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.

Then there’s that coy workaround that Obama’s campaign has figured out. The RELATIVES of lobbyists donate the money.

Well, that makes it all alright. Never mind.

::
:::
::::
:::::
::::::
:::::::
::::::::

Oops.

Then there’s Exelon.

From the story I wrote about Exelon:

There’s the seminal 2006 Harper’s article on Exelon’s influence over Obama. Then Washington Post blog reported on January 18:

Clinton has also made the topic a key point of attack against rival Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, putting out a radio ad that refers to Obama as being “hip deep in financial ties” to Chicago-based energy giant Exelon Corp., a nuclear plant operator that supports the Yucca waste site.

While Obama called the ad misleading during a campaign stop Thursday, his financial ties to Exelon appear to be inescapable. A cursory search of his campaign finance report shows 158 contributions from people who identify themselves as Exelon employees, totaling more than $150,000 …

Exelon Corporation, “the nation’s leading nuclear-power-plant operator” is Barack Obama’s “fourth largest patron.” “Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators” — “called ‘one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation’ by Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste; the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.” (Harper’s)

MORE ARTICLES here at NoQuarter:

Democratic Death Wish by Larry Johnson

Obama’s registered lobbyist bundlers by SusanUnPC

Obama, His Lobbyists and His Cronies by SusanUnPC

Chicago Politics Godfather passes Down the Reins and Anoints Obama! Follow the Money!

Since Carl Bernstein, Keith Oldberman, Tim Russert et al have exposed their complete lack of journalism ethics, exemplified by acting like awe struck teens of the 1960’s over the arrival of The Beatles combined with the excitement of dirty old men in a sleazy, out of the way, XXX Porn Theatre, WE THE PEOPLE are forced to do a long line of Googles, reading, investigating in order to find the truth about Barack Obama!

In an August 2006 interview with Ayers and Dohrn it was stated: Despite their critiques, Ayers and Dohrn are eternal optimists. Over coffee, Dohrn reflected that their activist days can serve as a metaphor for a “candle” that illuminates the past—and the future. Stay vigilant. The light will come.
Funny how Obama started doing due dilligence in August 2006 to run for POTUS!

One thing Obama said during the ABC debate in Philadelphia was: “I think the American people are smarter than that.” Well Senator Obama, some are smart enough to not take you word for it, but to investigate and what is revealed once again, as it was when we investigated Rezko and Rev Wright, is that you lied! How big a lie, unlike Rev Wright where it is all on tape, is revealed with time, as it was with Rezko. But once a liar always a liar. So with that said, let’s begin investigating!

Mountie Captain: I do not approve of your methods!

Ness: Yeah, well… You’re not from Chicago.

- The Untouchables, 1987.

Let’s challenge the media to report. Will they have the honesty and integrity to do so?

What makes Illinois run and who controls the actual power in Illinois, especially in Cook County, isn’t some Mayor or some Senator, or even some Judge; it is actually a two tier power control. Tier one is the Money, and not just any money, but the Foundation and Associations money. Tier two is the Organizers of people and votes. So let’s examine them for a moment!

Foundations and Associations

Chicago has some of the strongest Foundations and Associations in the country, not because of what they control, but because of the large dollars they control and the powerful philanthropists controlling those dollars. These Foundations and Associations have and control Billions upon Billions of dollars. The circle of people within these groups is small, and while claiming to be philanthropists, they like everyone else are simply pushing their own agendas under the guise of doing so for the well being of the community. The more Foundations and Associations a person is on defines the power that person controls, because the greatest of strengths is the networking of the Foundations and Associations, thus controlling more of the money and its usage.

The Foundations and Associations of which a person is allowed to become a member is based upon the position they have in the working world. Status also increases the person’s chances of securing a Chairmanship of Foundations and Associations. That can bring immortal power and even more status to such an individual.

Chicago has many such Foundations and Associations, but the top ones that control the workings of Illinois life are:

• the Chicago Urban League ,
• the Chicago Symphony Orchestra ,
• Chicago Chamber of Commerce and Industy ,
• the Chicago United,
• the Community Renewal Society (Project funder for the United Church of Christ – Rev Wright anyone? Today a Minister from TUCC sits on the board),
• the Illinois Council on Economic Education,
• the Chicago Public Education Fund,
• the Chicago Community Trust,
• the Erikson Institute,
• the Woods Fund Chicago

and the jewel Commercial Club of Chicago, Chicago’s most prestigious business group.

These philanthropy associations drive politics in Illinois.

First discover who is Thomas Ayers. This man welded power in every way!

Thomas G Ayers was many things, but most importantly, he was the behind the scenes Godfather of Illinois Politics right up to his death last June and beyond. He passed the torch to his sons, especially Bill Ayers, Obama’s terrorist friend.

Normally, when you have a child who turns out to be a criminal of major proportions, more so when a child is one of the FBI’s most wanted and a terrorist, life usually becomes unbearable: you’re shunned from the community, and employment is at risk. But not for Thomas Ayers. While his son Bill was bombing America, Thomas Ayers was being promoted to one of a highest profile and prestigious positions in Illinois and the country. He was also handed the keys to the most Nuclear Plants in the country as Chairman of Con Ed!

So why did no one questioned his promotion? When you control a monopoly and you’re the Godfather of Illinois politics, anything is possible and no one can stand in your way.

Many think Mayor Richard J. Daley was the Chicago Kingpin till his death, only to be followed by his son, Mayor Richard M. Daley, but that is not really so. They in fact are simply crooked politicians in fancy suits, mouthpieces for those behind the scenes!

A lot of the following information was pulled from Tom Ayers Obituary of June 8, 2007, at the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, but for some reason they are no longer available. This is also the case with stories on Thomas Ayers. But other sources were found with it!

