The Contributor Gotcha Game

Are the donations from the company, or from people who just work at the company? There's a difference.

A friend of mine is a lobbyist for an innocuous lobbying entity, and actually turned away from supporting Obama because he felt personally insulted at being tarred as just another "Washington lobbyist."

All of this pales in comparison to the $10 million Bill Clinton took from the Saudi Royal Family for his Foundation.

Somehow, I doubt those sheiks were doing this just for the altruism.

I suspect this will blow up in HRC's face, too.

Keep it up, Hil. Keep it up. Your poll numbers may start to match W's.

This kind of research and parsing is WHY you are on the job. While Obama should not say "I never" if he did, I would say that the Clinton campaign has some nerve calling the kettle (in this case Obama) black in terms of taking money from lobbyists/oil interests, but then we've already been down that contentious road before...

Did HRC say that she does not take campaign contributions from oil & energy companies?

NEW GALLUP POLL

OBAMA: 50%
CLINTON: 42%

I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I won’t let them block change anymore

I'm a lot less worried about the possibility that Obama accepted money from all those companies than I am about the possibility that he's airing a dishonest ad.

I think your being distracted away from the point.

(And that's coming from someone who wishes HRC would STFU!)

Another desperation from Hillary's land. Since Hillary Clinton's campaign is so desperate, i need to straighten them up a little bit.

I have given approximately $125 to Obama's campaign and any time you're donating, you have to include the company you work for. Since I work for investment bank on Wall Street, does it mean I am a lobbyist?

Hillary's argument is ridiculous. Exxon employees are American and they have the right to give to whichever candidate they like.

As long as these folks are not given it on behalf of their companies, I don’t think Obama is guilty.

Nice post. Yes, this is (one) reason you're here. :)

I think you may have buried the lede, though. Are you saying that some, most or all of Obama's contributions are not from petroindustry, but from indivduals who happen to work in that industry?

AMC,

Thanks for posting this with so much research behind it. One of the things I hate about news in the Web era is how talking points get repeated without any actual reporting on the veracity of the claims, for instance…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/clinton-camp-obama-false_n_93922.html

The fact that a claim has been made by one side or another is not actually a story in and of itself, but the claims and the counter claims often become the story. Anyway, this post is very refreshing.

I suspect Obama may be parsing the definition of money from a particular industry very finely, but the actual number, especially put in the context of his overall fundraisng is peanuts.

Links to the Center for Responsive Politics report, and to the alleged Obama ad, would have helped a great deal, here.

A definition of the kind of "bundling" supposedly involved would help, too.

More innuendo than facts, so far.

@AMC....

Please clarify for us. When I give to the Obama campaign online, I'm required to include my employer in the form.

When HRC says "Just last month, Sen. Obama accepted another $8,400 from ExxonMobil, $12,370 from Chevron and $6,500 from British Petroleum." is that including individual contributions from employees?

Because SOMEONE'S being dishonest and it would be really refreshing to be told in simple language who.

This attack from the Clinton campaign is in the same vein as the "professor" attack yesterday. Since they've already thrown the kitchen sink at him, they're only left with kitchen trash.

12,000 from ExxonMobil means 120 people at Exxon donated 100 bucks each to the campaign. Exxon is a company with thousands of employees. So this is really a garbage attack, and speaks to the desperation of the Clinton campaign. It's amusing actually.

Obama received a few $1,000 from me. Why aren't I on HIlary's list.

"signed to a major label and started playing stadiums"?

Nice injection of humor into what's becoming a tiring race. Thanks Ana!

This is either an attempt to induce donor examination fatigue before her taxes come out, or a really dumb move before we start examining her taxes/Bill's sources of donations

AMC, Thanks for this great post. It was well researched and more importantly, humorous, which is certainly one reason you're here (at least it's a reason why I'm here reading your work).

I think we can all agree that the Clinton campaign is getting a little desperate, and that their desperation is starting show in unseemly ways.

But back to the Obama's campaign's claim that he doesn't "take money from oil companies or lobbyists." I'm less concerned that he's being dishonest than I am about the fact that he's being stupid. That's the type of foolish generalization that screams out for the opposition to prove him wrong. Donations are a check here, a credit card change there, much of it processed automatically through the website. Unless he sets up a money-consuming process to ensure that he doesn't accidentally receive money from undesired parties, he has no business making such broad statements.

