by Jerome Armstrong, Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EDT
Here's Clinton's closer, sticking with the gas tax, which she's clobbered Obama on:
This is Obama's closer, probably his most negative ad to date:
And notice that Obama drops his opposition to the gas tax too, trying to broaden the debate past that losing position into something more general.
I'll have my take on the polls of the race posted later tonight, what's yours?
Tags: 2008 election (all tags)
I don't think she's clobbered him, the poll out today doesn't really show that...
Sure, it's a moral victory for her. She's stayed out of the spotlight recently and it's been an awful few weeks for Obama with Wright trying to torpedo his campaign. She's done well to close the gap.
But the difference between PA and NC is that that Obama needed was to keep PA close, so she didn't run up a huge PV margin on him. He never needed to win it -- he already had the lead, so he just had to defend it, and he did.
Clinton, on the other hand, is trailing in all metrics, so she needs more than moral victories. She needs upsets. Losing a state by 10 (or even 5) that she was expected to lose by ~15 isn't going to do the job. She needs to win NC, or the Obama will have taken another big step towards the inevitability of him winning the nomination.
Your analysis rests entirely on the thorny assumption that Florida and Michigan's votes will be unapologetically suppressed by the party. Given the actual rules and procedures governing their status, that's highly unlikely.
"Unapologetically suppressed?"
I don't think that characterization does justice to that issue. The problem was neither created nor exacerbated by Obama, but was just a conflux of unfortunate events.
Also, Jerome why throw in the "clobber" line regarding the gas tax. Perhaps you see traction on the ground that is not visible in polls. Personally, I've noticed a lot of chagrin among Hillary supporters. It may win the battle and even the election, but if that's what we get with Hillary, then I just don't see a paradigm shift.
Can't was ask for more of our politicians? Obama is the only one with the potential to shift business as usual. Maybe he'll fail, but I'm ready to work for something more.
Hah.
I think both MI and FL will get half their delegations per the minimum sanctions laid out in the DNC delegate selection rules; that's more than fair and won't change the foreseeable outcome of the nomination process.
Those are not the "minimum" sanctions. The 50% reduction is a suggested optional penalty.
I think after a string of high profile victories, the Hillary-leaning RBC is going to upend this issue.
Five states broke the rules. Three are fully counted. Two were arbitrarily excluded.
Florida and Michigan lost the primary influence and advertising money they hoped to garner. The states' interests have been penalized enough. There's no reason to shift blame to the voters in those states.
From the Democratic National Committee
DELEGATE SELECTION RULES
FOR THE 2008
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION:C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.
...5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including, without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state's division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.
but what part of "shall be" isn't imperative? The other states were allowed by the DNC to move up their primaries due to the violations by MI and FL, so they were only acting at great unforeseen expense to reset the previously accepted schedule. If MI and FL had addressed their concern prior to the eve of the nomination process, worked with the central committee and arranged a compromise in advance rather than forcing chaos onto the season, we wouldn't have this predicament. Instead, they used the eminence of the process to ram through a change that they were warned would result in traumatic penalties.
So sad, too bad. They fucked themselves.
"she's stayed out of the spotlight recently"???? Are you in a cave? The only time she's not making appearances is when she's in the air flying back and forth from N.C. to IN. Multiple events every day in both states, big events like both JJ dinners this weekend, big interview with O'Reilly, an hour town hall on ABC, speaking from the back of a pickup, doing radio while traveling in a motorcade, squeezing in fundraisers, shaking a gazillion hands and charming everybody she meets. The woman is incredible. And the amazing thing is that she never seems tired. I know people half her age who can't keep up with her.
I thought I had just responded to this: here's my copy-pasted response to your copy-pasted comment!
Of course she will claim some victory from closing the gap, just as Obama did. I don't think the media treated it as a win though - they would have had be come within 5.
Also, as an Obama supporter, I don't hate Hillary, though I deplore some of her tactics (and haven't always loved Obama's) Also, I believe exit polls have shown that her voters are less like to vote for him then the other way around.
I also resent your implications that youth makes me more likely to hate. I don't think Hillaryis44 is run by a bunch of 20 year olds.
I didn't read any hate implication into what he said. Relax and cheer up :)
I wasn't being condesending, and I honestly don't think the author of the comment being discussed here really intended to imply what you seem to think.
and I joined hoping to find something other than the profusion of negative energy that chased me away from another site, so perhaps a better word for me would be naive.
Is that Obama has held his own.
After all he's been running against the entire GOP, half the Dem establishment, and the vile 24/7's.
Hillary still can't win the nomination without taking this Party to the brink via a brokered convention. Then after that, the "Fall-out" could be such that President McCain wins nonetheless.
Again, moral victory??
OH jeez. Obama has he entire mainstream media, dialy Kos and Matt Drudge in the tank for him.
I thought his add was sleazy fear mongering.
isn't something I want to engage in at this point.
Your side is going to have to decide if you want to drag this out till Convention.
"violence"? Are you one of those Kos types vowing to reprise '68 if Obama doesn't get the nomination? Which, by the way, was a really amusing threat coming from that crowd. What are they gonna do, type harder, stomp on their laptops, blow the foam off their lattes?
the past year and a half is that Daily Kos does not matter that much. Neither does MyDD.
In primaries, it's the voters who matter. The so-called netroots/"progressive blogosphere just is not that influential. It can raise some money. It might be someday, but I think the death of discourse illustrates the problem with one dominant blog. I suspect that blogs will atomize over time.
And if Obama fails to win the nomination, what will Daily Kos do? The front pagers, soem of whom viciously attacked Clinton, and markos, who excommunciated Clinton, seem to haveboxed themselves in.
Jerome has not. He can support either one, even though he has a preference.
If Daily Kos mattered, John Edwards would still be in the race. Edwards won Daily Kos all last year. He still won 42-41% right before South Carolina. At Xmas, of about 20,000 votes in the straw poll, Edwards won 46% to Obama's 24%.
And it made no real difference in primaries in January or caucuses.
It is my belief that after Edwards dropped out, lot of different people on Daily Kos joined up. Markos endorsed Obama in January, and with Edwards out, many former Edwards supporters went to Obama. But it seems that a whole new group of Obama supports swarmed Daily Kos in February, turning it into an echo chamber, a process clearly supported by front pagers, and, apparently Markos.
Discourse died and ditto heads for Obama/Markos/Daily Kos (where does one end and the other start?) took over.
Obama's high point was in late February. He has not been doing so well since March, notwithstnding 24/7 Obama support and Clinton attacks on Daily Kos. Wjhat impact did Daily Kos really have? They reinforce the faithful.
Perhaps it is a paper tiger? Raise money, but it's reach is overrated by counting page views by many who repeatedly visit it. Hmmm.
The netroots just is not as important as it thinks it is.
Just a side comment, the netroots made itself not important by blowing it's credibility. All the blogs really have are the words they type. Whacked out posts and insults have taken their toll.
Tom, I know you are a labor blogger so I want to point you to The Economic Populist. A lot of the deep research, policy, economic analysis, issue specific bloggers get "rolled off" or no readers because of what you are describing above so this is a purely trade, economics, labor site where things start of the front page (but can be voted off).
If Hillary supporters (by the margins) don't hate Obama than why did more Hillary supporters than Obama supporters in exit polling say they would not vote for the other candidate in November?
