Hillary And Obama Duke It Out Over Hillary's Yucca Mountain Ad

Comments (58)

TexModDem wrote on January 17, 2008 2:22 PM:

I'm sure it won't be long before this truthful add is called "dirty tricks" by Obama's acolytes.

Jaz wrote on January 17, 2008 2:24 PM:

"The Las Vegas Review Journal said..."

Not Hillary Clinton said... Obama camp becoming full of alot of whining in nevada.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 2:25 PM:

Truthful? Anybody wish to back up the "thruthiness" of Clinton's ad?

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 2:28 PM:

Yucca Mountain has been around as an idea for decades. Besides, I think its a good idea. Nevadans probably don't because of NIMBY.

So what? Triangulation and interest group politics. Hillary using the Yucca Mt. thing is a perfect example of what I do not care for about her.

Besides, Barack says he's against Yucca. Is she then saying that Obama is a liar? Care to back that up with facts?

Dan wrote on January 17, 2008 2:29 PM:

MAJOR breaking news: A NV judge has just ruled that the at-large precincts are OK -- a major victory for Barack.

grover_rover wrote on January 17, 2008 2:31 PM:

Soooo wait, when Obama gets money from an industry he is going to be their slave, but when Hillary is bathing in more corporate and lobbyist dollars than any candidate in either party, she is going to have our best interests at heart? Hmmm...funny how that works.

Obama has taken a strong stance on Yucca Mountain and there is absolutely no reason to suppose he is going to change that position. He is open to nuclear power because he knows we can't keep relying on coal and oil for energy, and he knows that solar/wind and other forms of clean energy aren't going to be enough to profoundly shift our country's energy direction on their own. Obviously this doesn't mean he is going to favor environmentally unsound schemes like Yucca Mountain. The reason he is open to nuclear energy in the first place is for the environment! He has made it clear that safe disposal and safe generation is going to be available for him to go ahead with nuclear power. Obviously the Yucca Mountain advocate wouldn't be endorsing him if this wasn't obvious to him. I trust that person's opinion over Hillary's propaganda any day.

Also, as mentioned in the debate, energy experts already know that without nuclear power we aren't going to be able to produce enough "clean" energy to get off our carbon fuels addiction. Hillary is just being naive and trying to deceive just a few days before the election, just like she did in NH.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 2:32 PM:

Interesting stuff on Yucca. Check out the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

$7b has been spent on Yucca geological surveys? Jesus!

grover_rover wrote on January 17, 2008 2:33 PM:

Dan, correction: A major victory for democracy and voters. Voter suppression (ie the Clinton campaign) has lost this battle, but I'm sure they'll try again and again wherever voters aren't as likely to favor them.

Not Surprised wrote on January 17, 2008 2:36 PM:

You claim its truthful but the largest anti-Yucca activist doesn't agree. Hmmm. Let me see, do I believe Hillary who has called Obama anti-abortion or the Anti-Yucca activist? Tough one.

Shillary and her assclown supporters are sickening. Like Shillary doesn't live in the pocket of big business. How does being on Walmart's board add up to serving the people?

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 17, 2008 2:37 PM:

"MAJOR breaking news: A NV judge has just ruled that the at-large precincts are OK -- a major victory for Barack."

Special voting for a BO union. Too bad 87% are illegal aliens.

B Merry wrote on January 17, 2008 2:39 PM:

Obama bundler Frank M. Clark is chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. As an Obama bundler, Clark raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on January 26, 2007, he personally contributed $2,000 to Obama for America.

Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank wrote July 4, 2007, in the Dissident Voice.

"Barack, for the second quarter in a row, has surpassed the fundraising prowess of Hillary Clinton. To be sure small online donations have propelled the young senator to the top, but so too have his connections to big industry. The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator.

"The Illinois-based company also helped Obama’s 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s, '[Exelon] is Obama’s fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects … the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.'"

