« Today's Primaries Could Change State Of The Race | Home | Key Down-Ticket Primary Tonight A Big Test-Case For Antiwar GOP House Members »
Obama On Hillary's OPEC Talk: "That's Not Being Straight With The American People"
Obama hits Hillary on the trail today for her assertion yesterday that OPEC can "no longer be a cartel":
"You say you've been in the White House for eight years, you've had two terms as U.S. Senator and haven't said a word about OPEC and now suddenly you're gonna take it right to OPEC," an exasperated Obama said. "When you've opposed fuel efficiency standards that would actually reduce demand for oil and put OPEC in a bind. That's not being straight with the American people. That's not the kind of politics we believe."
Just as he did with his criticism of the gas tax holiday, Obama again focuses the conversation on his campaign's broader indictment of Hillary's character.
Advertisement
Great hit and accurate as always.
May 6, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good!
Hillary's OPEC pander is redicules. What is she going to do, go to war with OPEC?
Only insufferable little troll twits like Gottalife will fall for something this stupid.
May 6, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a negative attack to me.
May 6, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny coming from you.
May 6, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the truth to me.
May 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. If someone says "up is down" it's not a "character attack" to point out they're wrong, and if that person has a habit of doing so, it's self condemnation.
Similarly, if someone makes political proposals that are unrealistic, and reversals of their earlier policies, it's not a "character attack" to fairly object to those policies and point out the candidate's self contradiction.
Truth telling and fact finding are never a character attacks. If the facts are so damning that wen presented fairly and honestly they impugn a person's statements, and it's a habitual problem, then it's their own fault.
Hillary has repeatedly hoisted herself on her own petard. She's a triangulator and it's pretty ugly when she miscalculates. Same as Bill with NAFTA and deregulation of finance and energy markets.
I think it's up to voters to decide whether Hillary's habitual policy flip-flops and campaign policy choices reflect poorly on her character and her regard for the intelligence of the American voter.
May 6, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The truth is the truth, and oh how it hurts.
May 6, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see Obama has learned the political technique of going for the throat. I was wondering if he had the cojones to fight for what he wants.
May 6, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Carville, he borrowed one from Hillary. Of course that implies she had 3 which would explain a lot (mutant experiment gone wrong...insanity follows)
May 6, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama: NAILED IT!
May 6, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
**PLUS**
Bill Clinton said something in 1992!
May 6, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he said he had caused pain in his marriage.
May 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he said that he tried it but didn't inhale.
May 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed. We all know how those Oil Sheiks
and Ayatollahs take orders from women. How cna Hilllary f
May 6, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed. We all know how those Oil Sheiks
and Ayatollahs take orders from women.
How can Hillary fail. It is a slam dunk.
May 6, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, snap! He nailed it on that one. Good work - brings in a lot of different themes on that one - ridiculous pandering, "ready on Day 1" myth, and her claims of "experience". Nicely done, sir!
May 6, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
hehe - your comments are always good for a laugh, Carol.
Obama's trying to take the focus off the issue - high oil prices - and one of the solutions - holding WTO members of OPEC accountable. Naturally, he wants to bring attention back to his campaign's central message, which is that Hillary's an evil, conniving, untrustworthy, pandering bitch.
You're a lapping it up, naturally, but those of us more focussed on issues and *solutions*, may remember all th way back to 2005, when Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney "let's give oil companies a helping hand, but throw a few scraps to environmentalists" bill, whereas Hillary made a stand on energy issues.
May 6, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm very glad I amuse you! :P
May 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can only assume that you think WTO can impact oil production.
Solution this is not.
But otherwise, keep on trucking.
May 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick Cheney's energy bill is actually the most progressive and green energy bill passed so far. A number of great green intiatives as well as a net effect of increased taxes on energy companies.
A bill that changed enormously compared to what good ole Dick and co. originally proposed thanks to the DEMS.
Furthermore, it had a number of ethanol provisions and incentives which is why Obama, being a senator from corn rich IL, voted for the bill.
It was going to pass anyways, due to REPUBS, so he could either vote against and ignore his constiuents, or vote for it and thus honor his IL roots.
Could the bill have been much, much better? Of course. Would the GOPers and Bush have it? Probably not. But compared to it's original form it changed greatly.
While I wish Obama would've voted against (as a stand to improve it and make it even more progressively green), I can certainly understand why he voted for it. His first responsibility as a senator is to his constituents after all.
You wouldn't also post as dembillc would you?
May 6, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It was going to pass anyways, due to REPUBS, so he could either vote against and ignore his constiuents, or vote for it and thus honor his IL roots."
So that's an acceptable argument now? Kinda takes the sting out of arguments against Hillary's Authorization vote.
