Political Punch

Tapper accurately points out the votes are more important that the money, but lists valid arguments from both sides with no independent review of the bill in question, or additional review of votes on other bills energy related bills.

In contridition to his suggestion that bill-votes trump money, Tapper spends much more text on the money. So let's look at that. First, he only seems to be looking at campaign contributions, which, as you know, leaves out the vast majority of the funds going to support McCain: the RNC. Now, I don't know for sure which party gets more money from big oil, but I have pretty good guess. Either way, Obama's money mostly comes from his own campaign with the DNC funds being relatively unimportant. So, if you are looking just at campaign money and dismissing party money, then still, the oil contributions to McCain listed here represent considerably larger percentages than the mix of the Obama money.

In addition, Tapper only says that the money came from employees of the companies listed, but he does not say how many. It is entirely possible, and highly probable, money to the Obama campaign came mostly in small amounts from many middle-class and lower income workers of these companies. Based on how the campaigns have been running, I have to imagine McCain's money came in larger chucks from fewer individuals.

So, if anything, the money argument is definitely on Obama's side, but I agree that the money is not as important as the votes. Rather than look up a bill I don't remember and spend more time than I have reviewing it, I just think back to the gas-tax holiday. There was no mixed blessing in that bill and it was an oil subsidy in tax-break clothing, plain and simple. McCain championed that bill. Obama fought hard with the opposition to successfully defeat it.

For you uber-dems that might be reading this, don't forget, Clinton supported it, and even campaigned on it, so don't go thinking that party defines loyalties. Even the "great" Al Gore is trying to put the focus on coal before oil with his 10-year challenge, even though oil energy is arbitrarily more important to replace than coal energy in the short term. Both need to go for the good of all man-kind, so I'll let Gore and Pickens slug it out, and if they both make significant progress, all the better.

Don't fool yourself folks. Both parties are crooked and all politicians are dishonest some of the time. Some more than others and some are dishonest for more good reasons than bad. The trick is to figure out which are more justified in their moments of dishonesty and vote for them. Easier said than done, for sure.

what people above -- save mr trapper -- say is true: obama is receiving funds from average folks, not from influencers.

and THAT is the key. mccain is in trouble the more he dicsusses this issue, because influence is exactly what everyone will come around to, and then mccain's long, long list of people on the take will become more broadly known.

and, no surprise, mccain continues his track of completely distorting reality.

There is a big difference between employees and investors, employees and members of the Board and the CEO, employees and lobbyists and PACs.

The key word in this article is "employees". "Obama has recieved more campaign cash than McCain has from employees of .... Exxon, Chevron, and BP". What excactly do the emloyees of these companies have to do with policy decisions of these corporations. It seems to me this reporter is the one in the pockets of "Big Oil".

I work as a cashier for Chevron making $8 an hour, I have donated a total of $250 to Obama in the last 6 months. So I am considered a big oil? Nice to know

The big difference between Obama and McCain is the wealth of their donors. With half of Obama's money coming from small donors giving donations of $25 or less he is making regular Americans have hope that as president he will be standing up for them. And with Obama not accepting money from industry lobbyists and pacs, with his modest upbringing, his career path choice of turning down corporate law for public service, it is obvious that Obama's heart and policies are concerned largely with poor and middle-class Americans.

MCAIN is a crook and he is a traitor. He voted against the GI BILL that sends me to College. He would rather keep me and us soldier Dumb, ignorant and uneducated.
His sons don't need the GI BILL like we do.
So More power to OBAMA.
HAIL TO THE CHIEF!

I don't care where Obama gets his Money (although he has been getting most of it from the poor like me).
We VETERANS just want all the REPUBLICAN CROOKS LIKE MCAIN OUT OF WASHINTON DC.

We know Obama received bundled money from the oil companies - where individual donors donate, then the money is "bundled" and given. It's like when your boss comes around and asks you to contribute to United Way - do you donate or not? And isn't it helpful when your boss whispers in your ear to go ahead and donate and he'll reimburse you in your Christmas bonus.

Before you start decrying this, here's an example we all saw in action. When Obama made his "bitter" comments, he was addressing big donors in San Francisco who had maxed out their donations. He was asking them to recruit money from other people and "bundle" their donations. So while the donation isn't directly coming from them, were it not for them, the donations wouldn't have come.