Your theory does not hold up to the stats my friend.
Because Obama is winning. If it starts looking like he will lose, those numbers will begin to change.
I disagree. I think there are many Hillary supporters who, at first, are going to feel cheated by not getting the candidate they have been banking on since we lost in 2004. I think there are many people who love the Clintons who were very comfortable with the assumption that Hillary would be the nominee, and when it turned out that it wouldn't be a coronation they got a little upset... when it turned out that they were probably losing they got very upset.
I think this will turn around, regardless of who the nominee is by the end of summer and it will be clear just how strong both of our candidates are.
No, it probably WILL turn around, but we will see a huge backlash from Obama voters if Hillary starts taking the nomination from superdelegates. Right now, everyone is all, "we would TOTALLY vote for Hillary", but if she actually pulls off her plan to win the election despite a lower popular vote count (excluding Michigan) and lower pledged delegate count, Obama supporters will have a far lower opinion of her.
Just look at what happened to Obama when Clinton was ahead or still looked like she would win. Back then, every Clinton supporter was like, "I think Obama would be a GREAT vice-president" and "I think he's run a great campaign". Now it's all, "Obama isn't fit to be in office" and "His campaign has been nothing but slime".
It is only a noisy few that give that impression. I think you'll find that even over at the DKos echo chamber, its really just a few users creating the worst of the noise, and most Obama supporters can be rather reasonable and polite. Its just that the most disagreeable are often the most verbose.
Peace
While we Hillary voters (by the margins) don't hate Obama. Well maybe that's because we are an older/ mature voting group.
Why sneak in that insult? It sounds an awful lot like the McCain voter who told me I was "too young to know better" when I was canvassing for Obama. Maybe you didn't mean it to be an insult, and I'm not offended, but how many times must we Obama supporters be dismissed as too young and naive?
Anyway, in response to your point, if she makes it close in NC then it was a good showing for her. Just as it was for Obama to bring Pennsylvania to 9 after being behind by 20. Let's face it...we have two strong candidates and are finding it tough to choose! [Insert obvious call for unity ticket here]
Obama didn't part the seas, and he's not Moses.
But his team beat the heavily favored Clintons, and that says something.
Beat it with 40 million of Saudi's money??
I still wonder where all the money coming from?
It's coming from small dollar donations which the Clinton's couldn't be bothered to work for. My wife, a republican who has worked on the hill for a number of years, has stated on more than one occasion that what Obama has done with regards to fundraising is nothing short of spectacular. The reason no one goes after small dollar donors is why bother? You have to get so many to get any kind of value out of it, better stick with the good ole 80/20 principle - 80% of your money from 20% of your donors (or clients).
Be that as it may, making an allusion to him getting money from Saudi Arabia in a veiled Obama is a terrorist plant bullshit if disgusting. I troll rated you for freeper vibes...go back to your bridge.
and I donated it to Obama.
Then I gave him $250 in March to help seal the deal, and when that didn't work, I gave another $250 on April 30th.
Now the last $500 I would have liked to give to Jim Himes who is challenging Chris Shays-R in CT-04.
But if this doesn't end soon, Congress won't matter. Not with a President McCain created by a fractured Dem Party.
That was funny, even if you were trying to call me a tie-dyed hippie dreamer. I know Barack is a politician, a damn good one. I just happen to like him better.
It's kind of the same issue I've had with the Obama campaign for a long time, he describes the problems and doesn't offer real solutions.
I might be biased but just looking at the ads of just these two I think the Obama ad is the loser and comes across as way more negative than Clinton's.
We'll see.
yeah, I don't think the Obama ad is going to swing any undecided, just reinforce those Hillary haters.
Obama's is a negative ad that criticizes negative ads. An ad that criticizes itself.
Someone get a marketing brainiac and fly him to Obama's headquarters, QUICK!
LOL! I thought I was living in alternative universe with people claiming he's the one running a clean campaign. I see more hatred coming from that side of the fence than from anywhere.
Agreed.
His tactics eerily mimic what goes on an abusive relationships with malignant narcissist. The narcissist discredits his partner and suffocates all of her legitimate accusations by making them first.
Well after seeing that word used in 3 different places on this site I am guessing the new Clinton camp group think meme is that he is narcissitic?
I should have made a game where I write down a typical GOP attack on a democrat and behind them hidden different types of scotch or beer or something behind them. Then after every time the Clinton meme shifted I could reveal what prize I get to buy myself and I could have TOTALLY restocked my liquor cabinet by now...
But instead I drank it watching the Rangers go from rotten to historically bad this April.
the hidden socially indoctrinated misogyny and sexism in that statement is loaded. Be validated, I sure see it.
say what you will about him, but is nothing less than disgusting to compare him to an abuser in relationships...
Obviously you're not familiar enough with classic narcissistic abusers who put on a spectacular display of charisma in public. No one would ever suspect what goes on in private.
You make a mockery of very legitimate empirical observations of his character that are in fact aligned with the prototypical narcissistic abuser.
Get educated.
I shudder to think what your analysis of HRC would be. With all that bomb bomb bomb ,bomb bomb Iran talk, waddya think she's compensating for?
Narcissistic abusers are publicly charismatic.
People who are publicly charismatic are narcissistic abusers.
Wow.
I mean...
No, just wow.
Obama's ad bashes Clinton. No policy. No details about hope. No reason to trust him (which is his number one problem these days) which is his closing line.
Clinton's ad bashes Obama AND talks about a policy that, psychologically, is important to a lot of voters (I heard today that 40% of voters would like a gas tax holiday...so, no, Obama supporters, your intellectual arguments have not ended this discussion)
She wins!
That was also 40% of ALL VOTERS, including Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. Nice job, Hillary!
40% of people WANT the paltry sum that you all have made it out to be. Yup, my brother would like to have an extra tank of gas this summer as he has had to stop driving to our family house on the week-ends because he can't afford it. That 40% represents people who want the cash in hand.
The 60% are not vested the same way...they want to argue, complain, bitch about all sorts of issues related to the proposal...BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS WANTING IT. NEEDING IT. HOPING FOR IT.
And if you don't understand the difference, then Obama is truly doomed.
Does anyone supporting the gas tax holiday understand what it truly means? It means nothing! No savings! Probably not even $20!
The oil companies getting charged an additional .15 cents means gas stations getting charged an additional .15 cents which means consumers getting charged an additional .15 cents! It's just a big shell game.
All your 40% number means is that 40% of America is not well versed enough in economics to understand it won't actually save them any money.
40% of Americans who are not as well versed in economics to understand what you all understand so well.
Where would those poor souls be without you?
Sorry, I've been a bit sleep deprived lately. What I'm trying to say is, it's sad that people should have to have taken economics class in order to find out politicians are blowing smoke up their ass.
thoughts are usually the truthful thoughts...just like with politicians.
You went from "would like a gas tax holiday" to "WANTING IT. NEEDING IT. HOPING FOR IT." How do you make that leap? Also, the poll was open to Republicans. Of course they are going to want to eliminate a tax.
>> Clinton's ad bashes Obama AND talks about a
>> policy that, psychologically, is important to a
>> lot of voters (I heard today that 40% of voters
>> would like a gas tax holiday...so, no, Obama
>> supporters, your intellectual arguments have not
>> ended this discussion)
The same poll said 51% think it's a bad idea. You've raised the art of cherry-picking to a new high.
