Did you read just the headline?

Oil Slick (Again)http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/youve_got_mailers.html

The mailer further charges that Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies." Obama did vote for the 2005 energy bill to which Clinton refers. But as we've said more than once before, her claim that the legislation resulted in large tax breaks for the oil industry is misleading.

In fact, the bill President Bush signed into law in 2005 actually RAISED taxes on the oil industry overall. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the Energy Policy Act "included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, [the act] provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a NET TAX INCREASE on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years."

Many subsidies were proposed during debate, but they didn't make it into the final
bill, which contained a total of $14.3 billion in tax breaks, most of which didn't go to the oil industry.

Instead, they benefited electric utilities and nuclear power, as well as alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.

Clinton has been consistent, however, in her opposition to the tax breaks the bill contained. She voted for the bill that originally passed the Senate, but spoke out against and opposed the final conference bill, objecting to tax provisions it included as well as the deletion of provisions to reduce oil consumption and increase the use of electricity from renewable sources. Obama voted for both bills and lauded provisions regarding ethanol, which is produced in his state of Illinois.

" by Emi Kolawole and Lori Robertson

Joe Trippi when interviewed for leading the Clinton campaign had suggested an internet fundraising apparatus like Obama"s and he was eventually hired by John Edwards to lead up his campaign. From Mother Jone"s interview June 29, 2007:

MJ: The next one is a two-part question: What part of the political use of new web tools makes politics more democratic?

JT: Obama just proved it. One hundred thousand people giving 25 or 30 bucks ****(THESE are NOT reported INDIVIDUALLY)**** can out raise a bunch of people going to $2,300 dinners that have an axe to grind because they are oil lobbyists or whatever. If 5 million Americans decided tomorrow morning to give $100 to a candidate ¬that's half a billion dollars. THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR THAT CANDIDATE TO TALK TO AN OIL COMPANY, AN ENERGY COMPANY, A HEALTH CARE COMPANY EVER AGAIN.

l.blissett (See profile | I'm a fan of l.blissett)
as an addendum to the analysis, first of all, i was mistaken, huckabee blows everyone away at 27% non-disclosure.

these #'s are a bit misleading w/o taking into effect the % of donations $200 or less.

paul 54% (Largest Internet Donations)
huckabee 33%
obama 26%
mccain 22%
clinton 12%

so yes, technically, obama's campaign has slightly more donor disclosure than clinton's, and is about right on par with mccain's.

sorry for my rant to chrispy13, but he posted that waterboarding is ok.

How do you walk in a straight line with such slant?

Where's the "cheap shot?

Asked whether he would call on the Clintons to release their tax returns, Obama stopped short of saying they should.

"I'll just say that I've released my tax returns. That's been a policy I've maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from. But I'll leave it up to you guys to chase it down," he told reporters on the flight to Omaha, Neb., for a rally.

"I've disclosed my income tax returns," he said. "I think we set the bar in terms of transparency and disclosure that has been a consistent theme of my campaign and my career in politics."

The ony cheap shot here is your biased comment.

DId you notice that it was the press asking this question, and that Sen. Obama did not go on to ask that the Clintons follow his lead? But what is the problem here - didn't they disclose these during the WH years, and wouldn't they do so again? Plus, can someone please tell me why the contributions to a presidential library have to be guearded like a top secret? Have we forgotten Mark Rich and his "library donation"? Plus, wiht Bill dealing with Saudi, Dubai and Kazakhstan autocrats *this last one brought him $11.3 MILION - no for hhe foundation but for the librarby" these are questions we better address - as they calaim, they need to be "vetterd" so nothing will come out under the GOP assoult later on.

This is no more a chea shot than Hillary's mention of Rezko in a debate. This is exactly the kind of stuff both of them will have to answer to in their campaign against McCain. Heck, Bill may have more to answer to when the NYT investigates further into the $130MM Clinton received for his foundation after securing a $3B uranium mine in Kazakhstan for a Canadian oppotunist.

