Newsweek’s 20 pt Poll as Bait & Switch, a Tale of Obama, GE and Nuclear Energy

[McCamy Taylor]

I expect that most Obama supporters with a serious internet habit have logged onto the Newsweek website tonight to see this:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721/page/1

The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide.

Everybody loves good news, even if no one really believes the good news. We all like to talk about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, too. All afternoon on MSNBC, a GE owned network, the pundits have been talking about this poll and not other polls, like:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama leads Clinton nationally 46% to 41%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106630/Gallulp-Daily-Clinton-Moves-Within-Points-Obama.aspx

Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows a tightening of the national Democratic race, with Barack Obama now holding just a 3-percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton, 47% to 44%.

Now, keep in mind that though Newsweek is nominally independent of General Electric, it has a symbiotic relationship with GE's MSNBC and NBC, with its reporters regularly appearing on GE's TV news networks and its stories and polls featured on GE's channels. You can even see the MSNBC logo on their site. So, when I see a General Electric affiliated journal issue a poll like the one above, and I see General Electric pundits promote it as reliable without mentioning these other polls, it makes me think to myself GE wants Obama supporters to go read Newsweek online. And I have to ask myself Why is GE pimping its own magazine? What else is in that issue of Newsweek that the good folks at General Electric are hoping that Obama supporters will see?

So, I went to read Newsweek online to see what favorable (for GE) propaganda, Newsweek had waiting for Obama supporters. And here is what I found. Here is the Bait and Switch

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753

About how nuclear energy is so gosh darn environmentally friendly!

THE FUTURE OF ENERGY
A Renegade Against Greenpeace
Why he says they're wrong to view nuclear energy as 'evil'
By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Apr 21, 2008 Issue

Patrick Moore is a critic of the environmental movement—an unlikely one at that. He was one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, and sailed into the Aleutian Islands on the organization's inaugural mission in 1971, to protest U.S. nuclear tests taking place there. After leading the group for 15 years he left abruptly, and, in a controversial reversal, has become an outspoken advocate of some of the environmental movement's most detested causes, chief among them nuclear energy.

Can I interject two things here? One, I know that some people did not read this article. Your testimonials do not preclude the possibility that hundreds, maybe thousands of Obama supporter did read the article in the just the way that I describe, so posting "I read the poll, but I didn't read that article so your entire post is WRONG" means about as much as saying "I did not see Bhutto get shot with my own eyes, so that means she did not die". So just save it. Second , from GE’s own website:

http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/index.htm

Today, nuclear energy supplies 16% of the world's electricity, avoiding the emission of about 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year that would otherwise be generated by fossil fuel solutions, such as supercritical pulverized coal.

GE has provided advanced and sophisticated technology for nuclear energy for over five decades. Four main product lines support this capability: new reactors, nuclear fuel, reactor services and performance services.

Ok, back to Newsweek and our former environmental activist turned nuclear reactor industry spokesman. According to him, nukes don’t kill people, machetes kill people (????). And the nuclear material for the bomb at Hiroshima didn’t come from a nuclear power plant. Wow. I didn’t even know that they had nuclear power plants back then. You learn something new everyday.

Are you optimistic that there will be an aggressive move toward nuclear power in the industrial world, and in particular in the United States?
There are 32 nuclear plants on the drawing boards right now. Last year four applied for their licenses and this year we expect 10 or 11 more. That's just in the United States. There are hundreds of nuclear plants on the drawing boards around the world. This is a completely new thing: the term "'nuclear renaissance" didn't exist three years ago, and now it's a widely known term.Unfortunately, the environmental movement now is the primary obstacle here. If it weren't for their opposition to nuclear energy, there would be a lot fewer coal-fired power plants in the United States and other parts of the world today.

That last argument could be used in this way. If it weren't for the moral opposition to eugenics, there would be a lot fewer people with sickle cell anemia today.

Now, what does this load of self serving bullshit from the corporate masters at General Electric have to do with Obama supporters? In the Democratic Primary, one of the big issues is the fact that Senator Obama voted for the so called Cheney Energy bill. The Hillary camp is making much ado about oil and oil company money. There is no oil in Illinois. There are nukes. One of the Senator’s biggest donors in the past has been Exelon, a nuclear power company.

http://harpers.org/archive/2006/10/sb-a-little-bit-more-on-obama-1161881683

Exelon, a leading nuclear-plant operator based in Illinois, is a big donor to Obama, and its executive and employees have given him more than $70,000 since 2004. The Obama staffer pointed out that the senator pushed for legislation that would require nuclear companies to “inform state and local officials if there is an accidental or unintentional leak of a radioactive substance,” according to an office press release. Obama took a stand on that issue following reports that a plant operated by Exelon had leaked tritium several times over the past decade.

But Exelon is probably not entirely unhappy with Obama. At a 2005 hearing at the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, of which Obama is a member, the senator—echoing the nuclear industry's current campaign to promotes nuclear energy as “green”—said that since Congress was debating “policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable—and realistic—for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration.” He was immediately lauded by the industry publication Nuclear Notes , which said, “Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, said that he rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of ‘common sense solutions.’ And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is keeping an open mind.”

Yes, indeed, Three Mile Island was very “green”. So was Chernobyl.

“20 years after the disater, Chernobyl’s landscape reminds one of a barren planet. Even more damage was done to local residents, their bodies and minds alike. Red Cross provides them with both medical and psychological assistance. Recently, radiotion linked illnesses have increased. Please support us. Keep up your interest in Chernobyl.” Red Cross

The 2006 Energy Bill which bears the deceptive name the Cheney Energy Bill included goodies for the nuclear industry, too.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980
including

Title VI, Subtitle C
Authorization of more than $1.25 billion from FY2006 to FY2015 and “such sums as are necessary” from FY2016 to FY2021 for a nuclear plant in Idaho to generate hydrogen fuel, a boondoggle that would make a mockery of clean energy goals.

Section 625
Exemption of construction and operation license applications for new nuclear reactors from an NRC antitrust review.

