Obama lied to voters... On the take from Nuclear Industry... (NY T imes)

[CONN]

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.
<snip>
He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
<snip>
The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.

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.

John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon and also of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group, has been an Obama donor.

Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon.


U.S. / POLITICS | February 3, 2008
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
By MIKE McINTIRE
An Illinois controversy pitting two important constituencies against each other put Barack Obama’s legislative skills to the test.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?ex=1202706000&en=9b90278942ace89a&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. I have a VERY personal connection to this... My brother, S-I-L, 2 nieces and nephew LIVED THERE!

Clinton supporters, please keep this thread KICKED!

Here's what I posted about it at the time:

in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-14-06 08:20 PM
Original message

Have you read about the Exelon Nuclear plant spilling the chemical Tritium

and it seeped into the water of the citizens of Godley, Illinois? It's made National Headlines. I have a very PERSONAL connection to this story. My sister-in-law grew up there. She had twin girls from a previous marriage who grew up there and were always sick. My brother married her when the twins were 4 and they now have a 7 year old son. They moved from Godley 5 years ago because their home burned down. Who would ever think THAT was a blessing in disguise? My sister-in-law works for the village of Godley (city clerk), population 600. She's worked there forever and has a ton of inside information on this scandal. She is the one who meets with the Exelon/ComEd higher ups, the IEPA, the NRC the journalists from the NYT, AP, Chicago and locals. She is at EVERY meeting they have on this DISASTER.

Exelon has contaminated Godley's water with Tritium. MANY of the wells are very shallow and they have a high water table because of the sand in the soil. There was a HUGE front page article in my local paper today about a Godley lady who started looking at her neighbors and asking a LOT of questions about their tumors, body rashes, sick children who were never sick until they moved to Godley, Lymphoma, babies with tumors, dogs with tumors, cats that were healthy one day and dead the next, dogs having convulsions/seizure, one lady has a field mouse in her freezer because it had NO LEGS, NO TEETH and ONE EYE, one little girl had NO ENAMEL on her teeth and so much more. Exelon leaked the Tritium years ago and covered it up. Last April, 2005, my S-I-L was at a town meeting where a nuclear plant activist released the information to the entire room, in front of cameras and reporters and THAT is how this info made it out. They still did NOTHING about it. It has taken this long to get this story noticed.

My Rep, (Repuke, Jerry Weller) USELESS PIECE OF SHIT THAT HE IS, knew about this YEARS ago and did NOTHING. A couple of weeks ago the fact that he knew about it and did nothing was exposed in our local paper. I just talked to my s-i-l and she said Weller sent a LETTER to their last meeting. He's now saying the people of Godley should have a new water system and EXELON should pay for it, but that was all he had to say. My s-i-l said she had to give him credit for THAT and I had to clue her into the fact that it's "cover his ass time" because he had been exposed a couple of weeks ago because he knew and did nothing. She didn't know anything about that. She talked to Obama, in person, last week and he and Durbin (co-sponsor) are on this. I think she said they were going to introduce some kind of legislation on it very soon and she gave me no specifics.

update today...February 3, 2008....: THIS IS WHAT YOUR ARTICLE IS REFERRING TO!

Also, back in 2000, Exelon dumped DIESEL FUEL in a drainage ditch and told NO ONE! Someone in Godley was smelling something funny and walked across the street and there it was...a ditch FULL of Diesel Fuel! My sil said Exelon first said it was just 50 gallons. Then it was 500 gallons. NOW, they are admitting to dumping 5000 GALLONS of diesel fuel in that drainage ditch. Some people in Godley, to this day, have an oily film on their water! 6 YEARS LATER!!!!!

People have taken TRITIUM baths, drank it, cooked with it, given it to their pets and their children in their baby bottles!!! Can you imagine? So, guess what Exelon does. They invite the people of Godley to go to their wonderful nuclear plant to "see what it's all about." They had trinkets to hand out, a CLOWN for the kids, the biggest buffet my sil has ever seen, and were trying their best to BRIBE the people. As soon as the head honcho saw my sil walk in..he told other people and she was FOLLOWED the entire time she was there. She REFUSED to take any of their damn bribes or food.

