Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Obama's Globetrotting
- DNC Sees Cindy McCain's Wealth as Fair Game
- Crypto-Gramm
- Night of the Gun
- Michelle Obama Fair Game for Another State GOP
- All the World's Obama's Stage
- The McCain Campaign's Anti-Obama Video
- Rahm: Bush and McCain Are Following Obama's Foreign Policy Lead
- Thanks for Nothin', Joe!
- Comedy Is Not Pretty
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« On Chelsea, Monica, and the Scandal That Dare Not Speak Its Name | Main | Super-D Update »
Obama's Oil Slick
April 01, 2008 10:32 AM
When my family back in Pennsylvania turns on the TV these days, they may see this Barack Obama TV ad where he's standing in a gas station saying the following:
"Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them."
Factcheck.org today takes a look at Obama's claim to not take money from oil companies and concludes that the statement "misleading" since according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics Obama has taken more than $213,000 from individuals (and their spouses) who work for companies in the oil and gas industry -- not to mention that two of Obama's top fundraisers are top executives at oil companies"
It is literally true that Obama doesn't take money from oil companies. No federal candidate does -- corporations have been banned from direct contributions since 1907.
The Obama campaign points out that the senator doesn't take money from PACs or from lobbyists. Factcheck.org calls that a "distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually."
(Sen. Hillary Clinton has taken $306,000 in donations from people in the oil and gas industry, incidentally.)
So is it all just a lot of gas?
- jpt
April 1, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (195)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/27656462
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama's Oil Slick:
This is ridiculous. My husband works for a major oil company and we have donated regularly to the Obama campaign. Our donations have absolutely nothing to do with anything his employer has said or done. They are solely because we believe that Obama would make the best leader for our country. We have also phonebanked, canvassed, and served as precinct chairs. Yet I am sure we are technically counted in your group of Obama "big oil supporters" alluded to in this article, since everyoe who donates to a campaign must put down their place of employment. There are many other individuals in my husbands workplace who have made similar personal donations of time and money. We couldn't care less what my husband's employer thinks of all this. Last time I checked it was a free country, and employees were not bound by what their employers' political views were. My bet is that, if you spoke individually with the various people who donated from places like Chevron and Shell, you will find they are doing it because Obama is their personal choice to become president. I resent your assumption that, because my husband is employed at a particular place, he must be supporting Obama only to forward the interests of big oil.
Posted by: Sharon | May 2, 2008 4:58:15 PM
As a thoughtful liberal Democrat, I'm continually astonished and amazed at how so many of my fellow liberals and/or Democrats are taken in by Obama's slick spell. I have seen this guy for what he is (and isn't) since Day One: a slick, slogan-spouting, empty politician. At a crucial time in history, when our country and world desperately need a true leader, I'm sorry to realize that the nominee of our party will instead be a slick sloganeer.
Posted by: Edna | Apr 21, 2008 1:01:08 PM
I'm not sure what United School of socialism you all went to - but oil companies are publicly traded entities. Government interference will only make oil more expensive Americans because they have a duty to the share holders to continue to generate profits. Yes, anybody with 65 dollars can too share in the success of one of the most successful industry in the world. Greed ladies and gentlemen is what makes the United States the greatest nation in the world. Once the free market decides that oil companies should no longer charge their prices or demand oil in the first place that industry will dissolve itself.
So as far as presidential candidates accepting money, directly or indirectly, from oil companies I say great. Why not support that? All these companies are doing is operating a profitable business. Which pays taxes and deliveries a valuable product to a country that depends on it. Throw ideals out the window, at this point in time without the oil industry being supported by the government we will be about as productive as Cuba.
Posted by: John | Apr 7, 2008 7:13:57 PM
Obama is a person that does not put much thought into his words, he tells the audience what they want to hear. This makes him a man that lacks conscious, which makes him dangerous. As a Black man, Obama is typical of the people hustlers that come out of Chicago, preaching hate, being victims, keeping one thinking about the past, all the time taking your money. I'm ashamed that we have become what our ancestors, many good Americans and Blacks fought against,"people that base everything on the color of skin. Obama will not win in the general election and most likely will not win the primary election, why? People are seeing him for what he truly is, a racist, rookie politician. He can't even tell a good truth, he does not rise above his critics and the more he opens his mouth, the more one sees that he is not what he say he is.
Posted by: Tom Day | Apr 3, 2008 3:16:31 PM
Obama is a person that does not put much thought into his words, he tells the audience what they want to hear. This makes him a man that lacks conscious, which makes him dangerous. As a Black man, Obama is typical of the people hustlers that come out of Chicago, preaching hate, being victims, keeping one thinking about the past, all the time taking your money. I'm ashamed that we have become what our ancestors, many good Americans and Blacks fought against,"people that base everything on the color of skin. Obama will not win in the general election and most likely will not win the primary election, why? People are seeing him for what he truly is, a racist, rookie politician. He can't even tell a good truth, he does not rise above his critics and the more he opens his mouth, the more one sees that he is not what he say he is.