Title XVII
Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of an “innovative” energy technology project, including building new nuclear power plants. Authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but if Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy could potentially cost taxpayers approximately $6 billion (assuming a 50% default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as Congressional Budget Office has estimated).

totaling $12billion in subsidies .

Now, what does this have to do with General Electric the owner of NBC/MSNBC which stumped for McCain for the Republican nominee presumably because their largest client, the US Military told them to but which also stumps for Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee?

Back to that GE-Nuclear Power website again, different page this time:

http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/whynuclear.htm

GE currently has 56 plants operating worldwide with an operating capacity of over 50 GW. The 36 BWR plants in North America alone avoid the release of as much as 185 million tons of greenhouse gases each year.

Today, GE's nuclear energy business focuses on delivering clean, safe, reliable, and affordable electricity from new reactor technology; powering reactors with advanced nuclear fuel, designed to perform for optimal results; and providing reactor and performance services committed to customer service excellence and realizing asset potential.

GE is committed to the nuclear industry and its customers. Nuclear energy is a key part of the GE portfolio; supporting existing customers and sustaining a balanced mix of base load energy techniques that can support increasing energy demand without harmful air emissions.

Nuclear power plants and nuke technology worldwide make lots of money for GE even without new sales in the US according to the Forbes article from 2001:

http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/18/0518ge.html

GE Nuclear Energy is a segment of GE Power Systems, which raked in $15 billion in revenue for the company in fiscal 2000. The parent company's sales were $129.8 billion in 2000.

And look who else will make out if nukes come back in style:

Exelon (nyse: EXC - news - people ), the largest nuclear operator in the U.S., stands to get a leg up from a nuclear comeback. The holding company, which was formed through the merger of Unicom and PECO Energy, is co-developing a design for a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) in South Africa and says it will apply for a design license in the U.S. in 2001, if it passes feasibility testing.

On May 3, Corbin MacNeil, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, testified in front of a senate committee that the PBMR, which has been used in Germany, is safe and economical, costing $125 million to $150 million for a 125-megwatt plant and $1,100 per kilowatt to construct.

The last generation of reactors cost $3,500 per kilowatt, according to Daniele Sietz, analyst at Salomon Smith Barney.

Due to its small size, the PBMR can also be constructed in 18 to 36 months, whereas large reactors take four to six years.

Exelon hopes to score an operating and construction license for the PBMR by 2003. But those projections might be jumping the gun. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process is typically two to three years, says Harvard's Weeks.

So, that is how a really phony sounding 20 point lead poll in Newsweek lead me to an article that tried to convince me that people who love Mother Earth will hurry up and build lots of nukes, which in turn has lead me to wonder if General Electric is using its propaganda organs, NBC, MSNBC and the rest to stump for Barack Obama, because Obama is the man to know if you want to see nuclear energy replace oil as the energy of choice in this country.

Now, this may be all just wishful thinking on General Electric’s part. However, I am reminded of this moment in an early Democratic debate when Edwards just said No! to nukes and Clinton said she was “agnostic” on the issue until they were cleaned up and the issue waste was resolved and Obama sounded a message of Hope for the nuclear energy industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdMHHIO5tQM

For more on why I am not buying messages of "hope" about nuclear energy:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0325-05.htm

UN Accused of Ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl Deaths
Doctors 'Overwhelmed' by Cancers and Mutations
by John Vidal

United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and other conditions after the Chernobyl accident, leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the run-up to the nuclear disaster's 20th anniversary next month.

In a series of reports about to be published, they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked directly to severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the world's worst environmental catastrophe.

snip

The worst nuclear accident in history took place on April 26 1986 when one of the four reactors at the Chernobyl complex 80 miles north of Kiev in Ukraine began to fail. Operators shut down the system, but a large chemical explosion followed a power surge and the 1,000-tonne cover blew off the top of the reactor. Design flaws in the cooling system were blamed for the accident, in which 31 people were killed immediately. The worst-affected area was Belarus, which took the brunt of the 4% of the 190 tonnes of uranium dioxide in the plant that escaped. Ukraine was also contaminated. Some 600,000 workers (mainly volunteers) who took part in recovery and clean-up operations were exposed to high levels of radiation; the Soviet government first suppressed news of the incident, but evacuated local people within a few days. Five million people were exposed to radiation in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, and there was a dramatic increase in thyroid cancer among children living there.

In other countries, where people think about the common good and quality work, maybe nuclear energy can work. But in a nation where everything is run with the "bottom line" in mind and employers play a cat and mouse game with federal regulators trying to break as many rules as they can without getting caught or pay fines as long as they make more money by breaking the rules and paying the fines than they would by following the rules, nuclear energy just does not make sense, because it is a technology where failure can not be an option and the rash of food poisonings and product recalls and mine disasters and airplane maintenance scandals shows that industry in this country can not be trusted. The American way of capitalism makes another Three Mile Island---or a Chernobyl--inevitable.

So, I would like to hear Sen. Obama state unequivocally that he is opposed to building more nuclear power plants in the United States, at least until fusion reactors, which should be safer and generate less long term waste are available.

And shame on GE and MSNBC and Newsweek .

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Your flaw is quoting TRACKING polls and comparing them to this new poll.

I don't really trust tracking polls. It's not to say they're wrong, but they generally show the race tighter than it really is. This, of course, has to do with the fact they're polling over a period of time and the averages are altered when a good or bad day drops off at the end of their cycle. If Obama has a really good day, where he beats Clinton by 15 points, however, the next day's sample shows Clinton up 5 and the day after that shows Obama up 3, he'll probably hold a large lead. Those numbers will impact the daily average over the course of a 4-day trend. Once Obama's good day, where he beats her by 15, drops off the rolling average, his numbers will sink. When you look at tracking polls, you can't look at ONE day, rather the trend over the course of a week or so, since that would give you a better indication of those numbers.

Now the polling you see from other companies, whether they're Gallup outside of their tracking poll, Zogby, SurveyUSA and others, they don't do daily tracking polls. Instead, they interview voters over a 3-5 day span and then average the numbers out there. This is probably a bit more scientific because it accounts for a possible anomaly in one day's polling -- something tracking polls do not, since they're on a rolling average. In fact, it wasn't that long ago Gallup released a poll outside their tracking poll which had Obama up far bigger than their tracking poll because of this very reason.

