I am sure you will be SHOCKED to learn that Obama is acting in much the same way. I know, I know - what a surprise. Ahem. Well, it seems some one has been doing a little investigative journalism, something in VERY short supply of late. But get this - I tell you, you better be sitting down - in this case, it was - WAIT FOR IT -
MSNBC. YES, the very network to which we routinely refer as “MSNBO”! Once I recovered from the shock of it all, I couldn’t wait to see just how transparent President Obama was compared to Bush. (I wonder if there is a way for us to do a pool on these kinds of things, like for NCAA basketball or something?)

This is what MSNBC uncovered in this report:

Obama Names 110 White House Visitors

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

The emphasis there is mine. This is a bit of a schizophrenic opening. On the one hand, they want to champion that Obama released 110 names - Woohoo!! On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that, once again, President Obama is using the SAME arguments as Bush. Moreover, this “Constitutional Scholar” is doing so in clear violation of not one, but TWO federal court rulings! Maybe the KoolAide was made improperly that day, I don’t know, but the report continues:

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year. There are limitations there as well, including potential Supreme Court nominees, personal guests of the First Family, and certain security officials.

The names released Friday include business leaders and lobbyists with a lot to gain or lose from Obama policies. They include Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (whose foundation is pushing for changes in teacher pay), former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan’s James Dimon, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, State Street bank’s Ron Logue, BNY Mellon’s Robert Kelly, labor leader Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (22 visits)*, American Bankers Association CEO Ed Yingling, community bankers president Camden Fine, and lobbyists Heather and Anthony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta led Obama’s transition team.

Besides Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt are also on the list. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC. One of NBC’s parents is GE.)

Advocates and nonprofit leaders include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is interested in health policy.

So, this is how Obama is paying these people and organizations back, by having them in the White House? I bet Kim Gandy was just all aflutter after she threw ALL women under the bus to endorse Obama over a life-long women’s advocate. There is more on her below.

I know many readers will be interested in this White House guest:

Democratic donor and businessman George Soros visited with White House aides twice.

Yes, indeedy, a major funder of Moveon.org has been to check up on his biggest investment - ahem - twice.

We’re just getting started:

Political figures include former Sen. Thomas Daschle, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Al Franken, former Vice President Al Gore, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.

Celebrities at the White House include Oprah Winfrey, actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Denzel Washington, and tennis star Serena Williams. Journalists include Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Conservative religious leader Gary Bauer visited, as did liberal civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Okay, the last two, along with Oprah, are NOT a surprise. Gary Bauer? Just a tad surprising.

For anyone who wants to see more:

Msnbc.com has put the full list in a handy PDF file, and also in an Excel file for those who like to sort.

One guest is mighty interesting:

Not that Bill Ayers

The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial — do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it’s not the president’s former pastor. This Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. The William Ayers who took a group tour of the White House isn’t the former radical from Chicago who figured so prominently in the 2008 campaign. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.

The White House could have avoided some of that sort of confusion by providing more information on the visitors, such as an employer name and the city they hail from. For example, is the Shawn Carter who attended a poetry reading the same one who goes by Jay-Z and had campaigned for Obama?

“This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information,” a White House special counsel, Norm Eisen, wrote on the White House blog.

If you spot a name on the list that bears investigating, please drop us a note.

Of COURSE we will just trust Obama and his spokes-minions when they assure us that this Bill Ayers could not POSSIBLY be domestic terrorist - Capitol Building and Pentagon bomber - long time friend and mentor Bill Ayers! He is just some guy who wanted to visit the White House Gift Shop and pick up a couple of Marine One helicopter models for his boys. I am sure of it. Sheesh. Really? They expect us to believe this crap? Evidently - they got plenty of other people to believe that kind of crap and more, so why stop now?

Okay - if you are consuming any liquids right this minute, I suggest you put it down when you read this:

Limited release

Despite the accompanying White House claim of “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” the Obama White House continues to take the same legal position as the Bush White House, arguing that the records are not public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only limited “voluntary releases” are being made to settle a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, though a federal judge has twice ruled that all the visitor logs are public. (Again, emphasis is mine.)

Yet there are severe limitations to the transparency:

Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.

I know, right? Didn’t this sound just a little pissy?? From someone at MSNBC?? The bigger picture is that the Obama Administration is BREAKING THE LAW. Hell to the YES, that information falls under FOIA - this is OUR White House, not the Obamas. We most definitely DO get to know every single John Smith and Jane Doe who cross the threshold of the White House. You better believe we do.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is a start:

The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback. Does the absence of Bill Clinton’s name on the list mean that he has not been to the White House, or that the request wasn’t received by the White House online system?

A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Say whaa?? The White House rejected a request from their lapdog “news” source?? Huh. There’s a shocker. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, MSNBC!

The Wall Street Journal focused on the most frequent visitor to the White House. He was mentioned in the list above, but without the acknowledgment of the frequency:

SEIU’s Stern Tops White House Visitor List

Promising “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

But the White House said those aren’t the guys you’re thinking of. Nor is the log complete.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! I just cannot get enough of this one - sure, they aren’t the same people. Yeah, okay, we believe you. NOT. And because it is just so much fun to see them squirm, I am keeping in the part that is repetitive of the article above, especially the quotes from Eisen. Oh, what a funny guy:

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few ‘false positives’ – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president, writes on the White House blog. “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

Adds Eisen: “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

Uh, ya know, I think we are all smart enough to not get all confused by this incredible level of “transparency.” Beginning with, we actually know the definition of “transparency,” something Eisen and Obama apparently do not.

And then there is this:

One thing is clear: *Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

So THAT’S what Gandy and Keenan got for stabbing Hillary Clinton and, well, WOMEN, int he back - visits to the White House. I guess there is something gained by selling your soul, though, personally, I don’t think it is worth it. But that’s just me.

Anywho - yes, the President of the SEIU, again, the union co-founded by the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke, is the TOP visitor at the White House. The SEIU has been in the news quite a bit, especially for holding California hostage - threatening that their good buddy, Obama, would not give the state any federal stimulus funds if it had the audacity to expect the union to cut wages like everyone else so the state wouldn’t go bankrupt. NOW we know how the union was able to do that. All those visits to the White House apparently paid off - for the union, not California, the state with one of the largest budgets around (as in 5th in the world). What makes this more egregious is that California pays a lot into the federal tax system and receives little comparatively speaking. And this union is allowed - by the White House - to hold it over a barrel. Yep, all those meetings seemed to do the trick!

Aren’t you just so heartened by all of this “transparency”? And by seeing who Obama is welcoming into our White House? Yeah, me, too. As long as the Obama Administration continues to thumb its nose at Federal Law, I reckon we should be “thankful” for this (no, not really - it’s BS that they are still sitting on so much information).

Oh, but if you can just GUESS who might else have been there and submit that form asking them, maybe you can confirm some other folks who have been there, too. Lemme know what you find out, okay? I am sure we would all just love to know…

Here we are with yet another Bush-era policy Barack “Vote For Me Because I Am Not Bush” Obama:

The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search — without suspicion of wrongdoing — the contents of a traveler’s laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.

The policy, disclosed Thursday in a pair of Department of Homeland Security directives, describes more fully than did the Bush administration the procedures by which travelers’ laptops, iPods, cameras and other digital devices can be searched and seized when they cross a U.S. border. And it sets time limits for completing searches.

But representatives of civil liberties and travelers groups say they see little substantive difference between the Bush-era policy, which prompted controversy, and this one.

“It’s a disappointing ratification of the suspicionless search policy put in place by the Bush administration,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It provides a lot of procedural safeguards, but it doesn’t deal with the fundamental problem, which is that under the policy, government officials are free to search people’s laptops and cellphones for any reason whatsoever.”

Why, yes - it is “disappointing.” WTH with these groups who always use that word when Obama retains yet another egregious Bush program. “Disappointing.” Uh, yeah. That’s one (incredibly lame) word for it:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday framed the new policy as an enhancement of oversight. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” she said in a statement. “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

For instance, searches conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers should now generally take no more than 5 days, and no more than 30 days for searches by Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents. The directives also require for the first time that automated tools be developed to ensure the reliable tracking of statistics relating to searches, and that audits be conducted periodically to ensure the guidelines are being followed, officials said.

Did I read that right? 5 days and 30 days?? That’s supposed to be an IMPROVEMENT? Holy freakin’ smokes!!

Some people are happy with it, though:

Such measures drew praise from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who called the new policy “a major step forward,” and from Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), who introduced legislation this year to strengthen protections for travelers whose devices are searched.

And these are our representatives. That’s just jake.

Others, those who actually care about the Constitution, for example, aren’t quite so upbeat about it:

But the civil liberties community was disappointed.

“Under the policy begun by Bush and now continued by Obama, the government can open your laptop and read your medical records, financial records, e-mails, work product and personal correspondence — all without any suspicion of illegal activity,” said Elizabeth Goitein, who leads the liberty and national security project at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice.

Goitein, formerly a counsel to Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said the Bush policy itself “broke sharply” with previous Customs directives, which required reasonable suspicion before agents could read the contents of documents. Feingold last year introduced legislation to restore the requirement.

Jack Riepe, spokesman for the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, said the guidelines “still have many of the inherent weaknesses” of the Bush-era policy.

Between October 2008 and Aug. 11, more than 221 million travelers passed through CBP checkpoints. About 1,000 laptop searches were performed, only 46 in-depth, the DHS said.

Once again, I am SO “disappointed” to have my civil liberties curtailed. Sheesh. Seriously, people, there are stronger terms for having our Constitution dismantled by The One over whom you ooh-ed! and ah-ed! as such a great Constitutional Scholar, and the Anti-Bush. All I can say is, perhaps you wouldn’t have experienced this “disappointment” had you bothered to actually listen to what he man said (remember the return to Bush I’s foreign policy? How about voting for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill?) or what he did (remember that FISA vote? Yeah, you were “disappointed” then, too.). So many examples, so little time. The point is, had your eyes been open instead of closed as you swayed in rapture to the tones of The One and TOTUS, perhaps you wouldn’t be oh-so-surprised by this.

The rest of us aren’t.

Anyway, the article, Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?, is a very good piece on Obama’s Drug Deal. I mean, about the deals cut for big Pharmaceutical companies in the current health care bill. And here’s there thing - Palast actually has some background in this area. From his site: Palast studied healthcare economics at the Center for Hospital Administration Studies at the University of Chicago. Here’s what Palast has to say:

Eighty billion dollars of WHAT?

I searched all over the newspapers and TV transcripts and no one asked the President what is probably the most important question of what passes for debate on the issue of health care reform: $80 billion of WHAT?

On June 22, President Obama said he’d reached agreement with big drug companies to cut the price of medicine by $80 billion. He extended his gratitude to Big Pharma for the deal that would, “reduce the punishing inflation in health care costs.”

Hey, in my neighborhood, people think $80 billion is a lot of money. But is it?

I checked out the government’s health stats (at HHS.gov), put fresh batteries in my calculator and totted up US spending on prescription drugs projected by the government for the next ten years. It added up to $3.6 trillion.

In other words, Obama’s big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That’s 2%.

Hey thanks, Barack! You really stuck it to the big boys. You saved America from these drug lords robbing us blind. Two percent. Cool!

Wowie zowie - what a GREAT job Obama did as “Haggler-in-Chief”!! A whole whopping 2%? Over TEN YEARS????? Great, Obama - thanks!! Sheesh:

For perspective: Imagine you are in a Wal-Mart and there’s a sign over a flat screen TV, “BIG SAVINGS!” So, you break every promise you made never to buy from that union-busting big box - and snatch up the $500 television. And when you’re caught by your spouse, you say, “But, honey, look at the deal I got! It was TWO-PERCENT OFF! I saved us $10!”