I told her tonight SHE NEEDS TO LOOK OVER HER SHOULDER! These people are evil and are capable of anything. She said she had already thought about that and was constantly watching those around her. She KNOWS who she's dealing with. They are still denying the fact that Tritium is dangerous and cancerous. Tritium cannot be boiled out of the water. Purification systems cannot remove it either. Tritium IS water with an extra molecule (I think that's what I read)? H3O. It will never go away. Their water will have to come from another city if Godley remains Godley. I don't know....if it was me? I'd be outta there YESTERDAY.

One very young couple who just moved there with their INFANT and 2 year old were NEVER TOLD ABOUT THE TRITIUM by the real estate agent! They spent $6000 on a purification system only to learn it was a waste of money because it will never remove the Tritium from the water.

See how these people operate? They don't give a rats ass about the people of Godley. All they care about is their corporate reputation, $$$$$$, and keeping this story covered up. Oh, oh, oh!....I almost forgot...Exelon has agreed to buy bottled water for the people of Godley and the surrounding area. :eyes: Today my sil had to go door to door to do a head count in each home to give to Exelon because they refused to do anything until they had THAT info. :eyes: Also, there's a horse farm affected by this...30+ horses! Exelon will be supplying water for them too. So GENEROUS, eh? Are they going to buy bottled water for the citizens of Godley FOREVER, or what?

I was just HEARTSICK when I read this article today. My brother and his entire family have been exposed to that chemical. I'm hoping they join in a class action lawsuit and it looks VERY LIKELY one will be filed. G-d only knows what their futures hold. :(


And don't forget about His Yucca Mountan flip-flop.

Here's what I posted about that the other day, and of course it was completely IGNORED:

THEN:




His future opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, is a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and she was present at the hearing. Her position on the matter was clear and unequivocal: "Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent fuel from our nation's nuclear reactors."

It is a position she has maintained for many years. Indeed, she voted against the authorization of the development of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain on 9 July 2002. She also issued a press release after she cast that courageous vote.

Obama also had the opportunity to oppose the nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain in 2002, when the Illinois state Senate considered an instrument entitled Illinois State Senate Resolution 342 on 18 APR 2002. According to the synopsis, SR0342 "urges Congress to sustain President Bush's affirmative decision on Yucca Mountain's suitability as a permanent federal repository for high-level radioactive materials." Although Obama was present when the bill was considered on the floor of the Illinois state Senate, he did not voice any objections. As a result, SR0342 was adopted with the unanimous consent of Barack Obama and the entire Illinois state Senate. I quote the relevant passages on page 26 of this transcript of the proceedings of the Illinois state Senate:




Illinois state Senator Barack Obama had two opportunities to engage in a discussion on SR0342, but he remained silent. And he remained silent until 30 OCT 2007, when for political reasons the aspiring President informed Senators Boxer and Reid that he believed "the time for debate on this site is over." But what of the two opportunities he had to debate the Yucca Mountain resolution he and the Illinois state Senate adopted with unanimous consent in April 2002? Was not April 2002 the time for vigorous debate on President Bush's recommendation? Hillary Clinton certainly thought so. Obama, on the other hand, did not, for it was not politically expedient for the Illinois state Senator to oppose George Bush and the nuclear energy lobby of Illinois: his bid for the Presidency was not yet on the horizon, and Obama would have to rely on Illinois special interests such as Exelon, the atomic energy giant that donated $74,350 to Obama in 2004, in order to raise funds for his US Senate bid.
But even more troubling is the $181,000 Obama has accepted from Exelon since he announced his Presidential bid. How can Obama protect Nevadans from the nuclear power lobby when he is financially beholden to the special interests who desire to dump their radioactive toxic waste at Yucca Mountain?

http://mydd.com/story/2008/1/17/222449/626


And NOW:

Here is the full letter:

October 30, 2007



Dear Leader Reid and Chairman Boxer:



I understand that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is holding a hearing on October 31 entitled, "Examination of the Licensing Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository," at which Senator Reid is scheduled to testify. I know both of you have been working on this issue for many years, so I am writing to share my perspective on the issue given its importance to my home state of Illinois. Although I am no longer a member of the EPW Committee, I respectfully offer the following views and ask that they be included as part of the hearing record. Separately, I will be submitting questions for the hearing witnesses.



Given the nation's rising energy demand and the serious problems posed by global climate change, we need to increase the use of carbon-free energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. But we cannot deny that nuclear power is – and likely will remain – an important source of electricity for many years to come. How we deal with the dangerous byproduct of nuclear reactors is a critical question that has yet to be resolved.