Tracking polls are nice, but they're not as reliable as other polls, which is why we don't see every firm using 'em, you know, like SurveyUSA.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. I just did this math in my head. You are saying that Obama beat Hillary by 40 pts 2 days ago?

And then say 15 points yesterday and then a measly 5 points today because that is what the two tracking polls say and the Newsweek one is a three day average?

Then the Obama supporters should be absolutely overjoyed that he was beating her by 40 pts 2 days ago. But if that is the case, they should really be worrying that the ABC debate had such a big effect....

I do not think that your explanation is making sense to me. Please explain it further.

[McCamy Taylor]

4. I did my own Google. Your argument does not make sense.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/tracking/FAQ.html

In tracking polls, the trend counts as much as or more than today's numbers. Tracking poll results reflect an overall pattern of campaign events that are unfolding day by day. This is why AllPolitics always reports the trend across a week or more, rather than just one day's numbers.

If I do what this site says and look at the trend of Gallup tracking polls I see that the trend has been for the gap between Obama and Hillary to close, therefore today's results are not flukes, they are to be expected.



Here is the daily Rassmusen report

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_democratic_presidential_primary_tracking_polling_history

Newsweek cited only a March and then this poll, so they are snapshot polls.

I see neither of the others ever approaching 20 points at any time.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. It makes perfect sense.

The gap over the past week shows Obama with a fairly solid lead.

7 days ago: 51-42 Obama
6 days ago: 49-42 Obama
5 days ago: 50-41 Obama
4 days ago: 50-40 Obama
3 days ago: 51-40 Obama
2 days ago: 50-42 Obama
1 day ago: 49-42 Obama
Friday: 47-44 Obama

The average over the last week has Obama at 49.6-42

You're looking at the trend the past two days, when you should be looking at the weekly trend, which shows Obama still doing fairly well. Now it doesn't mean Clinton won't start a trend of her own, however, since Gallup is a 4-day average, it's probable Obama's numbers dipping a bit Friday is because the 51-40 (his highest point total in the Gallup poll) rolled off the average. Clinton probably had a strong day either Wednesday or Thursday, but that'll roll off too and I expect Obama to go back up again.

This is the problem I have with tracking polls, because they rely on a day and a day can prove to be an anomaly more than anything.

[papau]

45. Ras is 4 days, Gallup in 3 days - both have about a 1000 responses - more than Newsweek's outlier

[Drunken Irishman]

5. I was using that as an example.

I didn't say it happened.

Like I said, tracking polls go on a daily average and once every 4-days one of those daily averages rolls off. Obama very well could have had an amazing day five days ago, we don't know. That's why these polls should be taken as only a small snapshot into what the trend is and why they differ greatly from stand alone polls. Daily tracking numbers should always be read in the trend NOT just one day.

[Two Americas]

9. pretty selective response there

The OP's speculative theory about the poll is a relatively minor point - and a plausible and well-reasoned one - in an excellent post.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. When the whole point of the post relies on tracking polls...

It goes beyond being a minor point. Gallup's own tracking poll was far off its national poll done back in March, which had Obama up by 15 or so, even though the tracking poll had him up 2 or 3.

[McCamy Taylor]

14. The whole point of the post is GE issues a 20 point lead for Obama after Dean tells the SD's

to pick a candidate now. At the same time that two other polls are showing the race tightening. This could create the impression that GE wants SDs to believe that Obama is riding this tremendous wave of inevitability, because hey, their 20 point poll must average out with the other two to mean that he is at least 10 or 12 points ahead, right? They do not want SDs to think that maybe there is a trend right now in the wake of Bitter-gate and the ABC News Debate of the two candidate's support among Democrats' getting closer, because then SDs might start picking Hillary instead of Obama...

...and what would happen to GE's nukes?

This has nothing to do about scientific verifiability of the polls and everything to do with GE attempting to pull another one of its bluffs on America, like when they claimed that Obama was ahead in California by some incredible amount (20 pts I think it was) on the day of the California primary by citing the most off the wall poll they could find and no other in an attempt to help Obama and discourage Hillary voters.

I suspect that the 20 point poll is a total fiction made up by propaganda writers at GE.

You can create momentum in these races by the use of bogus polls. This can lead to a few endorsements that lead more voters to say "Wow! He must be inevitable!" Or "No one else minded that bitter remark.Maybe I should not either."

The science of statistics is not the important part. The propaganda is.

[Two Americas]

34. not so

It is not the "whole point" of the post. Even if the OP's theory about the poll is wrong, the core issue here - an example of how our candidates and representatives may well be corrupted and compromised by business interests - stands, and is very solid.

I have to wonder what your reaction would be had it been Clinton that were being discussed and all of the facts were exactly the same.

[PBS Poll-435]

6. The whole point of 'tracking polls'

is to average out the anomaly.

That way...bad data is filtered out.

Survey USA doesn't use tracking polls, because they are too expensive and very few media sponsors with pay for them

[Drunken Irishman]

8. But that's the problem with tracking polls.

They only have a 4-day window and rely heavily on a certain day, which dramatically changes the numbers. Clinton or Obama can have a really good day and then go back to polling pretty mediocre, yet the dent they see in their data won't be known for a week or more. Then people use a day's worth of data to prove, either way, that there has been a major shift in the polling.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. I still dont think you even get the gist of my post, which is that GE is trying to influence the

election with propaganda so it can build nuclear reactors.

[rch35]

61. the OP is trying to say not that Obamas miraculous 20 point lead was the result of poor polling.

He is saying it was a fabrication on behalf of General Electric.

[jackson_dem]

2. Great work, as usual. I always wondered why General Electric merged with the Obama media operation

Now I know why...

[Two Americas]

10. that table again

Impeachment of corrupt politicians and war criminals who have seriously abused power and the public trust is "off the table" but nuclear power in the hands of an unregulated energy industry is "on the table."

