[UPDATE: View discussion and video of Hillary Clinton's unprecedented hearing on environmental justice at the end of the essay. Obama and Exelon pollute the environment; Hillary cleans the mess they have created.]
According to the Charlotte Observer, a group of ostensible environmentalists will hold an expensive fundraiser for Barack Obama in their posh home in the Myers Park neighborhood of Charlotte. I quote:
The invitation-only fundraisers will be at the Bonwood Drive home of environmental activists Bob Perkowitz and Lisa Renstrom. A "general reception" costs $1,000 a person. A "host reception" costs $2,300.
Perhaps these ostensible environmentalists should research Obama's record on the environment before raising money for his campaign. Exelon, a nuclear energy giant in Illinois, is Obama's sixth largest donor. In fact, Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008.
These donations are significant, for Obama wrote legislation on Exelon's behalf while serving in the US Senate. Constituents of Obama in Will County, Illinois, complained of nuclear waste surfacing in the area's groundwater. They mobilized the support of Obama, who promised to write legislation requiring corporations such as Exelon to disclose radioactive leaks to surrounding communities. But Obama failed. Indeed, he allowed Exelon and Senate Republicans to dilute the bill. Instead of requiring companies to disclose information regarding radioactive leaks, the bill Obama wrote with Exelon lobbyists merely offered guidance for how to report a leak if those corporations chose to disclose such information. Obama's consituents were not pleased. I quote:
“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”
And although Obama allowed Exelon lobbyists and Congressional Republicans to yank the teeth from his bill, he boasted about it while campaigning in Iowa this December. Obama, I guess, enjoys misrepresenting his record on the environment to voters, including those who will hold expensive fundraisers for him in the Myers Park neighborhood of Charlotte.
Obama had to distort the legislation he failed to pass. He also had to distort his relation to Exelon. For David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist, worked for Exelon in 2002. I quote the New York Times again:
In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.
Obama, in other words, is deeply entangled with Exelon and with the nuclear power industry. This is significant, as Exelon has spent millions lobbying for a repository of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Should environmentalists support a candidate whose main contributors desire to pollute our environment with nuclear waste? Should environmentalists support a candidate who failed to protect constituents concerned about the presence of radioactive waste in their groundwater? Or are certain environmentalists motivated by concerns other than the environment?
Contrast this with the record of Hillary Clinton, who convened the first Senate hearing on environmental justice last year. And she did this after she announced for the Presidency. The environment is too important to Clinton to neglect for a mere political campaign.
25 July 2007
Senator Clinton Announces Bill to Step Up Federal Commitment to Environmental JusticeLeads First-Ever Senate Hearing on Environmental Justice
Washington, DC – Kicking off the first-ever Senate hearing on Environmental Justice, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that she will introduce legislation to step up the Federal government’s efforts to ensure environmental justice. Senator Clinton convened today’s hearing as Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health. Emphasizing that the Bush Administration has turned a blind eye to communities that continue to be disproportionately impacted by exposure to environmental hazards, Senator Clinton called for more accountability at the Environmental Protection Agency and increased support for community-based efforts to address environmental concerns....
Obama and Exelon pollute the environment; Clinton, the candidate who is truly committed to the environment, cleans the mess Obama and his special interests have created.
Comments
I wonder
I wonder how much closer we'd be to practical fusion if we'd directed into its research even even half of the money we've poured into fission reactor designs, and the costs of security, storage, transport, and "disposal" of fission waste products.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
that is a great
question. i wonder why environmental activists would support a candidate who supports storing nuclear waste at yucca mountain.
Where would you store it?
perhaps
obama should have thought about that before establishing a relationship of intimacy with the nuclear energy lobby while serving in the illinois state legislature and in the us senate.
obama, by the way, voted for a bill in the illinois state senate that urged congress to support bush's proposal to store nuclear waste in nevada. obama is anti-environmentalist. and those who raise money for him are certainly not friends of the environment.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/17/222449/626
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4312155
I've raised money for him
I've also served on the board of directors of Environmental Defense, and been involved in communication programs for dozens of organizations and initiatives dealing with animal waste, riparian buffers, air quality, wildlife refuges, green building, land conservation, open space, recycling and more.
Your arrogance really is quite remarkable. I hope you don't think your breathless posts are planting seeds of doubt about Obama, or encouraging any undecideds to tilt in Clinton's direction.
i thankfully
can rest at night knowing i am consistent.
i guess radioactive waste in groundwater is change you can believe in. and legislation authored by lobbyists of the nuclear energy lobby is change you can believe in.
Where would you store it?
Where would you store it?