It's politics, and no matter how new or different or clean or inspiring people think Obama is, Rev. Wright was right when he said, "he's just a politician doing what politicians do".

Obama got his contributions from individual people. He did not get it from industry companies lobbyists or oil company pac's. A person who goes home and sends Obama a contribution who happens to work for Exxon doesn't mean that money is coming from Exxon. Mine don't mean they come from the U S Government I am retired from.

Appears a lot of people don't understand the law, or the even people as superbly ethical as Obama intentionally misrepresent it. Corporations cannot, by law, give to political campaigns. ALL of the money being referenced as coming from Exxon or Chevron or whatever actually comes from individual citizens who happen to work for those companies. None comes from the companies themselves, whether from Exxon or from Google (how do Google's numbers stack up, by the way?).

Obama points out that he thinks John McCain is in the pocket of the big oil companies? What about all the richy rich pockets he is in? He accepted lengthy contributor's lists from gasbags like Kerry and Kennedy. You mean he won't be in those contributor's back pockets? Cut me a break! Whether you are in oil's pocket or other richy rich's pockets you are still owned by someone. So he shouldn't be pointing his finger at McCain. He should point it at himself! He's a joke! I am totally disgusted with the entire democratic party and I have been a lifelong democrat. People say a boycott doesn't work politically but they are wrong. When Howard Dean heard that baby boomer women, for the first time in American Histoy, had to to be convinced to come back under the fold and vote for Obama, that absolutely proved that boycotts do work! He called our group and asked what it was we needed and we told him it is too little and too late. Way back when, someone should have told Obama to cut the sexist comments nonsense, so, he would not alienate a huge group of reliable voters, and the Democratic party stood by and allowed him free reign. If he hadn't behaved so poorly towards Hillary Clinton he would be ahead in the polls by leaps and bounds. For the first time in American History the Dems can't count on the older women's votes and they have themselves and Obama and his big insulting mouth to blame. If all democrats refused to vote Democrat you would see how quickly the Dems would ask what our list of demands were, toot sweet! I am boycotting the Democratic party until they become more like the Democratic party of old and not like a second Republican party, because that is what they are now! They should be ashamed of themselves for dragging our party down like this! If Obama can't win fairly his machine will buy his way in to the Presidency. I thought that Republicans acted like that, and that Democrats took the high road, so what is a Democrat doing acting the same way! Shame on them!

Gee, I thought Barack Obama made all his money from being a lawyer! (HEAVY SARCASAM). He is such an honest person, how can this story be true? :)

Is it OK to equate Employee contributions to Employer contributions in order to prove Obamo deceptive?

"No wonder Obama has flip-flopped on oil drilling. He's getting more money from these big oil companies than McCain!"

Complete Lie. McCain has gotten over 3 times as much money from oil companies.

An employee of Exxon donating to the Obama campaign, is not an Exxon donation to the Obama campaign.

In America everyone is free to make their own political decisions, donate to whom ever they wish and vote as they see fit, irregardless of who you work for.

Obama lies, because he claims he doesn't get any money from the big oil companies. Obama is trying to deceive the voters into thinking he's a clean politician, in fact he is the worse cause he's getting money from the companies and individuals that work for these same companies he claim to get no money from. Stop it with the lies Obama, you will not get anywhere like that.

No wonder Obama has flip-flopped on oil drilling. He's getting more money from these big oil companies than McCain!

republicans are funded by big oil and other big businesses were democrats are funded by commom hard working men and women----see the difference.. evil republicans---- good democrats real simple

Most people don't have the god given sence to come in out ot the rain. Potiticians like McCain tell them "drill here, drill now" and they will follow like he is the Pied Piper of Hamlin. Yet just a small effort of investigating the Oil Indurtry's own publications will reveal to you the true state of drilling here & now. Just this year so far they have started 499 new off shore & inland waters wells. They also have started over 15,000 on shore well starts in the USA also. So all this crap about here now is just that crapola because they are drilling and alot.

McCain took $1.3 million from oil people just after he flipped on off-shore drilling.

That says it all.

