Guess ….

1. Research on and development of renewable energy supplies
2. Research on building new nuclear power plants
3. Research on ways to achieve energy independence
4. Energy conservation measures

5. Greenhouse gas emission control
6. Maintaining nuclear stockpiles
7. Cleaning sites to maintain nuclear stockpiles
8. Dealing with nuclear nonproliferation issues

Well, if you picked 6, 7, or 8, you would be right. Turns out the Department of Energy doesn’t have much to do with energy at all. A CNN report report by Steve Hargreaves reports that research on renewables totals only $640 million, less than 3% of the annual budget.

But, President-Elect Barack Obama (or PEBO to avoid that mouthful) has other ideas.

“Under Obama you’re likely to see an energy secretary focus more on energy rather than nuclear weapons,” said Paul Bledsoe, strategy director for National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan research group.

Hargreaves reports that Obama will propose $15 billion a year to focus on such matters as researching and commercializing renewable energy technology, comprehensive urban planning, raising fuel efficiency standards, developing clean coal technologies, encouraging the production and use of conservation measures, and controlling carbon dioxide emissions.

This all sounds good. Long past due. Yipee!!

But will anyone still be watching those nukes?

I guess Obama’s attempt at getting Murdoch’s media to support him appear to be wasted.

From Political Wire we learn about Obama’s whining to Fox News chief Roger Ailes in a summer meeting. I guess he thought he would get the same softball treatment from Fox News that he did from CNN and MSNBC:

In Vanity Fair, Michael Wolff reports on a “secret courtesy meeting” between Sen. Barack Obama and Fox News chief Roger Ailes earlier this summer.

“Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome — just short of a terrorist.

“Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.

Well another round won by McCain/Palin!

The New York Post had this to say in their endorsement:

THE Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States.

McCain’s lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama.

Big Mac Gets Big Bounce in Polls

Sarah Palin to Face the Media

Get MORE Election Coverage at NYPost.com

McCain has been in Washington for many years now, but he is not of Washington. He knows where the levers of power are located - and how to manipulate them - but he is not controlled by them.

McCain’s selection of the charming, but rock-solid, outsider Sarah Palin as his running mate underscores the point.

Neither plays well with others.

The Post listed several good reasons to vote for McCain (Note: I don’t necessarily agree with all of them!).

There are many reasons to support the McCain-Palin ticket. Here are but a few:

* National security: The differences between McCain and Obama are especially stark.

McCain says 9/11 represented a two-decade “failure . . . to respond to . . . a [growing] global terror network.” He understood that Iraq is a critical front in the war on terror - and he urged perseverance even in the dark days that preceded the success of “the surge.”

Obama backed policies that would have abandoned Iraq to its fate, he bitterly opposed the surge, and once insisted that US forces invade Pakistan in search of Osama bin Laden - seemingly without regard for the potential consequences of attacking a nuclear-armed nation, ally or not.

Regarding a nuclear Iran, McCain has pushed for the strongest possible international sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Obama opposes sanctions.

And, when Russia invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia, threatening a return to the Cold War, McCain reacted with stern disapprobation: “We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world.”

Obama called for UN action - unaware, apparently, that Russia’s Security Council veto would have prevented any.

* Taxes: McCain knows that when government absorbs ever-larger shares of national income, the economy suffers.

High tax rates diminish investment, killing jobs and stunting growth.

And while Obama promises tax cuts for “95 percent” of Americans, what he actually is proposing is some $650 billion in tax-credit-driven hikes in entitlement and other spending, to be paid for with heavier imposts across the board, but especially on investment - like a sharply higher capital-gains tax.

This is bad news for the millions of ordinary Americans who own stocks, either personally or through pension funds or who plan someday to sell their homes or other real property.

McCain, wisely, vows to keep capital-gains taxes at 15 percent and to keep the Bush-era tax cuts in place - understanding that new growth will boost revenue, and promising to make up the rest with spending restraint.