As you may know, Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors – more than any other state in the country. Nuclear power provides more than 50 percent of the electricity needs of Illinois. Where and how we store spent nuclear fuel is an extremely important issue for my constituents. Currently, in the absence of any alternative, spent nuclear fuel generated by Illinois' reactors is stored in Illinois.

In 1987, Congress attempted to reach a national solution to the storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste by abandoning the scientific consideration of a wide range of possible sites and instead unilaterally imposing a final decision to focus only on Yucca Mountain, Nevada. During the past 20 years, over the strong opposition of the people of Nevada, billions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers and ratepayers in the construction of this location. Millions of dollars have been spent on lawsuits, and hundreds of millions more will be spent in the future if the Department of Energy fails to meet its contractual obligations to nuclear utilities.



Proponents suggest Yucca Mountain will not be ready to accept spent fuel shipments for another 10 years; more realistic prognostications suggest we are at least two decades from Yucca Mountain accepting shipments.



Legitimate scientific questions have been raised about the safety of storing spent nuclear fuel at this location. With regard to Yucca Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences maintains that peak risks might occur hundreds of thousands of years from now. In 2004, a federal court questioned whether standards developed by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Yucca Mountain repository were sufficient to guarantee the safety of Nevadans.



Questions also have been raised about the viability of transporting spent nuclear fuel to Nevada from different locations around the country. Although it would seem to serve the interests of Illinois – and other states with nuclear reactors – to send our waste to another state, transporting nuclear waste materials poses uncertain risk. In fact, since a large amount of this spent fuel would likely travel by rail, this is a serious concern for the people of Chicago, which is the transportation hub of the Midwest.



Because of these safety issues and the unwavering opposition from the people of Nevada and their elected officials, there is strong reason to believe that many more billions of dollars could be expended on Yucca Mountain without any significant progress in moving towards a permanent solution to the problem of where to store spent nuclear fuel.



For these reasons, I believe that it is no longer a sustainable federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered as a permanent repository. Instead of re-examining the 20-year licensing process and the billions of dollars that have already been spent, the time has come for the federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Among the possible alternatives that should be considered are finding another state willing to serve as a permanent national repository or creating regional storage repositories. The federal government should also redirect resources toward improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country until a safe, long-term solution can be implemented.

Regardless of what alternative is pursued, two premises should guide federal decision-making. First, any storage option should be supported by sound science. We need to ensure that nuclear waste can be safely stored without polluting aquifers or soil and exposing nearby residents to toxic radiation.



Second, we should select a repository location through a process that develops national consensus and respects state sovereignty, not one in which the federal government cuts off debate and forces one state to accept nuclear waste from other states. The flawed process by which Yucca Mountain was selected now manifests itself as a profoundly expensive endeavor of monumental proportion.



In short, the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and it is time to start exploring new alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science. I thank you both for your leadership on this issue, and I appreciate your consideration of my views.



Sincerely,




Barack Obama
United States Senator

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/NVH...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4312155

[rodeodance]

52. It is horrible that he would mess around with people's health.

[in_cog_ni_to]

69. I know, but the almightly dollar is what's important. People and their health? Not so much.

:(

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. KICK

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. Kick

:kick:

I'm going to kick this all day.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

4. Nice thread!

[neutron]

8. GREAT TOPIC

Thank God somebody put this up.
(now I can stop spamming)

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. kick

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. kick

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. kick

:kick:

[libbygurl]

9. K & R. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. kick

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. kick

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. KICK!!!!!

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. kick

kick

[Auntie Bush]

14. Kick

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. I love how this has been ignored.

Very telling.

:kick:

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

86. YEP!

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. kick

:kick:

[fenriswolf]

24. you should check out who else poisened your family

see below.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. I suggest you read my response. Obama is a LIAR. Pure and simple. He LIED to the Iowa voters.

Period.

[file83]

17. Well, imagine that. A devious politician.

Whowouldathunkit?

[Gloria]

18. KICK--an example of Obama working with Republicans....

giving in! BIG CHANGE!!!!