But 2% is better than nothing, I suppose. Or is it?

The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices. Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices. Got that? In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs, projected to rise over the period of “savings” from a quarter trillion dollars a year to half a trillion dollars a year. Minus that 2%.

We’ll still get the shaft from Big Pharma, but Obama will have circumcised the increase.

Well, that’s a nice turn of phrase. And accurate. Here’s what the Great Haggler got for that:

And what did Obama give up in return for $80 billion? Chief drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin crowed that Obama agreed to dump his campaign pledge to bargain down prices for Medicare purchases. Furthermore, Obama’s promise that we could buy cheap drugs from Canada simply went pffft!

What did that cost us? The New England Journal of Medicine notes that 13 European nations successfully regulate the price of drugs, reducing the average cost of name-brand prescription medicines by 35% to 55%. Obama gave that up for his 2%.

The Veterans Administration is able to push down the price it pays for patent medicine by 40% through bargaining power. George Bush stopped Medicare from bargaining for similar discounts, an insane ban that Obama said he’d overturn. But, once within Tauzin’s hypnotic gaze, Obama agreed to lock in Bush’s crazy and costly no-bargaining ban for the next decade.

What else went down in Obama’s drug deal? To find out, I called C-SPAN to get a copy of the videotape of the meeting with the drug companies. I was surprised to find they didn’t have such a tape despite the President’s campaign promise, right there on CNN in January 2008, “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN.”

This puzzled me. When Dick Cheney was caught having secret meetings with oil companies to discuss Bush’s Energy Bill, we denounced the hugger-muggers as a case of foxes in the henhouse.

Cheney’s secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were creepy and nasty and evil.

But the Obama crew’s secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were, the President assures us, in the public interest.

We know Cheney’s secret confabs were shady and corrupt because Cheney scowled out the side of his mouth.

Obama grins in your face.

See the difference?

The difference is 2%.

Ah, yes - that would be the difference alright. A paltry 2% with a Cheshire Grin to go with it. Perfect. That’s the “Change” for which I was “Hoping.” Seems to me that someone has been hitting that “Hopium” pipe if he expects us to accept THIS gift to the big Pharma Companies. I wonder if there is coverage for THAT under his new plan?

Oh, and Palast had this attached to his post:

ALERT

Now it’s Let’s Make a Deal with hospital lobbyists.

First, the President was caught with his principals down, cutting a scuzzy back-room deal with pharmaceutical lobbyist Billy Tauzin to limit drug price savings to just 2% over 10 years (see attached, “Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?”), the New York Times today reports that another deal was sealed by lobbyist Chip Kahn of the American Hospital Association.

Here are the numbers they don’t want you to see: Hospitals will be allowed to hike their prices and revenues by six trillion dollars ($5,853 billion) over the next ten years, only $155 billion less than they had projected before the Obama “reform.”

In all, the Obama back-room deal will “reduce” our $26 trillion total hospital bill over the next decade by one-half of one percent.

Once again, the lobbyists got the gold mine, the public got the shaft.

Say it ain’t so, Mr. President.

Great. More smoke and mirrors from the Great Concessioner (is that a word?) - in - Chief on our behalf. That’s just jake, Mr. Obama.

One last thing, I don’t know this for sure, but my guess is that Huffington Post isn’t gonna be publishing any more of Greg Palast’s work. Just a hunch…

Transparency, said President Barack Obama in a memo not long after he took the oath of office, was going to be a “touchstone” of his administration. His advisors then gathered around, breaking into a paroxysm of giggles interlaced with assurances to each other that dumbbell Americans would actually buy this stuff.

What fun to have power, they laughed. What fun!

OK, true enough, I cannot vouch for any post-promise merriment, but I can vouch that it did not take all that long for the administration to emulate former Vice President Dick Cheney’s thoroughly castigated private meetings with top energy executives working with him on policy issues. The public did not learn what was said or who attended. Especially among liberals, suspicion of dastardliness was high.

Well, speaking for myself, I concur - I was pretty upset about Cheney’s secret meeting with energy executives to craft our energy policy. Amazingly, there is a correlation:

The Obama version was to meet secretly with coal executives while devising the content of a cap-and-trade global-warming tax, explaining that presidential communications are privileged and did not fall under the Freedom of Information Act. Judges had differed with that idea, and so did Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, which filed suit and, then, not too much later had reason to try again to get the names of people visiting the White House for sessions on the nation’s future.

This time it was health-care executives on hand to lend their ideas and expertise about health-care legislation. The administration at first resisted divulging the names, but finally did — which is hardly the same as saying we can now figure on the steadfast openness which once upon a time was guaranteed by Obama himself.

Oh, wait - did I write “correlation”? I meant, “correlationS.” Obama hasn’t stopped with just energy, obviously. Yep - health care people, too - and we are seeing how well that is going over right now.

Naturally, there is more:

Take a glance, for instance, at the Environmental Protection Agency. According to a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, Alan Carlin, a senior analyst with EPA’s National Center for Economics, had the temerity along with a colleague to produce a paper casting doubt on global-warming theory and especially on the reliability of computer models predicting catastrophe down the pike. His boss made it clear that the thesis was contrary to policy and the paper would not be allowed out the door.

I missed the liberal outcry on this, as opposed, say, to what we heard when NASA’s global-warming alarmist James Hansen whined that his press releases might be reviewed before being released during the Bush administration. No such reviews ever took place, which hardly stopped one outraged commentator from complaining that we were now in an era reminiscent of Josef Stalin’s viciously controlling discourse in the Soviet Union. Hansen, the Journal piece reminds us, had given hundreds of speeches on the terror of warming, many of them during the Bush years.

Look next at what’s been happening in Congress: Votes on nation-altering legislation roughly as transparent as a stone wall is transparent, last-minute concoctions of 1,000 pages and more that not a single member of Congress could conceivably have had time to read. For that matter, few if any members could have had a grasp of any number of important elements in these bills even through the secondhand summaries, which is to say, the democratic process was rendered meaningless. Then-Sen. Obama had pointedly complained when Republicans did this sort of thing in the Bush years. Now, as president, he was cheering on rush-job legislating as crucial to the common good.

Obama is more nearly Mr. Obfuscation than he is Mr. Transparency, as he showed during the campaign when he failed to tell us anything much about his passport or medical records, his clients as a lawyer or his college records. Even if you hold hands with him on some of his secrecy then and now, a point to consider is that this is a politician like so many who talk one way and behave another, not someone refreshingly candid and different, just someone who is very good at an old game.

True enough. I like it: Mr. Obfuscation. I think that is a perfect moniker for Obama. The Obfuscator In Chief. Sure, works for me!

Actually, it doesn’t. What he is doing is working for a select, very select, group of people, not for US. And that is the problem with the lack of transparency, with the reneging on promises made, for all of us. Obama, and Congress, are serving the interests of a very few, the same complaint we had about Bush and Cheney.

Here we go again…

Imho, that alone is reason enough to not nominate Barack Obama. “Words? Just words?” Well, sadly, that is all they are, Mr. Obama. When push comes to shove, you ALWAYS side with your money men. You didn’t give a single thought to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I just had to get that off my chest. If every American voter KNEW that Barack Obama voted WITH Dick Cheney and George Bush on energy and profiteering for big energy companies, there’d be no doubt who should be nominated.

This ad is about the average American family:

From the McCain campaign — which this blog does not endorse, but recognizes for its ability to point out the stark differences not only between John McCain and Barack Obama but also between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released its latest television ad, entitled “Painful.” The ad highlights Barack Obama’s record of voting to raise taxes on middle class families and his proposals for painful tax increases that will only further hurt those already struggling with higher gas prices, higher food prices and the threat of home foreclosure. The last thing we need to do is raise taxes that force families to make even tougher choices with less money in their pockets. The ad will air in key states.

VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWXqpHEsrxc

Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

AD FACTS: Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

· Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/08)

· The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/08)

· The Associated Press: Budget Resolution “Would Have Allowed Tax Rates To Return To Pre-2001 Levels, Meaning That An Individual With Taxable Income Of About $32,000 Would Have Faced A Tax Increase.” “At issue is Obama’s vote on a non-binding budget resolution in March that called for President Bush’s tax cuts to expire. Such a step would have allowed tax rates to return to pre-2001 levels, meaning that an individual with taxable income of about $32,000 would have faced a tax increase. Taxable income is what’s left after taxpayers account for deductions.” (Liz Sidoti, “Obama Dismisses Conservative Criticism,” The Associated Press, 7/12/08)

· In June 2008, Obama Said “The Senate Voted To Stand Up For Working Families In Illinois And Throughout The Nation” By Passing The Democrats’ Final Budget Resolution. Obama: “Today the Senate voted to stand up for working families in Illinois and throughout the nation by rejecting the failed policies of the Bush Administration and moving our country back on track to fiscal discipline. … Our country needs change, and this budget is an important step in the right direction. I commend House and Senate leaders for working together to move this legislation through Congress.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Statement Of Senator Barack Obama On The Senate ’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget Resolution,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 6/4/08)

· In March 2008, Obama Hailed His Vote For The Budget As Making “Significant Progress In Getting Our Nation’s Priorities Back On Track.” Obama: “The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation’s priorities back on track. … We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Obama Statement On The Senate’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 3/14/08)

ANNCR: He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family. Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

· Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Social Security (Payroll) Taxes On Families. “Obama’s proposal … would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: “[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)

· U.S. Department Of Treasury: Small Business Owners “Are Frequently Subject To The Highest Individual Income Tax Rates.” “Changes in the individual income tax affect most businesses in the United States. That is because taxes on business earnings are often paid through the individual income tax when ‘passed-through’ to business owners. The business income from sole proprietorships, farm proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, etc., is all taxed at the owners’ individual income tax rates. This year 34 million business owners are expected to receive this type of income and pay tax on this income through the individual income tax. These businesses are typically small and often entrepreneurial in nature, and a source of innovation and risk-taking in the economy. Moreover, these business owners are frequently subject to the highest individual income tax rates.” (”Topics Related To The President’s Tax Relief,” U.S. Departm ent Of Treasury, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/president_taxrelief_topics_0508.pdf, May 2008)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. “Sen. Obama wants to raise the long-term capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to around 20 percent or somewhat higher but not above the 28 percent level it reached during the Reagan presidency, an Obama economic adviser says. The same rate would apply to most dividend income for these investors.” (Tom Herman, “Tax Report Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ,” The Associated Press, 6/18/08)

· In 2006, Over 26.7 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Capital Gains Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· In 2006, Over 31.5 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Dividend Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· Barack Obama Called For Tax Hikes On “Dirty Energy” Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (”Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

· Even Barack Obama Admits That His Tax Increases May Harm The Economy. CNBC’S JOHN HARWOOD: “And I found this fascinating, Maria, that on the issue of taxes, he looked to insulate himself by saying that if, in fact, economic conditions justify the fact that it might harm the economy, he might be willing to hold off some of his tax increases when he takes office in January. Let’s take a listen to Barack Obama.” BARACK OBAMA: “Some of those, you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important. So here’s what we know: We know that over the last decade or so, that more than half of the economic growth has been captured by the top one percent of U.S. citizens. That means the other 99 percent have seen their effective incomes go down. That is not a recipe for long- term economic growth.” (CNBC, 6/9/08)

· Tax Policy Center: Barack Obama Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. “Even though Senator Obama’s plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income.” (Burman et al., “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)

· Tax Foundation: Seniors “Rely Most On The Stable Flow Of Income That Dividends Provide.” “Most debate over whether to extend the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains has focused on the tax benefits of these cuts to high-income taxpayers. What has been largely ignored is the impact these tax policies have on corporations’ decisions on how best to distribute their income to shareholders–including senior citizens, who rely most on the stable flow of income that dividends provide. A recent Tax Foundation analysis illustrated that a large number of those benefiting from dividends are seniors and those on the verge of retirement (See www.taxfoundation.org). A further analysis of these seniors earning dividends reveals that lower-income seniors who file tax returns depend more heavily on dividend income than high-income seniors.” (Gerald Prante, “The Importance Of Dividend Income For Low-Income Seniors,” Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1354.html, 2/8/06)

Didn’t Barack Obama vote for the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill?

