Obama is really a politician folks, just like HRC....

[WCGreen]

Read this article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


"When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause."


Sounds good now doesn't it...


"A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate."



Read the whole article...

I'm not saying this to belittle Obama, but people should know that he is not above saying one thing while doing another....

Nor is he above collecting money from people who work for large corporations who will ask for favors on occassion...

It's the nature of politics...

They all do it...

Obama is really just another politician who happens to be more charismatic than the others in the race...

I see the vision thing and the idealism of the people who support him so vehemently, but I just don't think anyone should be put on such a high pedestal...

They only have that much further too fall...

[TwilightGardener]

1. Yep, just a politician. He ended up compromising. Disappointing, but

probably most of their Senate legislation ends up going that way--and so much of it never even comes to a vote.

[WCGreen]

2. The Senate, even more than the House, is built on compromise...

Just the whole article points out that Obama is a really deft politician and know that perception is the true reality...

[billbuckhead]

5. Didn't Rove say something very close to that

I'm so sick of people who want to distort reality and :+bama reeks of that.

[Straight Shooter]

11. Rove basically said that he wants the visual message to come through even if the volume is off.

Thus the ridiculous charade of bush prancing like a prince across the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln, with his hair dyed just right, the wind blowing his soft tresses in the breeze, the perfectly lit backdrop of the ocean due to the carrier being delayed and turned just right in the water.

Yes, Rove believes imagery is everything, that style trumps substance. Thank goodness we don't have any of that on the Democratic side. Democrats would never fall for such chicanery. :eyes:

[Seeker30]

16. Compromising?

Please explain this from the article:

-----------------
Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.
------------------

If this was Hillary you guys would be bitchin a storm.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. He is a politician indeed...

But I believe that the vision thing is important for the country right now...

Vision can propel us into the important changes that we need made in our name...

Don't you agree?

K&R

[DiamondJay]

4. All politicians are..

POLITICIANS! I hate it when people who talk politicians are like "i wanna vote for him, he's not a politician like the rest of them" Ummm if you are running for office, YOU ARE A POLITICIAN.

[ugdude]

6. Does he steal other peoples credit like she does?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4346457&mesg_id=4346457

If so, please tell me where.

[BootinUp]

9. Do you believe everything you read on the internets? nt

[CreekDog]

7. He certainly is. A better one at that! n/t

:hi:

[HughMoran]

8. Nope, he's a god

I don't care what anybody says :P

[TexasObserver]

10. Yeah, but people Like him.

[Triana]

12. Obama supports liquid coal and nuclear energy as

alternative energy sources.

This is one thing in his policies I DO NOT like.

Coal is FILTHY and polluting and nuclear is DANGEROUS. He's been bought by some energy concerns obviously. Pandering.

Wanna talk about ISSUES? There's one for you.

[Hekate]

13. Ran for Illinois legislature: check. Served there: check. Ran for US Senate: check...yep, he's a pol

...Yep, he's a politician all right. Why, he's even running for US President. How dast he?

Hekate

[ErnestoG]

14. Facile cynicism is a bore now, don't you think?

How about some positivity for a change? I know some politicians who actually are idealists. And I'll bet you could find some too, if you wanted to.

[WCGreen]

15. Over the years I have...

I just wanted to point out that Obama is an ambitious poltician whom his handlers seem to be trying to soften that image by tossing all those textured words that make one feel something good will come of it...

[ErnestoG]

17. Flipping boogers at all politicians is just plain facile.

There are good ones, there are bad ones. It takes THINKING to discern between the two.

[Big Blue Marble]

18. Yes, Yes, Yes, He is a politician.

And if he pulls off this nomination and pull off winning in November. We and everyone else will be saying that
he is one of the best politicians of our lifetime.

[VotesForWomen]

19. absolutely; if he wasn't, he would have gone the way of kucinich and edwards a long time ago. if ob

if obama folks knew that he was just another pol, but still supported him because of x,y, and z, i could give them some credit, but there are so thoroughly deluded with this 'transformational, inspirational, hope, change, unity...' etc. stuff that they can't be taken seriously.

[sandnsea]

20. And the NY Times told WMD Lies too

Just like they're spinning now.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
Fact Check on New York Times Story
February 02, 2008

RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT OBAMA'S REVISED BILL DID NOT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF LEAKS

NYT: "In Place Of Straightforward Reporting Requirements Was New Language Giving The Nuclear Commission Two Years To Come Up With Its Own Regulations. "In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission 'shall consider'--not require--immediate public notification."


REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONS THAT THE REVISED BILL, LIKE THE ORIGINAL, REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC LEAKS AND THAT THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THAT REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MADE THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS.

National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'"


REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONED THAT THE REVISED BILL ACTUALLY STRENGTHENED THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO SPECIFY THAT "IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION" SHOULD MEAN 24 HOURS

Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations."

Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'"



RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT THE REVISED BILL COULD ALLOW THE NRC TO DECIDE THAT EXISTING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WERE ALREADY SUFFICIENT

NYT Implied That The Revised Bill Left Open Possibility That Revised Bill Allowed NRC To Adopt Task Force Finding That Reporting Requirements Were Already Sufficient. "


REALITY: THE REVISED BILL, LIKE ITS ORIGINAL VERSION, MANDATED NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations."



RHETORIC: NYT REPORTED THAT EXELON AND NUCLEAR ENERGY WERE SATISFIED WITH TH BILL AND NO LONGER OPPOSED IT

NYT: Exelon And NEI Were Satisfied With The Revised Bill And No Longer Opposed It. "In interviews last week, representatives of Exelon and the nuclear commission said they were satisfied with the revised bill. The Nuclear Energy Institute said it no longer opposed it but wanted additional changes."


REALITY: BOTH EXELON AND THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE DID NOT SUPPORT THE REVISED BILL AND SAID THEY BELIEVED IT WAS NOT NECESSARY

CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'"

NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said."

NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'"

[WCGreen]

21. Sorry my friend, it's not about the bill...

It's about the process...

And just because someone mentions or posts something about your candidate, you shuld not take it so personally...

You really have no idea where I stand, except that I was once vocal for Edwards...