My Take is...
It will be a Very Big Upset tomorrow night.
It will be the turning point in the 2008 primary.
Clinton will take both IN & NC
Will it be like the turning point after Texas and Ohio? Or will it be like the turning point after Pennsylvania? Nothing will be decided by Indiana or North Carolina. We will just be back on these same forums, having the same stupid arguments. Clinton's only shot is coup by superdelegate. You know this, we know this. When anyone wants to discuss the ramifications that will have for the party, let me know.
Telling people the truth is a losing issue? Lying to them is a winning issue?
What a crazy place this site has become.
Look into the 1984 election and see what Mondale got for that... or Tsongas in '92.
I would like to think I can separate what works politically from the liberal dream list of policy enactments.
and I'm a little weary of what works just politically... especially given how transparent this issue is... my husband does not care a whit for politics and does not follow candidates until November when he votes Dem straight ticket... He saw the gas-tax proposal as a sellout, what you and I would call a pander in other words...
Even politically, Hillary's strategy is stupid.
You can't out-Republican the Republicans. How many times do we have to have that demonstrated to us before it sinks in?
Dream list? I thought you used to do astrology. That would explain how you keep pulling these HRC explanations...from the sky!
>> I would like to think I can separate what works
>> politically from the liberal dream list of policy
>> enactments.
Except that you're not talking about a "liberal dream list" policy here. Your candidate is mimicking the Republican nominee's position by proposing a policy that would be worse than what we have now for her own political gain.
And given that the tax holiday polls as a bad idea by 51-40, she's not even actually gaining anything by it.
Why, in a year where the appeal of the Republican party is at a historical low, is one of our presidential candidates rushing to embrace their poor policy proposals?
When you are a huge wimp like Obama it is.
In Obama's dictionary the definition of "distraction" is any issue where Obama does not enjoy a pleasant non-controversial poll tested lead.
Out of curiosity, did he borrow that dictionary from Bill Clinton...? I only ask given that was a Right-wing criticism of Bill when he was President...
Economists, elitists... don't you get how that is the political equation here? Its a very powerful club.
Besides the fact that she is correct on this one. Obama is being slightly disingenuous in using the same economists to condemn Hillary's gas tax cut who will in no way support his capital gains increase. I doubt Obama will ever get caught on this one.
We get it, we just feel sorry that she has sank to that level. She isn't doing her legacy any favors by saying something as silly as economists don't matter cause they are elitists. Who would be helping with her budget in a Clinton II white house, the garbageman?
She is correct. Economists don't care. They have some cushy tenure position and their economic proscriptions are good for the general overall health of the economy but do nothing for the lives of real people caught in the churning of the economy.
Oh man... I almost used the word 'trickle-down'. That was a close one.
But in all honesty, a healthy robust economy, the goal of economists, isn't a bad thing and it's crazy for you to imply it is.
if the economists have to choose between a plan that that does not lower prices, harms national infrastructure and pads the bottom lines of the oil companies, and a plan that takes no action, then its unfortunate that your candidate is supporting the plan that will hurt America. Do you think they're all lying because they want their oil stocks to rise?
News flash: It's a bad thing to sacrifice middle and lower class Americans for the sake of giving yourself a bump in the polls.
It's just crazy, because you're smart enough to know that the gas tax repeal isn't going to change the price of gas. So is Hillary. But many people aren't, because the economics of inelastic markets aren't exactly straightforward.
So, she's basically lying about the effects of her proposed legistlation, which would never pass anyways; and you know that she's lying, and she knows that she's lying; and you don't care, because people will be fooled into believing that she 'understands their problems.'
It's the absolute and total pinnacle of cynicism and willingness to do ANYTHING to win. I find it to be a disgusting attitude. One typically championed by Republicans.
Where is that quote from Barack Obama earlier last week when he said he regrets having gone negative because that's not "what our campaign is about" and he promises to stay positive.
His ad so weak.
A negative ad that criticizes negative ads! What the heck?
Hillary's ad is teeming with enthusiasm. I realize that the candidates aren't 100% responsible for how their PR teams help present them (marketing guys, ad advisors etc. get credit) but why is Hillary's team hitting homeruns all the time with these ads while Obama's can't seem to get it together? He can afford a good ad/marketing team, I'm sure.
Is his whole team out of touch? Not a single one among them has any idea how to make an effective ad?
Pitiful.
Actually it's a very effective message to say the other side is negative, as counter-intuitive as it might seem. Obama's not the first one to use it to great effect.
The whole tone of Barack's ad is dismal and listless, much like John Kerry in the final days of the 2004 campaign.
The "big mean negative ads" only seem to bother so-called latte liberals. Hypersensitive utopians who think $30 is "pennies" because it can't even buy half an appetizer at their favorite posh hot spots.
"Oh how can those mean mean politicians be so mean mean mean to each other. They should be nice."
mention latte liberals so that I can stuff a steaming hot latte, with cinnamon, up their ass. I recall similar insults in the 90's when I was defending Bill Clinton.
You do? I don't remember Bubba defenders being called latte anything, usually people muttered about us "trashing the place."
was being used in the 90's as a pejorative. At least I heard it being used as such. Also tree-hugging, Birkenstock wearing, and the one that gets to me the most Politically Correct. Don't really remember when latte drinking became suspect and of course you couldn't be Prius driving, at least here in the USA, till after 2001.
What about his entire Philadelphia speech? I guess you can throw all of that posturing about segregated Sunday mornings under the bus with Jeremiah Wright.
Indeed. Something went horribly awry with his campaign during the Pennsylvana epoch. Now even the race-speech has been discredited by Barack Obama. It's like he's just throwing things that he thinks working class people will like all around and hoping something sticks.
It won't though because as his detractors claim, ads like these show he is truly clueless and out of touch.
Welcome to Clintontown, where Hillary's gas tax plan, bashed by all those elitist economists and supported by her, John McCain and Jerome Armstrong exclusively, is a sucessful clobbering tool.
And Obama is the negative nelly.
"I'll have my take on the polls of the race posted later tonight, what's yours"
These are the polls that make me think that the voters as a whole are smarter than people in bunkers on the blogosphere
CBS polls
"Why do some candidates want to lift the gas tax?"
To help average Americans - 21%
To help themselves politically - 70%
"Lifting the gas tax for the summer"
Bad idea - 49%
Good idea - 45%
Yea, but those voters are probably not in NC and IN either. Obama got played by Clinton badly with this issue. He swung at McCain and she took the issue right back at him by linking it to the Oil profiteers. Obama should have, probably wished he would have, pivoted to say, yea thats fine. Instead, he stuck with the loser stance, and boxed himself into having nothing.
Perhaps Obama took his stand to win superdelegate votes - which could decide the nomination more than winning an extra few hundred thousand votes in NC and IN.
"Yea, but those voters are probably not in NC and IN either."
Reasoning? Or do NC and IN not get CBS and I'm just not aware of it, so CBS doesn't poll them?
Or, maybe the pollsters at CBS said, "Hey, let's not represent NC or IN in this poll! After all, who'd care what they think at this point in time."
Specious reasoning, Jerome. Back up "clobbered" and "Obama got played by Clinton badly" with some solid info or your comments have no credibility on this and you just sound like a partisan hack.