As for voting for it for reasons of corn-based ethanol production, if true, that is a devastating indictment of Obama. We can thank his lack of foresight and pandering to local political influence for both increasing food prices around the world, as well as increasing our dependence on fossil fuel. It takes 1.2 gallons of fossil fuels to make an equivalent 1 gallon of corn-based fuel - you do the maths on that one.
May 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
grasping for straws, my man. apparently, we see that in two completely different ways. agree to disagree, shall we?
May 6, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
and no that does not give credance to her vote on the war. she should have known better.
has ethanol proven to be a bad option in 2008. yes. in 2005 it wasn't so clear. actually, it was thought of as the next step for our fuel needs.
furthermore, the effect of ethanol on food prices is grossly exagerated. oil has far more of an effect.
finally, honoring your constituents is what senators are supposed to do. how you can construe that as a bad thing- i don't know.
if your argument is that hillary voted for the war b/c her constituents did then i would have to say that's lame. she had the inside track on intelligence there. her constituents did not.
also, i would like to add, as i previously posted, that while I do disagree with obama's vote, i can understand it.
Any vote FOR the war- not so much.
as i said, agree to disagree here. these are my opinions.
as a side note, this was one of the issues that swung me to clinton's side to vote for in the MN caucus. however, after studying both more and watching how there campaigns have operated, i am fully 100% behind Obama despite this.
if this is your major beef with obama, so be it. however, i would think you could find much more to take up against hillary. but i only have my experiences and research to go off of. to each their own.
May 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fully understand there are different ways to view all these issues, things are never black/white, yet we somehow expect different things from our politicians when faced only with a yes/no vote.
Three more points on this argument you may find interesting though:
1) Mainstream scientific opinion in 2005 was clear, in that for the most part we knew there wasn't any future in fuel from primary agriculture (corn is not even a good source of ethanol as far as food goes). It was hailed as a solution by politicians refusing to investigate the issue properly. Many scientists gave dissenting opinions when asked, yo ucan't give Obama a pass on this one.
2)"the effect of ethanol on food prices is grossly exagerated. oil has far more of an effect."
I think you're quite misguided here. The biggest effect on oil price in the US has been the weak dollar, and this does knock on, but it's completely wrong to suggest that is the reason behind the huge increase in corn prices. The US normally has huge corn surpluses (due to farming subsidies), but because of ethanol demand has massively increased, and it's this demand that is raising prices.
The effect of bioethanol on food prices, and the environment, is currently seen most strongly in 3rd world countries. Food crops are being used to make fuel, when people are starving, and virgin jungles are being cut and burned to grow palm oil, and this fuel is shipped back to the US and Europe.
3) I don't really have a major beef with Obama. I don't think he'll be as effective a President as Hillary, and where their policies differ, I think Hillary's are generally better. Crucially, I see no evidence that he has better judgement at all when looked at overall - and those who think an anti-war speech is evidence are a bit crazy in my view. Having said that, I think he'd be phenomenally better than McCain, but also a weak candidate to run against him. If he is the nominee, I very much hope I'm wrong about that.
May 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
the more corn we can get out of the food supply the better.......
May 6, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
my final point:
obama votes for energy bill- helps illinois farmers, helps illinois economy, taxes on oil co's increase, promotes green programs, pleases constituents so he can win next senate election if he doesn't get to be presidential nominee or president.
years later ethanol proves to be not such a great green intiative, though it did progress the movement. overall, energy bill is a wash.
clinton votes for authrization against iraq- pleases contsituents, aids next senate contest so she can run for president, sends american troops to war, helps wreck u.s. economy.
years later war with iraq proves disasterous for all involved.
you be the judge.
May 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see that you agree that "Hillary's an evil, conniving, untrustworthy, pandering bitch."
At least you got something right.
Go Carol!!!!
May 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's totally what I said... Keep up the clear thinking.
May 6, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooooh, that meddlesome Obama! I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for that darn junior Senator from Illinois and those pesky kids!
May 6, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that a Scooby-Doo reference Billy? Well played Sir! lol
May 6, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love the Scooby reference.
May 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zoinks!
May 6, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, when a candidate stands there and lies to the people in such a spectacular way, when all of the sudden they are the biggest proponent of fighting OPEC because they are in a state where it matters to people they deserve to be called out on it.
May 6, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama does it, it's negative campaigning.
When Clinton does it, it's vetting.
Get it right!
May 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's negative campaigning when either do it. When Hillary does it, however, Obama calls it 'old politics'.
May 6, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's so mean. Cry us a river.
May 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when is calling someone on a lie "negative"? I thought going after truth was a positive action.
Can someone send me the memo I didn't get?
May 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd venture there are a few outstanding memos yet to be assimilated ;-)
May 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please stand by for a biased, negative and completely fact less comment by gotalife
May 6, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I bet he'll say "Oilbama" a few times and tell us all how great it is that hillary is pandering about this.
Ah, gottalife, you insufferable little troll twit, what would we do without you?
(answer - have more intelligent conversations)
May 6, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
hehehe, i've been waiting for that genius, or should i spell it Jenius.
--jake
May 6, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The truth is never a negative attack.
How many more people have to keep dying for our standard of living? This country has to get off the oil-crack and deal with reality--we're not the only game in town. It's criminal that in the face of global warming and increased competition for resources from Asia we've allowed the status quo to rage on. Leadership, please. I don't care how great Hillary's environmental plan is, her performance these last few weeks (obliterate/gas tax holiday/OPEC-busting) disqualifies her. What would she be taking as her mandate, if she ran and won on a pack of lies?
May 6, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you must be disgusted Obama is the only one of the three remaining candidates that voted for Cheney's energy bill, right?
May 6, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Disappointed, not disgusted and not defending it. Where we go from here is what matters. She voted for an oil war, and she is campaigning on the idea that the only thing that needs to change are prices. Back to the good ol' days. Not gonna happen. For me, she's coming off as the biggest appeaser since Neville Chamberlain.
May 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
see above comment.
May 6, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh lovely.
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/NATION/525934081/1001
Clinton campaign now saying the magic delegate number is 2,208.
May 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is with Florida and Michigan.
May 6, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO!!
They are going make those ham and eggs try to materialize out thin air til it's over.
May 6, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you referring to the campaign of the Queen of the Clintoids filing for rule changes . . . So she can drag this out until the convention.
May 6, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many is it if you count New York and Arkansas double?
May 6, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. The supers will see through that bullshit in a New York minute. Her campaign can say whatever the hell they want - doesn't mean anybody's buying it.
May 6, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, instead of being dittoheads, you may want to actually research before you spew.
Exercise your minds and sweat out the kool aid. Check out her proposal on OPEC but you will see one from Oilbama.
It is gop business as usual for Oilbama.
May 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, If Obama is the nominee will you vote for him?
May 6, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This question has been asked and answered a million times over by now. Yes, Gotalife has said that he will vote for Obama if Obama gets the nomination.
May 6, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
but he's really voting for McCain no matter what. he's a repug troll in hillary clothing, only here to stir things up
May 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This coming from the Great Regurgitator.
May 6, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turns out that Clinton was tagged for not yet signing up to support a senate resolution calling to end oil cartels. Interesting. Guess her pandering got ahead of her actually doin' stuff.
May 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually signing on to the bill would be just words. Talking about it is action.
May 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dittohead, funny coming from you, a rush protege.
Otto F and gotalife following rush playbook:
repeat lies over and over
if questioned then attack and make fun of opponent.
rinse and repeat until it becomes a parody.
May 6, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
All Hail Hillary;
The Empress of Pandergonia!
May 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moon over Panderdor
May 6, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oo you're good.
LOL!
May 6, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
States Get In on Calls for a Gas Tax Holiday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06gas.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Clinton is a leader and Obama is not.
May 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
You do realize, don't you, that every single legislator named in that article IS A REPUBLICAN????????? You also realize, don't you, that the article made it clear that many of those state plans do not require the retailer to pass along the savings to the consumer and do not guard against price gouging or hording? You did read this, didn't you?
God, Goatlife, I don't know whether it's better for you to link or not - I'm amazed that you would post this as somehow proving that Clinton's plan is a good idea.
May 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the GOP in NY, FL and MI is pushing hard for this nonsense. Hillary was all over the place saying it was Republican lunacy when she ran for the Senate. Guess things are different now that she needs to rescue her campaign. Is it conduct like this that leads people to believe she is a liar and an opportunist?
Also, from the article this quote, which you'll love:
"At gas stations here in Alabama and across the country, support for the tax suspension plans was tepid. Echoing the findings of a recent New York Times poll, most described the proposals as obvious electioneering. 'It’s just politics' said J. Vincent Schmidt, 23, of Panama City, Fla. 'If they take the taxes away on gas, they’ll probably find someplace else to stick it in.'"
May 6, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how about the fact that Bill actually raised the gas tax by .05/gal when he was Prez? Why was that a good policy then but a bad policy now?
May 6, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a leader because she co-opted a proposal from her potential Republican opponent? Oh wait, maybe she's a leader because she's pretending that she can pay for a tax holiday with a windfall profit tax (that Bush will sign into law because he's deathly afraid of the junior senator from NY and her stern admonitions). Or is she a leader because she's brave enough to append the polite suggestion (already on the bill that McCain actually had the guts to introduce rather than in the pretend bill that Hillary plans to introduce sometime before the sun burns out) that refiners not bump the wholesale price of gas to nix the benefit to consumers? Or is she leading the march to the unemployment line for transportation workers who will see road projects scuppered because there are no funds to support them? Or maybe she's a proper leader because she can misrepresent proto-populist dreck in order to swing votes?