At first she dodged the question and tried the valiant, let’s not talk about that, let’s talk about this tactic. Schuster would have none of it and persisted. To which, the idiotic Congresswoman from Pennsylvania could only say that David Schuster would have to ask the Obama campaign. Really? So either she didn’t know or she was too embarrassed to admit the awful truth and hypocrisy of Obama’s energy attacks.

Allow me then, Congresswoman, to inform you that Senator Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, written in secret by Vice President Cheney and the energy lobby. Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as “the sum of all lobbies.” U.S. PIRG noted that the bill’s “heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC.”

The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a “piñata of perks for energy industries.” Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry.

Although Sen. Obama voted for the legislation, he has spoken as if he opposed it on the campaign trail, criticizing it repeatedly. At a presidential debate he said “You can look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy . . . he met with oil and gas companies forty times, and that’s how they put together our energy policy.” He attributes the failure of our current energy policy to Congress’s “failure to stand up to the lobbyists.” Actually Barack, I attribute the failure of current energy policy to shameless politicians like you and Dick Durbin who crossed the aisle to vote the most egregious give-away since the 1872 Mining Law.

Here’s the transcript of Schuster’s grilling of Allyson Schwartz:

DAVID SHUSTER: Congresswoman, during the event in Ohio today, Barack Obama attacked the Bush-Cheney energy policy. But didn’t Barack Obama vote for the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill?

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ: Well let’s talk about what John McCain’s been saying, and John McCain was in Pennsylvania just yesterday and really had very little to say about doing anything differently than the Bush administration’s been doing for years.

SHUSTER: Congresswoman, I’m happy to talk about that, but just a yes or no question: didn’t Barack Obama vote for the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill?

SCHWARTZ: Well, I think, you know, we have to go back and, and check on that. I’m sure the campaign can give you the specifics on, uh, exactly what, uh, was done.

Allyson Schwartz, I think your television career, hapless as it was, as a surrogate is over.

You can view the exchange in all its fluttering glory on here. It’s must see television as they say. You can actually see her panic when her attempt to play dodgeball failed. She looks up to the side and you can see her wonder “what do I say next?” In this case, shamelessly Allyson Schwartz chose to dodge again and pass the buck. She chose to omit the truth. Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy. John McCain did not. And it matters, neither did Hillary Clinton.

From my blog, By The Fault.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

“Look what he pulled on the press who dared to ask him a question. Is this a new tactic…to accuse the press of working for McCain? Wow, finally a reporter doing [his] job. …”

RALSTON: I guess what the American people want to know though Senator, is what is the real difference between you and John McCain. You are running this ad tying him to the industry saying that he has taken all of these contributions, but as you well know there is a story out today about how you supported the Dick Cheney bill and [McCain] opposed it. That bill gave subsidies to the oil and gas companies, John McCain opposed the bill saying those are tax breaks for those companies, Barack Obama favored it.

SEN. OBAMA: Hold on a second Jon, I thought I was talking to you instead of debating John McCain, but I am happy to let you serve as his proxy.

Holy mother.

“Serve as his proxy”? Time was, reporters were paid to ask candidates tough questions. Ralston’s question is entirely legitimate, especially since Obama and the Democrats made Cheney’s energy policy a campaign issue in the first place. If Obama dislikes it so much, why did he vote for it — and why blame it on the one candidate in the race that actually voted against it?

In the rest of the interview, Ralston presses Obama on his policy reversals and asks him how voters can trust him not to shift again for political reasons.

Read the full story.

UPDATE: SEE Memeorandum.com for more blog coverage of this story.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Well, she certainly has a sense of humour if scantily clad. Reclining in a pool-side sun-lounger, Ms. Hilton says: “Hey America, I’m Paris Hilton and I’m a celebrity, too. Only I’m not from the olden days and I’m not promising change like that other guy. I’m just hot.”

“But then that wrinkly, white-haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I’m running for president. So thanks for the endorsement, white-haired dude.”

She continues: “I want America to know that I’m, like, totally ready to lead.”

Discussing energy policy, which has this week emerged as the central issue of the Presidential campaign, Ms. Hilton endorses a combination of McCain’s plan to increase offshore oil drilling and Obama’s scheme to offer more incentives for new energy technology. She signs off: “Energy crisis solved! I’ll see you at the debates.”

I might add that she has a better energy policy than Obama. Both the Obama and McCain campaigns issued response to Paris. The Obama campaign issued a one word statement:

Whatever.

The McCain campaign had a longer statement:

Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan. It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis — including both alternatives and drilling. In reality, Paris Hilton may have a more substantive energy policy than Barack Obama.

Just a note there Paris, Rihanna, your choice for Vice President, is a citizen of Barbados and sadly not eligible to be Vice President. On a more serious note, the McCain “The One” ad continues to be a boon for the McCain campaign. The McCain campaign noted that the ad cost $9.99 to produce (I’m sure it was more but you get the point) but ad continues to be played and discussed almost a week later. Ms. Hilton’s salvo only keeps it in play in the news more.

From my blog, By The Fault.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Last week, the Obama campaign reported that it had a $52 million haul in the month of June. In releasing this information, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters that:

“You continue to prove what ordinary Americans committed to change can accomplish, despite the Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs funding so much of our opponents’ campaign.”

Two articles in the US media point to what I have long been saying about Obama’s duplicitous statements on where his money is coming from and it is not from “ordinary Americans”. It is from corporate interests and Washington lobbyists and yes PAC money. The only difference is that backhanded manner in which Obama collects his millions.

The first article is from the Los Angeles Times in article by Dan Morain entitled Donations to Obama campaign include some biggies:

Even as he touts his base of small donors, Barack Obama is relying heavily on well-heeled contributors who have given $28,500 or more each to Democratic Party committees that will campaign on his behalf.

Obama aides emphasized that the average donation to his campaign in June — during which he brought in $52 million — was $68. Over the course of his campaign, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee has raised $340 million. By law, an individual can give no more than $2,300 to a candidate for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

Obama has established joint fundraising agreements with the Democratic National Committee and two other party committees. Those entities can raise larger sums and spend unlimited amounts on behalf of individual candidates.

Of the $20.3 million Obama’s joint fundraising committees amassed in June, 86%, or $17.6 million, came in chunks of $5,000 or more; 64% came in increments of $28,500 or more, campaign finance reports filed over the weekend show.

Frank Clark, head of Commonwealth Edison, which supplies electricity to Chicago, gave $2,300 to Obama early in the campaign and $28,500 last month to the Democratic White House Victory Fund.

John Rogers, founder of the Chicago investment house Ariel Capital, also gave the maximum to Obama’s presidential account, and $13,000 to Democratic White House Victory.

According to the campaign, Clark and Rogers are among Obama’s largest fundraisers, each having raised more than $200,000 from friends and associates.

Employees at Exelon, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, have given more than $180,000.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt noted that the campaign, unlike the Democratic Party and the fundraising committees, has tapped small donors, raising the bulk of its money in increments of less than $90.

Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, said that although Obama had raised an unprecedented $165 million from those who donated in increments of less than $200, “he cannot raise $150 million or whatever his budget says he needs without going to large contributors.”

The presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, also has joint fundraising committees and will probably rely heavily on them in the fall.

Such committees appeal to candidates and donors because contributors can write a single check and have it split among the candidate, the party and related committees.

A review of the campaign finance reports filed over the weekend with the Federal Election Commission showed that attorneys accounted for at least $2.4 million of the $20.3 million the three Obama joint committees raised.

People who listed their occupations as investors or said they worked for investment houses contributed at least an additional $2.85 million. Individuals who said they were chief executive officers, company presidents or board chairmen chipped in $1.8 million. The entertainment industry accounted for $1.5 million.

McDonald’s President Donald Thompson and Pepsi Chairman Robert Pohlad each gave $28,500. The Pohlad family, including Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad, gave a combined $170,000 to Democratic committees.

Entertainers who donated $28,500 to the committees include producers Frederick W. Field and Steven Bochco and his wife, Dayna, and actors Samuel L. Jackson and Edward Norton.

NBA star LeBron James donated $20,000.

In several instances, couples doubled their donations. Professional poker player Phil Ivey and his wife, Luciaetta, for example, each gave $33,100 to the Obama Victory Committee. New York writer and entrepreneur Steven Brill and his wife, attorney Cynthia Brill, donated $61,600 last month, with $4,600 going to Obama’s presidential campaign and the rest going to one of the party’s joint fundraising committees.

The Exelon donations are particulary interesting. Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and another $180,000 for President. That’s $400,000 from the upper echelons of the nation’s largest nuclear power firm. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate. In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002.

You got to love this one degree of separation because in 2005 during Obama’s first year in the Senate, Exelon Corporation failed to disclose some radioactive leaks from a nuclear power plant sixty miles south of Chicago. Naturally when the leaks came to light, residents were less than thrilled. Obama railed against the firm publicly but then proceed to help out the company in the subterfuge that is the United States.

First, Obama worked to pass a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.” The only thing it passed was its committee; the bill died on the Senate floor.

In March 2006, Senator Obama introduced a bill known as the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006. The bill S109-2348 stated flatly that nuclear plants “shall immediately” notify federal, state and local officials of any accidental release of radioactive material that exceeded “allowable limits for normal operation.” Like all of Obama’s legislation, the bill never became law. This was largely due to the fact that Exelon objected to the provisions of bill and complained to Senator Obama’s office. Facing pushback from his major donor, Obama then worked with Senator James Inofe of Oklahoma to insert provisions into another bill that gave the Nuclear Energy Institute whose chair is also the CEO of Exelon to assist the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in writing the technical standards of what constitute “allowable limts for normal operation.” The language of the bill was also changed. In place of Obama’s original straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission “shall consider” — not require — immediate public notification, and also take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks.

Oh the things that money can buy. In this case, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon and chair of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry association that was now assisting US Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the technical standards of what constitutes a leak, bought in effect the words “shall consider.” Of course, John W. Rowe is just an “ordinary American” as Obama campaign manager David Plouffe suggests. John W. Rowe is just an “ordinary American” who according to Forbes’ 2005 list of Executive Pay was paid $11.5 mil in total compensation. But don’t fret, this “ordinary American” is on up and up. According to Reuters, John W. Rowe earned $19,491,556 in total compensation in 2007.

The second article is from US News & World Report in article written by Bonnie Erbe entitled Barack Obama’s Fundraising Hypocrisy—a Lobbyist by Any Other Name…:

The latest campaign finance figures show Sen. Barack Obama’s pledge not to take money from lobbyists is a distinction without a difference.

He clobbered Sen. John McCain in fundraising last month, netting more than twice the amount of money raised by his rival. From Bloomberg:

Obama took in $51.9 million in June, including $1.4 million from a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, while McCain reported raising $21.5 million, including $5.1 million from his fundraising effort with the Republican National Committee.

But consider whence much of Obama’s money comes. While donations to his campaign are not accepted from lobbyists per se, they are proffered by corporate executives. These same executives face a mountain of federal issues on which they will most surely need Obama’s help, should he win the White House in November. So what’s the difference?

To wit. Bloomberg reported that donors to Obama’s joint fundraising committee included Jay Grinney, president and chief executive officer of Birmingham, Ala.-based HealthSouth Corp., who gave $10,000, and Donald Thompson, U.S. chief of Oak Brook, Ill.-based McDonald’s Corp., who gave $28,500, the maximum.

As I’ve noted before, Sen. Obama’s fourth-largest corporate donor is Exelon, the nation’s largest provider of nuclear power.

Did he take donations straight from the pockets of the company’s lobbyists? No. But did he accept largesse in the amount of more than a quarter million dollars from Exelon’s CEO and top executives? Yes. In the process, he watered down to oblivion an antinuclear amendment he had sponsored, originally to force nuclear power producers to report even the most negligible of radioactive leaks. He then went on to tell mesmerized campaign audiences he had “passed” his antinuclear bill, which never passed the U.S. Senate.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign disinvited Democratic war hero and former Sen. Max Cleland to appear at an Obama event in Atlanta earlier this month. Why? Sen. Cleland is a registered lobbyist.

John McCain openly accepts lobbyists’ donations. And some voters find that as much of a conflict (because Senator McCain has his name attached to the most important campaign finance reform bill of the last two decades.) The difference between McCain and Obama on this issue is McCain has never pledged not to take lobbyists’ donations. He has only pledged to fight to make the process as transparent as possible.

It is, of course, reassuring to see these articles in the media. However is anybody reading them?

From my blog, By The Fault.

Unexpectedly or perhaps surprising to me anyway, energy policy is actually getting debated. That’s a good thing even though I don’t really expected it to lead to the tough choices we need to make in the time frame we need to make them. To be honest, we are past the tipping point. We’re doomed. The only question left is when does it all unravel. A few wise investments and we might push out the end line a few decades but unless some new technology arrives on the scene in the next twenty years, our way of life will come to a sudden and crashing end.

I have never liked Barack Obama. In fact, I can’t stand Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois either. The reason? They voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy, the worst piece of legislation ever to pass the Congress. Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as “the sum of all lobbies.” U.S. PIRG noted that the bill’s “heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC.” The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a “piñata of perks for energy industries.”

Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry through 2015. Past that, the sum is likely to approach $30 billion.

Although Sen. Obama voted for the legislation, he speaks as if he opposed it on the campaign trail, criticizing it repeatedly. At a presidential debate he said “You can look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy…he met with oil and gas companies forty times, and that’s how they put together our energy policy.” He’s attributed the failure of our current energy policy to Congress’s “failure to stand up to the lobbyists.” In Pennsylvania he ran this deceptive ad.

Here’s Brit Hume debunking the Obama ad:

That’s Obama, one big deception. But Obama probably owes his presumptive nominee status to corn ethanol. Without his support for corn ethanol, it is unlikely that he would have won the Iowa caucuses and without that victory I think it fair to say his candidacy would have been finished by Super Tuesday. Winning Iowa gave him a boost. To win Iowa, Obama touted corn ethanol. From the New York Times:

When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer (2007) in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.

Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”

Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”

Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland.

Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation’s largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.

Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s economic policy director, said Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Mr. Furman said.

Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, “He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.”

Mr. Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his role advising the Obama campaign on energy matters was limited. He said he was not a lobbyist for ethanol companies, but did speak publicly about renewable energy options and worked “with a number of associations and groups to orchestrate and coordinate their activities,” including the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition.

Of Mr. Obama, Mr. Daschle said, “He has a terrific policy staff and relies primarily on those key people to advise him on key issues, whether energy or climate change or other things.”

Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve “energy security” while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

“We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”

Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.

Corn ethanol only nets 1.3 times the fossil fuel energy required to produce it, sugar-based ethanol can return 8 times the fossil fuel energy. And corn ethanol, while cleaner, than octane, pales in comparison to sugar ethanol.

So how green is Barack Obama really? Not very. In terms of energy policy, Obama is a third term for Bush-Cheney. From the Washington Post:

Given that energy appears likely to be a dominant issue in this election season, Barack Obama’s campaign may want to settle on a more consistent message when it comes to subsidies for ethanol, the corn-based alternative fuel that is hailed by some as a key resource in weaning America off foreign oil and forestalling global warming but lambasted by others as a wasteful boondoggle that is driving up food prices.

Since entering the Senate in 2005, Obama has been a staunch supporter of ethanol — he justified his vote for for the Bush Administration’s 2005 energy bill, which was favorable to the oil industry, on the grounds that it also contained subsidies for ethanol and other forms of alternative energy, and he has sought earmarks for research projects on ethanol and other biofuels in his home state of Illinois, the second-highest corn-producing state after Iowa. Obama’s support for ethanol is shared by many farm state senators (even Hillary Clinton came around after an ethanol industry took root in upstate New York) but it contrasts sharply with John McCain, who has for years been so critical of the subsidies that he decided not to compete in the 2000 Iowa caucuses.

Today, in a New York Times article on Obama’s support for ethanol, Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s new economic policy director, is quoted saying that Obama’s stance on the issue was based on the merits, a determination that ethanol subsidies are in the national interest. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Furman said. The article continues: “Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, ‘He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.’”

It was the expected answer during a presidential campaign — except that it flies in the face of what Obama himself said on the issue a few months ago. Asked about his support for ethanol during a press conference at a gas station in Indianapolis in April, Obama was remarkably candid in explaining why he backed the subsidies: “Look, I’ve been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said. He went on to say that he was concerned about reports that ethanol was helping drive up food prices, and that he saw ethanol as merely a transitional option that would eventually give way to biofuels that were more efficient and has less of an impact on food prices, such as ones made out of switchgrass.

Furman came on board the campaign only this month, so it is understandable if he is not entirely on the same page yet with the candidate. The fact is, though, that Obama’s record in the Senate has been very clearly influenced by what he viewed as the needs of his Illinois constituents, particularly those in “downstate” Illinois, where Obama has pointed to his popularity as proof that he can win over voters in more rural and conservative areas. Obama is supporting the new farm bill, which McCain also derides as wasteful, because he believes it will help farmers in his state; he backed last year’s $14 billion Water Resources Development Act (also opposed by McCain) after making sure it included money to upgrade locks on the Illinois and Mississippi rivers) and he backed huge subsidies last year for liquified coal — a highly controversial technology that would be a boon for Southern Illinois mines — before backing away from the idea under fire from environmentalists.

If there is a single issue to care about or to vote on, it is energy. Our lifestyle depends on it and we have wean ourselves off oil as a transportation fuel within 15 years or 20 years tops. If I vote for John McCain it will be because the election is close and because of McCain’s better energy plans and the fact that he didn’t vote for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy, unlike Barack Obama.

From my blog, By The Fault.

I have zero compassion for them. Anyone who supported Obama after March 2008 is clearly either a delusional Obama cultist or a head in the sand idiot. This one is on you.

You had better more experienced choices, say Senator Joe Biden. You had better more principled candidates who live their convictions, say Representative Dennis Kucinich. You had a reform-minded committed populist, say former Senator John Edwards. And then you had Hillary Clinton who despite some flaws encompassed all the best qualities of the aforementioned. You dug the Democratic Party’s grave, now wallow in it for all I care.

For months, countless voices of reason have pointed out time and again, Obama is an empty suit (the above cartoon is from March 2007 so don’t act surprise that Obama is devoid of substance). Obama is a fraud. He lacks experience. He has no relevant qualifications. He has no conviction other than his own political welfare.

His past behaviour is troublesome. He threw Alice Palmer and four others off the ballot. His rise through the labyrinth of Chicago politics took him down some worrisome alleys and forged alliances with a cast of characters include Louis Farrahkan, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Reverend James Meeks, Antonin Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn. Now he pals around with Donnie McClurkin, Father Michael Pfleger, and Jodie Evans.

For months committed liberals like Paul Krugman, in column after column, demonstrated how his proposals weren’t that progressive or even centrist. I’ve grown hoarse pointing out Obama’s lobbyist connections and his ties to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries.

At every opportunity I get, I bring up the fact Senator Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy. The Washington Post called it “a piñata of perks for energy industries.” John McCain did not vote with his party. Hillary Clinton did not cross the aisle.

But you would not listen. You were mired in a speech that Obama gave in 2002. I hope that speech keeps you warm the next four years because that’s is the extent of his progressive record, a speech. His real record is far more centrist (that reach out across the aisle and ream someone kind of record), or perhaps corporatist is a better choice of words. Six billion dollars in subsidies to the oil & gas industry and $12 billion in subsidies to nuclear power industry.

One has to wonder if he photocopied his energy plan from Dick Cheney and Charles Grassley. His health care plan is a misnomer, it’s an insurance plan. The beneficiary is the insurance industry.

His votes in the Senate were more pro-Bush than Hillary’s, than Biden’s, than Dodd’s, than Edwards’. Progressive Punch ranked Obama the 42nd most progressive member of the Senate. There are 49 Democrats and one Socialist and one “Independent” in the Democratic Caucus. Forty-second out of 51. Funny how that is. Laughing yet?

Now, you are upset that he is backtracking. News flash: he says what he thinks will please his audience at the moment and then he does whatever he thinks will advance his career the most. And what a career it is. Zero legislative accomplishments. Zip. Name one. He has missed 42% of the votes in the Senate this year. Over the comparable period, Hillary missed 30%. That’s over a quarter more votes missed. Not trivial and by design. He and his handlers don’t want him to have a record to run on.

You think his vote on FISA was shocking. Really? He is the candidate of corporate interests, the candidate of the anti-Clinton Democratic establishment. You’re voting for Obama but getting Tom Dashcle. There’s a winner for you. You’re voting for Obama and getting Jesse Jackson, Jr. Another soulless Chicago politician. As a bonus, tack on Dick Durbin. But wait there’s more. Act now and we’ll throw in out-of-touch effete liberals– John Kerry and a gasbag to boot — Bill Richardson. But wait, there’s more you also get master advertising guru David Alexrod. Think of it as the DNC’s special gift to to you.

Obama is the designated one, the annointed one, but you satistified yourselves with silly speeches and satiated yourselves with empty platitudes galore. You went for the hip and the flash, a no-hit wonder who hasn’t even come to bat yet. He moves from one on deck circle to another never fully entering the game.

Instead you left the ace of the Democratic Party in the dugout. You fools. Stop your crying and either attempt to salvage the situation or prepare yourselves for a McCain Presidency which from my point of view is preferable to an Obama one. Better the devil that I know than the devil that I don’t. I know what to expect from McCain.

But how can I trust that shiftless soulless hypocrite who with each passing day changes yet another of his positions? It’s backtracking with Barack. So far he’s trampled on the Fourth Amendment, a women’s right to choose, the health care of all Americans and now the cornerstone of what brung him to the dance in the first place, that magical speech in 2002 that had to be re-recorded so it could be replayed again and again and use your opposition to a fruitless war as his springboard to power.

So it is with incredulity that I read this silliest of wanking posts by Ian Welsh on Firedoglake entitled “Turning Obama Into A Punchline: How Democrats Can Lose.” He was mockable from the start and his supporters perhaps even more.

I still can’t forget that kid in Ohio who thinks Obama is infallible. Papa Obama the First. News flash — Obama is a joke. He isn’t just a punchline, he is one of those clown punch bags. He may come back up but he just gets walloped down again. The funnier part is that it is largely self-inflicted so far. The GOP has yet to get its licks in.

His post and selected comments below the fold.

Once upon a time there was a candidate who was 17 points ahead of his foe. The election, it seemed, was his.

His name was Dukakis, and he lost that election to George Bush, Sr.