In a national poll with 600 respondents, assuming the breakdown was in proportion to the U.S. population's state-by-state breakdown (which it wouldn't be), we could expect approx. 18 voices from North Carolina and approx. 11 from Indiana. Doesn't tell us much.
Regardless (i.e. snark aside), for Jerome's initial comments to be true, NC and IN must think "differently" than people in the rest of the country for some reason that has yet to be explained.
The most valid assumption would be that NC and IN are just as representative of the rest of the country as any other state would be. The burden would be on those who claim otherwise to demonstrate contradicting information. To just imply that national polls have no meaning because of nothing more than just saying IN and NC are "different" doesn't hold water.
I'd like to see evidence that backs up your analysis as well. The only poll on the issue shows widespread antipathy. I just watched the NewsHour talking to people in a cafe in Indiana, and to a tee, they think the issue is political maneuvering. The only person Clinton clobbered was herself.
The only "voters" that can save her candidacy at this point are the SD's, and she couldn't have played the gas tax holiday situation worse if she had tried.
Between trying to force their hands with the "with us or against us" bullshit, thumbing her nose at experts, and completely lying about the policy itself, all she's done is guarantee that this race ends in June.
I'm going to send her a thank you card.
To be fair Jerome, if the test of Obama's political abilities was whether you found it persuassive he would not currently be leading and, by your own admission, have a 75% chance of winning the nomination right now.
You know more about politics than I do, by leaps and bounds, but I think you've missed something about Obama this entire cycle. I think you're missing it again on this issue. Time will tell, obviously.
The test is who wins Indiana. He was ahead when the issue broke, and she pulled right ahead solidly.
Maybe you're right. Or maybe voters will be smarter than buy into such an obvious pander. Tomorrow, we'll see.
>> Yea, but those voters are probably not in NC and
>> IN either.
Uh... what?
You were just confronted with a poll that shows an overwhelming number of voters believe the gas tax holiday is a cynical election ploy, and the only response you can muster is "Well, they probably didn't ask anyone in Indiana or North Carolina!"
Are you for real?
Obama was supposedly running like a Republican when he used the word "mandate" to argue against Clinton's Health care plan. Now he's a wimp because Clinton out-pandered him on a phony proposal, which she lifted from McCain.
This is the logic we spent the last seven years Lamenting from the brain-dead Republicans. I don't really care who's right on this issue, or quit frankly, on a whole host of issues. But Clinton is running like a right-wing Republican, selling faux-populism, and daring her opponent to call her on it. Then getting all outraged, questioning her opponent's motive, etc, etc, etc. We've seen this all before. I thought this what the whole point of getting Democrats elected, to put an end to this sleaze.
I totally understand that Clinton wants to win, but she's jumped the shark. She never put half this type of energy into attacking Republicans. She never put this type of energy into clobbering them on Foreign Policy, or Defense. She's downright cordial. But challenge her right to the presidency, and she turns into Pat Buchanan. Talk about misplaced priorities.
"Clobbered"? Just about everything I've seen in the MSM points out that economists think her plan doesn't work.
And, as a Democrat, don't you think it would be a shame if one of our own won an election based on a GOP-style pandering handout that's obviously not going to help the people we're supposed to be helping?
It's this kind of head-in-the-sand insistence of one's own rightness -- even when it flies in the face of common sense or expert opinion -- that we've been forced to live through for the last 8 years. That it's now coming from someone in my own party is really, really depressing.
Linking it to a populist idea of taking on the Oil corps was a terrific move by Clinton. I've little doubt that if Obama had done it Obama supporters would be on the streets holding up a sign proclaiming it the new agenda.
I also question these "economists". This is simply a 2.5 month temporary tax reassignment, not permanent policy so I don't see this affecting anything at all, because 2.5 months is just not a long time frame. I mean big damn deal, 2.5 months while other policies can be passed and take hold.
If it was permanent, that's another entire matter but this is more just a little stimulus as a hold over.
Because these so-called "economists" wouldn't take that into account when formulating their opinions? After all, it's not like they're the professionals at this or anything...
But perhaps you're right. Can you tell me your credentials and education above and beyond these "economists" that would lead me to believe that you've thought of something and taken something into account that these professionals wouldn't think of?
so, let's look at the analysis shall we. From the nonprofit tax foundation:
A windfall profits tax on big oil companies may sound good in theory, but it will be paid by individuals. The individuals who bear the tax in the short run will be shareholders of the oil companies at the time of the imposition of the tax (or announcement thereof). That's because the value of the individuals' stock holdings (which reflect expected future net profits) will fall as soon as the new tax is announced
Do you see who they say it will hurt? Shareholders. Now how many shareholders are long range truckers or waitresses trying to get to their jobs?
Are you even aware credit is so tight right now people cannot qualify for a more fuel efficient vehicle?
Now what is their other complaint?
This is the worst provision of them all: essentially, she wants to control the economic incidence of a tax via legal mandate. Such a policy is economically equivalent to price controls
Do you see that, they deem forcing oil companies to limit prices are controls, i.e. not free markets and therefore bad.
While they may have a point, they also may not. Corporations generally are getting away with bloody murder and Clinton has also called price fixing investigations as well as exorbitant CEO compensation (a major issue for organized labor as well!).
There is also evidence that speculators from private equity, hedge funds and derivatives is driving up the price of oil.
So, while you see to be intent on personally attacking me and now 2x wrong in your assumptions...or attacking Hillary Clinton, may I suggest actually reading between the lines and understand at least what the arguments are.
You are talking about the windfall profits tax but he was talking about the gas tax holiday. Two totally different animals.
The argument, actually, is several-fold. And you just hit on one part of it, which is that because it's simply replacing one kind of tax with another, the price of gas at the pump won't budge much at all because the expected alternative form of taxation would still be calculated into the price.
Of course, that entire argument is silly because we all know her plan is never ever going to pass this congress or this president.
It's good spin, but it's BS as you well know. She hasn't proposed any legislation and probably doesn't have any intention to, because she knows a) it will be too late and b) it'd never get passed anyways.
It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to claim that the Big Bad Oil Companies are going to pay for it. We should be ashamed that a candidate for our party is pandering in such a dishonest way.
And for what it's worth, I absolutely wouldn't be supporting Obama if he was pushing this plan.
Hillary thinks the voters in NC/IN are stupid. And apparently you also think that.
Obama criticized McCain's proposal. And like you indicated, Hillary took that and turned it against him.
But she had to modify it slightly. Instead of asking the consumer to pay $0.18/gal in gas tax, she is asking oil company to pay $0.18/gal in windfall tax.
Hello? How will this save anyone a dime?
The price at the pump is determined by demand at a given price vs supply at a given price. And since the cost of gas to company went up by $0.18 a gal due to windfall tax, the price to the consumer will also go up by $0.18 a gal. Net reduction NADA.
But to understand this, you need a high school education. Since I didn't drop out, I guess I'm elitist.
There's a big disconnect between the prevailing consensus among economists and the language and mind frame of so called "ordinary" Americans. Hillary is skilled in both communicating styles and knows that the former just won't fly in Indiana.
So you mean reality doesn't function in Indianna? Is that related to the whole daylight savings debate there? Something fishy about that...
Wow. His ad is negative. It's almost as negative as hers, only not nearly as deceptive.
The best military generals get their opponents fighting on their turf. Obama is fighting on Hillary's turf. She is setting the agenda and he is reacting to her agenda.