And he’s called for a one-year freeze on most discretionary spending and an end to pork-barrel giveaways.

* Trade: “I object when Senator Obama and others preach the false virtues of economic isolationism,” says McCain - noting that “globalization is an opportunity” for US workers. He adds that while emerging economies like those of China and India are worrisome, the answer is competition informed by education and innovation - not protectionism.

* Energy: On the economic issue most vexing Americans today - energy prices - McCain is aggressive

He is a strong convert to offshore drilling: “We have trillions of dollars’ worth of oil and gas reserves in the US at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy.”

He also strongly backs nuclear power - a carbon-free form of energy that America can produce relatively cheaply.

Obama, meanwhile, hews to the Democratic Party line on energy: no nukes, no drilling and no comprehension of the consequences of such policies.

And finally The Post finished up with this quote:

In the end, though, sound security, economic and energy policies - plus allegiance to principle - are critical to keeping America safe and strong.

On all counts, John McCain and Sarah Palin understand this - and that’s why we’re in their corner to the finish.

As for my vote I am still not certain what I will do in November, but I am carefully looking at McCain/Palin, listening to their speeches and talking points. And I am anxiously awaiting Palin’s ABC interview. Palin is a regular person like me, a working mom like I was during my Navy days, and understands special needs children, I grew up with a brother who has special needs, they are part and parcel of your moral fiber! And it turns out McCain remembers the last time he changed a diaper because he said, “There’s some experiences you never forget.”

That was the response, in essence, of the Obama campaign to Governor Sarah Palin’s speech last night. It was laughable that the man who viciously attacked members of his own PARTY, tainting the best president we have had in years with false claims of being a racist, demeaning and belittling his opponent who is light years above him, to cry foul that a REPUBLICAN VP candidate would speak as a Republican.

As if you, Obama, didn’t engage in divisive rhetoric against the Republicans.

If you did it to your own party members, to try and act like you never said a negative word against McCain in your speech is just hooey. You really do think we are a bunch of morons. Here’s a little newsflash for you - not all of us are. Some of us can process information, and actually remember from one week to the next.

Not only did Palin speak as the running mate of the Republican presidential nominee, she also called him out on all of his BS comparisons between himself and her. And she called him out on his derogatory comments towards small towns, and their occupants. Of course, the comparisons are out of bounds anyway since she is not at the top of the ticket, and Obama is. But whatever - he seems to relish (figuratively) beating up on the women in the race instead of taking on the men. I guess he thought he’d get his ass beaten by the men.

Well, here’s a little newsflash for you, Barry - you just got your ass beat by a GIRL (please read all of the dripping, snarky sarcasm you can into the inflection on “girl”).

Oh, yeah - she whomped up on you good, as we say down South. Along with this Southern expression, she smacked you up side your fool head. Governor Palin took all of the assholic comparisons you made between the two of you, and showed your complete lack of understanding, humor, and grace. Moreover, she exposed your complete and utter lack of experience in governing, your arrogance, and your condescending attitudes. Oh, yeah - she nailed it. And you, Obama. She sees you for who you are - a propped up, puffed up, patronizing empty suit with no real accomplishments to your name. She’s got your number. And it’s making you mad because you can’t shut her up with threats of party disunity like you did Hillary. Hillary Clinton is faithful to the Party (despite their lack of faithfulness to her), and she was not willing to have it implode. Governor Palin doesn’t have to worry about that. And anyway, you’re making it implode enough all by your own self.

I loved when she said being a “mayor was like being a Community Organizer, only with responsibilities.” Hysterical.

She convicted you when she claimed McCain says the same thing to people across the country, not one thing to Scranton and another to San Francisco. Ouch - truth hurts, doesn’t it??

But my favorite line had to be her quip about them taking back the “Styrofoam Greek columns to the studio lot.” Thank the goddess for DVR-capability. I had to pause then because we were laughing so hard. And then I re-wound it. Twice. That was priceless.

