.

The 44th President of the United States

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

.

Pete, you need to stop the Rovian technique of repetition. Just because you say it over and over again, doesn't make it true. That's an old trick. I guess the so-called progressive liberal are using right-wing tricks to stop Hillary. So sad. Pitiful really.

NO MATTER WHAT you can't stop the democratic process.

Obama may not win all the next 9 elections and he may not get the nomination. Hillary still has the right to run, she has the right to win, she has the right to be President of the United States.

Obama is not the presumptive nominee. Get over it.

bondjedi - "Yeah, since March 20, 2003."

From 1999 to 2000, the average price of crude rose over 65% (falling the next two years by 16% and 1%). How can that be since there was no war then? Instability in the ME does have something to do with the rise since 2002. So does coming out of a recession in 2002 and the subsequent increasing demand as well as the falling dollar. As it has been one of the world's biggest and best run companies since 1999 when Mobil and Exxon merged in the biggest merger in US history, one would expect it to have one of the biggest profits.

Things are not desperate for Obama supporters. Hillary is not going to win, no matter what.

NO

MATTER

WHAT

.

Leichtman...

It is a shame that ordinary Americans issues are not being put in the main stream media domain.

Obama was visibly perturbed by the questioning of the first 50 minutes in ABC's (dare I call it) "debate". Even some questioning on more interesting issues like the capital gains tax bothered Obama, especially when Charlie Gibson kept trying to convince Obama that low capital gains taxes equal good economy. [Obama could have answered quickly back in two ways: 1st - The capital gains tax is already at the lowest level in 20 years, and is our economy doing great? 2nd - if what Charlie says is true then a 1% capital gains tax, instead of the current 15% tax, would fix the economy immediately. But it wont.]

Unfortunately Hillary's campaign and supporters are the first to claim she won the debate. But how did she win the debate? What policy issues were debated that she won?

The only thing the ABC "debate" did was reinforce the notion that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee.

"Big oil companies that both pump oil and refine crude into gasoline have to spend more for crude but are unable to pass on all the extra cost to consumers, which eats in to gasoline profit margins."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/

It appears the bulkhead of their profits is from finding oil the world-over and helping refine it. (Not from directly ripping us off or something at the gas pumps.) That is also due to increased world-wide demand.

If you want to take something to the stake, take the weak USD and our current monetary policy, not a healthy corporation employing about 100,000 people.

John and Hillary McBusch WMD 2008 :(
FTMSM!

When is someone going to call him out on the lobbyist issue?He constantly says he never takes money from lobbyist,but he has lobbyist working his campaign.Does he really believe they want nothing from him????

Alright, so maybe a candidate for President of the United States doesn't need to know the first thing about the Federal Budget. That's a job for staff--right? But what if a candidate for President doesn't know anything about the budget and can't hire someone who does?

That appears to be the situation that John McCain is in, based on the background provided today by his "Director of Economic Policy" Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters recently:

We have $60 billion in discretionary spending that was sourced to earmarks.

Holtz-Eakin says that money could be used to fix the repeal the alternative minimum tax. The problem is that virtually no one can find even a third that much money in the annual spending bills in earmarks.

The most credible effort at earmark accounting in recent years was completed recently by the Taxpayers for Common Sense. They did an exhaustive review of the 2008 spending bills and reported $18.3 billion in earmarks. The White House Office of Management and Budget scrubbed the twelve 2008 appropriation bills and came up with only $16.9 billion. Where does McCain's other $41.7 billion come from?

There is virtually no explanation

looks like the children have returned here to harass and intimidate HC supporters uding psychological warfare. Are things getting that desperate for you?

"'Exxon also set an annual profit record last year' and some of that ended up funding Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency.

Obama has accepted lots of dough 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.

What makes you libs think your candidate is so squeaky clean? He's funded by the oil companies, just like every other pol.

The Dems are hypocrits by chastising the oil execs on one hand, while the other hand puts that oil money right into their campaign's pockets.

'Those profits are really small.'

small? the highest ever record. but sure, dick cheney's made $90 million in halliburton profits since 2003, can't deny that

"The main component in the price of gasoline is the world price of crude oil, which has skyrocketed in recent years. "

Yeah, since March 20, 2003.

