NYT: Obama Lied to Iowa Voters

Way back, when the NYT was writing well-researched, respectable
political coverage - as opposed to vacuous hit pieces culled from
Daily Kos,  they came out with this shocking piece about Obama.

What is interesting is how within days after this article appeared,
the NYT began began a smear campaign against Clinton that goes
until this day.
The same way Daily Kos wrote an article supporting Clinton and
Edwards, but not Obama, then overnight converted into an Obama
spam mill.
The way Chris Matthews completely exposed the Swiftboaters one
night, and on the next night began advertising their message.

It makes the mind wonder.

But back to the point.  And the link.
If you can't access the link, this is thefirst few paragraphs.  And trust
me, the article gets into much more potent slime:

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

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

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

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

"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country's largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama's largest sources of campaign money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/pol itics/03exelon.html?_r=1&hp&oref =slogin

Tags: logic killed the internetstar, NYT, obama, Primaries, Republican embeds in democratic blogs (all tags)



Sad how the NYT waited until weeks

after the Iowa primary to even publish this article.

by internetstar 2008-05-12 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad how the NYT waited until weeks

Have you been hanging out with Rip van Winkle?

This was talked about plenty three months ago when the NYT story broke.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-12 05:06AM | 0 recs
People who support Obama don't know this

and papers have stopped reporting real news.

by internetstar 2008-05-12 05:10AM | 0 recs
and if you read the diary

it is about more than an article.

by internetstar 2008-05-12 05:10AM | 0 recs
Obama's 'backroom deal' on nuclear waste..

I didn't hear anything about these issues until the NYT reported on them a few months ago..

Now the Washington Post has an article on it too. But it may be too late.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/02/obamas_backroom_deal.html

by architek 2008-05-12 05:24AM | 0 recs
your link isn't working

maybe they removed the article?

by internetstar 2008-05-12 06:50AM | 0 recs
You have to either click on it

or remove the space that MyDD inserts for some nefarious reason.. ;-)

by architek 2008-05-12 06:54AM | 0 recs
perhaps the press will revisit

these kinds of stories.  This is what first alarmed me about Obama--the willingness to compromise drinking water in order to curry favor with the nuclear industry and not require them to report.  So perhaps it will come up again, as his energy policy is dissected and people understand his relationship with regulators.  He is very much like bush in his "honor system" reporting for the nuclear industry.

I beleive that once the light really starts shining on him, he will have to answer these qeustions.  The time for blaming the press for asking him questions will be over soon.

Let's also put it this way. There are many reasons not to vote for Obama,as lots of us have discovered.  This is one of them.    I'll just wait for the fall to see this issue "go nuclear".

by 4justice 2008-05-12 06:00AM | 0 recs
precious bodily fluids...

by architek 2008-05-12 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: perhaps the press will revisit

If the Clintons couldn't knock him out, no one will.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 07:40AM | 0 recs

..leave it to a Hillarion to cry "victim" at the hands of a paper that endorsed Hillary. Amazing.

If all the energy spent helping Hillary be a professional victim was spent raising money for her, she wouldn't be 20 million in debt.

by rhetoricus 2008-05-12 06:18AM | 0 recs
posts like this convince me

that there are a ton of Republicans in the democratic blogs.

by internetstar 2008-05-12 06:51AM | 0 recs
I agree

I am responding to one right NOW.

by kindthoughts 2008-05-12 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: posts like this convince me

So, if the math holds and Obama is the nominee, you will be voting for?

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: posts like this convince me

So, if the math holds and Obama is the nominee, you will be voting for?

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 07:41AM | 0 recs
No, you forget

it's the GOP that's perfected the "borrow and spend now, someone else will pay for my debt later" mentality.

It's a pity Hillary has added that one to the innumerable habits she's picked up from the neocons.

by rhetoricus 2008-05-12 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: NYT: Obama Lied to Iowa Voters

Well, its time to stop weakening the party, get behind the leading nominee, and get more Democrats in the senate.

