Canadian Embassy Has Denied The Report. "A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta. 'None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta,' Landry said. He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject. 'We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us,' Landry said. 'There is no story as far as we’re concerned,' he said." [Politico, 2/28/08]

“The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

OBAMA'S POSITION ON NAFTA WAS CLEAR AT THE LAST DEBATE

I will make sure that we renegotiate...I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA...And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers. Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they've created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they are left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community. That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward. [Democratic Debate, 2/27/08]

OBAMA'S RECORD ON NAFTA HAS BEEN CLEAR

Obama Said NAFTA And CAFTA Were Not In The Best Interest Of The American Worker "Because They Did Not Contain The Sorts Of Labor Provisions And Environmental Provisions" That They Should Have. "The AP reported, "Obama said he supports the foreign trade deal, which is especially important to labor and U.S. manufacturers. He said active trading is a key way to keep the United States competitive. 'We're not going to draw a moat around the United States' economy. If we do that, then China is still trading, India is still going to be trading,' said Obama, who voted against the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement and opposes the pending trade deal with South Korea. 'I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements,' he said." [AP, 10/10/07]

2004 Chicago Tribune Cited Its Difference With Obama's Opposition to NAFTA. The Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial, "We sharply differ with some of those views, particularly Obama's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." [Chicago Tribune, 2/29/04]

2004 New Yorker: Obama Opposed NAFTA. The New Yorker wrote, "This is a regular theme with Obama: supporters who disagree with him. The two big Chicago daily papers both endorsed him enthusiastically in the primary, even though they disagreed with him on major issues-his opposition to the war in Iraq and, in the case of the Tribune, his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." [New Yorker, 5/31/04]

12:19 PM | Permalink

Former President Bill Clinton said today: There's a one-minute ad on in Texas telling you how terrible things were in the 90s. [NBC, 2/27/08 LINK]

FACT: No such ad exists. [reality, 2/27/08]

01:38 PM | Permalink

09:28 PM | Permalink

HILLARY CLINTON PRAISED NAFTA FOR YEARS

2007: Clinton Said "I Think NAFTA Was, In Principle, A Good Idea To Try To Create A Better Trading Market Between Canada And The United States And Mexico... I Believe, In The General Principles It Represented, But What We Have Learned Is That We Have To Drive A Tougher Bargain." Clinton, on whether NAFTA was the right thing to do, said "I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example...But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years. For me, trade is who we are. We're traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers." [Time Magazine, 2/1/07]

2006/2008: Newsday Reviewed Clinton's Statements, Concluded She Supported NAFTA. According to a Newsday issues rundown, "Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy." Newsday wrote in 2008, the word "boon" was their "characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements." [New York Newsday, 9/11/06; Newsday blog, 2/15/08]

2004: Clinton: "I Think On Balance NAFTA Has Been Good For New York And America." Clinton, on whether NAFTA and GATT should be revisited, said "…I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we’re not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada. And I think that needs to be given much greater emphasis than it has." [Clinton Teleconference on Job Training Fund Cuts, 1/5/04]

2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. "Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances." [Living History, 182]

2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a "Victory" For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." [Living History, p.231]

2002: Clinton: "We All Know The Record of The DLC, The Progressive Policy Institute And, Of Course, The Clinton-Gore Administration. The Economic Recovery Plan Stands First And Foremost As A Testament To Both Good Ideas And Political Courage. National Service. The Brady Bill. Family Leave. NAFTA. … All Of These Came Out Of Some Very Fundamental Ideas About What Would Work." Clinton: "We all know the record of the DLC, the Progressive Policy Institute and, of course, the Clinton-Gore Administration. The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady Bill. Family Leave. NAFTA. Investment in science and technology. New markets. Charter schools. The Earned Income Tax Credit. The welfare to work partnership. The COPS program. The SAFER program. All of these came out of some very fundamental ideas about what would work." [Remarks of Hillary Clinton at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, 7/29/02]

1998: Clinton Praised Corporations for Their Efforts On Behalf of NAFTA. The Buffalo News reported, "As first lady, Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with either trade move. Nor has she repudiated them. In a 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." [Buffalo News (New York), 7/16/07]

1996: Clinton Said "I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth." A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. "That's what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said. [AP, 3/6/96]

1996: Clinton "Vowed That Her Husband Would Continue To Support Economic Growth In South Texas Through Initiatives Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement." AP wrote, "Mrs. Clinton vowed that her husband would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Rio Grande Valley empowerment zone, which allows tax breaks to businesses that relocate to the border." [AP, 11/2/96]

1996: Hillary Clinton "Touted" President Clinton's Support for NAFTA, Saying it Would Reap Widespread Benefit. On a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region." [United Press International, 11/1/96]

DURING THIS CAMPAIGN, WHEN ASKED ABOUT NAFTA, CLINTON HAS NOT CLAIMED SHE DID NOT SUPPORT IT

Asked Whether NAFTA Was a Mistake, Clinton Said It Was a Mistake To the Extent That It Did Not Deliver. Clinton, asked whether NAFTA was a mistake, said "Look, NAFTA did not do what many had hoped. And so we do need to take a look at it and we do need to figure out how we're going to have trade relations that are smart, that give the American worker and the American consumer rights around the world...NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that's why I call for trade timeout. When I am president, I'm going to evaluate every trade agreement. We do need to get back to enforcing the ones we have, which the Bush administration has not done. They have totally abdicated that. But I think we have to get broader than that. We've got to have enforceable labor and environmental standards. We've got the WTO that enforces financial and corporate rights. We need the International Labor Organization and other mechanisms that will be there to enforce labor rights and environmental rights. And that's what I intend to do as president." [Democratic Debate, 11/15/07] VIDEO HERE

Clinton Didn't Say Whether NAFTA Should Be Repealed; Just Said It Didn't Realize The Benefits It Promised. Clinton, on whether she'd be willing to repeal four things (DOMA, Telecom Act of 1996, NAFTA and Welfare Reform) that happened during the Clinton years said, "NAFTA, you know, I have said that NAFTA did not realize the benefits that it was promised for a number of reasons. This is not just about Mexico but about the tri partied relationship. So I thing generally we've have to generally have smarter trade agreement that not only have labor and environmental standards which I fully support but really have an ongoing evaluation of the impact of trade agreements." [YearlyKos, 8/4/07]

BILL CLINTON CONTINUES TO ARGUE FOR NAFTA

JANUARY 2008: Bill Clinton Said "A Lot Of People Think NAFTA's A Bigger Problem Than it Is. During an event in Las Vegas, Clinton said "She [Hillary Clinton] believes that NAFTA, she believes that all our trade agreements should be reviewed in the first 90 to 120 days of taking office. She would have a total moratorium on all new trade deals until we conducted a review. And one of the things that we have to examine is the point I made earlier. That is, is the trade agreement basically fair, but we just don't enforce it. A lot of people think that NAFTA's a bigger problem than it is. Our problem with Mexico, our trade deficit with Mexico is mostly because we buy oil from them." [Bill Clinton, 1/18/08]