[ProSense]

19. Fact Check on New York Times Story

Fact Check on New York Times Story

S.2348
Title: A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to require a licensee to notify the Atomic Energy Commission, and the State and county in which a facility is located, whenever there is an unplanned release of fission products in excess of allowable limits.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/1/2006) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: H.R.4825
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2006 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637.
Senate Reports: 109-347 COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Boxer, Barbara - 9/12/2006
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 9/25/2006
Sen Durbin, Richard - 3/1/2006
Sen Voinovich, George V. - 9/25/2006

[fenriswolf]

20. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

nice one pro sense. well how about hillbots? why you ignoring this point?

[CONN]

25. Hmmm If you read the NY Times story...

You would see that the rebuttal doesn't address the allegations.

It seems the purpose of the rebuttal is to give the ignorant the impression all is cool.

The rebuttal doesn't address the lie that he passed the bill (so what if Hillary co-sponered it).

He originally told his constituents he would help. But seems he sold out.

None of these points to addressed in this rebuttal.

[fenriswolf]

26. your right

but they show hillary is as complicent as obama is nice try. the enabler is just as guilty as the accused.

[plantwomyn]

68. But Obama is our icon of hope and

the change we can believe in. NOT.
Try and do better than "I know what you are, what am I?"

[rodeodance]

53. Obama sold out the people for campaign donations

He originally told his constituents he would help. But seems he sold out.

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. The legislation didn't pass! and Obama is the one on the take from Exelon and is the one who LIED to

the Iowa voters, not Hillary.

FACT CHECK!!!!!!!!


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.<snip>

Oh yeah....he also LIED about it passage when he was in Iowa campaigning.

<snip>

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.

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.

The Obama campaign said in written responses to questions that Mr. Obama “never discussed this issue or this bill” with Mr. Axelrod. The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill, as had concerned residents, environmentalists and regulators. It said the revisions resulted not from any influence by Exelon, but as a necessary response to a legislative roadblock put up by Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time.<snip>


Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.

http://clamshell-tvs.blogspot.com/2008/02/nuclear-leaks-and-response-tested-obama.html

IMAGINE THAT! They didn't address why he LIED to the Iowa voters!

[ErnestoG]

21. HAHAHAHAH how many times do you have to kick this non story?

Sad. Just....sad.

[fenriswolf]

22. i say we keep kicking it

after pro sense post its great irony.

[CONN]

27. Non-story??? He's not honest.

I guess some folks have made up there mind and closed it. Don't want to be bothered.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. He lied to the Iowa voters. He told them he PASSED this legislation. He did NOT. It failed. He LIED.

Kick for TRUTH.

[exchange77]

36. KICK

[rodeodance]

55. he put people's lives and health at Risk!!--and you call it a non-story!--

[fenriswolf]

23. kick for hill co sponsering the legislation.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. Kick for the LIES Obama told to Iowa voters! The legislation FAILED and he's on the take

Exelon pays him well.

[featherman]

31. Nice to see the opp research talking points magically appear today

Welcome to DU - enjoy your stay

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. So what. Many DUers have no profile. KICK to show another Obama LIE!

Only Obama supporters can not list a profile?

KICK!

[fenriswolf]

33. kick for hillaries complacency

gee this is fun

both candidates are wrong lets dig this hole as deep as it will go what do you say incognito?

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. Kick to prove Obama LIED ...AGAIN. He told Iowa voters he passed this legislation and it FAILED. He

LIED and he's the one on the take from Exelon NUCLEAR ENERGY....NOT Hillary. Hillary is NOT the issue here. OBAMA LIED to Iowa voters.

[fenriswolf]

37. kick for hillary giving obama her stamp of approval for the vote

:P

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. Kick for Obama changing the legislation for EXELON and campaign contributions.

[adapa]

38. Miss critical chunk from OP- Must read!! Re-wrote bill to for repubs & nuclar industry

"Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

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.

“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.”

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?ex=1202706000&en=9b90278942ace89a&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[in_cog_ni_to]

39. I posted that above. Yes. Obama LIED to Iowa voters and changed the legislation for Exelon and the

Obama supporters can't accept that he's a LIAR and on the take from the NASTY Nuclear company EXELON.

[rodeodance]

56. "one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money. "

[in_cog_ni_to]

85. Shhhh....don't say it too often! It may actually sink in that he's corrupt .

:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. One more TRUTH kick! Obama LIED. n/t

[fenriswolf]

42. final kick: hillary went along with it

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. Hillary isn't the one who LIED to the Iowa voters and told them he passed this legislation, when he

DIDN'T! He LIED! THAT is what this thread is about.....THE LIAR OBAMA.....That means nothing to you people?