Posted by: Tom Day | Apr 3, 2008 3:16:20 PM
They ,both lie, it amounts to one big toss up!
Posted by: Ann Hannibal | Apr 3, 2008 12:34:16 PM
Clinton isn't out there lying to people in her ads saying she takes no money from the oil industry. Obama claims he takes no money, it's a lie. He expects his supporters to not care and just play dumb. Just like Obama doesn't take money from financial institutions that are involved in the subprime housing crisis. Yeah, right. Obama supporters can come back with this, that and this about Clinton but the bottom line is you're with the candidate of change, of new politics, who supposedly doesn't take special interest, who's supposedly straight with you and who continually attacks Clinton for things he too does as he sits there an lies about it on a TV ad. How long before you guys actually start looking closely at Obama
before it's too late? He won't win the general election because you can guarantee the Republicans will be getting it out there.
Posted by: alpaig | Apr 2, 2008 8:55:01 PM
Is anyone else afraid that Obama as president might bring about the anti-Christ? This really scares me. Don't be duped by his promise of peace! He's already a proven liar. How many more truths must be revealed before his supporters open their eyes?
Posted by: jeep395 | Apr 2, 2008 6:51:05 PM
Actually, two of Obama's top money bundlers are CEO's of oil companies.
In his ads he is trying to distinguish himself from Clinton and McCain-and it is misleading/lying because he absolutely does benefit from money from these groups, just as other candidates do.
Posted by: greenfun | Apr 2, 2008 5:33:41 PM
There is nothing wrong with windfall profits for oil companies. You pay for gas, they profit. What's wrong with that?
The only thing that will fix America's asinine transportation system is high gas prices. Bring on $5 a gallon, I laugh all the way to the bank as I commute to work by bike.
Posted by: Fobble | Apr 2, 2008 3:23:28 PM
Precisely so, I donated to Barack's campaign and my employer is not even aware of it. I certainly don't represent them in doing so.
Not taking money from PAC's ,alone, does not make Obama a saint. But still it's admirable, and is something the other candidates are not doing.
He deserves some bragging rights for that in my opinion.
Posted by: Nathan Gustavson | Apr 2, 2008 3:19:12 PM
I'm with Karen way up top in the posts- I work for a huge Health Insurance company and I donated to Obama's campaign- that doesn't mean I support the policies of the monster I work for , but I work here to pay the bills just like everyone else. If they have the capability to be able to tell where contributions are coming from why not report exactly where the people who contribute are in the food chain of the company? Although I doubt that information would get the same inflamed reaction from all of you...
Posted by: ss | Apr 2, 2008 3:01:21 PM
If a politician accepts PAC money we can easily check who is attempting to influence him, if the same amount of money is given by individuals affiliated with a company it is much more difficult to tell who is trying to influnce the candidate.
Why refuse to accept PAC donations while at the same time accepting donations from people who are affiliated with the companies whose influence you claim to be resisiting?
Also if you are going to reveal contributions generally, reveal McCain's as well.
Posted by: AJM | Apr 2, 2008 2:44:14 PM
Since they deleted it again, I will restate that this thread is censoring Pro-Obama posts.
Do Hillary supporters really want to be affiliated with this kind of censorship?
Your still Americans right? Please speak up against this stuff, lets have a real conversation.
Posted by: NZG | Apr 2, 2008 2:15:39 PM
Unfortuntately, this is not the only instance where Barack Obama and his campaign have mislead voters with false or misleading information.
In fact, the Obama campaign has worked hard to portray his efforts as a United States Senator to be superior to that of Senator Hillary Clinton.
As a Newsweek article (Substance Abuse
Debunking a bogus claim about Clinton's legislative record) reveals, the truth is actually quite different.
Specifically, a misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Senator Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive.
According to a Newsweek article dated April 1, 2008, the e-mail is false in almost every claim relative to Obama's record.
The misleading email compares only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.
The debunked email also includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, not the United States Senate.
The misinformation in the email states that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.
Finally, the bogus email states that Obama has passed more bills into law than Senator Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.
Whether the subject is oil companies or accomplishments in the United States Senate, misleading and untrue information seems to be emerging as patent behavior of Obama supporters and the Obama campaign alike.
Posted by: Jayhawk | Apr 2, 2008 12:08:15 PM
That's what I told you... OBAMA is a snake... He got two heads...
He can go either way, what is convenient to him...
He is a real snake...
Posted by: Kikz | Apr 2, 2008 11:00:12 AM
"With liberals dominating the Democratic primary process, Obama has emerged largely unscathed from fire storms such as the one over his spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who exhorted his flock, “God damn America!” But with tens of millions of moderates poised to vote in the general election, such controversies could come back to haunt Obama.
“He’s basically creating a mosaic of things that we’ll be able to pick at,” said Republican strategist Jason Roe. “We can define him in the general election the way we defined John Kerry as being somehow out of the mainstream.”