Bill Clinton Defended His Decision To Enact NAFTA And Disagreed With His Wife That It Has Hurt Workers. "President Clinton is closing one policy disagreement with Senator Clinton while keeping another alive, saying his wife is right to forbid the use of torture but wrong that his signature trade deal has ‘hurt' American workers. ... He staunchly defended his decision in 1993 to support the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Mrs. Clinton said over the summer had ‘hurt a lot of American workers.' Asked directly by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if he agreed that the pact had hurt workers, Mr. Clinton replied, ‘No.' He said NAFTA had become a ‘symbol' but America had worse trade deficits with countries such as China and Japan than it did with Mexico." [NY Sun, 10/1/07]

COMMENTERS HAVE CRITICIZED CLINTON FOR HER FLIP ON TRADE

Bloomberg: Clinton "Praised" NAFTA, Friends Said She Was "A Free-Trader at Heart." Bloomberg News reported, "Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart. 'The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,'' she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. 'Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.' Praise for Nafta At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting 'a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.'' She added: 'It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.' Clinton 'is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,' said Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm. 'She would absolutely do the right thing as president.' There was little evidence of a protectionist tilt to Clinton's trade views during either her 2000 campaign or first years in the Senate. She stressed issues such as homeland security and children's health care, and wasn't a major voice in trade-policy debates. As she began to gear up for a White House run, Clinton became less of a free-trade booster and more skeptical about the payoff of globalization." [ Bloomberg News, 3/30/07]

SF Chronicle: Clinton's Position On Trade "Clearly A Flip-Flip To Unions And Industry Sectors" And A "Bid To Outflank Her Rival, Senator Barack Obama." "Add to this Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton's coolness to the idea. Her husband moved earth and sky to win passage of the NAFTA trade pact with Mexico and Canada in 1993. Now she favors periodic reviews to continue such deals, a "timeout" on new ones, and more federal officials to oversee complaints. It's clearly a flip-flop favor to unions and industry sectors hit by layoffs and cheap imports and bid to outflank her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who is more favorable to free trade." [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/07]

02:31 PM | Permalink

CLINTON RHETORIC: "Let's talk about the agreement. The only agreement I entered into was not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It had nothing to do with not seating the delegates. I think that's an important distinction. I did not campaign... that's not the case at all. I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida."

REALITY: Clinton Said "It's Clear" That The Michigan Primary Won't "Count For Anything"

Clinton Said "It's Clear" That The Michigan Primary Won't Count For Anything. Clinton, on why she stayed on the ballot for the Michigan primary said, "Well, you know, people in Michigan are flat on their backs. They have the highest unemployment rate in America. They are now grappling finally with what they are going to do with the auto industry. 1 in 10 jobs in America is tied to the auto industry which is -- the American auto industry, which as we know is centered in Michigan. You know, it's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything. But I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever. And then after the nomination we have to go in and repair the damage and be ready to win Michigan in November 2008." [NHPR Interview, 10/11/07]

Clinton Campaign Said She Was "Not Participating in the Michigan Primary." Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said, "Clinton signed a pledge saying she will not campaign. She is not participating in the Michigan primary because she is not campaigning there. She is honoring the pledge." [New Hampshire Union Leader, 10/11/07]

RHETORIC: "Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that"

REALITY: Clinton Top Delegate Adviser Voted To Strip Michigan And Florida Of Their Delegates

Clinton Top Delegate Adviser Harold Ickes Voted For Democratic Party Rules That Stripped Michigan And Florida Of Their Delegates. "Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass. In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised - before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions." [AP, 2/17/08]

RHETORIC: "The people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC's decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaign, if any, they would have stayed home but they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat."

REALITY: Many Voters Stayed Home Because They Knew Their Votes Would Not Select Delegates To the Nominating Convention

TNR: "Knowing That Their Ballots Meant Nothing, Many Voters [In Michigan And Florida] Stayed Home." "Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives." [Editorial, TNR, 2/8/08]

The Pledge Clinton Signed

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I, [Name], Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

POLITICIANS AND EDITORIAL BOARDS SAY THAT THE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA DELEGATES SHOULD NOT COUNT

Clinton Backer Bob Kerrey Said "You Don't Change The Rules In The Middle Of The Game. Period" When Asked If the Delegates From Florida And Michigan Should Count. "You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Period," said former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, The New School's president, when asked if the delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries should be represented at the Democratic National Convention in August. Scoopy ran into Kerrey on Sunday at Chelsea Piers, where Kerrey had taken his young son and a friend bowling. "No new vote and no new caucuses, either. Just stick to the rules that they agreed to," Kerrey said firmly. The Democratic National Committee stripped both Florida and Michigan of all their delegates because, defying party rules, they held their primaries before Feb. 5. The candidates all agreed to abide by that decision and not campaign in those states. Barack Obama withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan and didn't compete in Florida. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in both states and now says their delegates should be counted toward the total. Although Kerrey endorsed Clinton in December, he clearly doesn't endorse her position on the Michigan and Florida delegates. [The Villager, 2/13/08]

Nancy Pelosi Said That Florida And Michigan Delegates Should Not Be Seated If Those Delegates Would Decide The Nomination. Nancy Pelosi had one more stunner in the interview: She said the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if those delegates would decide the nomination. "Well, I don't think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is. That is to say they can't make the difference because then we would have no rules," she said. Pelosi added, "But I do think that the best outcome for us is if one of the candidates pulls ahead and this issue is disposed of long before we get to the convention. We certainly don't want to ignore Florida and Michigan, but we can't ignore the rules which everyone else played by." [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/15/08]

Tom Harkin Said He Staunchly Opposed Seating The Delegates From Michigan And Florida. Tom Harkin said he will staunchly oppose seating delegates chosen in the Michigan and Florida primaries for the same reason he will uphold the superdelegates' independent vote: It's the rules. Michigan and Florida Democrats broke the rules when they moved their primaries ahead of Feb. 5 without permission, Harkin said. "No way I'd ever be in favor of seating them," the senator said. [Telegraph Herald, 2/17/08]

Al Sharpton Said Seating Delegates From Florida And Michigan At The DNC Would Be A Grave Injustice. Seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention would be a grave injustice, the Rev. Al Sharpton said Wednesday in a break with prominent civil rights leaders. "I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton said in a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. [AP, 2/13/08]

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Clinton Wants To Seat The Michigan And Florida Delegates And The Obama Campaign Dismisses That As "Hogwash"; The Obama Campaign Is "Right About That." "Clinton says Michigan and Florida should be seated and their delegates divided in accord with the primary vote. She's won support from NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, who says the party is disenfranchising minority voters. The Obama campaign dismisses that as hogwash. They say Obama ignored both states at the national party's request and shouldn't be penalized for playing by the rules. Even if we hadn't endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination, we'd have to say he's right about that." [Editorial, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/22/08]

