Clinton, Obama, and the Bush-Cheney energy bill that allows LNG to threaten Oregon

By Paddy McGuire of Portland, Oregon. Paddy is a former executive director of the Democratic Party of Oregon, a former Clinton Administration appointee, and a former deputy Oregon Secretary of State. Last week, he contributed "The Red Sox Should Have Dropped Out".

Critics of Hillary Clinton repeatedly point to her 2002 vote to authorize going to war with Iraq (if Saddam Hussein continued to stymie U.N. weapons inspectors, a resolution supported by U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix) as the primary evidence that she should not be President. Many cite this vote as a reason to oppose Hillary, despite many of those same people having earlier supported John Kerry and John Edwards for President, who voted exactly the same way.

Fast forward to 2005.

Vice-President Cheney crafted an energy bill with corporate energy pals in Congress that stripped authority from the states on the siting of

Today, the Cheney-Bush Energy bill is responsible for no fewer than 3 LNG facilities threatening Oregon coastline, rivers, forests, fish, fishermen, farmers, and neighborhoods up and down western Oregon, and most of that natural gas will ultimately go to California.

Let’s see who was for this mess and who was against it:

Opposed the Cheney-Bush Energy Bill
Hillary Clinton
Ron Wyden
Earl Blumenauer
Peter DeFazio
Darlene Hooley
David Wu

For the Cheney-Bush Energy Bill
Barack Obama
Gordon Smith
Greg Walden

The vote information is here and here.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Thank you for the facts.

    There are so many of these kinds of comparisons to be made. We owe it to ourselves to really look at our candidate's policies and stop being sidetracked by character assassination and media favorites.

    I am not going to vote for the candidate that MSNBC or Huff Post tells me to vote for. I am going to vote for the candidate with the record and the strength to get things done.

    Go Hillary!

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's actually called the Energy Policy Act of 2005, not the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill.

    And if states have no say in the siting of LNG terminals, why then did Delaware just win a Supreme Court fight with New Jersey over the latter state's proposal to put a facility on the Delaware River?

    This smells of election propaganda to me...

    "The justices, in a 6-2 decision, said Delaware can block the project, even though it was proposed by energy giant BP for New Jersey's side of the river."

  • Johnh (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Interesting to finally see pro-Hillary posts. The lack of enthusiasm here was starting to become deafening.

  • (Show?)

    Paddy, did Hillary speak out against the war before Obama? Because that's what she said in Eugene.

    Critics of Hillary Clinton repeatedly point to her 2002 vote to authorize going to war with Iraq...

    I don't want the goal posts to be arbitrarily moved here: what I specifically pointed out yesterday is that Hillary misstated Obama's record and her own. So, yes, John Edwards voted for the war, but there's a world of difference in how each has taken resonsibility for the vote.

  • Charlie, puhleeze (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie -

    You never address the 2005 vote on the Cheney-Bush energy bill. That is the subject of Paddy's post.

    Yes, in your post you were trying to stir up controversy about something Hillary said about Iraq because you didn't want to comment on the prior post about the energy bill and LNG. Once again, when the energy bill is the topic, you want to talk about Iraq.

    If Hillary's vote in 2002 is a huge issue for you, why isn't a 2005 vote after Senators had 3 years to better understand Bush's deceit?

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clinton voted for this same bill on June 28, 2005. Is the withdrawl of her support because of the citing of LNG facilities?

  • (Show?)

    So now it seems clear that for every bill that impacts our state (certainly every bill that Dubya and Deadeye Dick put a pen to), alert Oregonians will need to contact every member of Congress to express our wishes. Actually, that's pretty good advice.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I put this on the scale with Clinton's Iraq vote and the aftermath and something broke!

  • (Show?)

    "Puhleeze"--

    Paddy brought up the war vote in his post and certainly seemed to frame it as old news. But Hillary's comments this weekend are anything but.

    I'm the one stirring up controversy? Give me a break, anonymous. Hillary went on the attack with a version of the Iraqi War vote made up out of whole cloth. All I did was post a simple fact check. For Clinton supporters, an open invitation: If anyone can point to facts supporting her dubious Iraq War claim, I will gladly post a retraction.

  • (Show?)

    Paddy-

    You conveniently forgot to mention that Obama voted for an amendment to the bill that would have given states the authority to site the terminals.

  • (Show?)

    As other have already noted, Obama voted in support (i.e. not table the amendment) an amendment that would have given the states authority to site the LNG terminals. Obama voted for the overall bill because it would encourage ethanol, clean-coal technology and other energy alternatives that would reduce demand for foreign oil.

    But color me shocked that a former Clinton Administration appointee is here pushing the very same line of false attack that Clinton herself was pushing yesterday when she knows full well that Obama specifically was supporting the position of giving states full control over whether to site LNG facilities even though Oregon still has the ability to weigh in on LNG projects through the Coastal Zone Management Act, even though the amendment both Obama and Clinton supported ultimately failed.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Critics of Hillary Clinton repeatedly point to her 2002 vote to authorize going to war with Iraq (if Saddam Hussein continued to stymie U.N. weapons inspectors, a resolution supported by U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix)...

    What resolution are you talking about that you claim Hans Blix supported? A U.N. resolution for inspections in Iraq or the Bush/Cheney/Congress resolution to go to war?

    I'm not enthused about an LNG terminal being placed in Oregon, but it could exist here for decades without a major problem as has been the case in other locations. That is much different from the Iraqi war which has been a real problem for thousands of people from the day the first troops left the U.S. for the war zone.

    If this post was to encourage Obama supporters to have second thoughts it will have failed in many cases, because some of us are voting for him with reservations but still see him as much less of a problem than Hillary.

  • Charlie, puhleeze (unverified)
    (Show?)

    But back to the LNG issue, Charlie. Do you or do you not think that voting to strip Oregon's authority and Oregonians of their voice in the process is a legitimate issue?

    Nick, I checked. Obama supported an amendment that would have preserved what was then the current law giving states the authority. He was against LNG before he was for it?