What a party.

[sunonmars]

11. Newsweek interviewed 225 clinton supporters and 300 Obama supporters

No wonder he won, lol.

[Quixote1818]

31. Thats the point of a poll

They polled 524 people and 300 turned out to be for Obama. :shrug:

[papau]

46. The 4 day and 2 day tracking polls have 1000+ to Newsweeks 524 outlier

[Two Americas]

12. forgot to say - great work

Thanks.

k and r

[donkeyotay]

16. This restores my hope that sites like this can provide citizens a forum

that counterbalances the voice of GE, "we bring good things to war." Not a damn thing has been done to curb the corporate powers that brought us George Bush and his war. I have watched the way Obama has been catapulted to the presidency with a growing concern. One group of traditional liberal support - environmentalists - Obama designated as belonging to the past, while claiming his new politics would compromise with Republicans on causes such as the environment. I think you're right on target here with GE's interest. We should all be asking ourselves what all these defense contractors are going to do to keep their profits up if we don't expand the Iraq war into Iran.

My area of research has been health care costs. For example, our costs are running 2 to even 3 times the costs of nations with universal health care. Where does the money go? Pursuit of this question made me look at Obama's support more critically that DU in general, and it led me into some areas of banking and privatization make me question how liberal, or even how new, President Obama's policies will be.

Anyway, thanks for raising the kinds of questions that we should be asking if we don't want to just take GE's word for it this time.

Edited to add:
Wow. Came across this interesting link on depleted uranium you might find of interest, especially because Obama said James Crown of General Dynamics was the first person he went to talk to when planning on running for president.

http://memes.org/general-dynamics-ge-nbc-are-us-leading-suppliers-depleted-uranium-now-radiating-middle-eastg/general-dynamics-ge-nbc-are-us-leading-suppliers-depleted-uranium-now-radiating-middle-east

[McCamy Taylor]

33. We used to call them General Vietnamics back in the 70s. Why would be talk to them?

[donkeyotay]

55. Why, indeed. I haven't read your healthcare thread yet.

But Crown and other fascinating people are on the board of trustees that hired Michelle and tripled her salary. Crown also owns Random House, which gave him a $1.9m advance on his book. Personally, I think these book deals are improper influence, but then again, they've given everybody one. Anyway, healthcare is big bidness. In fact, I think they should call it the Disease Industry.

But back to nuclear energy. Googling general dynamics and general electric gives you the Electric Boat Company which does nuclear subs. So, I'm thinking that both Generals have decided that nuclear energy would be a really nice revenue stream. Voila, the solution to global warming is to keep shoveling billions into the hands of a small ruling elite that have already shown themselves to be so benevolent to us and the planet.

Consider the alternative. The taxes spent would go to subsidize many new technologies as well as solar, wind, conservation, etc., into the hands of many players. New industries and jobs are created. The wealth and the solutions are dispersed. Very democratic.

I also remembered the trouble Kucinich got into in Nevada for mentioning the GE-nuclear thing. I think you've hit on one of the most important themes in this election.

Thanks.

[1776Forever]

17. Obama and HRC responses sound a lot a like to me - See quotes..........

Obama quote from his pdf Energy FactSheet:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf


Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon
generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we
eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear
without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and
waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S.
Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear
power plants.
To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama
worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R – IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and
stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make
safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority.
Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on
objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that
the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage
technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option.

Paid for by Obama for America

........................

Hillary Clinton response:

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/09/clinton/

question: What about nuclear power?

answer: I am agnostic about nuclear. I am very skeptical that nuclear could become acceptable in most regions of the country, and I am doubtful that we have yet figured out how to deal with the waste. But I keep being given information about research that is being done to resolve the waste problem. I know that will continue because that has a lot of economic power and resources behind it. But until we can figure out what to do with the waste and overcome the political objections, we should not be putting a heavy emphasis on nuclear. The government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.

[McCamy Taylor]

35. This is Republican "they all do it" politics. Obama praised nukes, he calls them "Green"

and he has taken money from Exelon, lots of it and I am now pretty sure that I have figured out why GE is backing him.

Hillary expressed reservations about nuclear energy. She said "clean it up". That is my policy. Fusion I can live with, once they have it available. Not the current crappy fission technology.

[1776Forever]

37. Hillary has taken $300,000 from oil & gas companies - Obama $200,000 & here is the link!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get your facts straigt!!!! I gave you the comments all ready that Obama was saying that the nuclear industry must come up with more advance technology to clean up the environment from nuclear waste and now read this article that states that HRC has taken MORE money then Obama has from the oil and gas industry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fact check: Obama and oil
Posted: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:14 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Obama

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/834887.aspx

From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan

GREENBURG, Pa. -- The Clinton campaign today accused the Obama campaign of "false advertising," claiming that a recent ad Obama released in Pennsylvania was disngenous because Obama has been the recipient of more than $200,000 from the oil and gas industry.

In the ad, 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 any more."

Obama has taken $213,884 from the oil and gas industry as of Feb. 29th, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Hillary Clinton has taken $306,813 in that same period.

(snip)

Obama routinely criticizes companies like Exxon-Mobil on the stump, but over the course of his presidential campaign he has taken more than $30,000 from individuals working for Exxon-Mobil. Clinton has taken more than $20,000 from Exxon-Mobil in the same period.

Just last month, Obama took more than $11,000 from individuals at Exxon-Mobil, per the center. At least 12 of those contributions came from individuals who contributed $250 each, the lowest listed donation. In that same period, Clinton took more than $3,000 from individuals working at Exxon-Mobil.

However, many of those contributions appear to come from workers at the firm not just executives. For example, Patrice McGowan, an Exxon-Mobil shift supervisor, who lives in Joliet, Ill., has donated $982 to Obama as of January. She also has a blog profile on Obama’s campaign Web site.

“I am a single woman who has worked shift work all my life, sometimes never seeing another woman on the job for weeks,” her profile reads, in part.

In a statement today, Obama spokesman Bill Burton, reiterated that Obama doesn't take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists, and "that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists."

