 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!
Look at his bundlers.

From the First Read article listed above, two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per a list released on his campaign Web site. The first, Robert Cavnar, is listed as a bundler who has raised between $50,000 to $100,000 for the campaign. He is the chairman and CEO of Mission Resources Corp., a Houston-based firm. George Kaiser, also listed in the same $50,000 to $100,000 category, is the CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Company.

by cjbardy 2008-03-29 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

I don't like any bundlers.  I am glad about two things though:

1) He is raking in tons of money even without accepting PAC money.  Dean made money from small donors and some bundlers, I remember him being attacked because it looked like the companies his donors worked for were giving him tons of money.  Obama, like Dean, is not entirely dependent on big name donors, and can afford to piss them off if he needs to in order to get something done.  Also, our nominee is going to need a lot of money and I'm glad that Obama can offer us deep pockets.

2)  His bundlers did not write a nasty threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi for daring to say that the superdelegates should follow the will of the people.  I think we got a very good idea of how the Clinton donors behave when they don't get what they want, and I don't like it one bit.

by Renie 2008-03-29 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Gee, has Hillary Clinton released her list of bundled contributions?  Or are they MIA along with her tax returns and list of earmarks?

by LtWorf 2008-03-29 11:37AM | 0 recs
This is outrageous.

Do you even know who George Kaiser is? He runs the Kaiser Foundation!

The Kaiser Foundation fights childhood poverty. A subject near and dear to both Barack and Michelle Obama's hearts. Classifying bundled donations from George Kaiser as a donation form the "Oil and Gas" industry, or something unsavory is patently offensive.

Not only that, Kaiser's business now mostly deals in natural gas, not oil.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-03-29 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

The cute little analogies Obamaites use of employees not companies donating money, doesn't fly when you have major players in the companies donating. It's a slick way to get around the rules and at the same time allows Obama to claim he doesn't take money from lobbiest etc

No one can show an oil company, itself, giving donations. But, we have to assume that if the chief officers of a company are giving money, then it might be coming from that industry.

One of the Obamamyths is that his campaign is solely funded by the piggy banks of ordinary Americans--that he's too pure of heart to associate with lobbyists and PACs. This has been a carefully constructed pose for his campaign. But before the campaign started, he was happy to build a lucrative PAC of his own thanks to a network of DC lobbyists. It takes money to begin to run for president. And Obama's been positioning himself for this run since the moment he landed in DC--all of three years ago:

Obama uses a loophole wherein he can accept bundled donations from individuals within lobbying firms, without it being technically labeled as donations from lobbyists.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-29 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

That's a real distinction, bud.

I have friends who work for major companies. Their companies can donate to Clinton through their PACs, but they can't donate to Obama because he doesn't take PAC money.

But my friends can donate to whoever they want and the money comes from their own bank accounts.  They can donate to someone other than who the management of their company decided to donate to on behalf of the company.

It's not a donation from "oil companies" if no oil company donated.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 10:19AM | 0 recs
Oh yes, that's right...

'Cuz it's OK to have the top oil company executives bundle for Obama... Ain't that a clever way to bypass the PACs?

by atdleft 2008-03-29 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh yes, that's right...

How do you stop bundling? It makes sense to not accept money from registered lobbyists and PACs. It is easy to track. But how can you say Joe in accounting can't donate to Obama because he works for GE? I applaud Obama for drawing a line, even if it is an imperfect one. Clinton has no desire to draw a line, and she has made that crystal clear.

by LandStander 2008-03-29 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh yes, that's right...

Do you have information that "top oil company executives" are bundler for Obama? Or are you speculating?

by jdusek 2008-03-29 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Walks like a duck??? I have psoted this comment other places. Bundled money IS special interest money.

I worked for a company that used the same tactic to get around the laws about lobbying.
They would send a memo every year suggesting that all managers were to donate a "suggested" amount. Never mind that I did not support the policies of the PAC to which they wanted me to contribute.

True story- when I asked my regional manager what the fall out would be if I did not donate, he asked me if I wanted to be promoted in the future.

Screw em- I did not donate. The money was going to a PAC that was all about breaks for big business on the backs of the workers. Said PAC opposed any increase in the minimum wage.