I don't buy your syllogism
First, Yucca Mountain is an old idea. Bush doesn't deserve credit for it. If even YM turns out to be the least bad of many terrible options, well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
In any case, the blame for the nuclear waste mess goes back a long way. Here's a short roster of the blameworthy that springs to my mind:
The last two in particular deserve most of the blame for turning fission weapons and energy into an industry. And it's the industrial scale of the problem that is fucking us up.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
we are discussing
relations of complicity, not relations of causality. and yes, the evidence reveals obama has aided and abetted the activities of a nuclear energy corporation that has polluted the environment. but even worse, he misrepresented his record to the voters of iowa.
that is not change i can believe in. but i guess those who are not interested in policy and results do.
Not persuasive
I told you I was ambivalent about YM.
This means I could be persuaded.
Your approach isn't working, though.
Don't preach. Teach. You don't even have to dumb it down much. I took a course in modern physics; I'm willing to talk decay series, nuclear cross-sectional area, electron capture, and even Schrödinger wave functions if necessary.
(For the last, I'll need some time to crack open the old textbook and review, though...)
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
my concerns
with obama and nuclear waste are threefold: he was for yucca mountain before he decided he was against it for political reasons in 2007; he authored a bill with nuclear energy lobbyists instead of defending his constituents, who were complaining about radioactive waste in their groundwater; and obama misrepresented the legislation to voters in iowa. in other words, he lied. those are my concerns. regarding yucca, i believe we should halt the production of waste until we can store it safely.
I'm sorry to ask again
But where would you store it . . . safely?
Where would you store it?
You've attacked a candidate for taking a position that radioactive waste should be stored at YM. (Given you're the source, I'm not sure that's even true, but let's stipulate it.)
Where would you store it instead?
the sources
offer copies of transcripts from the illinois state senate's official records. and links are provided. regarding obama's position, he supported yucca mountain before he was against it, and he was only against it when he realized he would have to compete in nevada for the presidency. if waste is produced in illinois, and if illinois residents enjoy the benefits of that industry, then they should live with the waste, not the residents of nevada. or perhaps these plants should be closed until they learn how to store their waste.
but what is one to think of obama's inability to represent his constituents? writing a bill with lobbyists? that is not change i can believe in.
I see.
Your answer to the storage question is "I don't know."
Thanks for clearing that up.
somewhat helpful
*shrug* Since I'm currently ambivalent myself on Yucca Mountain, it would hardly be consistent for me to blame someone else for changing their mind on the subject.
I agree that pandering is distateful. I suspect, however, that I will have to decide who to vote for in May and November without the benefit of a pander-free politician on the ballot.
Maybe Ralph Nader?
I think if the states could come to mutually acceptable terms, it would be acceptable as a matter of public policy to let a location in a state like Nevada serve as the country's radioactive landfill. Now, I'm not saying that's what happened here (with YM, that is). But if the other states were willing to pay Nevada enough that Nevada could cut its residents a benefit check (sort of like how Alaska does for revenues from state-owned oil fields), then that might be a tolerable solutions.
Mind you, I don't think that's ideal, as not everyone can just up and move away if the pecuniary benefit is insufficient, in their personal estimation, to offset the risk they're being asked to accept. Children born in the state would be similarly deprived of such a choice.
But my ideal solution—get the shit into space in a very-low risk way and put it into an orbit inside the Sun's photosphere—is not technologically feasible at present.
That's nicely punitive but it might not be effective. The utility companies in the state might just go ahead and shut down the reactors, write them off as a loss, and still do nothing about the waste.
Just look at what Pegasus Gold did in Montana. That was bad enough, and no radioactive material was involved.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Help me think through this
Bouncing off your comment about fusion:
If we could recreate the past, would we rather have gigantic nuclear waste and risk problem or a gigantic climate change problem (assuming for a moment that such a choice might exist.)
More to the point, when I think about the failure of political leadership over the past seven years ... and the past 70 years ... around managing energy, having foresight, and mitigating risks, I can confidently conclude that We the People have a desperately bad habit of electing idiots at every level of government.
Insufficient knowledge
James,
Sorry, I'm afraid I just don't know enough about what a "practical" fusion reactor would look like to opine on its anthropogenic climate change impact relative to, say, coal-fired power plants.
I don't think particulate, CO2, or N2O emissions would be significant.
As I understand it, the main thing nuclear puts out is waste heat, directly. (That, of course, and waste products from fission reactors, but we're already discussing that in every other post.)
It would be an interesting scenario to run by Harry Turtledove, maybe—I lack the imagination. :)
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Hindsight is 20-40
I can't find the proper link, but: back in the early Seventies, we had a nuclear waste "rendering" plant located somewhere in the Northeast, but it was shut down (in part) because of anti-nuke activists.