Picking on the energy industry is a standard part of Obama's stump speech, where he harshly criticizes the 2005 energy bill and the Vice President Dick Cheney's efforts in passing it.

"Exxon Mobil reported more than $10 billion in quarterly profits," Obama told a town hall in Greenburg, Pa. today. And then referring to Cheney, he added, "He met with the oil and gas companies 40 times. So is it any wonder than that the energy laws that were written were good for Exxon-Mobil but they are not good for you?"

However, Obama did vote for that bill and has been repeatedly criticized by the Clinton campaign for the vote. Obama has defended that vote saying that despite it being a "flawed bill," it had strong provisions for alternative fuels and was the best deal that could be struck on the issue.

Today, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the bill, supported by Pennsylvania Congressmen Murtha and Kanjorski "actually raised taxes on oil companies and made the largest investment in renewable energy in our nation's history."

Despite the attacks, Obama doesn't appear to be backing down from his criticism of the energy industry or on special interest influences.

"I don't take PAC money,” he said this evening. “I don't take money from federal registered lobbyists. I don't want those strings attached.

[JoFerret]

18. Fascinating stuff. Why are posters clinging and

fussing re the polls and not on the substance?

I guess when you want to believe - you do.

[Armstead]

19. I respect you -- But in this case you're way off base

It is certainly legitimate to question Obama's views on nuclear energy. I am anti-nuke, and it's one of his positions that I don't agree with.

But to claim that Newsweek and GE are highlight a favorable poll because of it is just bunk of the highest order. Newsweek, despite its' association with GE, is a seperate company.

And your claim that they are manipulating a poll because of this is....Well over the top.

And wasn't it Hillary who has spent the last few days attacking Obama for "whining" about unfair press coverage.

[jazzjunkysue]

20. Thank you, McCamy. It all comes down to big energy. The debate was kabuki.

They want us to keep obscessing about pins and words and race and gender so we won't see them pilfer the US coffers and contaminate the earth.

I agree that with coal miners dying annually and bridges collapsing and politicians assasinated and towers falling that haven't been hit, we are not grown up enough to handle nuclear energy.

As long as the resources on the planet are not shared, as long as we allow children to go hungry and wars to continue, we are not stable enough as a species to handle this stuff.

When the world is at peace and people are cared for, we might be able to think about this.

But in the meantime, we won't even explore the possibilities in passive sources like wind and sun. Hydrogen is dangerous but it's not nuclear.

National politicians, ALL national politicians, know they participate in a great 7th grade drama designed to entertain and confuse the masses while they squander our resources for their gain.

There is a larger lesson here than just one poll or one company.

And all this makes it really easy to believe that these people are willing and able to rig elections.

This learning curve of US voters has started, but we're still years below understanding the real actors in our lives.

[glowing]

21. Very interesting indeed.. and I agree with you about this country and its

cost cutting methods.. The sunshine state is geared for 2.. Crist is an idiot.. hello, sunshine is free, and that's the point.. the nucs will pay repugs off.

[stillcool]

22. I have read the charges...

made against Senator Obama in reference to the contributions he has received from the executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator based in Illinois.
I have read his positions on energy.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/8/11550/3692
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm
The poll numbers, I haven't paid attention to, so I guess I miss your point.

[Milo_Bloom]

23. Obama up by 20? WOOT!!!!

[maximusveritas]

24. Oh god. Where's my tin-foil hat?

You have to be missing quite a few brain cells to buy this load of BS. What the OP is alleging is that GE has engaged in a conspiracy by which it got the pollsters at Newsweek to inflate Obama's numbers, thus driving his supporters to their website where they can read an interview with a nuclear power proponent. This is dumber than the 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theories put together.

[Jakes Progress]

56. GE tell a lie? Say it isn't so.

So you do not believe that big businesses like GE would lie to you?


This is the kind of thing that will cost us the election. If Obama supporters found this kind of information about Hillary, they would be putting it in all cap headlines on twenty blog sites as proof of her evilness. Both candidates have much to answer for when it comes to lining their campaign pockets with energy money. It is just irksome that one refuses to admit it and campaigns that he doesn't. Then is is doubly irksome when his supporters buy it.

[Two Americas]

58. can you imagine?

Corporations influencing the media? Where would anyone get that wacky idea? Corporations influencing our elected representatives? That is just tin foil right there. Stories being planted in the media that are favorable to corporate interests? How could anyone ever come up with that crazy notion?

[LongTomH]

25. Point taken..but..................

Instead of rejecting Sen. Obama for the alternatives, (Is Clinton really reliable as an anti-nuker?) why don't we try to influence his stand on this issue. We've got 7 months to go before November.

By the way, will there be any public forum on the Democratic Party Platform for '08?

[Two Americas]

57. this is how to influence politicians

I do not understand this popular idea among activists that we should first fall in love with a candidate, pledge to them our unqualified support, defend them tooth and nail and insulate them from all criticism, work like dogs to get them elected, donate scarce working class dollars to their multi-million dollar campaigns, and then think that later we will be able hold their feet to the fire, or we hope that they will somehow magically become strong representatives of the people once they are in office.

We reward them for doing the opposite of what we say we want them to do, and then wonder why everything is "off the table" once they are in office.

Candidates are not merchandise on the shelf, and politics is not a matter of making personal consumerist decisions to "buy" or "reject" them.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

26. Wow -

Nice work! :hi:

[cui bono]

27. I don't like to talk about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

[ProSense]

28. You're so disingenuous it's not even funny

This is the kind of projecting and distorting Hillary engages. She tried to use Exelon to disingenuously attack Obama's nuclear plant bill (which she even falsely claims to have helped him introduce; she didn't sign on as a co-sponsor until 12 days later):

September 13, 2006

Clinton Announces Committee Approval of Legislation to Require Disclosure of Leaks from Nuclear Plants

Bill Would Require Indian Point and Other Nuclear Plants to Notify Local Governments in the Event of Future Leaks to Groundwater

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) applauded the approval today by a key Senate committee of legislation to require nuclear plant operators to quickly notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the state and county in which the plant is located, of any leak of radioactive substances, such as the releases from the spent fuel pools at Indian Point that occurred last August. Senator Clinton joined Senator Obama in bringing the legislation to the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, where it was unanimously approved today.

