Clinton Campaign Press Call on Obama's Oil Ad

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I'm on the Hillary Clinton press call. It's being led by Mark Nevins, communications director for Hillary's PA campaign, Howard Wolfson and TJ Rooney of the PA House of Representatives.

Theme: Obama's words vs. actions, in context of his discredited oil ads in PA. Obama's ad says:

I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.

Rooney: Obama says in his ad that he's never taken any money from oil companies. No one does, because it's illegal. Yet he has taken $213k from employees of oil companies. Two of his bundlers are top execs at oil companies. (See Newsweek on this or my earlier post.)

Obama sided with Dick Cheney in voting for Dick Cheney's energy bill -- the best bill that oil companies could buy. Hillary voted against the bill.

[More...]

If Obama can't win PA, despite the unprecedented ad buys, it will show he won't win the big states and can't close the deal in November. His inability to make the case to those in PA will be a sign that he is unlikely to convince the American people he is ready to be the steward of our economy or our commander in chief.

From the reporters' questions:

Will the ad be on tv or just radio? Wolfson says he won't say. They asked Obama to take the ad down and they refused. So it is incumbent on them to set the record straight.

Plans for PA visits and ads in next two weeks? Mark: Will continue to do what they have been doing to be as aggressive as possible on the ground. We're getting swamped on the airwaves by the Obama ads, but we're still ahead. Hillary will continue to make her case with personal appearances and her ground support.

Wolfson: Both candidates will be there a lot in next two weeks. It's a key state for both of them. If Obama doesn't win, it will be a big blow to him.

His words, once again, don't match his actions.

Howard Wolfson: We are responding to Obama's discredited ad to set the record straight. We can't continue to let Obama misrepresent his record. They will be launching a radio ad in PA to expose it.

Question: Where is her weakness in PA? TJ: There aren't any in this state. We are being outspent. The fact we still maintain a lead after his 6 day bus tour and outspending us 5 or 6 to 1 is telling. We will fight for every vote. Hillary is a fighter.

Armando Llorens from TalkLeft (Big Tent Democrat): Rendell had harsh coverage of campaign for MSNBC coverage for Trina Bachtel. Has NBC offered correction? Howard Wolfson: Not aware that NBC has offered retraction. (I hope Big Tent writes about this, it was an excellent question.)

Call over.

Update: Hillary's radio ad is here.

< New Obama Ad Spending Numbers Out | President Bush Pardons Colorado Brothers >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Clinton Campaign Press Call on Obama's Oil Ad | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The energy bill (5.00 / 8) (#3)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST

Cheney's bill is yet another case where the progressive blogosphere has done a 180 from their original position. At the time, legislators who voted for the energy bill were loudly scorned, and primaries were vowed. Now if you bring it up the universal response is "the bill had the largest renewable energy investment in history" or whatever the Obama talking point happens to be.

It's kind of sad to watch people force themselves to argue that Obama is on the right side of every single issue. I don't know a single Hillary supporter who doesn't acknowledge that she's had some good votes and some bad ones, like every other politician.

: The Right Side of Every (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by zfran on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM EST

issue is not always Sen. Obama's nor Sen. Clinton's, however, he, Sen. Obama has severly critized Sen. Clinton about her Iraq vote, of which he did not nor could not vote on. He actually voted on this. It is up to the voters to determine which side was right and within all of our rights to criticize his votes, as well as hers. I've been around a long time and Sen. Obama is just a politician, just like all of the politicians, otherwise he wouldn't have won all that he has. He has charisma, but doesn't charm me.

Please add other points made on the call, if poss. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jawbone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST

If Hillary had made such an ad, you know the MCMers, especially the NBCers, would be all over it, calling her out for hypocrisy.

But, then, they're not trying to drive down her voter turnout and dampen enthusiasm of her supporters.