There were definitely more funny moments in her speech, but her speech did what it was supposed to do - introduce her to the people. Frankly, she hit a grand slam. That probably pisses Obama off, too. She can give a great speech - and she even lost use of her teleprompter in there - bet you didn’t notice, did you? Neither did I. I heard about it this morning. Oh, hell - you KNOW what would have happened if Obama had that problem: “Uh, ah, um, well, uh, I, I, I, I, uh…” She also made clear that she DOES have experience in governing - that’s what being a governor is all about, isn’t it? It’s kinda inherent in the title. Just sayin’. And I think she addressed the sexism heaped upon her by the Obama camp and the MSM. (Oh, you have NO idea the depths to which the MSM have sunk. I thought they had peaked with their horrific treatment of Senator Clinton. How wrong I was!)

Overall, while I don’t agree with all of Governor Palin’s policies, she handled herself with tremendous calm under pressure, good humor, strength, and intelligence. No doubt, she has assuaged fears on the Republican side about choosing her, and energized that Party tremendously. She showed clearly why Senator McCain chose her. It is looking more and more like a brilliant move on his part. And she introduced herself to all of us, as well. Like I said, she hit a grand slam out of the park.

NOTE: To all of you Obamabots who are going to start with these crapola talking points today, let’s be clear: Palin was not in an Alaskan Independence Group. That was debunked by Alaskan state officials. So, stop with the whole “Anti-American” crap. If you wish to attack her for mentioning nuclear energy last night (something about which I am not crazy), I hasten to remind you that Obama has said the same thing in the Democratic debates. There are real differences that can be discussed - let’s stick with those instead of the made up allegations.

And one last note before I forget - I keep getting emails sent to me about how McCain does not favor gay marriage, including one from HRC yesterday (it was forwarded to me by a family member - I terminated my membership with them once they endorsed Obama). Here’s the thing for all of you people who keep saying McCain is SO much worse on this than Obama: He is not. Obama is NOT in favor of gay marriage. He has made that PERFECTLY clear. NEITHER ONE OF THEM is good for the GLBT community. The best choice was Elizabeth Edwards. I mean, Wes Clark. No, no, Carol Moseley Braun. Seriously, it was Hillary Clinton, as most of us know, though those mentioned above stated clearly and emphatically that it was a Civil Rights issue, and they were all for it. So, stop trying to manipulate me, and others, with this straw man argument. Obama is not going to do jack more for our community, should he get elected. Stick to the facts, not the fallacies.

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.

Health Policy

Obama

Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System

See Economic policy and advisors, above.

This one’s been gone over so many times that everyone on the planet probably knows it by heart. Fact is, in May of 2007, HRC put out her plan, complete with all the lessons learned from the 1994 debacle (which I must remind everyone again - was torpedoed by Democrats). HRC’s plan very cleverly included a roadmap to single-payer, the ultimate goal. Exactly one week later, just enough time to plagiarize and re-brand, BHO came out with his copycat plan. Except BHO’s plan dispensed with the single-payer option and places the mandatory membership subscriptions firmly in the hands of the private insurance companies - who is this guy working for again?

McCain

Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance
Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage
Making Insurance More Portable
Will Encourage And Expand The Benefits Of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) For Families
Cares For The Traditionally Uninsurable
Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan

Bromides from the (R) side of the aisle. It’s glaringly obvious that McCain doesn’t give a rat’s ass about health care except in the context of preventing any public poaching of private party property (alliteration anyone?).

Energy Policy

Obama

Next in the examination chamber is Energy Policy, below are the BHO talking points

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

More valueless drivel on a large scale. First, the chances of us reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050 are vanishingly small (except for the small possibility mentioned below). Even if we did, by 2050 China and India will be producing 2 to 3 times our present CEs. This is not a US problem it is a global problem and must be addressed in that context. BHO utterly fails to address this.

Second, biofuels is a counter-productive deadend as is already becoming painfully apparent: fill your tank, starve a neighbor. BHOs reliance on pop solutions to real problems is emblematic of his incompetence.