He was the Chicago establishment, he served on many boards, including that of G.D. Searle & Company (Donald Rumsfeld was CEO from 1977 to 1985 – that why Obama had such high praise of Rumsfeld?), Chicago Pacific Corp (sold Hoover to Maytag in 1985 – Crown Family), Zenith Corp., Northwest Industries, First National Bank of Chicago, the Chicago Cubs and Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune.

But it was during his time as CEO of Con Ed that Thomas Ayers learned to work both sides of the street, making him the go to person in Illinois, the man with the “power”. It all started in the early 1960’s when he helped negotiate the first labor contract between Con Ed and the 12,000 member International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers! Thomas Ayers learned then that power comes from the streets; he also learned that power came from championing the plight of the Black community that provided real power in Chicago!

When Rev. Martin Luther King Jr brought his open house campaign to Chicago in the mid 1960’s, Thomas Ayers was called upon to negotiate between Mayor Richard J. Daley’s administration and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. He also developed the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities to fight racial discrimination in housing.

Mr. Thomas Ayers learned then the power of philanthropy and became a leader in Chicago Philanthropy circles and an agent for change. He worked with many powerful nonprofit groups and many Foundations, serving as the chair of the Chicago Urban League, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Chicago Chamber of Commerce and Industy, Chicago United, Community Renewal Society (Project funder for the United Church of Christ – Rev Wright anyone? Today a Minister from TUCC sits on the board), Illinois Council on Economic Education, The Chicago Public Education Fund, the Chicago Community Trust, Bank Street College of Education in New York (where Bill Ayers went to school after surfacing in 1980), Erikson Institute and the jewel Commercial Club of Chicago, Chicago’s most prestigious business group. These philanthropy associations drive politics in Illinois, especially with a combined worth exceeding $5 billion. Thomas Ayers knew how to network (new name for manipulate) them all for his own agenda!

If you look at all these Associations and Foundations Board of Directors, you will see the Who’s Who behind Obama’s campaign! According to Thomas Ayers, it all starts at the basics, elections and grass roots, in order to be working from inside the establishment and not fighting from the outside!

James O’Connor, former Chairman and CEO of Com Ed summed it all up about Thomas Ayers: “He had an extraordinary social conscience. He was willing to step into situations where very few people were willing to risk their reputation. He had total courage and never seemed to weigh the consequences of that sort of activity. He never did anything for applause or for any sort of recognition.” In other words it was “all about the power”!

“He was a guy of great intelligence and integrity, and he was willing to put the time in as well,” former Northwestern U president Arnold Weber said. “Those offices are not just honorary or for social distinction.” Again, it is for the “POWER.”

Michael Klonsky (former SDS leader and Founder of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) USA, and author of “Remembering the Summer of ‘66″ (Klonsky also collaborated with Bill Ayers on several projects over the years, and the duo, along with Gabrielle Lyon, of A Simple Justice: The Challenge of Small Schools) had these comments about Thomas Ayers:

Tom Ayers, was a force in the civic life of Chicago. “He will be remembered, not only as a business leader, but as an individual committed to civil rights and school reform. I loved to argue politics and baseball with Tom although I can’t say I ever made him see it my way in either area.”

Equally important to Mr. Thomas Ayers was the educational and financial advancement of African-Americans. “He felt the black community’s success was key to Chicago’s success,” son John Ayers said. “He pushed business people to be more open in the 1960s.”

Look at Thomas Ayers present day successor at Con Ed, Mr. Frank M Clark, who joined Con Ed under Ayers’s reign in 1966. Now compare Clark to Ayers by the Foundations Clark is on: the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Metropolitan Family Services, The Chicago Community Trust, the governing board of the Illinois Council on Economic Education, the Economic Club of Chicago, The Commercial Club of Chicago, and the Executives’ Club of Chicago. Clark also was ranked among the 50 Most Powerful Black Executives in America by Fortune magazine in 2002. Mr. Clark also happens to be a super bundler for Obama. He is also a lobbyist.

——————————————-

“In the ’60s and ’70s, we went through some rough patches in our family,” he said. “He was very sweet and supportive of us all. He used to say, ‘It takes all kinds’ to get the world moving forward.” John Ayers worked on School Reform in the 1980’s representing the powerful Commercial Club of Chicago Civics Commitee that was put in place in 1983 in part to provide business sector leadership in support of the reform of the Chicago Public School system and public school financing.

During a 1993 interview by the Chicago Magazine with Bernadine Dohrn, many revelations materialized, some lies (she is a terrorist, after all), some not! She and her husband Bill Ayers have held high-profile dinner parties and seem to do so often. Obama’s campaign and political career launch party in 1995 was just one in a line of them.Terrorism today according to Bill Ayers’s good friend and fellow Weather Underground member, who is also today’s MDS partner, Mark Rudd is explained on his website. It starts at the basics, elections and grass roots, to be working from inside the establishment, according to Thomas Ayers, and not fighting from the outside!

———————————————-
So how powerful a man was Thomas Ayers? Well when Bernadine Dohrn was seeking her NY State law licence, two people wrote on Dohrn’s behalf to the Ethics Committee in her application. Her supporters included two powerful lawyers, Don H. Reuben (Sydley Austin), at one time the Chicago Tribune’s lawyer. The other supporter was a very well respected Federal Judge Harold Tylor!