“Local officials need to know when radioactive materials are leaked from any of New York's nuclear power plants, including Indian Point,” said Senator Clinton. “This important legislation will ensure prompt notification of any future leaks, and I will be working hard to move it through the full Senate.”

Last fall, the NRC and Entergy discovered leaks of radiation-contaminated water from the spent fuel pools at the Indian Point power plant. However, local officials were not notified of the leaks until weeks after they were discovered. The legislation approved by the EPW Committee today would ensure that local governments would receive much faster notice of any such leaks in the future. The bill will next go to the full Senate for consideration.

The legislation directs the NRC to develop regulations to require plant owners to notify the NRC, state and county officials of radiation leaks. For leaks that threaten drinking water, the bill recommends reporting to the NRC, the state and the county within 24 hours, unless they are already subject to more stringent reporting requirements.

Yet Hillary appears to have no problem with Mark Penn's Exelon ties.

The energy bill:

THE FACTS:

Both sides refer to votes on an energy bill Congress passed in 2005. In the Senate, Clinton voted against the bill and Obama voted for it.

It is a stretch to call it "Dick Cheney’s energy bill," a hot-button reference for many Democrats. Although the House bill was framed according to the vice president’s energy priorities, by the time it passed the Senate many of those measures, such as drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, had been stripped away. Its broad new benefits for nuclear power and the coal industry mirrored Cheney’s priorities, however.

Although opposed by environmentalists, many Democrats viewed the final bill as the best compromise that could be achieved in a GOP-controlled Congress. Clinton at the time said she opposed the bill because it did not do enough to cut reliance on foreign oil and address global warming.

Clinton’s claim that the bill "was loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies" also overstates the case. While it included $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas industries, that was offset by nearly $3 billion in oil taxes, mostly in an extension of the oil spill liability tax. The bill’s $14.3 billion in energy tax breaks mostly went for renewable energy and efficiency programs and the nuclear and coal industries, both of which are prominent in Obama’s home state of Illinois.

Obama is correct when he says Clinton voted against renewable fuels and auto fuel economy. During the 2005 energy deliberations, Clinton voted against an amendment that would have required an increase in the federal auto fuel economy standard, known as CAFE; Obama voted for it. The measure failed, 28-67.

Clinton opposed the energy legislation’s mandate for more ethanol use as a gasoline additive But on that, she was not alone as Northeast and West Coast senators worried the ethanol requirement would lead to higher gasoline costs outside the Farm Belt. Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, both now Obama supporters, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., also voted against the energy legislation as did California’s two Democratic senators.

In late 2007, as they geared up to begin running for president, both Clinton and Obama voted for boosting auto fuel economy by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, and for a huge expansion of ethanol use as part of the energy bill passed by Congress. President Bush signed the bill into law last December.

link

Now let's talk nuclear:

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. Critics see a contradiction in Clinton's opposition to a facility to store nuclear waste, but not to expansion of nuclear power, which would generate more waste." (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)

OTHER NUCLEAR ENERY COMPANIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN

Nuclear Energy Institute Consultant Donated $1,000 To Clinton's Presidential Campaign. Simone Hannah, a consultant for the Nuclear Energy Institute donated $1,000 to Clinton's campaign on 9/27/07. (FEC)

Entergy Corporation PAC Donated $2,500 To Clinton's Presidential Campaign. Entergy Corporation PAC donated $2,500 to Clinton's campaign on 11/27/07. (FEC)

Entergy Corporation PAC Donated $$3,920 To Clinton's Senate Campaign. Entergy Corporation PAC donated $1,000 to Clinton's campaign on 2/1/01, $1,000 on 2/14/01, $1,000 on 3/17/05, $420 on 11/14/05 and $500 on 7/13/06. (FEC)

General Atomics PAC Donated $2,000 To Clinton's Senate Campaign In 2006. General Atomics PAC donated $2,000 to Clinton's Senate campaign on 3/23/06. (FEC)

more

Why is everyone looking the other way on the Clintons' dubious ties to Kazakhstan:

Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation Signed into Law by the President

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation Signed into Law by the President

WASHINGTON – President Bush today signed the Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative into law.

Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

"The United States should do more to eliminate conventional weapons stockpiles and assist other nations in detecting and interdicting weapons of mass destruction. We believe that these functions are underfunded, fragmented and in need of high-level support," said Lugar, Republican leader of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"The Lugar-Obama initiative will help other nations find and eliminate conventional weapons that have been used against our own soldiers in Iraq and sought by terrorists all over the world," said Obama. "The Nunn-Lugar program has effectively disposed of thousands of weapons of mass destruction, but we must do far more to keep deadly conventional weapons like anti-aircraft missiles out of the hands of terrorists."

"We want to ensure that our government has the capacity to deal quickly with vulnerable stockpiles of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, otherwise known as Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS). Such weapons could be used by terrorists to attack commercial airliners, military installations and government facilities here at home and abroad. Al Qaeda reportedly has attempted to acquire MANPADS on a number of occasions," said Lugar.

The Lugar-Obama initiative would energize the U.S. program against unsecured, lightweight anti-aircraft missiles and other conventional weapons. There may be as many as 750,000 man-portable air defense systems in arsenals worldwide, and the State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. In addition, loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and provide the means for attacks on peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize war-torn societies. In Iraq, unsecured stockpiles of artillery shells and ammunition have been reconfigured into improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have become an effective weapon for insurgents.

"Lugar-Obama would also strengthen the ability of America's allies to detect and interdict illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, a critical step in securing these weapons before they ever fall into the hands of terrorists that has not been a focus of current anti-terrorism efforts," Obama said.

Lugar and Obama traveled together to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan in August 2005 to oversee a number of Nunn-Lugar projects. In Ukraine they saw a conventional weapons facility that is typical of the focus of the new legislation.