Or, more accurately, he lost it to Lee Atwater, Rove’s mentor. By the time Atwater got through with him, Dukakis wasn’t even a respected politician anymore, he was a punchline.

In 2000 Rove ran Bush as a “compassionate conservative” and smeared Gore as a liar, the man who’d “invented” the internet. The fact that Gore had never said that didn’t matter. In 2004 Kerry, an actual war hero, was smeared as a coward by the Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth” and by the time they got through with him, the man who’d taught Swift Boaters that the way to respond to an attack was to turn into it, was branded a coward, not a hero.

Republicans try and run elections based on “character” and when they manage it they generally win. When the election turns on something else, such as hope, the economy and health care in ‘92, they lose.

Today McCain promoted a new campaign manager, Steve Schmidt. Schmidt has been pushed, hard, by Karl Rove. He worked for the Governator’s reelection, and he also worked for Bush’s reelection in 04. Schmidt understands both parts of the Republican two-step — how to take away the scary parts of Republicanism, which he did for the Governator, who ran on a number of rather liberal policy plans; and how to destroy the opponent.

McCain isn’t going to win this election by playing nice. The natural momentum of the time favors Obama, because the Republican brand is badly damaged. The appointment of a Rovian disciple shows that the Republicans get this, and they’re ready to intensify their strategy.

Folks act as if negative campaigning doesn’t work, but this is a myth. It works, and it works well. All it is is reverse branding — branding your opponent for him. Schmidt will be looking for the opportunity to brand Obama as effete, weak and unprincipled. Obama’s actions of the past couple weeks, his “run to the center” in which he has suddenly realized he didn’t mean what he said in the primaries is playing into this narrative.

As with almost all Democrats Obama doesn’t seem to get that strength isn’t about what you vote for (national “security”), it’s about how you act. Stand strong on a principle and people will admire that even if they disagree with it. Be seen to flip like a weathervane and even if people wind up agreeing with you, they’ll despise you. Being strong, appearing strong, is about having principles, about taking a stand, not about talking tough.

Now, certainly McCain has no principles to speak of, having thrown his few remaining scruples out the door over the last couple years to court the conservative base, as when he voted for torture.

But, as we all know, the media prefers Republicans on character issues. The Swift Boaters were liars, their lies were proved at the time, but they were never effectively rebutted by the press. In 2000 the press likewise repeatedly failed to call Bush out on his many lies, indeed Paul Krugman, who tried, was expressly forbidden to use the word “lie” by his editors.

So the McCain campaign is going to try and define Obama. Republicans defined Dukakis, they defined Gore, they defined Kerry. Only with Clinton did they fail. At the same time, I expect Schmidt to push the McCain maverick brand more seriously and start backing away from the right wing base on a couple of key issues. (Torture, for example, is a place where McCain appears to be attempting to claim he is different from Bush, despite his vote for it.)

Muddle the difference on some key stands, define your opponent, make the election about character and not about policy. Obama has made this easier. It can’t really be about health care since Obama is not for universal care, and it’s harder to make it about the economy after changing his position on NAFTA.

So what Obama’s got left is “I’m not George Bush. And I am change.” If he can define McCain as Bush, he can still win it. But remember, historically elections that have come down to being about character have favored Republicans. And as Obama decides to be all things to all people, and nothing to anyone, I hope he isn’t walking into a trap whereby in simply defining himself as “hope” and “change” and “not Bush” he’s leaning on some slender reeds, easily broken by the avalanche of mud soon to come his way.

Lee Atwater is dead, but the style of politics he perfected hasn’t changed.

And sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

You’re deluding yourselves by thinking that McCain is defining Obama. Obama is doing it all on his own. Obama is defining himself with every word he utters on FISA, capital punishment, on Iraq, on abortion, on his own naivete. His own backtracking is blazing a fiery trail as if it were naplam.

His candidacy is, as we speak, failing to gain traction. So far his own saving grace has been that McCain too has failed to gain traction. It’s a comedy of errors or perhaps a Greek tragedy. Either way, there is plenty to mock but not much to laugh at.

But you will see McCain run as some cross between a Ford Republican and Reagan Republican. You are beginning that change now. McCain is taking energy policy, Obama is talking flag pins. And when Obama does try to talk policy, he ends up “revising” earlier statements. Not too clever this very junior Senator from Illinois. Obama is on his way being defined as well, let’s just say he is part Carter, part Dukakis and part Kerry and all Barack and not one iota of Clinton.

He is unelectable even before the 527s get started. Those will point to the Reverend Wright. How does he run from a twenty year association with Reverend Wright? The Wright of 1991 is no different than the Wright of 2001 or 2008. He’s the same man and the tapes are ready to go. Twenty years of Barack at Trinity ready to hit your television screens.

How does he run from William Ayers, an unrepentant terrrorist? How does he run from Jodie Evans, a wealthy divorcee who thinks it’s funny to sabotage Army recruiting centers?

How does he run from that Bush-Cheney Energy Policy vote? Or his countless oil and gas connections? He is in the uneviable position of being attacked from both the left and the right and some of the center to boot. He has his cult and his handlers. That may be all he has in the end. Don’t look now but Ralph Nader has been polling since June in the 4% to 6% range. If he gets up to 10%, he is in the debates.

Now for the plight of the Obama Crowd, a few select comments from Firedoglake:

I like your thinking. Maybe I’ll send a check to HRC and JE. Keep the options open.

Sending a cheque to JE is pointless. Sending a cheque to HRC is nice because we need to retire her debt but the real problem is the DNC. You need to act to stop the coronation in Denver. Talk to a PUMA.

Do’h! We cudda hadda John Edwards!

Yeah. But you let a stupid $400 haircut story in the media undo him.

I’ve given up on aristocrats, and I’ve quit donating as a general policy.

Though I will seriously consider giving funds to a good effort to primary any Blue Dog-type.

Yeah, well Clinton was the working class Democrat. So was Edwards. So was Kucinich. And Biden wasn’t bad either. Choices you had. Even as late as May.

And thereby hangs the tale. Because I expected integrity from Barack Obama. I expected at the very least that he would be a fierce defender of the Constitution. Remember the “taught constitutional law” meme? He had my loyalty (okay, trickle down loyalty from Gore and then Edwards) and he has some of my money. There will be no more money (he doesn’t need it — he can afford to cover Hillary’s losses) and the loyalty thing is in limbo. And I’m a staunch Dem.

This is not looking good.

You wouldn’t listen to reason. Anyone who would throw five people off the ballot, as he did in his first state senate race, cannot be expected to be a Defender of the Constitution, can he? Anyone who arranges to get pundits thrown off CNN because he didn’t like their coverage cannot exactly be called a civil libertarian, can he? Integrity? From Barack Obama? Based on what? The way he handled the Reverend Wright? The racist card he has played throughout this campaign? His misogynistic remarks? His complete disrespect fof the success of the Clinton Administration? And yet he praised Ronald Reagan? Integrity?

And as Obama decides to be all things to all people, and nothing to anyone.

Nail on the head. We have a winner, ladies and gentleman. I have been saying this since January. It was evident then and it has been parcel post part of his campaign throughout. Did you just wake up from a six month hibernation?

I wrote to the Obama camp that I will not donate to someone who does not fight for the Constitution of the United States of America. (FISA, supporting church charity.) Not that I think letters, e-mails, faxes or phone calls are having any impact on any of the Dems. I don’t see Pelosi/Reid/et al. taking any notice of their base, and I don’t see Obama wising up. I despair, but I think McCain will slip through. Sad for all of us.

Sad. Yeah, that’s the word. Sad. You’re despairing? Despair if he becomes President. That’s truly what must be avoided. When we have reached the point that John McCain is the sane choice, I am afraid despair is pointless. That line was crossed long ago.

FISA anyone?

Obama’s new rush to destroy the Separation of Church and State isn’t going to help much either. If there is a plausible challenge to him in 2012, he might be a one-termer. Historic, but a single.

He’s getting the 3P’s down…Pander, Prevaricate and Pirouette.

He’s your man, not mine. I have opposed him from day one and will continue to do so because he’s dangerous. Obama is nothing but duplicitous.

Be seen to flip like a weathervane and even if people wind up agreeing with you, they’ll despise you. Being strong, appearing strong, is about having principles, about taking a stand, not about talking tough.

Let’s see now, who had principles? What was her name? Experienced too. Tough as nails. Wouldn’t quit until the DNC told her to shut up and get on board. Now, what was her name again?

Obama wasn’t my first choice, but as the primary campaign progressed, he grew on me (mostly by treating the electorate as grown-ups instead of fearful children).

Now, I want a do-over. The FISA capitulation was bad enough, but now he’s walking back his commitment to get out of Iraq? What is wrong with him? Did someone kidnap David Plouffe and replace him with Mark Penn?

Treating the electorate as grown-ups? What, by telling fairy tales in the land of hope and change? By telling you that you were the ones you had been waiting for. That was shameless flattery. Also out of Lenin’s playbook.

Clinton treated you as an adult. Edwards treated you as an adult. Obama treated you as a toy, a piece of silly putty that he could mold into his own legion of toy soldiers marching onto Washington to defeat the evil lobbyists who form his very own shock troops. It’s like watching an episode of Star Wars.

You have been deceived. You have been lied to. Wake up and doing something about it.

What’s wrong with Obama? How long have you got? I have written volumes. So have others far more learned than I. But you preferred to believe that a speech by an Illinois State Senator mattered more than the hard work of US Senators who faced tough decisions or who actually realized that telling the American people we can just waltz out of Iraq and leave it in a vacuum would be to mislead them.

Senator Biden, who is likely the most knowledgeable US Senator on both sides of the aisle on Iraq, told us that Obama didn’t have a plan, he had a dream.

Senator Clinton had the endorsement of nearly 40 retired top members of the US Armed Forces, including two former Chief of Staffs because they knew she understood what it would take to do the groundwork so we can exit Iraq.

Ambassador Joe Wilson wrote op-ed after op-ed praising Clinton for her approach. In return, you vilified him. And he broke the goods on Cheney.

There are no words that can describe the utter disgust I feel towards many of Obama supporters. Those that engage in tactics that aim to suppress dissent by shutting down websites nefariously or spreading misinformation about the membership of PUMA are nothing but vile worms living off their own manure.

I have long recognized that my political views put me in a minority- and that no candidate will win by espousing what I believe- so I try to support the person who will do the least harm.

Well unless you are willing to consider Nader, you’re likely talking about McCain at this point as the person who will do the least damage. Obama can not be trusted and then he lacks all relevant experience and that in and of itself is eminently dangerous.

His comments on Jerusalem at AIPAC would have set off riots in the Middle East and put both American lives and interests across the globe in jeopardy had he been President at the time. Words matter. Nuance matters. Precision is important and now he’s puzzled by how the media reads his every word. Unless you want to be the Hugo Chavez of the United States who spouts like some uncontrollable geyser, words need to be measured. But Obama is such a panderer that off the cuff he will fly and into the abyss we will go.

All the people who are disappointed in Obama need to remember on thing - if you remember nothing else about him. He is a student of George Lakoff.

For those of you who don’t know what that means, it is simply, George Lakoff is a specialist in the cognitive science of linguistics. In English, he studies ’framing’ and how it works.

In the instance being worried about today (faith-based initiatives), everyone (including me) has heard this term over and over for the past 7 or so years, and have become very familiar with the Bush version of this. It is a failed policy whereby the Rethugs dismantle a government program that was doing an adequate job, in favor of some crony religious program that is marginal at best, and outright corrupt at its heart at worst.

Along with this, the Rethugs dismantled social safety net programs leaving these so-called faith-based organizations to pick up the entire load, something they were never qualified for, nor were capable of doing on the scale of need. So we hear the words - faith-based initiative - and immediately all this crap comes to mind. Along with the erosion in the line of separation between church and state.