If people would look at the whole story, Obama voting for the 2005 energy bill would be a good thing. Yes it gave 2.8 billion to oil companies. That is a side note however, considering the 10.2 billion in tax breaks for alternative and renewable fuels. Also that 2.8 billion for fossil fuels were subsidies for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. That bill was a huge step forward in America becoming energy independent, and only an idiot, or someone in favor of middle eastern oil would vote against it.

Well sure the employees of those oil companies mentioned have donated more money to Obama than McCain. Let's look at the totals however, the employee donations bring Obama up to $393,000, while McCain is standing at $1,374,000. That $393,000 is almost too little to even notice compared to the amount of money Obama's campaign has raised. So overall .1% of Obama's funds have come from oil companies. McCain's funds however are .92% from oil companies.

When Obama accuses McCain of being in the pocket of big oil, the ethical thing to do is to return the contributions to his campaign from the same oil companies. Yes, Obama, some of us do keep at difficult problems and go back and forth on the pros and cons, debate with ourselves, if you like, while others fixate on the problem rather than solutions, and.......Go on vacation. As for Obama`s stand on nuclear energy, a real leader does not announce that he will support it when others have figured out how to do it safely. Can anyone, even Obama`s suppporters, imagine JFK saying: we will send a man to the moon and return him safely to the earth, if it can be shown that we can do it safely!

What am I hearing here? So independent people cannot contribute to campaigns without others bitching about where they work? I work at a company, I donated money, does that make my candidate corrupt because I work for a company that has interests in a certain candidate?

I watched McCain town hall meeting yesterday on CNN.com/live, it was the most canned audience you could tell they had been selected prior and he had safe questions asked. Minorities were absent in the audience if there were any they were invisible. Its no wonder Obama's campaign told McCain thanks but no. I can't wait until McCain has to answer tough questions and can't walk to the other side of the room silent as he thinks about something to say. By the way Popeye I keep my tires inflated as I get lousy milage when I don't, and at these gas prices I want all the miles I can get out of a gallon.

As a retired ex-employee of a large electric utility, I can assure you the company pressured it's employees to make political contributions to candidates that supported the companies interest.

So, many oil company employees actually become the contribution surrogates of the oil companies they work for. Obama has made issue with the many millions of small contributions made by regular folks like you. Is it then possible to assume that many of those contributions were proxy contributions by big oil employees?

All politicians are in the bag of some of our biggest corporations and for one candidate to accuse the other, is just plain politics.

Are you smart enough to recognize this?

Give the big oil companies their money back Barack. We need a candidate who is clean from that mess and isn't beholden to Exxon/Mobil. Don't sell yourself out for that easy money. Don't betray us.

So is it Obama voted for it before he voted against it ? Or Obama voted against it before he voted for it ?? Both seem to apply to Obama. He just doesnt want to be pinned down now does he ?? The EVER Changing Candidate - Change you CANNOT believe in...

I'm sure that most of us just misinterpreted Obama's vote in favor of the Bush energy bill. There was probably more "nuance" there than we simpletons can grasp. I think that Obama's vote for huge giveaways to big oil was simply "inartful."

You haters just can't deal with the fact that Obama is so much smarter than everyone else. He's so brilliant that he's right even when MERE FACTS indicate that he's wrong.

Research Obama's vote on the Bush/Cheney energy bill...

Let's see...

This is a hard one...

Was it "Yes" or "No"?

It was...YES!

Now, that was worthy of research...

Why is it that everything Obama says or does, including his votes, have to be explained?

Could it be his inexperience?

Could it be his tendency to flip/flop?

Could it be his ulterior motives?

I wonder...

Obama is shown to be lying about Oil like he does almost everything else. He voted for Big Oil, before he came out against it!

It will be nice to have him on vacation for a week!

I really wish people would research Sen Obama's vote on the 2005 Enery bill. If they did, I think they'd stop throwing it up as proof that he somehow did something to be criticized about. With that in mind, has Pres Bush become such a political paraih that even if he may/may not have gotten something right, it's still radioactive? That really is the most troubling thing about this election. It's like the next guy to take over will be the newly elected Captain of the Titanic and his first order will be "FULL SPEED AHEAD!"

