He's running a commercial in PA. right now in which he states that he doesn't take any money from oil companies.  
The Clinton campaign has called him on it:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/834887.aspx

If he's parsing words here, I'm going to be really pissed off.  I'm a big Obama supporter, so if anyone can shed light on this, I'd appreciate it.

Every now and then I wander over to the Clinton public website to try and understand where they're coming from. According to them, Obama and Hillary are in a virtual tie, delegates, popular vote, however you want to view it. Here's what else they're telling their supporters:

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/03/28/151845
Anyone know if all of it is true?

I just heard a story on Fox that alleges a staffer from the Obama campaign tried to sneak into a Clinton Campaign office, to spy. On the face of it, I don't believe it. Also, Fox is the source and they didn't have details.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton campaign tries to change the daily narrative with anything they can get their hands on. Or things they can make up and throw out there. Anything that sticks.
They probably were counting on the Rev. Wright issue to crush Obama, and while it hurt him, I don't think it had the impact the Clintons were praying for.
Judging by how the Clintons have handled damaging stories about Hillary, they take an issue she's accused of, turn the tables and accuse Obama of the same thing.
One of the more sweeping accusations that's blatantly false is saying that Obama is taking a page out of the Karl Rove playbook.
Well, if he took a page out of the "Karl Rove playbook", it's because they're missing a page out of theirs.
They've run a disrespectful campaign, if you'll allow the understatement.

Everyone's criticizing Hillary's attempt to break the rules, subvert the process, illegitimately change the outcome of this election.
To neutralize the issue, logic says they'll try to dig up or actually create a story that turns the tables so that Obama is the one who's playing unfair.
Recent example is Hillary blaming Obama for shutting out the voters in Florida and Michigan.
The Clinton campaign has the State of Texas swarming with lawyers to cover the caucuses tomorrow.
Stay tuned.

In response to Jim Sleeper's post:http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/28/the_campaign_america_really_ne/#more

If a campaign like this is going to make a dent in the national discourse, we'll need to narrow the message down to one single, simple powerful thought or set of words. Even someone else's words. For example, Dick Cheney's "so." Imagine putting that word over a picture of coffins of American soldiers. Or a giant, building-size poster or billboard with the 4000 names of those who lost their lives in Iraq. With an overlay of that simply sates "So?" Or maybe you create a live billboard that tracks the cost of the war by the second, $1,000,000,000,023, and it changes like an odometer. Just add the word "so?" and it really starts to resonate. You can think of a million pieces of news footage, like katrina, or Darfur, or Rwanda, or homeless veterans, or Abu Ghraib or waterboarding, etc. I think there are enough creative types that can get this thing rolling. Any thoughts?

Hate is the leading cause of blindness and when we're consumed by it, we fail to recognize the best in people. And I think what we're overlooking at this point in time is the fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both very courageous people. Peel away your partisanship and consider what it takes to run for the highest office in the land. We the chattering classes are lucky to have candidates that continue to wake up every day in towns and cities of across the country to meet as many voters as they can. To give as many talks and speeches as they can. To answer questions and give interviews, one after another, over and over again, your every word and every move carefully tracked and monitored and criticized 24/7 for nearly two years.
Hard enough for a middle-aged white man, nevermind a woman or an African American.
It takes guts and passion and I sometimes wonder how they manage to tolerate all the scrutiny without thinking "is this really worth the prospect of cleaning up the god-awful mess made by the worst president since the dawn of man?
We're lucky to have two democrats who think it is.

Speaking to students in North Carolina today, Sen. Clinton's opening remarks were a little hypocritical.
"As Americans, we look clear-eyed at reality." A strange comment given her Bosnia lie, the current implosion of the democratic party and her chances of winning the presidency.

Saw a clip of Hillary Clinton from a Fox interview, from the last night I believe. Said she'll make sure the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated one way or another. When asked to elaborate, she essentially dared the DNC not to seat those delegates.

I've taken the time to learn more about Jeremiah Wright, his entire sermons and the Trinity Church. I continue to support Obama.
People are bringing up "the Fellowship" and I want to make sure I have a better understanding of it before I pass judgment.