How did she get into Sidley Austin Law Firm, where both Michelle and Barack Obama not coincidentally both worked? Howard Trienens, a partner at Sidley Austin since 1956, has been a member of the Northwestern University board of trustees since 1967 and chairman of the board from 1986 to 1995, replacing Thomas Ayers as Chairman (One more item: Ayers’ wife, fellow ex-terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, is a law-professor (without a licence to practice law) at Northwestern U since 1991. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but Thomas Ayers served as the Chair of the Board of Trustees from 1975 to 1986 at the prestigious college. He was named a Life Trustee in 1987). He received two degrees from Northwestern, a bachelor’s degree in 1945 and a J.D. in 1949, and was editor in chief of the Illinois Law Review. Read More. And Read More.
——————–

Equally important to Mr. Thomas Ayers was the educational and financial advancement of African-Americans.
“He felt the black community’s success was key to Chicago’s success,” son John Ayers said. “He pushed business people to be more open in the 1960s.” “In the ’60s and ’70s, we went through some rough patches in our family,” he said. “He was very sweet and supportive of us all. He used to say, ‘It takes all kinds’ to get the world moving forward.” John Ayers worked on School Reform in the 1980’s representing the powerful Commercial Club of Chicago Civics Commitee that was put in place in 1983 in part to provide business sector leadership in support of the reform of the Chicago Public School system and public school financing.

When William Ayers resurfaced in the 1980s, it was as though no time had passed between him and his father. “It was as if we were in the middle of a conversation and nothing much had changed,” William Ayers said. Probably because the communication was always there while in hiding!

While chairing the Northwestern University Board of Trustees, he helped start Chicago United in 1968 upon the request of Mayor Daley. Chicago United was dedicated to racial minority group access to jobs and education. In 1973, Chicago United joined with other civic organizations to create the Regional Transit Authority.

After the Board of Education’s financial collapse of 1979, Mayor Jane M. Byrne named Mr. Thomas Ayers as her choice for president of the new board.

In 1987, Mayor Harold Washington asked Chicago United (Thomas Ayers) to head a broad-based school reform coalition, one that lead directly to the landmark School Reform Act of 1988.

Active in the local control from below, on the “community” side of this effort was the University of Illinois, where Bill Ayers who had returned to Chicago in 1987 as an Assistant Professor of Education at the University of Illinois’ Chicago Circle campus. Another ally in this battle at the same time was Executive Director Barack Obama’s Developing Communities Project (DCP), as Obama notes briefly in his Dreams From My Father. The DCP had its origins in the “radical” movement started by Saul Alinsky.

A lengthy report done by Bill McKersie, published in 1992, on Philanthropy’s Paradox: Chicago School Reform (The Role of Chicago Foundations in Reform, 1987-1990) for the American Educational Research Association, exposes several things. McKersie wrote this having experience on the inside, having worked for the Joyce Foundation.

McKersie points out that the money funnelled to Community Activists was to represent parents and Community residents and that these Activists were pushing for a fast moving change agenda. The shift of Foundation money only occurred after the School Reform act was completed and sent for passage at the State level. Thus prior to late 1988, Foundation money was used and targeted to Activists to voice the peoples concerns to those involved in representing the Government (Thomas Ayers group) and the researchers and developers of the Reform Act (Bill Ayers group).

Two of the Foundations continually funded mainly Community Organizations, the Wieboldt and the Woods Fund. In 1987, the DCP, Obama’s group, was given in excess of $36,000/yr directly for School Reform work. What is important to note is that these two Foundations used Community Organizers to shape the agenda for School Reform for much larger Education funders, demanding also faster action to Reform. How does this happen? By being active with the Communities and those working for the Government and Institution researchers setting the agenda for School Reform!

But unfortunately, the Activist side of setting the agenda was squashed in late 1987, hmm-same time Obama decided to go to Harvard! It was in early 1988 that AT&T, Chicago Community Trust (Thomas Ayers), Joyce Foundation and McArthur Foundation came together and decided it was time to look at everything and actually do something concrete after linking up with the Community Renewal Society (Thomas Ayers), and the project came to fruition. Basically, it was the convergence of groups, the Activists (Obama et al) attempting to set an agenda without a plan and the Institutions able to forge a plan (Thomas/Bill/John Ayers et al). Basically, it is noted that the Foundations via the Activists attempted to have “Bought Reform.” But in the end, they didn’t: all they bought was moving certain ideas through discussions, but it took the Institutions to enact the final outcome and resolve. Sounds exactly like a POTUS campaign going on presently!

The reasoning for the Foundations funding of Activists was to make sure that multiple and diverse voices were heard! Obama was recruited by the Woods Fund to work the Afro-American community, the one community that they could not previously reach with their white Jewish Organizers, thus putting Obama front and center for the Black group of voices representing the DCP with all the powers to be, namely Thomas Ayers, since 1985 when the movement started on School Reform! Therefore, Slate is correct in stating Obama has more than 20 years experience in School Reform. Unfortunately, Obama’s work in School Reform has been a failure!

What this endeavour of School Reform also brought to Obama was not only his meeting Thomas Ayers, but also brought him closer to the powers to be at the Woods Foundation and other organizations such as the Joyce Foundation and ACORN, who endorses Obama, just to name a few.

When the ordeal was finally resolved, imagine who the head of the school reform coalition was, none other than Thomas Ayers son and Bill Ayers brother John Ayers! Coincidence?

So who brought Obama to Chicago? The DCP? Well, yes and no! The DCP brought him, but actually was funded by The Woods Fund Chicago!

——————————————
So what is the Woods Fund?

