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.