Austin American Statesman: Clinton Wants To Seat The Delegates From Michigan And Florida. "That Would Be Patently Wrong" and "Grossly Unfair To Obama." "Clinton, who won the most votes in the outlaw primaries in Michigan and Florida, now wants those delegates recognized and seated at the Democratic Party national convention in Denver in August. One of her top advisers, Harold Ickes, a Democratic National Committee member who voted to strip delegates from those states, now wants them seated. That would be patently wrong. Party officials told the legislatures in both states they would lose their delegates if they moved their primaries ahead of Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. And the party's presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in states being punished by the Democratic National Committee for setting early primaries...Seating the 156 Michigan and 210 Florida delegates would be grossly unfair to Obama, who, unlike Clinton, didn't go to Florida... The only fair thing for Democratic officials to do is to stick to their guns and ignore the Michigan and Florida delegations or redo the primaries." [Editorial, Austin American Statesman, 2/18/08]

New York Post: "No Changing The Rules In The Middle Of The Game" When It Comes To Michigan And Florida. "No changing the rules in the middle of the game. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean must be prepared to deliver that message to Sen. Hillary Clinton and her allies. With a razor-thin delegate margin separating them and ever-fewer states left on the campaign calendar, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are working all angles to get to 2,025 - the number needed to win their party's presidential nomination. Which is why the Clinton forces are looking at Michigan and Florida." [Editorial, Editorial, TNR, 2/8/08] ">New York Post, 2/11/08]

TNR: When It Became Clear That Clinton Faced A Potential Battle For Delegates, She Began To Demand The Rules Be Changed In The Middle Of the Game. "But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful--and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. ‘I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee,' Clinton has said. There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do ‘democracy,' a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton's complaint, needs to do so immediately." [Editorial, TNR, 2/8/08]

12:00 PM | Permalink

Dana Milbank: "Clinton Has Been The Most Flagrant Shoplifter Of Other's Campaign Rhetoric." "In the presidential race, Clinton has been the most flagrant shoplifter of others' campaign rhetoric. Last week, she cribbed verbatim three of Obama's slogans in a single phrase: 'We are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change.'" [Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 1/7/08]

CLINTON STOLE LINES FROM OBAMA

Clinton Stole "Turn The Page," Stole The Notion That She Turned Down Corporate Offers And The Idea That Iowans "Kick The Tires" From Obama. "On May 2, Obama told the California Democratic convention: 'It's time to turn the page.' Eleven days later, Clinton declared that 'people are anxious to turn the page.' Also on May 2, Obama noted that he "turned down the corporate job offers" after law school; 10 days later, Bill Clinton said in a video, 'she turned down all the lucrative job offers.' In February 2007, Obama told voters in Iowa that they should 'kick the tires and be clear that I have a grasp of the issues,' while Clinton said in September, 'you got to kick my tires and see whether or not I'll collapse.'" [Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 1/7/08]

Clinton Singled Out "All The Young People" In The Hall After Obama Did It And Clinton Spoke Of "Change You Can Count On" After Obama Made His Slogan "Change We Can Believe In." "Of course, it may just be coincidence that Clinton singled out 'all of the young people' in the hall after Obama had done just that, or that Clinton spoke of 'change you can count on' after Obama made a slogan of 'change we can believe in.'" [Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 1/7/08]

CLINTON HAS STOLEN LINES FROM OTHER CANDIDATES

Hillary Clinton Used Riff In Speech At Coretta Scott King's Funeral Saying "As We Are Called, Each Of Us Must Decide Whether To Answer That Call By Saying Send Me." Hillary Clinton, at Coretta Scott King funeral: "As we are called, each of us must decide whether to answer that call by saying send me." [CNN Transcript, 2/7/06]

Ø Bill Clinton, At The 2004 Democratic Convention, Said "Let Every Person In This Hall And Like-Minded People All Across Our Land Say To Him What He Has Always Said To America: Send Me." Bill Clinton, at the 2004 Democratic Convention, said "During the Vietnam War, many young men, including the current president, the vice president and me, could have gone to Vietnam and didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background. He could have avoided going too, but instead, he said: Send me. When they sent those swiftboats up the river in Vietnam and they told them their job was to draw hostile fire, to wave the American flag and bate the enemy to come out and fight, John Kerry said: Send me. ... So tonight, my friends, I ask you to join me for the next 100 days in telling John Kerry's story and promoting his ideas. Let every person in this hall and like-minded people all across our land say to him what he has always said to America: Send me." [Bill Clinton convention speech, 7/26/04]

Clinton, Speaking About Her Health Care Plan, Said "If It's Good Enough For Congress, It's Good Enough For Every American To Have Those Same Choices." Clinton: "I figure if it's good enough for members of Congress, it's good enough for every American to have those same choices at the same affordable cost." [Hillary I Know Event, 12/17/07]

Ø John Kerry Noted That Bush's Line About The Medicare Bill Could Also Be Used To Describe His Own Health Care Plan, "If It's Good Enough For Their Congressman And Sentors To Have Choice, Seniors Ought To Have Choice." John Kerry: "My health care plan's not an empty promise. Bush used that very plan as a reason for seniors to accept his prescription drug plan. He said, if it's good enough for their congressmen and senators to have choice, seniors ought to have choice. What we do is we have choice. I choose Blue Cross/Blue Shield; others choose other programs. But the fact is we're going to help Americans be able to buy into it. Those that can afford it are going to buy in themselves. We're not giving this away for nothing." [Bush-Kerry Debate, 10/13/04]

Ø President Bush, On The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, Said "It It's Good Enough For The Members Of Congress To Have Choice, It Ought To Be Good Enough For The Seniors In America To Have Choice." President Bush, on the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, said "I used to say if it's good enough for the members of Congress to have choice, it ought to be good enough for the seniors in America to have choice." [CNBC, 11/26/03]

Clinton Used Example Of Blockbuster Keeping Tracking Of Videos As Analogy For Keeping Tracking Of People Who Get Visas Who Come Into The United States, Which Edwards Had Used Five Months Before. Clinton: "You can keep track of videos from Blockbuster, you ought to be able to keep track of people you give visas too who come into the United States." Edwards, five months earlier: "We can figure out when someone's walking into a blockbuster, it seems to me we can figure out when somebody is coming in the United States of America." [ABC World News, 2/18/08]

Ø Clinton Talked About How If Video Stores Can Keep Track Of Their Tapes And DVDs, Surely We Can Keep Track Of People Here On Visas, Which Is A Point Edwards Had Made. Clinton "talked about how, if video stores can keep track of their tapes and DVDs, surely we can keep track of people here on visas, many of whom overstay them and become illegal immigrants. I've heard Edwards make the same point, except he explicitly cites Blockbuster." [TNR, 11/20/07]