Frank Woods had a broad vision of philanthropy. Under his leadership, institutions like the Art Institute, which he chaired, were great beneficiaries. But he also gave grants to help equalize opportunities before the Civil Rights era and supported small community-based groups. He appeared to have valued risk taking in philanthropy, setting up fund at Chicago Community Trust (Thomas Ayers), whose purpose was to encourage “high risk grants.” He was known to be very open to community organizing and got involved early in its funding. Following Frank Woods’s death, George Kelm provided leadership. One critical leadership contribution of Mr. Kelm was hiring the Fund’s first full time staff director, Jean Rudd. She shaped the Director’s philanthropic visions into clear grant making guidelines, creating two major grant making programs – in community organizing and in public workforce development policy – that remain to this day. So you know, George Kelm was President and CEO and Chair of Sahara Enterprises and Sahara Coal Company, Illinois largest coal company, a main supplier to Con Ed (Thomas Ayers, David Axelrod and Obama’s vote for the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill)!

The Woods Foundation has a lot bigger a role than expected!

The Woods Fund, in many ways, is responsible for helping start Obama as an organizer and shaping his political identity. In 1985 the foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama, at 24, as an organizer on Chicago’s economically depressed South Side. Obama became friendly with Woods director Jean Rudd (why if he was working for the DCP? The School Reform Act of course), and after he graduated from Harvard Law School and moved back to Chicago (1991), Rudd asked him to join the board, which met four times a year to review grant proposals. (Obama also served on the board of the larger Joyce Foundation, which specialized in environmental conservation, welfare reform and education.) “Community organizing was a central priority of this foundation, so more and more we drew him in,” says Rudd, who retired in 2000. Obama and Ayers happened to not only fund Rezko on the board, but also Dohrn and Rev. Wright via the Gamaliel Foundation.

Note: Obama was on the Woods Fund board for at least 6 years before Ayers joined it! Also, the Joyce Foundation is an anti-gun foundation hidden under the guise of being an environmental Fund. How come Obama never mentions this Fund he was on? Maybe because the NRA calls the Joyce Foundation an activist foundation whose “shadowy web of huge donations” leads “straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups.”

What seems to be critical is why would Obama be known to a Foundation, when the money was a grant to the DCP? Following this logic of Jean Rudd being involved in where the Woods Fund money goes, then is Jean Rudd’s involved in the money the Woods gave to Rezko, Ayers, Klalhia, and other assorted people, as today she heads the oversight for all Chicago slum rehabilitations?

I found the old Woods Fund site (hidden not removed). Some links don’t work, but I find it interesting who they gave money to! And notice the dates: everything is deleted during Obama years. Wonder why?

Obama also tends not to mention another Foundation he was on in the 1980’s, the Gamaliel Foundation, which teaches the works and practices of Saul Alinsky to community organizers! The Gamaliel Foundation is a church based Foundation, supported by many of Tom Ayers Foundations and happens to be a part of the United Church of Christ. Rev. Wright ring a bell?
————————————————
Also, another lie of Obama’s is his claim to meeting Illinois Senator Emil Jones in the Senate, not true; Obama met his State Senate Godfather in 1986!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/politics/main3858237.shtml
————————————————–
Richard M. Daley, Chicago Mayor and member of Mayors against Illegal Guns member that receives big funds from The Joyce Foundation, stated after the ABC debate:

The liberal blogs are still aghast about the whole incident, and to varying degrees; many mainstream voices have denounced what’s being called a smear campaign.

On the surface, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s statement on the affair is surprising.

There are a lot of reasons that Americans are angry about Washington politics. And one more example is the way Senator Obama’s opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers. I also know Bill Ayers. He worked with me in shaping our now nationally renowned school reform program. He is a nationally recognized distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a valued member of the Chicago community.

I don’t condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles.

So while it would appear on the surface that Richard M. Daley picked William Ayers, well, out of the air, to help guide the reform of Chicago’s school system; upon a closer look, in a city like Chicago, where people get ahead on who they know and who they are related to, Daley’s selection made a lot of sense.

But there is something else the mayor will remember. Ayers father was Thomas G. Ayers, the head of Commonwealth Edison, which was then Chicago’s electrical utility. Just as Obama and the younger Ayers are, in the words of Obama aide and Com Ed lobbyist David Axelrod, “friendly,” so were the elder Daley and the senior Ayers.

Funny for Axelrod to say, considering David Axelrod happens to come from a politically communist family: his mother use to write for the NY paper “PW” which was a communist oriented paper. Axelrod also met Obama in the early 1990’s (1991 to be exact), when Obama was a community organizer leading a voter-registration drive on the South Side. Axelrod served as advertising director for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign. A former political reporter, Axelrod, 53, left the Chicago Tribune in 1984 (started in 1977) to become press secretary for then-Rep. Paul Simon, D-Ill., who was running for the Senate. He established himself as a fixture in Windy City politics, as well as statewide. In 1989, Axelrod went to work for Richard M. Daley in his first successful bid to be Chicago’s mayor, and he has remained close to the Daley machine ever since by displacing the African-American leadership from City Hall. Read More.

Then there is Valerie Jarrett: Jarrett in 1991 was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s Deputy Chief of Staff. After serving at Daley’s side, Jarrett was a Commissioner in the city’s Planning and Development Department (key to distort Obama’s claims of not knowing about Rezko’s dealings and failures) and went on to chair the Chicago Transit Board (Thomas Ayers created Board), which oversees the city’s flawed and failed public transportation system. Jarrett is a fixture in Chicago politics and in the Obama family. Jarrett, 51, is a senior unpaid adviser to the campaign, and is a confidant of both the candidate and his wife, Michelle. Jarrett’s role as an honest broker in the campaign stems from her deep friendship with the candidate and his wife. Barack Obama met Jarrett in 1991 when she was interviewing Obama’s then-fiancée for a job in City Hall. The three have been close ever since. A lawyer, Jarrett got her start in city government as a deputy corporation counsel for finance and development. She is also a member of the University of Chicago’s board of trustees, and she chairs its Medical Center Board. She served as chairman of Obama’s finance committee during Mr. Obama’s 2004 (alongside Tony Rezko) campaign for U.S. Senate. Her associations also helped pave the way for Mrs. Obama’s job at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Ms. Jarrett was on the board of directors. Read More. Jarrett also is a Director of The Joyce Foundation, which claims to be an enviromental Foundation, although it is also an anti-gun foundation. Since 2003, the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to gun control organizations. Gun rights groups including the National Rifle Association call the Joyce Foundation an activist foundation whose “shadowy web of huge donations” leads “straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups. Read More. Obama was a Director of the Joyce Foundation also. Read More. Was Jennett put in place to keep control over the OBAMA’s?