Actually, this reminds me of a lot of the McCain criticism -- that the Senator is not perfectly holding himself to the higher standard he proclaims and advocates for. Meanwhile, opponents who are even dirtier are given a pass because they didn't even bother with ethical standards-shmanders in the first place. Which, of course, engenders that age old question: is it better to set a high standard and fall a little short, or to just unashamedly wallow in the mud?

Slightly off-topic, but have you noticed the bizarre logic lately of "the people of PA etc have a right to vote!" implying that the race can't be decided before the end? This is clearly to suggest that it must stay tied to the end. Nobody's taking away anybody's right to vote. But when HRC thought the race would be over on February 5th she wasn't saying "oh, we must keep it tied until Jun 1 so everybody's vote will count." weird. but clever.

Nice, tight, little blog, examining the issue in-depth, showing lots of research and an understanding of the realities of politics. Perhaps all Ms. Cox forgot to say was, "Nice try Hillary!" Ana, please teach Ms. Small something about research, in-depth analysis and understanding the realities of politics so she doesn't write another A-wipe of a blog like her last one. Oh yeah, remind her if she makes an important correction in one of her blogs, because she screwed it up, please admit it. There is so much Ms. Smith can learn from a class act like Ms. Cox.

To Peter's comment that McCain is holding himself up to "the higher standards he proclaims and advocates for," one can easily make the case that he only pretends to hold himself up to those standards - being surrounded on the bus by big-time lobbyists and all.

It would be nice if the msm, such as AMC, spent time digging into the discrepancies between what McCain says and what he does, and called a repeated lie a lie instead of a "one-time gaffe." If only.

Here's what Time's Ana Marie Cox told Howie Kurtz earlier this year: "The journalists who covered McCain in 2000 feel very self-conscious about the criticism that the press came under for apparently being so taken with John McCain. There's a sense that the first time was so fun and exciting, but this time we're really going to be sober and critical and the dispassionate observers we're supposed to be."

AMC, I'm still waiting to see you demonstrate how you all are acting so differently this time around in covering McCain.

It matters.

I am so proud of Ana Marie Cox for this post! Excellent context. My goodness! Wow!

This is yet another attempt by the Clinton campaign that plays on the general ignorance of the electorate on how campaign funding is done.

When someone tells you that candidate foo has received x dollars from evil corporation bar what they don't tell you is that those are contributions from EMPLOYEES of those companies. I have donated 3 times so far to Senator Obama, when I fill out the form I have to list my company (I'm self employed) and my position (Owner). My company is not the one donating the money, I the "employee" is, the money comes from my personal account, not my business account. Also when you donate to him you must agree that the funds are not from a corporation, political action committee, a person who is a federal contractor, or a person that is a registered federal lobbyist. (For the record Hillary doesn't care if you are a registered lobbyist or if the money is from a PAC)

It's exactly this nonsense from her that drives me to not support her. She is hoping we're stupid and don't understand how campaign funding works. The same with all the gotcha steaming piles of bull**** that comes out of her campaign. Research every one of them and you will find that it's based on quotes taken out of context (Samantha Power on Iraq), not presenting the whole story (trying to paint a man with a 100% pro-choice record as weak on choice), or... I won't say lies but let's just say she is sometimes in error where the truth is concerned (like saying Senator Obama doesn't want all Americans to have health insurance).

Please for the love of God can we get these people and their insulting tactics out of our politics. I do not appreciate people that assume I'm stupid and won't investigate their insinuations on my own.

Thank you AMC for at least a teeny bit of fairness hidden in all that text.

"I didn't mean to take a side on whether Obama "lied" or not, though, by pretty much any standard, his statement is less than straightforward: No one takes money from "companies" anymore, and, if you count employees of companies as representing the company, he's clearly taken money. He may have meant he hasn't taken money from oil and gas industry PACs. And, it's true, Hillary has never claimed to not have taken money from oil companies, so if you're judging candidates by the standard they hold themselves to, score one for Hillary.

I thought the Clinton campaign's point was that he was running a misleading ad and it doesn't matter what she has taken in donations from those companies because she has never claimed she did not, as you note above.

I think there is a big difference between taking donation from individuals who happen to work at these companies and taking money from their PACs or lobbyist.

Another fact, the two people named in the memo First, George Kaiser, I only found one George Kaiser on the Center's list of Obama donors. He is self employed and gave $2300 so doesn't sound like an oil company CEO to me. Next Robert Cavnar, there was no Robert Cavnar on the donor list, however there was an Gracie Cavnar who gave $1900 and yes she is a CEO of a Oil related business, a small exploration company. Not sure what she expects to get besides a thank you email for her whopping donation :)

So all in all not a lie but a real bending of the truth.

