New Hillary Mailer: "American Families Can't Afford Barack Obama"
Hillary drops a mailer in Ohio -- forwarded to us by a reader -- that attacks Obama on energy.
In a state where Hillary is working hard to stave off Obama's inroads among her working class base, and arguing that she's the true enemy of the special interests, the mailer references the contributions he's taken from "energy company employees" and warns: "American families can't afford Barack Obama."
Click on the images to enlarge...
The Obama campaign points to this chart over at OpenSecrets.org, which says that Hillary's taken more than Obama in energy industry donations, and emails over this response:
Yesterday, Ohioans received yet another negative mailing from Senator Clinton making false and increasingly desperate attacks against Senator Obama – despite Senator Clinton’s many protests against misleading voters. Once again, Senator Clinton’s attacks are false and they mask her own record of taking money from oil company lobbyists while voting against investments in renewable energy.Senator Clinton knows that Governor Strickland joined Barack Obama and many Democrats in supporting the Energy Policy Act, which took important steps to set our nation on a path to energy independence by making unprecedented investments in renewable energy.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, I am laughing my a** off. And how much has the clintons gotten from lobbyists? 500k is small potatoes compared to the clintons' haul. Too funny. How can they put stuff out like this with a straight face? They are a bunch of comedians.
February 29, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting to hear from the Clinton campaign how this is also a positive ad.
February 29, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm wondering when Hillary Clinton morphed into John Edwards? since when is she such a rampant populist? after she's pushed NAFTA and accepted all the campaign contributions possible from the big lobbies?
it would be funny if it weren't frighteningly schizophrenic.
February 29, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is she seriously trying to blame Obama for high gas prices? I think she failed to mention two things:
1) The reason he voted for that bill was because it had big subsidies for renewable energy, which will actually bring down gas prices in the end, and
2) The #1 increaser of gas prices was....THE IRAQ WAR!!! So no, thank YOU Hillary Clinton!!
February 29, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I guess we will see how effective this is. I am not sure that folks in OH are really so unsophisticated as to believe that the 2005 energy bill (as opposed to growing demand in China & India, or supply disruptions engendered by the instability in the middle east which has resulted from the invasion of Iraq) is really the reason for higher fuel prices.
February 29, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
/start craggy old bird woman voice
SHAME ON YOU, HILLARY CLINTON!
/stop craggy old bird woman voice
February 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
They know what to target. Heating bills are astronomical here.
February 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same here. It is hardly unique to OH.
February 29, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in SC the bills are also pretty high.
Gas isn't quite $3 a gallon yet but natural gas is booming.
Blaming Obama for the price of gas seems pretty stupid. If not for Iraq and the Chavez BS with Exxon would oil be $100+ a barrel?
February 29, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think energy is one of Obama's weakest policy areas - his stance on nuclear power, for example, is very disappointing. I suppose he has to take a centrist position so he doesn't appear too radical.
I just hope he acts a little more green once he gets into office.
February 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Hillary claims he is too Green to let him answer a phone call in the middle of the night.
February 29, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nuclear power isn't a simple black/white issue anymore. Some environmental groups remain militantly, one might even say dogmatically, against it, while others have decided that if the choice is between a new coal plant and a new nuclear plant (and I realize that's not a simple yes/no issue either), nuclear is less bad.
I, for one, have moved from opposition to kind of queasy ambivalence. I'd even be inclined to go from queasy ambivilance to tepid support if not for the consistant pattern of utilities cutting corners that shouldn't be cut in construction and making clearly bad siting decisions back in the days when they were still building the damn things.
February 29, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I believe a research team over at MIT or somewhere like that found that there is no way we will be able to cut our CO2 emissions enough with just traditional renewable energy, they found that nuclear power would have to enter into the mix somewhere if we were serious about global warming. I'm no cheerleader for nuclear power, but I think you are right that it isn't necessarily bad that Obama is keeping an open mind about it (he is no cheerleader either, he has said he would consider nuclear power, but it would have to be safe and studied more).
February 29, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the information I've seen, if you are both against nuclear power, and for fighting against global warming, then you're contradicting yourself.
March 2, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the calender on the right.
BO in San Antonio @ 10AM
BO in Houston @ 11AM
I bet his teleportation device burns thru a bunch of energy.
February 29, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Penn + Wolfson = Rove
Hillary = GW
February 29, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
JFC! What planet are we on?
