Monday, March 24, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Clinton claims there is African-American child in 3am ad.
You be the judge - but to me the child does not look African-American. I somehow doubt they even know who the child is since it was taken from stock footage.
Click here to read about it on her site.
Click here to read the New York Times article on the 3am ad.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Lobbyist Dilemma
Recently I heard a snippet from MSNBC where Hillary was making a speech in Pennsylvania, and was criticizing Obama on a vote he made in 2005 on an energy bill (which she referred to as a bill that gives tax breaks to oil companies) while at the same time discussing the problems with special interest groups in Washington.
First of all, it is important to actually know the facts, as opposed to what Hillary wants the public to believe. For example the “new tax breaks” that Hillary discussed, equalling 2.6 billion, was completely offset by almost 3 billion in new taxes. The bill also introduced 14.3 billion dollars in energy tax breaks generally aimed at renewable energy and efficiency programs. If you want to read a fairly balanced article on this issue go here.
Okay, so we can choose to agree or disagree with Obama’s vote for this particular bill, but we should acknowledge Hillary is seriously misstating the facts, and trying to plant a seed that Obama is the one with serious ties to special interest groups and lobbyists. The fact of the matter is that she is far guiltier of this particular sin, and has discussed it openly in the past.
A quote from the CNN website from an article written in 2007: Hillary Clinton bragged about how she will continue to garner massive contributions from the corporate lobbyists who are responsible for the ethos that created hopelessness among voters across the country.
She furthermore made claims that lobbyists could be groups of nurses and social workers, something I think is highly unlikely, but nonetheless irrelevant, since a group of nurses and social workers would probably not be trying to influence policy in a negative way, but other groups representing corporate interests, for example banks, pharmaceutical companies, and oil companies may not (and I am seriously understating things here) be looking out for the best interests of the American people. Frankly it terrifies me that she does not address this as the serious issue that it is.
As Obama so aptly pointed out, it is undoubtedly true that the reason why her health care plan of '93 was brutally flushed out was because of the massive blockade by pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists."You cannot say that the money did not make the difference. Those lobbyists are not just contributing to the public interest," said Obama.
Furthermore Hillary Clinton ended up getting a good deal of money from the pharmaceutical lobbyists when she was first lady.
Anyone concerned?
Here is another special tid-bit:
Hillary Clinton's chief pollster for her 2008 presidential campaign, is Mark Penn
A blurb from sourcewatch states:
While the Clinton campaign says Penn "is currently working only with Microsoft" for his day job, an internal Burson-Marsteller blog "suggests ... he has been working with multiple clients," reported Bloomberg News. Blog posts by Penn mention work for Shell Oil, the energy company TXU, and the U.S. Tuna Foundation. In one post, Penn says "the mixing of corporate and political work" is "helpful in cross-pollinating new ideas and skills." The Nation notes Burson-Marsteller's astroturf "attacks against environmental and consumer groups," and its "confrontational relationship with organized labor," as well as Penn's polling firm's work for the nuclear power industry
Furthermore, McCain is a client of Mark Penn’s as well.
All this seems strange to me, and all the more odd that the media never makes any mention of lobbyists when Hillary herself accuses Barack.
I feel very strongly that money should not be buying legislation. At least Barack has been working towards transparency in these matters, and the majority of his funds are from individual donations, making him accountable to the American people (what a concept!). To learn more about the steps he has taken to create more transparency and ethics when it comes to funding and lobbyists, check out another bloggers breakdown of these issues.
The very fact that for once we have the choice between someone who encourages transparency in funding, and someone who actively seeks out funding from lobbyists, as well as working closely with Mark Penn- who has some questionable beliefs and values- is exciting yet very scary. I just hope we all make the right choice.
First of all, it is important to actually know the facts, as opposed to what Hillary wants the public to believe. For example the “new tax breaks” that Hillary discussed, equalling 2.6 billion, was completely offset by almost 3 billion in new taxes. The bill also introduced 14.3 billion dollars in energy tax breaks generally aimed at renewable energy and efficiency programs. If you want to read a fairly balanced article on this issue go here.
Okay, so we can choose to agree or disagree with Obama’s vote for this particular bill, but we should acknowledge Hillary is seriously misstating the facts, and trying to plant a seed that Obama is the one with serious ties to special interest groups and lobbyists. The fact of the matter is that she is far guiltier of this particular sin, and has discussed it openly in the past.
A quote from the CNN website from an article written in 2007: Hillary Clinton bragged about how she will continue to garner massive contributions from the corporate lobbyists who are responsible for the ethos that created hopelessness among voters across the country.
She furthermore made claims that lobbyists could be groups of nurses and social workers, something I think is highly unlikely, but nonetheless irrelevant, since a group of nurses and social workers would probably not be trying to influence policy in a negative way, but other groups representing corporate interests, for example banks, pharmaceutical companies, and oil companies may not (and I am seriously understating things here) be looking out for the best interests of the American people. Frankly it terrifies me that she does not address this as the serious issue that it is.
As Obama so aptly pointed out, it is undoubtedly true that the reason why her health care plan of '93 was brutally flushed out was because of the massive blockade by pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists."You cannot say that the money did not make the difference. Those lobbyists are not just contributing to the public interest," said Obama.
Furthermore Hillary Clinton ended up getting a good deal of money from the pharmaceutical lobbyists when she was first lady.
Anyone concerned?
Here is another special tid-bit:
Hillary Clinton's chief pollster for her 2008 presidential campaign, is Mark Penn
A blurb from sourcewatch states:
While the Clinton campaign says Penn "is currently working only with Microsoft" for his day job, an internal Burson-Marsteller blog "suggests ... he has been working with multiple clients," reported Bloomberg News. Blog posts by Penn mention work for Shell Oil, the energy company TXU, and the U.S. Tuna Foundation. In one post, Penn says "the mixing of corporate and political work" is "helpful in cross-pollinating new ideas and skills." The Nation notes Burson-Marsteller's astroturf "attacks against environmental and consumer groups," and its "confrontational relationship with organized labor," as well as Penn's polling firm's work for the nuclear power industry
Furthermore, McCain is a client of Mark Penn’s as well.
All this seems strange to me, and all the more odd that the media never makes any mention of lobbyists when Hillary herself accuses Barack.
I feel very strongly that money should not be buying legislation. At least Barack has been working towards transparency in these matters, and the majority of his funds are from individual donations, making him accountable to the American people (what a concept!). To learn more about the steps he has taken to create more transparency and ethics when it comes to funding and lobbyists, check out another bloggers breakdown of these issues.
The very fact that for once we have the choice between someone who encourages transparency in funding, and someone who actively seeks out funding from lobbyists, as well as working closely with Mark Penn- who has some questionable beliefs and values- is exciting yet very scary. I just hope we all make the right choice.
Obama Interview - Sun Times
Obama discusses his relationship with Rezko and other topics in this lengthy interview.
Click here
Obama on the Keith Olbermann show.
Click here
Obama on the Keith Olbermann show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