[fenriswolf]

49. oh hay like hillary hasnt lied

and politically calulated when she supposedly "offered her hand in friendship" Hes a politician they do things for personal gain. It's very hard not to find a politician like that. To me obama seems the type to take the roll of president seriously as opposed getting another 8 years in to do some more national engineering.

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. You're the one trying to make this about Hillary and it isn't. You thought you'd get a good laugh

after prosense posted that stupid FACT CHECK that didn't quite pan out so well for her and you. This is about Obama LYING TO THE FACE OF IOWA VOTERS about Nuclear Energy legislation that he DID NOT pass. but said he did. It has NOTHING to do with Hillary, so stop trying to twist this around to fit your agenda. Obama is a liar. He changed the initial legislation after Exelon told him to and he takes HUGE $$$$$$$ from them. He's a LIAR on the take from a NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY! He also supported dumping at Yucca Mountain, but when he decided to run for prez, he FLIP-FLOPPED on that too. He's a LIAR.

[fenriswolf]

54. and hillary is a goddam liar too

so fucking what. They are all liars and they are both bought and paid for. Refute that. I'm for kucinich myself, thats where all my money is going. Yes Obama may have done some fucked up shit but so have the clintons and IMHO its better to vote for the evil you know then the evil you don't know. I'm tired of the clintons and their is nothing you can do to change mine or anybodies mind at this point. So instead of posting vigerously only about hillary maybe you should open your eyes. Stop attacking. Admit they are both flawed and get on with your life. Stop trying to make up peoples minds for them, present the information in a non biased way and let people decide for themselves. Posting shit like this with an obvious bias only turns people off.

[in_cog_ni_to]

57. Oh, you're gonna know some evil alright if Obama should, by a slim chance, win. The

MSM is just waiting to dump all the Obama garbage they have. They need to save it for the GE to knock him out. Hillary has at least been VETTED! They can't throw anything at her that she can't fight. They attacked her for YEARS and she's still standing. Obama's closet hasn't been opened to the public YET, but mark my word, it will be. You're not connected to the Chicago Machine and not have garbage in your closet.

I DID present the information and you are the one that stared the shit because it made your guy look like the liar he is. You just didn't like what I posted. TOO FREAKIN' bad. It's the TRUTH. Obama LIED to Iowa voters and told them he passed this legislation when he didn't. he also didn't tell them he is on the take from Exelon.

I came into this forum not knowing who I would vote for, UNTIL I read all the HATEFUL, MEAN and NASTY Hillary posts from Obama supporters.

[plantwomyn]

67. And he says he will get repugs to vote for him in the GE

but here is what the GOP is already putting out about him.
http://www.gop.com/media/PDFs/062007Research.pdf
Matches up with the posts premise, that many are waiting in the wings to use Obama's record against him.
Sponsoring an idea isn't the same as bringing it to fruition. Change doesn't happen through good intentions. Obama's record may look good on paper but you have to look at the RESULTS, or in Obama's case the lack thereof.

[in_cog_ni_to]

81. These people have no clue what the repukes are going to do to Obama.

If they thought the Max Cleland ad or the Howard Dean ad was bad....just WAIT!

[Triana]

43. He's a two-faced BOUGHT politician...

...just like most of 'em.

Says A, does B (depending on where his $ came from)

So much for GodBama. He ain't all that. He's not bad, mind you but he's NOT friggin God - as much as his supporters would like us to believe he is - ('cause he's SUCH a poetic speaker!)

If (some of) his poetic words are LIES what does that leave you with? Er. Another politician.

[fenriswolf]

44. same with hillary

[Triana]

46. yep. Same with all of 'em. (n/t)

[avaistheone1]

45. Obama lied again about nuclear power on 1/15/08 in Nevada

EDWARDS: But I want to go to one other subject on which the three of us differ. And that is the issue of nuclear power. I’ve heard Senator Obama say he’s open to the possibility of additional nuclear power plants. Senator Clinton said at a debate earlier, standing beside me, that she was agnostic on the subject.
I am not for it or agnostic. I am against building more nuclear power plants, because I do not think we have a safe way to dispose of the waste. I think they’re dangerous, they’re great terrorist targets and they’re extraordinarily expensive. They are not, in my judgment, the way to green this -- to get us off our dependence on oil.

WILLIAMS: Tim Russert?

