Both sides refer to votes on an energy bill Congress passed in 2005. In the Senate, Clinton voted against the bill and Obama voted for it.
It is a stretch to call it "Dick Cheney's energy bill," a hot-button reference for many Democrats. Although the House bill was framed according to the vice president's energy priorities, by the time it passed the Senate many of those measures, such as drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, had been stripped away. Its broad new benefits for nuclear power and the coal industry mirrored Cheney's priorities, however.
Although opposed by environmentalists, many Democrats viewed the final bill as the best compromise that could be achieved in a GOP-controlled Congress. Clinton at the time said she opposed the bill because it did not do enough to cut reliance on foreign oil and address global warming.
Clinton's claim that the bill "was loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies" also overstates the case. While it included $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas industries, that was offset by nearly $3 billion in oil taxes, mostly in an extension of the oil spill liability tax. The bill's $14.3 billion in energy tax breaks mostly went for renewable energy and efficiency programs and the nuclear and coal industries, both of which are prominent in Obama's home state of Illinois.
Obama is correct when he says Clinton voted against renewable fuels and auto fuel economy. During the 2005 energy deliberations, Clinton voted against an amendment that would have required an increase in the federal auto fuel economy standard, known as CAFE; Obama voted for it. The measure failed, 28-67.
Clinton opposed the energy legislation's mandate for more ethanol use as a gasoline additive But on that, she was not alone as Northeast and West Coast senators worried the ethanol requirement would lead to higher gasoline costs outside the Farm Belt. Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, both now Obama supporters, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., also voted against the energy legislation as did California's two Democratic senators.
In late 2007, as they geared up to begin running for president, both Clinton and Obama voted for boosting auto fuel economy by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, and for a huge expansion of ethanol use as part of the energy bill passed by Congress. President Bush signed the bill into law last December.
Thank you for proving my point that some people are just plain stuck. The sagacity you displayed in responding to my comment was sadly misplaced, as you see, I was commenting on the experience and sentiment of the author of this diary, not Obama, not Clinton and not Rev. Wright.
At least I was able to comprehend the diary and comment I was responding to, what's your excuse?
What a compelling diary, well written, thoughtful and full of the sentiment of true progressive belief. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. It is always a good thing to know your neighbor.
There is always a reason why we are where we are, and there is always a way forward out of the morass. Some see the path and ignore it, some consider it and remain motionless, others condemn it outright. The people who want to find their way out, take bold steps and begin the journey. It may not take us all the way to our destination, but it takes us away from the place we were stuck.
It's very clear to anyone who has read more than 3 diaries on MyDD. You are an uber Clinton partisan, who cannot simply look at an astounding moment in American political history and appreciate the sentiment.
I have no doubt that if the exact same speech had been given by Hillary, you would be here now extolling the bravery and insight of Hillary. It's really a shame you are so stuck in your shallow sad world, unable to see past your own opinions.
Please enlighten me with the proof of Florida trending Democratic, maybe you have access to information which I do not, but everything I have seen in print and publishing shows a clear Republican trend in Florida.
I really would like to see evidence of the opposite and I might then have hope for the Democratic party in Florida.
I'm stunned by the absurdity of your comments. Do you understand why Obama had to give this speech in the first place? Do you realize it is a speech he probably wishes was not necessary to give at all?
Obama was called to the mat by the right wing racist's and the "uncomfortable" white's for remarks said by someone who Obama respects. Yet, you want him to talk about politics and the differences between Republican and Democratic rule? You want him to talk about the political race and season?
Again, I ask you, do you even understand why this speech had to be given? Not just any speech, but this speech in particular.
It is a sad day in America when a man like Obama has to publicly defend his defense, of a friend, a patriot and a spiritual man, only to be condemned by so called "Democrats" because the speech didn't attack the Republicans.
Florida, regardless of the Democratic nominee has about 5% chance of voting blue. This is a Red state that has been getting redder for the last decade.
The Republicans in Florida have already lost 50% of their delegates and you don't hear them screaming that they'll vote for the Democrat do you? Of course not because this entire issue is a straw man put forward by camp Clinton to try and gain delegates she is not entitled to gain.
If the delegate count is halved and doled out by percentage of the vote in the ILLEGAL convention, the voters will still have their voices heard in exactly the same percentage that they voted.
This kerfuffle is all about getting more delegates into Hillary's column, and it is rather disingenuous for anyone to even suggest it is anything but.