February 29, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It says that employees of energy companies donated $650,000.00 to Senator Obama's campaign.
Wow. Now that is very scary. You really have to worry when a Candidate is accepting campaign contributions form Gas Station Attendants, and Power Meter Readers.I sure hope he did not accept any contributions from gasoline delivery drivers, or pipeline workers. He will be really in trouble if has accepted small donations from power plant workers or security personnel.
That kind of behavior is unacceptable. He should learn from his far more experienced opponent, and just stick to taking large donations from Washington based Corporate Lobbyists.
February 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Energy Company Employees? Really?
February 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
we can also thank mrs. clinton for voting for the energy bill too, can't we?
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=13971
February 29, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she's referring to the 2005 bill aka the Dick Cheney Energy Bill.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213
February 29, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Center for responsive politics:
This is beautiful, Hillary is somehow impervious from accepting twice as much as Obama from the Oil industry?
Oil & Gas:
Top 20 Recipients
Election cycle: 2008 List Top 20: All Recipients Presidential Candidates Senators Members of the House Senate Candidates House Candidates All Members of Congress
Rank
Candidate
Office
Amount
1
Giuliani, Rudolph W (R)
Pres
$640,158
2
Romney, Mitt (R)
Pres
$389,163
3
Cornyn, John (R-TX)
Senate
$278,830
4
Clinton, Hillary (D)
Pres
$267,650
5
McCain, John (R)
Pres
$234,485
6
Richardson, Bill (D)
Pres
$199,275
7
Thompson, Fred (R)
Pres
$161,754
8
Domenici, Pete V (R-NM)
Senate
$152,750
9
Inhofe, James M (R-OK)
Senate
$141,500
10
Obama, Barack (D)
Pres
$133,090
11
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Senate
$122,050
12
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA)
Senate
$90,650
13
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Senate
$89,550
14
Paul, Ron (R-TX)
House
$88,154
15
Pearce, Steve (R-NM)
Senate
$77,500
16
Barton, Joe (R-TX)
House
$76,741
17
Boren, Dan (D-OK)
House
$74,200
18
Pryor, Mark (D-AR)
Senate
$70,700
19
Conaway, Mike (R-TX)
House
$70,350
20
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)
Senate
$65,800
February 29, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time she hit him hard on this. His vote for the 2005 Energy Bill was one of his worst "judgments" by far. This bill has caused unmeasurable damage to the environment.
February 29, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you say that it is "unmeasurable damage" That means that it has caused no measurable damage. Good to know.
February 29, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't be serious, right? Of all the delusional thoughts I've seen from people on here, this one has to take the cake.
It was a bad vote, and most Obama supporters acknowledge that.
Some provisions:
Provides incentives to companies drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico;
Nuclear-specific provisions:
Authorizes cost-overrun support of up to $2 billion total for up to six new nuclear power plants;
Authorizes a production tax credit of up to $125 million total per year, estimated at 1.8 US¢/kWh during the first eight years of operation for the first 6.000 MW of capacity[3] ; consistent with renewables;
Authorizes $1.25 billion for the Department of Energy to build a nuclear reactor to generate both electricity and hydrogen;
Allows nuclear plant employees and certain contractors to carry firearms;
Criticisms:
The Washington Post contended that the spending bill is a broad collection of subsidies for United States energy companies; in particular, the nuclear and oil industries.[8]
Texas companies in particular benefit from the bill. This criticism is heightened by the fact that President George W. Bush, the House Majority Leader (Tom DeLay), and the Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee (Joe Barton) were all from Texas. The fact that the bill passed 66-29 with wide support from Democrats for the bill has not calmed this criticism.
A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial on July 28, 2005, suggested Congress had a "let's pass it and claim we did something" attitude.
Supporters of the bill concede that the bill will do little to lower oil prices immediately, and that any changes the bill has enacted will not happen overnight.
Speaking for the National Republicans for Environmental Protection Association, President Martha Marks said that the organization was disappointed in the bill: it did not give enough of a short to conservation, and continued to subsidize the well-established oil and gas industries that don't require subsidizing.[9]
February 29, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, it was a bad bill and I agree that Obama's voting for it is a mark against him in my book. That said, surely you can agree that this mailer is not making the argument that you are here advancing. You are objecting to the 2005 energy bill's effects on the environment. This mailer is about its effects on fuel prices. The two are completely different (indeed, given that higher fuel prices serve to encourage conservation, the arguments advanced in this mailer are themselves somewhat anti-environmental). As such, I am not sure that the argument which you are advancing especially serves to advance the Clinton talking points here.
February 29, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The subsidy claims are true. The American family loses out when we give more tax breaks to companies making record-breaking profits. The continued dependence on foreign oil claim is true. Which weakens our fight on terror abroad, further harming the American family. As far as gas prices...?
February 29, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, I agree. Nothing in there is untrue. You are missing my point. This mailer, factually accurate though it might be, is not about the awful environmental implications of the energy bill. It is about the cost of gasoline. "American families cannot afford Barack Obama" (with a picture of a gas station price board) is not about the environment. It is about how much fuel prices are increasing. Environmental voters (and I count myself in this category) should be cheering on rising energy prices. Most first world nations deliberately make energy prices much higher than we have traditionally done here, precisely in order to discourage wasteful consumption. Higher fuel prices are the one really effective incentive to encourage conservation. Clinton's mailer is arguing, however, that energy prices ought to be lower and would be if that scoundrel Barack Obama had not voted for the 2005 energy bill.
Do you see how your argument (to which I am completely sympathetic) is largely at odds with the actual argument which Clinton is making in this mailer?
February 29, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you're getting at, but if you see it like I do, you see the gas pump prices as representative of record oil industry profits. Higher prices=higher profits. Tack that onto the subsidies provided in this bill, and I see a very strong argument for why American families couldn't afford that vote.
February 29, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I would quibble that higher prices do not necessarily imply higher profits, but that is really beside the point.
February 29, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yeah, it doesn't always imply it, but most Americans know our gas prices have gone up while the oil industry has broken all profit records. So that's what I read into it.
February 29, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine and fair, as far as it goes. What I have been at pains to convey (and what I will presently re-iterate, if you will forgive the redundancy) is that the mailer's argument (which is, all of a sudden, your own argument) is rather in tension with the argument which you were advancing not but an hour ago. Your earlier argument centered on the deleterious effects of the bill on the environment. Your present argument now centers on its effects on energy prices. Low energy prices, however, are bad for the environment (or at least low fossil fuel prices are). You are not really being consistent, as such. I can agree with you that Obama's vote for the bill was a bad vote, but I cannot agree with the reasoning by which you arrive at that conclusion (or at least with one of your two mutually exclusive lines of reasoning).
February 29, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
On HR6:
The JR. Senator from NY seems to have used her judgment to come to the exact same conclusion.
February 29, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she's referring to the 2005 bill aka the Dick Cheney Energy Bill, which she voted against.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213
February 29, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mistake.
February 29, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And her 2006 vote for offshore drilling (which he opposed) was, IMO, worse. Neither candidate is spotless when it comes to the environment, but luckily both score pretty well (he a 96 and she a 90) from the league of conservation voters (i.e., they're both a lot better than McCain.)
February 29, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many times are you going to post this Ben? The 2005 Energy Bill INCLUDED a provision that "Provides incentives to companies drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico."
So, how can you argue that her vote for offshore drilling was worse when he, in effect, voted for offshore drilling as well? On top of the other disastrous policies in this 2005 bill?
February 29, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose I'll post it as many times as you post the thing about the 2005 bill. Is that OK? :)
Let's be honest about the 2005 bill: as with most bills, there was some good mixed in with the bad. It was, on the whole, a bad bill. However, I feel that the 2006 bill was, on average, a worse bill (fewer good things).
Both Clinton's and Obama's career include more than just that one bill from 2005. When you look at their entire lifetime career, the league of conservation voters think (and I agree) that Obama has done better with respect to the environment.
February 29, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for that snipe about posting it again. I get heated on this because I truly believe Sen. Clinton's history on this is better. I know you point to the league's scores, but from what I understand, it doesn't weigh the impact of each bill, which would be very difficult to do. But most environmentalists agree that the 2005 bill was the height of insanity.
Add to the scores, her campaign's remaining carbon neutral, while Obama's has only offset some costs, and I see her as the clear winner on this one.
I know you don't. Agree to disagree?
February 29, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. To disagree, that is. :)
February 29, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"... her campaign's remaining carbon neutral ..."
Oh please! Carbon offsets are a scam to make poseurs feel good:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080110-investigating-carbon-offsets-the-real-deal-or-greenwashing.html
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2069
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0110/p13s02-sten.html
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-03-02-offsets-usat_x.htm
It's exactly the sort of useless hype that I've sadly come to expect from Clinton and her campaign.
March 1, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Got im Himmel! This is frikkin' unbelievable.
Question for all:
If Hillary loses the nomination, who will she endorse--Obama or McCain?
February 29, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they chose today to throw the Kitchen Sink just like New Times predicted. I predict they will drop out March 04th, 2008 and claim they did everything they could to their supporters.
Hillary will do or say anything to get elected.
February 29, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
i wish Americans would grow up and wake up about the feasibility of nuclear power. if we want to solve our immediate energy needs as efficiently as possible, the only real course is nuclear. this isn't my view, this is the view of environmental and energy scientists. there have been numerous articles in publications like Scientific American, Science, and Popular Mechanics (obviously biased by lobbyist groups!) about the possibilities of nuclear power serving as a stepping stone to true renewables while those technologies are in stages that aren't capable of mass production and/or distribution.
Obama is ahead of the curve on this one, and at the very least its a debate we should be having, rather than demagoguing the issue into loggerheads on the extremely important question of how to reduce or alleviate global warming.
February 29, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been opposed to nuclear power for a long, long time, but when you really look at the available, viable options, there aren't many. I've come to the grudging conclusion that nuclear, for all of its drawbacks, isn't the worst way to go. It sure beats the hell out of coal.
February 29, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish more people thought like you. Unless you're against electricity itself, being against nuclear is practically being for fossil fuels. (There is at least 1 generation of power plants between now and when solar is expected to be scale up to be a primary energy source.)
I don't understand, however, why in America there is so much anti-nuclear energy sentiment. I'm too young to have been shaped by the Cold War, so I wonder if it's because of decades of politicians playing the fear card. Isn't the word nuclear scary?
All this probably won't matter though, because it seems like that by the time we start challenging fossil fuels on a meaningful scale, it'll be solar time.
March 2, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not absolutely opposed to considering nuclear power but before we get into thinking about what mix of energy sources we'll move towards we need to do some hard work at conservation. People want it to be nice and sweet and easy. We'll do solar, we'll do windmills, we'll build a few nuclear plants. Not going to work, no way, no how. We better get damn serious about cutting way back on how much energy we use. But no one wants to give Americans the hard truth.
March 1, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reducing the energy we use, and changing our energy-use behavior, are different issues.
I think it's most effective to go the path of least resistance. Efficiency stuff first, requiring only for people to make one-time actions (changing light bulbs, etc). All this would be easier though if the cost of pollution was monetized, and pricing schemes invite participation for stuff with higher front-end cost. When you translate all this stuff into money and people see the dollars, we'll have people moving in the right direction heh.
March 2, 2008 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good people of Texas and Ohio please do the country and the Clintons a favor on Tuesday and put her campaign out of its misery.
Hillary's Campaign has become really desperate.
February 29, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it.... Hillary is really starting to fight back against obama.... about time....
Its time to start throwing those attacks against him....
Its time to start showing america who they really are voting for.
GO HILLARY!!!
Lets get this thing on the road.....show that we can win, show that you can fight not only obama but John Mcain as well.....:)
New Polls tonight :
Texas
Obama is leading by 3% according to Fox News
Ohio
Clinton is leading by 8% according to Fox News
Its funny Obama has won 11 staright wins and yet the race is this close in Texas and Ohio..... shows that the democrates aren't sure who they want to have as president.
Hillary raised 35 million this month and today is not over........ hillary supporters keep giving... lets try to reach 40 million before Feb. is over.
I almost gave up on Hillary but i feel change in the air:)
February 29, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its funny Obama has won 11 staright wins and yet the race is this close in Texas and Ohio..... shows that the democrates aren't sure who they want to have as president.
-----------
it's like you're a crazy person. do you just have a feed right from Mark Penn's war room into your ear?
February 29, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh... :o)
February 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Change is most definitely in the air. A month ago, Hillary was WAY ahead in both states. By March 4 she'll be way behind.
February 29, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Yep, Hillary's got some serious Joementum going on.
February 29, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that the Clinton campaign argument has morphed from "The hell with those little february primaries, wait until 'til Texas and Ohio" to "If they don't cream us in Texas and Ohio, that sure is pathetic."
February 29, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are Mark Penn's lies you are parroting
Go ask him and Bill what is the meaning of "is" and then come back and tell us because we don't know.
February 29, 2008 7:04 PM | Rep