But the Iraq misadventure and resulting instability in the Middle East has absolutely nothing to do with it. Gas prices are high because twits like GOP and their handlers want you to believe:

- Libs have restricted refinery capacity.
- Libs have hamstrung Gulf refinery rebuilding after Katrina.
- Everyone in China and India owns a Hummer.
- All of the above.

Ignore the fact that oil companies record profits also coincide with the onset of the war. Those profits are really small. The real culprit is the government. Look at their profits.

'Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.'

PROFIT. NOT EARNINGS.

**************RECORD PROFITS******************

SEVERAL YEARS IN A ROW AS THE PRICE KEEPS RISING.

Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.

Hey Chris so whats the matter fellow is your boy braindamaged by cocaine,arrogant
pompus arse,motor mouth,pathological liar,
elitist snob,phony Barack Hussein Obama,
getting his worthless lying phony butt,
kicked ...

I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.

PS - Nice touch calling him "boy". Older white female, I'm assuming.

The 11:11 post is mine, so is the 11:23.

drindl? drindl! come on out! we all know that's you posting anonymously. Here are the facts...

The truth is that oil companies have a lot less control over their profits than most of us think. The main component in the price of gasoline is the world price of crude oil, which has skyrocketed in recent years.

And however large the profit numbers appear to us, the oil companies' return on investment is small compared to banking, making computer chips, or even bottling Coca Cola.

"According to the California Energy Commission, which breaks down the components of a price of gasoline, only six cents of the price of a gallon of gasoline went for distribution costs, marketing costs, and profits for the oil companies.

That is six cents out of $3.61 cents at the pump. Sixty-three cents, or ten times as much, went directly into government coffers as state and federal taxes. And that doesn't include the income taxes the oil companies paid.

Exxon Mobil, whose profits have earned the ire of Congress, paid $27,000,000 in income taxes on those profits in 2007. That is actually more than all the income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers.

Exxon Mobil alone paid more in taxes than 65,000,000 individual taxpayers paid as a group. Of course in reality it wasn't the oil companies who paid that tax, but you and I every time we fill up at the pump.

Government makes more money off the oil companies than the shareholders do."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidStrom/2008/04/03/if_hypocrisy_were_an_energy_source_we_could_drill_in_congress

Neither was the 11:15 post.

That's a shame, Leichtman, for once you made sense.

the 11:18 post was not written by me.

Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.

Exxon shatters all-time profit record
NEWS - Exxon Mobil Corp said on Friday record oil prices boosted its fourth-quarter earnings to $11.66 billion, the highest ever operating profit for any company.

What is it you Obama morons don't get? Obama got asked a bunch of tawdry questions by two amateurs looking to make waves, so Hillary deserves the nomination! Those are the rules everyone agreed to. Experience trumps change, you loons.

I'm voting for McShame because --uhh, Rush told me to.

What's wrong with you people? Paying $3.50 a gallon for gas is cool! Why would you want to support someone who wants to keep oil companies from extorting you? I'm voting for McBush, and you would too if you were backed into an ideological corner and were a terrified sheep, too afraid to admit you were wrong. Baa baa baa!

By the way, my moped only uses a gallon of gas each month. Who cares about the price? I can easily afford it, with my mighty movieplex salary!

Sam your whining reflects the poor performance by your candidate. Don't recall hearing sam's sentiments when Russert pummeled HC.

This by Chuck Todd on First Read:
"Obama was weak in a lot of his answers on his personal negatives."

Your calls might be better directed to your campaign office complaining of Sen Obama's subpar performance last night, once again no matter how you try and spin it, it wasn't a pretty.

Exxon's profits the last two years have exceeded the profits of any company that ever existed. They are raking it in and we are getting raped at the pump.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a lone blogger who is disappointed in Obama's performance last night? There are not very many, and if I can't find one, it will be impossible for me to advance my preposterous views. Thank you. Unpaid volunteers like me are Hillary's only hope, since she can not afford to pay people anymore.

A suicide bomber struck the funeral of two Sunni tribesmen in a town north of Baghdad on Thursday, killing at least 50 people, police said.

"Over the past five years, Exxon Mobil's total U.S. tax bill exceeded its U.S. revenues by some $19 billion."