Obama paid off big oil by supporting the Bush bill. Simple. I guess his voting record doesn't count to his faith-based followers.

i dont understand why you people cant conceive the policies of politicians. they all hide their true traits but between two, obama is much better. what i assume, he will surely be a better president than old mccain.

Donations to Obama

Exxon Mobil Corp.
Full Time Employees: 107,100

75 out of 107,100 employees donated money to Obama

57 out of 75 gave $500 or less

$200 4 individuals
$250 38 individuals
$300-$400 - 4 individuals
$500 11 individuals
$1,000 -$1,300 8 individuals
$2,300 10 individuals

Los Angeles Times Article sums it up pretty good:

CAMPAIGN '08
McCain's energy record is on/off
The Republican presidential candidate has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the government's role in energy policy.
By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 1, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Crisscrossing the country over the last two weeks to promote his energy plans, Sen. John McCain promised a forceful national strategy to combat global warming and end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

"We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly 20 Congresses and seven presidents," the presumptive Republican nominee told a crowd of oil executives in Houston.

But McCain's record of tackling energy policy on Capitol Hill shows little of the clear direction he says would come from a McCain White House.

Instead, the Arizona senator has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government's role in energy policy.

At times he has backed measures to ease restrictions on oil drilling off the coast and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Other times he has voted to keep them.

He has championed standards to require that automakers make vehicles more fuel-efficient, yet opposed standards to require that utilities use less fossil fuel by generating more power from renewable sources, such as wind and solar.

McCain has rejected federal tax breaks for renewable energy producers, but backs billions of dollars in subsidies for the nuclear industry.

He has criticized corn-based ethanol for doing "nothing to increase our energy independence." Yet while campaigning in 2006 in the Midwest corn belt, McCain called ethanol a "vital, vital alternative energy source."

Senior McCain policy advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin said McCain's positions reflected a pragmatic approach to governing. "Sen. McCain is interested in getting results," he said.

But many environmentalists see it as inconsistency. "There is a very sporadic pattern here," said Tim Greef, deputy legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters.

McCain has shown more interest in confronting global warming than most of his GOP colleagues, a facet of his record that has helped shape his image as a straight-talking maverick who stands up to his party.

A self-proclaimed acolyte of former Democratic Rep. Morris K. Udall of Arizona, the legendary environmental lawmaker, McCain was among the first Republicans to call for action by the federal government.

In 2002, he collaborated with Democrats on legislation to require automakers to increase vehicle fuel efficiency. And he has broken with his party to push legislation to create a federal system for capping greenhouse gases.

At the same time, McCain became a vocal critic of government subsidies, particularly for oil and gas producers. In a debate, he derided the 2003 energy bill for "increasing our dependence on conventional fuels" and was one of six GOP senators to oppose it.

But the senator's legislative work on energy and climate change is also full of contradictions. McCain -- who argues the federal government should not be "picking favorites" -- has routinelybacked federal subsidies for some energy producers but not others.

While McCain has talked tough about giveaways for oil companies, for example, he has only occasionally challenged the industry.

In 2003 and 2005, McCain criticized his colleagues for giving tax breaks to oil producers. "It doesn't make fiscal or common sense," he said in one debate, "to provide billions of taxpayer subsidies to encourage the production of energy by companies that are already gaining tremendous riches at today's sky-high oil and gas prices."

He has also acted to protect the industry's bottom line. In 1999, McCain backed efforts to prevent the Interior Department from collecting more royalties from oil companies drilling on public land.

The department wanted payments to reflect the market price of oil, a change that could have boosted receipts by an estimated $60 million a year or more.

Six years later, after rejecting offshore drilling, he voted for legislation that opened up large sections of the Gulf of Mexico to exploration, a major industry priority.

Holtz-Eakin said McCain believed that states should have the authority to decide whether there was drilling along their coastlines. (In contrast, McCain voted to deny governors authority to veto liquefied natural gas terminals in their states.)

McCain announced two weeks ago that he favored more oil exploration off the nation's coasts to bring down the cost of gasoline. "We must deal with the here and now," he said.

On his recent energy tour, McCain also called for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, a goal he is prepared to back with billions of federal dollars.

That too is a change for the four-term senator. Earlier in his congressional career, McCain was a consistent opponent of subsidies for nuclear power, voting five times in the 1990s against taxpayer aid for research on new-generation nuclear reactors. As recently as 2003, McCain opposed federal loan guarantees to help the nuclear industry finance new plants.

