The story shows that Clinton is misleading voters, while Obama is telling the truth. Here’s what the article reports:

While Clinton rightly points out that the legislation included tax breaks for oil companies – $2.6-billion to be exact – those were largely wiped out by a $3-billion extension of taxes on crude oil to help offset costs associated with oil spills. The bulk of the $14.6-billion in tax incentives included in the legislation actually went to “renewable” sources of energy, to accelerate the development of wind, clean coal and nuclear power, and hybrid vehicles. (Although there is debate over whether coal and nuclear power should be considered renewable).

The bill also included a mandate to produce more alternative fuel. The industry is on pace to meet that target ahead of schedule, despite Clinton’s claims that oil industry tax breaks have been used to retard development of renewable energy.

So while Clinton is right that Obama voted for the bill, she wrongly characterizes it as a handout to the energy companies. We find her claim Barely True.

As for the al-Qaida comment, Obama is correct that Clinton made such a remark during her 2002 speech explaining why she was voting for the resolution authorizing force against Iraq.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001,” Clinton said.

And so we find Obama’s claim to be True.

Obama rightly predicted the disaster we would face in Iraq, while Clinton was trying to scare us into supporting it.

Being RIGHT from day one is why I trust Obama’s leadership more than Clinton’s.

There are far too many Clinton has claimed, but turn out to be what her habit of exaggerating has driven her to say. Take for instance, the 1997 SCHIP,the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children and sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, it was Pres. Bill Clinton who withdrew the bill.

Then, today, I bought my copy of the latest Times Magazine and found it to be very revealing. In the article “Campaign Fact-Check: What Did Hillary Doas First Lady?” gives very troubling disclosure that Senator Hillary Clinton has not been very truthful to the Public.

I find it very hard, in my conscience, to vote for her in this PA Primary. How do others feel?

Just Hillary? Anyone who raises tens of millions of dollars from special interest groups, and wealthy business people to fund their campaigns, will, when the chips are down, favor a position championed by those who gave them money. It is inevitible. It’s not so much trust – it’s that they’re owned. Sure, they got a bunch of ten dollar donations too. Those people don’t own ‘em.

Everyone wants you to have health care – especially the for profit HMOs that both of these candidates want to essentially force you to buy.

Dennis Kucinich was railroaded by the MSM – he was the only person who was real, right when it counted, for the American people – not Corporate America, and intelligent enough to get the job done.

I’m still voting for him.