Final note all memo for either campaign should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is a big difference from taking individual donations from employees who work for these companies and taking money from PAcs and lobbyist who represent these companies.

Next the two individuals mentioned in the memo. First George Kaiser. On the list of donors to Obama on the center's web site there is only one George Kaiser. He is self employed and donated $2300. So not a oil company CEO. Now as to Robert Cavnar, there was no Robert Cavnar who donated to Obama. However there was a Gracie Cavnar who donated $1900 and yes she is a CEO of a oil related business MILAGRO EXPLORATION a domestic oil exploration and production Co. Certainly not big oil. And I think all she'll get for he donation is a thank you and maybe a bumper sticker.

The distinction between between accepting large donations from a company and from a large number of their employees is a false one, since the introduction McCain-Feingold has made the former impossible. And the candidates and media have generally accepted this fact. So the Obama campaign is being very disingenuous to suggest that they don't accept contributions from oil companies. All the major candidates are supported by big corporations and Obama is no exception.

KathyR, the point is that the election is very close, so Pennsylvania's voters should help decide the nominee. No one's saying that the race needs to be kept tied - in fact it's not tied; Obama is leading - but since the election is this close Pennsylvania's voters could have a big impact. We just want to let them have that chance.

As for this debate about which is better, the candidate who fails to meet their high standards or the candidate who meets their lower standards, it is clearly a grey area. Anyone can just claim to set high standards for themselves and completely fail to meet them, and they shouldn't be rewarded for their dishonesty. Remember how Bush used to call himself a uniter? But at the same time if by absolute standards a candidate who fails to meet their own standards is better - more ethical, knowledgeable, competent, etc. - than another candidate who surpasses their own low standards, shouldn't the candidate who is better in absolute terms be rewarded? Although I admit that I'm very irritated by candidates who cross the line to being hypocritical.

Of course all the candidates are unfortunately constantly spinning and indulging in hypocrisy, because the system rewards them for doing just that. But I do believe that the MSM deserves much of the blame for this. Kerry and Gore were both badly damaged by their (admirable) lack of skills in this area. And a lot of people ended up dying and suffering because the Republicans were better at playing the game of electoral politics. So there are consequences to simply refusing to play the game, or just playing it badly. It's possible to argue that a truly moral politician takes their spinning responsibilities seriously, in order to make sure that the government isn't run by incompetent and morally bankrupt people.

Right now the media is making sure that the game is easier for Obama and most of all McCain. And if Clinton could play by easier rules, she would too. So it's not really about character. It's about who sets the rules, and why they are uneven.

Thanks, jsfox.

Really, the Clinton Campaign's failure to link to exactly what they're talking about (to say nothing about the utter incuriosity about following up to see whether the accusation is true) is perplexing.

Ana -- You've GOT to take the next step before just "putting it out there." Someone here is right; someone is wrong. Don't we deserve to know who is who?

Ana --

Just noticed the update.

Actually, I knew what "bundling" means. I just wanted to know what kind of "bundling" Clinton was claiming went on here. Do they have some evidence the two named individuals went around twisting arms, or sent out a memo to staff asking everyone to pony up? Or is it a matter of HRC's twisted minions simply aggregating every donation made by every employee of an oil company, calling it "oil money" and making a baseless accusation of a coordinated effort. (You know, even soulless employees of oil company's have a right to support candidates they like. . . .) Did Obama suggest, in any way, he would reject any donation from any individual who worked for an oil company? Even the janitor? I didn't hear that in the commercial, and I sure wouldn't interpret what he said that way.

I could see this going either way, but this piece is of little help in figuring out the truth.

This is such a strange way of looking at things. I work for the Federal Government, and so I checked to make sure I was allowed to contribute to a campaign before I did. But going by this logic, you can then say that Barack Obama has accepted campaign money from the federal government???? What odd logic.

The Queen Beeotch of ARKY ARAB OIL $$$ for the Small Balls LIEBERRY questions CHUMP CHANGE from INDIVIDUAL donors?

To be sure, we need more Obamas and Bookers, and far fewer race baiting Clixons and Moyersezzezz, at any Time in history.

OMG. QH and I have common cause.

*FAINT*

SFBear

My mocking the calculated hypocrisy of the professional media sycophant left does not mean I've missed the mental metro, contrary to 53's decaffeinated paranoia.

McCain should see if he can get Cory Booker to flip to the GOP and take the VEEP slot, just to show the DNC cretins what actual Americans IS made of (or that from which actual Americans are made, if a Stanford or Davidson graduate).