Not a winning position for Obama. All his hope, new politics rhetoric are gone.
Whoa. Good point. I hadn't seen that. He needs to get back to his issues.
The John McCain way is to make some crazy gaffe related to the issue you want to discuss. At least people think its a gaffe and the next thing you know you are talking about Iraq again.
But what are Obama's issues? Race? Iraq? the economy? Hope? Change? Does Obama even know what is going on anymore?
My take is when your getting 95% of Any ethnic vote (Obama in N.C), it's hard to beat you...
If REV.WRIGHT would have shown up the last week of January rather than last month, JOHN EDWARDS WOULD STILL BE IN THE RACE TODAY...
How the political Gods saved BHO by waiting till last month to reveal Wright...
At risk of getting TRed I must ask this question, why is it when it comes to the white vote we hear about racism but it's pretty clear we have a block black vote going for Obama, but to even acknowledge that's happening is some sort of taboo.
Hillary lost the black vote by going negative in a big way in SC. Sorry, but this is a Democratic primary and no single Democratic candidate should be losing the black vote 90-10.
Bob Johnson walked out there and basically called Obama a crack dealer and the black community responded to it. And Bob Johnson's a black billionaire. If you don't think that there is an underlying class component here about Hillary using the richest black guy in the US to trash Obama in what reads as a racially-tinged way, then you haven't been following this race that closely.
Hillary should be getting at least 30 percent of the black vote, but after SC she basically ceded all of it to Obama.
Hillary did not get Bob Johnson to go out and trash Obama. He did that on his own.
With you guys, Obama always gets a pass for the disgusting remarks of Jesse jackson, Jr, Doug Wilder, and Al Sharpton but anything anyone says is Hillary's fault.
Stop smearing Hillary Clinton. This is why we Hillary supporters are disgusted with Obama and his supporters.
Hillary lost the black vote because Obama played the race card against her. This was a deliberate strategy aided and abetted by a compliant liberal media.
Hillary gets a pass from me for the things her idiot surrogates said personally...but politically when your surrogates say something stupid it affects YOU.
Obama's surrogates have hurt him with white voters; but it hasn't been as bad as the effect her surrogates had with AA voters. Thats just the way it goes.
When your campaign pits one race against another you can expect that people might get a little peeved about. If Obama tried to pit Hillary as the "white candidate" I bet whites would overwhelmingly reject him too.
Tell you what, Robert - go to a country where people like you are oppressed for 200+ years, then finally, after decades of struggle, have someone able to achieve the most powerful position in the country, then come back and tell me how someone should feel in a situation like that. Until then, perhaps you should stop pretending you know anything about what it's like and alluding that it's racism.
you're making some assumptions about what my ethnicity is by this statement and I love it when people stereotype and assume when a poster makes a comment they must be white and in a certain class.
Perhaps you need to get get an education yourself.
Of course I am. We all make assumptions daily about someone based on what they say and how they present themselves. For anyone to claim that they are totally objective and draw no conclusions about someone based on what they read or hear from someone means that they're delusional or a liar.
For instance, I would assume that someone that claims support for the KKK would not be an African American. I would assume that someone who makes comments about foreigners stealing jobs would not be a foreigner. And I would make the assumption that someone complaining that huge blocks of blacks aren't being accused of racism for supporting Obama would not be black. I make no apologies for this.
If my assumption is incorrect, then I've made a faulty, but not unwarranted, assumption that you should call me on. If not, then perhaps you should quit while you're behind.
You overestimate the public's affinity to be influenced by such things. After all, Jennifer Flowers didn't sink Bill Clinton in 1992 (and he got caught lying about it red handed).
Same with Hillary and Snipergate. She goy nailed telling a WHOPPER and is still pretending to be a viable candidate.
Jerome, please elaborate on your use of the word "clobbered"?
The last I heard there is almost not a drop of support for this tax holliday nonsense with voters, politicians, economists, history, market realities etc etc etc.
You are entitled to express your subjective opinion all you want.
But the way you phrased that statement as fact, as well as your the respect your position garners you could be interpreted as you intentionally misleading readers.
I've learned over the years that "experts" know some things, not others. People know when they hurt...and, for few years prior to now, a sizeable number of experts said "no, you don't know how strong the economy is." There is a political danger to "over-intellectualizing." Lets see how those who live from paycheck to paycheck react. If we believe our statements about honoring what the people want, lets see what the verdict ultimately is.
They're FUN!!
► CoffeeGate: Hill goes off script!!
► OMG! She actually can't work a convenient-store, coffee-machine
► Hillary is a PC - Barack is a Mac
► The Empire Strikes Barack (from the makers of Baracky!)
► Spoofing the Barack "doesn't have enough experience" attacks
Hi, Jerome! I love you, too!!
If this is supposed to be enacted by Memorial Day, why has she not even introduced the bill?
I hate it when folks promise me the moon and I only get cheese.
Sorry, this gas tax thing is an idiotic pander whose policy result is to make our disaster worse.
When people repeat slogans/talking points like "pander" (not your common everyday word), it tells me a lot about their own agenda.
Here's Clinton's closer, sticking with the gas tax, which she's clobbered Obama on:
Every time I've turned on my TV or read news online for the past few days Hillary and McCain have been getting clobbered by everyone for their gas scams -- even by experts who have previously supported them, but value their reputations more.
I dunno how tomorrow is going to turn out, but I would assume you will have on the front page here some variation of "THIS IS GOOD NEWS!...FOR HILLARY!!!"
The gas tax moratorium?
I often ask myself why we have a political system that counts on people being naive and stupid. If folks buy this gas tax thing I'll have my answer. It will be because that's what we vote to have. We will apparently like people who treat us like we're stupid. Ugh.
Oh, and she is also planning to singlehandedly break up OPEC...
"We're going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get to gether once every couple of months" at a hotel in "some plush place in the world" to set prices, she told a crowd a volunteer fire house in Merillville.
It's a potent message, like the attack on "Wall Street money grubbers," with deep roots in American politics. It's also very hard to figure out what exactly she means by the threat to break OPEC."
Today's Politico.
At this point Hillary knows she won't have to answer for anything she throws at the wall any more than someone doing cpr to answer for someone dying of a heart attack. It's do anything or and die time for her.
I certainly don't expect any President to do anything single handedly but I do expect them to make a fight of it. I'm tired of Dems taking a look at an issue, saying that there is no way to win this fight then giving up before beginning.
There are times that you'll fight and there is no way to win it at this time. But if you start the fight and keep up the fight someone else might win it for you. I know that I'm glad that the abolitionists never gave up the fight.
The abolitionists were fighting for a truth, that all men are created equal. Hillary is spreading a lie, that her gas tax moratorium will make a difference. It's all been said a thousand times, but...
A. The max average savings will be about 30 cents a day.
B. It's much more likely there will be not savings at all and that the oil companies will just absorb the savings into their summer price hikes, either making it artificially look like a savings (when it would have happened anyway) or just by pocketing the addition to their profits (or some large percentage of it)
C. Her line that she'll pay for it by taxing oil company profits is pure bunk. She has no power to do any such thing this summer, and unless we get a majority in both houses of congress she likely won't have the power as President.