Another personal rant: We need to bite the bullet - it’s time to dump petroleum. Take the $150 billion BHO proposes to enable the unsupportable biofuels economy and put it into nailing down hydrogen fuel cell technology. Find better, cheaper ways to crack seawater into its constituent parts. Hydrogen for clean burning fuel, oxygen gets liberated into the atmosphere and BTW we stop pumping thousands of tons of carbon into the sky. I could go on…

McCain

From his Lexington Project:
Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration and Use Domestic Supplies
Clean Car Challenge
Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles Supports Flex fuel and Ethanol
Goes Green, Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies
Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants
Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D
Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power
Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Surprisingly, this looks to be a well thought out program combining accepted concepts such as Cap and Trade and Clean Coal initiatives. I like the tax credit idea and the emphasis on low carbon power. Not so much the expanded domestic oil stuff (can you say ANWAR?) but I want to talk for a moment about nuclear power.

It seems to be an article of faith in the leftie community that nuclear=bad. We need to stop engaging in knee-jerk responses to this. Yes, older nuclear designs were primitive and overly complex, some were even inherently dangerous, Chernobyl is the poster child for that. Yes, there is a problem with disposing of nuclear waste - but not an insoluble one. Yes, fission reactors are really only a way-station on the road to fusion. All stipulated. But. Let’s look at nuclear power with our critical thinking caps on, this is the Red Dirt Talk after all…

Nuclear Myth #1: All those nuclear power plants are creating more and more radioactivity all the time.

No, Johnny, only a very few nuclear reactors actually create new fissile material - fast breeder reactors, and even then they create the plutonium from uranium as it transforms to lead (this transforming takes a very, very long time). Mostly what reactors do is just transfer radioactivity from one place to another (see Nuclear Myth # 2 for more on this) Bad point here, fast breeder reactors are what you want to build when you want to make weapons-grade radioactives. Extended point: there is radioactive material all over the planet with a high concentration in Africa (remember the Niger Yellowcake?). There is even some speculation that high radioactivity levels in Africa are responsible for mutations that led to the development of Homo Sapiens.

Nuclear Myth # 2: That nasty nuclear waste will just sit around forever making everything glow in the dark.

Well, yes and no… if you pick a remote place that is geologically stable (say Yucca Mountain) and sequester the waste in sealed glass containers and then store them several thousand feet underground in salt formations, you will get the glow in the dark scenario, but if you think critically about it there is a handy solution - take a deep breath here, assumptions are about to be challenged: go out into the middle of the ocean and build a floating launch facility, put your nuclear waste in a rocket and shoot it into the Sun. The Sun will know what to do with it. Yes, we’ve actually been sending nuclear materials into space for years. No, it’s not inherently more dangerous than burying it in salt mines. Yes, rockets used to be famously unreliable and would blow up at the drop of a hat. No, that’s no longer the case… did I mention that the launch takes place in the middle of the ocean?

Nuclear Myth # 3: All nuclear plants are unsafe.

They used to be exactly that, especially idiot designs like the open graphite reactors the USSR dotted all over the landscape. The fact is that many countries have relied on nuclear power for a substantial portion of their energy needs for decades (see France). They have developed new, simpler, inherently safe-by-design nuclear reactors, Pebble Bed reactors for instance. We in the US get about 14 percent of our energy from nuclear reactors. They’re here, they’re staying, they’re getting safer all the time - get over it.

Nonetheless, there is a salient point here: fission is inherently dangerous by virtue of the fact that you have to gather relatively large amounts of radioactive material together in order to make it work at all.

So what’s the solution? Glad you asked: fusion. This holy grail of energy production has been pursued by every capable agency on the planet for over fifty years. Why doesn’t it work? Actually it does, the latest Tokamak reactor produces about 102% energy output from energy input - not very impressive. What is even more unimpressive (more unimpressive?) is the paucity of R+D spending on fusion research. In the decade of the ’90s the total R+D investment by all the IEA members (the US, EU and Japan) totaled US $8.9 billion - total - for, essentially, all the countries of the world - combined - for ten years. Plainly we’re not serious yet about energy independence, when we are, we’ll know it because we’ll be putting in about $100 billion per year into R+D and pilot production and ramping up to bringing fusion online to the grid.