CLINTON: Well, John, you did vote for Yucca Mountain twice, and you didn’t respond to that part of the question.

EDWARDS: I did respond to it. I said the science that has been revealed since that time and the forged documents that have been revealed since that time have made it very -- this has been for years, Hillary. This didn’t start last year or three years ago. I’ve said this for years now -- have revealed that this thing does not make sense, is not good for the people of Nevada, and it’s not good for America.
Which, by the way, is also why I am opposed to building more nuclear power plants.

RUSSERT: I want to pick up on that.
Senator Obama, a difference in this campaign: You voted for the energy bill in July of 2005; Senator Clinton voted against it. That energy bill was described by numerous publications, quote, ”The big winner: nuclear power.” The secretary of energy said this would begin a nuclear renaissance.
We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in this country for 30 years. There are now 17 companies that are planning to build 29 plants based on many of the protections that were provided in that bill, and incentives for licensee construction operating cost.
Did you realize, when you were voting for that energy bill, that it was going to create such a renaissance of nuclear power?

OBAMA: Well, the reason I voted for it was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy -- solar, wind, biodiesel -- that we had ever seen. And I think it is -- we talked about this earlier -- if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we’re going to have to ramp up how we’re producing energy here in the United States.
Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don’t want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.

Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn’t build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let’s see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us. C'mon Obama, you know these are the most deadly materials known to man, and that science has not discovered a way to safely store nuclear wastes after studying it for more than 50 years. That is why no insurance company will insure the nuclear industry. It is far too dangerous. Nice lie, Obama. Thanks, for passing this huge financial burden on the American people too. That's okay it got you alot of campaign dough.

OBAMA: That’s why I want to set up a cap and trade system. We’re going to cap greenhouse gases. We’re going to say to every polluter that’s sending greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, ”We’re going to charge you a dollar -- we’re going to charge you money for every unit of greenhouse gas that you send out there.” That will create a market. It will generate billions of dollars that we can invest in clean technology.
And if nuclear energy can’t meet the rigors of the marketplace -- if it’s not efficient and if we don’t solve those problems -- then that’s off the table. And I hope that we can find an energy mix that’s going to deliver us from the kinds of problems that we have right now.Obama, quit lying.
You signed the energy bill so that the nuclear industry could profit from it...and so that they would not have to meet the rigors of the marketplace. Obama, you a just another rat bastard lying politician.


RUSSERT: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, Tim, I think it’s well accepted that the 2005 energy bill was the Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill. It was written by lobbyists. It was championed by Dick Cheney. It wasn’t just the green light that it gave to more nuclear power. It had enormous giveaways to the oil and gas industries.

CLINTON: It was the wrong policy for America. It was so heavily tilted toward the special interests that many of us, at the time, said, you know, that’s not going to move us on the path we need, which is toward clean, renewable green energy. I think that we have to, you know, break the lock of the special interests. That’s why I’ve proposed a strategic energy fund, $50 billion to invest in clean, renewable energy.
How would I do that? Take the tax subsidies that were given in the 2005 that Dick Cheney wrote; take them away from the gas and oil industry. They don’t need our tax dollars to make these enormous profits.
Let’s put to work the money that we should get from the oil and gas industry, in terms of windfall profits taxes, so that we can begin to really put big dollars behind this shift toward clean, renewable, green energy.
It’s not going to happen by hoping for it. And these small, you know, pieces of puzzle that are starting to take shape around the country are not sufficient for us to break our addiction to foreign oil.

CLINTON: So that 2005 energy bill was big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy. That’s why I voted against it. That’s why I’m standing for the proposition -- let’s take away the giveaways that were given to gas and oil, put them to work on solar and wind and geothermal and biofuels and all the rest that we need for a new energy future. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you say you’re against nuclear power.
But a reality check: I talked to the folks at the MIT Energy Initiative, and they put it this way, that in 2050, the world’s population is going to go from six billion to nine billion, that CO2 is going to double, that you could build a nuclear power plant one per week and it wouldn’t meet the world’s needs.
Something must be done, and it cannot be done just with wind or solar.