The MCM coverage is leaving me seriously ticked off--and a bit down.

or Lying (none / 0) (#7)
by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST

"Led the Fight?" (none / 0) (#15)
by Athena on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:13:53 PM EST

Obama's radio ad in PA says: "He led the fight for alternative energy."

What the hell is that talking about? I guess ads on AM talk radio can be packed with fables, since the audience is unlikely to fact check.


Non-green technology (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by tree on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:31:27 PM EST

Obama said he voted for the overall bill because it would encourage ethanol, clean-coal technology and other energy alternatives that would reduce demand for foreign oil.

Ethanol and "clean-coal" technology. In other words, the non-green alternative energy sources. Not that he really "lead" on this bill, but he did vote for it


Coal industry (none / 0) (#21)
by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:32:51 PM EST

Is one of Obama biggest supporters. Illinois.


: And ADM, Cargill, and corn (none / 0) (#27)
by badger on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:42:41 PM EST

Don't forget (none / 0) (#55)
by cal1942 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:42:38 PM EST

the nukes.

Mr. Post-partisan bargained down a nuke inspection bill with Republicans until it was worthless and even then it never came to a vote.

Didn't stop him from lying about it in Iowa though. Claimed he had PASSED a tough nuke inspection bill.

New politics.


Carbon dioxide is warming our earth... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
by OrangeFur on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:38:07 PM EST

I'm Barack Obama, and I don't get any of my oxygen from carbon dioxide.* I'm a new kind of candidate.

* I do get a lot of money from people who work for companies that emit a lot of carbon dioxide, and I voted for an energy bill that will lead to a lot more carbon dioxide being produced. But let's overlook that.

Here is Hillary's new radio ad (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:38:09 PM EST

if I can link this correctly lol.....

Heh, I see some heads spinnin' (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:42:43 PM EST

at the O blogs in the near future . . .

"scorched earth" lol!~

Thanks for the link!


good ad, eh? (none / 0) (#29)
by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:50:45 PM EST

Calm and straight forward (none / 0) (#46)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:31:48 PM EST

methinks it will get noticed :)


: And then (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by sumac on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:47:09 PM EST

it will come out that the voice over actor voted for Obama.
/snark

: great ad indeed (none / 0) (#52)
by Kathy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:18:34 PM EST

I love the music they use on their ads. Very distinctive.

Great ad (none / 0) (#47)
by davnee on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:35:23 PM EST

I loved the "in real life not just on tv line." I think it will get attention. Question will be can she put the $$ behind it to air widely? Hmm, think I'll go donate.


Somebody Please (none / 0) (#51)
by flashman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM EST

Tell me what all these "clean" energy sources are!? I see nothing viable, and I see nobody offering viable solutions.


Clinton Rules . . . (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:59:27 PM EST

Obama gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar . . .

try and dig up something on Clinton and point fingers ;)

My question (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST

Ed Rendell has had harsh words about NBC's coverage of the campaign and just Monday NBC inaccurately reported the Trina Bachtel story - has NBC corrected its inaccurate reporting and does the Clinton campaign have any further comment on Ed Rendell's remarks.

NBC aka the Obama network should (none / 0) (#39)
by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:14:02 PM EST

be ashamed of themselves for their dishonesty in their reporting of the facts in this case...As someone whose very life depends on universal health care being passed, I resent the heck out of it...


Did they have a comment? (none / 0) (#40)
by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:15:14 PM EST

I wonder if they are going to take action the way they did with Shuster and his "pimp" remarks.


: Not an adequare on imo (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:25:17 PM EST

I was quite disappointed. J reported it.

It was Obama's energy plans that first (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by facta non verba on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:29:30 PM EST

incurred my wrath. I am peak oiler and belong to ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil). From a peak oil perspective, Obama's energy plans do make any sense. His was simply the worst one out there. Too much emphasis on ethanol which has a horrible ROI, about 14%, that is it takes seven BOEs (barrel of oil equivalents) to get 8 BOEs. His stance on coal is lockstep with the industry, more coal fired plants. And he advocates strongly for nuclear which can be run successfully if we were to use the French model but unfortunately that's not the case. Obama's investments in alternative energy were the lowest of the major Democratic candidates.