Why should you be happy about this? Here’s the interesting thing about fusion: if it breaks, it turns off; if you make a mistake, it turns off; if the bad guys get in and blow something up, it turns off. No muss, no fuss, no lingering evil cloud, no China Syndrome, no cancer down the line - no radioactivity.

It. Just. Turns. Off.

Did I mention that Exxon made US $40 Billion in profits… this year?

Immigration

Obama

Create Secure Borders
Improve Our Immigration System
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Work with Mexico

Once again, BHO doesn’t have strong positions on this, though I must say that cracking down on employers who hire illegals would go a long way to solving the problem outright.

McCain

Secure borders
Welcomes immigrants and guest workers

This is a McCain signature issue, he’s been highly visible out front on this and has garnered the respect of Hispanics in Mexico as well as the US.

Space Program

Obama

Zero, zip, nada on his website, however his previous position (stated multiple times) was idiotic Go here for a deeper look at this)

Essentially BHO’s opinion is that the Constellation program (our next generation space vehicle system) should take a break for, oh, say about 5 years so that he can funnel NASA funding into - education (paging Bill Ayers). Seriously, he’s gonna bring the US$240 billion/year space industry to a grinding halt for 5 years… and then just flip the switch on ‘em and crank it up again!?!

McCain

Strong supporter of NASA, the space industry, exploration, science, truth, justice and the American way - on this one anyway.

Supreme Court

Obama

Nothing on website, vaguely supports Roe v Wade and claims that: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Apparently, BHO - the constitutional scholar, is off eating waffles somewhere.

McCain

Strict Constructionist
Supported Alito and Roberts

Well, he’s a Republican. What you see is what you get here.

From my blog, The Heraclitan Fire.

Sen. Clinton’s response was sincere. The Obama attack was disingenuous.


We are happy to discuss Sen. Clinton’s foreign policy experience and her record overall.  Unfortunately, the Obama campaign doesn’t want to discuss its candidate’s record and prefers personal attacks instead.

Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he’d get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.

He’d have to deal with the fallout from this week’s Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.
 


Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.
 


He’d have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.
 


He’d have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.
 


He’d have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.

Sen. Obama seems to think disingenuous attacks on Sen. Clinton will address the concerns voters have about his record and readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief and the steward of our economy.  They won’t.
 


In the end, Sen. Obama’s words cannot erase Hillary’s 35-year record of action because when all is said and done, words aren’t action.  They are just words.



###

 

Susan’s Note: See all of Hillary Clinton’s interview — both text and videos — at Pittsburgh Live.

Jackie, a friend in Arizona, sent me an e-mail after hearing this March 25, 2008 NPR report from Don Gonyea. Gonyea reported on Obama’s now-famous 2002 anti-war speech. Jackie wrote:
  

Obama’s ad on anti-war speech is staged
 
 The speech was given at an anti-war rally on Oct. 2, 2002…..Jessie Jackson was the main speaker.  Obama’s speech went mainly unnoticed. He had not yet announced his run for the Senate, although now he claims he risked his political career.  Of course we know that there was NO risk in running against Alan Keyes, all Obama had to do was breathe..

Gonyea says…..”In an age of YouTube there is no video of the speech and only a snippet of audio. The Obama campaign has reenacted the speech in a campaign AD they are now running.”

If there is no video available it would seem the entire Obama anti-war speech on which he is basing his Ad campaign may be faked.  In fact the entire speech could be distorted. LISTEN.

Is it a creation or a re-creation? You decide. But those aren’t Sen. Obama’s only “creative” embellishments:

I wonder if THIS GUY had anything to do with all that?

