What is the age demographic of Pennsylvania radio listeners these days? Is HRC just preaching to the choir with radio ads in PA?

I'm so glad Obama has to respond to this trite garbage in Hillary's futile but never-ending campaign to make sure this thing lasts as long as possible. Nevermind that McCain continues to get a free pass on everything - let's all waste our time with disingeuous attacks about campaign contributions.

This thing needs to end now.

Uh oh, did Obama used......bad judgment?

Did he vote for the energy bill before he was against it?

Can't wait for the explanation here.

The Obama Foolish Faithful actually believe this guy is more honest, more intelligent and cleaner than all other politicians.

Newsflash...He's a politician. He lies, bamboozles, double-talks and takes money like the rest of them.

What a shock.

Obama the Deceiver strikes again.

Hehe you might not like Hillary, but that is a good ad.

According to this website http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php
Obama's taken $163,840 from Oil companies, while Hillary's taken $289,950. Bill Richardson took $206,125.

$163,840 is a lot of money for someone "who doesn't take money from oil companies".

Cheney's bill is yet another case where the progressive blogosphere has done a 180 from their original position. At the time, legislators who voted for the energy bill were loudly scorned, and primaries were vowed. Now if you bring it up the universal response is whatever the Obama talking point happens to be.
It's kind of sad to watch people force themselves to argue that Obama is on the right side of every single issue. I guess if you think the opponent is a F*cking Wh*re anything you say is O.K.

Woo Hoo! Hillary takes it to McCain...

o, wait a minute. Nope, more of the same old same old. *sigh*

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrMRzzhtkEXXcGY9cNmKYSRpVigD8VBG6UO0

Notice the date.
Thanks for playing dear Troll.

By the way, counting the money Joe Schmoe, the sales clerk at your local gas station and Mary Sue Schmoe, his wife, contributed to a campaign as "taking money from a industry" is pretty ridiculous, regardless which campaign. But if we are really taking those rather stupid numbers, you might look up Clinton's numbers of contributions from the oil industry. You might be surprised.

Obama should admit this mistake like she did.

And of course she doesn't mention that that energy bill actually raised more taxes on oil companies in the end, and all of the alternative energy subsidies it contained, which is why he supported it in the first place, or the fact that she has taken more money from people who work in the oil industry.

What a disingenuous bitch.

From the Fact check:

"That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 [from the oil industry "

sorry, gotalife.

Hillary needs to apologize, not Obama!

"In 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, which Cheney wrote in secret with the oil industry. Hillary Clinton opposed Cheney's energy bill, has a plan to eliminate oil industry tax breaks, and would require oil companies to contribute to a $50 billion strategic energy fund to jumpstart research and investment in clean energy technologies."

When you pay 4 bucks a gallon at the pump, stop whining, you voted for him.

Actually as disgusting it was for the limpwristed one and his supporters to excuse this Vote for Dick Cheney's Oil Bill, Obama actually is in the tank for the Coal Industry as well.

"I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies"
It is more than a little dishonest because NO ONE take money from oil companies.
Obama is trying to make it sound like he doesn't take the money because of some high minded principles when in fact it is because he legally can't. I also want to know what fight for alternative energy he lead the way in. That seems blatantly dishonest to me as well.

Dan Abrams brought this up:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080312022828AAr0m1D

The bills real name is
Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Do a search and read what it is all about.

Obama 08 !!!!!

Always fact check before believing a Clinton claim against Obama! We've had 8 yrs of a lying administration, do you really want to vote the Clintons in for another lying administration?
here's the facts on the energy bill that she voted against and claims Obama was wrong to vote for it. I also saw elsewhere that if they'd tried to increase the taxes past the 300 million mark, the republicans would have vetoed it. Good for the dems that worked with both parties and got it through! http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/politics/15632759/detail.html

According to the Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service, the bill did include $14 billion in subsidies. But the vast majority of that sum, more than $11 billion, went to nuclear power, solar and wind power, clean coal technology and hybrid cars. The oil and gas industry got $2.6 billion in subsidies, but that total was offset by $2.9 billion in tax increases. The bottom line was that there was a $300 million tax increase for the oil and gas industry as a whole and even bigger tax hike for refiners, which was $1.3 billion. And that's hardly a giveaway.

A big reason Obama supported the bill was the subsidies for ethanol, a fuel that is made from corn. Of course, Illinois is a state that produces lots of corn.

Pub,

"Low information voters" are Hillary's bread and butter.

She has them and the Bi-polar vote locked up.

Oil roars to record over $112 on U.S. inventory drop.

Thanks Obama.

The leading Democratic candidate voted for Darth Cheney's Energy Bill? The two top bundlers are oil execs?

That's disgusting. Even John McCain voted against it. Tsk tsk.

Found this interesting:

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2008/02/where_do_the_candidates_stand_21.html

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2008/03/where_do_the_candidates_stand_22.html

Like I said, despite what this article says, Obama is rethinking his support of ethanol.

Pretty sure the War in Iraq has something to do with the price of oil...

One of the things driving it up for us is the fall of the dollar.

I've heard a lot of conjecture that they are going to jettison the dollar as the standard for oil prices and move to the euro. That's really going to hurt.

The other thing driving it up is demand - mainly from China and India.

Neither one of the Democratic candidates has a damn thing to do with the price of oil.

Hillary is hoping against hope, to try once again to persuade Obama to get in the mud with her. She has no further chance going for her except to trick him into reducing himself to her level.

It is worth noting that with his resources, he could put out some truth-telling PA ads delineating her Bosnia lying, or depicting her and Bill's schizophrenia on Columbia trade. [at least salving Hillary's ego within her and her supporters overplayed sense of her martyrdom, as in 'see, he is using all that money to tear me down']

Amazing, when you think about it, to realize that Hillary's continuation of a mud-slinging campaign is actually dependent upon the very quality in her opponent which we most admire, i.e., his refusal to engage in her brand of destructive politics. She's like a bratty child acting up in public, knowing the adult handling her rant will care to reduce the embarrassment that rant foists upon bystanders.

Anyone remember when in 2004, Cheney sent people to Factcheck.com, a site operated George Soros? The headline said: "Bush Is A Liar". I totally got a kick out of it at the time.

I just love all this back and forth and name calling. I really do. Obama says he is going to unite the country and he hasn't even made a dent in uniting his own party. I love it when he is wrong, which he so often is. Gotta go.

Hillary peed her pantsuit in anticipation of sniper fire. And when there was none, she invented it.

Hence the demise of her credibility.

The whole candidate A is taking money from X industry metric needs to be tossed. It's absurd.

I don't know if I like you better because you're so damn funny or because you make such good damn sense.

I just know I look for red dress and I am never disappointed, Phoebe Fay.

I cannot speak for all black voters Mark. I can only speak for this black voter. And in the general Obama will do just fine. McCain-us won't be able to tie his shoe laces by the end of October.

As for the snot, I think that was Hillary's from the corkscrew landing.

To the people citing the 2005 Energy Bill as being some horrible blow to environmentalists at the expense of Big Oil, I'd like to respond with the brief statement that as a principal at a fund devoted to renewable energy investments, I found the bill a large net positive for renewables. It includes a 30% tax credit for new RE investments, an accelerated five-year depreciation schedule for same, and directs the development of regulations (not implemented yet, due to this administration's appalling lack of concern for the environment) to increase state renewable energy portfolio standards (RPS).

The bill contains, no, repeat NO, tax breaks or incentives for coal, oil, or gas companies.

So, HRC is being misleading on this front, as she is on the donation issue. Taking money from X company employees is NOT the same as taking money from the company itself.

I consider HRC's criticism of Obama's two bundlers legitimate, but the criticism of "Obama taking money from oil companies" because of the ~200k in small employee donations BS.

And yes, the fact that HRC has taken ~300k in donations from selfsame companies' employees IS relevant... in demonstrating the effective uselessness of the donations-by-donor's-workplace calculus.

Or are we assuming that Hillary will be in Australia's pocket since Sir Elton is doing so much to raise money for her?

Lost in all this is how Clinton has to respond to Obama on RADIO.

Because she can't afford TV spots?

Foreigner, are you retarded? Those subsidies were used to for researching and funding renewable energy that and was NOT used for OIL and GAS. What don't you understand?

Boy, you Obama supporters will really make any excuse for him, won't you? Hey, here's an ad he could run: "I refuse to take more than $2,300 from any individual contributor, This is a principle I feel very strongly about." It would be about as honest as the oil company ad.

And I have to say, as much of a cesspool as TPM's comment section has become, BionicSoy has actually managed to take it down a notch. Or is it racist for me to say that?

I know Bionic, Bosnia. We get it. Keep telling yourself that everyone's forgotten abpout Wright, but that Bosnia will be the defining issue. Idiot.

Lol....Yeah HRC supporters....Obama is truly as bad as the Clintons are. I noticed she went on NPR today and Played the victim again....Lol....what, if she became President does she think people are going to take it easier
on her. In the crimes of (lying) I would guess it's probably about 137 to 8 if that, but I guess they are both the same, nevermind they are both politicians...It's just like the Columbian trade deal, she didnt notice/or wouldnt have noticed the $800,000.00 dollar deposit in their bank account.Maybe Bill was keeping that a secret from her...She is a sad person...just sad!

...lol...Un believable.

Obama's camp responds:

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-response-to-clinton-pennsyvania-radio-ad/

Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan: “Just like her last tall tale about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, Senator Clinton has misfired with her latest negative ad. The fact is, Barack Obama takes no money from Washington lobbyists or PACs while Senator Clinton has taken more than any Democrat or Republican in this race, and that includes oil companies. Obama has been a Senate leader in fighting for higher fuel efficiency standards, alternative fuels and for the repeal of tax breaks for oil companies. Until this year, Senator Clinton opposed higher fuel efficiency standards and in 2004 she supported a huge tax break for the oil industry. This just another example of the broken Washington politics that Barack Obama is running to change.”

Perfectly put. I'm glad they hit her on the honesty theme. How can we be expected to believe anything she says at this point?

Foreigner: You are correct, actually. I misspoke; the 2005 Bill contains *hidden* incentives/tax breaks for oil and gas production under the guise of accelerating the writeoffs for geophysical costs, royalty payments, and depreciation of property. What I should have said (problem with typing hastily) was that the bill contains no tax credits or subsidies for fossil fuels, WHICH IT DOESN'T.

Public Citizen is distorting the record a bit here. Read through how it breaks down the putative "$6 billion". The closer aggregate amount of tax savings due to the above-listed schemes is $2.8 billion; still a lot, I'll warrant, and an unnecessary and wasteful bone to the oil companies, but not what you're suggesting. Hence my term "net positive" in the earlier post.

Not a bad ad from Hillary. Refreshing actually to see her go on something that is at least related to issues. She still seems unable to simply lay out her own case, prefering to try and rip Obama up.

Obama is technically right about what he said, and in spirit he also happens to have a lot less of the indirectly sourced oil money than Hillary does. And his vote for the energy bill did indeed mean higher taxes on oil companies and more incentives for renewables than would have been in place over the last two years than if it had been sunk.

That said, I don't really care for his ad much. I don't get the point. He should have focused more on his excellent energy plan than the money point here, and since his theme is bringing everyone (presumably oil companies too) together to solve problems, the more adversarial message didn't work too well for me.