Public Citizen's/WhiteHouseforSale shows Clark as a registered lobbyist, one of nine so-identified in Obama's FEC filings.

Publicus wrote on January 17, 2008 2:39 PM:

Obama's campaign responded with a conference call and a memo. Here's a link. Coming on TPM. You guys are my preferred choice for news, but a smaller site has a better run down of the issue:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=248

I assume you guys have the memo, right? It contains these juicy tidbits:

CLINTON HAS TAKEN THOUSANDS FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATOR NRG ENERGY AND NRG CEO DAVID CRANE IS A BUNDLER FOR THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN

Clinton Has Accepted Thousands In Contributions From NRG Energy Inc., Which Is The First Company To File An Application For A New Nuclear Power Plant In The United States Since The Three Mile Island Accident; Clinton’s Position On Nuclear Power Has Confounded Critics Who See A Contradiction In Her Opposition To Yucca But Not To Expansion In Nuclear Power. “At a South Carolina town hall in February, Clinton expressed concerns about waste disposal but noted that ‘nuclear power has to be a part of our energy solution.’ Clinton has accepted thousands in contributions from the nuclear industry, including nearly $80,000 in this election from employees and a PAC of NRG Energy Inc., the first company to file an application for a new nuclear power plant in the United States since before the Three Mile Island accident.” [AP, 11/13/07]

David Crane, The President And CEO Of NRG Energy, A Nuclear Power Company, Has Raised At Least $100,000 For Clinton And Made A $4,600 Contribution. David Crane, a “Hillraiser” for the Clinton campaign, is the president and CEO of NRG Energy Inc. Crane donated $4,600 on March 31, 2007 to Clinton’s campaign. NRG Energy Inc. is the first company to file an application for a new nuclear power plant in the United States since before the Three Mile Island accident. [Center for Responsive Politics; AP, 11/13/07; White House For Sale]

NRG Energy PAC Donated $10,000 To Clinton’s Presidential Campaign. NRG Energy PAC donated $5,000 on 3/23/07 and $5,000 on 3/24/07 to Clinton’s campaign. [FEC]

NRG COMMITTED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE

NRG Committed $5 Million To The Clinton Global Initiative In The First Year And $175 Million Total. [Clinton Global Initiative]

Indeed....

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 2:40 PM:

Please send Hillbotz back to the republican party where she fits in.

Liam wrote on January 17, 2008 2:42 PM:

Judge just ruled against the Clintons. Will slicky Willie now claim that he was always against the lawsuit by the Teachers' Union, just like he claimed that he was always against the Iraq Invasion.

Here is the latest on the lawsuit ruling:

Judge OKs casino caucuses in Nevada
Posted: 02:10 PM ET

LAS VEGAS (CNN) — The Democratic Party can go ahead with a plan to let casino workers take part in Saturday's Nevada caucuses in "at-large" precincts set up in their workplaces, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

Ron Jeremy wrote on January 17, 2008 2:42 PM:

"Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 2:40 PM:
Please send Hillbotz back to the republican party where she fits in."

Hobamarites need climb back in Nader's stink hole.

RonK, Seattle wrote on January 17, 2008 2:42 PM:

Live by the sword: It's the Obama movement that claims Clinton's agenda will be determined by her contributors.

Defending Obama in this case gives the lie to their larger case against Hillary.

Artfully played!

Wayne wrote on January 17, 2008 2:42 PM:

Only a fool can trust a Clinton. Hillary still insists her vote to give Bush the authority to use force was NOT a vote for war..LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Common Sense wrote on January 17, 2008 2:43 PM:

Looks like Clinton doesn't exactly have clean hands here....Shocking.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 2:44 PM:

So, from what I have seen....

This is just an example of pots and kettles.

Neither support Yucca. Both get money from Nuke operators.

So what?

Hillary is fudging and implying stuff about Obama that is equally true about herself. Too bad people fall for this schlock.

brad wrote on January 17, 2008 2:44 PM:

Rovian.

