More Desperate Mudslinging from Hillary Clinton
Submitted by jmeasley on Sat, 04/26/2008 - 21:17.
- ‹ previous
- 108 of 821
- next ›
Over the course of yesterday and today Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign have been trying to portray her opponent Barack Obama as a friend of big oil. Yesterday, Clinton said, “When it came time to stand up against the oil companies and stand against Dick Cheney's energy bill, my opponent voted for it and I voted against it. And that bill had billions of dollars in giveaways to the oil companies. It was the best bill that the energy companies could buy.”
She continued, “I know that my opponent has run ads claiming that he does not take money from oil companies. Well no one does. It's illegal. It’s been illegal for 100 years to take money from oil companies. Then my opponent puts up an ad saying he doesn’t take money from oil company PACs. In March, he took more money from oil company executives than any candidate, Republican or Democrat. So I think it’s important for you to know the facts.”
Today Clinton spokesman Phil Singer continued the attack, "Sen. Obama might say he doesn't take contributions from oil companies, but he took more money last month from oil company executives than any other candidate. He might say he'll stand up to the oil companies but he’s the only candidate who voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that was written by energy lobbyists and has been called the best energy bill corporations could buy."
It is true that Obama has raised more money from oil execs as personal contributions than the other remaining candidates, but there is nothing illegal about this. In fact, all three candidates now claim to take no or very little special interest money, and technically they are correct. Obama has taken no money from PACs, but all of the candidates have taken donations from individuals affiliated with PACs. Clinton is no different than Obama.
In what bizzaro universe does Hillary Clinton live? There has never been a Democrat more in bed with special interests than Hillary Clinton. The reason why Clinton was broke is that she based her entire funding network on wealthy individuals and those that donate out of concern for a special interest.
How can she paint herself as the populist, when Obama’s fundraising is based on small individual contributions? This is more desperate mudslinging from a candidate who is desperately trying to hold in to her tiny chances of being the Democratic nominee.
Clinton Press Releases:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7321
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7321
Technorati Tags: Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/trackback/5727
That woman is a poor woman,
That woman is a poor woman, a chronic liar and dishonest person, she's taken more money than anyone in this campaign, she's running the poorest, more shameful, more desperate and nastier campaign ever seen in our recent history and all she wants is destroying the party for McCain to win so that she can run again in 2012, unfortunately for her, it won't happen, she's gonna fail like a fool, democrats will be unified and we'll win with independents and some republicans, enough with your lies and shameful campaign Clinton !!
Big Oil
Hillary will say whatever needs to be said. The reality is there are very few policy differences between the candidates. She has to make points wherever she can. If she can. That does not make what she says true.
I look at Hillary, and she has this earnest face as she makes a proclamation. She is trying to convey truth and sincerity. But if you turn of the sound and hold up the Bosnia video, you will see the similar expressions as she willfully lied. She is dangerous, in that she really has begun to believe her own press. I don't know what Pres. Clinton promised her, but the White House is not his to give!! We owe her nothing.
Post new comment