Governor Rendell of PA, (a Hillary Clinton supporter), is on Charlie Rose right now, lowering expectations.
I paraphrase:
"The more people get to know Obama in PA., the more they like him, so I think Hillary's 20 point lead in polls will lower to 10, though still in Hillary's favor. No one ever wins by 20 points in PA. If she wins by 10 points, that's incredible." And Sen. Obama is outspending us 3 to 1 in PA".
Also, spinning:
"No one cares about the Bosnia thing."
"If you can't win Pennsylvania, you can't win the general election."
"If Sen. Obama didn't block Michigan revote, and Florida counted, which it should, then Obama wouldn't be leading in delegates."
"Caucuses are so undemocratic", they disenfranchise people that are Hillary's base."
"Pledged delegates are free to vote for whoever they want"
"Hillary has been treated worse than any other candidate I've seen running in politics"
"Media coverage for Hillary is reprehensible"
"SNL proves she's been treated unfairly"
"MSNBC is on Obama's payroll. Obama can do no wrong, they're caught up in all the enthusiasm."
"Obama watered down Nuclear safeguard bill, and no one covered it. Had it been Hillary, the press would have been all over it."
"the kids that go to Obama rallies don't know anything about Obama and what he stands for. They just think he's amazing."
"Hillary has been treated unfairly because she's a woman"

Are the rules different by state? It was a factor in Ohio and Texas. But in Pennsylvania it's out of control.
Any strategy to counter another party hijacking our nominating process?

Gen. Petraeus, George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are all trying to elevate Iran's connection with the recent violence in Iraq.  Is a strike on Iran coming? Let's look at other reasons that might push the U.S. over the edge:
-Iran has just reported its producing 4.21 million barrels of oil per day, the highest level since 1979.  It's now exporting 2. 5 million barrels per day
-China has announced it will join the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline if India drops out of the 7.4 billion dollar project
-Iran may soon join China and Russia as part of a  central Asian security organization.
-U.S. has sent warships to the Eastern Med., a move considered by many to give Israel cover if the U.S. strikes Iran.  
-Most of the alleged violence in Iraq is now taking place in Basra, right on Iran's border.  
-Admiral Fallon, a vocal opponent of action against Iran just resigned.
-the dollar continues to shrink and the financial crisis looms
A little history:  when Saddam Hussein announced plans to accelerate production of Iraq's oil and trade it with euros, not dollars(as Iran intends to do), the U.S. invaded.
Alliances between China, Russia and Iran threaten the goal of the Bush administration to build the largest military industrial complex and reign as a superpower with two leverage points:  oil and nuclear weapons. 
I could be wrong about all this.  I hope I am.  
But I encourage readers to take a little time away from the petty name-calling in the election and contact their senators for reassurance that they will not allow the administration to take unilateral action against Iran.  
Also, just to touch upon what Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, we need to demand to hear a wider array of opinions on issues not only in Iraq, but also around the world.   

I'm an Obama supporter and there are some things about him that gave me pause. For example, The Rev. Wright video clips hit me pretty hard. I was really disappointed to discover that Obama was associated with him.
But I didn't say, what's the big deal? I didn't reflexively fling mud back in the direction of Hillary.
It doesn't matter to me how you feel about that issue. What I'm curious about is whether or not there is any issue or any behavior on Hillary's part that you were or are less than proud of?

Telling voters that you were under sniper fire, running for your life, is especially egregious at a time when 4000 of our sons and daughters have lost their lives in real military combat.

It's unconscionable.

Which is why she's trying to hide behind the Wright issue.

And this brings up a fundamental difference between the character of Hillary and that of Barack.

Hillary deflects issues aimed at her by directing your attention to someone else.

When the Wright issue started heating up, Barack Obama took it head on. He gave a brilliant compelling speech. And regardless of the effects of that speech, he showed the kind of backbone we haven't seen in government in recent history.

That is leadership.

The Republicans couldn't have asked for a more incriminating assault on her credibility. At any other time in history, perhaps it would be a minor problem. But this is a national security election during not one but two devastating wars. 4000 of our sons and daughters REALLY know what it's like to come under sniper fire. And she's talking about how dangerous it was to be under FAKE sniper fire. How low do you have to go to walk over the graves of our real soldiers?

Obama supporters, our time is better spent taking Obama's lead. We've been in a month-long firestorm debating the Wright issue and I for one, listened to both sides, but more importantly I listened to Obama.
Just because Hillary wants to debate it now doesn't mean we have to appease her or those who are paid to push her talking points.

It's January 2009. Your candidate is sworn in. Any decisions he/she makes will have to take into consideration any significant events, national security or otherwise, that transpire between April-December 2008. Having said that, what are the top three priorities of Democrats?

Just watched two strategists go at it on CNN. One of them focused on the election not representing the will of the people so far, and that the purpose of superdelegates is to step in when situations like Jeremiah Wright's association with Obama come up.

The writing is on the wall and no one can plead ignorance:
-2007, Bush/Cheney rhetoric about disarming Iran.
-2007, bill passes that declares Iranian national guard a terrorist organization
-2007, N.I.E. shows Iran's nuclear program inactive since 2003.
-2007, Bush changes rhetoric to "We can't allow Iran to have the "KNOWLEDGE" to build nuclear weapons.
January 2008-U.S. military claims many I.E.Ds come from Iran.  (later found to be false)
January 2008-Iran plans to open oil bourse, excluding the dollar 
January 2008-U.S. military reports Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz threaten to "blow up" intruding Navy destroyer.  (quickly found to be false)
February 2008-Iran opens oil bourse
January-March 2008-Both Bush and Cheney make frequent visits to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah.
March 2008-Financial crisis, dollar plummets, recession
March 2008-McCain slips Iran/Al qaeda into national dialogue
March 2008-Betraeus reports Iran is behind most violent green zone attack since fall 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311565.stm

What's next

What is victory in Iraq?
Consider this theory: 
Victory in Iraq meant preventing Saddam Hussein from increasing the flow of Iraq's oil and selling it for euros, not dollars. If all of Iraq's oil resources were at top productivity levels, the cost of oil would have gone down, or at least stabilized its price. So why is it more important to keep Iraq oil in the ground rather than adding to the world supply? Because it benefits the Saudis and the oil companies and the long-term strategic interests of the U.S. government. The price skyrockets, Saudi Arabia maintains its position as OPEC'S largest oil exporter, generating unprecedented profits used to expand its own infrastructure and build up an immense U.S.-Saudi military capability, and western oil companies hold sway over the world's oil supply. Next stop: Iran, OPECs second largest oil exporter (in estimated reserves). Iran is now instituting a multi-currency petro policy; it doesn't include the dollar. Like it or not, the U.S. will attack Iran in one way or another. The world's appetite for oil is increasing rapidly, OPEC won't increase the flow, the price remains high or continues to go up. 
And the White House invests about a nickel of the profits into alternative energy. 
The value of the dollar plummets, as does the American economy, and the world's most precious resource lies underground, becoming more and more valuable by the day.  
Unlike gold, countries MUST HAVE OIL.  
The imperialist U.S. sect must retain its title as the world's superpower by controlling two of the most influential bargaining chips of the first half of the 21st century: oil and an infinite stable of nuclear weapons. 
So I would say yes, in these terms the surge is working.

I'm reposting Robin's post because other than the 4,000 Iraq death toll, it's the most important issue going on right now.  
New York Times Telling Tales Again and UN Security Council Sanctions against IranBy Ronda Hauben - March 24, 2008, 12:24AM

An article I wrote about the third set of UN Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran (S.C. Resolution 1803) was recently published in Telepolis,  March 5, 2008. The url ishttp://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/27/27434/1.html

Following is an excerpt:

“[T]he scenario of how this new set of sanctions has been passed is strikingly similar to the scenario that was employed to create the pretext for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In December 2007, the U.S. government’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was made public. It stated that there was no evidence that Iran is involved with other than the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

For a while that seemed to take the wind out of the sails of those who were promoting a new set of sanctions against Iran. Though Iran resisted implementing the requirement of the two prior Security Council resolutions (1737, 1747) that it suspend its nuclear enrichment activity, with the IAEA, it had formulated a workplan to answer the outstanding questions that the IAEA said needed explanation. Iran expected a good report in the February 22, 2008 IAEA Report. Iran was asking that the oversight over its nuclear program be returned to the IAEA by the Security Council. Iran offered to implement the Additional Protocol if the matter was transferred out of the Security Council.

There appeared to be little basis for the Security Council to continue its demands on Iran, demands that were contrary to Iran’s rights under the NPT to the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But the IAEA workplan agreed to between Iran and the IAEA had one additional section yet to be acted on. This section was to be about “Studies”, rather than actual work with nuclear material.

The material in this section related to a laptop that the US intelligence agency had acquired which German officials identified as originating with the Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK) and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI). The U.S. State Department has NCRI on its list of terrorist organizations. (see: “The ‘laptop of mass destruction’”,http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC04Ak03.html )

In the workplan Iran and the IAEA agreed to in August 2007, Iran explained that the documents emanating from the laptop were “politically motivated and baseless allegations,” but if it was provided with specific documentation, it would review it and “inform the Agency of its assessment.”
–

The article details how only a week before the IAEA report was to be published, the U.S. government declassified material that  it had claimed was the basis of its allegations against Iran. There was no time to examine the material before the IAEA report was to be published.

Subsequently a number of the Security Council members referred to the newly declassified material as the reason they voted in favor of the sanctions.

The “New York Times”, “Washington Post”, and other mainstream media in the U.S. had a history of articles about these allegations from 2004 on.

Yet, on March 3, 2008, the day the third set of sanctions were to be imposed, the “New York Times”, for example, published an article on its front page giving the impression that the allegations were “new” and not giving readers the background from 2004 and 2005 of having had these same allegations made and yet the data withheld so that it could not be evaluated.

While the mainstream U.S. media was taken with the supposedly new evidence, several blogs and other online articles documented the background of this drama and how these allegations were not in general “new” but were conveniently reintroduced when the U.S. wanted to increase the pressure for upgrading the sanctions against Iran.

This situation is an example of a repeat of the scenario of the role played by the “New York Times”, “Washington Post”, and other mainstream U.S. media setting the stage for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They created a fictitious narrative that Iraq possessed “Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

With regard to Iran, the fictitious narrative is that Iran’s enrichment program, a program that the IAEA finds in line with obligations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that Iran is a signatory to,  is actually a program to build nuclear weapons.

These allegations, which frequently refer to the data on a stolen laptop, have been floated in a variety of ways over almost 4 years.

In giving their explanations about why they were voting in favor of new sanctions against Iran, a number of the nations on the Security Council referred to the newly declassified material, despite the fact that the allegations about had not been able to be subject to a verification process.

For the recent “New York Times” article published the day of the Security Council was to vote on the 3rd set of sanctions and a very similar article by the same journalists written over 3 years earlier see:

“Meeting on Arms Data Reignites Iran Debate”, by WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER, published, MonDAY, March 3, 2008. The url is:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/world/middleeast/03nuke.html?_r=3&scp=8&sq=iran&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Compare with an earlier article by the same journalists:

“Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims”, By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger, published Sunday, November 13, 2005. The url is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/international/middleeast/13nukes.html

Bloggers have pointed out some of the problems in the newspaper articles and in the allegations themselves.

See for example Digby’s critique of the March 3, 2008 “New York Times” article:

Following is an excerpt:

“Stick This In Your Stovepipe”, Tuesday, March 11, 2008. The url of the blog is:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/stick-this-in-your-stovepipe-by-digby.html

“…[T]he [March 3, 2008 New York Times] article sounded very much like it could have been written by Judy Miller and that this looked like a conscious strategy to put last December’s bombshell NIE back on the shelf. The Bush administration will not accept its conclusions, and according to the article, many of our European allies were dismayed as well.”

“They are apparently seeking to discredit the conclusions and the New York Times is on board, once again….”

Quoting an article in the Hindu, digby writes:

“In a sense, this dishonest spin was inevitable. For as the U.S. found the IAEA knocking off the other (equally irrelevant but slightly more credible) ‘outstanding issues’ one by one, it was forced to wheel out the laptop’s contents once again, but this time as Exhibit No. 1. Even now, the Agency’s experts are divided. Dr. ElBaradei’s report treats the laptop’s contents with justified circumspection. However, his deputy, Olli Heinonen, briefed IAEA Board members about its contents, buttressing them with more information provided by unnamed intelligence agencies….After Iraq, the American press has forgotten nothing and learned nothing’.” 

(See, “The U.N. is escalating the Iran nuclear crisis” ,Siddharth Varadarajan, The Hindu, March 5, 2008. The url ishttp://www.hindu.com/2008/03/05/stories/2008030554841000.htm )

For helpful background on what has been happening with Iran and the IAEA, see Cyrus Safdari’s blog “Iran Affairs.” The url is:http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/11/the-iaea-report.html

The framing of the story of the ‘allegedly stolen Iran laptop’ and its 1000 pages of information that appears on blogs and in the mainstream media is strikingly different. It seems that several bloggers are trying to learn the lessons from the role played by much of the mainstream U.S. media in helping the U.S. government create a pretext for its invasion of Iraq. Bloggers are trying to explore the nature of not only the allegations against Iran, but perhaps as important, the form of journalism which will publish stories making serious allegations from anonymous sources and without having a means to evaluate the evidence. The mainstream media in this ways shows itself to be a pliant source of publicity in support of U.S. government policy aims. Instead of functioning as a watchdog, the mainstream media by publishing such stories,  act as the ”mouthpiece” for the abuse of power. 

If you can, circulate this story, or excerpts from it

Senator Evan Bayh was on CNN spinning like mad for Hillary today.  
He recited the Clinton talking points like an android, sidestepping the fact that the candidates agreed the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not count, repeating the false assertion that Hillary pushed through the SCHIP program in the 90s, marginalizing the significance of Bill Richardson's endorsement, and repeating incessantly that Hillary is ready on day one.  
Thus, employing the George Bush theory of repeating the same thing over and over thinking that will make it true.