Bundled money is special interest money.
i make sure I educate every voter I come in contact with about that ad and how deceptive it is.

by ProudMilitaryMom 2008-03-29 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

So all th people mentioned below are special interest representatives.

Clarence Avant
Steve Bing
Gov. James Blanchard
Lloyd Blankfein
Susie Tompkins Buell
Ronald Burkle
John Catsimatidis
Vikram Chatwal
Peter Chernin
Stanley M. Chesley
Amb. Timothy Chorba
Gov. Jon Corzine
Lanny Davis
John Delaney
Charles Dolan
James Dolan
Terry Duffy
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Rep. Geraldine Ferraro
Gary Gensler
Gordon Giffin
John Grisham
Steven Grossman
Norman Hsu (de-listed)
Magic Johnson
Robert L. Johnson
Vernon Jordan
Declan Kelly
Marc Lasry
Jeffrey Lichtman
Nita Lowey
John J. Mack
Raul L. Martinez
Garry Mauro
U.S. Rep. Charles Thomas McMillen
Gifford Miller
Heidi Miller
Hassan Nemazee
Gov. Martin O'Malley
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone
Richard Park
Jim Pederson
Ronald Perelman
Jorge M. Perez
Richard Perry
Arvind Raghunathan
Brett Ratner
Steven Rattner
Gov. Ed Rendell
Brian Roberts
Wayne Rogers
Lynn Forester de Rothschild
Haim Saban
U.S. Rep. Lynn Schenk
Bernard L. Schwartz
U.S. Rep. Ronnie Shows
Steven Spielberg
David Steinberg
Sribala Subramanian
Richard Sullivan
Mahinder Tak
U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli
Ted Waitt
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Mark S. Weiner
Howard Wolfson

Don't be silly. Even CEO's of companies have the right to support candidates.
There is a difference between accepting PAC and lobyist money and individual contributions from people working in an industry (bundled or otherwise).

by hebi 2008-03-29 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

The response ad to this writes itself. He such an amazing liar. People have to be made aware of just how willing he is to hide the fact that he does indeed take money from the oil industry... lots of it in fact.

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-29 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

The reason diaries like this work is because:

1.  People believe what they read when it lines up with what they already believe.


2.  People are too lazy to research and think critically.  

There are numerous good explanations on this thread of why Obama is not lying about this.  But you just post this attack anyway.  WHat's the point of even having a political blog if people aren't willing to think and discuss reasonably?

by proseandpromise 2008-03-29 03:26PM | 0 recs
Good canned answer, but
inaccurate nevertheless. I did research this, and came to a logical conclusion. I have tried to point out my analysis, and have given my sources, but my efforts are wasted on people who have their minds made up.
by cjbardy 2008-03-29 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

"A company" gives money through its PAC.  Those decisions are made by management.

People from a company are free to give to whomever they want.  I have a friend who works for Ford. If he gives money to a candidate, it's not from Ford, but from him.

This is not that complicated a distinction, folks.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 10:16AM | 0 recs
Oh, so you're saying that now...

But only a few months ago, so many of you were talking about "how much money Hillary gets from corporate America" without mentioning that the lower-level employees were the ones giving. But hey, what's so bad about a double standard? Oh yes, and isn't Obama so much better because he actually gets the top executives to bundle for him? Hillary never lied about that.

by atdleft 2008-03-29 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, so you're saying that now...

I don't know who was making that argument, but it wasn't me. A good friend of mine is an expert in campaign finance law (and teaches on it in a law school), so I'm well aware of this distinction.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 10:28AM | 0 recs
(c) Hillary Clinton '08 - All rights reserved.

Thought I'd help out since you obviously forgot the copyright.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/ 03/the_contributor_gotcha_game.html

by Travis Stark 2008-03-29 10:33AM | 0 recs
Sorry - I don't need your help.
by cjbardy 2008-03-29 10:40AM | 0 recs
BTW, thank you for that link!
You didn't quote this so I will:

UPDATE: Some really interesting comments and questions about this post, including responses from those in Hillaryland and McCainworld. I'm headed out the door, but I will be following up. For now, answers for some of the questions: the ad itself is here, a definition of "bundler" can be found here, and, yes, when ANYONE says that Candidate X has gotten money from Company D, they are referring to people who made donations who happen to work at Company D OR to monies given to a candidate from a corporation's PAC. McCain-Feingold made direct corporate contributions illegal (and, yes, that's what my McCain correspondent pointed out, among other things). A last note: I didn't mean to take a side on whether Obama "lied" or not, though, by pretty much any standard, his statement is less than straightforward: No one takes money from "companies" anymore, and, if you count employees of companies as representing the company, he's clearly taken money. He may have meant he hasn't taken money from oil and gas industry PACs. And, it's true, Hillary has never claimed to not have taken money from oil companies, so if you're judging candidates by the standard they hold themselves to, score one for Hillary. (This has been her argument for awhile, obviously.)
by cjbardy 2008-03-29 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: BTW, thank you for that link!