The Lugar-Obama initiative is modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) authored the program in 1991. It has provided U.S. funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle its enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, related materials, and delivery systems. Among many accomplishments, the program has deactivated 7,000 nuclear warheads and reemployed 58,000 scientists in peaceful research. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program. They otherwise would be the world's the third, fourth and eighth largest nuclear weapons powers, respectively.

[Maribelle]

29. This is excellent, McCamy Taylor. Thanks.

My problem with the newsweek poll is in the huge percentage of error rates in the sub categories.


SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS:

588 Democrats/Democratic Leaners (plus or minus 5)

224 Clinton supporters (plus or minus 8)
297 Obama supporters (plus or minus 7)

422 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
166 Independents/Other (plus or minus 9)

244 Males (plus or minus 8)
344 Females (plus or minus 6)

433 Whites (plus or minus 6)
87 Blacks (plus or minus 12)

97 Age 18-39 (plus or minus 11)
245 Age 40-59 (plus or minus 7)
230 Age 60+ (plus or minus 7)

300 Upper/middle class whites (plus or minus 7)
150 Working class/poor whites (plus or minus 9)

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results.

the above is found on page 14 of the survey document http://www.newsweek.com/media/74/0804_newsweek_poll.pdf

[SoonerPride]

30. Tell me again how Hillary dodged snipers. I like that story better.

Your post is weak.

[bhikkhu]

32. All remotely plausible, but a larger point on energy stands

We can say that oil is bad, as a source of fossil carbon emissions and a centerpiece of the current economic wreckage here and our dependencies abroad. It is also likely a resource on the decline, no longer reliably fueling growing economies.

We can say that coal is bad, again the fossil carbon emissions issue, and then the massive environmental harm of current mining practices and the declining quality of available coal. It is a fuel of last resort rather than what is needed for a healthy or growing economy.

Hydropower is good, but we are essentially out of rivers to build dams on, and so no growth is planned in hydropower generation.

These are three primary sources of energy, and none are looking regardless of what time scale you look at. We are left with wind, solar, and nuclear power. Practically speaking, the only one of those remaining which is can be scaled to the size of the problem in the near term is nuclear. So I don't mind a politician with a mind open to a nuclear power solution.

With that said, I would rather see a big national push for conservation and limited growth myself. We still haven't come very far from the attitudes prevalent during Carter's time on energy - and recall what happened to his platform then - but it will come of itself, by necessity.

[McCamy Taylor]

36. Well, Obama is the obvious choice for Dems who want more Nuclear Plants.

And if that is one of your reasons for backing him, then you have made an informed choice, for which I congratulate you.

[bhikkhu]

38. Its not the reason, but there is a problem:

Not to get too far off the point of the OP, which I acknowledge is a good one. But we have a serious energy problem in this country. Its not just the familiar oil problem, but the increasing lack of spare capacity in electrical generation. Considering nuclear "bad" without providing alternatives or suggesting solutions is a bit of the "luxury of irresponsibility" so many of us grew up with. That is, we can criticize all manner of things and are under no burden to provide solutions, or even to stop consuming the products we criticize. But all of this is really another topic - sorry.

[suzie]

52. New to DU

And just curious, does McCamy Taylor work for the Clinton campaign? Because I've never seen anyone with so much information about a particular candidate's position who wasn't somehow affiliated with that campaign.

[bhikkhu]

53. She favors Hillary, in a balanced manner

as far as I know (sorry - couldn't help it).

But her posts are always well done, informative and worthwhile. I appreciate the value of well documented research myself - one can agree or disagree with conclusions, but one always comes away better informed.

[Two Americas]

59. welcome to DU

It is best not to spread rumors and plant speculative insinuations against other members, and you should respond to the message rather than to cast aspersions on the messenger.

If you have "never seen anyone with so much information about a particular candidate's position" I would suggest that you may have much to learn, and this is a good place to do just that.

[McCamy Taylor]

39. Obama camp suppresses protest of nukes the same way that Bush does

I vaguely remembered hearing about this so I Googled it. Back in South Carolina in December, he and Oprah were having a rally. 3 anti-nuke people showed up with signs protesting nuclear dumping. They were ejected and told to go to a "free speech zone" 3 blocks away. Remind you of anyone?

http://www.carolinapeace.org/content/view/1064/

“Obama, Please Oppose a Nuclear Dump in S.C.,” one sign read.

“Obama, Don’t Let S.C. Become Yucca Mountain,” said another.

“Barack: Stop Supporting Plans to Dump High Level Nuclear Waste in South Carolina,” said the third.

Two of the protesters, Leslie Minerd and Tom Clements, have been opposing nuclear power for three decades now. Clements even worked for Greenpeace for fifteen years, starting in South Carolina, and Minerd has been a freelance anti-nuclear activist in the state her whole adult life.

Elaine Cooper, who was raised in Chicago, became active in the anti-nuclear movement in South Carolina over the last two years.

All three of them were concerned about Obama’s support for nuclear power and his opposition to reprocessing nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, since South Carolina would likely be the next candidate for it.

So they decided to show up with their signs.

“A couple of people with the Obama campaign said, ‘You can’t take those signs in.’ And we said, ‘Oh, we know, we’re going to stand outside.’ Then the Obama staff told us we had to leave the property,” Minerd says.

“I said, ‘This is public property, and I should be allowed to be here.’ But they repeated their line, and added: ‘If you want to hold your signs, you can go to the Budweiser sign, which is on the Budweiser building three blocks away.’ So I said, ‘Oh, you’ve got a free speech zone set up just like the Bush Administration.’ I couldn’t believe they were acting like Bush.”

Minerd and Clements, who were standing together, decided not to move. Then the cops came.

According to Minerd, the police told them the stadium had been rented by the Obama campaign. “It was private property for the day, and we had to leave,” they said, according to Minerd. She says the police had patches on their sleeves to cover up their names.

“So then we stood on the other side of the bushes over the fence,” she says, “and they told us, ‘The bushes belong to USC also and you have to completely get off the property.’ And we went across the street, and we just stood there on the sidewalk.”