    Bottom line - the only vote that counted was the vote for final passage. Every Democratic member of our delegation --thank god -- voted with Hillary and against the Cheney-Bush energy bill. Every Republican in Oregon's delegation joined with Obama in supporting the Cheney-Bush Big Energy bill.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A lot of good, detailed info on the LNG issue here:

    • What is up for discussion? Proposals for liquefied natural gas terminals along the Columbia River and the Oregon Coast currently are in process. In addition, new gas pipelines are being discussed. Pipelines would be 36 inches in diameter and buried at least 3 feet below ground. They carry gas long distances under pressure.
  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paddy, it's intellectually dishonest of you to compare the vote for Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq with the 2005 Energy Bill. The energy bill was a complicated piece of legislation full of compromises, including LNG provisions which Obama backed to try to balance the bill.

    Do we really have to hear the Hans Blix nonsense again? I know many Democrats cringed when we heard Clinton obfuscate on her Iraq vote behind Blix, and say that the October 2002 vote was "not really about war" during her stop here in Eugene Saturday. Who are you (and she) fooling?

    But that's not even the point. The authorization for the use of force in Iraq may have been a political courage test for liberals, but not necessarily. The test of courage for Democrats who authorized the war has been to admit they were wrong, and Clinton has consistently failed to do this.

    So, stop comparing LNG terminals to 4,000 dead Americans and a multi-million person humanitarian crisis.

    PS Thanks for linking to the official roll call at the end. No thanks, however, for the arbitrary lumping of the candidates with our congressional delegation. Why not just put Tom Coburn and Rick Santorum up there with the yea voters to really slander Obama by association? Or put liberal icons like Dick Durbin and Maria Cantwell alongside Hillary- oops- they voted for the bill.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What was the Jr. senator from Illinois to do? Durbin voted for it and his state produces the corn which is the feed stock for 40% of the nations ethanol.

  • Charlie, puhleeze (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Taylor M - So is it your position that the Bush-Cheney energy bill was good for America, good for the environment, and good for consumers? If so, why not quit making excuses and come out and say it was a great bill and Obama did the right thing.

    Or can you only talk about the Iraq vote?

    God, you people sure cling to your comfort zone.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So Hillary voted against ethanol, clean-coal technology and other energy alternatives that would reduce demand for foreign oil? I may not want to brag about that if I were a Hillary supporter.

  • It's complex folks (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Some thoughts: The 2005 energy bill was in total, a lousy bill for the environment as it was loaded with nasty incentives and legal insulation for coal, oil and nuke industries. Oh and it by-and-large removed the states' ability to veto a FERC siting decision. The states are now limited to Clean Water Act permits as their only leverage points.

    When introduced, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 also had language to fast-track oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlfe refuge and to hold gasoline suppliers harmless for the pernicious and deadly fuel additive MTBE, but the environmental community worked its butt off to kill those titles.

    In the end, the Bushies threw some renewables in to help sway enough Ds to get to cloture. Oh, and like the FISA amendments, the Rs did it right before the August recess.

    Staunch liberals like Boxer (D-CA) voted for the original and then against the final conference report. Other good progressive Ds like Cantwell, Harkin, Stabenow and the most staunch of anti-war senators-Byrd, voted for final passage. Kudos should also go to Wyden for being one of the few to vote against it in committee and on the floor.

    See votes 158 and 213 at this link:http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

    There are bound to be votes that advocates for one candidate or another can choose to highlight as blasphemous, and I believe that Paddy's post here is a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to shave off some of Obama's pro-environment supporters.

    As someone who cut his activist "teeth" during the old growth wars and the fight to hold Exxon accountable for the damage to Prince William Sound, I ain't buying it.

    So think it through before you bail out one way or the other. Personally, while I feel Obama's vote was a mistake, I'm certain it's not one he would have chosen to make, and the bill did contain some minimal incentives for renewables and green building that made it slightly less godawful. I am not aware of any such attempts at mitigation in the vote to authorize GWB to take us to hell (but not back again) in Iraq.

  • (Show?)

    Nick, I checked. Obama supported an amendment that would have preserved what was then the current law giving states the authority. He was against LNG before he was for it?

    Har har har. However, the difference between the AUMF and the energy bill was that the latter dealt with a number of different topics beyond the LNG siting. As lestatdelc noted, Obama voted for it because it funded alternative energies to oil, most notably ethanol, which of course would be of great benefit to Illinois. He tried to maintain the state's ability to site the terminals, but unfortunately the amendment failed. Similarly, let's not be so naive as to think that Clinton opposed the bill simply because of the LNG issue.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As Charlie calls you, "Puhleeze"-

    Did you read the word compromise in my comment? I'm no fan of the bill, and ethanol's a farce, but Obama voted in a responsible way, given his situation. James r was on the money when he mentioned Obama's difficult situation in balancing the interests of his Ill. constituents, along with Obama's ability to push for more progressive provisions.

    No, the 2005 energy bill was not a wonderful beautiful manatee-saving panacea. But here's something else, because since you are a troll I can't vouchsafe your legislative knowledge: US Senators are rarely faced with morally unambiguous votes. Paddy dubiously and I think dishonestly tried to equate Clinton's 2002 Iraq war yea vote to Obama's 2005 energy bill yea vote. The vote to give Bush the right to attack and occupy Iraq was as morally unambiguous as a vote will ever come. It was not good for America, good for the environment, or good for consumers. A reasonable and maybe even convincing case exists that Obama's energy vote (including ethanol subsidies and cleaner energy provisions) was good for consumers, the environment, etc.

    Paddy brought up the war vote ( and entered into my comfort zone, so to speak) as compared to the 2005 energy bill, and I was only responding to his post.