09:01 PM | Permalink

Clinton Refused To Commit To Passing Immigration Reform In The First Hundred Days And Said It Was Up To Congress. "Hillary Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, felt the glare of their displeasure after Billy Lawless, a Chicago immigrations rights organizer, asked her if she’d commit to giving undocumented workers a path to citizenship in her first 100 days as president. Clinton, who spoke via telephone after weather prevented her flight to Iowa, said immigration reform is a top priority. But Lawless pressed her, asking if she’d do it in the first 100 days. Clinton said it’s up to Congress to pass such reform, but as president she would do as much as possible." [DMR, 12/1/07]

Clinton Said Comprehensive Immigration Would Have To Wait Until She Was President; Said She Would Deal With The Challenge Of Immigration But Wasn’t Specific About A Timeframe. Clinton, speaking about immigration at the Association of Latino Elected Officials said, "I am not going to give up. A big bill will have to wait, but when I am president, we will once again deal with the challenge of immigration." [Miami Herald, 7/1/07]

08:44 PM | Permalink

"Apparently John McCain thinks we need to fight a 100 year war in Iraq but he does not think we should act on actionable intelligence to take out Osama bin Laden and top al Qaeda terrorists. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership escaped to a sanctuary in northwest Pakistan because the Bush-McCain war in Iraq diverted resources from the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Now John McCain says Obama's call to take out high-level terrorists like bin Laden is "naive," even as the Washington Post reported just yesterday that these operations have succeeded in taking the fight to the terrorists." Susan Rice, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Senator Barack Obama

"But we would risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan" John McCain, February 19, 2008

Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan because the Bush-McCain war in Iraq diverted resources from Afghanistan and allowed al Qaeda to escape into Pakistan. Apparently John McCain thinks we need to fight a 100 year war in Iraq – and threaten to bomb Iran – but he does not think we should take out Osama bin Laden and top al Qaeda terrorists.

FACT: John McCain refuses to commit to taking out high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Laden if we have actionable intelligence about their whereabouts.

Barack Obama has said he would take out "high-level terrorist targets" in Pakistan if we have actionable intelligence about their whereabouts and Pakistan will not or cannot act. John McCain said this morning that he could not make that pledge, arguing: "So, the first thing you do is you don't tell people what you're going to do. You make plans, and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is." McCain's efforts led commentators like Joe Klein to wonder, "I hope he (McCain) retracts it and joins Obama in the effort to defeat Al Qaeda."

FACT: Barack Obama has never said he would "attack Pakistan"--he has said that he would attack "high-level terrorist targets."

Obama's statement of policy--in his August 1 terrorism speech--dealt directly with high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, not the Pakistani government.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama has voted for hundreds of millions of dollars to support the Pakistani government's efforts to root out al Qaeda, and would prefer that Pakistan take action. But he will not stand by if he has actionable intelligence about high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan's northwest tribal regions: "But relying on Pakistan while we fight the wrong war in Iraq has not worked. Because of that policy, bin Laden and members of his inner circle who bear direct responsibility for the murder of 3,000 Americans are plotting new attacks. If Pakistan cannot or will not take out these high-level terrorist targets and we have actionable intelligence about where they are, then I would take action to protect the American people. I firmly believe that if we know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his deputies and we have exhausted all other options, we must take them out."

The co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission--Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton--endorsed Obama's stance just over a month after his terrorism speech, writing in the Washington Post: "Pakistan should take the lead in closing Taliban camps and rooting out al-Qaeda. But the United States must act if Pakistan will not."

FACT: The Washington Post reported just yesterday that America is carrying out the very policy that Obama advocated and that John McCain derided as "confused."

John McCain referred to the policy of taking out high-level terrorists in northwestern Pakistan as "confused" – even as the Washington Post reported, just this morning, that:

"In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

....Top Bush administration policy officials -- who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda's use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West -- have quietly begun to accept the military's point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike.....

....U.S. military officials say, however, that the uneven performance of their Pakistani counterparts increasingly requires that Washington pursue the fight however it can, sometimes following an unorthodox path that leaves in the dark Pakistani military and intelligence officials who at best lack commitment and resolve and at worst lack sympathy for U.S. interests."

FACT: There is a high-level terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan that is serving as a training ground for al Qaeda, and President Bush's own senior military and intelligence community officials are contemplating action against al Qaeda.

The NIE in July 2007 warned of a reconstituted al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan: "Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.

The Bush-McCain war diverted resources from the fight against al Qaeda: Substantial military, intelligence, and diplomatic resources were shifted from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden to the disastrous war in Iraq. These resources shortchanged our efforts to bring to justice the people responsible for 9/11, and have left the American people less safe. As the New York Times reported last summer

"Throughout late 2002 and early 2003, Mr. Grenier said in an interview, "the best experienced, most qualified people who we had been using in Afghanistan shifted over to Iraq," including the agency's most skilled counterterrorism specialists and Middle East and paramilitary operatives.... "If we were not in Iraq, we would have double or triple the number of Predators across Afghanistan, looking for Taliban and peering into the tribal areas. We'd have the ‘black' Special Forces you most need to conduct precision operations. We'd have more C.I.A. We're simply in a world of limited resources, and those resources are in Iraq," the former official added. "Anyone who tells you differently is blowing smoke."

01:45 PM | Permalink

RHETORIC: Lanny Davis said, "I say that senator Obama's words are contradicted by deeds. He said he would -- he pledged to take public financing as now senator McCain has pledged. He has just reversed that pledge." [Late Edition, 2/17/08]

REALITY: Obama Campaign Never Committed To Public Financing in a General Election, But That He Would Pursue a Deal When He Is the Nominee

Obama Campaign Asked the FEC to Determine Whether It Could "Retain the Option" of Accepting Public Financing During the General Election. On February 1, 2007, the Obama campaign asked the FEC to determine whether if "Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party's nominee... the Senator would not, if the law allows, rule out the possibility of a publicly funded campaign if both major parties' nominees eventually decide, or even agree, on this course." [Letter to FEC, 2/1/07]

Burton: If The Republican Agreed, Public Financing "Would Be Something We Would Explore." Politico reported, "‘It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore,' Burton said." [Politico, 2/27/07]

Burton: "There Is No Pledge." The AP reported, "Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Thursday called public financing "an option that we wanted on the table," but said "there is no pledge" to take the money and the spending limitations that come with it." [AP, 2/17/08]

RHETORIC: Lanny Davis said, "He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from a nuclear energy company in Illinois of lobbyists after they lobbied him. He diluted the bill on nuclear waste being exposed to Illinois constituents." [Late Edition, 2/17/08]

REALITY: CLINTON WAS FOR OBAMA'S BILL BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT, HAS MADE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND FACTS

Clinton Cosponsored, Supported Obama's Bill on Reporting Requirements For Nuclear Plants. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. She praised the bill's passage in a press release that day, saying "This important legislation will ensure prompt notification of any future leaks." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; Clinton Press Release, 9/13/06]