Hillary absolutely positively knows this, so what she's doing amounts just plain looking for the stupid vote. "Gee. Hillary's gonna give me a nice shiny quarter every day all summer if I vote for her? Wow. That's my candidate!" I repeat. UGH!
But I think the voters feel that she hears them, and I do not think they believe Barack hears them.
She is saying to them that she understands how desperate they--the middle class-- are right now. And she is right, they (we) are pretty desperate financially.
That's why I think the ad is working for her. It's not so much the content as that it symbolizes that the middle class is not invisible to her. It's easier to grasp lowering gas prices than it is to grasp some vague idea of young some guy you don't know very well telling you "I'll change Washington and bring you hope."
Years of lack of attention to education so that the electorate would be stupid enough that the Republicans could sell them any snake oil and get elected, and what you're saying is that now Democrats should not tell voters the truth but rather assume their stupid and go from there. If that's true then we might as well go find ourselves some land somewhere, go off-grid and hope the country survives until we die, because there will be no hope.
I'm talking about fighting for the American Public in general not the gas tax. What will Senator Obama fight for? What has he fought for? What has he put his reputation, his political capital on the line for? I'm not talking about a speech, I'm talking about votes.
Clinton wins in Indiana by 10 and thanks to her secret weapon, President Bill Clinton, making 6 to 9 stops a day like a machine in rural NC, she wins NC by 2.
then that's what we get with her as President.
Ask yourself, will a candidate who wins by pandering and triangulating in PA / IN / OH be able to do anything else once in office?
Of course not. That's the point.
She's weak in MN / WI / IA. She's weak in the Mid-Atlantic. She's weak in the Pacific Northwest. She's weak in Colorado.
Clinton's only play going forward would be her triangulating pander to her rust belt and Appalachian core.
There won't be the real Cap and Trade on Carbon in that context, how could there be?
Take a look at the self-contradictory notes she's playing:
"Obliterating Iran?" "Economists are elitists?" "Wall Street is made of money grubbers?" "Obama's Chicago Church is associated with Hamas and Farrakhan?"
She's running to the right of Lieberman.
That's how Clinton is aiming to win this thing....with the "Heartland Pander" and, if she wins this way, that's what her base will be.
She can't win the general without the exact same strategy.
And, yes, given the choice between McCain and Clinton, many of those same voters in PA/OH/IN will go McCain and Clinton will need huge turnout from the very voters that she ran away from in all three of those states.
Would Clinton win Illinois or Iowa or Wisconsin over McCain the way she's run?
It's a valid question.
But isn't your candidate the guy who praises Reagan, who wants to revisit Social Security (gee, remember the left wing blogs and "There is No Problem"), who is against Universal Health Insurance?
But this one...
"against Universal Health Insurance"...???
There's not much to say in response to that level of deliberate ignorance.
Let's try to be reality-based.
Obama is not for Universal Individual Mandates, for now. He has the same goal of 100% coverage as Clinton does, and both of their experts admit we don't get to 100% coverage with either plan for now.
David Cutler, one of Obama's advisers, has clearly stated that he is not against Individual Mandates (Obama has them for Children with an option for young adults to continue up to age 25) eventually...he just thinks we can more easily pass Health Care reform and maximize coverage with some flexibility for adults.
Ie. first you have to pass the bill.
I am well aware that we get the most savings when we get everyone insured. I'm not contesting that. I am familiar with the Universal Mandate argument. It is a powerful argument IF you can pass it.
But even Clinton's adviser admits that, if you can pass it nationally, Universal Mandate is NOT, perforce, Universal Health Insurance. It's a Universal Mandate to purchase health insurance. It creates Universal Coverage by an individual mandate. ie. You must buy insurance by law.
In MA there are thousands who have not purchased insurance. Everyone knew that would happen going in. Clinton is betting she can pass this and pull the non-joiners in with penalties. Obama is betting that he can pass a Universal Access bill and maximize participation with cost savings and new laws that prevent insurers from cherry-picking and drive more employers to sign on with shared responsibility.
But, let's be real.
Clinton and Obama and Edwards all feature a new, nationally-run insurance option open to everyone.
That's the key reform that will get us to our end goal. Not simply Universal Health Care but healthier Americans who need health care services less and live longer more enjoyable lives.
Democrats are for Social Security and Universial Health Care.
And, yes, HRC and WJC have said positive things about Reagan too.
What was controversial about Obama's statement wasn't even the Reagan part, but that's another discussion.
Losing position? And yet Hillary could not find ONE unbiased economist to agree with her on the merits of the gas tax holiday. The voters are NOT stupid, they know a blatant PANDER when they see one.
The night of the Pennsylvania primary, Indiana was a dead heat and North Carolina was an Obama blow-out. Let's see if anything has changed since April 22...
"Economists are elitists?"
I spent two years working at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. There are a lot of great Economists but there are a lot of elitists too. Seen them, heard them.
"Wall Street is made of money grubbers?"
Yes.
"Obama's Chicago Church is associated with Hamas and Farrakhan?"
Yes.
Trumpet Gala 2007
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala held on November 2, at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama
s-mentor-gives-farrakhan-his-award
Wright reprinted Hamas op-ed
By Ami Eden on Mar 20, 2008 in Barack Obama, Featured, Presidential Race | ShareThis
The latest Jeremiah Wright Jr. controversy: He used his regular space in the church newsletter to reprint an essay by Mousa Abu Marzooka, the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, that first appeared as an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times.
http://elections.jta.org/2008/03/20/wrig ht-reprinted-hamas-op-ed/
You've clearly lost it, Jerome. What the heck is the matter with you?
Have you ever sat down and figured out how much that gas tax holiday is actually going to save you? Or how much it'll cost the government in sorely needed revenues for infrastructure repair? It's a total scam and Hillary knows it.
... in the morning. I wonder if Jerome's right that Indiana voters will to.
Boy wouldn't that be something to celebrate.
Here's Clinton's closer, sticking with the gas tax, which she's clobbered Obama on
Yeah, like Charlie Brown "clobbered" the football.
It's really too bad Hillary's latest simplistic, bizarre, absolutely impossible "plan" to lower gas prices -- dismantling OPEC -- wasn't presented in time for inclusion in a pre-NC or pre-IN Obama ad.
...she's just released a whole package of completely impossible, simplistic, bizarre "solutions" to America's energy crisis:
- Institute a UN-mandated liter for liter "water for gasoline" trade program with desert countries.
- Mandate states develop transporter beam technology by 2012.
- Demand the plant kingdom increase its' conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen.
is a "losing position"?
I think you have that one wrong. Economists, Dem leaders, Environmentalists, almost all say it is a bad idea.
You're assuming the IN and NC voters are too stupid to realize that before election day.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
There is "OOMPH" in that Clinton ad. It is punchy, it exudes positive energy and Jacksonian "FIGHTER" spirit. Yeah, its target is the big bad greeedy oil companies.
Obama's closing ad is oxymoronic -- it decried negative campaign and yet the ad itself is very negative. It enumerated a number of America's problems, but it failed to propose any solution. A whiny and rather weak ad, in my humble opinion. ;)
Even though Hillary's ad directly attacks Obama's position on the gas tax, it still has an upbeat, positive feel. It shows her interacting with people and focuses on her.
Obama's ad looks and sounds like a negative ad. Yet it has little substance. He attacks her for being negative, which is kind of a paradox since this ad does what he is accusing her of. In addition, he only appears in the ad at the end, distancing him from the ad itself.