  • Mjordan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama is NOT who he says he is fellow Oregonians. He is cozy with the nuke industry in Illinois. Google it and you can see a number of articles about this. If he was so anti-war, then what did the actually DO once in the Senate. Nothing. Please, Oregon, do not fall for his pomp and fluff. You might dispute a vote or two with Hillary, but she is the real deal when it comes to our issues. Vote substance! M Jordan, Welches

  • N. Bekker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with the last poster in this regard. I admit I have been somwhat "taken" with the Obama phenomena. However, lately I am reconsidering. This is such a huge election. I am fearful that Obama's "getting everybody together" will translate into watered down centrist compromises and even appeasement. We actually need a fighter. Edwards was the man, but the second-best fighter for our side is Hillary. When I stop and think about it, I don't WANT to hold hands with Republican righties in the name of a new kind of politics (that's Obama). I want to press, and press hard, for a new majority of progressives that will NOT compromise. That Energy bill vote above gives me pause with Obama. It's kind of this message and M.O. -- he wimped out. I am seriously reconsidering, and I hope all progressive Oregon voters will at least vote with their eyes wide open. Please be sure about your vote. Thanks.

  • Charlie, puhleeze (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The vote to give Bush the right to attack and occupy Iraq was as morally unambiguous as a vote will ever come. It was not good for America, good for the environment, or good for consumers. -- Taylor M

    Really Taylor M? So John Kerry and John Edwards were immoral? Most Oregonians don't share that view, and certainly most Democrats know better. They are good, decent men, and Hillary is a good, decent woman.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    M Jordan, if Obama "did nothing" once he got to the Senate (are you serious?!) then what did Clinton do? Less than nothing? Her whole anti-war claim to fame is that "anti-war Jack Murtha" (her words) endorsed her and that she has voted "90% the same" as Obama. Notice too how in her Eugene speech she explicitly distinguished her anti-war supporters as different from her.

    N Bekker, if you think Obama is about appeasement, why are conservatives already touting Obama's 2007 NJ most "liberal" voting record in the Senate? Why would he take on the morgate crisis as a Senator almost a year before it was politically popular? I think you're confusing the method with the message. Obama has a convincing argument for progressive change, and because it's convincing, on a lot of grounds he will unite people, regardless of ideological positioning. On the other hand, if anyone's looking for watered-down centrist appeasement, revisit the Clintons and the late 1990s.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Puhleeze troll:

    Rather than respond, I'll just mention, clearly and explicitly, that and Kerry and Edwards have both expressed regret and contrition for their war support, and that Clinton hasn't, and was a war supporter until it was no longer electorally viable. With that I'll quote my previous post.

    <hr/>

    Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 7, 2008 7:10:28 PM

    The authorization for the use of force in Iraq may have been a political courage test for liberals, but not necessarily. The test of courage for Democrats who authorized the war has been to admit they were wrong, and Clinton has consistently failed to do this.

  • Steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Great, has anyone thought of an alterantive to energy independence when we drive every LNG terminal and distillery out of the country? WHen gas hits $5 a gallon and corn is $100/bushel thanks to the unusal foresight of all the liberal types, I can hardly wait to see who gets blamed.

  • M Jordan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I really don't want to get in a back and forth here. However, by doing nothing I mean just that. We were desperate to find a leader in Congress who would stand up and vote for cutting off funding, and our Dem leaders let us down in the name of not having the votes, etc. etc. Obama had a chance to step up and did not do it. He voted to fun the war. That's a fact. I'm not commparing Hillary, like you, I'm just sticking to Obama. He's more smoke and mirrors than the kind of candidate he (and you) make him out to be. Yes Bill Clinton was centrist on some issues (welfare reform) but Bill is not running for President. Hillary is. She has been a consistent and leading liberal/progressive for many years and there is no denying that.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "anti-war Jack Murtha" VOTED FOR THE WAR when he took a break from scooping up pork for his district.

  • M Jordan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry for the typos -- I meant fund the war, not fun the war, and comparing, not commparing.

  • N Bekker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Taylor M, with all due respect, you are somewhat naive if you really believe people will unite for progressive advancement "regardless of ideological positioning." I don't want to laugh but . . . . That's precisely what scares me about Obama, the thought that that could happen in the real world. It can't and it is actually foolish to think it. I wish John Edwards was still a candidate -- you have to fight for what is right and that takes courage and hard work to build progressive majorities. It just doesn't work Obama's way, and could actually in the end by counterproductive to our great progressive causes.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is a summary of the bill from the Washington Post :

    The Bush administration said this bill's $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives would spur oil and gas companies to find innovative ways to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution. Supporters also said the bill would lead to the creation of more oil refineries, new oil drilling projects and new nuclear power plants -- arguing that all were necessary to meet the nation's energy needs and reduce importation of foreign oil. Opponents said the measure amounted to a give-away to large energy companies already flush with cash due to rising oil and gas prices and that it would do little to solve the nation's energy-related problems. Opponents further argued that the bill could lead to drilling in coastal and other sensitive areas and damage the environment. The bill called for increase use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and offered incentives for development of alternative energy sources (such as wind and solar), tax breaks for hybrid cars, construction of more energy efficient buildings. The bill did not include the controversial proposal to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling, but the proposal was added to a later bill, which was defeated. The final version of the energy bill passed both the House and Senate in late July 2005 and was signed into law by the president on August 8, 2005.

    The official Democratic Party position on this bill was "Yes", vote in favor.

  • Missy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Once again you people cling to your positions without ever acknowledging the obvious. The Clinton Iraq vote was simply wrong. The Obama energy bill vote was simply wrong.

    And come on Obama people, if Clinton had voted for the Bush energy bill and Obama had voted against it, you would be making the exact same arguments Paddy made.

    They were both wrong, and I will vote for either for President.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Maria Cantwell voted in favor of this bill.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How can there be this amazing disconnect about Iraq. Could there be anything more distructive to the environment and our collective future on this planet? The future of energy is higher prices, doing more with less and doing without. Don't put blood in my gasoline.

  • M Jordan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is just one of many facts about Obama that just cannot be ignored, dear Oregon progressives: He is more than cozy with the nuke energy industry. go to the link below and see --it is just one of many like it... in Illinois he even flat out stated he rejected both liberal and conservative views on energy, which is what N Bekker is posting about.

    http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/05/senator-obama-climate-change-air.html

  • r kretz (unverified)
    (Show?)