The list of names go on, but they all lead back to Mr. Thomas Ayers!

————————————————

So as stated above, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, upon return to Chicago, spent a lot of time holding “High Profile Dinner Parties”, basically doing the passing of the torch from Tom Ayers to the new Godfather duo of Illinois Politics based upon Thomas Ayers years of building power and control by ways of civil rights and school reform!

Everyone remember Senator Leahy (D-VT) speaking out for Clinton to quit a couple of weeks ago? Well, actor and activist Peter Coyote talking on the 1996 Democratic Convention in Chicago on his website mentions a couple of times about having to inform his wife “Martha that I’m dragging her to the apartment of old friends, ex-Weathermen, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, hosting a party for Senator Leahy. Perhaps Edward Said will be there I urge her to come by promising that the event will push the edges of the envelope of her centrist politics.” (Wonder who got Senator Leahy to demand Clinton withdraw?)

But, all these social trappings notwithstanding, she and her husband say they have not lost any of their old, anti-Establishment fervour. Ayers, who still carries his SDS card in his wallet, says he feels no better about this country “just because a bunch of 40-year-olds are now part of the Establishment.”

Ayers says electoral politics is a tool to connect causes, like gay rights, disability rights, voting rights, human rights. “That’s how you use electoral politics. Not as an end in itself, but as an organizing mechanism. Our deepest belief, I think, is that we need to connect all these good projects and build the movement. …we should always be positioning ourselves, thinking, okay, if I’m involved in this next election, how am I positioned to help contribute to building a movement, raising consciousness, making the connections, and that’s a real tricky business.” (Any wonder who is behind Obama?)

——————————————————-

So what would attract someone like Obama to William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?

Obama’s relationship with communist Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s adopted grandfather and life advisor, of course. Add to that Obama’s continual obsession for following Marxist types of organizations and education makes Obama a natural fit with his gift for being illusive!

So we are left to figure out, was 1987 the first time Obama met the Ayers or was it sooner, such as:

• At Cooper Union in New York during a Marxist convention?
• At Columbia U with Ayers or Dohrn as a political Science class guest speaker? (Is that why Obama’s Columbia records are locked up)?
• Any other time in NYC at some rally?

And do not forget, the Anti-war speech Obama gave in 2002, was organized by former terrorists of the SDS days, Carl Davidson, Marylyn Katz and others!

Lies, deception, corruption and so many links to radicals, and the Democratic Party feels someone like this is the future?

Answer: Dohrn stated: “I don’t look to the Democratic Party. I don’t have hope for the Democratic Party. I think the Democratic Party is bankrupt. And I think the only answer is for us to build an independent, radical movement, and, I mean, the big ‘us.’ “Stay vigilant. The light will come”…….is the light Obama, yes to them he is! JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!!

And this is what Obama stated during the Philadelphia ABC debate when questioned about his relationship to William Ayers:

SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about.
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.
So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow — somehow their ideas could be attributed to me — I think the American people are smarter than that. They’re not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn’t.

My Response: Senator Obama, first, your guy who lives in your neighborhood happens to be a terrorist teaching education to children and not English, and you, sir, being a Political Science Major from Columbia U should know that! Second, your children cannot possibly go to school with Ayers kids, as his kids are all over 21 years of age, Mr. Liar! Third, your relationship with this TERRORIST goes back over 20 years and your association is not based upon a howdy on the streets, but is one of you working side by side putting forth this TERRORIST’S agenda, especially when it comes to educating children! If they are not your values you share with him, then why did you sit on many foundations, support many of his causes and work so closely with him? Simple answer is because you are one of him! Yes, we are smarter than to be conned by a thug and a corrupt Chicago politician, Senator Obama! You claim to be a true Christian and believer in Jesus Christ, it is a mortal sin to lie and a moral sin to lie in a place of worship, Senator Obama, but you did.

——————————————–

Now in 1990, Obama was pretty much set as far as power from the streets was concerned, since Michelle Obama’s father was a powerful Democratic Precinct Captain, but timing is everything and Michelle’s father died in 1990, thus Obama lost his street power and to recoup it went out and worked for the Project Vote and registered 150,000 new voters in 1992 (Marilyn Katz of SDS fame happened to be leading Project Vote and working on many of Thomas Ayers Foundations, including working for Davis Miner Law firm, Barack Obama’s former employer, doing PR work). Funny thing, Miner happened to work on Mayor Washington’s staff from 1984 to 1987 and also happened to be classmates at the University of Chicago law school with Bernadine Dohrn!

Why must we do the media’s job to find out the workings of the corrupt Chicago underground attempting to control the DNP and now the White House?

Both at No Quarter and Buck Naked Politics, I’ve repeatedly blogged about Obama’s hypocrisy and misleading claims.  Some weeks ago, I submitted one in a series of such blog posts to NQ, and Susan said, "Deb, you really are a nag." 

She was right.  I nag, because many media outlets have simply ignored Obama’s hypocrisy regarding special-interest ties.  Today, I found a Newsweek article ("Obama’s Lobbyist Connection") that covers a different example of the hypocrisy and misleading claims.  In part, it states:

"When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn’t approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known.

"It’s corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state’s Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then—but may soon get more scrutiny—is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama." (Newsweek)

Keep in mind that Obama’s campaign has repeatedly slammed Hillary Clinton and John McCain for having ties to special interests — causing visions of pots and kettles to dance in my mind.

Mr. Axelrod denied any hypocrisy, stating that he and his ASK partners didn’t actually register as lobbyists for Commonwealth Edison.  Axelrod also said that he has not lobbied government officials for corporate clients.  Newsweek casts doubt on Axelrod’s claims:

"But the activities of ASK (located in the same office as Axelrod’s political firm) illustrate the difficulties in defining exactly who a lobbyist is. In 2004, Cablevision hired ASK to set up a group similar to CORE to block a new stadium for the New York Jets in Manhattan.

Unlike Illinois, New York disclosure laws do cover such work, and ASK’s $1.1 million fee was listed as the ‘largest lobbying contract’ of the year in the annual report of the state’s lobbying commission.

"ASK last year proposed a similar ‘political campaign style approach’ to help Illinois hospitals block a state proposal that would have forced them to provide more medical care to the indigent. One part of its plan: create a ‘grassroots’ group of medical experts ‘capable of contacting policymakers to advocate for our position,’ according to a copy of the proposal. (ASK didn’t get the contract.) Public-interest watchdogs say these grassroots campaigns are state of the art in the lobbying world.

"‘There’s no way with a straight face to say that’s not lobbying,’ says Ellen Miller, director of the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes government transparency." (Newsweek)

Newsweek isn’t the only one noticing Obama’s hypocrisy and misleading claims.  Last week, the Republican National Committee put out a press release ("Obama’s Lobbyist Hypocrisy"), which makes detailed claims while listing names and sources.  Below is a sampling of those claims:

- “Obama Has Former Federal Lobbyists Working For And Raising Money For His Campaign”

- “Obama Also Uses Bundlers Who Were Previously Registered As Federal Lobbyists”

- “Obama Currently Accepts Contributions From Spouses Of Lobbyists And Holds Fundraisers In Offices That Engage In Lobbying”

- “Obama Has Accepted Contributions From Law Firms That Engage In Lobbying”

- “Obama’s Fundraising Team Includes 38 Members Of Law Firms That Engage In Federal Lobbying”

- “Obama Accepted Contributions From Lobbyists And PACs While Running For The Senate And State Senate”

- “In Obama’s Eight Years In The Illinois Senate, From 1996 To 2004, Almost Two-Thirds Of The Money He Raised For His Campaigns - $296,000 Of $461,000 - Came From PACs, Corporate Contributions, Or Unions”

- “Obama Also Has Multiple Super Delegate Endorsements From Current Federal Lobbyists”

I have no love for the RNC, but I don’t doubt the veracity of the RNC’s claims, because I’ve seen similar information from reputable sources (like those linked in the first paragraph of this blog post).

So far, Obama-infatuated MSM outlets have successfully managed to keep Obama’s hypocrisy and misleading claims from becoming major news stories. 

Something tells me that the RNC is not going to allow such stories to stay in the shadows for much longer.  It would have been so much better for the Democratic party if this information had been given due attention earlier in the primaries.  Oh well.

To be sure, most federal candidates have ties to special interests — and they will continue to until real campaign-finance reform is achieved.

So, why do Obama’s special-interest ties matter?  They don’t. 

What matter are his hypocrisy and misleading claims, because they completely undermine his campaign’s efforts to market him as new, clean, and eager to change Washington’s "politics as usual."

Memeorandum has commentary.

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Obama supporters will point out that Hillary also take money from oil executives. She freely admits this, saying:

“Well the fact is [Obama] didn’t take money from oil companies, but you can, and we do, take money from people who work for oil companies, they’re Americans, they can contribute, so we both do that,” Clinton admitted.

Why does Obama continue to mislead the public about the source of his contributions? It might come as a shock to his supporters: it polls well. It’s an open secret that Obama spends lavishly on a small army of pollsters, message men, media advisers, public relations experts, and advertising agencies. But in the case of being clean of oil money, Obama’s money machine didn’t speak to his message men:

In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama aired a campaign spot in Indiana and Pennsylvania that sought to reinforce his theme that he would change the Washington culture, while also tapping into voter distress about the high price of gasoline. In the ad, he called for a windfall profits “penalty.”

“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year and we’re paying $3.50 for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore,” says the spot, which aired as recently as April 8.

Obama’s team has carefully crafted a message that he doesn’t take money from political action committees, although he did until recently, and he doles out substantial amounts of money from his own PAC. Instead he takes enormous sums from people who just so happen to all work in that industry. It’s really just a shell game with dummy corporations: These groups of ultra-wealthy donors are not registered and regulated, and therefore Obama can claim that he doesn’t take money from oil companies:

Obama’s ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations.

As the ad aired, Obama took $12,400 from oil company executives and employees in increments of $1,000 or more. Altogether, people who identify themselves as working for oil and gas companies donated $46,000 in March.

Obama’s claims allow him to project a squeaky clean image created by his handlers. The only problem with this poll-tested strategy is that it collides with the reality that wealthy oil executives are pouring money into his campaign. Obama’s chief strategist David Axlerod, in a moment of candor, described his role like this: “I know my business and the technology of politics and polling and focus groups, all of what we do, in some ways contributes to an atmosphere of cynicism. I try to fight that. I can’t say I’m totally blameless.” You think?

Obama’s willingness to say one thing and do another is wearing thin. He continues to lose contests and his favorability ratings have plummeted. Claiming to be clean of oil money is one thing, actually doing it is something else. “From our perspective, if there is a distinction between oil company PACs and lobbyists, and their executives, it is a mighty fine line,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. “They all represent the same interest — oil.”