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 2:45 PM:

You claim its truthful but the largest anti-Yucca activist doesn't agree.

Because, of course, Obama told him otherwise, when Obama has nothing to lose and everything to gain by making such a promise at this point?

And what did Obama promise to his nuke loving donors (which I thought Obama was going to reform out of existence)?

By Obama's own reform logic, shouldn't we assume that there's something corrupting about the influence such donors exert? Is he just too special in every way to be subject to such influences?

BluePuppy wrote on January 17, 2008 2:45 PM:

Obama is a media creation. You don't know him:

One of Sen. Obama's biggest donors is the energy giant Exelon:

Exelon is the sixth largest donor to Sen. Obama's presidential campaign and the fourth largest career donor to Obama’s federal campaigns. Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008. [opensecrets.org, 2008, 2004-2008]
Exelon's CEO is a key advocate for storing nuclear waste at Yucca:

Exelon CEO John Rowe calls Yucca mountain project ‘linchpin’ to solving waste problem and building new plants. "So what does Exelon Chief Executive Officer John Rowe want? Fortune magazine, in a May 15, 2006, article titled 'Meet Mr. Nuke,' details Rowe's call to solve the waste problem before additional nuclear power plants are built. "We have to be able to look the public in the eye and say, 'If we build a plant, here's where the waste will go,' " Rowe told Fortune. The Yucca Mountain Project is the 'linchpin' to solving the waste problem and building new plants.”[Las Vegas Review Journal, 5/15/07]
Exelon has spent millions lobbying to open up Yucca mountain:

In 2002, Exelon spent $2,172,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2003, Exelon spent $2,864,400 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2004, Exelon spent over $1,000,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2005, Exelon spent $1,815,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including ‘the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project.’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year, year-end]

In 2006, Exelon spent $1,329,014 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including ‘the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project.’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year, year-end]

In 2007, Exelon spent $1,732,321 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including the ‘Yucca Mountain National Interest…’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year]

brad wrote on January 17, 2008 2:49 PM:

Shorter HRC campaign strategy:

Who are you going to belive? Hillary Clinton or your lying eyes?

Franklin wrote on January 17, 2008 3:00 PM:

Amen brad.

Liam wrote on January 17, 2008 3:02 PM:

What does Pardoned fugitive, Marc Rich, have to say on the subject. After all, he would know if the Clintons could be bought or not; Right!

wj wrote on January 17, 2008 3:09 PM:

Hillary Clinton has 35 years of experience protecting Yucca Mountain.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 3:09 PM:

Hmm, I was disappointed in all of the candidates by pandering to NV on this issue. I think that the Yucca Mountain sight is the right place for our nations nuclear waste and while I understand that Nevadans have good reason not to like that, it is still the best policy.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 3:20 PM:

As for the Culinary Workers Union caucuses, I've got to say I don't see how anyone can claim this is a simple issue of trying to deny one side or the other a vote.

The basic fact is that if you make it very, very easy for one person to vote, and much harder for others to vote, that is effectively disenfranchising one set of voters as opposed to another.

To me, what's particularly disturbing is the unseemly mix of unions and an open caucus. Presumably, everybody in the union gets to know which workers actually voted, and whom they voted for. I saw someone commenting on another site about how workers from the Culinary Union who now vote for Hillary should be treated as "scabs". I wonder, what's to prevent exactly that sort of pressure from being exerted, especially when it comes to a union such as the Culinary Workers Union, where, presumably, there are few fundamental protections of a worker's job in the first place (in contrast to, say, teachers). I can't imagine that it serves anyone's own job security to go openly against the wishes of one's union bosses. Do we really imagine that no implicit intimidation will be employed? I mean, this is Las Vegas, for Christ's sake, how unimaginable is that?