THE EMBELLISHMENTS:

“Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues.  When it comes to his record, just words won’t do.  Senator Obama will have to use facts as well,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor.  The Sun-Times reported that, “Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama’s primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.”  In academia, there’s a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. “Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced 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.’ ‘I just did that last year,’ he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.” [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. “Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: `I meant the whole civil rights movement.’” [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. “As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld’s asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir ‘Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.’ Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune:  Obama’s assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing ’strains credulity.’ “…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 — more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.” [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]        

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House.’ “White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday — a flat declaration that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House’ after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying — in contrast to his written pledge — at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: `Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama’s health plan.’ “Obama’s ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama’s plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn’t analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that “experts” say Obama’s plan is “the best.” “Experts” turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren’t actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama’s plan “guarantees coverage for all Americans,” neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it’s only Clinton’s and Edwards’ plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama’s would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.” [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said ‘I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,’ but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. “As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage.” The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that “The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a ‘cloud’ over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year.” [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: ‘Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made’ on ethics reform. “ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday’s Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of “bundlers,” those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is “because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that.” Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama’s amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What’s more, although Obama’s amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a ‘law’ that the Illinois Democrat has ‘pushed through’ but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information.” [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. “When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from `Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser’ to `Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll’ to `Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.’ Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it.” [politico.com, 5/9/07]

Courtesy of AndreWalker’s MyDD diary, “Just Embellished Words: Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements” and campaign press releases.

   
I REPEAT: I am confident — as you surely are — that after the mainstream media sees the following, all of these stories will lead all the newscasts, as the Bosnia story has, repetitiously, for two days. RIGHT?

So I went hunting, and was often surprised at what I found. It amounts to a pattern that I find dismaying. There are a lot of links here, documenting sources for my conclusions, and there is a lot to read.

Here is my list, in no particular order. See if you agree with me, and answer the questions for yourself… did he really not know, or is it just that he didn’t mind?

1. He joined and remained active in a church where racism and anti-American hate is routinely preached. He and his family attended, and heavily contributed for about 20 years. This has received worldwide attention, as show in the link below.
Ten Must-See Videos from The Times Online
Obama first claimed not to know about Wright’s inflammatory statements. He later admitted he did.
CBS News
Flip-Flip Video
CBS News
OOPS… didn’t notice. Or else he forgot.
Rev Wright, one of the ministers, even promoted Obama and denigrated Hillary Clinton from the pulpit spurring an IRS investigation as to the validity of their non-profit status. The Obama campaign is also reported to have campaigned on at least one occasion at church events, furthering the curiosity of the IRS.
WCBS TV

Obama Speech at General Synod of the United Church of Christ

But, OOPS… he didn’t know. Or didn’t mind.

2. Senator Obama bought stock in two companies whose investors included his 2004 campaign political donors. One, in fact, was developing medicine to treat avian flu — with the stock purchase coming right before Obama introduced legislation to increase funding to combat the virus.
The other company, SkyTerra, received government permission to build a national wireless network on the day Obama purchased his shares. Among the principal owners of this business were four people who had raised more than $150,000 for Obama. Attorney Obama claimed later that they were in a semi-blind trust, that just didn’t legally work out. When this became public, Obama sold the stock.

Chicago Sun-Times
New York Times
Oops… he didn’t know. Or didn’t he mind?

3. Senator Obama came into politics through the famously corrupt Chicago political machine, with the help of some of the slimiest characters imaginable. (Several major players who helped him are have been indicted for graft, fraud, etc. Obama now keeps a rep at Rezko’s trial every day to monitor testimony.) Obama has had to donate to charity much of the money they gave him to get his start, though the admitted dollar amount keeps increasing as time goes on. It’s now up over $250,000. Tony Rezko, currently at trial on federal charges of attempted extortion, money laundering, and fraud, was also involved in the purchase of Obama’s home at well below market value.

Huffington Post
Chicago Sun-Times
New York Times
Not so well publicized is the fact that Obama wrote letters to the Illinois Dept of Housing, recommending Rezco’s company, North Kenwood, LLC, for the housing projects that soon became slums, causing inhumane hardship for their residents.