Very similar to my concern about Yucca, they saw this facility as a detriment to their cause, because our ability to better deal with waste would (they believed) promote the spread of nuke plants.
So...we could have much less nuclear waste to deal with now if it weren't for those wanting no nukes at all. Let that one roll around in your head for a minute. :)
meant to add
CO replied before I could get this added:
From my list, I left out Oppenheimer, Fermi, and Teller—the last with some reservations—because they were mostly involved as scientific, not political, actors. Teller did muddy his hands as the years went by, though. This is also why I include Einstein. His role was not as a scientist, but as a political matchmaker and credibility-lender to people who would otherwise have been dismissed by the FDR Administration as "mad scientists".
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Undecided on Yucca Mountain
Personally I'm ambivalent about Yucca Mountain.
That I wish we'd gotten serious about fusion decades ago doesn't mean we don't have a nuclear waste problem, and that thanks to the law of conservation of mass, the stuff has to go somewhere.
On the one hand, I don't know that fission byproducts are something that should be foisted on Nevada.
On the other hand, having a bunch of nuclear waste at a bunch of sites seems more expensive and more risky in the long run. There are more sites to secure and more opportunities for ground water contamination with heavy metals (always bad news, radioactive or otherwise).
I should look more into the YM design, but I presume one of the design criteria is that it should be pointless to blow up1 (given its remote location and the sheer volume of rock around and above the containment area), and impractical in the extreme to conduct a theft there.
The ideal thing to do with the stuff is to launch it into a Hohmann Transfer Orbit to the Sun's photosphere. The problem is, people want a rocket full of nuclear waste flying overhead even less than they want a truck or train full of it driving by—and statistically, rockets are more likely to suffer a catastrophic failure than ground transport.
But a ground transport will never get you off the planet.
I guess we need to develop hella-powerful mass drivers. Then we just have to ship the junk down to Ecuador or French Guiana. Hmm, what could possibly go wrong with that?
For me, it's not a litmus issue. We've inherited one hell of a problem and I don't see any good solutions. Not making any more of that shit, in the form of reactor cores or weapons, though, sounds like a good first step to me.
(Not sure how many people know this, but if you stop making fission cores—usually plutonium— you can't make a thermonuclear (fusion) weapon, either, because the fusion stage requires a fission explosion to serve as a detonator. So my proposal amounts to a moratorium on nuclear weapons production in general.)
1 This would be a "dirty bomb" scenario. You don't get a nice mushroom cloud from a pile of random nuclear waste. That said, the scenario would be an awful mess and might halt Yucca Mountain's utility as a disposal site for years or decades. Oh, crap, I hope I'm not giving the ELF any ideas...
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
I still cannot
believe Obama ditched his constituents and wrote a toothless bill with lobbyists. that is not change i can believe in. radioactive waste in groundwater is not change i can believe in.
Talk to Inhofe.
Obama had to rewrite this just to get it out of committee, and even the watered down version didn't pass the floor vote. Which means, it was still way too liberal/progressive/over-regulatory for the Republican majority Senate.
As far as Yucca Mountain is concerned, you can put me in the "jury's still out" category with Branden. We've got thousands of spent fuel rods resting in wet pools or dry beds scattered all over this country, and they're a hell of a lot closer to groundwater than they would be at Yucca. My chief argument against the project is: I'm afraid once we start using it, people will be prone to assume, "That problem's taken care of", which would be a huge mistake.
Valid concern
I entirely agree with that counter-argument.
My counter to that counter-argument (are you dizzy yet?), is that you can make everybody share the problem and they still don't get off their asses and do something about it.
...which appears to be the case today. YM has been in limbo for so long that it's obvious that we should be mitigating the risks from the disposal sites we already have.
But we don't. Is it because we're waiting on Yucca Mountain vaporware, or because there's little to no political benefit in doing anything until some ground water really does get contaminated and we have some Chernobyl babies of our own?
Maybe even then it won't be enough. I wouldn't have thought we could give so little of a shit about New Orleans, either.
My God, this is depressing.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
science-fiction idea
Hmm, how about an artificial black hole at one of the Earth-Moon system Lagrange points?
Nah, somebody like A. E. van Vogt probably thought of this forty years ago.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Day-um
I for one look forward to reading more of you Branden.
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.
Progressive Discussions
Two sides to every story
Here are two sides to the nuclear power debate:
Wow.
I guess that one will be pretty damn hard to 'splain. Is this the definition of "triangulation" or is it something more nefarious?
Damn you're good.