While I have no doubt that the Teachers Union waited until the Culinary Workers Union went the other way before they filed their suit, I don't see how that decision could be laid at the hands of the Clinton campaign -- nor do I think it's incumbent on the Clinton campaign to insist that the Teachers Union drop the suit, given the inherently unfair advantages that go to the Culinary Workers Union (perhaps the Teacher's union has its own unfair advantages -- but then isn't it equivalent to two distinct sides squabbling for turf, rather than a case of someone being "denied the right to vote" (as the hysterics put it)?)

In general, as I said, I just don't see how you mix union politics with open caucuses and talk seriously about being denied the right to vote. Where there's the possibility of intimidation, the vote is already corrupted at its core.

odum wrote on January 17, 2008 3:22 PM:

Much as I don't want to see HRC do well, this is a fair ad.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 17, 2008 3:30 PM:

LOL!

Yucca has been a NIMBY issue since 2000.

At least Hillary didn't use the re-heated, refried, attacks from 2000 that McCain is receiving. Deja Vue all over again.

April 1, 2002

Yucca Mountain Recommendation Tainted by Undue Influence of Nuclear Industry Lobbyists

Science Smothered Under a Mountain of Lobbyists, Report Says

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Nuclear industry money and lobbyists may have biased Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham’s controversial recommendation that a nuclear waste dump be developed at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, according to a report released today by Public Citizen.

The report, which analyzes nuclear industry campaign contributions to Abraham and the lobbying expenditures of top contributors, concludes that Abraham’s site recommendation is not a responsible, science-based policy assessment but "a bill of sale to the well-funded nuclear industry lobby."

In February, Abraham formally recommended that the proposed nuclear waste dump be built and President Bush concurred. (Bush himself received nearly $300,000 from the nuclear industry for his presidential bid.) Nevada’s governor has pledged to veto the plan, but Congress could override the veto. A congressional vote is expected late this spring.

"President Bush and Spencer Abraham are trying to fool the public when they say the decision to dump waste at Yucca Mountain is based on science," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "When it comes to the administration's nuclear waste policy, it's as if every day is April Fool's Day. Unfortunately, the only people who are laughing are nuclear industry executives and their handsomely paid lobbyists."

The report discloses that the nuclear industry contributed $82,728 to Abraham during the 2000 election cycle, when he was a U.S. senator, and spent even more money lobbying on issues dear to the industry’s bottom line, including the ill-conceived nuclear waste dump proposal. In 2000 alone, leading nuclear energy interests that helped bankroll Abraham’s unsuccessful Senate campaign spent more than $25 million to hire some of the highest-powered lobbyists in Washington, D.C., including top officials from the Reagan and Clinton administrations, records show. Eight of the lobbying firms hired made Fortune magazine’s recent list of the 20 most influential firms in Washington.

The nuclear industry is doling out so much cash because it is itching to build new power plants and needs a place to store nuclear waste. But Yucca Mountain, the only site under consideration for the proposed repository, lies in an earthquake zone and atop a drinking water aquifer. Also, storing waste there would require shipping it through almost every state, creating rolling radioactive hazards for communities everywhere and creating a network of vulnerability amid heightened national security concerns.

"This unsafe project cannot be justified," said Joan Claybrook, Public Citizen’s president. "It is unconscionable that the money the nuclear industry is spending to lobby in support of this dangerous dump comes from the working families who pay power bills and whose communities may be jeopardized when this deadly waste goes rolling through."

Public Citizen’s report, Yucca Mountain Bought and Sold, shows that:

The pro-repository nuclear power interests that bankrolled Abraham's 2000 campaign spent $25 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies in 2000 – nearly a half-million dollars every week.

In addition to their in-house lobbyists on staff, Abraham's close nuclear friends employed 53 independent lobbying firms, for a combined total of 199 individual lobbyists. More than 80 percent of those lobbyists reported on disclosure forms that they were lobbying on nuclear waste legislation, Yucca Mountain appropriations or closely related issues.