Washington Post Fact Check: Clinton Campaign's Allegations Are Uncorroborated; Obama Changed The Bill To Ensure Committee Passage. The Washington Post reported, "No other member of the committee has come forward to support the Clinton version of events…the Clinton campaign has failed to provide evidence to support the New York senator's claim of a secret deal between Obama and the nuclear power plant operator "to protect them from full disclosure." Exelon lobbied Obama over the nuclear notification bill, but it expressed the same concerns to other senators. Had Obama not agreed to the drafting changes, the bill would almost certainly have been blocked by the Republican majority on the Environment Committee." [Washington Post, 2/14/08]

RHETORIC: Lanny Davis said, "He's opposed to an interest rate cap." [Late Edition, 2/17/08]

REALITY: OBAMA OPPOSED A 30% CAP BECAUSE IT WAS ARBITRARY AND TOO HIGH

Obama Opposed Interest Rate Cap Because It Was "Too High Of A Ceiling." Obama said, "It is a fact, because I thought 30 percent potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had had no hearings on that bill. It had not gone through the Banking Committee. I don't know about a lot of folks here, most folks here, if they've got a credit card, are paying 29 percent. So under this provision, that would've been fine." [Debate Transcript, 1/21/08]

RHETORIC: Lanny Davis said, "I'm opposed to earmarks that aren't transparent. And once they are transparent then people can judge." [Late Edition, 2/17/08]

REALITY: OBAMA HAS DISCLOSED HIS EARMARKS, CLINTON HAS NOT

Chicago Sun-Times: Applaud Obama And Others For "The Courage To Disclose Every Earmark Request." The Chicago Sun-Times wrote in an editorial, "As valuable as it has already been to see the earmarks and their sponsors at the subcommittee stage, it's even more valuable to see the requests from members before they even make it that far. That's why we applaud Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel and GOP Representatives Peter Roskam, Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk for having the courage to disclose every earmark request, whether successful or not. The sooner the public can start scrutinizing the earmarks -- which are, after all, demands for taxpayers to fund specific projects -- the sooner it can start separating the wheat from the chaff. We encourage every member of Congress to do the same. The more glare, the more scrutiny, the better the process will work." [Chicago Sun-Times, 6/27/07]

Clinton Refused To Release Her Earmarks. "The drive to get members of Congress to reveal their requests for federal funds has divided the body's 10 presidential candidates. Four of them have released their request lists, putting pressure on others to do so. A fifth, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, does not seek any money. Five others have not released their lists. Four cited long-standing policy. Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's office did not respond to repeated requests for comment." [USA Today, 6/5/07]

2007: Obama Was An Original Cosponsor Of And Voted to Require Disclosure of Earmarks 48 Hours Prior to Consideration. Obama voted to require the disclosure of earmarks 48 hours prior to the consideration of the underlying bill. The vote also defined a targeted tax benefit as a tax deduction, credit, exclusion or preference to a particular beneficiary or a limited group of beneficiaries. The vote was on a Durbin amendment to a DeMint amendment to the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. [Vote #10, Amendment passed, 98-0, S. Amdt. 44, 1/16/07]

2006: Obama Introduced Legislation To Reform the Earmark Process A Year Before Earmark Reform Finally Passed the Senate. In 2006, Obama introduced a bill that would shed light on the earmark process. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists. [S. 2261, 109th Congress, Introduced and Referred to the Senate Rules Committee, 2/8/06]

RHETORIC: Lanny Davis said, "When you ask senator Obama to name an accomplishment Gov. Doyle of Wisconsin struggled to name one accomplishment the other day when I was on a program with him and he came up with the lobbying bill. This is the bill that prohibits lobbyists for paying for meals if people are sitting down but if you're standing up its okay." [Late Edition, 2/17/08]

REALITY: IDEA THAT ETHICS BILLS ALLOWS LAWMAKERS TO EAT WITH LOBBYISTS STANDING UP IS AN "URBAN MYTH"

Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute: Idea That Ethics Bill Allows Lawmakers to Eat With Lobbyists Standing Up in An "Urban Myth". "The notion that the ethics bill only allows lawmakers to eat with lobbyists while standing up is an urban myth -- as is the idea that the ethics and lobbying reform bill was more of the same. It was a tough and meaningful reform, the most meaningful in a generation." [Statement, 1/13/08]

JAN 2007: Clinton Praised Gift Ban For Including "Not Just Meals But Also Gifts Of Travel And Lodging, Areas That Have Been The Subject Of Notorious Abuse." "Both the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 and the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 enact long overdue ethics and lobbying reforms that will hold our elected officials to the highest possible standards...Earning back the confidence and trust of the American people will require greater transparency and stronger laws. The American public deserves to be certain that their elected officials are not being swayed by lavish gifts offered as quid pro quo for promoting special agendas. To that end, gifts from registered lobbyists have no place in our legislative process. For that reason, I support the sweeping ban on lobbyist-paid gifts in the Senate bill. This ban includes not just meals but also gifts of travel and lodging, areas that have been the subject of notorious abuse." [Congressional Record: 1/18/07]

NYT: 2007 Ethics Reform Bill "Quickly Sent A Ripple Of Fear Through K Street" And Was "Already Changing The Culture Of Washington" Before It Was Signed Into Law, Beginning With "More Dutch Treats And Fewer Steak Dinners." "The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street...Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. ''It should send shivers down lobbyists' spines,'' Mr. Brand said. ‘It is a minefield now...President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners...One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions...For lobbyists -- who live at the nexus of contributions and favors -- it is an alarming trend. ''They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,'' one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout. [New York Times, 8/7/07]

02:54 PM | Permalink

The Clinton campaign is trying to push old, inaccurate quotes that misstated Obama's position on NAFTA. When they tried to push the quotes months ago, we put up the full transcript of the question Obama was asked in 2004, that clearly shows he did not say he supported NAFTA. In fact, Obama has consistently opposed NAFTA-like trade deals and the 2004 the report that the Clinton campaign cites is inaccurate.

