More Dishonesty: Obama & Big Oil.

[iman]

I understand that candidates have to raise money, but Obama has repeatedly criticised Clinton for taking money from lobbyists and pretended that he is not beholden to business interests. The hypocrisy of the Obama campaign's negative attacks on Clinton and the Obama misrepresentations of it's own campaign is quite amazing. Too bad the press ignores it. Where's the Hope? Where's the Change?



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

In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

• • Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
    
    
  • Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

 

[iman]

I forget. Why am I supposed to vote for Obama? How is he different from any other candidate?

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.
Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance data shows.

http://usatoday.printthis.clickabil...416/1a___bottomstrip16.art.htm&partnerID=1660

 

[MystikWizard]

I understand that candidates have to raise money, but Obama has repeatedly criticised Clinton for taking money from lobbyists and pretended that he is not beholden to business interests. The hypocrisy of the Obama campaign's negative attacks on Clinton and the Obama misrepresentations of it's own campaign is quite amazing. Too bad the press ignores it. Where's the Hope? Where's the Change?



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

Go ahead. Show a little more from that same article ...

Clinton takes lots of money from lobbyists and PACs from a wide variety of companies and industries. In fact, just as Obama's ad states, she has accepted more from PACs ($1,157,939) and from current and former lobbyists ($865,290) than any other candidate of either party, according to public records tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics. (McCain is second in both categories, with $687,794 from PACs and $590,952 from individual lobbyists.)

Clinton's total from oil and gas company PACs and employees ranks fourth among the candidates (behind Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and McCain), and Obama's ranks fifth, according to CRP.

Donations from Oil and Gas Industry
(through 3/20/2008 )

Clinton $309,363 0.18% (of total donations)
Obama $222,309 0.11% (of total donations)

So, it looks like despite Senator Clinton saying she has taken on the Oil Industry, she has accepted more money from PACs and employees in the Oil Industry, then Obama.

And as far as your second post, Senator Clinton has still taken more money from lobbyists then Senator Obama ... and has the distinct honor of being the candidate who has taken the most money from lobbyists in this entire election. So why should we be voting for her again, Iman?

Because she is a Woman?

Never mind. You don't even have to answer.

 

[MystikWizard]

When I saw the words "more dishonesty", I thought of iman and Nick Cole instead of any political candidate.

 

[iman]

Why am I not suprised that the Obama folks mis the point. The point is that Obama is simply misrepresenting himself and misrepresenting his opponent. Why is that necessary? Why can't he tell the truth? How is he any different from any other candidate?

In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

 

[MystikWizard]

Why am I not suprised that the Obama folks mis the point. The point is that Obama is simply misrepresenting himself and misrepresenting his opponent. Why is that necessary? Why can't he tell the truth? How is he any different from any other candidate?

I remember landing under sniper fire. We had to run with our heads down ....

 

[MystikWizard]

Southern fox nailed you on the head, and it is applicable to NickCole too. Regardless of what you claim, people argue. Then, you try and argue back with some fallacy or other, be it attack the person, the messenger, or a red herring, and then you scuttle off to create a new thread. In some post down the line, you'll reiterate the same big lie propaganda you offered before, and this continues day-in, day-out until someone is chosen. This is not politics, this is childish nonsense riddled with lies. Waste your vote on anyone you want, but stop wasting so much time.

I have him and Nick on Ignore for exactly the reasons you mentioned, but my curiosity got the best of me with the title of this thread. But, you're right. The pattern is always the same. They come in, take a swipe, someone counters them ... and then they scurry off and find a new thread to create. Eventually, though, this topic will come back up again ... and the process repeats itself.

Um, yeah. Back to Ignore. Things are a lot more peaceful that way.

 

[D8Na2R]

Of course Obama lies HE IS A POLITICIAN. None of this makes the least bit of difference.

The oil company money is not the lion's share of Obama's campaign contributions. That's where the bigger problem lies.

 

[Shafted]

I didn't believe anybody could run a campaign without some help from lobbyists, but the fact remains that Obama's campaign is largely grass roots in nature. And a few of these lobbyists say they have nothing to gain from siding with Obama (doubt that).

Even so, it's problematic that Clinton and McCain have taken money to the point that they're in the pockets of lobbyists.

 

[MystikWizard]

Lobbyists are the only ones keeping McCain's campaign financing alive at this point.

But it is laughable that someone like Iman comes on here and chides Obama about taking lobbyist money, when his candidate has taken MORE money from the Oil Industry then Obama and has taken the MOST money from lobbyists compared to either McCain, Obama, or any of the other candidates that already dropped out of the race including Giuliani and Romney.

 

[Chalchalero]

Why am I not suprised that the Obama folks mis the point. The point is that Obama is simply misrepresenting himself and misrepresenting his opponent. Why is that necessary? Why can't he tell the truth? How is he any different from any other candidate?

