Breaking: Clinton Camp: "Obama Oil Ad a Crude Lie"

The Hillary Clinton campaign responded to Barack Obama's new ad, below, with a statement characterizing the ad as "false advertising":



Check out the ad, and after the jump, a little more of Phil Singer's memo, and we'll see just whose pants are on fire here.

WATCH VIDEO- hear the misleading Ad!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdOK4L868cI

Update: At the end of the article, the Obama campaign's response.

Singer's memo goes on to explain:





Update: Response from Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor, via email:

"Senator Obama is the only candidate in the race who doesn't accept campaign contributions from special interests PACs and Washington lobbyists, and that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists. The energy bill that Senator Clinton has already been criticized for misrepresenting -- one that Clinton supporters Representatives Murtha and Kanjorski also backed -- actually raised taxes on oil companies and made the largest investment in renewable energy in our nation's history. Instead of continuing with the negative and misleading tactics that voters everywhere are rejecting, Senator Clinton should get behind the Obama plan to ease the burden of rising gas prices on working families."

"But Obama's spokeman doesn't say, they accept contributions from Washington Lobbyists's and oil company employees and oil lobbyists wives." And that Obama's "Global Poverty Pkg" he co-sponsored asking for an additional $845 Billion in Aide would place an additional Global Tax on Gasoline"

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/03/31/clinton-camp-obama-oil-ad-is-crude-lie/

...about the company itself, board members of the company or company employees which could be the janitor?

Thx in advance

Sen Clinton doesn't deny taking contributions from Lobbyists. The difference is Obama misleads the public with his video saying:

"A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. Obama says, "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I won't let them block change anymore."

"According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar – are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company. Just last month, Sen. Obama accepted another $8,400 from ExxonMobil, $12,370 from Chevron and $6,500 from British Petroleum."

And Obama's play with words skirts the meaning of his ad. Obama does take money from Lobbyist's wives and Oil Co executives wives.. deceptive advertising.

He has received zero dollars from oil and gas companies.

The Clintons are full of crap.

Are you suggesting that Mike who pumps gas at the Mobil
station cannot donate to the candidate of his choice?

Corporations can't donate to candidates. of course, if the CEO of your corporation is a 6 figure bundler, that's a pretty good clue, right?

Exxon donates the max amount allowed to Obama through how you say, like a surrogate donation for each employee, is that the right word? Then it reverts the donation showing a donation via employee pay checks. This is a common practice and I'm sure the top candidates over the years all have done this.

Obama misleads by pretending he doesn't receive ANY moneys from Oil Companies. And it isn't a stretch for a person hearing the ad or reading it... would assume he doesn't receive any contributions whatsoever (in any shape or form) from Oil Companies. It's deceptive advertising once you know circumvention of words are in play here.

He doesn't take perks or back-scratching lobbyist deals.

Campaign contributions are a different matter.

Show us some money he's taken from the position of an acting politician rather than a candidate, and you've got some dirt, though.

Link please.

You're supposing that everyone who donates is a surrogate. Even if it's only a minority,
I don't believe you. Are you representing your company when you donate to Hillary?
Are you expecting favors for your company because of your donation?
have you and your fellow employees formed a PAC. I didn't think so.

This is a bullshit argument and you know it. How typical.

It is ILLEGAL for a corporation to make a "surrogate donation" for its employees.

A corporation may have a political action committee or PAC to influence elections. Under federal law, PACs may solicit contributions from stockholders and their family members and employees, but only employees in what are considered to be executive or administrative positions. Corporations cannot force employees to contribute to its PAC.

http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=March&artYear=2004&EntryNo=333

When individuals make contributions, they must report their profession and employer, but that may or may not mean that the person would agree with the political agenda of their employer. I can assure you that when I worked for a major bank, the politicians I supported would not be the ones that my employer's PAC (which I refused to contribute to) supported.

You can look at both the Clinton and Obama campaigns' finances here:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

So what else is new.

:shrug:

How does he propose to do that when his "Global Poverty pkg" consisting of $845 Billion dollars in Global Aide would rely on a "Global Emission Tax" being attached to gasoline prices, raising the price of gas by a dollar?

or is he increasing their taxes? If he is behind increasing their taxes, why would they be donating to him? Do you support people who take your money?

Which is it?

And that's not new at all.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

makes Sen Clinton's Bosnia misstatement almost irrelevant seeing it happened 15 years ago?

No one cares about your desperate lies.

There is a big difference between the two. And you know it.

I used to work for a major US bank/lender. I donated to political campaigns. That does not mean my donation represented the banking industry.

Your statement:
"Except Sen Clinton doesn't deny she takes contributions from Lobbyists..and doesn't try to trick the American people with misleading advertising. Thats the difference"

Doesn't try to trick the American people with misleading advertising? Are you SERIOUS? She doesn't JUST try to TRICK them. She OUT AND OUT LIES TO THEM.

"I was against NAFTA" - FALSE. LIES. TRICKERY.
"I brought peace to Northern Ireland." - FALSE. OVERSTATEMENTS. TRICKERY.
"We landed under sniper fire..." - FALSE. LIES. TRICKERY.