Transcript: Obama Did Not Say The U.S. "Benefited Enormously" from NAFTA, but from Exports. Obama was asked, “How do you believe that American agriculture has fared in the WTO and NAFTA, and how should we be engaged in further discussions?” Obama said, “Well this is, I think, a challenging issue for the farming community. Because on the one hand, we benefit enormously from exports and so we have an interest in free trade that allows us to move our products overseas. And I know that I may disagree with my opponent on this particular issue. On the other hand what I also know is that historically, because the United States has been the dominant economy, the view has been that other countries can restrict their imports as much as they want and the United States has to keep its markets as open as possible, and that's what constitutes free trade. Now that makes sense 50 years ago when we didn't have significant competition in the manufacturing sector, and we didn't really have significant competition in the agricultural sector as well. That is just not the case today, and so I think it's important for us to negotiate our trade agreements recognizing that the global economy has shifted, and that we have significant competition in the agricultural sector as we do in the manufacturing sector. What that means then is when the Chinese government devalues its currency by 40 percent, we've got to make sure then that we bring China before the WTO, the same way that we get brought before the WTO if other countries think that they're being disadvantaged by our existing trade policy. So what I'm constantly looking at is how can we open markets that are currently closed, whether those are European markets or Asian markets, all across the world agricultural barriers exist at a much higher rate in Europe or Asia than they do right here in the United States. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we've got to make sure free trade remains in place, but it's also fair trade for American farmers.” [Illinois Farm Bureau Transcript, 8/9/07]

Transcript: Obama Said He Supported "Restructuring NAFTA." "Do you support rolling back NAFTA or GATT?" Obama said, "I would support restructuring NAFTA and GATT to make sure that environmental protections, labor protections and so on are in place. And I also think that we've got to enforce some of these provisions more aggressively, the same way other countries are doing. I use the example of China. If China is devaluing its currency by 40 percent and we are not challenging them on that, then there's not much point of having China in the WTO, if they're not respecting our trademarks and our copyright laws. If we have countries that continue to present barriers to us - non-tariff barriers - to our products getting to market, then those are all issues that I think we've got to challenge these countries on. And that's the responsibility of the Administration. The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the Administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of on behalf of workers and communities. If we had a shift in orientation in terms of who are we negotiating for, then I think you'd see some different outcomes." [Illinois Farm Bureau Transcript, 9/8/04]

2004 Chicago Tribune Cited Its Difference With Obama's Opposition to NAFTA. The Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial, "We sharply differ with some of those views, particularly Obama's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." [Chicago Tribune, 2/29/04]

2004 New Yorker: Obama Opposed NAFTA. The New Yorker wrote, "This is a regular theme with Obama: supporters who disagree with him. The two big Chicago daily papers both endorsed him enthusiastically in the primary, even though they disagreed with him on major issues-his opposition to the war in Iraq and, in the case of the Tribune, his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." [New Yorker, 5/31/04]

Obama Said NAFTA And CAFTA Were Not In The Best Interest Of The American Worker "Because They Did Not Contain The Sorts Of Labor Provisions And Environmental Provisions" That They Should Have. "The AP reported, "Obama said he supports the foreign trade deal, which is especially important to labor and U.S. manufacturers. He said active trading is a key way to keep the United States competitive. 'We're not going to draw a moat around the United States' economy. If we do that, then China is still trading, India is still going to be trading,' said Obama, who voted against the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement and opposes the pending trade deal with South Korea. 'I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements,' he said." [AP, 10/10/07]

09:27 PM | Permalink

RHETORIC: "Barack Obama still won't agree to debate in Wisconsin. Now he's hiding behind false attack ads. Maybe he doesn't want to explain why his health care plan leaves out 15 million people, and Hillary's covers everyone."

REALITY: Obama Will Sign Universal Health Care Plan as President, And His Plan May Cover More People Than Hillary's Does

Obama Said He Will Sign Universal Health Care By The End Of His First Term. In a speech, Obama said, "When I am president, I will sign a universal health care law by the end of my first term. My plan will cover the uninsured by letting people buy into the same kind of health care plan that members of Congress give themselves. It will bring down costs by investing in information technology, and preventative care, and by stopping the drug companies from price-gouging when patients need their medicine. It will help business and families shoulder the burden of catastrophic care so that an illness doesn't lead to a bankruptcy. And it will save the average family a thousand dollars a year on their premiums. We can do this." [Obama Speech, 5/2/07]

Reich: Obama's Health Care Plan Would Cover "More People" Than Hillary's. "I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old…In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people." [Robert Reich, 12/3/07]

REALITY: 15 Million Is A "Dubious Statistic" To Use When Discussing Obama's Plan

"Clinton Uses A Dubious Statistic When She Claims Obama's Plan Would Leave Out 15 Million Of The Uninsured." FactCheck.org reported, "Clinton uses a dubious statistic when she claims Obama's plan would leave out 15 million of the uninsured…Clinton based her claim on a column by The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, who loosely estimated Obama's plan would leave 15 million uninsured…Cohn makes it clear here that he is offering an estimate based on the best information available, not a hard and fast calculation. And the best available information doesn't always agree." [FactCheck.org, 11/16/07]

Clinton's Claim "Based On Too Many Hypotheticals To Rate More Than A Half True." "It's a tough call, but because of the disagreements here, we find her claim to be based on too many hypotheticals to rate more than a Half True." [Politifact, 11/15/07]

Clinton Cited "Hardly An Authoritative Source" For The 15 Million Claim. "So where did Clinton get her figure of 15 million uninsured under the Obama plan? Her website cites an article in the New Republic, hardly an authoritative source." [Washington Post, 11/15/07]

RHETORIC: "Or why he voted to pass billions in Bush giveaways to the oil companies, but Hillary didn't."

REALITY: Outside Arbiters Have Repeatedly Pointed Out: Oil Bill Increase Taxes On Oil Industry, Included Numerous Obama Efforts to Increase Renewable Fuels

Fact Check: "We've Called Clinton On This Once Before... The Highly Publicized Energy Bill The President Signed In 2005 Raised Taxes Slightly On The Oil Industry As A Whole." Fact Check: "We've called Clinton on this once before. It's true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most of those breaks were for electric utilities, nuclear power plants, alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes." Actually, the highly publicized energy bill the president signed in 2005 raised taxes slightly on the oil industry as a whole, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service [FactCheck.org, 1/6/08; FactCheck.org, 7/25/07]

AP Fact Check: "Clinton Is On Shakier Ground" For Attack Obama On The 2005 Energy Bill Since The Congressional Research Service Showed That The Bill Actually Raised Taxes On The Oil And Gas Industry. The AP reported, "Clinton is on shakier ground when attacking Obama for supporting "Dick Cheney's energy bill," and not just because it's a stretch to assign the vice president name - red meat to Democrats - to the legislation. The 2005 act that she describes as packed with billions of dollars in oil industry breaks actually raised taxes on the oil and gas industry by about $300 million over 11 years, according to the Congressional Research Service. The nonpartisan analysis found $2.6 billion in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry and $2.9 billion in tax increases. The bulk of tax breaks went to other sources of energy, including alternative fuels favored by both Clinton and Obama." [AP, 2/15/08]

Obama Worked Consistently to Improve Energy Bill, Which Took Important Step Towards Energy Independence. When Obama first voted for the bill, he said that he voted for the bill reluctantly and that he was disappointed with the missed opportunity to do something bolder to move the country towards energy independence by recognizing the importance of a fuel alternative. Obama played a leadership role in promoting seven amendments that strengthened the 2005 bill when it was on the floor and did not stop fighting to strengthen the bill after it was passed, introducing legislation in 2007 to end some of the most egregious tax breaks for the oil industry that were part of the 2005 bill. [HR 6, Vote 139, 6/15/06; SA 851 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; HR 6, Vote 141, 6/16/05; HR 6, Vote 145, 6/21/05; SA 919 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; 110th, S. 115, Referred to Finance, 1/4/07; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 767, Passed Commerce Committee, 5/8/07]

2005-2007: Obama Introduced Legislation Repealing Tax Breaks And Other Perks For the Oil Industry, Requiring Yearly Increases In CAFE Standards, And Requiring Significant Increases In Renewable Fuel Mandates And Alternative Energy Incentives. Since 2005, Obama has introduced legislation suspending the 2005 energy bill's tax incentives and other perks for the oil industry in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requiring significant increases in the renewable fuel mandates over the next few years, requiring yearly increases in CAFÉ standards, and providing incentives for E-85 fuel pump installation, alternative vehicle research and production. [S. 115, 110th Congress; S. 23, 110th Congress; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 2202, Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 10/18/2007 S. 2984, 109th Congress; S. 1324, Introduced 5/7/07; Press Release, 5/7/07]

RHETORIC: "Or why he said he might raise the retirement age and cut benefits for Social Security."

REALITY: Obama Has Said Repeatedly That He Does Not Want to Cut Benefits or Raise the Retirement Age

Obama: "I Do Not Want to Cut Benefits or Raise The Retirement Age." Obama wrote, "I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors." [Quad City Times, 9/21/07]

Obama Said That He Wouldn't Support Any Social Security Fix That Forced "Seniors To Bear A Heavier Burden." "Obama said he would strengthen Social Security by opposing any effort to create private accounts, raise the retirement age and cut benefits. He said the 'best option' is to ask America's wealthiest workers to pay their fair share and force Congress to stop irresponsibly borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. 'There are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve forcing seniors to bear a heavier burden,' Obama said. 'The best option, in my view, is to ask the highest income Americans to contribute a little more by raising the ceiling that's currently put on the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax.'" [Chicago Weekend, 10/31/07]

Obama: "I Won't Cut Benefits --It Isn't Appropriate To Raise The Retirement Age." Obama said, "We have a long term problem with social security- we will have 78 million baby boomers retiring- the only way to close the gap is to bring in more money- I wont cut benefits- it isn't appropriate to raise the retirement age." [KFOG, 11/12/07]

Obama: "We Should Protect Benefits. I Don't Think The Best Way To Approach This Is To Raise The Retirement Age." Obama said, "So I've been very specific about saying that we should not privatize, we should protect benefits. I don't think the best way to approach this is to raise the retirement age. But what we can do is adjust the cap on the payroll tax. Right now, anybody who's making $97,000 or less, you pay payroll tax on 100 percent of your income. Warren Buffett, who made $46 million last year, pays on a fraction of one percent of his income." [Debate, 11/16/07]

03:58 PM | Permalink

RHETORIC: "My opponent says that he'll take on the special interests. Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill -- the bill never actually passed.

REALITY: Clinton Touted Her Role In The Exact Legislation She is Attacking Obama For

Clinton Cosponsored, Supported Obama’s Bill on Reporting Requirements For Nuclear Plants. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama’s Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. She praised the bill’s passage in a press release that day, saying "This important legislation will ensure prompt notification of any future leaks." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; Clinton Press Release, 9/13/06]

REALITY: Clinton Voted To Keep Nuclear Loan Guarantees In Energy Bill, Benefiting One Of Her Big Campaign Boosters

REALITY: Clinton Has Taken Thousands From Nuclear Power Plant Operator NRG Energy, The First Company To File A New Application For A Nuclear Power Plan Since The Three Mile Island Accident And NRG's CEO Is A Clinton Bundler

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, Is a Maxed-Out Contributor And Bundler For Clinton's Campaign. 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]

REALITY: NRG Committed Millions Of Dollars To The Clinton Global Initiative

NRG Committed $5M To The Clinton Global Initiative In The First Year And $175M Total To Form The NRG Energy Carbon Capture And Sequestration 2007 Initiative. NRG has committed $5 million in the first year and a total of $175 million to the Clinton Global Initiative to form the NRG Energy Carbon Capture and Sequestration 2007 initiative. [Clinton Global Initiative]

REALITY: Obama Bill Required Immediate Disclosure From Nuclear Industry

National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]

Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]

Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

REALITY: Nuclear Industry Did Not Support Obama Bill -- Believed Congressional Action Was Unnecessary

CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]

NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]

NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]

RHETORIC: "On top of that, the same company that watered down that bill lobbied for Dick Cheney's energy bill. And my opponent voted for the energy bill, with its billions of dollars of breaks for the oil industry. I voted against it."

Fact Check: "We've Called Clinton On This Once Before... The Highly Publicized Energy Bill The President Signed In 2005 Raised Taxes Slightly On The Oil Industry As A Whole." Fact Check: "We've called Clinton on this once before. It's true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most of those breaks were for electric utilities, nuclear power plants, alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes." Actually, the highly publicized energy bill the president signed in 2005 raised taxes slightly on the oil industry as a whole, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service [FactCheck.org, 1/6/08; FactCheck.org, 7/25/07]

Obama Worked Consistently to Improve Energy Bill, Which Took Important Step Towards Energy Independence. When Obama first voted for the bill, he said that he voted for the bill reluctantly and that he was disappointed with the missed opportunity to do something bolder to move the country towards energy independence by recognizing the importance of a fuel alternative. Obama played a leadership role in promoting seven amendments that strengthened the 2005 bill when it was on the floor and did not stop fighting to strengthen the bill after it was passed, introducing legislation in 2007 to end some of the most egregious tax breaks for the oil industry that were part of the 2005 bill. [HR 6, Vote 139, 6/15/06; SA 851 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; HR 6, Vote 141, 6/16/05; HR 6, Vote 145, 6/21/05; SA 919 to HR 6, Passed by UC, 6/23/05; 110th, S. 115, Referred to Finance, 1/4/07; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 767, Passed Commerce Committee, 5/8/07]

2005-2007: Obama Introduced Legislation Repealing Tax Breaks And Other Perks For the Oil Industry, Requiring Yearly Increases In CAFE Standards, And Requiring Significant Increases In Renewable Fuel Mandates And Alternative Energy Incentives. Since 2005, Obama has introduced legislation suspending the 2005 energy bill's tax incentives and other perks for the oil industry in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requiring significant increases in the renewable fuel mandates over the next few years, requiring yearly increases in CAFÉ standards, and providing incentives for E-85 fuel pump installation, alternative vehicle research and production. [S. 115, 110th Congress; S. 23, 110th Congress; S. 133, Introduced 1/4/07; S. 2202, Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 10/18/2007 S. 2984, 109th Congress; S. 1324, Introduced 5/7/07; Press Release, 5/7/07]

RHETORIC: "My opponent says he'll stand up for workers. He often talks about the plight of Maytag workers in his home state. But the union at that plant supports me because when 1,600 jobs were being lost, they say he didn't do a thing to help."