Three years ago, however, McCain began pushing more taxpayer assistance to help develop nuclear power as part of his proposed legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Public Citizen estimated a version of McCain's bill would authorize more than $3.7 billion in subsidies for new nuclear plants.

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based group that has worked with McCain to fight pork-barrel spending, said that kind of aid used to trouble the senator.

"Sen. McCain was a leader in going after subsidies," Ellis said. "Government support for an industry that can't stand on its own two feet seems to contradict his record."

McCain now defends the subsidies as essential to kick-start the industry. "If we're looking for a vast supply of reliable and low-cost electricity, with zero carbon emissions and long-term price stability, that's the working definition of nuclear energy," he said recently.

On the campaign trail, McCain has also said the federal government should spend $30 billion over the next 15 years to help companies develop less polluting ways to burn coal.

And he has indicated support for legislation to force automakers to build more vehicles that can run on fuels other than gasoline.

"This can be done with a simple federal standard to hasten the conversion of all new vehicles in America to flex-fuel technology, allowing drivers to use alcohol fuels instead of gas in their cars," McCain said last week, adding he is prepared to sign a bill to do that.

Yet McCain has been a consistent opponent of standards that would require utilities to derive a minimum percentage of their power from renewable sources, such as wind, solar or geothermal.

"I have heard from utilities in my own state that a federal mandate of this sort is largely a requirement to import wind," McCain said during a 2005 Senate debate. McCain has voted against renewable standards at least four times since 2002. He has also opposed tax incentives to encourage the development of power from sources other than nuclear.

In 2002, he ridiculed a proposed federal incentive for companies trying to convert animal waste into power, asking on the Senate floor: "What's happened to man's best friend, the dog? Why can't he make a deposit to help reduce our energy dependence?"

He opposed tax credits in 2001 and 2006 for companies that generate power from solar, wind, geothermal and ocean wave energy, all of which produce no greenhouse gases.

McCain derided the same tax breaks two weeks ago as a "patchwork of tax credits" that are "temporary and often the result of who had the best lobbyist."

"We will reform this effort," he promised, "so that it is fair, rational and permanent, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy."

But when McCain summed up his energy initiative last week -- recapping plans for more oil exploration, more nuclear plants, and federal support for cleaner coal plants and new car batteries -- he offered no proposal to expand the use of renewable energy.

Another misleading headline. If accepting donations from private citizens who happen to work for a corporate criminal is somehow unethical then over half of America should refrain from supporting democracy. The problem is not the affiliation of small donors but the bundlers and lobbyists who overwhelmingly support McCain. Some benefit from the status quo and others are too stupid to realize that the status quo only takes advantage of them. For them, McCain may be the answer...though their children and grandchildren will suffer for a McCain presidency...for those of us who understand that the problem is McCain and his ilk of take from the poor and give to the rich then Obama is your answer.

alpaig52 - Obama never said he did not receive any contributions. He said that McCain received $2 mil from the oil industry, the majority of which he received after he flipped on offshore drilling. Particulary, large donations from the Hess Corporation including the office manager and driver. No wonder McCain changed his mind seemingly overnight. Enquiring minds really do want to know.

To say Exxon hearts Obama and not even mention the suspicious block/group donations from Hess to McCain was very partisan of Jake. But then again, that's how his columns have been going since the election started. First HRC in the primaries and of course,his main Boo from his days on the straight talk express, McCain. I'm sure Jake's next step to move to the AP with Liz Soditi.

"against an energy bill that – while far from perfect – represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country." does Obama even hear what comes out of his mouth, for months he has been on the stump saying the Bush administration has done nothing on energy or the so-called "Global Warming" and has only been about more oil, but he now says to cover his you no what that the 2005 energy bill backed and pushed by this administration represented the largest investment in renewable energy in the history of America, so Bush has done more for the environment and energy independence than Clinton and Global Warming Czar Gore, I have a feeling Obama doesn't get the irony and contradictions that seem to come so freely when he speaks, for a guy who thinks he's so smart he seems to think the rest of us are stupid.

