One of the facts emerging out of this campaign is the lack of technical expertise and understanding of the digital age displayed by Hillary Clinton and her team. Do they not understand that the internet has provided research and historical archives that were once only conceived of in the the daydreams of political reporters and commentators? HILLARY, WE CAN LOOK STUFF UP! Check it out —
This is reportage by David Sirota, who has to be emerging as the greatest bete noire, burr under the saddle, of the Clinton campaign. He is the guy who has already laid the groundwork of the stories yet to emerge of all the companies who had business before the State Department and who coincidentally were already donors of the Clinton Foundation or became donors of the Clinton Foundation. But back to the issue at hand —
But in April 2008, Clinton’s campaign aired a television ad portraying Obama’s support for a 2005 energy bill as a quid pro quo for campaign donations. The ad said Obama had “accepted $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies,” while criticizing him for voting “for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that that put $6 billion in the pocket of big oil.” The clear message: Obama backed the bill as a favor to donors.
Clinton also accused Obama of exchanging legislative favors for campaign cash from the nuclear industry.
"Sen. Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors — Exelon, a big nuclear power company,” she declared. “Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure of the nuclear industry.”
So Hillary, please explain to us peons why President Obama was subject to your concerns about campaign contributions resulting in quid pro quo political action or inaction, but we are not to draw the same conclusions about you?