level headed criticism.

Hillary already promised that those taxes would be spent on other things like research on alternative fuels.

This is a false Obama talking point.

Please cite the passage in her energy plan that talks about a windfall profit tax, or what it would be spent on.  The fact is, this was a recent proposal - one which Barack decided to immitate.

Obama made a good point that Bush would never sign off on a windfall profits tax

This is actually a dumb argument.  Here's why.  When are corporate taxes for fiscal 2008 due?  March 15th, 2009.  Guess who won't be President at that time?  Dubya.

Barack was either confused or trying to confuse you.

I'm not so sure the Clinton approach to "doing something" by a tax holiday is pandering.  As a person who worked at EPA for 27 years (mostly, in the air program & management), I do understand that this does nothing in the long term.  SO DOES SHE...YET, CORRECTLY SO, SHE HAS STATED ITS A START FOR THE SHORT TERM TO SHOW AMERICANS THE GOVT CARES, CAN REACT, AND CAN START TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION.  I talked with a friend today, who raised the gas tax ?, and then noted that she gets by economically month to month...and, she welcomes this as it helps (in view of the rising food costs as well.) I make quite a bit more money than my friend; I can afford to be a purist.  She reminded me that a lot of people can't.  Hillary is spot on with the tax holiday & windfall profits tax as a start.

defend her position on the issues.

Obama was asked to explain his relationship with Rev. Wright and defend his position on the issues.

Since Obama has a more clear less pandering positions, it just appeared that Russie was soft.

with a screenname like that , its hard for you to be credible.

That is such an astute answer.... we forget we do have in touch politicians after 8 years of Baby Bush

I had posted that on another diary.  Yes, she is correct that we should use food waste products to produce energy.  It is called biomass and it doesn't get enough (if any) media attention.

She has always been that way.  Her ability to focus on issues, no matter what crap is thrown at her, is amazing and inspiring.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/4/11 932/90417/20#20

same thread as this one, just look a little bit upwards.  

Please check out my diary on gas.  It turns out that the only serious academic study performed on the tax incidence of the federal gas tax concluded that Clinton is on the right side of the argument - consumers would capture some (not all) of the savings.

BTW, the economists opposition to this does NOT make sense to me -- any more than supply-side economics did during the Reagan years. I'm not an economist myself, but it seems common sense that with gas/oil we are working with a finite resource -- and hence normal principles of supply and demand may not necessarily apply. You could argue against temporary relief, or against gov. intervention -- but just asking for an expert's opinion on this when they have been so wrong about this in the recent past -- does not float my boat.

Oil confounds a lot of economists because they DON'T understand how to model it. Worse, most of them agree that given hedge funds, and futures contracts -- which are hideously hard to model, they cannot make basic predictions about the volatility of where prices will go.

I'll give you a test -- for every economist that is opining about this, try looking up what they said a year, six months or even three months ago about oil policy; Then ask yourself whom amongst them you trust.

Where's the best explanation based on fact and real models about this issue that you have read? I have looked for them, and have not found a single one that applies to the current situation at hand.