Now here's where the fun begins. Everyone who sends me a supportive email about Obama continues to say how honest he is. Well, unfortunately, he's not the Messiah that everyone thinks he is:
Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.
Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.
Cavnar of Milagro Exploration and his wife, Gracie, have helped the Illinois Democrat raise at least another $50,000 by helping host a fundraiser earlier in the campaign.
Other oil industry donors have included Sinclair Oil President Ross Matthews of Texas and John B. Hess, chairman of Hess Corp., a New York-based oil producer and retailer with operations worldwide. Hess, who has given to other presidential candidates, including Sen. John McCain, gave $2,300 to Obama last year, as did his wife, Susan. Hess gave $14,000 to Obama's Senate run in 2003. The oil executives did not return phone calls.
In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama aired a campaign spot in Indiana and Pennsylvania that sought to reinforce his theme that he would change the Washington culture, while also tapping into voter distress about the high price of gasoline. In the ad, he called for a windfall profits "penalty."
"Since the gas lines of the '70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence but nothing's changed -- except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year and we're paying $3.50 for gas. I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore," says the spot, which aired as recently as April 8.
Sounds like a righteous winner right? Well, not so fast.
Obama's ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations.
So in other words, Obama is misleading people a little bit. Making them think something is one way, while technically correct, is another.
For example, if I told you I was the top rated conservative blog on the Internet, you would think I was getting millions of hits per month right? However, if I took a poll of a small amount of my readers, then I would be more likely to get their vote. What I've said is technically correct, but grossly misleading. As much as I say on here, being honest AND straight forward with my readers is a top priority.
That's why when you write to me, I reply to everyone (even as time consuming as it is). That is why when I post your emails, I get permission first. And that's why when I say something from the heart, you know it's the honest truth, without misleading you on the thought and feelings I'm trying to convey.
Now, on to Hillary!
"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," Clinton said Wednesday, one day after her decisive win in Pennsylvania.
Not so fast, says Obama's campaign. Clinton's count includes her wins in Michigan and Florida, but the Democratic presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in those states because they violated party rules by scheduling their contests too early.
So, in other words, Hillary is trying to count votes in a contest that didn't involve her opponent? How is that even remotely fair? That's also grossly misleading like Obama has done about his claims of oil money not going into his campaign.
What's worse, is that it's not even a very good misleading.
If Michigan and Florida are counted, Clinton is ahead by 100,000 votes -- 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million. Without those states, Obama has a 500,000 vote lead, 14.4 million to 13.9 million.
So even if she manages to make idiots think that she's ahead, with two states that Obama didn't even compete in, she's only ahead by 100,000 votes out of 30 million cast? That's not only misleading, it's pathetic.
But Obama is facing questions about why he can't just bring the race to an end.
"You know the way we're going to close the deal is by winning. And right now we're winning. And what we'll do is keep on campaigning in Indiana and North Carolina and Oregon and these other states," he said.
Obama leads Clinton in the overall delegate count, 1,719 to 1,586.
Neither candidate can capture the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination with wins in the remaining Democratic contests, meaning the party's superdelegates will probably decide who gets the Democratic nomination.
So, even with the upcoming state votes, unless there's a landslide victory for either one of them, and I'm talking about 90%-10%, then this is going to go all the way to the convention, and watch for fireworks from either side, because it's not going to be pretty.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment