And of course, what know one is pointing out, even all the renowned economists that think that Hillary's plan is worthless, is the fact that her approach would save Billionaires the same thirty dollars in gas taxes as it would forJoe Six Pack. How absurd is that approach to supposedly alleviating the economic woes of the working class!

It will be read twice and forwarded to committee where it will languish and be forgotten. Pure political stunt. Just like the last piece of legislation she was supposed to introduce requiring Bush to get Congressional approval for any long-term arrangements with Iraq (Recall the Nevada debate where she asked Obama to join her).

She's pretty pathetic.

I hope Pelosi brings it to the floor. Call her bluff.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

How is this good for the country again? Even if the economics of the plan worked (they don't), removal of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax would put gas prices back to where they were, what, 3 weeks ago?

Wow. I am stunned at the (presumed) effectiveness of such a plan.

Only people who never fill up their own gas tanks would favor such an idiotic proposal. Who's elitist now?

She is setting this up just like the Republicans set up gay or abortion issues, so they can get their opponents on record opposing or supporting, and then they can use that vote against them in attack ads. Clear as day, that is what she is doing, she is a Republican supporting Republican corporate handouts using Republican tactics and Republican talking points:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/hillary-goes-after-democrats-in.html

It will fail in the Senate because they are big oil owned like Obama.

They will use his unity as cover.

Pure pandering.

Musings on why TPM keeps pushing Clinton Propaganda.

It works the same way that Vegas lays off points. If you have too much of a bet on one team, you give points to the other team to even out the wagering. This site has far more Obama backers than Hillary backers. In fact most of those who post in favor of Hillary are really just a cluster of inbred Aryan Nation Scumbags, who are just trying to stop a black man from gaining the nomination. That vermin infested dung heap will not vote for a woman in the fall.

TPM feels that it has more than enough Obama supporters coming to their site, so they are trying to attract more Hillary supporters.

Of course, if they go to far with their cynical enterprise tactics, then we Obama supporters can always destroy them with a complete boycott of their site. That would leave them to stew in the remaining dung heap of racist trolls that they have been catering too.

I guess what frustrates me the most is Wolfson's take on the "experts" who deride the plan. Apparently, a leader should not always listen to "experts." Isn't this a classic Bushism?

Truthiness prevails here.

Clinton and many other honorable people are giving up their pride and dignity here (and elsewhere).

I think this indicitive of what ails the Democrats as a whole. The Democrats have for some time stood for whatever the pollsters say, and not for any clear set of ideals. Thus, they are (to some degree) rightfully interpreted as untrustworthy and weak.

That is, for me, the real problem of this "tax holiday" -- it undermines the credibility of the party. (Someone defended Clinton by saying, "But it won't pass!" But that means she is lying -- again -- sacrificing credibility for a cheap win.)
Clinton and her advisors are typical of this ideology.

Sad.

Let me get this straight. We take a holiday from the tax at the pump. Instead, we put a new tax on the oil companies. And they just pony up? They don't pass it on to us at the pump?

Great job Hillary... Let's triangulate against the Democratic controlled congress using bad policy. That worked out so well for the party in the 90's. Oh that's right it didn't. It only worked out well for Bill.

I get the sense that her campaign is going "all-in" on Tuesday's election. As others have noted, this proposal seems designed to piss-off congressional super delegates. I think she sees IN and NC as must wins, and is hoping this populist rhetoric will get her over that hump. I can only hope it backfires.

Clinton cuts taxes, Obama raises them.

Bad move Obama.

How many of you got punked by the doctored video?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Pennebaker_Clip_Doctoered.html#comments

From the front page, Josh quoting "GC" who is apparently supportive of Clinton for this reason:

But the bigger story is what a superior job Hillary did in neutralizing McCain's announcement. Everyone knows this is just politics; this idea will never become law. So examine it on a political basis.

I think "GC" is exactly right and it says all you need to know about the issue.

This is pretty much the definition of "pandering" as done by calculating pols exploiting the electorate for more power. Clinton and McCain, in this case.

ha... shes kinda lost it... she picked what she thought would be a slam dunk political thing to do, and got called on it.. and now theres no way i hell shes going to come clean.. so..she figures shell try to get everyone else to blink first.....!!! this reminded me of that seinfeld when george lied about having a house in the hamptons, and then wouldnt fess up so he drove susan's parents all the way out there to get them to give up first...

shes gotten really annoying in the past few months..

It's the son of Gramm-standing.
She's agreeing with McCain, just to differentiate herself with Obama. Unfortunately, the reason why it's a bad idea doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

Every economist I have read says that it will result in additional revenues for the big oil companies....so why would they oppose it gotalife?

Let's watch her dumb idea fail to go anywhere, while she pisses off more Dems by putting them on the spot.

Genius.

Wow, she's blowing it.

Im sure John McCain will co-sponsor the bill.

then he and hillary can work out the details on their plan to obliterate iran.

Triangulating. Pandering. Mugging for the balcony. One more step down the road of wanting it so bad she'll do anything.

I've posted publicly I'll vote for whichever Dem wins the nomination, but damn, she is making it hard to want to keep my word on that.

Her pseudo-McCain proposal is deeply silly, and short term. Haven't we had enough of that already?

HERE WE HAVE IT FOLKS!!!

THE GREAT FALLACY!!!

IN THE WORDS OF GOTALIFE ITSELF!

"READING" === "THINKING"

no wonder parroting Hillary's contradicting talking points is second nature.

THIS EXPLAINS A LOT!

Former DNC chairs: Hillary would beat McCain today — Obama wouldn't
Posted: 01:15 PM ET
(CNN) – Seven former Democratic National Committee chairs who support Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, and the family of one who is deceased, released a letter Friday arguing that she is the candidate best-equipped to beat John McCain in November.

The letter was signed by former party leaders Kenneth Curtis, Charles Manatt, Debra DeLee, Don Fowler, Steve Grossman, Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, and Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe. It was also signed by the family of the late Ron Brown, who served in the Clinton administration.

They write that “if the election were held today, Hillary would beat Senator McCain, but Senator Obama would lose to the presumptive GOP nominee.”

“Hillary has run one of the most formidable campaigns in the history of our Party,” the chairs wrote, listing Clinton’s primary season victories. “Her base of support includes women, Hispanics, seniors, Catholics, middle and low income Americans, and rural, suburban and urban voters. That’s a formidable coalition tailor-made for victory in a November general election.

“…We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country.”

Duh, you don't have to think about it. Its a no brainer.

Good luck your gonna need it. er, wait, no good luck. This idea is stupid.

Another reason Hill shouldn't be the nominee. Bad idea, didn't look at the consequences, using Bush rhetoric "with us or against us", taking a Republican idea from Bob Dole and McCain and making it yours, siding with a Repub against a Dem. All very bad for her and for the Dem party.

And another reason the supers will never side with her.

BOYCOTT THE PRESIDENTAL NOMONIES UNTIL THEY PUSH FOR A REAL ENERGY SOLUTION!

START THE BOYCOTT JULY 4, 2008

DEMAND AND ENERGY SOLUTION NOW

DEMAND MCCAIN, OBAMA, AND CLINTON WORK TOGETHER NOW TO SOLVE OUR ENERGY PROBLEMS NOT AFTER THE ELECTION

The American people are tired of waiting for a real energy bill to come to life. This presidential election we have three senators running for president. Obama, McCain, and Clinton all have promised that if we elect one of them they will solve our energy problems. Now is the time to “PUT THEIR VOTE WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS”.

Truckers have tired to stop buying diesel in protest of the high price but it did not work. There are boycotts not to buy gas on certain days but that does not work since the next day we will have to buy gas.

My proposal is not to send money to any of the presidential nominees and not to show up to their speeches or rallies. Doing this will not take money out of our pocket books but out of theirs. Demand that McCain, Clinton, and Obama push legislation NOW that will fix out energy problem not after one of them is elected in November.

We want:

• A real energy bill that fixes our energy crises in the short term and long term
• Legislation that will create new refineries that will also create good jobs
• Real legislation on Bio Fuels and the truth about corn based ethanol
• Investigation on the increase of cost at the gas pump
• Money invested in America’s own oil fields and oil shale

Stand up America and demand that our problems are fixed and demand that is happens now not next year.

START THE BOYCOTT OF THE CAMPAINS OF OBAMA, CLINTON, AND MCCAIN JULY 4, 2008.

DO NOT SEND MONEY TO ANY CAMPAIN UNTIL THEY FIX OUR ENERGY PROBLEM NOW.

How long do you think it will take for the nominees to push for a real energy bill when they see their campaign money dry up and no one shows up to their speeches?

Brian Mooney

www.theglobaltimes.com

Didn't she also sponsor an anti-flag burning amendment? Seems like a pattern: she only pushes pander legislation.

new thread above. one undecided super is pissed off at the pantsuited panderer already!

This is an interesting ploy on Clinton's part. I believe McCaskill was recently quoted saying something to the effect that the SD's in the Senate had mostly made up their mind although many of them were not publicly declared. She also hinted that Obama had won that contest. Could this be Clinton's feeble attempt at "punishing" those who do not support her?

It speaks volumes that former President Clinton cozies up to Rush, Senator Clinton cozies up to Rudolph Murdoch, the Mellons, Bill O'Reily, and Faux News...and then she conducts a true "panderfest" by having a photo op at a gas pump and proposing a "gas tax holiday"...the later two items being *exactly* what former Senator George Allen (R-Macacca) did when he last ran for Senate. You've lost, Senator Clinton! All you are doing is helping the Republicans now. Seemingly on purpose.

Wouldn't this be bad for Clinton in the long run? If it passed, wouldn't it be obvious to everyone by the end of summer that it wasn't effective? And, as pointed out above, if it doesn't pass....there goes the candidate that 'gets things done'.

Please, bring the bill to a vote immediately, so we can see the entire Senate call it what it is - worse than worthless - and see it go down in flames. Pretty Please.

Pandering stupidity. The addiction continues....

Now if she would just cut the coffee tax I might be buying

How about we end the Iraq War. That has cost the average tax paying American $40,000 dollars and counting.....not to mention the blood guts and dried up bones of American soldiers, Iraqi men women and children and several other countries soldiers.
This is just hyperventillating bullshit.

Consider the costs...

$4,681 per household.
$1,721 per person.
$341.4 million per day.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

What happens after the Holiday. Back to square zero?

A breakdown of the gas tax holiday shell game:

1. There is no oversight of the oil industry.

2. There have been no substantive investigations of consumer price gouging by the oil/gas industry in at least eight years.

3. Ergo, there is no guarantee that this savings will be passed onto the consumer.

The formula is: you remove the gas tax at x, the oil industry is in no position to keep the cost of gas at the pump commensurate with this reduction.

The federal government, already fiscally bankrupt, removes a tax without any guarantee that price of gas will actually go down. Instead, a likely event will be that gas will go down by roughly 9 cents a gallon, which means a 9 cent a gallon profit for the gas company while the candidates get to extoll the virtue of looking out for the averagoe joe.

Will there be an effective way to track the net impact of a gas tax holiday? How much savings will actually reach the consumer? Why is this timed around the 600 dollar tax rebate?

To repeat: it is ineffective to offer a tax rebate on a company that has a history of price gouging. You are, in effect, giving cover to the oil industry to fix prices while consumers are dazzled by SLIGHTLY lowered fuel prices coinciding with the 600 dollar tax rebate.

A similar stunt was pulled when the 300 dollar tax rebate checks went out. The federal oil reserves were tapped, which dampened prices at the pump at no cost to the oil industry... they were effectively subsidized. Oil consumption spiked, and the oil industry once again enjoyed a windfall profit courtesy of the federal government.

I am repeating myself in order to make the same general argument several different ways so that you and other readers will GET IT. Without effective oversight and regulation, any and all efforts to ease consumer prices will have zero net impact.

We need to find more and more ways to diminish oil consumption, through conservation and efficiency. The cost of food worldside is spiking, and this is in part due to the cost in fuel of shipping food along with the cost of plastic to store the food, since plastic is derived from oil.

I am surprised that progressives could actually fall for this just because they favor a candidate. We are being hoodwinked... the greater our oil consumption, the more enthralled the world is to King Oil. So any and all sops that will result in a consumption spike is only driving that spike into the coffin of the global economy.