REALITY: Obama And Durbin Demanded Immediate Assistance For Displaced Maytag Workers, Department Of Labor Met Their Demands

Obama And Durbin Wrote To Secretary Of Labor Requesting Rapid Response Program Assistance For Displaced Maytag Workers. "We are writing regarding the decision of Whirlpool, Inc. to close Maytag washer and dryer plants in Illinois and Arkansas. These plant closings will have a significant impact on thousands of our constituents, and we request the immediate assistance of the Department of Labor (DOL) in helping displaced Maytag workers get back on their feet...We understand that state officials and community leaders are attempting to stop or mitigate these plant closings. However, we want to make sure that if the closings go forward, the 1,700 individuals in Illinois and Arkansas who will lose their jobs will have immediate access to the full range of DOL programs and services. Specifically, we request that the Department immediately mobilize resources through the DOL Rapid Response program to begin working with state and local workforce development agencies and local One-Stop Career Centers to help Maytag employees transition into new jobs. These workers will require: career counseling and job search assistance; information about unemployment insurance; opportunities for education and training; and information about their health benefits and pensions options. We understand that Rapid Response specialists have a unique ability to provide this training, and we request that these specialists be mobilized immediately to help displaced Maytag workers...Finally, we expect that many of our dislocated constituents will apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance. Competition from foreign imports may have played a central role in the loss of these 1,700 jobs. We hope the Department will consider certifying these displaced workers as eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance, which will help them return to suitable employment as quickly as possible...We appreciate your timely consideration of these requests." [Obama/Durbin Letter to Chao, 5/17/06]

Obama Wrote That He Appreciated TAA Funding For Displaced Maytag Workers In Illinois. "We appreciate the Department's approval of TAA funding for workers displaced by the Maytag plant closing in Herrin, Illinois, among other assistance provided to former Maytag workers; we hope that our constituents in Godfrey will be given similar consideration." [Press Release, 9/5/06]

Obama Announced That DOL Would Assist Displaced Maytag Workers In Illinois. Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) today announced that the United States Department of Labor (DOL) will provide displaced workers with job placement and training assistance if the Maytag plant in Herrin, Illinois closes. "Obviously, my hope is that the Maytag plant remains open, but I'm happy that the Department of Labor is prepared to do everything it can to help these workers land on their feet," said Obama. "The Maytag plant has long been the backbone of Herrin's economy, and if it closes we must all do our part to keep this community intact." [Press Release, 6/23/06]

RHETORIC: "My opponent says to cut health care costs more aggressively than I do. But as an independent analysis from The Commonwealth Fund shows, the most effective way to lower costs is to truly cover everyone. His health care plan doesn't. Mine does."

REALITY: Independent Experts Agree Obama's Plan Lowers Costs More Than Clinton's Does

Newsweek: Clinton's Plan "Would Do Nearly As Well" As Obama's In Per Family Savings, But Not Quite. Newsweek reported, "For instance, the mailer says Obama's plan will save the average family $2,500 per year. That estimate comes from several Harvard professors who examined the plan at the Obama campaign's request. But Clinton says the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs, estimates her plan would do nearly as well, saving about $2,200 per year per family." [Newsweek, 2/4/08]

Reich: Obama's Health Care Plan Would Cover "More People" Than Hillary's. "I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old…In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people." [Robert Reich, 12/3/07]

Obama Health Care Plan Saves $2500 For the Typical Family. A memo from David Blumenthal, David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman analyzing Obama's health care plan, wrote, "Combining all of these effects – from improved health IT, better disease management, reduced insurance overhead, reinsurance, and reduced uncompensated care -- under our 'best-guess' assumptions, we estimate that businesses will save $140 billion annually in insurance premiums. The typical family will save $2500 per year." [Health Care Expert Cost Memo, 5/29/07]

RHETORIC: "I was, however, glad to see that yesterday, my opponent adopted the goal of five million green collar jobs -- months after I announced I would create five million green collar jobs."

REALITY: Obama Advocated for Green Collar Jobs for Years--And Unveiled His Plan a Month Before Clinton Unveiled Hers

OCT 2007, MONTH BEFORE HILLARY'S PLAN: Obama's Said In His Energy Plan That Investing In Energy Would Create Millions Of New Jobs In The US. Obama said, "In meeting the challenges of earlier generations, we didn't just end a costly war or beat the Soviets to the moon - we also unleashed opportunities we had never dreamed of. The GI Bill sent an entire generation of Americans - including my grandfather - to college and then on to the middle-class. Legions of scientists and engineers emerged from our race to space whose discoveries and innovations have forever changed the world. That's why my plan isn't just about making dirty energy expensive, it's about making clean energy affordable - a project that will create millions of new jobs and entire new industries right here in America." [Speech, 10/8/07]

Apollo Alliance Co-Founder Bracken Hendricks Praised Obama's Energy Plan For Funding Programs To Train "Our Youth In The 'Green Collar Jobs' Of The Future. Hendricks, Co-founder of the Apollo Alliance and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress said, "Barack Obama's plan to combat global warming and achieve energy security shows that investing in clean energy will drive good jobs and economic growth. This proposal reduces carbon emissions and boldly invests in clean energy alternatives and efficiency. From helping farmers locally produce bio-fuels, to training our youth in the 'green collar jobs' of the future; from helping US manufacturers retool to build more efficient cars, to creating a venture fund for emerging clean technology, this plan demonstrates that solving global warming is at the center of renewing America's economy." [Obama Release, 10/8/07]

SEP 2006: Obama Addressed Creating Green Collar Jobs In A Speech On Energy Independence. Obama said, "During World War II, we had an entire country working around the clock to produce enough planes and tanks to beat the Axis powers. In the middle of the Cold War, we built a national highway system so we had a quick way to transport military equipment across the country. When we wanted to beat the Russians into space, we poured millions into a national education initiative that graduated thousands of new scientists and engineers. If we hope to strengthen our security and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, we can offer no less of a commitment to energy independence." [Speech, 9/20/06]

APR 2006: Obama Addressed Green Collar Jobs In A Speech On Fuel Efficiency Standards. Obama said, "But it's precisely because of that competition that they don't have a choice. China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius to sell 100,000 in the U.S. this year. There is now no doubt that fuel-efficient cars represent the future of the auto industry. If American car companies hope to be a part of that future - if they hope to survive - they must start building more of these cars. This isn't just about energy - this is about the ability to create millions of new jobs and save an entire American industry." [Speech, 4/3/06]

Obama Called for Green Jobs in Audacity of Hope...Published in 2006. "What we can do is create renewable, cleaner energy sources for the twenty-first century. Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, we should end every single tax break the industry currently receives and demand that 1 percent of the revenues from oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward financing alternative energy research and the necessary infrastructu