Adds the video creator, Flineo:

Antidote is simple: just wake up.

We noticed an odd similarity in two front pages this afternoon: HUGE headlines about Hillary and guns. First, there was the Huffington Post’s front page (click to see larger image):

Then there was Talking Points Memo’s front page (click to see larger image):

By susanunpc

And then it all made sense. I opened Mark Halperin’s The Page blog for Time magazine, and saw these blaring headlines:

After remaining silent all day Sunday, Obama lashes out against Clinton in Steelton, Pennsylvania.

“She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her.”

Insists he does relate to small-town Americans, and mocks Clinton’s sudden vocal support for gun rights:

“Hillary Clinton is out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better. That’s some politics being played by Hillary Clinton.”

VIDEO UPDATE: Brother Barack on “there’s some politics goin’ on …” and “that’s some politics bein’ played by Hillary Clinton … you know … come on …” — via Ben Smith’s Politico blog.

Brother Barack was in Steelton, Pennsylvania this afternoon. And he’s still lying to the people about not taking money from big lobbyists. Check all of our stories on the big-time lobbyists he’s raking in the big dollars from.

Special thanks to Brother Patrick Henry for sending me the video link.
______________________________________

Back to the Original: This is not the first time we’ve noticed strikingly similar headlines and stories on pro-Obama sites like Huffington Post and Talking Point Memo. Halperin’s big red headlines — about Hillary Clinton “on the duck blind every Sunday” and that she’s “packing a six-shooter” — come straight from Obama’s mouth, quoted in a Fox News article.

The similarities cannot be overlooked: Have you also noticed how that the anti-Hillary and pro-Obama stories leading the Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo are exactly the same?  We are not just talking a mere coincidence.  Day after day both sites appear to parrot the same “talking points”? For those who are at least 50 years old this comes across like an American version of Pravda and Izvestia.  For you youngsters, Pravda and Izvestia were the “news” outlets for the Soviet Union.  They functioned pure and simple as propaganda machine.

I think the Izvestia and Pravda comparison does not really fit either the Huffington Post or Talking Point Memo.  But their collective behavior and cheer leading does call to mind the writings of Lewis Carroll and the antics of Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Here are some more questions:

• Although both websites have different editors, how close are they to David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s media message manipulator?
• How do they receive the Obama campaign talking points–via email or on a phone conference or both?
• And why do both sites so cavalierly dismiss Barack’s claim that “folks in Pennsylvania, frustrated by the economies of Bill Clinton and George Bush’ are bitter and seek solace in religion, guns or bigotry?”  Why do both find it so easy to excuse words like this that, if uttered by Hillary, would in their view justify a political lynching?

Could it be the money? Consider the possibility that a big Obama money bundler, Ken Lehrer, also happens to be a major investor in Huffington Post.  Hmmm.  Coincidence? Would you be shocked to learn that another big Obama bundler, Reed Hundt — we hear in whispered discussions — is a close confidant of Josh Marshall?

I do not challenge the right of either Arianna Huffington or Josh Marshall to put up what they want.  That’s the beauty of having their own blog.  But I do think it is important to disclose any close political contacts with the Obama or Clinton campaign if you are shilling for them.  Here at No Quarter, we do monitor pro-Hillary blogs.  But we have no connection whatsoever to the campaign.  And this blog’s owner, Larry Johnson, has made it quite clear that he is not seeking nor will he accept a position in a Clinton Administration if Hillary is elected.

Perhaps we should give Obama’s campaign credit for having a better machine for manipulating the blogosphere and the press.  What bothers me is the depth of political manipulation directed against Hillary and the willingness of the media to participate in the print equivalent of mob violence.  Even someone like Mark Halperin appears to have snagged a cup of kool aid today.  He links to The Page byFox News, which quotes Barack Obama’s outburst today:

Clinton called Obama’s claim that economically depressed Pennsylvania voters cling to God and guns “elitist” and “demeaning,” and talked about her duck-hunting experience in Arkansas. Obama sounded skeptical. “She’s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen. How she’s, she’s valuing the second amendment,” he said mockingly. “She’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley. Hillary Clinton’s out there in a duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six shooter. Come on!”

Now where did I hear that before?

::::::::::::::::

By the way, I do not get guidance from top Clinton campaign staffers. However, a few weeks ago, I finally got around to calling the Clinton press office, and they kindly signed me up to receive their press releases. Anyone can sign up to get their releases to the media. Here is tonight’s:

Response to Sen. Obama’s Outburst

Phil Singer, Deputy Communications Director, issued the following statement tonight:

For months, Barack Obama and his campaign have relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton’s character and integrity by using Republican talking points from the 1990s. The shame is his.

Sen. Clinton does know better — she knows better than to condescend and talk down to voters like Senator Obama did. Senator Obama’s outburst won’t change the fact that he has embraced his characterization of the millions of Americans who live in small towns.

###

I know that many who once supported Senator Obama are in complete shock over the revelations of his 20 year intimate association with a bigot and a racist. It doesn’t fit into the mold of who we think Barack Obama is. His pastor surely doesn’t preach the “message” of hope that Obama is associated with. In fact his pastor preaches what one could only define as hate. But just why is it that we so strongly believe that Senator Obama has a message of hope and a new kind of politics? In the preface of his book The Audacity of Hope which he patterned after a sermon of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, Obama gives us a glimmer of an answer.

Audacity of Hype

“I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.”

You see, Senator Obama believes that if enough people project their views of what he should be onto him that he will be able to take advantage of their ignorance and become elected to the highest office of the most powerful nation on earth. That is the more subtle message to what Obama states plainly. But he won’t tell you that because doing so would cause you to wake up and realize that he is just taking advantage of your hope and your faith in him to hoodwink you into giving him the reins to power.