Rose:

"It's possible to argue that a truly moral politician takes their spinning responsibilities seriously, in order to make sure that the government isn't run by incompetent and morally bankrupt people."

I feel like spinning is more of a circular track than ever this campaign season. Voters simply reward the candidates that are perceived as genuine and honest.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney was derailed by a combination of Huckabee and McCain, largely because many people saw through his blatant, unabashed pandering. He's a businessman, and he thought the right way to market himself was to mold his ideology in the cast of stereotypical GOP positions. Not only did he spin himself, he also spun his opponents' positions right and left. But people went for the anti-torture, pro-guest pass, often-stumbling candidate because he came across as honest and stalwart.

On the Democratic side, it's tough to not notice any ridiculous spin by Clinton. She's gone after Obama's kindergarten ramblings, his status as a "senior lecturer" at the University of Chicago, his words on Reagan, etc. etc...the list stretches on and on. She kept on trying to make it seem like winning a few big states was more important than winning a ton of smaller ones, even when the math didn't add up. She's still at it. Obama is pictured as being above that, and he's riding the wave because of it.

If the Democratic nominee wants to get to the White House, they'd better lay off a lot of the spin (naturally, laying it all off would be ideal but impossible). Fight with the facts. Kerry's swiftboating ordeal wouldn't have hurt him so much if not for his seeming inaction on it.

Rose -

Obama's point is probably that he doesn't take money from oil company PACs.

jsfox,
Actually George Kaiser does run an oil company, albeit a fairly small one. Down here in Oklahoma, he's known as a banker, as in Bank of Oklahoma,...of Texas,...of New Mexico, etc.

My choice of religion and stance on individual political issues is just as separate from my employer as the candidate(s) to whose campaign I choose to contribute and for whom I will cast my vote in November.

An Obama or Clinton administration would not be favorable to my firm. However, at least a couple hundred of us have contributed over $250 to Obama's campaign and thus, our names and employers are readily accessible in on-line records.

I do not know the exact breakdown, but the number of employees who have contributed to presidential candidates other than Sen. Obama far exceeds that number of those that have chosen to support his campaign. To conclude from this that my employer is supporting the Obama campaign is entirely false and misleading.

This is thoroughly ridiculous. I'm a blue collar worker for a utility company and I've donated $96 to Obama, mostly in $10 increments. Does that mean that he's receiving money from the utility industry. I don't think so. This is just BS.

Hillary & Camp Clinton are "Serial Exaggerators" and have been getting away with for years, however, in this new You Tube Generation it will become harder and maybe impossible to lie to the American Public. Hilary has shown she is of low character and low morals. She has no ethics and loyalty to either the party or the country in her plot of dividing the country by both gender and race for her personal advantage. Her lies are outrageous and you cannot believe anything she says. They certainly have a do and say anthing mentallity. That is why Obama got Sen. Casey, nice guy, guiet, strong. I call them the new-age candidates, who want to build up rather than to tear down, want to bring unity rather than separation for one's own gain.

There is just no reason to think that the major corporations who routinely exploit tax and regulatory loopholes - and who used to be major donors to politicians - would never think of exploiting the loopholes in the current electoral finance system.

EricJaffa, that's the debate, isn't it? Should candidates be judged in relations to other candidates, or in relation to the standards they set for themselves? I don't even have my own answer to that question, and I doubt that a universal answer exists. It needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. But in this particular case the question is more about Obama's honesty (the Obama campaign knew that according to the generally accepted standards on this issue, Obama has accepted money from oil companies. Nobody really just thinks in terms of PACs). Also, I think that the ad won't help him in the long term, because if he's saying that the donations of a company's employees are always unconnected to the company itself, he is closing a lot of options for himself in this campaign, and more importantly against McCain. Although all three candidates have been very popular with the employees of subprime mortgage firms, hedge funds, and other disliked companies, so maybe Obama feels he has nothing to gain from this debate in the long term.

"Voters simply reward the candidates that are perceived as genuine and honest." - Yoshi, that's definitely true. But the key word here is "perceived." Fake sincerity is very effective. If people didn't buy the Republican spin that Bush was a uniter then they wouldn't have voted for him. But the spin turned out to be completely untrue. With McCain much of his popularity rests on the perception that he is a maverick who doesn't care about special interests. Yet he has actually has lobbyists on his campaign bus.

"Obama is pictured as being above that, and he's riding the wave because of it." - Yes he is perceived to be fighting more with facts and less than spin. But Obama's candidacy is dominated by spin. He is desperately avoiding revotes in Michigan and Florida, regularly falsely attacking Clinton's character, portraying himself both as a uniter - even though he has less of a record of bipartisanship than either McCain or Clinton - and as a progressive, although he voted for the Republican Oil bill and avoided the very important Kyl-Lieberman vote. His spin on his health care plan is very Rovian, with his suggestions that affordability is the only thing that is preventing universal health care.

My larger point is that the media holds different candidates to different standards. For example, neither Obama or Clinton could get away with calling their campaign bus the "straight talk express" if it was filled with lobbyists; They would at least have to put the lobbyists in a different bus. And if Clinton had avoided the Kyl-Lieberman vote there would be countless editorials saying that she is too weak and indecisive, and too much of a panderer, to be Commander in Chief.

Right now there are two separate but linked problems in electoral politics. The first problem is that there is way too much emphasis on spin, and not enough focus on policy and examination of the candidate's records. The second problem is that the media is not holding all the candidates to the same standard. Even if the standard isn't the right one, that standard should at least be the same for all the candidates.

Rose said: "There is just no reason to think that the major corporations who routinely exploit tax and regulatory loopholes - and who used to be major donors to politicians - would never think of exploiting the loopholes in the current electoral finance system."

Man, you DECIMATED that straw man.

No one said companies wouldn't try to exploit loopholes. No one said that actual "bundling" couldn't have occurred here.

What we are saying is: we do not know. A potentially slanderous piece of information was put out there, with no fact-checking, as Ana headed out the door for the weekend.

Did "bundling" go on, or is the HRC camp fraudulently lying (again)?

I s'pose we're supposed to tune in tomorrow or something.

I was able to learn the Obama's campaign response through a NYT article that Talking Points Memo linked to. Thanks, TPM! I recommend using that route for follow-up info.

Also, is the fact that Obama is airing ads saying the oil companies are screwing us blue worthy of comment in its own right? Is Hillary claiming that Obama is insincere in his overall thrust; viz., the piggies are gonna get their trough taken away if you elect me? If the oil companies, for whatever reason, wanted to support such rhetoric, I say, let the dollars flow. Certainly, I don't see an HRC or BBQ Master presidency as less friendly to oil interests.

So: what's the message here?

It seems to be nothing more than quibbles on sideshow issues, revealing HRC to be a petty, petty person, with a compliant press to act as megaphone for these "gotchas."

Amirite? Amirite?

SFBear: "You've GOT to take the next step before just "putting it out there." Someone here is right; someone is wrong. Don't we deserve to know who is who?" This is a common complaint thrown at the MSM -- occasionally from the right but mostly from the left -- and the complaint is essentially that the MSM insists on confining strong, polarizing opinions to the opinion pages. I, however, prefer it this way: I enjoy being given the facts and then allowed to draw my own conclusions.

The problem is that some people hold their opinions so strongly that they come to view them as facts, and other ways of thinking become not only intolerable but plain wrong. You're watching it happen in Berkeley, CA right now, the former free speech capitol. The once progressive city council is now desperately trying to find a way to suppress the free speech rights of Marine recruiters.

Rich-
Apologies you are absolutely correct, assuming the George Kaiser listed in the center's donor list and the George Kaiser you mentioned are one in the same. And since he is one of the wealthiest men in America and own the businesses I suppose you could say he's self employed ;)

Rich-
Apologies you are absolutely correct, assuming the George Kaiser listed in the center's donor list and the George Kaiser you mentioned are one in the same. And since he is one of the wealthiest men in America and own the businesses I suppose you could say he's self employed ;)

Rose:

This is why I wrote "perceived" into my comment. Clearly, all three candidates have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from big money, despite vehemently denying that they are influenced by the special interests. I haven't got a clear position on that as of yet.

But even through their political obfuscation and pandering, McCain and Obama have been truly honest on many prominent issues - which is to say that they spin less than Clinton, who seems to have jumped the shark.

Honesty from Obama:

1) Telling the teachers unions that he supported merit pay.
2) Telling Iowan Democrats that "actually, you might see an initial increase in military spending in an Obama administration."
3) Initially refusing to blast negative on Clinton's character (yes, his campaign has recently abdicated this principle, but it's worth noting that when he was running positive, he was the underdog)

Honesty from McCain:

1) Telling unions in Detroit that some jobs in the auto industry aren't coming back (for contrast, Mitt Romney seized the opportunity afterward to pander).
2) Detainee Treatment Act, 2005
3) Co-sponsored immigration bill with Ted Kennedy
4) Wants to close Guantanamo

Oops, forgot to add the last part:

I haven't seen much stark honesty from Hillary Clinton. Instead, I've seen pandering, spinning, and blatant distorted attacks in buckets.