    OK, when he's back in Oregon let's make him explain it. Let's hold him accountable. I'm not changing my vote to Hillary but I do have questions about all of this. I admit it gives me pause -- Oregon has always been a leader in the anti-nuclear movement and I wouldn't like it one bit if it was true that Obama was somehow connected to that industry. If he is he needs to own up to it. I do want to know all the facts.

  • (Show?)

    in case a few people didn't notice, Obama represents a state that is not Oregon. that means that his considerations on behalf of his constituents (he's a representative of those constituents, if you recall your Civics class from high school) will differ from those of Wyden. here in Oregon (and up in Washington) we benefit from damming the hell out of the Columbia River. lucky us. we have plenty of electricity, enough to ship to California. last time i looked, Illinois was rather bereft of major rivers to dam for its power. for Illinois, nuclear power represents an option that is much cleaner, and possibly cheaper, than coal.

    all 3 of these power sources suck. our dams are killing salmon, coal is causing acid rain, and nukes make people glow in the dark. but at this point in our sad history, we "need" power. lots of it. so here in Oregon, we keep our dams, build those big-ass wind turbines (god knows what ecological damange they're doing) and mock Illinois for supporting "bad" energy.

    and i'm realy having a problem seeing what's so evil in the link given by M.Jordan:

    But keeping nuclear power on the table — and indeed planning for the construction of new plants — is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

    this is bad? saying that nukes are viable only if we improve how we plan for them? that what we're doing now is not good enough? i guess if he isn't saying "close 'em all down!" he's "cozy". funky logic, that. but then since he's fool enough not to represent the ecologically pure people of Oregon, he's obviously going to get this all wrong. darn him for being so conscientious of Illinois' citizens and not Oregon's.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There is no seperation between any of the candidates on nuclear power. They all favor it, so we will have to deal with that.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    N Bekker, this might bely my naivety, but if you look at the last four months of elections, Obama's crossover appeal is already working! Have you followed this Democratic primary's effect on independents and conservatives, and the outrageous numbers of them Obama has convinced to vote for him and for his platform? Clinton didn't win the self-identified Republican vote in a primary until her husband went on the Rush Limbaugh Show to push GOP voters to keep the fighting going. Obama will attract thousands of independents and GOP voters to vote into the Oregon primary for him.

    Look, Democrats are never going to win the Fox News viewership vote, they're never going to win the rock solid 28% who love Bush. But if Obama can't attract conservatives to vote for a liberal, why are high profile conservatives like Doug Kmiec (Reagan's constitution advisor) and Andrew Sullivan endorsing him, and why are conservatives like Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell leaving the door open to endorsing him? It's been eight years of war, lies, economic stagnation, torture, wiretapping, and amazing incompetence. About half of Republicans believe all of this, and Obama speaks to them. Some people are so afraid of Republicans they never notice a real opportunity to win them over.

    And as for Edwards, I've never understood why people think he's some great Democratic champion. I greatly admire his focus on poverty and New Orleans- I spent the last years there- but when he was a Senator he made Hillary Clinton look like Wayne Morse. Elizabeth Edwards, on the other hand, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    TA, I guess the same case could be made saying Hillary Clinton represents the state of NY, so she saw first hand what happened after 9/11 and was reacting to her consituents - who were being told by the Bush administration that Iraq was at fault when she voted on the war resolution?

  • (Show?)

    Sockpuppets for Clinton. Awesome!

    "N Becker", "r kretz" and "M Jordan" .... all the same people. Same people, same IP address. And the same lovable tactics we've come to know.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wake me when this country is over 9/11! If what Clinton voted for and suported was the cure...oh my!

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How's that Mark Penn situation working out?

  • (Show?)

    Paddy,

    I know you personally and I know you are much much better than this.

    Come on man - in the Portland Tribune article you linked to it says the following:

    "In 2005, an amendment to the Energy Policy Act requiring that Governors get the final say-so in LNG terminal siting was voted down 52-45.

    Wyden, Clinton, Lieberman and Dodd all supported the amendment. Clinton's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama also supported the amendment, as did Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, a Republican."

    That Energy Bill sucked and I wish Obama hadnt voted for it but the VERY thing you are criticising him about here he voted to try to prevent!

    Come on man....

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    N Bekker, r kretz, et. all/ whoever you are, apologies for responding to your posts. Thanks for the sockpuppet heads up Charlie.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie, I am sure that our friend M Jordan is unaware that if you click on that little rainbow box down there, you can get to a map showing the users on now. If different names keep posting, but no new dots are showing up - it's kind of a dead give away that we have some sock puppet action happening.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Hillary, Paddy and the divisive, win-at-all-costs, sour-grapes, scorched earth policy that threatens to destroy the Democratic Party" - let's have that be the next post.

  • BloodDAnna (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy, you are the first person here who seems to understand that Senator Clinton voted the way her constituency expected her to vote. She represented the interest of the people of New York who were directly effected by a terrorist attack.

    It's very easy to sit in front of your tv in Oregon and see the devastation, it's something entirely different to be in the middle of it. If I remember correctly Senator Clinton got quite a few things moved through that directly benefited the families of the victims like health care for the workers of Ground Zero, financial compensation to the families left without a bread winner as well as financial help to rebuild small businesses.

    I remember everyone in this country calling for blood in 2002 and I don't fault her for voting for the Authorizatin of Military Force, which passed 77-23. I also don't fault her for not apologizing for it, at least she has'nt said "Oops, I meant to vote no" like her opponent has on several occasions concerning key votes.

    The most recent ware related vote that (Lieberman/Kyl bill) Hillary proves she "flip-flops" or whatever Obama's people said she did...he did not show up to vote on that one nor did he choose to speak at the debate held later on the subject. He did however release a statement the next day voicing his opinions....funny how the only 2 Senators not voting that day were Senator McCain and Senator Obama. With his immense disagreement of the war wouldn't you think Senator Obama would want to participate in expressing the sense of the Senate regarding Iran?

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BCM says:

    And if states have no say in the siting of LNG terminals, why then did Delaware just win a Supreme Court fight with New Jersey over the latter state's proposal to put a facility on the Delaware River?