Problem is, when the standard you hold yourself to is the lowest in the biz, it's not much of an achievement.

by animated 2008-03-29 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: BTW, thank you for that link!
Problem is, you are wrong. Why don't you look at what standard Hillary holds herself to when supporting or opposing legislation. Even though she accepted money from the industry, she voted against the bill.

Why don't you look at the fact that Obama told a LIE in his advertisement? I guess he doesn't hold himself to a standard of truthfulness so it doesn't really matter.

by cjbardy 2008-03-29 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: BTW, thank you for that link!

It's not a lie.

If you work for a major company and give money to a candidate, is that a contribution from the company? Of course not!

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 11:01AM | 0 recs
What he said! n/t

by Travis Stark 2008-03-29 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: BTW, thank you for that link!

Call it what you will, but it does wiggle the bullshit meter.

If Clinton had been caught like this, I believe you would say she was guilty of clintonesque triangulation.

by NJ Liberal 2008-03-29 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: BTW, thank you for that link!

You clearly either don't understand the campaign finance system or are trying to promulgate something that's not true.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: (c) Hillary Clinton '08 - All rights reserved.

Thought I'd help out since you obviously forgot the copyright.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/ 03/the_contributor_gotcha_game.html

thanks, informative.

by susu1969 2008-03-29 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Nice link Travis

First of all, the numbers in the Clinton release -- while a tidy sum to many (including me) -- are not especially significant amounts in the absurdly grand scheme of contribution things. Traditional energy companies don't even show up in the top 20 of the industries that have given to Obama during his career -- in order to get on that list, a sector would have have to have given him over $600,000. And any single company would have to have given him over $173,000.

Second of all, does Hillary even want to play this game? Catching Obama out on a relatively small donation from Exxon is, I guess, a success of some sort in this tacky tit-for-tat game, but Clinton herself has received over $23,000 from ExxonMobile, $9,350 from Chevron, and $3,750 from BP (maybe more -- BP employees seem lax about how they fill in that blank). Oh, and in this cycle? She's taken $289,000 from the oil and gas industry in general. And there's the real money: the lobbying sector is the 18th-most generous industry to Hillary (having given $1.4M -- lobbyists may be "people too," they're also clearly RICH people); she's the recipient of the third greatest amount from lobbyists to politicians overall from 1989-2004, the second among mortgage bankers and brokers, and the first among hedge funds. These last three listings are especially impressive, given that she'd only been in office for four years.

But hey, at least she doesn't cut ads about how clean she is, so obviously it's totally cool. I'm sure those donations wouldn't affect her at AAAALLLL were she to get to the White House....

by animated 2008-03-29 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!
Once again. Obama SUPPORTED the bill, Clinton OPPOSED it.
by cjbardy 2008-03-29 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

This is way bigger than one bill.

Sorry, but this really boggles the mind:

she's the recipient of the third greatest amount from lobbyists to politicians overall from 1989-2004, the second among mortgage bankers and brokers, and the first among hedge funds. These last three listings are especially impressive, given that she'd only been in office for four years.

The biggest recipient from 1989 to 2004?! How is that even possible?

by animated 2008-03-29 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Source?  Link?

by Mags 2008-03-29 08:54PM | 0 recs
Um, I said in my diary that Hillary has accepted
special interest money, so this adds nothing new. <>

Your leap to your conclusion, however, is without any basis in fact based upon her history in the Senate.

by cjbardy 2008-03-29 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Um, I said in my diary that Hillary has accept

There's enough of a record from the first Clinton administration to suggest that Bill and Hill are no saints when it comes to doing favors for special interests.

