Last updated on July 1st, 2012 at 06:14 am
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.”
To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
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