Yes, John McCain has gotten 1.3 million from oil and gas industry and Obama c. $400k. So far so good. You forget a few things. Obama has gotten about double what McCain has gotten in total. In fact O&G gave McCain almost 1% of his total take, but less that 1/8 of 1 % of Obama's.
McCain takes PAC and lobbyist money, and Obama doesn't.

Another funny thing is that so many of the political sites are dishing out the same erroneous conjectures that are trying to change McCain's obvious love for Big Oil and it's money to a demerit for Obama. So I guess the McCain camp passed around the talking points and some of you guys are just printing up the free news analysis.

@Posted by: FishMonger | Aug 7, 2008 6:25:37 PM
"But here's a news flash for you - the employees are the companies. You can say you leave work behind at the office each night, but corporations are nothing without employees."
----------------------------------------
Not true, the shareholders are the company, not the employees. If the employees were the company, do you think so many jobs would have fled overseas in the last decade?

I realize posting any information stating positions is going to be twisted or ignored by the Republicans reading this but I am glad to see that, unlike your candidate, you can at least use "the tubes" (to quote indicted Republican Ted Stevens) to get online.

And if you actually look at the data, you realize that this article is even more misleading.

The majority of the contributions are not going to the individual candidates but to the Republican or Democratic committes. And at this level its 80% republican and 20% democratic.

Also, the article has cherry picked three of the oil companies that happen to favor Obama over McCain, while ignoring the 15+ other companies that favor McCain over Obama.

Why is the press so shallow?

Check out the data at

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Top%20Donors%20to%20McCain%20and%20Obama%2008.xls

So, as usual, Obama is lying again. Well, keep it up Obama. The more you lie, the more you flip-flop, the lower your numbers will fall.

No one has any room to go after McCain and voting considering dummy Obama claims that he is too boneheaded to figure out how to vote correctly and wants his voting record changed and now mostly just votes "present." He is a very stupid man.

JaymDC If a candidate is out there attacking their opponents for taking money from the oil industry and claiming or implying they take none themselves- then guess what, they shouldn't be taking a dime then.
Where's the new politics? Just like talking about how public financing is important because it minimizes the candidates being beholden to special interests. Well, so much for that .
Where's the new politics there? Just like implying that your campaign is ran predominantly on money from small donors who contribute less then $200.
Yeah right. McCain takes this and Obama takes that and this year the Democrats are the darlings of Wall Street and the bottom line is they're
all corporate candidates, Mr. New Politics and Change, Obama himself.

what's funny about the "evil big oil" is that their price gouging only gets them an average of 7-8% profit margin. Exxon oil was at 10.3%. They also have paid 64 billion in taxes in the last 3 years. Drilling would help to deter speculators which would in turn lower prices for the short term. Then after we drill we work towards alternative energy, and this is laid out in what the repubs want to do in congress right now. Then the demorons, sorry I mean democrats, like Obama wants everyone to drive plug in cars, oh and by the way 90% of our electricity comes from coal plants, and he wants to reduce our electricity use by 15%.

got to go
but remember the words of wisdom-----DONT VOTE FOR THE WRINKLED OLD DUDE
GOOD NIGHT

Are these examples of Obama's "small donors"?

I agree, Paris is smarter than Obama, but I still think he reads better.

@ Sherlock:
Very impressive, but true.

What that McCain votes against veteran funding every chance he gets? I know already and that's why I would die to keep him out of office.

iraq vet
you need to talk to some of the nam vets about mccain. it is very interesting----

It's time we put regular people back in office, no more lawyers, no more rich big shots, regular everyday working people, people that live on a budget, people that actually "work" for a paycheck. Then and only then will we see things get better.

President Honest Man McCain

earl
that was a very impressive answer--but you will have to do better.you really dont want to know what mccains nickname is.

Let's assume we start drilling in Anwar and oil starts gushing out. What are you going to do when that company that does the drilling starts selling all of their oil to China, Japan, and India? What then?

@ rodney
roger
what has obama blocked----mccain voted along with bush 95% of the time----right now mccain is mimicing obama.----his plan was nothing more than drill drill--who will benifit from the 5 to 10 % increase--certainly not us
Posted by: rodney | Aug 7, 2008 10:07:30 PM

I doubt Obama has blocked any bill, as he has the worst attendance in congress. Obama's nickname is "part-time".