This is over. Math is math. Delegates are delegates. WV will amount to a mole hill. Rules are rules. This is over.

The arguments:

Obama, he has one more delegates under the same rules everyone agreed to.

Clinton, a 10,000 word dissertation on how the rules aren't fair, how the media isn't fair, how suddenly everything will be fair if she gets the nomination, and how and why the regular delegates should be overturned.

Occum's razor, the simple answer is usually the correct one.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 05:10AM | 0 recs
Telling the TRUTH is weakening the party?

Obama would agree!

by internetstar 2008-05-12 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Telling the TRUTH is weakening the party?

2 things:

1. The earlier poster got this right, its old news.

2. Watch what you say about the truth. Hillary recently admitted to, in her words, "saying something i knew not to be true." That is legalize for a lie.

3. Threasa in PA, I deserve a troll rate, why? Do you mark people as trolls just because they might disagree with you? Really, you should understand what those are for.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Telling the TRUTH is weakening the party?

And yes, I should have typed 3!

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 05:20AM | 0 recs
Candidates tied..

Who is 'the leading nominee'?

I would say Clinton, based on the huge amount Obama has to spend to overcome people's resistance to voting for a known corporate sellout.

by architek 2008-05-12 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Candidates tied..

That's a nice opinion. Delegates chose. The math is the math.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 05:31AM | 0 recs
I love his argument

its kinda like arguing that saying its not fair that  the other football team won, since you know they trained and prepared more.

by kindthoughts 2008-05-12 07:25AM | 0 recs
No, its like saying that money is buying votes

these days..


by architek 2008-05-12 08:59AM | 0 recs
you have actual proof of Obama

paying people to vote a certain way?

by kindthoughts 2008-05-12 02:20PM | 0 recs
Kucinich 2008!

I heard that he was outspent by huge margins by both Clinton and Obama.

In actuality, I think his stances on issues are supported by most Democrats.

He should take this to the convention.

Kucinich-Gravel unity ticket anyone?

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-12 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Kucinich 2008!

Actually, they both outspent me. May be i should take that ot the convention!

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Kucinich 2008!

Your moral claim to the nomination is undermined by the fact that you come from one of those evil, anti-democratic caucus states.

You need to show you can garner support in a big, blue state like West Virginia.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-12 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Telling the TRUTH is weakening the party?

I would add another one...

4.  The NYT endorsed Clinton, so there is no calculated smear campaign....

And I agree with the troll-rate callout... there was nothing in your post to earn one...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-12 06:07AM | 0 recs
your comment is nothing but nonsense

from start to finish.  I am not taking your bait.  I won't bother to dispute your talking points.  But just know that Obama is a sure loser in November because swing voters want an adult in the white house.

On topic:
Obama represents the interests of big coal and the nuclear industry.  This is no surprise to those of us who care.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-12 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: your comment is nothing but nonsense

Its not pure nonsense that she is losing. She has lost by every dynamic. You can try and count some people and not others (caucus attendees) if you like, or try and count on SD's to use a super caucus to overrule the regular delegates, but it ain't gonna happen.

Its over.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 05:23AM | 0 recs
How did a Republican like you
pick a name like "Iowa Mike" ?
I guess with so many sock puppets, you start running out
of names to call them.
by internetstar 2008-05-12 07:06AM | 0 recs

you want to critisize someone's nick after pickign a name like internetstar

by kindthoughts 2008-05-12 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: How did a Republican like you

I am an Edwardian that wants to win now. Not destroy someone so I might win in November 2012.

I am focusing on the race, not tearing people apart. You are the name caller (is that name calling itself?).

We have had over 40 rule abiding and fair contests so far. He is winning. Curse the sky if you must, but if it wasn't true you wouldn't be so upset.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: your comment is nothing but nonsense

"wanting an adult" suggests that the argument being made is an adult level argument. If you insist that a 45 year old man is not an adult, than your argument is not that. And do you really want to defend suggesting that he is still a boy?

by shermandem 2008-05-12 05:24AM | 0 recs
Immature, emotionally..

isn't it obvious?