Some of the lobbyists themselves contributed to Abraham's 2000 campaign, including Winston & Strawn, the law firm that had to withdraw as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain project last year when it was revealed that the firm was lobbying for the Nuclear Energy Institute in a blatant conflict of interest.

Nearly half the lobbyists hired by Abraham’s top nuclear contributors previously worked for the federal government. The roster includes seven former members of Congress; former acting Energy Secretary Elizabeth Moler, who also was former chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Gregory Simon, the chief domestic advisor to former Vice President Al Gore; Haley Barbour, political affairs director in the Reagan White House and former chair of the Republican National Committee; and James Curtiss, who served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"Abraham attributed his Yucca Mountain recommendation to compelling national interests, but he should have said compelling special interests," Hauter said. "No wonder they call it nuclear power."

wj wrote on January 17, 2008 3:31 PM:

Anonymous,

I see your point about how open caucuses combined with union strong-arming could undermine democratic transparency. I myself don't agree with the premises of caucusing, and think it is a backward and inefficient procedure for choosing a nominee.

But I believe that the State Democratic Party of Nevada has chosen, for better or for worse, this method. And I believe, also, that the at-large caucus sites were implemented *precisely* to allow hospitality industry workers--many of whom are Latinos/as--to have a say during the process, however imperfect it may be.

I also think that the lawsuit was obviously brought forward in bad faith. The formal procedures of the caucuses were public knowledge for many months, and no one claimed that providing *extra* sites for *some* voters--many of whom are economically and socially disadvantaged--would serve to disenfranchise *other* voters. If the lawsuit were serious, it would propose opening other at-large sites so as to allow teachers, etc. to participate near the place of their employment. That the lawsuit did not attempt this is prima facie reason for thinking it was a last-ditch political maneuver.

mick wrote on January 17, 2008 3:33 PM:

I sure hope the knee-jerks don't vote if they are that easily swayed.Open your eyes and never believe campaign surrogates,the rest of us are counting on you. ouy

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 3:35 PM:

Fact Checking Hillary out to be fun, and then Fact Check Bill. But this close to the election this 'oldie but goodie' works in NV where folks sucked up the bomb dust from nuclear tests.

LOL!!

It was a dirt attack that had not been studied and Obama should have anticipated this attack and been ready with a spot ad to refute the claim and capitalize on the issue.

markg8 wrote on January 17, 2008 3:35 PM:

Exelon is the name of the former electrical utility called Commomwealth Edison in IL. of course anyone working for them is going to donate to the local guy, Obama. That doesn't mean he's going to ship nuclear waste to NV anymore than any other Dem will. This is a cheap Hillary attack.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 3:40 PM:

To markg8 wrote on January 17, 2008 3:35 PM:

"This is a cheap Hillary attack."

Nope! It is a 'tried and tested and effective' attack, and the voter response in NV is that they will punish with their votes anybody connected to the issue of promoting opening Yucca.

hadenough wrote on January 17, 2008 3:44 PM:

LOL

"He said that he has spoken with Obama on the subject, and that while Obama does have links to the energy industry — Illinois is a coal state, and also has an extensive nuclear power infrastructure — he is confident that Obama would make the best decisions for the whole country and oppose the Yucca dump."

obama: trust me

LOL even more.

It's mourning in America.

obama, largest recieptent of big pharma cash, national co-chair is a lobbyist and big time donor is an energy lobbyist, says trust him. Who does obama think he is, ronald reagan?

bm wrote on January 17, 2008 3:44 PM:

There is a very simple rule
Dont believe anything the Compulsive liars , the Clintons, say at any time

Mike wrote on January 17, 2008 3:50 PM:

And it seems like only yesterday the candidates were pandering to corn farmers.

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 3:52 PM:

Obama, who has based his campaign on the corrupting influence of corporate donors, insists that he, of course, cannot possibly so corrupted himself. Why, he assures us of this his very self!

Vote Obama! Pay NO attention to the hypocrisy behind the curtain!