The GOP is particularly eager to remind voters that Obama called his grandmother a “typical white person” because she feared and stereotyped blacks.
“The biggest mistake partisans and political analysts make is in assuming that the nomination voting is predictive of the general election voting,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “These are two dramatically different electorates in both parties.”
For example, moderates in the general election might be put off by a voter group’s questionnaire that Obama filled out in 1996, when he was running for the state Senate in Illinois. He took dogmatically liberal positions on gun control, the death penalty and abortion. Although Obama’s handwriting is on the questionnaire, his campaign now says it was filled out by a staffer.
Republicans also plan to make hay out of Obama’s remark Saturday that if his daughters became pregnant, “I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
WOW. HOMERUN. OBAMA WOULD BE TOAST IN NOVEMBER.
Posted by: GEEVILL | Apr 2, 2008 8:54:24 AM
Barrack Obama,Hello I Do believe that you were sent from heaven.and your beautiful family!May God Bless You&I Know and have Faith.Obama You Will Make This Place our new heaven on earth.Shay
Posted by: Shane M Barnes | Apr 2, 2008 6:18:38 AM
Russell--
This:
"If Mr. Obama wanted to do something about Big Oil why did he vote for Cheny's Energy Bill that is loaded with tax breaks for the oil companies,and was written with the help of the oil companies! He now says that it was a flawed bill but it was the best we could get! Well if he thinks that is the best we can do this is another example of his poor judgement and if this what he calls working across the isle then all I can say to working americans Hold On To Your Wallet, Obamanomics is coming!"
is a prime example of your candidate "misspeaking" (a.k.a.lying) and brainwashing her supporters into parroting her hogwash.
The energy bill that Barack voted for included a net tax increase on the oil industry, billions for renewable research, development, and subsidies for conservation and efficiency . . . ALL GOOD THINGS. Your candidate was wrong to not support that bill. She claims that Barack "...voted for it with alllllllllll of those tax subsidies and give-aways that have been used by the oil companies and others to retard the development of clean renewable energy" (exact quote from her Harrisburg PA town hall), when the truth is that she LIED once again. By NOT supporting the bill, SHE worked to maintain subsidies and giveaways, and hers was a vote to retard development.
You really need to seek out the facts before you go around spreading misinformation. Then again, Clinton is not about accuracy, so why would her supporters be?
And on the question of campaign contributions from "Big Oil"--please. You all SHOULD KNOW that all donors need to state who their employer is. Are you telling me that the guy who sells me smokes at the local Hess station doesn't need a president and/or should be disqualified from donating money? Seriously. Folks need to think before going off half-cocked about things that make sense when one applies simple logic.
Posted by: Jade | Apr 2, 2008 5:34:09 AM
Remember the millenia
Who could stop the bush mania?
That folksy guy, we identify.
Poor Gore, an educated bore.
Who cares if Bush swerved
While Gore served.
And now its Obama who
captures the drama.
Inspite of the wrong ilk of Wright,
It might be a bond of bilk and bite.
When disarmed by charm,
Or admiring the armed.
Mc Cain may bring more pain,
Hidden in Bush was fight
Bilk and bite.
If bite is in Obama,
We might repeat the trauma.
Posted by: COOL | Apr 2, 2008 12:33:41 AM
@ Gerald Shields
That is when you contribute through the website.
Posted by: John | Apr 2, 2008 12:30:44 AM
Obviously, the claim he makes in the commercial is debatable!
He gets money from CEOs of BIG OIL companies, but he does not get it from lobbyists.
Posted by: John | Apr 2, 2008 12:29:29 AM
Waitaminute; this article IS misleading. Though it's true that the employees of the oil companies and the lobbyist groups, not the oil companies and the groups themselves are giving money to Obama. So what? In order to donate, they have to check a disclaimer stating the following:
Legal Compliance
Check this box to confirm that the following statements are true and accurate:
1. I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident.
2. I am at least 16 years old.
3. This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.
4. This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
5. This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.
6. This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.
7. The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
Since you can't donate to Obama's campaign without checking that box, in a sense, Obama is correct. Now, I know what you're thinking "These probably lied", but it doesn't matter.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | Apr 2, 2008 12:03:06 AM
The $9500 from Chevron employees is far below what you would expect from a company of Chevron's size.
Obama has raised a total of $193 million through February. Let's be generous and assume 200 million U.S. citizens are in a position to to contribute to a presidential campaign. So if you took any large random sample from the U.S. population, you'd expect about a dollar per person in Obama donations.
Chevron has 22,000 U.S. employees. So if Chevron employees were as inclined as the average American to give to Obama's campaign, you'd expect roughly $22K in contributions. $9500 is less than half of that.
From this we're supposed to worry that Obama is unduly influenced by Chevron?