Also, he's not honest.

by architek 2008-05-12 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Immature, emotionally..

And that last personal dig is emotionally mature?

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 05:43AM | 0 recs
I think by "adult"

they mean it in the sense of "adults only" entertainment.  Lord knows you can count on the Clintons for that.

by JJE 2008-05-12 06:06AM | 0 recs
Dude, you realize....

you just opened up the "objectifying of women" can of worms, don't you. Mysogeny is now going to start to fly!

Look out!

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 06:09AM | 0 recs
and yes...

that comment is immature!;)

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 06:10AM | 0 recs
Indeed it is

thankfully Obama is more mature than I am.

by JJE 2008-05-12 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: your comment is nothing but nonsense

because swing voters want an adult in the white house.

You're making less sense as this goes on.

Just out of curiosity: What great point do you think you're making here?

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-12 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Not Over Until August

Well, its time to stop weakening the party, get behind the leading nominee, and get more Democrats in the senate.

This is over. Math is math. Delegates are delegates. WV will amount to a mole hill. Rules are rules. This is over.

Democratic Party Rules:

Delegates are the people who will decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

Delegates from the fifty US states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have a single vote each, while some delegates from American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam and Democrats Abroad have half a vote each. Thus, the total number of delegates is slightly higher than the total number of available delegate votes (4,048).

Obama v. McCain:


Do the Math:

http://www.correntewire.com/hillary_clin ton_must_be_the_democratic_nominee_do_th e_math

by Tennessean 2008-05-12 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Not Over Until August

Ironic that you are holding out on hope against all hope that a super caucus will overturn the results form all the other caucuses you didn't like.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 05:25AM | 0 recs
Just offer to make a financial wager.

That's what I do with global warming deniers and "Clinton will still win" people.

Amazing how few people will actually put their money where their mouth is. (Which, come to think of it, is also why Clinton is 20 million in debt.)

by rhetoricus 2008-05-12 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Just offer to make a financial wager.

Gee, I bet that works on the playground.

Fine, If she wins I'll donate $50 bucks to her GE campaign. If he wins, you send him $50.


by IowaMike 2008-05-12 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Just offer to make a financial wager.

Huh? I'll be sending Obama $50 anyway, as I have right along.

I'm advising that you offer to make a personal bet with people who are still arguing Clinton can win, where YOU get the cash if Obama gets the nom.

by rhetoricus 2008-05-12 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Just offer to make a financial wager.

misread you, sorry.

I think having them send $50 to Obama might be harder for them to accept.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 06:00AM | 0 recs
How Sweet!

There are now 2 international disasters, with tens of thousands of people in desperate need.  We have one massive disaster here in our country, and good old Rhetoricus sends $50 to Obama's 90 million dollar cache!

So that makes Obama's total $90,000,050.

So generous, Rhetoricus!

by internetstar 2008-05-12 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: How Sweet!

Wow, what a total lack of logic.

Never said he didn't give money to help those causes.

So Hillary, instead of giving $20 million to help with those causes, is more concerned about her own personal glory? Is that how this game is played by your rules?

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 07:49AM | 0 recs
Oh, I see

..all you Hillary supporters have been sending so much money to help the poor and afflicted that you didn't have any left to send your candidate, and THAT's why she's 20 million in debt. Gotcha. (How much have you sent lately to ease the suffering in the world, btw?)

You know, what should really be embarrassing for you is that Hillary will probably have to rely on Obama and his supporters to bail your deadbeat candidate out of the financial hole she dug for herself.

by rhetoricus 2008-05-12 09:46AM | 0 recs
Unity? Silly you.