Combine that with the amounts she's raking in and the people surrounding her, and, yeah, it scares me a bit.

by animated 2008-03-29 11:14AM | 0 recs
I said, look at Hillary's record.
How come you are more than happy to attach Hillary to Bill's administration when it suits you (the plural you), but when it might help Hillary,you cry "unfair"?
by cjbardy 2008-03-29 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Yes- and the hypocrite keeps on giving...

by tricia19 2008-03-29 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

He doesn't take money from PACs, which are essentially direct donations from corporations. That is absolutely true.

He has thousands of people who happen to work in the energy industry making small donations to him, and a couple execs fundraising for him. What would you have him do, ban fundraisers from such and such industry? Can he not have fundraisers from the energy industry? How about health care? Where do you draw the line?

Obama has done plenty of work on ethics - it's his right to talk about it. He's held himself to a much higher standard than Clinton and voters should know that.

by animated 2008-03-29 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Oh the Mythology of Obama! Obama did take PAC money in 2005 and 2006. Only in 2007 when he started running for President did he stop taking PAC money. You can esily google and see for yourself. It appears to be that Obama/advisors sat down and clevely planned what are the 2,3,4 key thing they can do which will allow them to draw contrast with Clinton and have convenient ready-made talking point. So like so many other things Obama's current opposition to taking PAC money does not appear to be driven by some deep convication but rather is a sound good campaign strategy.

by ScottinNJ 2008-03-29 01:34PM | 0 recs
channel of money vs source of money

As Hillary pointed out (on Letterman iirc), many interests EMPLOY lobbyists, for example a coalition of environmental groups.

It's not the channel by which money is received (lobbyist, direct corporate donation, donations from individual employees of a company, etc) -- but the SOURCE of the money that matters.

Obama dismissed a large total of money from Exelon, by saying that a great many of its employees happened to agree with him and made individual donations. Even if we accepted the idea that this was not promoted or compensated by the company, still those employees are likely supporting him because he supports their company's interest. Certainly if he ceases to support Exelon, those employees will have less money to donate.

by 1950democrat 2008-03-29 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: channel of money vs source of money

It is illegal for a company to compensate its employees for contributions to a particular candidate.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Are you arguing that he should reject a campaign donation from everybody who works for companies in industries he doesn't like?

My God you people have flown off the handle.

I sure hope you landing back in the real world is gentle later this year.

Lets be very clear:

Companies can't contribute to candidates and haven't been able to for years.

Obama doesn't take money from registered lobbyist.  Clinton does.

Obama doesn't take money from PACs. Clinton does.

Obama has raised almost $200million.  Around 1% of that has come from employees of the oil and gas industry.  One fucking percent!

But obviously they own him now.

by bawbie 2008-03-29 11:49AM | 0 recs
Give us a breakdown, hot shot.
Where did the rest of it come from?
Little old ladies pension checks?
by earthoat 2008-03-29 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Give us a breakdown, hot shot.

From people like me, of course.

He's had millions and millions of donors, each giving a little.

Haven't you been paying attention?

by bawbie 2008-03-29 06:12PM | 0 recs
Make me laugh. Aren't you the expert?

by earthoat 2008-03-29 08:01PM | 0 recs
by earthoat 2008-03-29 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: You're either a lying Troll or an idiot

Are you denying that Obama has millions of individual donors?

Why are you calling me an "idiot" or a "troll"?

Because I don't drink the Clinton koolaid around here?

by bawbie 2008-03-29 08:45PM | 0 recs
If you aren't a troll then you
don't know your candidate and are only swallowing what a lot of paid trolls are spinning.
Did you even look at the link that I wasted time providing for your learning experience?
by earthoat 2008-03-29 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: If you aren't a troll then you


Save your time next time, I know more about Obama and Clinton than you ever will.  

That piece proved nothing. Obama has millions and millions of donors who have given small donations.

by bawbie 2008-03-29 09:24PM | 0 recs
No. He has tons of small donations BUT

his big money comes from special interest.
There was a good diary on this very subject, and I'm too busy right now to look it up.

What Obama does is say things in a way that is deceptive.
You are led to believe that all of his income is made up of donations from the little people.

Like 99% our donations are from little people.  But what he doesn't say, is that 99% is only a piddling amount of money, and the remaining 1% is millions and millions of dollars from special interest.