    The Oregonian says the court case is not relevant to LNG siting in Oregon:

    "Our assistant attorney general tells me that this case is really more about a boundary dispute. We don't have a comparable dispute between Washington and Oregon," said Kristin Alexander, a spokeswoman for McKenna"s office.

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BloodDAnna, the good people of Oklahoma hate wasteful federal earmarks. A super-majority of the constituents of that state expect their elected representatives to restore fiscal sanity to the federal budget.

    And Tom Coburn is doing just that! As a physician and Senator he has seen first-hand the effects of wasteful and undisciplined spending. So, he's going to block spending! His faithful representation of his constituents wishes is now effectively blocking overdue legislation to increase the federally protected Mt. Hood wilderness. Coburn is using his Senate vote to do something egregious and foolish, but he should be held blameless, because his constituents want what they think is right.

    We expect Senators to use their judgment and access to important information (like the NSE security reports Clinton didn't read) and serve as bulwarks against popular but unwise policies. I am looking for an indication from the Clintons that they have the judgment and backbone to be such bulwarks, and not simply opportunists.

    And, no it's not easy to look at the site of WTC from Oregon. That's a shameless argument. Oregonians and New Yorkers all felt the pain, and nobody, not even NY politicians, got special vouchers to demand innocent blood because of the attacks. (Rudy didn't get that memo.)

  • BloodDAnna (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No a shameless argument is Senator Obama continually stating his opposition to how one Senator voted while accepting the endorsement of Senators who voted exactly the same way.

    While he is part of a committee concerning the war he cannot be bothered to hold one meeting.

    While he is so opposed to the war that he cannot show up to vote but when he does manage to drag himself into work he votes exactly the same way as Senator Clinton.

    While he attacks her decision made in 2002 he states that he's not sure how he would have voted had he been a US Senator but would most likely have voted the same way.

    So which is it? Is he against it or sorta kinda against it or just against it if it suits his purpose?

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BCM says:

    And if states have no say in the siting of LNG terminals, why then did Delaware just win a Supreme Court fight with New Jersey over the latter state's proposal to put a facility on the Delaware River?

    Peter Bray says:

    The Oregonian says the court case is not relevant to LNG siting in Oregon:

    "Our assistant attorney general tells me that this case is really more about a boundary dispute. We don't have a comparable dispute between Washington and Oregon," said Kristin Alexander, a spokeswoman for McKenna"s office.

    Peter, you're missing the disconnect between Paddy's unfounded supposition and reality.

    Delaware (state) stops New Jersey (state) from building a LNG terminal on the Delaware River. In short, a state stops an LNG project in another state. If states are indeed 'stripped of all authority' in these manners, how did this happen?

    Let's revisit Paddy once more: Vice-President Cheney crafted an energy bill with corporate energy pals in Congress that stripped authority from the states on the siting of [LNG terminals].

    To me this looks like hyperbole of the highest order.

    And for the record, we do have a potential dispute brewing between Oregon and Washington considering the proposed terminals on the Columbia River. At least that's what the LNG opponents in Astoria are hoping for...

  • Taylor M (unverified)
    (Show?)
    1. Obama "isn't against all wars," he's "against dumb wars." Read the speech with that phrase in it. And what you're attacking when you claim he "said he would have voted for the war" is decency and honesty where most politicians safely pander. Obama said he wasn't a Senator in 2002, wouldn't have known what elements would have factored into his decision, and so said he didn't know how he would have voted. That's integrity, and all we have to go off of on how he would have acted in such a position at that time is his 02 speech which basically got Iraq's coming mess in under 500 words.

    2. Obama campaigned during Lieberman Kyl, which he opposed. It was wrong, he said so, Clinton voted for it. His vote wouldn't have changed the outcome, he's running for President, and so he doesn't rush back DC to cast a meaningless vote. He didn't vote to name a foreign army a terrorist organization, Clinton did.

    3. You employ patented Clinton magic logic to claim that he dirties himself with the war whenever he accepts endorsements from Dems like Kerry who voted for it. This is facetious at it's core. How Kerry et all voted isn't as important now as the fact that they acknowledge it was a mistake. I'll re-quote what I said to the troll earlier and say goodnight:

    <hr/>

    Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 7, 2008 7:10:28 PM

    The authorization for the use of force in Iraq may have been a political courage test for liberals, but not necessarily. The test of courage for Democrats who authorized the war has been to admit they were wrong, and Clinton, one of the war's chief Democratic supporters, has consistently failed to do this.

  • BloodDAnna (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So even though he is being paid to represent the people of Illinois it's ok if he's too busy to do his real job? Not hard to do, show up periodically and make important decisions that effect people in this country. Guess thats why during the current congress Senator Obama has missed 204 votes(38.2%), Senator McCain has missed 304 votes missed (56.9%), and that silly Senator Clinton who is also running a campaign has only missed 148 votes(27.7%).

    What that tells me is that Senator Clinton is still working for the people of New York, as well as this country, while the other two can't be bothered with their day job.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 8, 2008 12:16:04 AM While he is part of a committee concerning the war he cannot be bothered to hold one meeting.

    What committee are you referring to? The committee he chairs is the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs... which is a whole other continent than where Iraq is located.

    Do you need a map perhaps?

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 8, 2008 12:16:04 AM While he attacks her decision made in 2002 he states that he's not sure how he would have voted had he been a US Senator but would most likely have voted the same way.

    Hmmmm, the only time he said anything remotely like you claim was when a literally just a few days before he delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention he was asked the attempted "gotcha" question trying to get him to attack John Kerry and John Edwards for their votes on authorizing the invasion. That CERTAINLY would not have become a massive, contrived firestorm in the media in the night before the nominating night, having the keynote speaker attack the nominee. He shrewdly chose to not do so and didn't choose to kneecap Kerry out of the gate in the bid to bat Bush in 2004, and simply said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

    ''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

    In that interview he also said he DID fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,''.

    BTW that classified N.I.E. is one Clinton didn't even bother to read before she voted in 2002 to authorize the president to use military force against Iraq.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 8, 2008 1:24:19 AM What that tells me is that Senator Clinton is still working for the people of New York, as well as this country, while the other two can't be bothered with their day job.

    Well given that Illinois voted for Obama by a 32% whereas New York only voted for Clinton by a 17% margin, seems the people of Illinois don't have as much a problem with Obama's performance for their state as New Yorkers have with her performance for their state. And since Clinton is doing so much better in her "day job" as a Senator, most of the country will help her keep that job by promoting Obama to POTUS, but thanks for your "concern" for the people of Illinois.

  • (Show?)

    Jeremy:

    Two points: What this points to is that legislating (especially when one is in the minority) is more complicated than speechifying. One has to be for or against the bill--the whole package--when it's on the floor (just ask Jeff Merkley about the Iraq war resolution). One has to accept responsibility for the whole package.

    Second, by your rationale, does Gordon Smith get a free pass on this because like Senator Obama he was for the state having authority before he was against it? Are you going to leap to his defense when Novick or Merkley raise this issue in the fall?

  • (Show?)

    Taylor M said: "On the other hand, if anyone's looking for watered-down centrist appeasement, revisit the Clintons and the late 1990s." Taylor, you're right, that whole peace and prosperity thing did just suck.

  • (Show?)

    Obama he was for the state having authority before he was against it?

    Hmmm... where have I heard that one before? Oh, yeah. Karl Rove and Bush/Cheney 2004. Way to bring Republican talking points into our Democratic primary.

  • M Jordan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie -- You are wrong. Different people sharing the same computer. Come on, give us a break. Ridiculous.

  • N Bekker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is so typical of some Obama supporters that it makes all my points and solidifies my doubts. We participate in the forum and you call us "sockpuppets for Clinton." We are sharing one computer here, for crying out loud. What is wrong with you people.

  • joeldanwalls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    McGuire sez: Taylor M said: "On the other hand, if anyone's looking for watered-down centrist appeasement, revisit the Clintons and the late 1990s." Taylor, you're right, that whole peace and prosperity thing did just suck.

    I know that HRC likes to ask "which part of peace and prosperity didn't you like?". She used that line on Saturday in Hillsboro. Maybe McGuire ought to credit her. [Or maybe the line comes from Deval Patrick :-) ]

    Beyond that...McGuire's "response" is a non sequitur and not a response to Taylor M at all. It's the logical equivalent of someone asking, "Do you prefer white wine or red wine?", and McGuire then answering, "Yes, the weather really IS nice today."

    As for peace and prosperity: Well, the president does have something to say about US military adventures, obviously, but I kind of doubt that Bill Clinton had much to do with, say, the high-tech boom and the take-off of the Internet. NOT that presidents don't like to take the credit for economic booms.

  • lovejack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What committee are you referring to? The committee he chairs is the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs... which is a whole other continent than where Iraq is located.

    lestatdelc,

    Obama would actually have to hold a NATO meeting with our European allies also fighting in Afghanistan to demonstrate any convincing regard for foreign policy while he campaigns in his first senate term.

  • sjl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Charlie your making excuses and giving reasons for obamas support of the cheney energy bill, but when Hillary voted for the Iraq Resolution you don't understand why she wanted inspectors back in, which Hans Blixt said was essential for getting them back in. Sounds hypocritical to me. I guess you don't know obama is for the nuclear power industry and has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from them, that is why he voted for the cheney energy bill.

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

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080407/NEWS05/80407050

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

  • (Show?)

    Taylor M said: "On the other hand, if anyone's looking for watered-down centrist appeasement, revisit the Clintons and the late 1990s." Taylor, you're right, that whole peace and prosperity thing did just suck.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    james r bradach said: "There is no seperation between any of the candidates on nuclear power. They all favor it, so we will have to deal with that."

    Just as you were wrong about supporting Blumenauer over Walsh ("I like what Earl does with his office with one exception. Dead people and a trillion dollars" makes me want to ralph), you are wrong about this. Nader is the only candidate who says, "No to nuclear power, solar energy first". You can't keep claiming that you are a progressive and keep supporting regressives.

    BloodDAnna said: "I remember everyone in this country calling for blood in 2002..."

    Your memory is faulty. All the progressives I know were opposed to slaughter and torture as a response to 9/11. We all said that we needed to acknowledge the reasons we were attacked before we "called for blood". It's a poor excuse for murder to claim that "everyone agreed with me at the time". Barbara Lee, for one, knew, and all her supporters knew.

    N. Bekker said: "I want to press, and press hard, for a new majority of progressives that will NOT compromise."

    I heartily agree (at last). Now check out an uncompromising progressive and his uncompromisng issues: uncompromising.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hold the phone Harry, you have my brother confused with me as far as support for Earl. I don't know where John is on this. I am no fan of nuclear power. I am a realist as to who might be our next president and spent some time on their positions. I'm a nuts and berries liberal dude! but I try to keep a toe on what is possible. Folks need to learn the appropriate use of all forms of power!

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry about the mix-up, James. Does this mean that you support Joe Walsh over Earl?

    Regarding being a realist: Every four years Democrats produce another Republican Lite candidate. Doesn't being a realist in this context mean supporting a progressive movement that does not depend on any party, e.g., What We Can Learn from Conservatives About Winning in Politics? Isn't it unrealistic to keep supporting a watered-down neo-liberal party that either can't win or won't fight for it's actual win?

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The problem, as I see it, is that Obama trys to keep a foot in each camp, trys not to have to take a stand, having limited experience in washington and politics is apparent. We Americans want a president who knows WHAT they stand for-and How to get it. We have a mountain of problems to face, and need to get moving on it. He states he is of two minds on boycotting the opening ceramonies of the olympics-where is his second mind? If you are an activist-he's not your man-Only a fighter is going to save Oregon, You have to admire Bill Clinton for signing the roadless wilderness bill on his way out of the White House, it saved us from being pillaged by the bush/cheney team for 8 years-and kept oil wells off of Mt. Bachelor-In Oregon we know how to pay back loyalty-ELECT HILLARY cowgirls 4 clinton,Bend Ore

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    lestatdelc: So am I understanding you correctly, we should beleive some of Obamas words, and disbeleive others? Is he for modifying nafta--or not? Is he for a quick withdrawal from Iraq-or not, is he for boycotting the opening ceramony of the olympics or not-oh thats right-he takes GWs posistion, no boycott..Is this guy a republican? and if you have a Obama 4 Dummies book, I'd love a copy to decipher what he really means

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The problem, as I see it, is that Obama trys to keep a foot in each camp, ...

    Unfortunately, anyone running for president or other national office has to play that game because the majority of voters can't handle the truth.

    You have to admire Bill Clinton for signing the roadless wilderness bill on his way out of the White House, it ... kept oil wells off of Mt. Bachelor-In Oregon

    Oil wells off Mt. Bachelor? Explain that please. Until then I'll take the liberty of presuming that is more pro-Hillary crap to catch some suckers. And while Hillary is protecting American workers from another trade scam with Colombia and demoted her failed campaign strategist for dealing with Colombia on this trade, guess what Slick Willy was doing.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Critics of Hillary Clinton repeatedly point to her 2002 vote to authorize going to war with Iraq (if Saddam Hussein continued to stymie U.N. weapons inspectors, a resolution supported by U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix)

    Paddy: I'm still waiting for you to explain what resolution you had in mind that Hans Blix supported. I find it very hard to believe that an experienced diplomat like Hans Blix would endorse a vote to go to war on Iraq when he believed there was a good chance UNMOVIC would find there were no WMDs in Iraq. Sloppy writing and/or sloppy thinking on your part? Or, trying another trick from the Clinton handbook to pull the wool over readers' eyes?

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    lestatdelac: Obama heads the comittee on afganistan-has yet to attenda meeting-he said he had been too busy with his campaign, and today as I am listening to NPR, Obama asked to be moved up in speech order in the questioning of gen. petraous on the war in Iraq, because he had previous engagements...so apparently his prioritys are getting elected and not dealing with 2 ongoing wars being resolved

  • Lou (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Any discrepencies can be checked out. Obama's Chicago district is like a third world country and the water is polluted. Please look into it. There is also a website of his district constituents who are trying to block his nomination because his Chigago district is in a shambles. No Obama for Oregon. Let's keep Oregon in tack. Don't forget that Bill was active in our forest needs during his administration. Hillary doesn't settle for second best. She wants America to come back better than ever and she will do it too.

  • Lou (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh incidently, the waters in Obama's district are polluted with nuclear toxic waste. Google it. Nice huh? This snakeoil saleman is dangerous for America.

  • BloodDAnna (unverified)
    (Show?)

    DANG! Didn't mean to link the whole think lol

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8

  • Northshorewoman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sen. Clinton and her Iraq vote. Here's my understanding of what she did. She voted for an American President to have the power to go to war as a last resort IF needed because she believed an President should have that power in that one situation, a situation presented to all of us falsely by a President who misused that power. Can she be faulted for trusting her President? Perhaps. Can we disagree with her belief in her President? Perhaps. Can we expect her to apologize for her voting her underlying principle? I don't think so. Can we blame her for the war in Iraq? No. Bush is to blame for that. If we continue to accept perfection in our political leaders, we will continue to be sorely disappointed. All human beings are flawed. Most human beings do the best they can do. The question for me in this election is substance (Clinton) over inspiration (Obama). As a Massachusetts resident, I gave inspiration a chance, for the first time in my life, over substance. It is not working out.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill Boden april 8: Obviously, Oil wells on Mt. Bachelor is a metaphor-but not far fetched, haven't you followed the bush agenda to try to reopen those wilderness areas designated by Bill Clinton, Republicans were furious that Bill did that as one of his last acts a president, and GW will probably try to circumvent it in his last days in office..watch carefully-but Hey, if you care more about Bills sex life than his accomplishment for Oregon, and what Hillary will do for Oregon-it says more about you than it does them. As we speak, they are going to drill for n.gas in those lands...If you love Oregon, as I do..born and raised here..you will pay attention to those who's interest in Oregon is based on pure greed.

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    to R.Kretz: If you want to Know the full story on Obama and his connections to Nucleor Power Plants(including what he did about the leaking nucleor power plant in his state owned by Exelon(who by the way contributed 200,000, to his campaign) read the NYTs article-which i no longer have a link for -but you should be able to google,or find in NYT archives-I discovered this article in dec or jan, and Completely turned me off to Obama..Obama caved in to pressure from Exelon and the republicans in his state to `not require' nucleor power plants to report leaks immediately ie. they did not report a leak in their plant..now how serious is that, that is not the time to have a boot in both camps

  • Kendall A. Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm sure that's why the media loves Obama!!!! He voted to line the pockets of their corporate owners at the expense of the people. No green energy policy to Obama's platform. No, just one more good old boy!!!!!!! And they have the balls to talk about Hillary's war vote? Let me tell you, Obama would have voted for that war too if he were in the senate at the time. The difference is that he would have voted for it for the same reason he voted for the 2005 energy bill, to line corporate pockets. Hillary voted for the war because Bush lied and told the seante that Suddum had WMD's and it was necessary to protect america!!!!!!! Far cry from the whore Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Linda Martin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clinton Distorts Obama’s Energy Vote Al Gore was mistakenly accused of taking credit for creating the Internet during his 2000 campaign, and many jokes ensued, but Senator Clinton is taking credit for just about everything else, and her actions are no joke. The Associated Press reports today that Clinton is trying to use opposition to the siting of liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals in Oregon to win over swing voters in Oregon; however, as the AP points out, Clinton’s record isn’t exactly unambiguous. Clinton is using Obama’s 2005 Energy Act vote as her leg up in Oregon. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama voted for an amendment restoring state control to the Bill, but she fails to give the entire story. Both voted for sending the Bill, which didn't give states any authority to siting authority for LNG terminals, to committee where it failed. In the final vote, Senator Obama voted for the bill, which contained $2.6 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, but also included $2.9 billion in tax increases for that same industry. Obama has worked consistently to improve the Energy Bill, which Clinton names "Cheney's Bill" because she knows that it will evoke anger in Democratic voters. From 2005 to 2007, Obama repeatedly introduced legislation repealing tax breaks and other perks for the oil industry. These perks included significant increases in RENEWABLE ENERGY incentives; yearly increases in CAFE standards, and alternative vehicle research and production. Senator Obama is co-sponsoring a Bill introduced this week by Senator Ron Wyden-D, Oregon, that would restore Oregon’s rights to decide placement of LNG terminals over that of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC). Clinton has been endorsed by Ted Kulongoski, Oregon's Governor, who, despite his indignation at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has NOT OPPOSED LNG in Oregon. It is this blogger's opinion that Kulongoski is using his knowledge to help the Clinton camp gain a leg up by using LNG as a means of persuading thousands of undecided voters in Oregon who oppose LNG. Senator Wyden also refuses to oppose LNG publicly; his staff maintains that the Senator’s job is only to hold the FERC’s hand to the rules of law. Senator Wyden continues to maintain his neutrality as a superdelegate, but there are whispers among his staff that he is in the Clinton camp. One of his aides was responsible for staging a scene at a rally in Hillsboro in which Clinton led a rant against Obama for his 2005 Energy Act vote. During that rally, Clinton consistently distorted the facts about Obama’s record.

  • Tahler (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary has taken a stand against LNG and I am very appreciative of that. I am disappointed that Obama voted for the Cheney Energy Bill.

  • avwrobel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jesus, would you people quit blubbering about the 'vote to go to war'!! It was not that!! It was a vote to give the president a hammer, and then to take that hammer and force inspectors back into Iraq without any conditions. Hillary has said many times that the vote would never have come up if we had known for sure that there were no WMD's there. But when Bush promised to use war as a last resort, well, did we REALLY believe he would not do that? The aftermath occupation has been a disaster for which the public holds this administration completely responsible for (see approval ratings), and Pelosi and Reid should be forcing a drawdown of our soldiers from there, and they deserve criticism, but those original votes were made in the interests of the country, and are no more an indicator of character deficiency than Obama's speech against the war while running for a state office representing a liberal district is some sort of an indication of 'great judgement.'

  • BloodDAnna (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If anyone would open their ears and listen to Senator Obama, I mean really listen you will hear a whole lot of fluffy bunny words but nothing of real substance. Kinda explains his whole game plan "when he's president".

    So they have to detract attention away from him so DING DING DING they misconstrue, misrepresent and misquote Senator McCain and Senator Clinton. After a few days, you'll see tiny blurbs online where all of the accusations are found false but not until after the damage is done.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Do you hate fluffy bunnies Anna?

  • Curtis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary has supported the rights of local communities to locate liquefied natural gas facilities. Obama supported the Bush-Cheney energy policy that removed that right.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Curt what about you? Oregonians love fluffy bunies!

  • sandra longley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What about Hillary wanting to make Oregon the Green Capital of the US? pouring millions of dollars into Oregon, and creating, high paying jobs, and new industry in Oregon...go to her website and read about it..If you don't come away clapping I'll eat that bunny. As i recall when Obama came to Oregon, he had his hand out asking us for something...He didn"t show me that he knew anything about our specific issues here..or what he would do for us as president, just the same old speech, alot of blue sky and no specifics..sorry i've been around politics too long to buy into his lack of substance

  • BloodDAnna (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fluffy bunnies are cute but it's not what I want in a President. I just want some cut and dry answers not fluffy bunnies, rainbows and candy mountain.

  • joko (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Regardless of any reason why Senator Obama may have felt inclined to vote for the "Energy Policy Act of 2005", he has, nonetheless, sided in favor of the Bush-Cheney energy agenda, which no doubt was chalk full of corporate handouts to big oil and "nuculer" power. It also granted LNG unconstitutional inter-state commerce authority, a fact proven in the New Jersey v. Delaware case. So whether this actually hurts Oregonians in terms of tangible detriment is to be determined. Certainly the unconstitutionality of Congressional law hasn't wholly obstructed its implementation henceforth. The Patriot Act is a prime example of this. Thus there is no doubt that Senator Obama displayed an error in judgment in voting for this bill: An error that may prove to harm the interests of nearly all Oregonians.

    Sorry Obamacrats, he's not perfect.

  • lmartin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Senator Clinton may have not voted for the 2005 Energy Act of 2005, but she has received contributions from principals of Leucadia National since 2004, and the Clintons have a long-term relationship with Joseph Steinberg, CEO. She fails to point out the many amendments to the Act submitted by Obama that would mandate increases in renewable energy funding.

  • lmartin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Senator Clinton may have not voted for the 2005 Energy Act of 2005, but she has received contributions from principals of Leucadia National since 2004, and the Clintons have a long-term relationship with Joseph Steinberg, CEO. She fails to point out the many amendments to the Act submitted by Obama that would mandate increases in renewable energy funding.

  • lmartin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Senator Clinton may have not voted for the 2005 Energy Act of 2005, but she has received contributions from principals of Leucadia National since 2004, and the Clintons have a long-term relationship with Joseph Steinberg, CEO. She fails to point out the many amendments to the Act submitted by Obama that would mandate increases in renewable energy funding.

  • Tom Norton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Get your facts correct, folks. The ACTUAL VOTE for the passage of The Energy Bill (Energy Policy Act of 2005 / HR6)took place on June 28, 2005 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00158 and BOTH Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama voted YEA. Sen. John McCain Voted NAY (Against the passage of the bill). Please READ the facts and ask yourselves "Who is truly willing to protect Oregon's Environment?"

    Only one answer - JOHN McCAIN.

  • simple truths (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why do we allow ourselves to be deceived in this day and age of the information super highway. Please educate yourselves not regurgitate talking points.

    The socalled Cheney energy bill is called the energy policy of 2005. Read it here http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf

guest column

connect with blueoregon