Even more worrisome for me is this website, which pretends to believe that the environmentalists involved were really just racists---even though we all know that African-American communities have been the ones hit hardest by pollution,esp. waste dumping and poorly designed industrial sites, and that the environmental movement has championed the rights of minorities, the poor and other oppressed people to live in clean, healthy communities.

http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/2007/12/obama-campaign-targeted-by-anti-nuclear.html

This one is titled "Obama targeted by anti-nuclear protesters" and it is by a group called "African-American Environmentalist Association" which describes itself as pro nuclear energy.

These extremists were dealt with appropriately by the rally organizers. It is our opinion that these eco-extremists go out of their way to show extraordinary disrespect to African Americans who do not agree with them. AAEA experienced such disrespect last summer from some eco-hillbilly extremists.

What this says to me is that the Obama camp knows full well that it is going to get flak from the environmental movement and so it is leveling a charge of "racism" against anyone who questions the Senator's stance on nuclear energy.

The sad truth is that when the new Chernobyls are built, they will be built in minority and disadvantaged neighborhoods and the waste will be stored there too and shipped through those neighborhoods.

[blm]

40. We're to believe the same Clintons who PROTECTED BFEE in the 90s are undesirable to BFEE now?

Yeah, sure.

That's why all those BFEE characters like Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals, Marc Rich and many more protected by Bill have been lining Clintons' bank accounts by the tens of millions the last 8 years.

Ever even TRY RESEARCHING THAT, McCamy?

Ever wonder WHY a Bush2 was even possible after the release of the BCCI report in Dec 1992, McCamy?

Are you really so snowed by them you'd REACH SO FAR to pretend Obama's connections are a danger to the country and to Democrats?

You don't even HAVE to reach far on the Clintons, McCamy. But, you won't.

[McCamy Taylor]

41. If you have all the facts, you should write it up.

[ProSense]

42. Here are

some facts

[Rene]

43. I've cancelled my Newsweek subscription and am refusing renewal mailings...until they fire Karl Rove

This 20 point poll article....smells very Rove-like.....very bad smell.

[McCamy Taylor]

49. GE is bigger than Rove or Bush. It is one of the world's biggest companies.

It is like a whole country. A whole economy unto itself.

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Today's gallup shows Hillary up again. No reputable news org. reports a poll like the one Newsweek

boasted of yesterday and plastered all over MSNBC. All they had to do was look at the other polls and at the trends of the other polls which showed the race narrowing with Hillary gaining more support among Dems to know that their own poll was wrong. Obviously their sample was screwy. A reputable news organization would have tossed that one away or at least explained that it probably was not reliable. But MSNBC kept crowing about it and not mentioning any other polls.

This is the sign of propaganda. They were deliberately forcing a distortion---Obama has weathered all his recent gaffes and troubles and is surging ahead so send him money and SDs---onto the American people.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx



Forget "Shame on" the candidates. Shame on the media whores at MSNBC and Newsweek.

[jettison]

47. Is she down by 20? Is she down by 5? Is it a dead heat?

Who cares? She's still going to lose the nomination. Want to play a game of basketball with me? I can put it in, nothing but net. You can clank the outside of the rim, and then submit a chart and a graph showing us all just how close you were to making the basket. There are so many more productive things you might be doing with your time. She lost. Get over it. You're obviously one of those "bitter" people that Obama has been telling us about.

[McCamy Taylor]

48. [b] GE LIED [/b]Rassumusen is also consistent. Today she is only down by 2.

Continuing her slow upward rise. Forget the 20 point Newsweek poll.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_democratic_presidential_primary_tracking_polling_history

Clinton 43% Obama 45%

[ProSense]

50. "Forget the 20 point Newsweek poll"? How about PA polls that show Hillary losing ground:

PPP (D) (PDF)

Rasmussen

Zogby

Survey USA

[McCamy Taylor]

51. GE must be desperate. Here is what is a headline story at MSNBC today.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/19/921148.aspx

They had a link from the first page about this story which describe some lesbian grabbing Chelsea's ass as the Penn. governor took her sight seeing to places including some gay bars.

Now, try real hard to imagine MSNBC writing the same story about Michelle Obama or Cindy McCain. Yeah, I know that Cindy doesn't have anything to grab, but Michelle is pretty cute. But can you imagine that first story making it past the editors? Can you picture the outrage?

What will the GE media empire (which includes the WaPo because NBC and MSNBC let their reporters appear on MSNBC regularly) do for an encore tomorrow to protect General Electric's nuclear power plants? Anyone want to take any wild guesses? Maybe finally put "Screw 'em" into national play in print right before the Penn. election and get Keith Olbermann to do another Special Comment about it on Monday the night before the Primary? That is my guess. If any TV news guy (besides Jon Stewart) would be willing to be recorded saying "Screw 'em" it is KO. Oh, and maybe he will do a puppet theater about it, too AND a special comment. He could get a million dollar bonus from GE for that. Even though people who were there at the time do not agree that she said the words. The mere fact that people might be under the impression (from rumors) that she said the words and might be upset by that impression is enough to make her guilty (I am following the logic from the Ferraro special comment) so she owes a apology to anyone who might have ever been offended by anything she said or did not say or did or did not do or for anything that was ever done anywhere because hey we all know that it is Hillary's fault. Everything. Including the Fall from Grace. And Obama mispeaking himself. Especially Obama mispeaking hismelf. If that Bitch had just gone off in a corner somewhere and died then he would not have had to be in San Francisco raising money and if he was it wouldn't have mattered what he said about poor people because their vote wouldn't have mattered anymore...

Oh, never mind. Three eyed fish are kindof cute.

[jackson_dem]

54. GE has the wife of Obama supporter (rep. Fattah) on Matthew's show right now

They are presenting her as just a Philadelphia journalist. :eyes:

[high density]

60. I think we need nuclear energy

if we are to stop our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the foreign policy disasters surrounding it. It's either that or we lower our standard of living drastically. Europe and Japan seem to survive with nuclear power and without Chernobyl type disasters.