If you knew more than I do, you would not be pushing for Obama, unless you are a Bush Republican, and love deception, and want a weak, neophyte president.

Maybe you don't miind being lied to, but I do.

by earthoat 2008-03-30 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Are all his commercials this bad?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-29 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Obama has been lying this whole campaign, his first and continuing lie is that Hillary is soooooo divisive, which he has tried to make sure you all know, you know how the O supporters are constantly saying that bit of Rove nonsense, of course, O didn't stop there, his brand of new politics is the same old personal insults and destruction, his idea is to make her unacceptable personally to voters, while he goes on to call her a racist, then questions her character.  

When Hillary is campaigning against O it is on the issues, or on the fact that he has no experience, which is a given since he already admits that, what difference does that make?  Well for one thing, Obama is a prevaricator of the first kind, he insinuated that he is above trash talk, and then he proceeds to trash talk.  All O has going for him is the fact that he is not Hillary, that is his big selling point, well as far as I'm concerned he is a liar, and I find his brand of politics, the personal insults and trying to diminish her personally to be the very kind of politics that republicans have tried to use for decades, now we have Obama who does the same thing and then tries to say he is a different kind of politician, that is a bold faced lie, and therefore Obama is a liar, plain and simple really.  

He is not a uniter, but divides the party on racial and economic lines and tries to drive a wedge between people who used to have good will toward each other but not are hated enemies, due to Obama.  I could not vote for him if he were the only candidate in the race, that is how much his kind of "new" politics stinks just like the old republican attack kind of politics, and his using it only reeks to high heaven for me.  His supporters have added nothing positive to the conversation either because they have been busy repeating these old tired republican attacks that were leveled against her in the past.  They didn't work in NY and don't seem to be working now.  Only the o supporters are buying that nonsense, that is why half the party supports her, they actually know her track record and do know, contrary to the hate fest from the other side, the real truth instead of all the insults and personal smears.

 We do know how for all these years Hillary has worked for the people she represents, so all the insults be dammed, I find them to hold no credibility, and therefore I reject that kind of personal destruction politics long practiced by the right, and latterly taken up by the far left blogs.  O supporters are just the latest version of this kind of destructive rhetoric.  Hate only begets hate.

by democrat voter 2008-03-29 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

I respect that you are sincere in what you say.

But your view is not shared by most Democrats. Since Wisconsin, pollsters have asked which candidate used unfair campaign tactics. In each race, even among Clinton supporters, more people said Clinton rather than Obama.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

It's not a lie that Hillary is divisive, it's an opinion.

It happens to opinion that is supported by a number of polls, but it's still just an opinion.

by jdusek 2008-03-29 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

A lie is a lie is a lie. And a Cheney supporter is a Cheney supporter is a Cheney supporter. Let's get some real change for a change. I trust Hillary to reign in the oil companies, and if you think hard enough, you all do, too!!!!

by susanclare 2008-03-29 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

I believe you meant rein, not reign.

And, no, I don't agree with you, partly because I do not operate on trusting politicians.  I am an Obama supporter and my view is not based on an emotional connection but on my assessment of his qualities and positions.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

More hypocrisy from Wen. Elmer Gantry (D-IL)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb1SGOs3j fM

by Newport News Dem 2008-03-29 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

That piece is the same nonsense "argument" made by the diarist.

Money from the employees of a company is not the same thing as money from a company.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

I work for a bar and donated to Obama. Does that mean he works for the liquor industry?

by mikeinsf 2008-03-29 12:39PM | 0 recs
Ha Ha Ha Ha

I'll leave all the rest of you to point out the flat out lies while I'll acknowledge that he sure does like to give out some PAC money to the superdelegates.  What a charade!  So he doesn't take money from the Devil so the Devil can own him because he is the Devil.  It's too cute!

by Militarytracy 2008-03-29 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Ha Ha Ha Ha

I suggest you learn something about the campaign finance system.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 01:31PM | 0 recs
Oh please teach me what I need to know

I'm all ears

by Militarytracy 2008-03-29 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh please teach me what I need to know

People have been explaining things on this thread, but Clinton folks refuse to grasp the distinction between a donation from a company and a donation from someone who works for a company.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 02:06PM | 0 recs

by earthoat 2008-03-29 03:46PM | 0 recs
If any one is lying here

Its you.