Gnopple wrote on January 17, 2008 3:52 PM:

What strikes me as odd about this line of attack is that Clinton is clearly stating that a candidate is truly beholden to his/her campaign donors.

True or not, she is the LAST person to be making such a charge. I would think Obama's response would be to point out that this proves that Hillary CANNOT think or act on her principles, but rather on the behest of her donors.

It's a weird assertion for her to make.

Mike wrote on January 17, 2008 3:54 PM:

I agree with frankly0. Obama's hypocrisy is outrageous. Vote Hillary; she doesn't hide the fact she's a corporate stooge.

TEL wrote on January 17, 2008 3:57 PM:

Having worked on environmental restoration at DOE for several years, this is an issue I know a little bit about. Like it or not, since the 1980's Yucca Mountain is the only site that's been considered as a nuclear waste repository (the other 2 sites were taken off the list, having better political connections). Like it or not, there are thousands of minimally or unprotected sites that currently contain nuclear waste. In fact, there is so much nuclear waste that all of the storage capacity for Yucca Mountain has been spoken for. And the general public is terrified at the very idea that some of that waste might get into the food/water chain - in fact some of it already has (Hanford being one of the best-documented cases).

There is no site anywhere that will satisfy everyone - NIMBY, indeed.

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 4:03 PM:

Vote Hillary; she doesn't hide the fact she's a corporate stooge.

She argues that she may accept money from corporate donors, but she can readily resist them.

It's Obama who claims that just can't be done, and criticizes her for it.

Problem is, Obama is now being hoist on his own petard here. How is he going to argue that such donors have no influence over his decision? Only by being a complete hypocrite. Hillary's ad can be seen as simply taking him at his own word.

Problem for Obama is that this gives him no out when it comes to Yucca mountain. And right now, he really, really wants that out.

joejoejoe wrote on January 17, 2008 4:07 PM:

Hack political ad-lib: "The facts speak for themselves. While Senator _____ has consistently stood against _____, one of Senator _____'s biggest financial backers is a huge proponent of _____."

Can I subsitute "social security privatization" and "BET billionaire Bob Johnson" into this political Ad-Lib? How about "union busting" and "Mark Penn"? How about "voter suppression" and Bill Clinton?

DBX wrote on January 17, 2008 4:10 PM:

Fact is Yucca Mountain is a rotten place for a waste depository, being highly seismically active and geologically unstable, and $7 billion in studies don't alter that fact, and it's no wonder that both Obama and Hillary have disowned it.

This is another storm in a teacup, one political campaign looking for a technicality to unsettle another one just before a key election.

John Y wrote on January 17, 2008 4:25 PM:

Hillary does not want to get into who's got the most corporate donors. But in typical Rove/Clinton fashion, she attacks her rival where he's strong. Lame and tired.

When will Obama start telling people about Mark Penn consulting for - of all the evil companies, possibly the worst - BLACKWATER?? Come on dude, fight fire with fire!

Njh wrote on January 17, 2008 4:32 PM:

Obama is such a hypocrite. Why are financial contributions from big bad business only a problem when they are made to his opponents? His self- righteousness is getting really tiresome. It is now crystal clear that he does not represent a departure from politics as usual.

bob wrote on January 17, 2008 4:50 PM:

There is a difference b/t donations from people who work at a company and money from PACs and federal lobbyists.

Those of you who are so holier-than-thou should start trying to figure out what it is.

Besides, Hillary leads all candidates in contributions from the greenhouse gas spewing (unlike nuclear) oil-and-gas industry.

Drew wrote on January 17, 2008 5:01 PM:

I didn't notice Hillary able to actually point to a single vote or speech made by Obama supporting Yucca mountain. Instead, she attacks him for being from a state with a company that might support it.