Let me propose a ”Lakoff transformation”. First, listen to Obama’s speech. And I mean REALLY listen. Don’t just read the headlines, here or anywhere else because they all have as a subtext the Bush definition.

Second, let’s lose the descriptor - faith-based initiative. What Obama is proposing is a PARTNERSHIP between the government and private institutions to get a job done. He is proposing that the government will keep its ongoing programs and work to make them better. And will work as a PARTNER with other organizations to help address needs that may be better suited to these particular organizations or for which these organizations may have a better track record of success. He proposes to LEARN from these organizations and figure out ways to help the government agency do a better job so that all persons needs are met. Yes, some of these organizations are religious - but the appropriate guidelines are in place - they just need oversight, accountability and enforcement, something that has also been completely missing under Bushco, and which Obama says he will make the Office in charge do its job.

I think that we are all too quick to dismiss and feel bad about Obama’s supposed policy direction changes, when they may not be that at all. Or they may be policy direction changes that are going in an entirely new direction than the one we are thinking about. Lakoff says this is the trouble with our language - we tend to develop a ’frame’ around a word or phrase when we first encounter it. That frame gets imprinted on our brains, and then we have to work really hard to actually think ”outside the frame” for a new and better context.

Next time you hear that Obama did XYZ using language that feels/seems bad - try this exercise. Replace the objectionable frame with another word that describes the action being taken - as I did using the word ’partnership’, and then look at the issue again. We may all be surprised - in a good way.

What Obama is proposing is a PARTNERSHIP between the government and private institutions to get a job done? What Obama is propsoing is a giveaway of taxpayer money to private institutions that proselytize. Government is in the business of assisting people in their lives. Churches are in the business of saving souls. The two are not complimentary. There is a Constitutional separation between Church and State. Your framing is blind acceptance of utter folly.

The kool-aid is strong in this one. Anyone who supports him now is blind to the dangers that Obama poses to civil liberties and human progress. And blind men are at their blindest when they suddenly think that they can see.

See you in 2012, if we get there.

__________

From my blog, By The Fault.

Ms. Van Susteren does an excellent job in this interview. She does not let Speaker Pelosi get by with a lot. My letter to Ms. Van Susteren in response to this interview is below:

Dear Ms. Van Susteren:

Thank you for your interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. You have consistently been one of the BEST interviewers during this campaign season. I have a lot of respect for you. And I should add, I have been impressed at your willingness to allow the interviewee to actually answer your questions fully. That is a skill sorely lacking among many currently in the media.

As to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, let me say this: I am a 50 yr old, FAR left liberal, lifelong Democrat who has chosen to leave the Democratic Party after the actions of Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, the DNC elite, and the RBC of the DNC.

For Speaker Pelosi to blow off your question about the level of sexism in this campaign by saying, “well, I’m too busy being Speaker of the House, so I haven’t been able to document this…” was reprehensible. DOCUMENT it??? She was part of the PROBLEM!!

And she did not NEED to document it - it was blatantly OBVIOUS!! Since she seems incapable of acknowledging the sexism, the misogyny, with which Senator Clinton was met, perhaps this video by ShuttheFreudUp.com might give her a little clue: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM Feel free to pass it along to her.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Speaker Pelosi’s derogatory comments toward Senator Clinton this Primary Season were born out of her own fear of having a woman who will show how INCAPABLE Pelosi has been by contrast. Senator Clinton works HARD on behalf of her constituents, and the American people. Her abilities, her intellect, her drive, would clearly show up Speaker Pelosi’s horrible leadership as Speaker. No doubt in my mind.

And Speaker Pelosi is wrong. Obama is NOT the nominee YET, as you reminded her - the Convention is not until the end of AUGUST!!! And his “better ideas” are ALL ones he has copied from SENATOR CLINTON!!!

Here is part two of the three-part Fox News video, with more commentary below:

Even his recent statements on gas prices are the SAME ones about which he criticized Senator CLINTON just last month!

He has NO original ideas - he is merely a copy cat, of Deval Patrick, of Chicago poltiics, and of Clinton’s policies. How many times did he say in the debates, “What she said”?? He has no firm stances, no firm policies, and certainly no NEW ideas. Seems we just went through 7 1/2 yrs of another candidate who was similar in many regards, except one - he was actually MORE experienced than Senator Obama is now, and we all thought BUSH was too inexperienced to be President! Oh, wait - Obama did take ONE stand - he voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill!!

And for Pelosi to claim that Obama is not a Washington insider with ALL of the Washington insiders who have been running his campaign is just laughable. Daschle? Kennedy? Kerry? Pelosi? Dodd? Leahy? Axelrod?? The list goes on and on. Not only is he not the blank slate she pretends he is, he comes from Chicago politics, politics in which he gets elected by getting EVERYONE else off the ballot! Politics in which the Republican contender for the Senate seat mysteriously has his divorce papers unsealed, thus forcing him to drop out, and he competes against ALAN KEYES!!! A State Senator who did NOTHING on his own, having his name attached to legislation on which he did NOT work by Emil Jones, legislation he neither earned nor deserved. He is a US Senator who has done NOTHING, including not chairing his OWN subcommittee on NATO and Afghanistan, a Senator who has spent more time campaigning than working, a US Senator who won’t even vote on issues when he is in the BUILDING! He has NO real experience, and compared to Senator Clinton, he is SINGULARLY unqualified to be President. I will never, EVER vote for this arrogant, sexist, inexperienced man who is SORELY lacking in good judgment - his closest associates bears that out (Ayers, Rezko, Meeks, Wright, Auchi, et. al).

I won’t even go into the behavior of Obama’s campaign and his supporters except to say, the vitriol he has spewed about Senator Clinton in his speeches has given rise to a tremendous amount of acting out by his followers. It has become unsafe for people to speak out against him for fear of retribution. It is hard to believe this is still the USA…And it comes from the TOP down, no doubt about it.

I won’t bore you with all of my retorts to her ridiculous responses to your excellent questions, but her response about Obama’s choice of church is absurd. People DO care about the kind of message to which he has been listening for 20 years! People DO care that he counts The Reverend Wright as family to him. People DO care about the connection between TUCC and the Nation of Islam! It is not enough that “at least he goes to church” - what KIND of church it is MATTERS!!!

Speaker Pelosi is COMPLETELY out of touch with the American people. And her behavior toward Senator Clinton will not be forgotten, OR forgiven.

Finally, the vote stealing by the RBC/DNC, voter fraud, and inaction by the DNC of numerous reports of unethical behavior at the least, and illegal activity at most, in the caucuses made it CLEAR that the DNC did not care who the people wanted, contrary to Pelosi’s constant refrain that Obama is the people’s choice.

I never thought I would see the DNC disenfranchise voters , especially after the 2000 Florida debacle, never mind STEAL votes and delegates as they did in MI, and so blatantly go against the will of the people, but that is EXACTLY what they have done. Their actions, especially the theft of actual votes and delegates from Senator Clinton TO Senator Obama, who was not even on the BALLOT in MI, have proven to me that the fix was in to shove this unqualified candidate down our throats. I am ashamed of what the Democratic Party has become. I am ashamed of how they have conducted themselves in this primary. And I am sad that the Party to which I have belonged for decades has become one of such immorality. The DNC’s candidate will get neither my money NOR my vote.

Thank you again for your outstanding work. You are a breath of fresh air in the Mainstream Media!

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
PUMA08
Just Say No Deal

Here is part three of the three-part interview:

Via Clinton Democrats, today’s action item of the day:

Today Senator Barbara Mikulski joined Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) to announce their “Checklist for Change,” a list of ten issues Congress can immediately address to improve the lives of the American people. They include: providing equal pay for equal work, keeping jobs in America, making health care affordable, taking care of our military families and veterans, restoring America’s credibility in the world, protecting our environment, making America energy independent, preparing for future disasters, enforcing fiscal accountability and protecting the family checkbook. This is a blatant pander - a “checklist” of hot button items to women.

Call me cynical, but this sudden urge to “do something” about issues most important to women strikes me as “just words.”

Please contact these leaders and tell them if they really care about the concerns of women they should stand up and endorse Hillary Clinton. If they care about equal rights and equal treatment that they should stand up against sexism in the Democratic party.

If they care about women’s rights they should investigate the treatment of Hillary Clinton by the media. If they care about reforming healthcare, they should help Hillary Clinton get into the White House. If they care about keeping jobs in America, they should not be endorsing the guy that once again has flip-flopped on NAFTA.

Specifically ask Senator McCaskill “Why, after accepting approximately $500,000 from Emily’s List did you feel no obligation to back the more qualified female candidate for President?”

Sen. Klobuchar accepted roughly $300,000 from Emily’s List. Why didn’t she endorse Hillary?

Sen. Boxer was mum during this whole primary season. Why the sudden concern about women’s issues now? Senator Boxer launched an investigation into the horrific treatment of the Dixie Chicks after one of them publicly criticized Bush. Where is that outrage about the treatment Hillary has received? Where is the investigation?

Senator Claire MCCASKILL Contact Senator McCaskill

Senator Debbie STABENOW Contact Senator Stebenow

Senator Barbara BOXER Contact Senator Boxer

Senator Amy KLOBUCHAR Contact Senator Knobuchar

And remind them that it is hypocritical to support Barack Obama as an advocate for energy independence when he voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy that was nothing more than than a giveway of taxpayer money to oil and energy companies. Remind them that Barack Obama has received more contributions from energy companies that all other candidates combined.

_________

From my blog, By The Fault.

I’d hate to be a trucker right now.  Parts of DC were at a standstill today as truckers converged on town to demonstrate against the soaring gas prices.  They want action and they want it now (they’re not alone!).  Truckers spend about $1,200 every time they fill their tanks and when you think of how much of our food and goods are moved by truck in this country, that’s gonna trickle down to higher prices for everything we buy - not just gas.

Well… Hillary’s just released a plan today to do something about those higher prices.  Given the eejit in the White House right now we probably won’t see any action on this until she gets into the Oval Office next January, but at least she’s got a plan in place and will be ready on DAY ONE to put her plan into action.

MSNBC’s First Read reported the following about her plan earlier today…

This morning, Clinton unveiled a plan to tax oil company “windfall” profits to pay for a gas tax holiday, which she said would provide needed relief for working-class Americans, who have seen energy costs take up greater percentage of their incomes. Here, she also discussed plans to create new jobs in a push to move toward energy independence, while outlining tough tactics she’d employ against oil producing countries to keep oil prices in line.

“Now, none of this is easy to do, but I don’t think we have a choice,” she said. “We can continue to be at the mercy of the … oil countries, which will mean that our standard of living will continue to decline. We will not recognize America. We will not recognize the American middle class. So we can either say, `OK, fine we’ll just kind of go along and, you know, elect somebody who’s nice or elect somebody who’s gonna continue the Bush policies. Or we can elect somebody who’s gonna fight for you. That is the choice in this election.”

Amid cheers, she made clear which candidate is that fighter.

I don’t do a lot of driving as far as my commute to work goes (5 miles each way) but I’m still feeling a lot of pain at the gas pump.  Part of my job involves driving out to various county courthouses to record documents - some as far as 110 miles round-trip - and it’s been ages since they adjusted our reimbursement / mileage rate.  The price of gas has gone up close to a buck since the last adjustment.  Meanwhile the cost of food and our utilities have skyrocketed with no relief in sight.

