Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Senator Boxer defends Obama on Exelon - Again, no one notices.

Its all very interesting the way that the Hillary camp has come out and started the Tet offensive (me being Vietnamese, I find it interesting that Clinton started her attacks all around the Lunar New Year - I'm sure someone will post and say, "You're WRONG.  How IGNORANT.  Her attacks started (insert date here) an Tet is on Feb 7th!).  

Even more interesting is whether or not the Hillary camp is right about their negative ads or not.  I actually find that some of it is actually important - Obama should answer to some of the questions she's putting up.  There's nothing wrong with forcing him to justify himself - he needs to e able to handle the pressure. 

That said, if you have to throw down, throw down with correct information.  Recently Hillary claimed that Obama cut some deals behind closed doors with Exelon to protect them.  (ABC-Politico Form, 2/11/08). That's interesting, because if you read the facts as reported by Washington Post in link below, you'll realize that he didn't cut any back room deals.  In fact, he was trying hard to get them to pass his deal, but because the Republicans would not allow him to do so, he agreed to an amended compromise. 

 Furthermore, Clinton co-sponsored the amended compromise and applauded the Senate on doing its job.  So why is it now that she decides to go after Obama?  Its like your coworker publicly supporting your promotion, but then when something goes wrong, they immediately blame you.  Questionable, to say the least.  In fact, notice no one has come to Hillary's side to confirm her version of the events.

Here's the link to the Washington Post article:  http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_backroom_deal.html

Here's what Washington Post had to say about Barbara Boxer and Richard Durbin commenting on Obama's role in the Exelon situation (see below since I can't figure out how to write after the quote).   I'd love to hear what the Hillary camp has to say about this.  I know what the Obama camp will say, so I'd be interested to see what the other side has to say - to justify Hillary's comments.

Two other Democratic senators on the committee, Barbara Boxer (CA), and Richard Durbin (IL), said that Obama had little choice except to go along with Inhofe, in order to keep his legislation alive. Both scoffed at Clinton's claims of a "backroom deal" between Obama and Exelon.

"The choice came down to no bill or a weaker bill," said Boxer, who said she is "neutral" in the presidential campaign. "Barack tried desperately to get it through, but got the best thing he could."


Comments (11)

Good find. Thanks.

The above is why Congresspersons with long records are easy to attack. Governors don't have to get their hands bloody making sausage, so they tend to make easier presidential candidates. Hillary is playing with fire by using voting records.

avatar

So Boxer and Durbin give him a pass because, they argue, he had no choice but to play politics as usual. Okay, fine. Just don't peddle Obama as an agent of change. If he couldn't get past Inhofe on this issue, what makes anyone think he'll get past Inhofe on other issues.

This is what comes from thinking you can "reach across the aisle" and "put an end to partisan bickering." Because in this case, "reaching across the aisle" means caving in.

And frankly, this legislation wasn't just a weak bill. It accomplished absolutely nothing. It suggested to the nuclear power industry that they do the right thing. Which is as good as nothing.

None of this would bother me if Obama wasn't claiming that his conciliation would "change" politics. This is the perfect example of how his approach won't change a damn thing. I'm no Hillary supporter, but this is the kind of thing that makes me skeptical about Obama's power to do any of the things he's promising to do.

avatar

Wasnt Obamas rationale for not voting for the Credit rate cap was because it was a weak bill?

Politics as usual indeed.

Anna and Co: to be fair, it's easier to bring both sides together when you're a president with a mandate and big, long coattails than it is when you're a junior senator.

"Politics as usual indeed."

How intellectually lazy, is this all the Hillary people have?

avatar

What else is there to say? His reasons for doing one vs not doing the other make no sense, just bad political spinning. Feel free to explain to us how those two reasons for voting actually make sense.

avatar

Great, thank you.

avatar

Perhaps Clinton thought no one would notice that Mark Penn via his firm Burson-Marstellar (where is "worldwide CEO") does work for Exelon.

How inconvenient is that truth?

There will be blowback.

avatar

So when is Sen. Boxer going to do what Obama advises and back Hillary like her state did?


Obama as President would water everything down so he could bring us together and so he could get 70% of the vote and know we all love him. Also it would please his lobbyist friends. He doesn't take their money -- just their help and their wives' money.

Last time I checked reality you don't campaign for Joe Lieberman in the primary helping produce and outcome which heavily damaged the chances against the war and claim to have either judgment or commitment to ending the Iraq war.

That's a bold statement, considering Hillary has taken more money from PACs and lobbyists than any other candidate.

Weak sauce. Please do better next time.

I think you can argue a very good case for each position.

1. Exelon (and the nuke power industry as a whole) are put on notice, but given a reprieve from escalating regulation. Should another incident occur, it will be very easy to advance the claim that imdustry is incapable of self-regulation in this area, and so we must proceed with formal regulation. It's tied to a discrete event.

2. The credit bill was partially the result of Obama's newcomer status in the Senate, if I recall the Chicago reporting I've seen correctly. Nonetheless, a 30% cap is formal regulation: it draws a line in the sand and gives creditors cover against future proposals for lower rates. There is no discrete event that suggests that the 30% cap is failing. Bankruptcies, foreclosures, and instability in the financial markets, while arguably related to usurious lending, are multifactorial and change every month. In practical terms, you're only going to get one shot to set a cap, so you should aim for a cap that generates the best net benefit to consumers while not unduly tightening the availability of credit. Obama did the right thing.

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address