You heard it plain as day! I hope you didn't take him at his word though. According to the Center for Responsive politics Sen. Obama has, as of February 29th, taken in over $213,ooo from oil and gas companies, including but not limited to Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron! To be fair, Sen. Clinton has taken in over $306,000 from these same donors over the same period.

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had consistently and repeatedly stated that he does not accept PAC money or money from federally registered lobbyists, but as you can see, this is not true.

How much of that money is from PACs or federally registered lobbyists?

This information is intentionally deceptive.  Last week it was about the mortgage companies and it was debunked.  Use your mind as more than a Hillary Clinton echo chamber.  

by PantsB 2008-03-29 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

How would you feel if Obama ran an ad that says:

"Hillary Clinton claims she supports the rights of women, but she has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from pornographers who traffic in the degradation of women and young girls."

Would this be a fair statement for Obama to make? Or would you feel that he was going negative?

(Disclaimer: I don't know how much money Clinton has raised from people associated with pornography, but considering how much money she's raised, it stands to reason that she has received individual donations from people who are directly involved in the adult entertainment industry, or indirectly involved (e.g., cable television, hotel companies that provide adult in-room movies, magazine publishers that accept adult-oriented ads, etc.)

by jdusek 2008-03-29 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

"Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had consistently and repeatedly stated that he does not accept PAC money or money from federally registered lobbyists, but as you can see, this is not true."

Ummm . . . I am a soldier in the United States Army . . . does that mean that I can't donate money to a candidate, because then they would feel a conflict of interest exists with the Army???

Obama can take money for people who pump gas at Exxon, or employees of Chevron. HE DOES NOT take money from OIL COMPANIES and OIL LOBBYISTS.

You can spin this to uneducated, undecided voters, but have some respect for the intelligence of MyDD members.

by Veteran75 2008-03-29 02:46PM | 0 recs
Nice trick Barry

So, Obama takes money from the individuals at the company and not the company itself? And the difference is?

What nonsense. Why play that game? Clinton is much more honest about what she's doing then Obama.

Who voted for Bush and Cheney's energy bill? It was Obama. Hillary voted against it. She also voted against Bush's tax cuts. Would Obama have done the same? I'm not at all certain. He praised Reagan, saying he brought a dynamism to the country. He almost bankrupted the country and shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle-class.

Bill Clinton came in and shifted the tax burden back to the wealthy and he balanced the budget, giving us low inflation and a strong dollar. Does Obama understand the importance of that or will he be more like Jimmy Carter. I'm concerned.

by mmorang 2008-03-29 03:40PM | 0 recs
Clinton needs to talk about all the great

things that were done for the middle class during Bill's presidency.

by earthoat 2008-03-29 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice trick Barry

You really don't understand the difference? I have trouble believing that you can't grasp that very obvious distinction.

Again, an example:
a. My friend Peter works for Ford. He gives money to a candidate. The money comes out of his bank account.  When Peter gives money, it is his own personal choice.

b. Ford gives money to a candidate through its trade association or PAC.  The money comes out of its corporate account.

a is an individual donation of the type Obama accepts.  b is a donation from a company and Obama doesn't accept that.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice trick Barry

"You really don't understand the difference?"

We understand your repeated arguments that you have bought BO's deceit perfectly well. Repeating your argument over and over that you have bought his nonsense hook, line, and sinker has even further convinced us that you don't know what you are talking about and choose to play dumb about how the system of "bundling" donations is a loophole that has been deliberately created by politicians anxious to avoid campaign finance reform laws, and to give them the appearance of avoiding corporate contributions.

It is a deliberate construct, and everyone knows it. You can argue that up is down all you want to, that doesn't argue in favor of your credibility overall, and Orwellian arguments don't convince many people.

by 07rescue 2008-03-29 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice trick Barry

And how much of the $ given by employees can you PROVE was bundled versus how much was given by folks who just happen to work at those companies?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-29 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice trick Barry

How many times do I have to repeat the obvious - the bundling system was devised by masters to make it impossible to prove the money comes from the corporations, it is a well know, deliberately conceived campaign finance loophole. Deceit by design. It is very well done deceit.

You can play blind, deaf, and dumb, but that doesn't change the facts.