Take a look at Hillary’s plan to tackle those skyrocketing prices…

Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Address Soaring Prices at the Pump

Americans are being squeezed at the pump like never before.  The price of oil is approaching $120 a barrel. Gas is at a record high in North Carolina of $3.59, up from $3.26 a month ago and $2.90 a year ago, a 23 percent increase in just one year.  And while the average family’s energy costs have gone up $2,000 a year since President Bush took office, average North Carolina family incomes have fallen by almost $5,000. Record oil prices are contributing to higher energy prices, food prices and a squeeze that is making many middle class families feel like they are falling further behind.  

American families are hurting now. They need a President who will focus every day on ensuring that they can make ends meet.  That is why today, Hillary is unveiling her aggressive plan to address the problem of skyrocketing gas prices.  Hillary’s plan includes:

Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months;

Closing $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance for lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills;

Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel;

Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries

Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to release oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

This plan builds on Hillary’s long-term plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and address global warming.  She has committed moving America towards energy independence by cutting foreign oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels, more than 10 million barrels per day.

For the rest of the plan please see Hillary Clinton’s news release

Now I’ve seen some pretty nasty remarks left by Hillary’s detractors (ok followers of her opponent) left on some of the other blogs here today whenever anyone dared report on Hillary’s new plan.  And I guess the bigger the proponent of Obama’s, the bigger the lies.  

That brings me back to David Axelrod.  Yeah, yeah, I know I went after him in my diary last night but this is a different set of lies he’s put out there.  Apparently he went on the TeeVee this afternoon and told another whopper.  Take a look…

Axelrod Misrepresents Hillary’s Plan For Gas Tax Holiday

This afternoon on Hardball, Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, falsely claimed that Hillary’s plan to suspend the gas tax this summer would be financed by diverting funds for federal transportation projects:

He’ll invest in our infrastructure, which badly needs it. We know that. That’s one of the reasons this diversion from the federal highway trust fund that Senator McCain and Clinton have proposed makes no sense.

This is false. Hillary’s plan is financed by a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies. Details here.

For those of you who can’t be bothered to follow the link in the above bit there - here’s the relevant bit…

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies to Pay for Temporarily Suspending the Gas Tax - Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months. Hillary will ensure that this relief is passed along to consumers by charging the Federal Trade Commission with conducting aggressive oversight. Unlike Senator McCain’s plan, Hillary’s plan will be fully paid for by taking away oil company profits through a windfall profits tax. This will ensure that the Highway Trust Fund is not affected at all by the gas tax suspension, and can continue to support critical repairs and maintenance for our infrastructure and highways. Suspending the gas tax will provide real, immediate assistance to American families and for our economy. Recent testimony before the House of Representatives by the American Trucking Association indicates that even small changes in price can have big impacts. Just a one-penny decrease in the price of diesel annualized over an entire year would save the trucking industry $391 million a year.

Now the media’s jumping in on that pile-of-lies bandwagon too (surprise surprise!) by claiming that she once opposed efforts to get rid of the gas tax.  I really do wish they’d get their facts straight…

Hillary Opposed Gas Tax Holiday In 2000 Because It Was Financed With Transportation Funds

NBC’s First Read implies that Hillary’s plan for a gas tax holiday contradicts her position in 2000. This is false.

Hillary’s plan today is financed exclusively with a tax on windfall profits from oil companies. She opposed a plan in 2000 for a gas tax holiday because it was financed with transportation funds:

“Clinton, whose daughter, Chelsea, joined her on the campaign trail for the first time yesterday in Manhattan, contends that getting rid of the gas tax would eliminate the funding stream for important transportation projects in New York and elsewhere…” [Newsday, 6/27/00]

“While New York sends $300 million a year to Washington in gas taxes, Clinton said it gets back $477 million in highway funding annually. The first lady said Lazio’s plan would have a ‘damaging impact’ on the state.” [Associated Press, 6/27/00]

Now something tells me the folks who gave MSNBC that lead on the factoid they just got wrong knew it was bad intel - but they still put that lie out there for general consumption hoping folks wouldn’t challenge it.

How sad that Axelrod tried to go on Hardball today and claim Hillary’s new plan would be paid for by drawing money off our transportation projects, after trying to point folks to her opposition to an earlier proposal without mentioning that she opposed it because it would draw off money from our transportation needs.

(Seriously - the guy has no shame in all this).

In this high-tech world where people have information and - oh you know… the facts at our fingertips, you’d think he’d just stop this crap and discuss the issues without adding all that bullsh#t.

Thank goodness for Google and the Internet.  

SO - that brings me back to my initial question here.  I know I’m going to regret asking this because we’re probably paying more than most of you around the rest of the country - but what’s a gallon of regular gas cost in your neck of the woods?

Answer the poll and leave a comment.

Kewpie doll goes to anyone who can top what I’m paying.

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Obama supporters will point out that Hillary also take money from oil executives. She freely admits this, saying:

“Well the fact is [Obama] didn’t take money from oil companies, but you can, and we do, take money from people who work for oil companies, they’re Americans, they can contribute, so we both do that,” Clinton admitted.

Why does Obama continue to mislead the public about the source of his contributions? It might come as a shock to his supporters: it polls well. It’s an open secret that Obama spends lavishly on a small army of pollsters, message men, media advisers, public relations experts, and advertising agencies. But in the case of being clean of oil money, Obama’s money machine didn’t speak to his message men:

In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama aired a campaign spot in Indiana and Pennsylvania that sought to reinforce his theme that he would change the Washington culture, while also tapping into voter distress about the high price of gasoline. In the ad, he called for a windfall profits “penalty.”

“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,” says the spot, which aired as recently as April 8.

Obama’s team has carefully crafted a message that he doesn’t take money from political action committees, although he did until recently, and he doles out substantial amounts of money from his own PAC. Instead he takes enormous sums from people who just so happen to all work in that industry. It’s really just a shell game with dummy corporations: These groups of ultra-wealthy donors are not registered and regulated, and therefore Obama can claim that he doesn’t take money from oil companies:

Obama’s ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations.

As the ad aired, Obama took $12,400 from oil company executives and employees in increments of $1,000 or more. Altogether, people who identify themselves as working for oil and gas companies donated $46,000 in March.

Obama’s claims allow him to project a squeaky clean image created by his handlers. The only problem with this poll-tested strategy is that it collides with the reality that wealthy oil executives are pouring money into his campaign. Obama’s chief strategist David Axlerod, in a moment of candor, described his role like this: “I know my business and the technology of politics and polling and focus groups, all of what we do, in some ways contributes to an atmosphere of cynicism. I try to fight that. I can’t say I’m totally blameless.” You think?

Obama’s willingness to say one thing and do another is wearing thin. He continues to lose contests and his favorability ratings have plummeted. Claiming to be clean of oil money is one thing, actually doing it is something else. “From our perspective, if there is a distinction between oil company PACs and lobbyists, and their executives, it is a mighty fine line,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. “They all represent the same interest — oil.”

Where was Obama’s judgment in 2005 …

when Hillary was voting against Cheney’s Energy Bill?

• Barack Obama voted Aye on the committee reports.
• Barack Obama voted Aye on the conference report.
• Barack Obama voted Aye for the 2005 giveaway to the Oil and Gas Industry.

Where was Barack Obama’s judgment in 2005?

Hillary Clinton voted against the giveaway for Cheney’s friends.  She was among a handful of senators who understood that this bill would take us in the wrong direction.

One of the great selling points was the credits for investment in new refineries. Do you see all that new construction that is helping to lower the price of oil? I didn’t think so.  This was a scam just like most government programs that supposedly “work with” big oil.

And where was Barack Obama?

He was taking care of the Coal Industry in his home state of Illinois.  Now it’s all well and good for senators to help their state.  That’s politics as usual.  And maybe he was even trying to preserve some coal mining jobs. That’s also Politics as Usual.  But give me a break.  This is the bill that has lined big oil’s pockets with billions and billions of our dollars while doing nothing to help our energy independence.

Matthew Yglesias takes a critical non-partisan look.  It’s worth a visit for the Obama supporter comments.

Last night, Hillary Clinton called the 2005 energy bill that Barack Obama voted for the “Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill” citing its “enormous giveaways to oil and gas industry.” Washington Post fact-checker Michael Dobbs says she’s wrong, but in the real world she’s right. I assume Obama was more swayed by giveaways to coal interests — Illinois is a coal-producing state and before his presidential campaign geared up he was trying to grope his way toward a coal-friendly environmentalism before eventually, and rightly, giving up — than to the oil and gas industry, but it was still a bad bill and a fair tag.

I don’t know about you but I’m kind of pissed at people like Barack Obama every time I fill my gas tank.

While Barack Obama has resurrected his now-infamous “bamboozling” line that he exploited in South Carolina — this time today in Mississippi — Hillary Clinton’s press team has produced two top-notch press releases today that 1) hit Barack Obama’s vote for Dick Cheney’s energy bill and 2) Obama’s fifth waffling excuse for NAFTA-gate.

“You all know the okey-dokey, when someone’s trying to bamboozle you, when they’re trying to hoodwink you?” Obama said [today] to the crowd at the Mississippi University for Women. “You can’t say that, ‘He’s not ready on day one unless he’s willing to be your vice president, then he’s ready on day one.’”

From Hillary Clinton: Sen. Obama Offers 5th Explanation of NAFTA-Gate

After days of misleading denials, Sen. Obama has finally acknowledged that a meeting took place between his senior economic advisor and Canadian officials regarding NAFTA. But Sen. Obama now claims that the detailed memo obtained by the AP describing the meeting – and Goolsbee’s downplaying of Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric – is inaccurate. This is at least the fifth different explanation offered by Sen. Obama and his campaign.

Somebody has to do the actual reporting (especially today while the media obsess over Spitzer, a story that writes itself [and the media love those because they needn't lift a finger]).

The factual history of Sen. Obama’s various evasive explanations for NAFTA-gate is below — as is Hillary Clinton’s statement today, “Hillary Clinton Statement on All-Time High Oil Prices,” which references Sen. Obama’s vote FOR Dick Cheney’s energy bill (and, yes, Sen. Clinton voted against that bill):

More history on NAFTA-gate:

1. 2/27/08 – ‘No conversations have taken place’ with the Canadian government on NAFTA. “Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue.” [CTV, 2/29/08]

2. 2/27/08 – Obama advisor just said ‘hello.’ “Goolsbee: Canada’s consul general in Chicago contacted him ‘at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.” [ABC, 2/29/08]

3. 2/28/08 - Rice: ‘There had been no contact.’ “The Canadian ambassador issued a statement that was absolutely false. There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word…period.” [MSNBC, Susan Rice, 2/28/08]

4. 2/29/08: Sen. Obama: ‘It did not happen.’ Anchor: “So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion.” Sen. Obama: “It did not happen.” [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]

5. 3/10/08 – Sen. Obama: The meeting did happen, they did discuss NAFTA, but advisor just said Obama wanted to make NAFTA ’stronger for U.S. workers.’ “So here’s what happens. You’ve got one of my economic advisors goes and visits a Canadian embassy and they’re asking him questions and he says, ‘Well, Senator Obama isn’t planning to repeal NAFTA, but he wants to amend it to make it stronger for U.S. workers.’ The Canadian embassy writes it up as, ‘Well, maybe Obama is not as tough on NAFTA as you might think.’ And the Clintons start waving this and saying, ‘See? Actually, he’s the one.’” [Mississippi Rally, 3/10/08]

Check out more NoQuarter stories on NAFTA-gate.

Hillary Clinton Statement on All-Time High Oil Prices

Today’s record setting oil prices underscore the stakes in this election. The soaring cost of oil is dragging down our economy and driving up prices on everything from gas at the pump to food on families’ tables. Gas is approaching $4 a gallon in some parts of the country and the average American family is spending $2,000 more a year on their energy costs than they were in 2000. Americans need a president who is ready to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming from day one, not someone who voted to provide new special interest tax breaks and giveaways to big oil companies. My opponent voted for Dick Cheney’s 2005 energy bill; I knew it would take us in the wrong direction.