If Bill received a $10M bonus for his book, that is about $5MM after taxes...I doubt that is the source. More likely, this loan comes in part from Bill's $20MM windfall for unwinding a business investment he had with Ron Burkle. Or, maybe Hillary's been investing in the cattle futures again? The definition of "unbecoming" is a former president of the United States using his prestige and influence to lend credibility to a despised dictator in Kazakhstan while his wife works on a Senate foreign relations committee to punnish the same dictator.

Obama, if nominated, will win NOTHING if Florida delegates aren't seated. I would love to see the DNC try it. They will hand the state to McCain (as we know, central Florida/NE Florida and SW Florida are heavy conservative areas) if they choose to punish the state. Democrats I have spoken with say if that happens, they WILL NOT VOTE.....PERIOD. Let's see Barack try and take the White House without Florida. Ain't gonna happen.

jackorff, lieberman being stripped of superdelegate status had nothing to do with obama.
your post show your ignorance.
he waqs stripped due to the zel miller rule you fool.

Tears for Lieberman? Holy Joe endorsed McCain. Why should any democrat care about Lieberman's super-delegate status? In fact, if you go to the US Senate website, you will note that Senator Lieberman is an independent, so maybe he should vote at their convention, but certainly not the Democratic Party's convention. The Clinton's were the Democratic Party's "establishment" players (see, Terry McAulliffe) when the rules were made, so you ire is misplaced.

There is some evidence coming to light that Obama's connection with Rezko gave him intelligence about the state of Iraq's economy and lack of WMD program, hence the "I KNOW IRAQ POSSES NO THREAT" speech. For the love of God!! If he really knew why didn't he call some sort of intell meeting??
He couldn't because it would connect him too clearly with Rezko, Auchi and others who had questionable dealings.

Then why not show it?

Indeed, then why not show it?
Also, haha, Osama, I get it.

Nothing wrong with making money. But if you don't want questions to be raised, then disclose your tax returns. Otherwise, you open yourself to questions. It's pretty straightforward.

It's pointless to read beyond your not-so-clever "Osama." Moron.

The more power one has (think president of the United States), the more money one attracts, and when big money is involved (think $1B foundation and $500M presidential library), the correlation to corruption is inevitable. Dictators don't give away $3B uranium mines without significant consideration...and foreign billionaires don't write $130M checks to an American "charity" without a personal, vested relationship.

Agree - with every letter of this, Dari! Even if Se, Clinton were able ot eke out a 50.01% victory in Nov., can you imagine any GOP congressman would would want to be seen by their re-election base as the ones given a Clinton any victory whatsoever....

No, she voted for the war. She can't admit it was a mistake. If you want contrast to McCain, who still thinks it was a dandy idea, it has to be Obama.

She'll be a good, competent VP, though, and as President of the Senate, she'll be where she can do most good.

The Time and Rasmussen polling released today tells a very different story. Hillary loses to McCain, Obama wins.

You want a Super Majority and then turn the screws on the Dems? Get real. Look what they did with the sizeable majority you gave them in '06! Look at Pelosi and Read. There is an understanding that impeachment is very important to restitute the constitutional rule and who took it off the table? Democrats with a Super Majority. Now imagine a President HRC with her being rooted so deeply in the Washingtonian old ways. You want a Republican rule with frills and laces? Go ahead vote for HRC.
Your country needs to change and you better start with a new President, who doesn't play in the Washingtonian interest group super league yet.
To learn about the importance of impeachment go here:
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/bruce-fein-v-michael-tomasky-impeachment-debate/

Look at the dems form red-turning-purple states: HRC is "fatal" for the down-ticket. The GOP will turn out in droves against her, and hurting others on the ticket. add to this the fact of her ) corss-over appeal, limited attraction to independents, and a sizeable hard negative amoong dem. voters, esp. if she would "win" this though former Clinton era party big shots over a clear electoral vote.
She is the best chance, of a loss in November or total gridloack afterwards. Neither of these are appealing to me. (And that does not even address the damage to the long term interest to the party her scorched-earth campaign is causing....)