Posted by: Foo Bar | Apr 1, 2008 11:05:48 PM
What do you mean by "employees"? Are you talking about supervisors, managers, etc., or do you mean administrative employees, etc.? If I work at an oil company and support Obama by making a contribution, is that counted as money from "big oil"?
Posted by: Michele | Apr 1, 2008 10:46:53 PM
Senator Barack Obama is not an honest man. He has lied about his friend and fundraiser, Tony Rezko, who raised at least $250,000 for his campaign and then handed him a $200,000 (no taxes paid) windfall on the purchase of a mansion. He had lied about his pastor, church and congregation. He has lied about his ability to make changes and bring people together. VOTE SENATOR CLINTON.And the media is wrong about the goodness and greatness of Senator Obama. The media should state the facts, not color or spin them in favor of Obama.
Posted by: Oklahoma Granny | Apr 1, 2008 9:30:34 PM
hey jgaw,
Hey girl, thanks for writing back. We disagree on how to get there, but we want lots of the same things. One way or another we'll be on the same side thsi fall!
bobbi
Posted by: bobbi | Apr 1, 2008 8:53:11 PM
@ Jey
Rev. Hagee & Pat Robertson
support narrow-minded REPUBLICANS! Democrats are supposed to be better then Republicans because they accept people's differences! That's why we are the people's party!
What is even worse is MCCAIN has no real relationship with those men so stop trying to compare McCain & HAGEE & ROBERTSON with Obama & Wright!
Posted by: John | Apr 1, 2008 7:56:08 PM
oh yes bobbi
if you need healthcare, and college education, and a better economy
and an end to war
Hillary is our girl.
Posted by: jgaw | Apr 1, 2008 7:52:39 PM
Bobbi,
I appreciate your passion, 1st of all I wish I could sit down with you and see you face to face-and after you see me I would love to hear you call me girl again, since I am 53.
now to mr. obama-being a black woman, I hope I live to see a black man or woman become president.
but not obama-and I will tell you some of the reasons why
he does appear to be a smart man-but is his not as smart as Hillary-especially not on the issues that face you and me.
You say he is an honorable man-I keep believing that in spite of everyday something new is revealed about him that is not so honorable-and they are not some of the crazy things they say about hillary-that cannot be proven-these dishonorable things about mr. obama-are proven-and it is his judgement i question-because these things are being exposed at record rate.
and I do not accept these things at first report-I go and check for myself-and I kind of investigate-because I do not want these things to be true about our black man who as many say is a "heartbeat" away from becoming the first black president-but you know what bobbi, the fact is they are true-and if you want me to list all of them I will.
you said something about me being a christian-I was raised in the southern black baptist church-I have lived in the city with big congregations that had dr. lawyers etc. in there and I have lived in the country-where most of the people were farmers, and many of the old people didn't finish 8th grade,but they made sure all of us young people went to college.and youknow what-I have NEVER heard a preacher preach the stuff obama' rev. wright has been preaching-I do not care if it was only one sermon-one sermon like the god damn america-and he would have been put on probation. the next sermon-about the bill and monica story with him bumping and grinding and he would have been out of there.
Now to what he will do for you and me
let me tell you what I believe he will do for us. short answer is "not much"
because you see-he has not promised he will do anything in return for 80% of the black vote support. and second-obama is going to owe so many people so many favors-while we go further and further in the hole.-(bobbi-I hope things are good for you financially-but for me a nurse-trying to put a child through college and another one coming up right in behind her-I want Hillary's plan for paying for college. and having a chronic illness-I want her healthcare plan too.
Now bobbi I'll be you say-well obama has a good college education and healthcare plan too-that is not much different from Hillary'
but here is the difference:
remember in school and the teacher catches someone copying off some one elses test paper-teacher call them up to the front of the class-little timmy
why did you write a as your answer for number 1-little timmy will not know what to say
teacher say little timmy why did you mark b for the answer to number 2-little timmy will not know what to say.
why will little timmy not know what to say-because little timmy copied off of little mary's paper;
Obama copies Hillary-you go and check it.
Hillary comes out with answers to issues in a few day obama makes a speech
hillary gives a town hall meeting takes questions-answers them right off the bat
obama-has a town hall meeting and repeates to us what we all ready know.
and stumbles through with the answers to questions.
obama copies hillary. In good times
I would love to give him my vote, if he were half as smart as hillary on the issues-I would give my vote to him-just to try and help him win-but we are not in good times-we are in bad times and as richard pryor once said "headed for Hardtimes-in an obama presidency we will not even remember them as years we will just call it "hardtimes"
and bobbi please do not get mad-I am not hating on obama-I am trying to think and face the facts-you and I want the same thing-my grandparents want the same-mlk-fannie lou hamer and all the stalwarts of the voter right era want the same as you and I-we would love to see a person of color-a black man in the white house-wouldn't megar evers be proud.