Still today, I am very unhappy about Clinton's stance on free trade. Her opposition to the Colombia FTA and other ones pending with Panama and South Korea is a significant issue for me.

Is Penn on the call? (none / 0) (#1)
by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:55:08 PM EST

: No he isn't (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:55:45 PM EST

There's also a post on this on (none / 0) (#4)
by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:58:51 PM EST

factcheck.org

I don't by the GE argument (none / 0) (#6)
by fuzzyone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST

You could make the same argument about Hillary not being able to put this away early given all of her early advantages in name recognition, money, and organization.

In fact, I don't think whether Obama beats Clinton tells us whether he can beat McCain (his losses in CA and NY don't mean McCain will win those states).

The fact that Gallup now has Clinton down by 10 and that the numbers are closing in PA suggest that she is the one having trouble convincing the American and PA people. I think Hillary would love to paint any win in PA as a great victory, but given her early lead and the expectations I think if Obama makes it close she is in trouble.

All that being said I think the ad is crap and stupid and he should pull it.

: National Polls (none / 0) (#11)
by nell on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST

are not the most important thing right now - what matters is state polls for upcoming contests. I agree that state-to-state matchups against McCain do not prove that Obama is unelectable (or Clinton), but neither do national polls. Given the incredible free ride Obama has gotten in the press, while Clinton gets pummelled daily (and often falsely or for something that Obama has done too but the press chooses to ignore), not to mention his huge fundraising advantage, it is a shame that he has not been able to put it away...the fact is that they are both popular and they both have solid support.
But in any case, why don't we just let the voters in PA have their say before declaring that Obama is closing in, etc. If she loses PA, she has a problem. But until that happens, please stop posting about how she can't possibly win.

: I think (none / 0) (#13)
by americanincanada on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM EST

that on can pick and choose number out there that will match what you want to think.
That alone proves that you cannot believe these national polls or the tightening of the PA numbers beyond what is normal.
the media is creating a narrative and outside of SUSA most pollsters have gotten it wrong when trying to predict what actual voters will do.

: We can agree on this (none / 0) (#14)
by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:13:22 PM EST

All that being said I think the ad is crap and stupid and he should pull it.
Yes, indeed.

: When did Clinton ever (none / 0) (#22)
by bjorn on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM EST

have more money than Obama once the campaign started?

: CA and NY (none / 0) (#56)
by cal1942 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:47:39 PM EST

are not swing states. In the last two presidential elections we won Pennsylvania by narrow margins.

Which Energy Bill (none / 0) (#8)
by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:02:41 PM EST

Did Clinton vote against?

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by tree on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:06:28 PM EST

Clinton mentioned it in her recent visit to Oregon.


: Hm (none / 0) (#12)
by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:12:14 PM EST

Thanks for the info.

Is this the fight they want? (none / 0) (#16)
by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM EST

Yes this ad is misleading in a way, but is this the fight that the Clintons want. It is common knowledge that she takes way more money from lobbyist and big business. How about the health care industry that she says(and I agree) is so broken yet she takes more money from them then McCain and Obama. He doesnt say in this ad that Hillary does take money from big oil, he just says he doesnt. Yes, INDIVIDUALS have donated to him and he has many bundlers which are legal and fall under all campaign finance rules. The postal workers union specifically said that they endorsed him because of his fight against lobbyists and corporate influence. If this is where they want to go then they have every right but Im not sure how effective it will be. Also I think this "trouble" that Obama is having in Penn. is due to the fact that Clinton is a strong canidate. With a couple of months of pointed attacks from the left on McCain, I think Obama could win in Penn. Polls of the GE during the primary are not too effective in my book. When hundreds of thousands are switching to Dem registration in Penn, why is it so hard to believe that both canidates will be strong there?

Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:25:53 PM EST

Since corporations are forbidden by law from making political contributions, every single contribution is from an individual. So if the argument is that every single contribution to any politician is simply made by an "individual," then any candidate at all can claim to take no money from the oil companies, the drug companies, etc. Even if we accept the redefinition, it only serves to make the claim meaningless.


Dishonest (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by mm on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:32:47 PM EST

When he says,

"I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies

he's implying that others do. Else, what is the point of the boast? It's thoroughly dishonest.

or Washington lobbyists,.."

Why does he always need the qualifier, "Washington"?


: Because state-lobbyists he does accept money from (none / 0) (#59)
by andrys on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:46:42 PM EST

He says 'Washington' lobbyists because he has and continues to accept money from state-lobbyists (specifically Illinois).
And of course, as has been shown, he accepts money from SPOUSES of lobbyists, and employees (via bundling) of lobbyist companies, and in kind

Oh come on (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by americanincanada on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:37:14 PM EST

It is more than a little dishonest because NO ONE take money from oil companies.

Obama is trying to make it sound like he doesn't take the money because of some high minded principles when in fact it is because he legally can't.

I also want to know what fight for alternative energy he lead the way in. That seems blatantly dishonest to me as well.


she never claimed she didn't like he did (none / 0) (#17)
by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:25:25 PM EST

and thats the rub....Kudos to BTD for the great question of the day for them....


mm, because he takes money from state lobbyists (none / 0) (#49)
by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:00:14 PM EST

indy, this ad is BS because as someone else pointed out, no one can take money from corporations.

Even more, the ad is FUD. FUD stands for fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The ad implies that while he doesn't take money from corporations, Sen. Clinton does. And that is crap.

It's an old marketing trick---"Nobody every got fired for buying IBM."

Truthiness is not good.

Another point is that Sen. Obama may very well not be a good candidate in PA. Or OH. Or MI. Or FL. I don't go into that stuff because I am puzzled by it, but I'd put a good amount of money down that Sen. Obama's and Sen. Clinton's campaigns are watching internal voting patterns.

As are the superdelegates.


Registrations (none / 0) (#57)
by cal1942 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:11:22 PM EST

Obama ran a 'be a Democrat for a day' registration drive.

I read a post just today (may have been leftcoaster or correntewire) about a PA student who convinced her Republican father to do just that. She got all the paper work for him to switch parties and will do the same so he can switch back to GOP registration after the primary.

Anecdotal, sure but given the recent bump in Democratic registrations in PA and Obama's deliberate appeal for just that scenario lead me to be concerned about large scale gaming.

Talk about scorched earth.


: How to teach dishonesty (none / 0) (#60)
by andrys on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:50:15 PM EST

... and even brag about it...
or perhaps learn how to manipulate your parents into voting your way and then maybe forget to do the paperwork for them to change back to being Republican for November.
This is the Change they are seeking. :-)

True (none / 0) (#26)
by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:38:59 PM EST

I agree that it is a shallow argument and should prob. be more defined. I dont find it to be a credibility issue like Clintons people do but if they think this is the best way to go about things then more power to them. Even before Obama was running for President, he was passing ethics reform and writing books about how corporate influence has killed effective change in Washington. If you like him or not, this is a fact and a huge part of his campaign. It seems that this is one of those "attack his biggest strength" tactics. It may work but it does lead to more scrutiny of where her money comes from and I dont think that this is what they want. Just a hunch though.

But indy, he's just as emeshed (none / 0) (#50)
by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:18:10 PM EST

in the Washington power structure as every other politician.

That's great that he doesn't take money from Federal lobbyists---fed lobbyists are registered as fed lobbyists. But he will take money from their spouses. His campaign asks the lobbyists to get their clients and business partners to donate as well. And they do.

He may be technically correct but the substance of his claim is a big flaming pile of horse crap.

I don't like this lack of forthrightness. I hate it, in fact. Your guy claims to offer a new kind of politics. But there's nothing new here unless you want to count another layer of shiftiness.