EDWARDS: Well, yes, there are a lot of things that need to be done.
EDWARDS: If you were to double the number of nuclear power plants on the planet tomorrow -- if that were possible -- it would deal with about one-seventh of the greenhouse gas problem. This is not the answer.
It goes beyond wind and solar. We ought to be investing in cellulose-based biofuels. There are a whole range of things that we ought to be investing in and focusing on.
I want to come back to something Senator Clinton said a minute ago. I agree with her and Senator Obama that it’s very important to break this iron grip that the gas and oil industry has on our energy policy in this country.
But I believe, Senator Clinton, you’ve raised more money from those people than any candidate, Democrat or Republican. I think we have to be able to take those people on if we’re going to actually change our policy.
Now, what we need in my judgment is we need a cap on carbon emissions. That cap needs to come down every year. We need an 80 percent reduction in our carbon emissions by the year 2050. Below the cap, we ought to make the polluters pay. EDWARDS: That money ought to be invested in all these clean renewable sources of energy: wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels. As I said earlier, I’m opposed to building more nuclear power plants.
But I’d go another step that at least I haven’t heard these two candidates talk about. They can answer for themselves. I believe we need a moratorium on the building of any more coal-fired power plants unless and until we have the ability to capture and sequester the carbon in the ground.
Because every time we build a new coal-fired power plant in America when we don’t have that technology attached to it, what happens is, we’re making a terrible situation worse. We’re already the worst polluter on the planet. America needs to be leading by example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15demdebate-transcript.html?_r=1&pagewanted=19&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. He is such a hypocrite and LIAR. Sitting there lying while his pockets are stuffed with Exelon $$$$$

Pathetic.

[Lucinda]

50. Thanks. Bookmarking.

And a kick!

[Hekate]

58. This is very disturbing, but there's some mitigation in the article.....

> Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama’s efforts yielded any
> lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that
> “it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the
> industry.”
>
> “But of course because it is all voluntary,” Mr. Lochbaum said, “who’s to say where
> things will be a few years from now?”
<snip>

[Tarc]

61. Obama's true self come forth

What this makes clear is that Obama's approach to regulation is decidedly conservative; passing bills asking them to police themselves.

What next? Exxon monitors its own environmental and safety requirements? How bout we let Blackwater investigate their own atrocity allegations?

[Levgreee]

59. ah nevermind

[CaptJasHook]

60. And this thread helps Democrats How? nt

[avaistheone1]

62. Are we supposed to be behaving like mindless cheerleaders here?

Just sucking on whatever koolaid the candidates want to toss out.

No thank you.

[CaptJasHook]

66. No but I was raised not to call the call the kettle black

Besides, why do the Rethuglican's work for them? Unless, you ARE a rethuglican.... Hmmmmm. Not much difference these days. Looks like people are trying their best to sort out who is the least Rethuglican-lite.

Muhahahha

[Didereaux]

63. bookmarked and r'd

[disndat]

64. Let's see which team

Al Gore will join, or, maybe, a pox on both houses.

[rateyes]

65. A simple search of the Federal Election Commission website

shows that Exelon, and John Rowe have also given significant campaign donations to Hillary Clinton, and others, including both Democrats and Republicans. And, as far as contributing to presidential campaigns, John Rowe, according to the FEC website has only given to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

www.fec.gov Do your own search, and follow the money.

[BigD_95]

70. wow

somehow main stream media doesnt talk about this or anything negative about him

[ProSense]

71. Hillary co-sponsored Obama's nuclear bill after it was revised

Hillary co-sponsored Obama's nuclear bill after it was revised

[obamaforpresident008]

72. awesome video!

hey guys check this vid out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8vO2BA37HY

[AllyCat]

73. See why I said Clobama are not environmental candidates?

And Clinton doesn't know anything about her husband's deal with a businessman in Kazakhstan with a uranium deal either (which then netted his foundation a handsome sum from said businessman).

Neither one of these two is going to stop our dependence on any fossil fuels of any kind.

I'm so disgusted with our TWO left from 8 choices for this stupid primary. We had other really good candidates and we are left with the bottom of the barrel. Nice.

[rambler_american]

74. Obama is not my first choice

Indeed he is about fifth and only that because all of the others that I supported have left the race. But I have an idea. Let's see how much dirt we can find on the two remaining candidates so as to save the Republicans time doing research.
My God! why do Dems continuously trash their own. For all his flaws, and as I said before, he is not my first choice, and for all Hillary's flaws, and those have already been cited ad nauseaum on these pages, our own candidates are not the effing enemy.
We have two candidates left and we seem to be putting our energies into trashing them when the whole point of this exercise is to defeat the goddamn republics. I will wholeheartedly support whomever is our nominee even though neither is my first, second, third or even fourth choice.
You'd rather have McCain than either Hillary or Obama?