Your candidate is the queen of LIES. BLATANT LIES. LIES THAT CAN BE DISPROVEN BY LITTLE BOSNIAN GIRLS AND VIDEO EVIDENCE. LIES that are self-aggrandizing BULLSHIT meant to pad her resume and trick the American people into believing she has "more experience".

And she's trying to spin another yarn here.

Go back from under the rock from which you slithered. You REEK of desperation.

And this:

"I was against NAFTA" - FALSE. LIES. TRICKERY.
"I brought peace to Northern Ireland." - FALSE. OVERSTATEMENTS. TRICKERY.
"We landed under sniper fire..." - FALSE. LIES. TRICKERY.

Hillary was against NAFTA... Bill was president at the time.

The Irish government has stated Sen Clinton was a key element in helping to bring Peace to Ireland. I suppose you forgot about that or it doesn't count in your eyes.

A happening 15 yrs ago is hardly quantifiable compared to Obama's current advertising deceptions.

...told that wasn't the story.

Even though for me it wasn't a big deal I can see why this presents a credibility issue to some.

I think also she would've remembered if she was being shot at, I surely do and it's scary as hell.

SHE WAS FOR NAFTA - as is demonstrated by her schedule as first lady. Attendees from the meeting stated, for the record, that she attended, was the featured guest, and spoke in favor of NAFTA. Too bad there's not video tape of that too. So you have a choice when it comes to this fairy tale:

1) She was FOR NAFTA. Promoted it. Convinced others to support it. AND NOW IS LYING ABOUT HER PREVIOUS POSITION.
OR
2) She was against NAFTA. And, compromising her own beliefs in what is right for our nation, promoted it because she is a good little wifey?

Which one? It's one or the other.


She was not a key element in helping bring peace to Northern Ireland. She was a fucking cheerleader. She was the President's wife. Lord Magillin, who was head of the Good Friday Peace Accord, practically laughs at the suggestion Hillary had anything to do with No. Ireland peace. And the BBC SHREDDED her over it. LINK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7310000/newsid_7313500/7313536.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&bbcws=1


The Bosnia story is not something that happened 15 years ago. She lied about it last month. And the month before that. And the month before that. She DELIBERATELY lied to pad her own resume. It's not about the event itself. It's that she's a LIAR and is UNTRUSTWORTHY and will say and do anything to get elected.



So what has Obama lied about exactly? Obviously this "taking money from oil companies" story is YET ANOTHER LIE from the CLINTON campaign. What else you got? Face it, after the Bosnia lie, all you guys are trying to do is show, using the weakest of evidence, that Barack is "just as bad" as Hillary. WRONG. FAIL.

BRAVO!

...when I donate to BO or HRCs campaigns.

You are grasping at straws in an attempt to "prove" that something is false when it isn't. This is a positive ad that states Barack's position clearly and does nothing to detract from Hillary's position in any way.

What the fuck is your problem?

From anyone with a controlling interest in the company. This includes certain stockholders, even if they are not on the board. The decision to return contributions are often based on SEC standards, basically anyone with enough control to be flagged should they make a sudden stock dump would not be acceptable.

seems like the article itself is sending a message of 0bama's "crude" misleading tactics..

I have worked for a lot of campaigns and his is the most transparent campaign I have ever worked for. Period.

:toast:

Heidi Fleiss, former Hollywood madam. "I'm a big fan of Hillary's." Aug. 20, 2007.

Jenna Jameson, porn star. "I love Hillary." May 17, 2007.

O.J. Simpson, former pro football player. "Her whole life all she's ever done is try to help people...Yeah, she's got my vote." Aug. 3, 2007.

Martha Stewart. "I think would do a wonderful job." Dec. 10, 2005.

If you're splitting hairs for supporters and donors!

Thanks for the kick anyway..

I would say...Fitzgerald has 'special interest' in Rezko...and his campaign contributions to Obama.



Thanks for the post! K&R!

Excepting donations from workers that work at an oil company does NOT equal taking money from an oil company.

...else is stupid and can't fact check.

I think it was slate that said the Clinton and McSame campaigns are totally ignoring the power of the internet tubes.

...means in the context and not call the guy a bold faced liar.

To say that BO is accepting money from oil companies that have donated illegally doesn't lend credit to a persons positions for or against a candidate.

parse facts to support bullshit claim. Penn now states he knows exactly how many angels fit on head of pin.

pretending he's proposing "Universal Health Care" when his proposal leaves 17 million people uninsured.

kicking and screaming.. it's getting sad.

Accepting donations from a company means from the company, not from people who work there.

he has clean hands?

He has taken zero money from oil companies.

...least but it's the way FAUX news et al operate knowing 90% of America can't fact check to the depth needed to negate false claims.

She thought no one would look at those links either, but we did. :)

We all called her on the WND link, and even Tellurian lied about it on the replies - TRYING to point us to the Senate link when we aren't stupid and saw that paragraph.

Hawkeye-X

You know when a campaign is reduced to using Accuracy In Media and WorldNetDaily that things are just about over and done with. :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

K&R

I say hit her with a NAFTA attack ad saying she was at all the meetings.

It's on.

Rather surprising he set himself up with such a dishonest TV ad. Has he run out of ways to make himself look good on issues?

She's a proven liar.

Meanwhile, Obama continues his road to the White House.