But I gotta tell you bobbi
obama is not our guy.
we have got some good young black politicians coming up, doing good works helping all people-going to good christian churches-letting their pastor help them keep their hearts filled with love for all-when m-sat. they see the system doing otherwise. The preacher is supposed to help you keep your spirit uplifted-and remind you of the possibilities of a god-filled life
not preach hate-in the pulpit under the guise of "keeping it real"
so I will tell you bobbi, I am not crazy, and please I don't want you to do the crazy thing either obama cannot win
we both want a black man to win one day
but not this one.
and not the way he is being helped to win
Media bias, black people being threatened if they do not vote for him
(that is no different from the white people who terrorized the blacks in mississippi-for trying to register to vote)
that is not the way I want my first black president to be elected.
and I will say what I feel to anyones face.-and I will not be threatened.
Posted by: jgaw | Apr 1, 2008 7:51:15 PM
I hope none of you are Catholics who are still going to church after what they did to all those helpless altar boys. How can those members sit there every Sunday and listen to that? And neither the Church has come out and given an explanation. Odd how they bought an insurance policy though. What about Rev. Hagee calling Catholic whores? What about Pat Robertson and his comments after 9/11? Oh that's different isn't it? Why?
Posted by: Jey | Apr 1, 2008 7:31:53 PM
Just to give you an idea, I'm a member of one of those families who works for oil companies and has given money to Obama. My father is a president of a major oil company, and I've given $100 to Obama.
And you know what? I'm a daily reader of AutoBlogGreen and am on a waiting list to buy an electric car. And plan to install solar cells on my house as soon as I can afford it. And a lot of the money for this comes from gifts my parents have given me.
Just because someone's family involves someone who works at an oil company is no reason to tar and feather them. There's a huge difference between a company itself giving a candidate money and someone who works at it who has their own political ideology giving a candidate money -- let alone their family donating.
Posted by: Karen | Apr 1, 2008 7:18:54 PM
Now if we are to count an individual’s contribution based on the individual’s employer, shouldn’t we also count who the individual gets their services from, electric companies, gas companies, grocery stores, etc. and also shouldn’t we count their organizations they’re affiliated with such as unions? I can conceive us having the entire economy represented through all the individual contributors. The net result of this is we would know the entire picture. But exactly what would we really know? All information does not represent meaning.
Posted by: Peggy Ledbetter | Apr 1, 2008 6:43:27 PM
jgaw -- you CRAZY girl. Obama is my man. Why are you spreading lies on this site? I bet you wouldn't spread lies if you had to use your name, or if you had to do them face to face with people. Obama is a public servant, he's an honorable man. He passed up a rich job to work on the streets. His daddy wasn't a President or a Senator -- he had to WORK to get where he got. He's smart and has a Harvard degree, but he's not making billions as some CEO -- he's working for you and me. Why do you have to hate on him so much? You think Hillary is better? Fine. Vote for Hillary. But why you got to smear Obama? Why you got to get down in the mud? Are you a Christian? It's not very Christian to spread lies. Or judge others, lest ye be judged.
Read up on Barack Obama. He's a good man. He'll be a good president. You'll be glad when he helps you out, girl. Maybe not all blacks support him, but 80% or more do -- because we know what a great leader he'll be. What would your grandmommy or granddaddy say about you -- NOT voting for a smart popular black man who could be president? Are you making them proud?
C'mon jgaw -- think it over girl. Take another look at Obama. Don't believe the hype you're hearing; find out facts. Then decide.
Posted by: bobbi | Apr 1, 2008 6:38:13 PM
Where is the huge story about this? Obama lies and it gets on the web but not in the major media outlets. Bullshit
Posted by: Harley | Apr 1, 2008 6:12:58 PM
You can't list the names of great con artists of history who use the same speaking tactics and techniques as Obama, friends and superdelagates who are under enditement for election finance crimes, his terrorist friends and supporters, his Isalmic extremist friends and supporters, his friends and supporters who are racist and hate America in one message. These people use the same negative emotional stories, lie, heal with great feel good stories and insperational words techniques just like Obama does in his ads and speeches. Birds of a feather flock together. The book, The Secret endorsed By Oprah. Says that like attracts like. This is the Law of Attraction. Gov. Vila of a supperdelegate who supports Obama and Robert Feldman of Philly PA have been arrested and charged with over 20 counts of election finance crimes. Feldman has been charged with illegally bundling donations for Vila. Feldman has also bundled donations and riased money for US Senator Bob Casey a supperdelegate who supports Obama. Gov. Vila went to Harvard Law school the same time as Obama. Both Obama and Villa are the same age. Birds of a feather flock together. Like attracts like. Another friend of Obama's is Rezco also charged with election finance crimes. Looks like a pattern is developing here. Obamas has friends who are racist, who hate america, who lie, who are Islamic extremists. Obama accepts votes and financial support from these friends, major corporations and industries. Again birds of a feather flock together. It is clear Obama is not worhty to be the Demacratic Nominee for President of the United States of America. Plus Obama lacks the experience and know how to make real positive change that will be effective for all Americans. Vote for Hillary.