Obama Letters
These slums, later repossessed, were in Obama’s district while he was an Illinois senator. In fact, some are about a mile from his home, and several are still boarded up. Obama professed to be unaware of any problems. During the Democratic debate on January 21, 2008, Obama, in fact, gave the impression that he had merely done about 5 hours of legal work for “this individual.”
The Rezko Foreclosed Properties
telegraph.co.uk
No Quarter
Rezko Watch
Chicago Tribune: Almost Believable
OOPS… he didn’t know. Or did he care?

4. According to the Sun-Times, Barack Obama, “allegedly decent guy and agent of change” in Washington, requested an earmark in 2006 for $1 million taxpayer dollars for the University of Chicago Hospitals, where is wife, Michelle Obama, was a vice president. Said hospital, by the way, gave Michelle Obama a huge raise (nearly $200,000, more than doubling her salary) in 2005 after Barack was elected to the United States Senate.
Michelle Obama
Chicago Sun-Times
According to The Chicago Tribune, “Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company’s directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama’s campaigns since 2003.” Maytag closed its refrigerator plant in Galesburg, Ill during Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, but Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg plant with him. Obama’s campaign responded “that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag’s board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa.”

Chicago Tribune
Obama Truth
Oops… he didn’t know? Or didn’t he care?

5. Obama took donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees for his House and Senate races and his own Hopefund political action committee. He only stopped taking this political money — and began speaking out against it — when he launched his presidential campaign in February 2007. However, he still takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from their high level employees.
Politifact
The Hill
Politifact
Oops… he didn’t know? Or doesn’t mind?

6. Opponents have asked Senator Obama to release the records from his term of state office in Illinois. Since he has little other experience in politics (he did, after all, declare his presidential candidacy barely 2 years after election to the US Senate), this doesn’t seem an unreasonable request. The records might also shed light on his relationship with Rezko and some of the other corrupt individuals he rubbed shoulders with during his climb up through Chicago politics. But lo and behold, the records all seem to have mysteriously disappeared.
Politico
The Pantagraph, a central Illinois newspaper

Questions have also been raised about Obama-sponsored legislation during the last year he was in office there. It is alleged that, in the interest of making Obama appear more prolific, then Illinois Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones appointed Obama as sponsor of many pieces of legislation, even though other senior senators had spent many years working on the bills.

“I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,” State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.”
“I don’t consider it bill jacking,” Hendon told me. “But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book.”

As a result, Todd Spivak of the Houston Press noted, “During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama’s stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law — including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.”
Houston Press

Oops… he didn’t know? Or did he mind?

7. Obama’s website sported a page for the New Black Panthers organization until it was discovered and reported by the media. It was quickly removed. Obama denounced their support, but the New Black Panthers’ Winter 2008 newsletter still carries a full page ad for his campaign on page 36. Though the origin of the ad is not stated, it contains logos, graphics and quotes from the Obama website, which Obama could have ordered removed as a copyright violation.
The NBP page, before its deletion.
NBP Winter 2008 Newsletter
OOPs… he didn’t know.

8. In addition to the controversy concerning his numerous “present” votes while in the Illinois legislature, Obama also maintains that he just pushed the wrong button on 5 or 6 other votes. (Let’s not even go there!)

According to the New York Times, however, an examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way, causing many to question whether he was really just trying to avoid taking a stand.
LA Times on Obama votes

Real Clear Politics
New Your Times
Obama also has an exceptionally high no-show ration for votes since coming to the Senate.
Media Matters
OOPS… he didn’t know? Or didn’t he care?

9. On Wednesday, Feb 27, 2008, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign, Austan Goolsbee, spoke directly with the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago to assure them that if Obama publicly spoke about opting out of NAFTA, they should not take it seriously. It would just be political posturing… campaign rhetoric. Obama flatly denied the report, attacking both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain for their comments on the issue.
On March 4, the New York Times, among other sources, revealed that the conversation had indeed taken place, and published the memo. The Canadian government announced that an investigation would begin to find out who was responsible for leaking the memorandum concerning the conversation.
CTV News
New York Times
New York Times published the memo
OOPS… he didn’t know.