These folks will be voting for McCain as part of their never-ending tantrum, remember? It's the old "if I don't get house, I'll blow up the neighborhood" strategy.

by rhetoricus 2008-05-12 06:22AM | 0 recs
My bet is that YOU will be voting for McCain
There are more Republicans writing in the democratic blogs, now than democrats.
And guess which candidate they are pushing?
by internetstar 2008-05-12 07:01AM | 0 recs

an accusation from a troll really hurts.

by kindthoughts 2008-05-12 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: My bet is that YOU will be voting for McCain

So, because they disagree with you, they are a Republican? Really?

So if Obama is the Nominee, who will you vote for?

If Hillary was our nominee, I would vote for her. Its just that math doesn't lie and without fracturing the party it won't happen. But if she does fracture it, and gets the nom, I'll still vote for her. We'll lose, but I'll vote for her.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 07:52AM | 0 recs

My voting for McCain is about as likely as Hillary becoming the nominee. No, wait, it's even less likely. Which is saying a lot.

How about you? I haven't heard you saying you'd vote Obama if his nomination became official.

by rhetoricus 2008-05-12 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama Party

Purges, top-down centralized control, and 90 million jack-booted Obamabots marching on Denver?

What sort of candidate/campaign comes UP with these paranoid, narcissistic fantasies?!? Telling supporters to stop giving money to VOTEVETS? This is honestly the most shocking part of the whole "Barack" candidacy--it's based on cult-like thinking:

The Obama Party: [Must read the whole thing]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/o bama-party-by-dday-on-saturday-in-over.h tml

"Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annhilated: vaporized was the usual word."

"If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened--that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death."

by Tennessean 2008-05-12 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama Party

I'm an Edwards guy that realizes that tearing are party apart only helps John McCain.

This is over. Being a "jack-booted follower" implies you ignore reality to follow someone. Coming from a group that ignores the reality of math is a little silly.

I had to go through the same anger when Edwards was done. You feel better when you finally move on.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama Party

I was in the tank for Dodd myself...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-12 06:09AM | 0 recs
it's over! Stop Counting, Al!

We've heard that crap Mike-in-the-Closet-for-McCain.
We heard it in 2000, we heard it in 2004.

This blog is manned by one Republican and his 25 sock puppets.

by internetstar 2008-05-12 06:59AM | 0 recs
hehehe, which sock puppet are you?

the one with a bow on top?

by kindthoughts 2008-05-12 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: it's over! Stop Counting, Al!

well, the math wasn't against gore.

by IowaMike 2008-05-12 07:38AM | 0 recs
Is this where we're at? Recycling old lies?

The Exelon bill was a working compromise to get anything passed at all. Hillary Clinton jumped on the final compromise bill as a co-sponsor. The bill didn't pass.

And did the smear campaign against Hillary in the NYTimes include endorsing her. Man, they really dissed her with that one.

by Travis Stark 2008-05-12 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: NYT: Obama Lied to Iowa Voters

Damaging info--you mean like how Hillary's brothers bought pardons for criminals?

Or how B. Clinton's "foundation" is awash in Saudi and Kazakstani money?

And I'm sure the right wing has completely forgotten Hillary's "misplacing" the Rose law firm docs until the statute of limitations had expired..

by rhetoricus 2008-05-12 06:09AM | 0 recs
And all the work Clinton did for

the environment.  Including giving al Gore unprecedented power.  Just awful.

by internetstar 2008-05-12 06:55AM | 0 recs
somebody's been reading Bob Herbert

5th rate writer, 1st rate putz.

by internetstar 2008-05-12 06:56AM | 0 recs
Every totalitarian movement started out small..

what you described is the way they do it.

by architek 2008-05-12 06:52AM | 0 recs
really? this is what you want to say?

that unless they pick you nominee they are all facists?

by kindthoughts 2008-05-12 07:33AM | 0 recs
Tag Vandalism

Is childish, inappropriate, and violates site rules. Then again, it began at Kos.

by owl06 2008-05-12 06:53AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads