• Please contact C-Span and ask them to cover this event!

    Suggest Events: Submit a public event that you think C-SPAN should cover - Email us at (events@c-span.org) or fax us at 202-737-6226

    C-SPAN main number: (202) 737-3220

    PROGRAMMING QUESTIONS & SUGGESTIONS
    Viewer Services: Questions about our schedule, how to buy videotapes, and for any other general comments about C-SPAN - email viewer@c-span.org

  • comment on a post Former DNC Chairs for Clinton over 5 years ago

    Joe Andrew -- former DNC chair who supposedly switched from Clinton to Obama.

    His firm, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, where he has been a partner since 2004, comes in at #4 on Obama's Top Donor list.

    Makes one wonder exactly when Mr. Andrew made his amazing switch.

  • comment on a post Counting the people over 6 years ago

    O! has the advantage of more money and the backing of the majority of the media, and yet he can't close the deal. Super Ds are obviously aware of this.

  • comment on a post On Bitterness, Pennsylvania Style over 6 years ago

    I love your righteous bitterness!

    I hope you and your fellow Pennsylvanian's will show O, his fan club, the country and the world, that yes, words DO matter. A lot.

    Obama now tries to say what he really meant, but the cat's out of the bag and no amount of backpeddling is going to put it back. His racist, elitist, arrogant attitude will lose him the nomination and I for one will be dancing in the streets when it happens!

  • on a comment on Obama's Verbal Gutterball over 6 years ago

    I'd like to see data to back up your claim that upper and middle class white folks were the only ones to benefit.

    KEY FACTS ON CENSUS INCOME AND POVERTY REPORT            
                              September 30, 1999      

    *  The African-American Poverty Rate Down To Its Lowest Level on Record.

    While the African-American poverty rate is still far above the poverty rate for whites, it declined from 26.5 percent in 1997 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- that's its lowest level recorded since data were first collected in 1959. Since 1993, the African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent to 26.1 percent -- that's the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972).

    * Child Poverty Among African-Americans Down To Lowest Level on Record.

    While the African-American child poverty rate is too high, it fell from 37.2 percent to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- its lowest level on record (data collected since 1959). Since 1993, the child poverty rate among African-Americans has dropped from 46.1 percent to 36.7 percent -- that's the biggest five-year drop on record.

    * 4.3 Million People Lifted Out of Poverty By EITC -- Double The Number in 1993.

    In 1993, President Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, providing a tax cut for low-income working families. In 1998, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty -- that's double the number of people lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993.

    http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/1999pres/1 9990930c.html

  • on a comment on Obama's Verbal Gutterball over 6 years ago

    Wow. You honestly believe this. No wonder you O supporters hate her so much.

  • comment on a post Obama's Verbal Gutterball over 6 years ago

    What pisses me off most about his original comment, is how he once again slips in the little dig on the Clinton administration and those horrible '90s.

    No one ever seems to call him on this and he does it constantly.

    My friend ms in la put together some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:


    All data from the US DEPT OF LABOR - Bureau of Labor Statistics:

    http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

    The graphs of the 90's economic data are dramatic and telling, but the links and images all seem too buggy and don't travel well ... so this info gathered below is extracted directly from the raw data at the site, and filed here "for the record".  This is in direct contrast to Obama's memory of how icky horrible rotten depressing 90's economy was - specifically the midwestern manufacturing sector which has been so devastated during the Bush years. But NOT during the Clinton years-- contrary to what has been alleged by certain presidential candidates and supporters ...

    You can search the site yourself, but it's not easily navigable to find the specific states' info. They make it hard to locate and retrieve the detailed reports for some reason. But with patience you can find those graphs and charts yourself - the visual has a much more stronger impact.

    -----------

    NATIONAL STATISTICS:

    ----------

    UNEMPLOYMENT

    In 1999 the overall Unemployment Rate nationally was around 4%.

    By 2003, during the Bush administration, the national Unemployment Rate had risen by 50% to approx 6%

    NATIONAL MANUFACTURING JOB STATS 1992 to 2008:

    Depending on the difference between the MANUFACTURING of durable vs non-durable goods- anywhere from 2 to 3 million manufacturing jobs have been LOST in the nation since 1992

    Conversely, during the Clinton administration, nearly 1 million NEW manufacturing jobs were ADDED in the nation between 1992 and 2000.

    Subsequently, from 2000 to 2008, during the Bush administration, there were approximately 2,250,000 manufacturing jobs LOST nationally.

    GRAPH

    ----------

    "RUST BELT" ECONOMIC STATS 1990's - 2008

    -----------

    PENNSYLVANIA- MANUFACTURING JOBS - 1992 to present:

    In the period from 1992 to 2000, during the Clinton Administration, Pennsylvania manufacturing jobs were consistently at or just under 900,000. This figure holds steady through the period with no significant dips or peaks.

    Just after 2000, a huge descent begins and continues throughout the Bush administration to 2008 in a steep decline - Around 300,000 manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania were lost during the Bush Administration thus far.

    Sharpest declines occur between 2001 to 2004. By the end of 2001 over 200,000 manufacturing jobs have gone from Pennsylvania from the early 1990's numbers. The lowest numbers of manufacturing jobs in PA are found in the year 2008.

    PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYMENT DATA

    In 1998- the number of employed persons in PA is approximately 220,000 higher than it was in 1992.

    In the same time frame the Unemployment Rate in PA went from 7.6% in 1992 down to 4.6% in 1998, or a 40% drop

    By 1999- Employment in PENNSYLVANIA was at 62% and the Unemployment Rate was lower still at 4.4%

    By 2002 Pennsylvania's Unemployment Rate was up to 5.7%

    --------

    OHIO EMPLOYMENT DATA

    When Clinton took office, there were 5,000,000 employed persons on the rolls in Ohio. (16 yrs and older)

    Each successive year through to 1998 (these stats offer only 92-98) approx 100,000 new people were added to the employed list
    (*exceptions: 1996 only added about 50,000 and 1998 numbers held steady from previous year)

    By 1998- at @ 5,400,000-- there were approximately 350,000- 400,000 more employed in Ohio than there were in 1992.

    In the same period (1992-1998) the Unemployment Rate in OHIO went from 7.3% down to 4.3% - a decline of 42%.

    In 1999 OHIO Employment was at 64% and the Unemployment Rate still at a low 4.3%.

    By 2002 however,like PA, OHIO's Unemployment Rate had climbed to 5.7%

    In 2003 the Unemployment Rate was higher yet at 6.1%

    ---------

    INDIANA EMPLOYMENT DATA

    1998 shows @350,000 more employed persons, 16 yrs and older, in INDIANA than there were in 1992.

    The Unemployment Rate declined in the same period from 6.6% to 3.1% -- representing about a 54% drop.

    In 1999- INDIANA had 66% employment and the Unemployment Rate was at a low 3%

    By 2002, during the Bush Administration, the Unemployment had already climbed to 5.6%

    -----------

    MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT DATA

    1998 shows @600,000 more "employed" persons in MICHIGAN than there had been in 1992.

    The UNEMPLOYMENT RATE declined from 7.7% to 3.3% in the same 6 yr period - a 58% decline.

    In 1999 MICH, like INDIANA, saw 66% employment.

    In 2002 the Unemployment Rate spikes from the earlier 3% up to 6.2% - over 100% higher.

    In 2003 Unemployment rate is higher still at 7.3%

    In 2007 the Unemployment rate is hovering around 7.1%

    -----------

    SUMMARY: No-- the Clinton years do NOT represent the decline of jobs in the American labor force, or the loss of manufacturing jobs or general midwestern 'Rust Belt' jobs in America. Anyone who maintains otherwise is propagating more 1990's revisionist mythology and telling Fairy Tales...

  • I've read conflicting things on how an Edwards endorsement would effect the primary in NC. Some -- usually those who live there -- think it could hurt her.

  • Thing is, Obama really is out of touch with small town America because he's never experienced it. He only knows middle and small town America by what he's read and what he's been told. I would venture so far as to say he probably never spent any time at all in small towns until he decided to run for president.

  • comment on a post He Really Doesn't Get It - Does He? over 6 years ago

    Obama needs to study up on his history. He constantly and continually bashes the Clinton administration and no one ever calls him on it.

    For anyone interested in remembering how bad and horrible the Clinton years were, my friend ms in la put this data together:


    All data from the US DEPT OF LABOR - Bureau of Labor Statistics:

    http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

    The graphs of the 90's economic data are dramatic and telling, but the links and images all seem too buggy and don't travel well ... so this info gathered below is extracted directly from the raw data at the site, and filed here "for the record". In case anyone needs to use it in those blog arguments about the icky horrible rotten depressing 90's economy - specifically the midwestern manufacturing sector which has been so devastated during the Bush years. But NOT during the Clinton years-- contrary to what has been alleged by certain presidential candidates and supporters ...