I have to deduce weakness in the Obama campaign. Their internal polls must mirror the downturn shown by the public polls.
He will win NC, but probably by a much narrower margin than he expected before the last week or so. IN must not look good, though I dare say he may do better than recent polls indicate.
I can't believe Obama's above ad will help sway late deciders in his direction. It may help energize his supporters to get out the vote.
On the other hand, Clinton's ad may sway late deciders, especially in Indiana.
Obama's been consistent in saying that the gas tax moratorium isn't a solution, even before Clinton made this political play.
Clinton's play here has the integrity of "Ice cream for all"...I mean, who doesn't like ice cream...but it'll do nothing to help with our energy problem, and I doubt it'll save us much at the pumps. 200+ economists, 4 nobel prize winners, have come out against this.
Is it a political winner? I don't see it. Armstrong speaks with the voice of authority, but he doesn't offer much else.
However miniscule Hillary's chances may be, is this what we want in a leader? Someone who plays games with policy and ignores the advice of experts? Someone who is arguably ruthless, unwilling to find common ground, and has a "win at all costs" attitude. We have that with the Bush administration, and it has costs us so much.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/05/05/economists_release_letter_op po.html
Letter from economists, more than 200 of them, opposing the gas tax hiatus:
"More than 230 economists -- Democrats, Republicans, advisers to past presidents and four Nobel laureates -- signed a letter today opposing proposals by Clinton and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain to suspend the 18-cent federal gas tax for the summer driving season."
"First, research shows that waiving the gas tax would generate major profits for oil companies rather than significantly lowering prices for consumers," they wrote. "Second, it would encourage people to keep buying costly imported oil and do nothing to encourage conservation. Third, a tax holiday would provide very little relief to families feeling squeezed."
Not that it matters. People hear what they want to hear. Gets discouraging.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_05_04_a rchive.html#5067489210774799892
Tax incidence on the gas tax in more normal times is roughly split between buyers and sellers, but if gas prices are going up because we've hit capacity then sellers are basically paying the tax, and if you remove the tax you're just giving oil companies a windfall as gas prices will just increase to what they were when the tax was in place. I also think it's dumb politically as it's something you promise and then when it happens people realize that you didn't give them anything. The only decent argument against raising the gas tax (nonpolitical argument anyway) is that it's regressive, but that can be offset by, say, giving everyone a couple hundred dollar tax credit on their income taxes.
...to put it another way, if you think people should get an extra $40 this summer (an extremely optimistic view of what a gas tax holiday might save them), then give them an extra $40.
Friday April 18, 1997
Furor in City of Brotherly Love over mayor's bid to Farrakhan
The city's Jewish community is boiling over Mayor Edward G. Rendell's inviting Louis Farrakhan to a rally, and then charging critical Jews with not caring about combating bigotry.
Does this count?
All he has is criticism of her plan. I think voters are going to think, "well, at least she's got one. All he's offering me is Hope! and Change! WTF does that mean exactly?"
FWIW, I doubt that she can pull off a win but I'll bet it will be a lot closer than Obama wants or needs.
On Wednesday, Obama supporters will once more crank up the volume for Hillary to quit but it will sound sillier than it does already. The superdelegates will start to think it's safe to come out of the closet and she's going to get a slew of them. Barring some unforseen disaster, like finding out that Hillary practices polyandry, makes a mean hash brownie and does meth every morning to keep herself going, she's going to end up the nominee. Oh, sure, the anti-Clinton forces will continue to put roadblocks up but the voters aren't going to stand for it.
Look past Tuesday... doesn't she HAVE to pass the Gas Holiday before the convention? Her ad says:
"Hillary wants the oil companies to pay the gas tax this summer so you don't have to".
Fine. Can she pass her plan before the Convention?
It's a litmus test for her leadership.
Frankly, I can't see why she'd commit to something she can't deliver. I suspect she'll just use it as a test for "who's with us". If it truly holds oil companies to account to pay the tax then she'll have a hard time working across the aisle to get 'er done. And, if she did there's a guy in the oval office that has a lot of affection for energy interests.
This was a political mistake that she will grow to regret.
"I want my gas tax holiday."
Obama's ad is "negative" because it criticizes Clinton for being negative?
How many different ways do want to have it? This is insane. It's disgustingly obvious that Hillary went nasty, ugly, unforgivably negative a long time ago, and now you're complaining that it's "negative" for Obama to say that she's negative?
Who are you people? I thought this was a progressive site. I still think half of the people here are McCain trolls.
But Jerome Armstrong? The author of "Crashing the Gate"? Hello? Are you people so seduced by Hillary's personality that you're completely incapable of seeing what she's doing?
Haha, if this really is "his most negative ad to date" then Obama sure is keeping his promise to take the high road. Is the add negative? Yes in the sense that it criticizes Clinton. Is it negative as the term has come to mean in our current political age (slime, mudthrowing, blatant lies, B.S. fear mongering, etc)? No.
Who cares if Obama is willing to contrast himself with Clinton (even if the add is admittedly ironic as others have pointed out). I'd only call him a hypocrite if he made things as dirty as elections past, and this is nowhere near that.
Compare this to Clinton's Rovian 3am telephone call ad, for example. That was slime.
Did I say that? No I clearly did not.
Clinton's 3am ad was Rovian because it used fear to gain support for one candidate while implying putting the other at the helm might be dangerous. That is exactly the way Bush approached the 2004 election. Clinton emulated it, and its Rovian.
This particular Obama ad is not Rovian. It just says Hillary is a negative nelly so don't vote for her.
Notice I didn't actually say anywhere in my post that I concurred with Jerome that this was Obama's most negative ad. I have not even seen every single one of his ads. I just said that if Jerome is right, Obama has lived up to his rhetoric. If you think Obama has run sicker attack ads than this, Rovian ones even, feel free to show me and I'll be happy to re-evaluate this aspect of Obama.
And please don't make one-line partisan autoresponses. They bother me. I may not be the brightest man in the world, but I'm a little deeper than the silly charicature you just tried to paint me as. And so are most people I think you'll find.
Obama can't even debate issues, so its back to this "new politics" bullshit. its so sad that so many people fall for this unachievable fantasy that he's gonna change the tone is Washington. We all know the last candidate to run on that message and look what happened. Its all Obama can camp on because he knows nothing of the issues.
but the tax cut yes, IS expedient, so no one can say "the Democrat didn't wanna cut taxes for your high gas prices." Obama should try this.
Jerome,
At least drop the pretense that you're not a Clinton partisan when you post stuff like this; you shouldn't try to pass this off as objective reporting of the facts.
While Hilary has been in the right in terms of tactics, the gas tax holiday is objectively not helpful to suffering American public.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601087&sid=aTzCmqCNyLho&refer=h ome
So sad to see (some) Democrats trying to win by fooling voters.
Rush is at it again, he has reignited his Operation Chaos calling on his listeners to vote for HRC and violate Indiana state law in doing so.
Why wont HRC call him out on this? Why wont she denounce this?
Or, will she accept any vote whatsoever, even if it is not real?
This is what I would like to know.
Why cant SHE seal the deal. I mean really she is up against a wet behind the ears noob. She has 35 years of experence. Her husband is an ex president right. Even Rush wants her to win.