10. Obama’s position on the war in Iraq, in spite of the October 2002 speech, has not been as unwavering as he would have us believe.

Commentary Magazine
Obama Gets the Facts Wrong
Clinton Takes on Obama
MSNBC
The Boston Globe
OOPS… did he forget?

11. Senator Obama is chair of of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Europe, having been appointed in early 2007. According to Congressional Records, the subcommittee’s jurisdiction includes “all matters, policies and problems concerning the continent of Europe, including the European member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” That means it has jurisdiction over NATO.
As Senator Clinton asserted in a recent debate, “NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.”
Politifact
OOPS… he didn’t know… or did he forget?

12. Senator Obama told Tim Russert in January of 2006 that “I will serve out my full six-year term.”

From the official transcript of Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: But there seems to be an evolution in your thinking. This is what you told the Chicago Tribune last month: “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?” Obama answered, “It’s not something I anticipate doing.” But when we talked back in November of `04 after your election I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama, “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you’re going to get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice-president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

Obama formed an exploratory committee in January of 2007 and declared his candidacy two months later.
Meet The Press Transcript January 22, 2006
“Obama Takes the Russert Test” from The Swamp
Obama Learns the Washington Ways
OOPS… he forgot.

13. Senator Obama promised to use public financing for the general election if his Republican opponent would do the same. Now, apparently after he realized how much more money he could have at his disposal, he has reversed himself.
League of Women Voters
Mr Obama’s Waffle
OOPS… he forgot.

14. Obama bragged in the Iowa debate about the “nuclear legislation I’ve passed.” When he encountered resistance from the nuclear industry… including Illinois-based Excelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money, he edited his bill several times, making it weaker each time. The bill, however, never passed. It died. But Mr Obama gained a chief political strategist… David Axelrod. In October 2007, Obama resubmitted the bill in its watered-down version.
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
OOPS… he forgot.

15. Senator Obama purports to be in favor of “universal” health care, utilizing private insurance, on the campaign trail. In fact, he adamantly denied advocating single payor. But there was a time when he was in favor of the single payor system.

Video
The Swamp
OOPS… he forgot.

16. While campaigning, Obama told several hundred people in Iowa, “No lobbyists need apply to my White House.”
However, in contrast to his pledge to fight against the influence of special interests, his record on employing lobbyists isn’t quite so pristine. Several high level members of his campaign are registered lobbyists, including his New Hampshire campaign manager. Lately, he has softened his campaign line to, “They are not going to run my White House.”
The Boston Globe
The Wall Street Journal
Politico
The Washington Post
The Hill
Obama actually seems very comfortable working with lobbyists on legislation. To site just one example…

According to ABC, Obama “has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million,” that gave two overseas companies tariff suspensions. Both companies also have facilities in Illinois.
One of these companies, Nufarm, told its shareholders it was making “more money than ever before in North America because it had increased its prices on its U.S. and Canadian customers, predominantly farmers.” This had the effect of profiting business interests in his state, while punishing its farmers.
According to ABC News, “With a dozen tariff suspension bills to his name, Obama stands out as the most prolific of any Democratic presidential hopeful on the topic.”
Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists’ Interests
OOPS… he forgot. Or didn’t he mind?

How many other things are we going to find that Senator Obama conveniently forgot? It is my hope that the political powers-that-be will lay off the talk about ending the primaries early, and that the media and the internet diggers will help us truly vet Senator Obama. Use a little old-fashioned, objective journalism… remember that?
If he has nothing more to hide, it can only help him.
But if we don’t know the whole story yet, it might just help us be certain that we can indeed put a Democrat in the White House in November.
That is, after all, what Democrats want, isn’t it?

Cross-posted at MyDD.com.

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?