Posted by: Bob4USA | Apr 1, 2008 4:41:10 PM
russell is exactly right,
you hear daily on the black radio talk show, expecially the michael baisden show. they named off black elected offic
as if they are calling out a hit list.
and it is not right. mr. obama if he were the good change guy he hypnotizes people in his speeches with-he would call for a stop to this. He is not a change for the good. he is showing just how dirty he and his surrogates can been.and what shames me is black people are not voting for him because he is the smartest on the issues.
it is just because he is black
and as Juan williams said yesterday I agree-this is not the way to elect the first black president. some of us do not want to have a black president so bad we would resort to dirty tricks, he makes me cringe everytime he speaks MLK's name because-MLK would not have supported rev. wright or any of the things mr. obama stands for.
When Michelle says barack is ready
she means if we the american people are ready to elect a black (not the smartest-but black)president
Brack will be your man.
Obama should not be president
not like this...
Posted by: jgaw | Apr 1, 2008 4:14:28 PM
Anyone have a list of members of that church? How many Obama aides and advisers attend ther?
Posted by: geevill | Apr 1, 2008 4:12:47 PM
Anyone have a list of members of that church? How many Obama aides and advisers attend ther?
Posted by: geevill | Apr 1, 2008 4:12:44 PM
Did you see the Hero's welcome Rev. Wright got at his church last night? Looks like he is still the man in the hood! If you don't watch Fox you did not see it!
Posted by: russell | Apr 1, 2008 4:10:39 PM
jgaw,
You are one very smart black woman!!! I also have black women friends who absolutely support Hillary. They admire her tenacity, her courage, her termination, and her shear stamina!!!
I absolutely agree with you. Obama, the great uniter, has set race relations back 60 years! The media has been very generous with him, but the Republicans will not.
If he gets the Democratic nomination, he will be a "dead man walking."
Also, Shelby Steele sees him for what he is, a man still struggling with his own identity conflicts.
Posted by: countallthevotes | Apr 1, 2008 4:03:46 PM
Where is Michelle Obama?
Posted by: russell | Apr 1, 2008 4:03:34 PM
Keef: Black superdelegate says Obama is going to be the next president! Where did you get that breaking news? Obama has been putting the strong arm on all the black superdelegates saying that they will be punished by their constitutes if they go agaisnt him. Even the black mayor of Philadelphia has been threatned. Thats why Lewis jumped ship. What is so stunning about this. Why all the braging about intimidation and threat if thats the way you want to win go ahead! But remember there are no black superdelegates in November!
Posted by: russell | Apr 1, 2008 4:01:26 PM
"It is literally true that Obama doesn't take money from oil companies. "
***************************************
Is there another type of true other than "literally true" that I am not aware of?
Is Senator Obama supposed to return donations from people if he doesn't like where they work?
Posted by: Nobody's fool | Apr 1, 2008 4:00:22 PM
Clinton backer predicts that Obama will be our next President!?
"In an unusually frank interview on Canadian public radio, CBC, Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver of Kansas City -- a Hillary supporter and superdelegate -- gives a sense of how tenuous Clinton's hold on many black superdelegates is.
"If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president," he said just after 18:00. "I will be stunned if he's not the next president of the United States." (AP)
Posted by: keef | Apr 1, 2008 3:54:20 PM
If Mr. Obama wanted to do something about Big Oil why did he vote for Cheny's Energy Bill that is loaded with tax breaks for the oil companies,and was written with the help of the oil companies! He now says that it was a flawed bill but it was the best we could get! Well if he thinks that is the best we can do this is another example of his poor judgement and if this what he calls working across the isle then all I can say to working americans Hold On To Your Wallet, Obamanomics is coming!
Posted by: russell | Apr 1, 2008 3:52:49 PM
as a black female, will not support obama, why do I keep listing I am black because, I feel on the blogs I feel this is the only place to let other american know not all black people are just blindly following obama. I want a black president but not like this, this guy talks about bring change, but he and his handlers are showing they can run dirty just like to politicians he claims to despise.
black people folling this guy not knowing anything about him
and he is being supported by a planned parenthood company, that accepts donations to be earmarked to abort black babies.-poor judgement obama
I do not see how you can get a uniter
his mom was a marxist.
and now in his adult life he has chosen to be a member of a black seperatist church. who has connections to the nation of islam.
if you are talking about oil-better check to see if he has in anyway accepted funds from hugo chavez (of course he will make a speech and say he didn't know anything about it)
and is noone concerned that in his short political career this obama has had to backtrack on so many things?
He has not been vetted enough.