No, I'm not going to repeat this again. End of conversation.

by 07rescue 2008-03-29 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice trick Barry

TYhis is truly twisted.  taking money from individuals like you and me, only they don't work where we do.  Get it now.  Hillary takes money from the Corporate PACS.  The Corporate PACS w/interests in keeping big profits in oil

by daninpa 2008-03-29 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Unlike Senator Clinton, Senator Obama does not take money from PACs or registered lobbyists. Period. When individuals, like you and I, make contributions to a candidate, we are required to state who we work for. People employed by companies such as Exxon, GE, etc can contribute to any campaign -- be they secretaries or CEOs -- these are individual contributions not PAC. The Clinton camp tried this tac with insurance companies and it backfired. Obama is on higher ground on this issue so it doesn't help Clinton to bring it up. Also, Barack Obama has a stellar environmental record, including having the highest rating from the League of Conservation Voters (96%) of any Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican.

by grasshopper 2008-03-29 03:54PM | 0 recs
You mean when his district found out their DRINKING WATER was RADIOACTIVE, and Obama was supposed to come up with a bill requiring the neighboring Nuclear Power plant to let the community know when there was a leak, and the Nuclear plant thought not?  And Obama's bill didn't pass, although he told IOWA VOTERS that it DID pass?
And then the Nuke people contributed several hundred dollars to little Bambi's state senate campaign, and when little Bambi became a big senator he drew up a TOOTHLESS bill, and patted himself on the back when it went through.  
And it protected the nuclear power plant from having to inform his district when their drinking water was contaminated?
Wouldn't you LOVE to live in Senator Obama's district, in one of Tony Rezko's lovely buildings, and wonderful radioactive drinking water?
by earthoat 2008-03-29 05:23PM | 0 recs

Cite your sources and I'll look into it. This from Grist, 2004, "His (Obama's) efforts on behalf of the environment have been so consistent and comprehensive, in fact, that LCV and the Sierra Club endorsed Obama in his bid for Congress this year over half a dozen other Democrats competing in the primary. Last month, the LCV named him a 2004 Environmental Champion, one of 18 sitting and prospective members of Congress to receive the award.

Obama is "by far one of the most compelling and knowledgeable politicians on the environment I've ever sat in a room with," Mark Longabaugh, senior vice president for political affairs at LCV, told Muckraker. "I've been playing national politics for more than 20 years and I quite literally can't remember one person I've met -- even on a national level -- who was more in command of facts, more eloquent, and more passionate on these issues than Sen. Obama."

There's more: http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/08/0 4/griscom-obama/

by grasshopper 2008-03-29 06:58PM | 0 recs
by earthoat 2008-03-29 08:05PM | 0 recs
Then you must like Nuclear Power
and won't mind getting a plant in your own neighborhood.
Because as I'm sure you know, Obama LOVES nuclear power.
by earthoat 2008-03-29 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Then you must like Nuclear Power
Hillary Clinton cosponsored the bill you are questioning. The NY Times story you cite was debunked months ago.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factche ck/2008/02/02/fact_check_on_new_york_tim es_s.php
by grasshopper 2008-03-30 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Turn your lights off at 8 p.m. for Earth hour.

by nogo war 2008-03-29 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!
regarding this diary...
please link proof of your statements.
That should not be hard to do..Right?
by nogo war 2008-03-29 04:56PM | 0 recs
Did you click on the little links in the diary?
Its so obvious that you thought it wasn't even worth your while to see if what I said was true, because if you had done so, you would have your proof.
by cjbardy 2008-03-29 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!
Please link that Corporations and their PACs gave this money to Obama as opposed to individuals working for these  companies...
Hey, maybe your investigation has turned up something new.
Gather YOUR evidence together...
Imagine you on Media...
Imagine you are a hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2sWjouB1 YA&feature=related
by nogo war 2008-03-29 05:03PM | 0 recs
by Nobama 2008-03-29 05:39PM | 0 recs
Great article! Thanks.
by cjbardy 2008-03-29 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Obama is a lying bastard! He has been caught in a whole bunch of lies. Bastard? There's no evidence his mother was ever married to his father who, at the time, was married to a woman in Kenya. No evidence of a marriage and no evidence of a divorce.

by Nobama 2008-03-29 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!


by ges69 2008-03-29 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Just the facts:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 3582291.ece


In his book Dreams from My Father, Obama writes that his parents were married in a civil service but that he has never been able to get to the bottom of that "murky bill of particulars". Though records of births, deaths and marriages are subject to much stricter data protection in America, I was unable even to find a record of the wedding - or subsequent divorce - and wonder if, in fact, the couple were ever married.