Exactly right Dave!. The taxes paid by just one oil company, Exxon, total more than paid by 50% of Americans' total paid.

The profits for oil companies on a gallon of gas are less than what PepsiCola gets for a 2 liter of pop.

To quote Barack Obama, "The notion that, somehow" the oil companies are raking in money off the backs of the taxpayers is ludicrous.

Congress is the one raking it in, in the form of tax on every gallon that far exceeds the profits.

CALL ABC AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS UTTER CRAP!

ABC Switchboard: 212-456-7777

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan comes away disappointed in Obama: "This was his worst performance yet on national television," he writes. "He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he's up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully."

Sullivan has endorsed Senator Obama.

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan comes away disappointed in Obama: "This was his worst performance yet on national television," he writes. "He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he's up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully."

Sullivan has endorsed Senator Obama.

From a British newspaper -- this is how moronic and juvenile this country looks to others:

"The relentless triviality was only one problem, however. The more serious failing was the willingness of Gibson and Stephanopoulos to volunteer as water-carriers for a conservative attack machine that, fearful of Obama's crossover appeal, is already working overtime to tarnish his reputation.

Gibson placed ABC's imprimatur on one of the more obviously silly stories - the suggestion that Obama's disinclination to wear a stars and stripes flag pin could render him unelectable.

"As you may know, it is all over the internet," Gibson intoned earnestly, as if hoping this might absolve him from any responsibility for raising such a gaseous point during a critical prime-time debate."

While in Pittsburgh Tuesday night and Wednesday, I saw 4 Obama ads and none of anybody else. While I did not watch a lot of TV, it seems to me that it is clear where Obama is spending his war chest.

Big oil may be an easy target for the Dem candidates (despite the fact that they fly around in their jets, live in their huge houses and drive their gas guzzling cars), but at some point they will need to address some of the facts surrounding this issue.

About 70% of the price of gasoline is determined by the global price of crude, which is rising because of world-wide demand and volatility in the commodities markets, not to mention the Federal Reserve's easy-money policy. Congress might also look to its gas mandates and the corset it has laced around domestic production.

It's true that industry profits are at a record high, but oil is a classic boom-and-bust business, which is why billions in capital investments are folded back into exploration and production. Besides, the industry's effective tax rates are in the neighborhood of 40% to 44%. Over the past five years, Exxon Mobil's total U.S. tax bill exceeded its U.S. revenues by some $19 billion.

And about those $18 billion in "subsidies," they are actually a tax deduction that Congress itself extended to all manufacturers, including Big Oil.

'Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.'

This is exactly right... this campaign has been about gossipy, mindless trivia.

CC -- GO HAVE A TALK WITH TOM SHALES.

Thank you for getting it, finally, Tom Shales...

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

ttp://www.gopcatholics.blogspotcom

Obama's new ad says he "doesn't take money from PACs or lobbyists."

But it's not true!!

Here's what FactCheck.org has to say about it:

"Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.

In a new ad, Obama says, "I don't take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn't distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

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.

We'd say 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. "

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

Is FactCheck.org just another distraction, Senator Obama?

He's outspending his rival 2 to 1, and still can't quite bring himself to be honest or answer tough questions without parsing and calling it all a distraction.

ANOTHER SOLID DEBATE PERFORMANCE BY THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES, BARACK OBAMA! AS HILLARY DISAPPEARS FURTHER IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR, WE CAN TURN OUR ATTENTION TO JOHN MCBUSH!

YOU PUNKS WHO BRING UP GORE AND KERRY -- WISHFUL THINKING! THOSE PU$$!E$ WOULDN'T PUT UP A FIGHT, BUT OBAMA IS GOING TO KNOCK THE DUST OFF THAT OLD COOT!

Hey Chris so whats the matter fellow is your boy braindamaged by cocaine,arrogant
pompus arse,motor mouth,pathological liar,
elitist snob,phony Barack Hussein Obama,
getting his worthless lying phony butt,
kicked by Hillary Clinton that you acting
like somekind of a "Bitter Small Town
American Hick" over it today? Since it's
high time Barack Obama drop out of the race
since Obama cannot get elected dogcatcher
of a one dog small town in Arizona. Say
NO OBAMA!