It is clear the press is clearly in his corner-playing up anything of hillary' negatives-and burying his.
the republican will not be so kind to mr. obama if he wins the nomination.
like her or hate her (and most people hate her-for no good reasons-they can't even verbalize why they hate her-I read where a hillary hater-made vile remarks about her mother for bringing her into the world-and if you knew hillary's mothers story-no one should have to have that spoken about their child)
but the rep. will have a field day with the resko,wright,and now the marxist mom and actually his list of negatives just gets longer and longer everyday.
every new day we find out something new about him and everyday he gets up there and backtracks-and black people and hillary haters just keep supporting him-he is not for making this country-he and his handlers are all about putting a black man in the white house-regardless of the fact this man is not the smartest black man to be in the white house.
I hope Pa, NC, WVA, indiana and all others left to vote-please stop this foolishness of voting for obama
do not cut off the countries nose to spite its face.
obama, the liberal left-are all about making a statement this term, and they are not caring about how we working folks will fair in the future.
for the poor they will do just as they did in the seventies-start a lot of gov. programs-wast billions of dollars and not really do anything for the poor except keep them poor.
Not all of us black folks are following blindly-some of us are paying attention.
support from people who are willing to have funds earmarked especially to abort black babies.
wake up people.
I want a black president also.,
but obama is not the one.
if obama gets in the black seperatist will have a ball-and this is not the way to unite the country.
He should have moved his membership from that church-a long time ago-
and now if he had removed it after it got out-he would have lost the black vote.poor judgement
the title of shelby steeles book is correct-because obama is a "Bound Man"
even before he gets into the white house.
already he has set race relations back 60years-and mostly with the lies he has told or is having to tell everyday we watch him.
Hillary remarks about bosnia are nothing
compared to him lying about his history, to mask his true beliefs-if obama were a white person-with them telling an equal story as he has, and backtracked on as many things as he has-the white candidate would have been long gone.
Why am I taking the time to find out and write all this-because I DO LOVE
this country-and a mistake is being made-and I along with everyone else except the rich-are going to suffer for it.
do not vote for obama-he is not what he seems-and he is not smarter than hillary.
Posted by: jgaw | Apr 1, 2008 3:49:03 PM
Like in this ad and speeches where he says he takes no money from big oil, big corporations or big industries. Here is the simple reason why Obama's lies are accepted as absolute truth by his supporters. He tells an emotional negative story or stories about someone who has lost a leg or arm or some other tragic event or events in their life. He tells his lies. He follows that up with a story or stories about those who have overcome tragic events or gives inspiring quotes from famous people. He hurts them, lies to them and then heals them with inspiring quotes and feel good stories. The lies are then accepted blindly as absolute truth because, the people feel so great after the healing inspirational words. Psychologists, ministers, business people, politicians, and cult leaders call this tactic manipulation, conning the people or brainwashing the people. This has been done by some of the greatest manipulating brainwashing con men and con women in history. Great orators have used this technique to manipulate, con, brainwash people to justify election financial crimes, justify terrorism, justify hating groups of people and to win the minds hearts of people to elect them to high offices, justify political favors, and to convince people to hate and go to war. You can't have war with out hate. The best way to lie in speeches and ads first get the people negative emotionally involved, lie to them, heal them with positive inspiring emotional words and stories so they feel so good that the lies in the middle will be accepted as absolute truth. Just look at Obama's speeches and ads about campaign financing, economy, other candidates, foreign affairs, etc… you will see the pattern. The cure for being manipulated, conned and brainwashed into believing these lies is to come down from the incredible emotional feel good high and do some research using the common sense, the reasoning skills and the logic we were born with. This why people don’t question his words, speeches or ads they follow him blindly, emotionally and hate us when we point out the truth about Obama. Have a great day everybody.
Posted by: Bob4USA | Apr 1, 2008 3:45:22 PM
Apparently you can't mention Cheny and Obama in the same sentence or they cut off your project! Well I think Obama did support the Chenny Oil Bill but he goes around denouncing it every time he gets. Don't look for the MSM to mention it!
Posted by: russell | Apr 1, 2008 3:40:27 PM
So if I'm a low level employee at Chevron and donated $500 - that's MY money and my choice, not my employers!
Yes, it is the PACs and lobbyist money that counts, because it is that which comes with strings.
This is pathetic, shallow reporting that relies on innuendo rather than real analysis.
Posted by: Sherri | Apr 1, 2008 3:37:41 PM
Here is a way to tell if your being lied to, manipulated and brainwashed by a con man in his speeches and ads. He tells you an emotionally negative story. Next he lies to you. Finally he heals you by telling you an inspiring positive story or stories or inpiring quotes from famous people. Which one of candidates does this most often in his speeches and ads like this ad for not taking big oil money? If you guessed the candidate in this oil ad your right.
Posted by: Bob4USA | Apr 1, 2008 3:17:26 PM
So...only those who have NEVER EVER had a job should be allowed to donate to campaigns?
Interesting idea of democracy....
Posted by: Tom J | Apr 1, 2008 3:07:29 PM
Use the FORCE Russell! Use the FORCE!