Yoshi,

I see your point. But I do think that other candidates - even Romney - have also shown glimpses of honesty. Health care is definitely one of those topics where Clinton has shown a lot of honesty. The argument for a mandate is based on collective responsibility, which isn't exactly popular, and the MSM isn't entirely to blame on this point. And yes, she has tried to make the argument in other less politically challenging ways, but she has also been honest about the fact that healthy people need to contribute to health care costs. Clinton has also been honest about the fact that on a number of big issues, such as Social Security, Democrats won't be able to make all the decisions, even if a Democratic President is elected. That's not exactly a popular statement among Democratic primary voters, but it's true, and she deserves credit for being willing to admit it. Clinton also deserves credit for her readiness to talk about dismantling the executive privilege regulations that the Bush administration has built up, and which threaten America's democracy. This is a subject that most people unfortunately find boring, but I have seen her on multiple occasions bring it up unprompted. Part of being honest is talking about the issues that really matter, even when those issues aren't the ones that the MSM or even voters are interested in.

As for the Republicans, I actually respect Romney for how he handled all the prejudice that was targeted at him because of his religion. He didn't pretend to be someone else, and he handled himself with dignity in this respect. I actually disagree with your praise of McCain's comments about auto industry jobs. This is a man who thinks that addressing economic problems is pandering, so I think his comments showed more disinterest than honesty.

The candidate who showed the most honesty in this election cycle was Huckabee (or maybe he was just a really good liar!). He may have won the nomination or at least won enough delegates to essentially force McCain to pick him as VP, if he had just fought back against his opponents' attacks with negative ads and attacks of his own. He chose not to, and I respect him for that. Although I disagree with him on pretty much every policy matter.

Peter:

You miss the mark entirely.

The criticism isn't against strong opinions, it's about putting innuendo "out there" ostensibly to discuss "a larger point."

Here, AMC sez: "HRC accuses Obama supporters of bundling oil company cash. Without discussing whether that's true or not, it highlights an important issue. . . ."

I'd posit that the more important issue is whether Obama supporters are actually bundling cash in the first place. I'd sure like to know. It is irresponsible to put out rumors to smear someone without having the balls to stand behind the accusation.

And look what Joe followed up with yesterday, more third-hand hearsay from an anonymous source to (weakly) cast doubt on Obama's ability to persuade.

I like strong opinions, but this crap deserves to be called out.

i thought this was the season that we used to find out more information about our candidate?
the more information we have about all of them the more informed decision we can make in november.
i really want to know where their monies come from.
i want to know how someone who is suppose to be all about the poor and disenfrancised individuals can raise that much money.
i want them to come up with all the dirt and dirty connections they can and then defend themselves about the things that are brought to the front about them.
thank god for the internet. now all one needs is a word/name and you can goggle until sated.

When I goggle until sated, I usually feel it the next day. . . .

know your limits :)

Obama (certifiably) wins Texas statesman.com — Obama landed a lead of nine delegates to the national convention thanks to Texas' caucuses, upheld in today's county conventions. Despite the Clinton campaign's widespread attempts to prevent many Texans from participating in their district convention, the voters of Texas confirmed Senator Obama’s important delegate win in the Lone Star State.

Also: Hillary finally releases 2006 taxes and it shows them with three dependents

http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clintontaxesvo9.jpg

How can Bill and Hill point fingers when they are hiding information about their fraud case.

Maybe this is another reason why they are hiding records.

Below is the case number of the actual case against Bill and Hillary Clinton for campaign finance fraud.

This is what the Clintons do not want us to know. Hillary Clinton is really trying to dope us into thinking that she is honest and she really cares about Americans.

www.lasuperiorcourt.org

Choose Civil - then Case Summary - type in the Case Number BC304174

I find this highly offensive of Hillary. I am a geologist, I work in the oil industry, and I have contributed small amounts to the Obama campaign on several occasions. I'm an American citizen and I can contribute to whomever I want. And my contributions in no way reflect the desires of my employer. Hell, I'm sure they'd prefer to see McCain win, with Obama last on the list. Just because I work in the oil industry doesn't mean I want to screw the public and rape the environment - quite the opposite really.