Good grief, why do we have to have these two idiots as the only viable candidates!!

roger
what has obama blocked----mccain voted along with bush 95% of the time----right now mccain is mimicing obama.----his plan was nothing more than drill drill--who will benifit from the 5 to 10 % increase--certainly not us

ABE
spoken like a true repub loud but not to smart.lets hear a little more---this should be good.

$1.3 million v. $394,000. Your article really shows how much they favor Obama. Your article is a joke. The bottom line is the entire oil industry loves McCain and have contributed almost 3 times what they donated to Obama so how is this a story?

Of course! You must write a negative and misleading article on Obama to protect your Boo. Good job is lying to the people.

What's new about Obama? he's the same old politician, two face politician, blast Mc Cain with negative speeches then we find out he is no different.

hey paul it is obama or paris hilton--i hear she is taking over --she says not to vote for wrinkled old dude

The artical is misleading and so are all of the articals I read so far. There appears to be no distinction, between excutive bundlers and personal givers. They are lumping many of us, who contribute our own hard owned money to the upper management money bundling. The CEOs and the executives bundle money based on their industries interest. All the hopefuls executives follow the leader and donate to the campaign that the senior executive is supporting in fund raising events.

For majority of us, we contribute from home. Our contribution has no ties with where we work. We do not generally donate. But this year we were inspired and we are making sacrifice by donating. Our contributions add up, because generally we do monthly or weekly donations. Similar to many people, I resent my donation being implied to be tied to my work. It is personal. I donate for the future of my children.

roger where has mccain been for the last 26 years----he is part of the problem and not the solution

Oil Slick Obama is showing his inexperience, again. Slick wants to increase the tax on big oil, they pass this tax onto the customer, by raising the price of fuel. I hope McCain will expalin this situation to Obama and hopefully, he will learn. This is just one of many reasons Obama is not leadership material. President McCain has the leadership and wisdom to lead our nation out of the energy crisis.

jimbo
I AM IMPRESSED JUST WHEN I THOUGHT WE ARE A COUNTRY OF IDIOTS.
germany will produce a car 2009 or 2010--four seat hatchback 2 cyl diesel runs on biodiesel---157 mpg.do you think that we are a little behind--shows the grip of oil companies.

You Obama supporters are so gulible.

Obama and the libs go on vacation while people are losing jobs because of the oil shortage. Obama is for the little people taking money NOT!! from oil companies and then lying about it

So i hope they enjoy their vacations while the Republicans in the house are trying to solve the problem

The dems want to destroy our great country, everybody else is drilling, but us, their is more oil in the US territories then the whole middle east, Russia and Canada combined

I hope Pelosi and the the libs enjoy themselves.

See they can vote to allow drilling now and then come back and look into alternative, the minute they allow drilling prices will drop like a stone and they know that , but since Obama and Pelosi and the rest of the libs own oil stock and ethynol stock they want to make money while we lose our jobs!!

McCain offers no concrete path forward. You would think that last 7 1/2 years would wake Americans up. Unfortunately, it seems many are ready to be duped again.

At this rate, America would become "no nevermind," country unless we take bold steps. Don't let smears appeal to you. We need Obama. McCain has neither the vision nor the leadership to embark on new path to get our country out of the mess we are in. Look at how he is running his campaign. If he can't run his campaign, how is he going to run this country? With McCain, you will get Bush but even dumber. Like a rebelling teenager, he is even proud of being the 894th/899. Moreover, his policies would be utterly disjointed. His temper worries me most. I would feel very unsafe with McCain. I would not want him with finger at the nuclear trigger.

It is time for a smart president, with good communication skills, vision and the ability to lead.

sally
do you realize that obamas policy right from the primarys ----are now proposed to be mccains--the guy is a super parrot ---and just mimics obama

mary
what do lobbyist do in washington---

YOU GUYS ARE SO TIED UP WITH GAS PRICE YOU CANNOT SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES

gas prices will drop in time for electons and repubs will take the credit.i would say under 3.00---since bush visited arabs you now know why ---it is all politics

Once again, Obama voted for the 2005 Bush/Cheney energy plan while McCain voted against it.

FACT!!!!