How else do you explain his oft-cited ability to bring people together? Does he have any experience whatsoever of doing this in a legislative body? Has he used his supposedly remarkable skills to bring an end to the partisan bickering and stalemate on Capitol Hill? Has he been able to work across the aisle and bring people together to end the Iraq war? Has he been able to work across the aisle to do anything other than water down regulatory legislation so much that it becomes unnecessary while at the same time taking money from the industry he was supposed to be regulating?

Unfortunately the answer to all these questions is a simple word: NO!

And yet still we hear from pundits and political hacks how Obama has the ability to do this and that without a shred of evidence that he has ever demonstrated the slightest capacity to do so. Not a shred of evidence. In fact many of his supporters when asked what his legislative achievements are seem bewildered and begin to stutter just like he is so famous for doing. Because quite simply they cannot answer the question. Truthfully.

So we are to take his word that he has these abilities because why? Because he tells us he can? Because people say that he can? Because his opponent and/or her husband are such terrible people? Because we may never again have the chance?

It seems there are no easy or substantial answers. Because to answer these questions based on the evidence requires not only a willing suspension of disbelief, it requires a huge leap of faith. And faith is an article of religion not politics.

So to form our judgments we are left with the truth. And the truth is that Senator Obama has a pattern of associations with unsavory characters. And I am being generous and polite. What follows is one of the most recent videos making it’s way around the internet. It includes clips I have not seen before that I find revolting and entirely offensive. And I am a Democrat.

America is the same as Al Qaeda?

What this type of information in the hands of the Republican machine and their money will do is beyond anyone’s comprehension. Mark my words, if we are so unfortunate to have this man as our candidate we will need to redefine the term swiftboating for an entire generation.

The invitation-only fundraisers will be at the Bonwood Drive home of environmental activists Bob Perkowitz and Lisa Renstrom. A “general reception” costs $1,000 a person. A “host reception” costs $2,300.

Perhaps these ostensible environmentalists should research Obama’s record on the environment before raising money for his campaign.

Exelon, a nuclear energy giant in Illinois, is Obama’s sixth largest donor.

In fact, Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008.

These donations are significant, for Obama wrote legislation on Exelon’s behalf while serving in the US Senate. Constituents of Obama in Will County, Illinois, complained of nuclear waste surfacing in the area’s groundwater. They mobilized the support of Obama, who promised to write legislation requiring corporations such as Exelon to disclose radioactive leaks to surrounding communities. But Obama failed. Indeed, he allowed Exelon and Senate Republicans to dilute the bill. Instead of requiring companies to disclose information regarding radioactive leaks, the bill Obama wrote with Exelon lobbyists merely offered guidance for how to report a leak if those corporations chose to disclose such information. Obama’s consituents were not pleased. I quote:

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

And although Obama allowed Exelon lobbyists and Congressional Republicans to yank the teeth from his bill, he boasted about it while campaigning in Iowa this December. Obama, I guess, enjoys misrepresenting his record on the environment to voters, including those who will hold expensive fundraisers for him in the Myers Park neighborhood of Charlotte.

Obama had to distort the legislation he failed to pass. He also had to distort his relation to Exelon. For David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, worked for Exelon in 2002. I quote the New York Times again:

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, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

Obama, in other words, is deeply entangled with Exelon and with the nuclear power industry. This is significant, as Exelon has spent millions lobbying for a repository of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Should environmentalists support a candidate whose main contributors desire to pollute our environment with nuclear waste? Should environmentalists support a candidate who failed to protect constituents concerned about the presence of radioactive waste in their groundwater? Or are certain environmentalists motivated by concerns other than the environment?

Contrast this with the record of Hillary Clinton, who convened the first Senate hearing on environmental justice last year. And she did this after she announced for the Presidency. The environment is too important to Clinton to neglect for a mere political campaign.

I quote:

25 JULY 2007
Senator Clinton Announces Bill to Step Up Federal Commitment to Environmental Justice

Leads First-Ever Senate Hearing on Environmental Justice

Washington, DC – Kicking off the first-ever Senate hearing on Environmental Justice, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that she will introduce legislation to step up the Federal government’s efforts to ensure environmental justice. Senator Clinton convened today’s hearing as Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health. Emphasizing that the Bush Administration has turned a blind eye to communities that continue to be disproportionately impacted by exposure to environmental hazards, Senator Clinton called for more accountability at the Environmental Protection Agency and increased support for community-based efforts to address environmental concerns….

Obama and Exelon pollute the environment; Clinton, the candidate who is truly committed to the environment, cleans the mess Obama and his special interests have created.

There’s the seminal 2006 Harper’s article on Exelon’s influence over Obama. Then Washington Post blog reported on January 18:

Clinton has also made the topic a key point of attack against rival Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, putting out a radio ad that refers to Obama as being “hip deep in financial ties” to Chicago-based energy giant Exelon Corp., a nuclear plant operator that supports the Yucca waste site.

While Obama called the ad misleading during a campaign stop Thursday, his financial ties to Exelon appear to be inescapable. A cursory search of his campaign finance report shows 158 contributions from people who identify themselves as Exelon employees, totaling more than $150,000 …

Exelon Corporation, “the nation’s leading nuclear-power-plant operator” is Barack Obama’s “fourth largest patron.” “Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators” — “called ‘one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation’ by Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste; the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.” (Harper’s)

MORE ARTICLES here at NoQuarter:

Democratic Death Wish by Larry Johnson

Obama’s registered lobbyist bundlers by SusanUnPC

Obama, His Lobbyists and His Cronies by SusanUnPC

What else is going on?