Not so sure
I'd love to say you win the thread, but after watching the entirely of the second clip, I don't see as much waffling as you seem to imply.
Clinton may be right about having to start over with regard to a central waste containment facility; that Yucca Mountain was fatally compromised by political considerations and "git-'er-done"-itis. But again, what the hell are we going to do in the meantime? Clinton says she wants her NRC to turn the screws on the existing plants, but can she really make it happen?
I'm still not seeing a real "winner" here between Clinton and Obama on this issue. Maybe, for their electoral purposes, there doesn't need to be one, if they both beat John "do whatever the hell ya like, boys" McCain.
Still looking for somebody with a real answer. Somebody give me my big equatorial mass-drivers!
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Okay, not so sure on one level
If you look into the details of both videos, Clinton is saying more or less the same things. It's really those opening shots ... the sound bites I suppose ... that showcase the spin/triangulation/whatever.
It seems reasonable to me to say that Big Energy policy cannot be managed by the states. Transmission lines and pipelines have long crossed borders, and even if they didn't SOX, NOX, carbon and all the other greenhouse emissions cross borders unfettered. It is a federal problem.
In my mind, that means at least part of the solution has to be federal too. I would put nuclear waste into that category.
Is it too much to ask that both candidates have a specific (and therefore politically intolerable) plan for what to do? That's something I'd like to see, but I'm not holding my breath, so to speak.
So, no "gotcha"?
Well, I'm really not into the "gotcha" thing, even when it can be deployed against Republicans. I can generally find enough of substance to disagree with when it comes to the GOP that I don't need the satisfaction of that sort of thing.
Having done a little bit of public speaking myself I am conscious of the need to pitch yourself appropriately for your audience. The clip of the rally didn't do much for me; it's the second clip, where she apparently had to think a little more extemporaneously, that I drew substance from.
Maybe I'm weird, but I found Clinton's approach in the second clip preferable to her performance in the debates and, oddly enough, more similar to Obama's style in the debates.
I guess it could be a dangerous thing to encourage anything less than an over-rehearsed debate presence, given that half the voting public generously rewarded George W. Bush for debate performances so under-rehearsed he needed an earpiece and wireless receiver so his coaches could walk him through the thing, and most of the time he still couldn't spit out a coherent sentence on the first attempt.
--
relocating from Indianapolis, IN to RTP, NC soon; got any advice for me?
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
--
Garner, NC
I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson
No gotcha
I could have edited these clips ala Olbermann or Stewart but I'm not into that just as I'm not into the sanctimonious breast beating combined with wailing and gnashing of teeth that accompanies these hit jobs. I love the passion but lets see some evenhandedness.
PS, this is not directed at you Branden just the HRC swarm that has descended on BlueNC.
Nuclear options
Not sure if this is what you're looking for but here is some Obama Factcheck responses to some Clinton claims about Obama and the nuclear industry.
I think part of the problem for Obama as a Senator is that Illinois has 11 operating nuclear reactors so engagement with the nuclear industry is an occupational hazard, so to speak.
Michelle Obama's fur coat
I wonder if environmentalists will support Obama after they realize his wife Michelle is a consumer of mink.
I quote the New Yorker:
True environmentalists do not support the mink industry and other egregious forms of animal husbandry.
yeah because THAT is the issue that really matters
I'm all for you exercising you right to make random attacks, but true environmentalists know we've got bigger fish to fry (or not fry as the case may be).
Marshall's kid has his friends dying in the streets and your directing our attention to something the presidential candidate's wife wore to a dinner party two years ago. Good one.
- - - - -

- - - - -
http://twitter.com/Jerimee
i notice
no one here is concerned about the radioactive waste in the groundwater of barack obama's will county constituents. can you believe he authored a bill with lobbyists and thereby undermined his constituents? that new york times article is alarming. that is not change i can believe in. and i doubt children with tumors will view obama's collusion with nuclear power lobbyists as change they can believe in.
OMG
Wait till people find out Obama is a tall black man!
The Obama hatefest is only making Hillary look bad. Say something positive or give it a rest.
tomorrow
i have a few diaries on rezko i am ready to publish.
Any day
I have a cousin who is a close Clinton advisor. You are not helping Clinton or the Democratic Party. I can read your crap any day at Townhall or RedState.
If you think you can contribute to progressive values and policies in North Carolina by all means do so. I just don't think trashing Obama is a good way to go about it.
Of course you do
As I said before, I hope that you publish them and explain the Clintons ties to Rezko and the laundry list of other fundraisers who are also under indictment.
But you won't do that, of course, because you're not trying to be fair. You're just interested in slash and burn politics, which I think--and I say this despite the numerous disagreements I've had with folks on this site--have been summarily rejected by a majority of the users on this site. If you'd like to make a pro-Hillary post rather than an anti-Obama one, I think folks here will be glad to hear that.
PS: If you can not link directly to the Hillary Hub and make it at least appear like you're capable of making your own arguments, rather than just reciting the campaign's talking points, that'd be great.
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
there are no links
between clinton and rezko. and if you are referring to a photograph, then perhaps one should not that the photograph was taken during a fundraiser for carol molesely braun in chicago in 1998.
and rezko did not help the clintons purchase their mansion. and rezko did not run his tenements in clinton's state senate district while donating to clinton. this occurred with obama.
and then obama mentions how reverend wright expresses the rage of a community without city services and sanitation services. too bad rezko was cutting checks for obama at the time when rezko did not collect garbage at his various slums and left his tenants without heat for five weeks during a chicago winter.
rezko, the chicago tribune stated in an editorial you obviously have not read, is obama's problem, not clinton's problem.
and facts are facts. and you can read the sources to which the clinton campaign links. opensecrets.org is not a campaign talking point.
The Facts Are These
There are links. She's taken money from Rezko's co-defendents and hasn't returned it, but all candidates aren't made equal, I guess. Which also explains, I'd imagine why you're not examining how the Clintons got their house in Chappaqua, N.Y.
But I digress...
The fact is Obama got no deal from Rezko on his home or the adjoining parcel of land that he purchased. He purchased his home using a real estate agent and the real estate agent and the seller have publicly said that the Obamas had the highest bid and got no discount. And, when purchasing the land from Rezko (which Obama admits he shouldn't have done), he paid 1/6 the original purchase price for 1/6 of the neighboring lot, despite an appraiser suggesting the land was worth less ($40,500) (Source: Chicago Tribune).
Both the Tribune and the Sun-Times, who have been investigating this story from the beginning, agreed that Obama's been open and honest about Rezko. In their editorial last week, though, the Tribune said two things worth noting:
Looks like you're proving them right. They also wrote:
When's the Clinton campaign going to release those tax returns?
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
Clinton strategist tied to Exelon
Via HuffingtonPost.com Mark Penn Tied To Controversial Nuclear Firm
axelrod WORKED for exelon
and Axelrod is obama's campaign manager.
Hillary Clinton convened a hearing on Environmental Justice, the first hearing of its kind in the US Senate. And she did this after announcing for the Presidency. For Hillary actually cares about the environment. Notice Obama did not convene a hearing on his committee on NATO and Afghanistan, for Obama was "too busy campaigning." Hillary actually cares
I quote:
Clinton actually cares about the environment and about environmental justice; obama panders and campaigns. This is why I support Senator Clinton.
He's Not Actually
The campaign manager is David Plouffe, the media adviser is David Alexrod. Not that you'd allow pesky things like facts to get in the way of your arguments.
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy
the point stands
besides, hillary convenes hearings on the oversight of superfunds and environmental justice. obama and his exelon friends pollute the environment. clinton is the president for the environment. obama, on the other hand, is the president for exelon.
Let's cut to the chase here.
Forget policies and pundits. Forget the environment and the past. Focus on one thing. The election in November.
Let's say that through some unimaginable-but-fair twist of bizarre fate, Clinton becomes the nominee. I have no idea how that can happen short of super-delegates subverting the will of the people, but let's say it does happen and there is not armed insurrection in the streets. I would vote for her without much hesitation.
Now let's say Obama is the nominee. Will you or will you not vote for him? You've been dodging this question and it's time for an answer.
If the answer is yes, I would like to know what you are trying to do here. Even under the most unlikely outcome of the primary vote, the best Clinton might conceivably do in North Carolina is win one or two delegates more than Obama ... not nearly enough to cinch the nomination based on pledged delegates.
So what's your point? Do you somehow think you're going to influence the superdelegates with your brilliant insights and rhetorical skills?
And if the answer is no ... that is, if you will not vote for Obama, but will instead seek to hurt his chances ... well you're skating on some pretty thin ice here at BlueNC.
You're welcome to spend as much time ranting as you like, but this is the last exchange I'll participate in with you unless your answer to the question I ask is "yes."
i vote for policy,
and i will vote for universal health care. clinton is the candidate in the primary who offers universal health care, and i will vote for her until she becomes the nominee.
i will consider the candidates in november, and whoever offers universal health care will obtain my vote. i hope obama will learn a lesson or two from this primary if he is indeed nominated. if not, then i guess i will have to look elsewhere.
but clinton will be nominated.
Whatever.
See ya.
Pages