While I usually disagree with you on the subject of the candidates, (and I have read quite a bit of what you have written), I am afraid that here you have a point. If Hillary had made such a blatant claim and was caught to have "misspoke" there would have been an avalanche of commentary from Obama's supporters on these threads (myself included) ready to call her on it.

Obama's hypocrisy in this matter does disappoint me somewhat...

 

[iman]

Neither Clinton or McCain have lied about where their money comes from - Obama has. The pretense that he does not take money from lobbyists or oil companies is simply false. Obama has raised nearly $200 million so far.

 

[Chalchalero]

Neither Clinton or McCain have lied about where their money comes from - Obama has. The pretense that he does not take money from lobbyists or oil companies is simply false. Obama has raised nearly $200 million so far.

Raising money isn't a crime, it is the nature of politics. What disppoints me is simply the fact that he would claim not to have received money from oil companies. As pointed out in the article used to open this thread, that claim was a bit disingenuous at best, and that is being dishonest to an extent. Sad...

By the way, perhaps I missed it, but your article stated that he claimed never to have receievd money from oil companies, but I didn't see where he claimed not to have received money from lobbyists. Where did it say that? I would think that only Bloomberg could afford to say such a thing with a straight face. All politicians are on the take with lobbyists, it is just a fact of life.

 

[iman]

Good for Hillary, she is running an ad about the Obama dishonesty.

 

[greydog]

Good for Hillary, she is running an ad about the Obama dishonesty.


the pot calling the kettle black............

 

[NickCole]

By the way, perhaps I missed it, but your article stated that he claimed never to have receievd money from oil companies, but I didn't see where he claimed not to have received money from lobbyists. Where did it say that?

He's said it many times, including in a current ad, as reported today:

WASHINGTON — The screen fills with grainy footage of sprawling 1970s gas lines.

"Nothing's changed," Sen. Barack Obama says into the camera, "except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas. … I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore."

Obama's ad, which has been airing in Pennsylvania as the April 22 primary approaches, is technically true but misleading, as non-partisan FactCheck.org and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign have been quick to point out. ...

•Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig, whose lobbying clients include gambling and handgun interests.

Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show. Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.

•Obama accepts money from spouses of federal lobbyists. In December, the campaign returned a $250 contribution from lobbyist Thomas Jensen of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, but a few days later, it cashed a $500 check from his wife, Sarah, records show. Jensen said his wife had "personally chosen" to contribute to Obama.

•Obama accepts contributions and fundraising help from state lobbyists. Florida lobbyist Russell Klenet hosted a fundraiser for Obama Aug. 25, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Two months before, Klenet had withdrawn as a lobbyist in Washington for a kidney dialysis company that relies heavily on federal revenue, Senate records show. Klenet did not return phone calls.

•Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He's taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "I don't take pharma money." ...

Obama's 20 largest sources of money, grouped by employers, are executives from major corporations and law firms with a Washington lobbying presence — including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Google, according to the center. Clinton's and McCain's top donors include executives from some of the same companies, such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obamainside_N.htm

Difference is, Clinton is not lying about where her money comes from.

 

[JackFTwist]

Southern fox nailed you on the head, and it is applicable to NickCole too. Regardless of what you claim, people argue. Then, you try and argue back with some fallacy or other, be it attack the person, the messenger, or a red herring, and then you scuttle off to create a new thread. In some post down the line, you'll reiterate the same big lie propaganda you offered before, and this continues day-in, day-out until someone is chosen. This is not politics, this is childish nonsense riddled with lies. Waste your vote on anyone you want, but stop wasting so much time.

I have him and Nick on Ignore for exactly the reasons you mentioned, but my curiosity got the best of me with the title of this thread. But, you're right. The pattern is always the same. They come in, take a swipe, someone counters them ... and then they scurry off and find a new thread to create. Eventually, though, this topic will come back up again ... and the process repeats itself.

Um, yeah. Back to Ignore. Things are a lot more peaceful that way.

I am glad that others have caught onto the cheap stunts pulled by some.

Total lack of integrity.

 

[NickCole]

Individuals are allowed to give in this flawed system. We should all demand campaign-finance reform that requires all campaigns to be publically funded.



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

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



What sad desperation attempting to make a big deal out of nothing.

Nobody said it's not allowed.

Obama says he's changing the way politics is done and doesn't take money from oil and pharma and lobbyists.

Obama is misleading voters. George Bush misled Americans and look what it got us.

Obama can't be trusted.

 

[LaloGS]

Give it up guys. It's obvious you have all made your descisions. There's no sense of continuing to try to convince your selves your candidate has the high road. They pretty much all stink to some degree. This is American Idol er, I mean politics.

 

[greydog]

Give it up guys. It's obvious you have all made your descisions. There's no sense of continuing to try to convince your selves your candidate has the high road. They pretty much all stink to some degree. This is American Idol er, I mean politics.

Right on the money... good points!