    You can search the site yourself, but it's not easily navigable to find the specific states' info. They make it hard to locate and retrieve the detailed reports for some reason. But with patience you can find those graphs and charts yourself - the visual has a much more stronger impact.

    ----------------

    NATIONAL STATISTICS:

    ----------------

    UNEMPLOYMENT

    In 1999 the overall Unemployment Rate nationally was around 4%.

    By 2003, during the Bush administration, the national Unemployment Rate had risen by 50% to approx 6%

    NATIONAL MANUFACTURING JOB STATS 1992 to 2008:

    Depending on the difference between the MANUFACTURING of durable vs non-durable goods- anywhere from 2 to 3 million manufacturing jobs have been LOST in the nation since 1992

    Conversely, during the Clinton administration, nearly 1 million NEW manufacturing jobs were ADDED in the nation between 1992 and 2000.

    Subsequently, from 2000 to 2008, during the Bush administration, there were approximately 2,250,000 manufacturing jobs LOST nationally.

    GRAPH

    --------------

    "RUST BELT" ECONOMIC STATS 1990's - 2008

    -------------

    PENNSYLVANIA- MANUFACTURING JOBS - 1992 to present:

    In the period from 1992 to 2000, during the Clinton Administration, Pennsylvania manufacturing jobs were consistently at or just under 900,000. This figure holds steady through the period with no significant dips or peaks.

    Just after 2000, a huge descent begins and continues throughout the Bush administration to 2008 in a steep decline - Around 300,000 manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania were lost during the Bush Administration thus far.

    Sharpest declines occur between 2001 to 2004. By the end of 2001 over 200,000 manufacturing jobs have gone from Pennsylvania from the early 1990's numbers. The lowest numbers of manufacturing jobs in PA are found in the year 2008.

    PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYMENT DATA

    In 1998- the number of employed persons in PA is approximately 220,000 higher than it was in 1992.

    In the same time frame the Unemployment Rate in PA went from 7.6% in 1992 down to 4.6% in 1998, or a 40% drop

    By 1999- Employment in PENNSYLVANIA was at 62% and the Unemployment Rate was lower still at 4.4%

    By 2002 Pennsylvania's Unemployment Rate was up to 5.7%

    ------------------

    OHIO EMPLOYMENT DATA

    When Clinton took office, there were 5,000,000 employed persons on the rolls in Ohio. (16 yrs and older)

    Each successive year through to 1998 (these stats offer only 92-98) approx 100,000 new people were added to the employed list
    (*exceptions: 1996 only added about 50,000 and 1998 numbers held steady from previous year)

    By 1998- at @ 5,400,000-- there were approximately 350,000- 400,000 more employed in Ohio than there were in 1992.

    In the same period (1992-1998) the Unemployment Rate in OHIO went from 7.3% down to 4.3% - a decline of 42%.

    In 1999 OHIO Employment was at 64% and the Unemployment Rate still at a low 4.3%.

    By 2002 however,like PA, OHIO's Unemployment Rate had climbed to 5.7%

    In 2003 the Unemployment Rate was higher yet at 6.1%

    --------

    INDIANA EMPLOYMENT DATA

    1998 shows @350,000 more employed persons, 16 yrs and older, in INDIANA than there were in 1992.

    The Unemployment Rate declined in the same period from 6.6% to 3.1% -- representing about a 54% drop.

    In 1999- INDIANA had 66% employment and the Unemployment Rate was at a low 3%

    By 2002, during the Bush Administration, the Unemployment had already climbed to 5.6%

    --------------

    MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT DATA

    1998 shows @600,000 more "employed" persons in MICHIGAN than there had been in 1992.

    The UNEMPLOYMENT RATE declined from 7.7% to 3.3% in the same 6 yr period - a 58% decline.

    In 1999 MICH, like INDIANA, saw 66% employment.

    In 2002 the Unemployment Rate spikes from the earlier 3% up to 6.2% - over 100% higher.

    In 2003 Unemployment rate is higher still at 7.3%

    In 2007 the Unemployment rate is hovering around 7.1%

    --------------

    SUMMARY: No-- the Clinton years do NOT represent the decline of jobs in the American labor force, or the loss of manufacturing jobs or general midwestern 'Rust Belt' jobs in America. Anyone who maintains otherwise is propagating more 1990's revisionist mythology and telling Fairy Tales...

    h/t ms in la

  • comment on a post Obama Didn't Want My Money! over 6 years ago

    Your money would have been accepted if you had bundled. See article in Black Agenda Report,

    The Obama Bubble: Why Wall Street Needs a Presidential Brand

    ...

    "The total sum raised February 16-29, 2008 by bundlers for Obama from  27 law firms that engage in lobbying: $2,650,000."

    Additionally, looking at Public Citizen's list of bundlers for the Obama campaign (people soliciting donations from others), 27 are employed by law firms registered as federal lobbyists. The total sum raised February 16-29, 2008 by bundlers for Obama from these 27 firms: $2,650,000. (There are also dozens of high powered bundlers from Wall Street working the Armani-suit and red-suspenders cocktail circuits, like Bruce Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs; J. Michael Schell, vice chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup; Louis Susman, managing director, Citigroup; Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS Americas. Each raised over $200,000 for the Obama campaign.)

    Senator Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists. But is that dealing honestly with the American people? According to the website of Akin Gump, it takes a village to deliver a capital to the corporations:

    "The public law and policy practice [lobbying] at Akin Gump is integrated throughout the firm's offices in the United States and abroad. As part of a full-service law firm, the group is able to draw upon the experience of members of other Akin Gump practices - including bankruptcy, communications, corporate, energy, environmental, labor and employment, health care, intellectual property, international, real estate, tax and trade regulation - that may have substantive, day-to-day experience with the issues that lie at the heart of a client's situation. This is the internal component of Akin Gump's team-based approach: matching the needs of clients with the appropriate area of experience in the firm ... Akin Gump has a broad range of active representations before every major committee of Congress and executive branch department and agency."

    ...

    And the myth that he is funded mostly by small donors is just that -- myth... O! spent the other day soaking up more "people powered" contributions from California billionaires. He banned the media from any attendance at this series of billionaire fundraisers, but this woman made her way and covered it as best she could. With pix! Kind of smashes his whole "small donors" meme.... change you can believe in!

    Obama Visits Billionaires Row

  • I appreciate that you put so much into this, but trust me, don't bother posting it at kos. Don't put yourself through it. Not worth your time and effort.

  • comment on a post Tell McCain To Step Up on G.I. Bill over 6 years ago

    Thank you General Clark for once again reaching out to the netroots to get us involved on this important issue.

    And Thank you MyDD! for providing a platform for our General to be heard!

  • on a comment on Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! over 6 years ago

    Spot on!

    This is the thing that baffles me the most about Obamacans. We all knew at one point the media was nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Repub Party. We knew it. Some of us still do. But a whole bunch of us -- those who have jumped on the O-bandwagon -- have decided to forget it for the time being.

    So when Hillary's campaign goes to the SD and points out the ways that O will be stomped back to reality if he's the nominee, I think it is their duty and obligation to do this. I would hope the SD's are intelligent enough to figure this out for themselves, but then again, I thought the lefty netroots would figure it out, too...

  • comment on a post *NEW UPDATE!!!* -- Save it, Obama backers over 6 years ago

    from Jeralyn at Talk Left:

    ... Newsweek reports his latest ad on foreign oil is misleading. The ad is running in PA among other places. He says he doesn't take money from foreign oil. The script:

       

    I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.

    Newsweek points out that for the last century, there's been a law preventing "corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate" So no candidate takes money from oil companies. But, it's worse:

       

    Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

       Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

    Newsweek even has a handy little chart compiled from information available at OpenSecrets.org.

    Oil Company Total Individual Contributions
    ExxonMobil $30,850
    Hess $5,200
    Shell $9,900
    Conoco Philips $4,300
    Chevron $9,500
    BP $6396
    Total $66,146

    After Hillary's campaign called Obama out on the ad, his campaign responded:

       

    Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

    But, not only is that not what his ad says,

       

    I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists,

    Newsweek notes " the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference."

       

    Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

    If you are a Hillary supporter, you can help her by donating to meet the $3 million mark tonight. Obama's less than forthright ads shouldn't be the only ones Pennsylvanians hear.

    Update: 10:30 pm MT: She's over $3 million now. That's $85,000.00 in the past hour alone. Thanks in part go to TL readers who contributed (see comments below), you helped push her over the top.

    *


Diaries

Advertise Blogads