Irrespective of who one supports (Clinton or Obama), this debate will go down in history as a sad day in the history of journalism. Mr Gibbs and Mr. Stephanopolous could not rise above the level of tabloids and the banality of thier questions was evident.

These two moderators must think the major issues facing the country are what they focused on for the first 60 minutes; God help ABC news. Perhaps the network needs to hold some training sessions telling them about issues that affect our lives; economy, healthcare, war etc. These two certainly fall in the category of the uninformed and the ignorant and are clearly 'out of touch'.

As an informed voter let me say that it is the two moderators who need to be informed about the issues rather than the pretense that they inform the public. No wonder people are tuning off from such newscasts and Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Stephanopolous may have accelerated that trend.

Sigh... The oil companies are merely skimming off the top. It is the weak USD, higher demand in China and India and a dwindling supply that is rising the cost of barrels of raw oil... which equates into higher energy costs AND many goods are oil-based, like computer parts and plastics.

The problem spreads quickly, for now in Indonesia they are taking the palm oils and other raw oils used in baking ingredients around the world and using them to FUEL their cars! Thus, rising the cost of raw baking materials.... See:
http://conspiracynews.myfeedportal.com/item.php?&itemid=445561

I have seen chain mails and all sorts of people pointing the fingers at the Exxon and Mobil and it is just not fair. (Okay, their being subsidized is another issue.)

A weak USD is very bad for us, on many fronts.

"Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) presented an economic plan that offers a $1.7 trillion tax cut for corporations, "more than twice as much as McCain gives families with his child deduction," as The Wonk Room's James Kvaal and Robert Gordon noted.

Today on MSNBC, McCain was asked if he is understating the costs of his tax cuts. "Independent experts say your tax cuts would cost at least $100 billion more than you say and that the savings would not materialize," Andrea Mitchell said. McCain retorted:

I disagree. I disagree with the experts. I disagree. I disagree. I disagree with the experts. I have experts of my own. I have many experts of my own who say that this will stimulate the economy, will create jobs, and increase revenues over time."

this guy is a terrifying lunatic.

"I disagree. I disagree with the experts. I disagree. I disagree. I disagree with the experts. I have experts of my own. I have experts of my own"

"The credit market crisis is spreading to student loans," making loans "harder to come by and more expensive." Over 50 firms have "abandoned or cut back their federal or private student loan programs this year, unable to raise money in the financial markets."

John McCain's opposition to the GI Bill appears to be rooted in a concern "that a generous education benefit would persuade soldiers and Marines ending their tours to pursue an education rather than reenlist in the overstretched military." "He's the odd man out," VoteVets chairman Jon Soltz said of McCain. "You have 55 co-sponsors on this bill, and he's not one of them. He has to lead or follow."

Bush admits to lying about Iraq and then denies he admitted lying about Iraq.

RADDATZ: You said you worried any time you think it will fail. Did you think it would fail?

BUSH: I thought it was failing, yes, I did, and that's why -- and I listened to a lot of opinions. And as you remember, there were like all kinds of opinions.

OK, got that? Now, a few moments later

RADDATZ: You were saying, 'We're winning. We have a plan for victory. We are winning,' up through October.

BUSH: Well, there was -- I also recognized -- I think if you'd go through the -- kind of fully analyze my statements, I was also saying, "The fighting is very tough, it's -- you know, the extremism is unacceptable. The murder is unacceptable."

And you know, it's very important to be realistic.

RADDATZ: But the overall thing -- when you say, "We're winning," you know what the American people hear. You know how that will play.

BUSH: Well, yes. I think we -- and I wanted -- that's as much trying to bolster the spirits of the people in the field as well as -- look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale?"

You know what's great for morale? Being lied to about what the troops are sacrificing for.

You can forget Rezco, pal. No one cares. The republican party wears Jack abramoff around its neck like a dead skunk.

Can we get back to what is important to Americans or do you all like sliming in the gutter better. What doesnt kill you makes you stronger, except for Hillary, who is made shriller and meaner.

Must have been a bad debate for Obama, Chris is trying to change teh subject.

Obama can not even buy his own house without direct help from his dearest friend Rezko.

Why should we trust him to solve housing/subprime crisis in the country?

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.