I have never voted for a Republican for President, but
Hillary will never have my vote for any office; she is simply not trustworthy, and we get the government we settle for.

phil james wrote on January 17, 2008 5:14 PM:

Here we have the bought-and-paid-for Hillary pot calling the also bought-and- paid-for Obama kettle black (but not in a bad way) so isn't it really a draw and all of us will be losers if either wins. Only one candidate is not in the pockets of corporate powers, Edwards. And by the way. I know its forbidden to suggest on the eve of the NV voting that someone sometime really has to deal with the problem of nuke waste diposal, which is why it makes sense for Edwards to put a halt to nuke building until that issue is resolved if for no other reason, but I guess BO and HC can really have their cake and eat it at least in the short term.

Clinton Bush VI wrote on January 17, 2008 5:14 PM:

I will not have nuclear relations with your mountain...I never took one dime from nuclear energy lobyists...not one time, never.

waggle waggle

roo_P wrote on January 17, 2008 5:22 PM:

frankly0:

Because, of course, Obama told [Fulkerson] otherwise, when Obama has nothing to lose and everything to gain by making such a promise at this point?

So you are saying, what, that Bob freaking Fulkerson is an idiot who believes anything some politician tells him without checking into it at all?

Just like the government has been able to keep him completely in the dark about Yucca all these years?

That Bob character sure has a habit of blindly trusting people. Seriously, do you even read what you write?

Clinton Bush VI wrote on January 17, 2008 5:29 PM:

I think it's time for people to stop worrying about these totally unfounded rumors about me having nuclear relations with this mountain and start investigating the vast right wing conspiracy that is dreaming them up. And the lead character in this conspiracy is clearly Barack Obama. Unless Edwards wins in Nevada. Then it "is" him. I swear.

Waggle waggle.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 9:16 PM:

Huckabee grabbed the SC flag and Hillary grabbed the Yucca mountain...

laughing, oldies but goodies.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 10:34 AM:

Angry Vet: "Truthful? Anybody wish to back up the "thruthiness" of Clinton's ad?"

Greg already did.

Go back to reading comprehension class.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 10:37 AM:

grover_rover: "Dan, correction: A major victory for democracy and voters. Voter suppression (ie the Clinton campaign) has lost this battle, but I'm sure they'll try again and again wherever voters aren't as likely to favor them."

You are lying; it was a major victory for anti-democratic forces who wanted to give preferential treatment to a particular segment of the voting public and got it.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 10:41 AM:

hadenough: "obama: trust me"

Another similarity between the Obama campaign and . . .

Bush: "trust me"

This is what you get when politics becomes a religion with a preacher as the leader and a flock of supplicant and worshipful acolytes to drink your koolaid.

Seen it for seven years and expect to see it for as long as Obama remains in the race and beyond to his administration should he win.

Zach wrote on January 18, 2008 11:12 AM:

There’s a big choice to make on Saturday.

For years, one politician after another — including President Bush — has come to Nevada saying that Social Security's on its last legs and that we need to scrap it and start again, but they’ve all been lying.

So who will shut down debate about privatizing Social Security and make sure our seniors are always secure in their retirement once and for all?

Barack Obama.

National Public Radio says that Obama's proposed "Social Security supplement could be easily and quickly delivered to seniors, who could then buy prescription drugs."

John Edwards already gave up on Social Security, telling Fortune, "future retirees will have to fend for themselves because we've worsened the coming Social Security crisis." On our seniors, Edwards even said that he'd already "spent their money."

And Hillary Clinton? Mother Jones asked, "What on earth is Hillary Clinton doing using Johnson, the founder of BET, as a campaign surrogate?" Clinton stood silently on stage while Johnson, one of America's biggest Social Security privatization promoters, said Barack Obama's less interested in black people's problems than Hillary Clinton. Of course, Johnson thinks that Social Security's existance is a problem for black people.

So if you want Social Security to continue for good, there’s only one choice …the one the Review-Journal said – quote – "knows how to speak to individual Americans and give them the feeling he cares about their concerns."

Equally ridiculous. Equally accurate.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)