Ann was still only 18 when Barack Jr was born in August 1961. Barack Sr left Hawaii less than a year later

by Nobama 2008-03-29 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

It is appalling that you even bothered to respond. Whether some journalist can find proof that he considers convincing is irrelevant. The way you talk about a seating US Senator and a potential nominee is relevant. And disgusting. Take your filth elsewhere.

by ges69 2008-03-29 08:22PM | 0 recs
My Apology To Senator Obama

Dear Senator Obama,

You don't know me personally, but I feel the need to offer you an apology.  You see, I was an Edwards supporter until he decided to suspend his campaign.  After taking a few days to mourn and lick my wounds, I decided to support your candidacy.  I have even donated two or three times.  Why is that bad?  Read on...

You see, Senator, I've worked for an oil company for the past 15+ years.  In a (gasp!) oil refinery!  Also, I'm the president of my Local Union which has over 700 members.  I speak to my co-workers often and have certainly expressed my support of your campaign to them (just like I expressed my support of Senator Edwards campaign to them).  I've even told them that I've donated to your campaign and encouraged them to do the same.  And now some assholes on MyDD are calling me a lobbyist and you a liar.  Please accept my sincere apology and keep up the good work, Senator!

by Savage 2008-03-29 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

And they wonder why, for those of us who actually pay attention, know Obama is a fraud, hustler and a liar?  He shows it daily.

by LindaSFNM 2008-03-29 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Are you seriously buying into this or are you just ignoring the facts to piss off Obama supporters.  There is no way any thinking person does not understand the difference between PAC money and individual contributions.

by daninpa 2008-03-29 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Is this ignorance or intentinal deception.  It is a well known fact that these are contribuios from individuals.  This sit is unbelievable.  There is more truth on Right Wing Republican Sites these days.  etwee Hu and Alegre the innuendo and outright lies are unnaccetable among Democrats.

by daninpa 2008-03-29 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Bundlers are fndrisers.  ust ask Gealdine Ferraro what a  bundler is. You people are seriously misguided and if you represent what a Clinton White House would bring God help us if she steals this election.  All of the contribution received from a bundler are accounted for and registered under the name of the individual conbtributor.  The mysterious number i a tracking number to credit the fundraisr wh has bundled these contributions.  Often these contributions come bundled from fundraisers that take place at peoples homes.  Stop making up youre own speculation

by daninpa 2008-03-29 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

Sorry I can't type well, but between calling him a bastard and lying daily about just about everthing- You people need serious help.  This site is slanderous and worse than Fox News.

by daninpa 2008-03-29 07:39PM | 0 recs
by earthoat 2008-03-29 08:16PM | 0 recs
Daily Kos has been Vilifying HRC since summer

You have got your nerve talking about MyDD like that.

by earthoat 2008-03-29 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Explain This - Sen. Obama!

More proof for those who need it:

from Black Agenda Report

..."The total sum raised February 16-29, 2008 by bundlers for Obama from  27 law firms that engage in lobbying: $2,650,000."

Additionally, looking at Public Citizen's list of bundlers for the Obama campaign (people soliciting donations from others), 27 are employed by law firms registered as federal lobbyists. The total sum raised February 16-29, 2008 by bundlers for Obama from these 27 firms: $2,650,000. (There are also dozens of high powered bundlers from Wall Street working the Armani-suit and red-suspenders cocktail circuits, like Bruce Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs; J. Michael Schell, vice chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup; Louis Susman, managing director, Citigroup; Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS Americas. Each raised over $200,000 for the Obama campaign.)

Senator Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists. But is that dealing honestly with the American people? According to the website of Akin Gump, it takes a village to deliver a capital to the corporations: ...

and more

Obama's K Street project

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is benefiting from the support of well-connected Washington lobbyists even though he has prohibited his campaign from accepting contributions from them and political action committees (PACs).

While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help....

by jen 2008-03-29 09:07PM | 0 recs
Here is something else his campaign needs to

explain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nROKBU_Kl Zw

by Soitgoes 2008-03-29 09:39PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads