- ‹ previous
- 3374 of 8831
- next ›
Obama a Little Too Slick on Oil
Barack Obama is running an ad in Pennsylvania and Indiana that makes this claim:
I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore.
The trusty FactCheck.org points out something Obama ought to know: of course Obama hasn't gotten money from oil companies; corporations were prohibited from donating to presidential candidates in 1907. But Obama has received $213,000 from people who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry. Also, two oil execs bundle money for Obama. George Kaiser, chairman of Kaiser-Francis Oil, has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama, according to the candidate's website. Robert Cavnar, president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, has raised the same.
Is Obama better than McCain when it comes to climate change? Or course, all the Democrats are/were. Have Hillary Clinton and John McCain also raised money from the oil industry? Of course. In fact, they've both raised more than Obama.
But Obama is the one making claims of purity. They're claims he and his campaign must know he shouldn't be making.
It is your criticism that is too cute by half. Obama's statement is unquestionably accurate. It's not even misleading. The fact that private citizens who work for oil companies are supporting him is beside the point. If Hillary Clinton or John McCain wanted to tout the fact that they don't take money from oil companies, that'd be fine, too.
This is peanuts. The middle class owns Obama's campaign with millions in small donations. In the commercial, he says that he doesn't take money from oil company PACs or their lobbyists and that is accurate and not something other candidates can claim. With as many as 2 million individual donors, it isn't surprising that a few of them happened to work for oil companies. They could be secretaries and janitors for all we know.
Since the environment suffered (ala NAFTA, SUV legislation,weakening of the EPA, the first reduction of the MPG fuel standard since it was created, etc) under the Clinton administration almost as bad as it did under 12 years of Reagan/Bush....maybe worse... what is the point anyway. The Democrats are one half of the problem and the Repugs are the other half. Wake up and smell the coffee. You live in a corporate fascist state. As George Carlin says "They don't give a ---- about you!"
Keep diggin'. If this, Tony Rozkos, a little weed and blow and his former pastor are the worst of it, the O-man is a freakin' saint!
Keep lyin'Obama....welcome President McCain!
You are right. Only Ralph Nader is clean. Vote Green, Vote Nader in 08.
So basically if you work in oil, banking, insurance or telecom industry, you can't donate to a candidate. Is this your argument?!
I think it's naive to think that these donors are just average citizens who just happen to work in the oil industry. No. These are strategic investments for the industry, and my guess is this is only the tip of the iceberg. For more see: www.opensecrets.org
While he's not the worst offender, BHO should not be making these claims of purity - hypocrisy can sink the best candidate.
The question over the money is not the amount, but the power it buys.
Receiving $1 each from a 213 000 employees of oil companies is unlikely to buy direct favors for the individual donor, unlike receiving $213 000 from a single donor (oil company).
213,000 voters hold more power than 1 regardless of the fact that $213,000 holds more power than $1. Obama seems to be the first candidate to understand this.