Sounds like the NY giants vs a pee-wee football team.
the score
Pee-wee 35
giants 21
with 15 secs left
loving every second of it
can someone tell me why bring your best spin hillbots.
Stop the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida and she will close the deal.
Being in the car business for nearly 40 years I can look at this 'gas tax' argument from both an industry and a consumer perspective. The problem that I have with the gas tax 'moratorium' is that it might have worked well during a Katrina-like criss when we knew gas supply was temporarily disrupted and it could have been done to ease the burden for a short-time while production resumed. However today's rise in gas prices is caused by DEMAND outstripping SUPPLY. In 1973 SUPPLY was suddenly disrupted by OPEC. The world is producing more gas today than it has ever produced in history and yet gas prices will continue to rise. This is because as the developing world develops (India, China, Russia) they will consume more energy than before. That is no going to change as their standard of living begins to catch up to the developed world. People in the US are not the only ones allowed to drive cars you know...
While the 'gas tax' moratorium is a nice conversation piece and certain does advance the argument on energy reform, it does not address the real problem. Gas prices have risen from $1.60/gal to $4.00/gal in some places. The Federal portion of the gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. That is a drop in the bucket when you are paying $3.84 a gallon.
Figure out a way to get gas back down to $1.60 or move people out of their cars and then we'll talk. Otherwise that is life. Certainly not what people want to hear, but that is reality.
"That is life."
That's the argument you'd try to win votes with?
I don't think you have any idea how squeezed the middle class is feeling right now. They are responding to the ad. Sticking your nose in the air, sniffing, and stating "that is life" is kind of a funny strategy to win over the working class. But hey, be my guest--go for it!
When we Dems rightly point out that a GOP policy is racist, we are not playing the "race card," they are - by making race coded statements and adopting racist policies. When we Dems point out that a GOP tax cut helps only the rich, we are not engaged in "class warfare," the GOP is.
Likewise, if a candidate is running a negative campaign, calling her out on it is not "going negative." It is telling the truth about someone else's negativity.
Nice try though.
from Atrios:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_05_04_a rchive.html#7688244025544756344
ETMDD ETMDD ETMDD
well
whatever happened to mr new politics
or
mr change
or mr hope
or mr no washington insider ,,,,,
where was obama or obamabots when repubs were being told to go vote for obama just to kick out hillary
but now that repubs are scared of obama,s ties with not so nice people ,,,,,they are in reverse of what damage they did to our country by voting for mr so called hope in the first place
You continually distort the truth....
Gas tax....pandering...maybe effective pandering but wouldn't that be sad.
Obliterate Iran....You have to be nuts to buy into that
Obliterate OPEC....I have a spear and windmill to send them for the campaign
You show no integrity in using your blog as a vehicle to promote a campaign that is itself morally bankrupt.
And how will you spin tomorrow's results?
He will win NC by about 7 or 8 percent.
She'll take Indiana by about the same.
He'll add to his delegate lead.
You'll spin it as a Hillary night of triumph.
Reminder. If he wins the elected delegate count but is the selected by the party, she will lose the election. Over 70% of the new young voters won't vote Democratic. Over 60% of the African American vote will go missing.
He'll be the nominee in four years.
It really is a win-win for him.
I'm out of here.
Keep spinning.
MP
I would up rate you but my ability to do so has been removed.
I am appalled that we have gotten to a place where HRC is implying that analysis by economists is "elitist". I guess its a good thing Reich threw his lot in with Obama since HRC doesn't believe in economics any more. Does she still believe in the hard sciences?
She can't win the nomination fairly and if she finagles the nomination it will be impossible for her to win the GE. She will not get enough of those white guys (the ones she had a beer and a bump with) to off-set the missing black, young and new voters.
People are SO ticked off about gas prices, its on everyone's mind and they don't give a crap what economists and elites say about it they want ANSWERS and SOLUTIONS! At least Hillary brought the issue to the front of the pack and she will benefit from it tomorrow. Its the gas prices, stupid!
Yeah, to hell with the "economists and the elites." Onward with the gas tax holiday!
And the next time, God forbid, another 9/11 happens and all of those "military experts and elites" are saying it would be a terrible idea to do this or that, we can again say we don't give a crap what they say because the people want answers and solutions!
Yes, she will benefit tomorrow. No doubt about that.
But that is because American people are retarded. The last thing the country needs is a tax break on gasoline. Actually gasoline should be taxed higher in order to help the research towards viable alternatives. If not then a full scale collapse is inevitable. We are past the point of peak of world production of oil (so called peak oil) and we are sliding down the curve of depletion. Removing the gas tax is a gimmick that may alleviate a little bit of the pain for a few weeks but it won't change anything in the long run.
Clinton is in denial about peak oil just like most American voters so they will gladly follow her "leadership" on the issue. Onwards Christian soldiers, right off the cliff and into the abyss!
The tax holiday is a stupid idea. Obama actually supported this same type of plan back in 2000 for Illinois. One could say that through actual experience he's learned that this is a stupid plan. Here are some of the results of the Illinois plan of 2000:
"The gas tax moratorium proved politically popular in Illinois, but economically questionable. The Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission estimated that the state lost $175 million in revenues during the six-month period. A subsequent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that gas prices fell by 3 percent, meaning that only three fifths of the savings from reduced taxes was passed on to consumers.
"It turned out to have a pretty small effect," said Joseph Doyle, an assistant economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Consumers were slightly better off, but the benefits were spread very thinly, and the government was a lot worse off."
A poll by the Chicago Tribune showed that only 28 percent of motorists believed that they were actually paying less for gas as a result of the temporary suspension of the tax."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/04/a_holiday_from_gas_prices.ht ml
Who's to say that this prolonged primary battle isn't intentional? Maybe it's all Kabuki theatre. BHO and HRC might have decided to form a joint ticket months ago, but kept it to themselves just to keep the pot boiling and deprive McCain of the spotlight. Judging from the numbers of people joining the Democratic Party, it seems to be working.
Now there's a conspiracy theory for you...
you really think hillary is right?
unbelievable. just - how old are you? I'm going to need to see some credentials.
Overall, I do not think Hillary's ad is that great. But I have to say:
"What happened to Barack Obama?"
That is probably the most brilliant single tagline in any ad this campaign has ever produced. That will be positively virulent if they manage to build a message around that question.
Elect Clinton!
After smashing OPEC, obliterating Iran, and ending world hunger, she will parade OBL in a cage through the streets of DC!
It's a "campaign promise" stupid!
The tax holiday is a stupid idea. Obama actually supported this same type of plan back in 2000 for Illinois. One could say that through actual experience he's learned that this is a stupid plan. Here are some of the results of the Illinois plan of 2000:
"The gas tax moratorium proved politically popular in Illinois, but economically questionable. The Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission estimated that the state lost $175 million in revenues during the six-month period. A subsequent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that gas prices fell by 3 percent, meaning that only three fifths of the savings from reduced taxes was passed on to consumers.
"It turned out to have a pretty small effect," said Joseph Doyle, an assistant economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Consumers were slightly better off, but the benefits were spread very thinly, and the government was a lot worse off."
A poll by the Chicago Tribune showed that only 28 percent of motorists believed that they were actually paying less for gas as a result of the temporary suspension of the tax."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec
ker/2008/04/a_holiday_from_gas_prices.ht
ml
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
254 Comments