I applaud Sen. Obama's efforts regarding ethics. I do. But he also claimed to have passed legislation regarding nuclear energy safety---which he has not done.

And I write books, too. that doesn't make me any more honest or competent as anyone else.


: Okay (none / 0) (#53)
by indy33 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:51:59 PM EST

My point would be that if Hillary and Barack are so close to each other on this issue then why wasnt this part of her campaign as well. I am not a huge Edwards fan and I get confused as to how he became the progressive savior but this was one of his biggest platforms to. No money from PACS and no money from federal lobbyists. I like the fact that his campaign has been "mostly" funded by small donors and by using this strategy he has built a grassroots community that is unheard of. This is going to bring so many more people to the table. In the increasingly exspensive primary, he would be crazy to turn away individuals money just because they work for someone he wouldnt take money from. Drug companies will demand something in return, Joe Schmoe that works at said company may just actually support Obama and his agenda. When people address me on this issue the first thing they say is "he is as bad as everyone else", and i get that. I dont think he is the second coming and I know he has major faults. I like his message and his policies more than the other politicians I see out there. I wrote a paper about the fact that the idea of a Red and Blue America is awful before the speech he gave in 2004. His ideas and mine are alike. Maybe thats why I like him. Im not being fooled. I know he is a politician! I think he is just a little different enough to change things and maybe Im wrong but thats why I support him!

: Lying directly to an Iowa audience (none / 0) (#61)
by andrys on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:03:19 AM EST

Yes, the New York Times had an article about that, which the Huffington Post decided not to link to though some of us found it stored on the site quietly, where just a few were then able to comment. One would have thought that would be considered an important NY Times article.
Per that NYTarticle -- On the campaign trail Obama told an Iowa audience in December '07 that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed ... I just did that last year."
[ Note the colorful addition of having just passed
that bill last year. It's the way a confidence-man operates. ]
The problem? The bill never passed. The defanged version he put together was reintroduced in October '07 by others and still awaits action, but now it says State and Local agencies may NOT require Exelon to do timely reporting of leaks -- they only have to 'consider' doing so. And, Exelon will decide based on guidelines they make themselves.
And Exelon has contributed about $250,000 to his campaigns. This bill, by the way, was a fine example of how he worked across the aisle with Republicans with the result that it died, though he told the Iowan audience with pride that he had passed it.
Could Clinton get away with that claim and the colorful addition of when he passed a bill that he never passed?

Good ad. (none / 0) (#31)
by ajain on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM EST

I think the ad is very appropriate and you can't legitimately argue against it. Atleast not as far as I am concerned.

Also, I am so glad BTD asked that question. Lets hope more of this is to come from here on out.

: Excellent ad. (none / 0) (#33)
by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:58:50 PM EST

I think I'm gonna have to give HRC some more $$$.

: The usually-fair Dan Abrams thought her ad unfair (none / 0) (#62)
by andrys on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:28:38 AM EST

Abrams felt that her ad against Obama's intentionally misleading ad was unfair due to something she added, but I don't remember what that was. It didn't seem to be something so bad that she should not bring to people's attention that NO candidate can take money from oil companies and that of course he does get money from bundlers who are with oil companies.
The man is actually very cynical, and he takes his audiences for fools. I hope he's not right about that, when he does this kind of thing.

BTD, i wouldn't hold (none / 0) (#58)
by cpinva on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:15:52 PM EST

my breath, waiting for a correction from NB "the house that jack built" C on the bachtel case, isn't going to happen. they've already blamed their ineptitude on sen. clinton, for making them be all inept and such.

most of what passes as "alternative energy" sources are pretty much political sops, especially ethanol, as a poster noted above. great for corn growers, not so much for the rest of us.

renewable sources such as solar & wind, along with nuclear (as long as it's strictly regulated) probably offer the most economically viable alternative to oil.

sen. obama's claims, regarding the sources of his funding have been analyzed by factcheck.org.