For seven years, the Bush Administration has stood by as the price of oil has skyrocketed, now breaking $107 a barrel. As a result, companies like Exxon are reaping the highest profits in the history of the world-$40.6 billion in 2007 alone-and we are more dependent on foreign oil now than we were before 9/11.

As President, I will create a Strategic Energy Fund that will require big oil companies to reinvest some of their huge windfall profits in clean, renewable technologies. I will reduce the amount of oil we import by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030, or more than 10 million barrels per day. These steps are part of my overall plan to transition to a clean, green economy and create at least 5 million new green collar jobs in America.

Check out more No Quarter stories on the Energy Act of 2005 as well as Obama and Clinton’s statements on the energy issue.

During this most recent scandal concerning NAFTA, Senator Obama’s spokesperson uttered something I found rather amusing. His spokesperson, in defending Senator Obama against what is now widely being seen as waffling if not outright lying to the American people stated:

There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.

Boy is that a mouthful. It sounds like legalese rather than something an ordinary American would understand. But it’s that last part that gave me a chuckle because, well, Senator Obama has been FAR from consistent on trade policy or hardly any policy at all. In fact he makes stuff up that sounds really good to his adoring fans, he even puts out commercials touting his strong support for workers in need. But when one examines his “consistent” record there is indeed a consistency there, but it is the type of consistency that is inconsistent and is more than a little troubling. In fact you might say that his rhetoric and his actions are two entirely different things as this recent NAFTAgate scandal is making very clear. the guy talks a good game, but when it comes to actually taking action he is
missing in action.

Let’s examine this shall we?

The first example the American people experienced of Senator Obama’s post-partisan working across the aisle approach was on July, 29 2005. On that fateful day Senator Obama voted YEA to the Dick Cheney behind closed doors Energy Policy Act of 2005. The same so-called Energy Policy that offered HUGE giveaways to the oil companies and special interests. I’m sure you have heard Senator Obama on the stump claiming:

Washington’s failure is the failure of a president who spent most of his time in office denying the very existence of global warming - of a Vice President who developed America’s energy policy with a secret task force that opened the door to oil lobbyists and
then shut it to every other point of view.

What you don’t hear him say is that he VOTED for this bill that he now works up the crowd claiming to be opposing. Is that funny or what?

In fact Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network states:

http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/epact2005.html

A sound energy policy would focus on conservation, efficiency and CLEAN renewables (like wind and solar — no “biomass” incinerators) and that we need a clean fuels policy that reduces our oil consumption and moves us towards CLEAN hydrogen fuel cells (using hydrogen separated from water with wind and solar electricity).

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 does just the opposite. It’s without question the most environmentally-damaging national legislation ever to be passed in the U.S. It’s a gigantic subsidy bill, providing support to almost every conceivable dirty energy technology, including nuclear power, fossil fuels, and polluting “alternative” fuels.

With an expert like Mike Ewall saying something like this it is hard to imagine why Senator Obama voted for this terrible bill. You know, the bill Dick Cheney negotiated. I guess this is how Obama demonstrates his ability to reach across the aisle and work with republicans. Hmmm…. doesn’t sound like any type of bipartisanship that is good for the American people. But is surely is very good news to BIG OIL and all their lobbyists. You know, those same folks Senator Obama likes to remind us that he is so dead set against.

And just to put this into perspective, this is what the Energy Bill that senator Obama VOTED for but now acts like he is against actually does. Again from Mike Ewall:

The energy bill will…

   * increase gasoline prices (according to Bush’s own Department of Energy)
    * do nothing to reduce our reliance on oil imports
    * do nothing to increase auto fuel efficiency
    * do nothing to transition our electricity sector towards clean renewable energy
    * inventory the U.S. coastlines for oil and gas, to make way for future drilling in our coastal waters
    * trample state’s rights to protect their coasts from liquefied natural gas terminals (used so we can go to war  
     for gas as well as oil, now that we’re running out of natural gas in North America)
    * require ethanol use, increasing gas prices [mention this if you're in a Western or New England state, where  
   ethanol would need to be imported from the mid-west]
    * make us more vulnerable to terrorism by building more juicy terrorist targets (new nuclear reactors and a new  
     gas pipeline from Alaska)
    * throw many billions of tax dollars into the expensive and polluting nuclear power industry
    * promote nuclear proliferation by reversing long-standing U.S. policy against reprocessing waste from
commercial nuclear reactors, and using plutonium to generate commercial energy
    * promote building more coal power plants
    * provide incentives to cut down our national forests for energy production

Had enough? Do you get it yet? How about another fine example of Barack Obama’s “leadership”? And I use the term loosely on energy.

Back in May of 2007 Senator Obama went to Detroit to deliver what was billed as a

stern message to Detroit auto companies on Monday, saying they had done little to lessen the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and needed to improve the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/us/politics/08obama.html?ref=politics

Not a single CEO of the automotive manufacturers was in attendance. And Senator Obama for all this talk of “his plan” was merely stating what was already the Democratic plan in the House and the Senate. He didn’t write the plan. He is not a member of the Committee that wrote the legislation. To his credit he voted for the legislation. But he knew well in advance what was being proposed and then essentially went to Detroit and took credit for something he only voted for after the fact.

Does this sound familiar? Senator Obama claiming to have done something he hasn’t? It should. Didn’t Senator Obama claim to have passed a nuclear energy bill that he not only never did but that was actually a huge pass to the nuclear energy sector? And isn’t it funny that the same folks he was “regulating” just happened to donate large sums of money to his campaign? And the bill he claimed to pass and didn’t followed the Bush style manner of environmental regulation. The nuclear energy was allowed to Voluntarily report nuclear discharges into the neighborhoods where people live and children play. Yep, that some bill ya passed there Senator Obama. More of that working across the aisle stuff I see.

But what of trade you might ask? Isn’t Obama consistent just like his campaign spokesperson says? Surely he is on our side like he says. Well, as it turns out Senator Obama’s promises are not worth a dime. But they do sound good. Ya got to give him that.

Senator Obama’s first foray into trade occurred way back in 2005 when he was a new Senator anxious to make his mark and show the people of the United States just what he was made of. I mean, pretty speeches only go far far, right? Unfortunately with Senator Obama that seems to be the only thing about his that you can count on.

In 2005 the Senate was debating H.R. 2862 known as: An Act making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. This was a very comprehensive bill as you might imagine with such a long title. But something much smaller was proposed by Byron Dorgan to this bill. It was Amendment 1665 designed:

To prohibit weakening any law that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices.

In other words, an amendment to keep the Bush Administration from weaking labor laws that would put American workers and their jobs in jeopardy. In short, a DEMOCRATIC proposal to protect American workers. And one would expect that since Senator Obama preaches how much he cares about American workers and how opposed he has always been to NAFTA and all that that he would have been one of the supporters of this amendment. Sorry, if you thought that you will be sadly mistaken. You see, Senator Obama for all of his talk about protecting American jobs actually voted AGAINST this important Amendment.

Maybe this was a rookie mistake. Perhaps he pressed the wrong handle and voted the wrong way accidentally. No again, it’s a sad fact that Senator Obama intentionally voted against this Very important Amendment that would have protected American jobs. And though you might not know this because of all the lies the Obama campaign have stated about Hillary’s position on NAFTA, she actually voted for this Amendment when it is Senator Obama that supposedly has been against NAFTA from the start and on the side of workers and all that.

It kinda goes like this: Senator Obama says that he is on the side of workers and believes in saving American jobs but when it comes down to actually supporting American workers and protecting their jobs, Senator Obama is missing in action. Or rather, he is siding with the Republicans and bragging to the country that he works across the aisle to accomplish what is in the best interests of our country. If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny. But wait, there’s more.

You may have heard Senator Obama mention how he went to bat for the poor Maytag workers that lost not only their factory and their jobs, but apparently their representation in the Illinois Senate.

http://www.galesburg.com/news/x129592482

In recent campaign speeches, Sen. Obama has repeatedly cited the plight of Maytag workers in his bid to win sympathy and support from union members battered by factory closings and lost jobs.

“He didn’t lift a finger to help those people when they needed help the most,” said IAM President Tom Buffenbarger, whose union represented the workers at Maytag. “Even now, he doesn’t have a clue and thinks those jobs went overseas and not to Mexico.”

You get that? Obama didn’t lift a finger to help the Maytag workers that he now uses as an example of his leadership in standing up for American works.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-galesburg_obama_webfeb01,0,4286527.story

What rankles some is what Obama didn’t do even as he expressed solidarity four years ago with workers mounting a
desperate fight to save their jobs.

Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company’s directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama’s campaigns since 2003. But Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg plant with him, and the billionaire industrialist insists any jawboning would have been futile.

Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said late Thursday that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag’s board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa.

Now lets see, Obama is friends with Lester Crown. Lester Crown is a friend, supporter and financial contributor to Barack Obama. He and his wife have raised thousands of dollars for Barack Obama. In fact, Lester Crown’s son is the Illinois finance chairman of Obama’s presidential run. But yet David Axelrod and Barack Obama would have us believe that he didn’t even know one of his largest supporters also just happened to sit on the Board of Maytag. Sure Barack. Sure David. Whatever you say. Uh huh.

But that’s not the worst part. Obama claims that the Maytag people never asked him for assistance and that is why he didn’t help them. Hmmm…  does that seem a little strange to anyone besides me? He had expressed solidarity with the workers 4 years earlier as previously quoted but he didn’t feel the need to express his solidarity with them when their factory was being closed and their lives shattered? How can this make sense coming from the candidate declaring the “new politics of hope’? I bet those Maytag workers hope that Obama was true to his word.

The Obama campaign said the Maytag workers’ union never asked him to intervene with Crown and that he would have
done so if they had. Union officials said they were unaware of the Crowns’ ties to Maytag or to Obama.

Before John Edwards dropped out of the race this week, Obama hit him for financial ties to a hedge fund with investments in Whirlpool. The Obama critique stressed Whirlpool’s role in closing U.S. factories, including Maytag’s longtime headquarters in Newton, Iowa.

Crown family members are major Democratic Party donors. Some have given to Clinton’s campaigns for the U.S. Senate in New York. But in the presidential run, their money is behind Obama, campaign records show. The Crowns and employees of their family-run holding company have given at least $195,000 to Obama’s U.S. Senate and presidential campaigns.

Funny, the Governor of Illinois found it important enough to attempt to intervene. As did U.S. Representative Lane. But not the guy that said he was in solidarity with the workers. No, not Barack Obama.

“I have never had a conversation with State Sen. Obama or U.S. Sen. Obama regarding the Maytag Corporation,” Crown told the Tribune.

Never had a conversation. Obama claims to be in solidarity with the Maytag workers, uses them as an example of how jobs are leaving the country. And yet he never had a conversation with the one man that might have been able to do something about it.

In a statement issued late Thursday, the Obama campaign defended his record on standing up for American workers against special interests. “Because of Obama’s history of working with Democrats and Republicans to get things done, our campaign has generated the support of voters and contributors with a wide range of policy beliefs,” the statement read.

Yeah, Senator Obama sure has stood up for the American worker. A lot of people are being told that on a daily basis. You see it on the television ads. You see it all over the internet. You hear it from political commentators. And yes, you hear it out of the mouth of Barack Obama. All the time.

But behind the curtain where the rhetoric and highfalutin oratory is stripped away we are left with Senator Obama’s record. And he is not on our side.