[flyarm]

77. so are you saying we should ignore what our own are doing..even if it gives our families cancer say?

have we all not bitched about Pelosi here or Harry Reid because they have not done jack shit about the repigs in this white house??

have we not all at one time or another bitched here because the dems have not done a thing about the repigs discarding the rule of law? or stopping the war..what we sent them to washington to do..??


do we just let all our kids run around wild because we are democrats..or do we try to have some semblance of values and principles and rule of law..

here all this time i thought we stood for something..and now you are telling us all here..repigs should not break our code of ethics and values and principles.....but Dem's can do it..just don't air it on the clothes line..


wow..i am astonished..and dismayed...and disgusted.

fly..who is close to now leaving the dem party because of people..just like you.

[in_cog_ni_to]

82. Well, he DID put is $$$$$ from Exelon Nuclear company ahead of my family, did he not?

This is more than political. It's personal.

[CONN]

88. I'd rather have a clean Democrat...

I'd feel better if Obama was open and honest. We already have a guy in the Whitehouse who can't admit mistakes...

[balantz]

75. "We can let them poison our nation!"

"We can look the other way and lie!"

"We can take their money!"

"YES WE CAN!"

[flyarm]

76. i posted this all day yesterday,..and the Obama ipod kids chose to ignore it..

like they ignore Rezko ..etc..they are becoming like a cult and personally turning me off big time..now they post over and over how they don't want to pay for their own insurance..they think you and i should continue to support their insurance without contributing to their own health insurance..seems these little spolied brats want you and i to take over where their mommy and daddy left off..

well no thanks..i will not support their sorry asses!!

and they don't care a whit about all the promises Obama made about health care in Illinois and didn't produce..or the lies he told his constitutiants about the nuclear waste seaping into their water system..

Obama is a liar..he puts all this flowery stuff up there and then follows through on nothing...or lies and tells people he did what he did not do..

Obama lied ..directly lied to the people of Iowa..

that is a fact.

some of where i posted this yesterday..


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4370143&mesg_id=4370641

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4370143&mesg_id=4370583

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4374579&mesg_id=4375172



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22971762 /
Nuclear leaks, response tested Obama in Senate
His legislation is re-made after objections from industry, regulators
By Mike McIntire

updated 12:37 a.m. ET, Sun., Feb. 3, 2008
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.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”


snip:
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.



snips:

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.


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.




from

fly who researches each and every candidate before i give them my support.

Obama fails miserably. He said he took no lobby or pac money..he is full of shit..

hillary is not much better but she didn't ;ie about it..she has never said she took no lobby money..

oh and do remember the group that is up on the Rezko case also involves building Nuke plants in Iraq..

seems our little Obama is up to his eyeballs in Nuke shit..

no thanks..i will pass..hell i amy be passing on both of them


this is why Edwards was my candidate..i could not support either of these crooks!

oh and just because my candidate suspended his camp..does not mean i will support crooks..because they have a "d" behind their name..

i have my values and they are not for sale to the highest bidder.

[Didereaux]

78. k/r'd

[CaptJasHook]

79. Repuglicans like it when Dems smear each other

They can just kick back and enjoy the show.

Both candidates have skeletons. ALL candidates have skeletons. Presidential politics requires money, DUH. Why do you think Kucinich and Edwards are no longer in the race??????

Welcome to KKKarl's world. You fit right in.

Can we move on to the real issues, now?

[Hekate]

80. Ain't that the truth. Still, it's sad to see our shiny new guy get tarnished. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

83. Welcome to KKKRove's world? My family was poisoned by Exelon. Obama take $$$$ from them, the

legislation he LIED about and said he passed was to make Exelon and other Nuclear companies, alert the families in the surrounding areas of whether they have Tritium leaks and I'm being compared to KKKRove? Shouldn't you be comparing Obama to KKKRove? He's the one who's on the take. He's the one who LIED about the legislation to the Iowa voters and he's the one who would rather line his pockets with Exelon money than take care of the HUMAN BEINGS being poisoned by Exelon! He's also the one who supported dumping Nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain UNTIL he decided to run for President!

[in_cog_ni_to]

84. kick for those who missed this yesterday!

:kick:

[balantz]

87. Funny how some of these threads disappear.