Posted by: Dogsoldier | Apr 1, 2008 3:03:57 PM
Since 1981, 26 years we have had a republican or a Clinton as President and look where we are. Enough said, vote with your brain not your prejudices and party rhetoric.
Posted by: FatCat1957 | Apr 1, 2008 3:01:55 PM
Did Obama support the Big Oil Bill?
Posted by: russell | Apr 1, 2008 3:00:05 PM
Considering that Obama has plenty of money coming from his elite; highly educated rich kids, why does he need a measly 200 thou from oil? So he is willing to contradict himself for such a small amount? He sells cheap.
Posted by: irma | Apr 1, 2008 2:58:49 PM
Dogsolider: They are taking down my post! Send help!
Posted by: russell | Apr 1, 2008 2:56:25 PM
Quote from article: "We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually."
-------- Well, the $9,500 could have come from 100s of individuals, from the CEO to the janitor, who have no connection with one another and may well not share beliefs or goals or preferred policies they want Obama to adopt. And there's no way for Obama to assume anything about what they want him to do (other than win). On the other hand, a Polictical Action Committee (PAC) has a fixed agenda and designated policies that they want to put forward and by accepting money from them, the candidate is at least indicating that he will give those interests a listen, some might even read it as a committment to advance those specific policies. I would say this is one HECK of a difference when it comes to the 'influence' that each type of contribution carries! ---- When you say that HRC has taken $300,000+ in donation from people in the oil and gas industry, could you break it down in similar fashion? We know Obama's $213,000 is all from individuals (and therefore $2,500 or less). Is Clinton's money also all from individuals or do her oil and gas contributions include money from PACs and lobbyists?
Posted by: Elizabeth | Apr 1, 2008 2:56:24 PM
I am glad to see there are people out here that read and understand how the media plays a big part in this mud fight between Obama and Hillary. Individuals work for many different companies out here that's not to say that these people are donating in behalf of their employers. They donate because of their own choice. So if individuals work for - example: ABC Company donate a total of $25,000 that money is not from that company its from the individuals who have found faith once more in a better America then years past...So lets keep the faith and participant in our next Presidential Candidate who every he/she might be.
Posted by: Tony | Apr 1, 2008 2:54:45 PM
Also...213,000? Out of a campaign that has raised over 200 million dollars for the primaries thus far. If big oil was trying to buy Obama? They'd be doing a really bad job of it.
Posted by: Heidi | Apr 1, 2008 2:52:03 PM
SteveC:
How many times must you post the very same thing. At least change a word here and there.
Posted by: Aston | Apr 1, 2008 2:47:04 PM
Democrats: Choose wisely.
Your choice is between an empty suit or a bag of hot air.
Posted by: Surelock Homes | Apr 1, 2008 2:44:42 PM
For Democrats, articles like this just depress turnout from one side or another.
- "MY CANDIDATE IS BETTER THAN YOUR CANDIDATE!"
- "OH YEAH?! WELL SCREW YOURS"
- "I'M STAYING HOME IN NOVEMBER"
What does that do? Elects John McCain, who is MUCH more likely to be beholden to the special interests than either Hillary or Barack.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 1, 2008 2:36:15 PM
Michael-I do agree with your reasoning here on oil company PACs. No more no less than anyone else. Just smoke at this time. I suppose Clinton can claim the same. Welcome to politics 101 for the newly weds.
Posted by: Dogsoldier | Apr 1, 2008 2:32:57 PM
Dogsoldier -- I'm not suggesting either of them have. I'm just saying that they CAN take money from corporations, if that money is LEGALLY funnelled through "third-party" PACs. Most major PACs are funded in this way.
It's a loophole. One that usually helps Republican candidates. (And Hillary, from money raised by PACs linked to health insurance companies.)
But for both Democratic candidates, this money is hardly a sizeable chunk of the money raised by them. If anyone suggests that 1% or less of your money raised makes you beholden to the special interests, you're crazy.
If you raise 1% from oil companies and 1% from the Sierra Club, how on earth are you supposed to be beholden to both? It's nonsensical to suggest it.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 1, 2008 2:28:12 PM
Good story out on a competitive mainstream news website, the one affiliated with Microsoft, indicates that there has been a huge shift in late primary registrants, where Republicans are shifting to vote in Democratic primaries, not because they view Hillary as more beatable, but because they don't trust Obama. I wonder where Vanessa's polls are on this one.
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Apr 1, 2008 2:25:58 PM
Michael-Did Obama receive some of this PAC money? Clinton? Now, did either Clinton or Obama receive money from oil companies themselves?
Posted by: Dogsoldier | Apr 1, 2008 2:24:16 PM
Michael,
If you don't think that Obama is in bed with big oil I have a bridge for sell you might be interested in. Oil people sit on his campaign committee. He accepts money diverted through the wives. Good grief, Hillary is straight up about this but the zombies are oblivious to the truth on this one. I know this may cause you to be dazed and confused, perhaps another dose of koolaid is in order.
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Apr 1, 2008 2:24:05 PM