Maybe you're a fearless leader for linking to articles that you clearly did not read:
Obama had a front-row seat for the failure of this type of measure in IL, and he admits it was a mistake. To support an equivalent measure at the federal level would make him a fool or a hypocrite. It makes Clinton both.
May 6, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think you mean fibber, distorter of truth, spinmania, panderer of the uninformed. Hardly the traits of a leader, oh how is that gas tax bill in congress going? DOA i hear, now what kind of leader can't even get a simple bill to the senate floor? Give it up, the race is over today.
May 6, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obliterate her with extreme prejudice
May 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are a superdelegate---and you see this oil-tax-holiday and opec stuff, and then you see exit polls showing it worked very well for her---what do you do.
You look at the broader picture----that Hillary is not playing with a full deck----and neither are the irrational dumbasses who are temporarily responding----and you trust that Obama will be an effective campaigner over tha long haul.
May 6, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
See I told you so!
May 6, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is so against OPEC, she is willing to extend our nuclear umbrella to them.
May 6, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So long as they uh, pay us in oil? Maybe that's the plan.
May 6, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is now offering Indiana voters a free tank of gas plus a deluxe exterior car wash in exchange for their votes today. Now that's leadership!
Hey, wait a minute, I shouldn't kid about this. By the end of the day it might actually be true.
May 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! I truly would not put it past her - at this point what has she got to lose? It will be her version of 40 acres and a mule! ;)
May 6, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH Snap.....shut up Carol before the Queen has you put in chains. She can say and do whatever she pleases. The EX-King is not running anymore. Run against the Queen. The Black Prince is there to serve the Queen not to question her.
May 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this is parody. WTF?
May 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm taking it as a joke - to think otherwise would just be too sad for me to contemplate LOL!
May 6, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indiana voters may not be as dumb as Hillary assumes....
May 6, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The politicians credo is 'the masses are asses' of course they will believe HIll.
May 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is brilliant inasmuch as that is her major weakness.
May 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the reason Obama has rebounded nicely from the past weeks' distractions.
May 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary just keeps setting up the shots and Obama keeps hitting them right into the net.
Thanks, Hill! The more you talk, the better you make Obama look.
May 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Bill get a lot of money for speeches from OPEC member nations? Will she take him on, too?
May 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is just a sideline commentator. Let's visit old Teddy Roosevelt and paraphrase:
"It is not the critic who counts;
not the man who points out how the strong woman stumbles,
or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the woman who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood,
who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again;
because there is not effort without error and shortcomings;
but who does actually strive to do the deed;
who knows the great enthusiasm,
the great devotion,
who spends herself in a worthy cause,
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement
and who at the worst, if she fails,
at least she fails while daring greatly."
Obama the Critic, Obama the Deceiver. The man who offers nothing, nothing but criticism of those who actually try to accomplish.
May 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny!
May 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feeling frustrated are we?
I feel your pain. Your boy is gonna suffer today.
May 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to place a wager to back up your bluster?
May 6, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feeling frustrated are we?
I feel your pain. Your boy is gonna suffer today.
May 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am fogo 2. i am spammer republican troll. clin-ton 2.0!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhx-TYK4zP0
May 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to shake the Barnyard Sidekick stereotype that has plagued his many performances with waning Leading Troll Gotalife of late, Fogu2 makes a play for center stage with an updated period piece that allows him to Stretch a Wing beyond the shallow catchphrase-driven dialogue he's become known for. It's an inspired effort to be sure, albeit more Apple Dumpling Gang than Rough Riders, but will it be enough to win this scrappy newcomer the love of longtime TPM viewers more accustomed to the stark, nuanced performances of so many Leading Trolls who have come before?
Known Troll: +5
Contrarian Troll Modifier: +3
Contrarian Monolithic Ref. Modifier: +2
Intellectual Dishonesty: +20
Seeking Refuge in Scorn: +25
Bitter Modifier: +15
Honorable Nitwit: +15
Enfant Provocateur Modifier: +20
--------------------------------------------
Troll Rating: 105
May 6, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, sir, are sheer genius! ;)
May 6, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hurray! TC3K returns . . . and not a moment too soon!
May 6, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny!
May 6, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
105 ?
Well at least that's a better score than Obama can bowl.
May 6, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
you said bowl
i think
you meant fowl
May 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because that surely is the best criterion to pick the next POTUS over.
May 6, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only true fans will want to devote time to the extended scenes, in which the weathered Barnyard Sidekick catchphrase humor, wisely cut from the final take, makes its way back into the scene. Stepping out from Gotalife's long shadow is apparently taking a certain toll on this young performer, as he works vestiges of supporting dialogue from days past directly into his Leading Troll period dialogue of the original scene - a quixotic blend that leaves the audience wondering if he's Dazed and Confused as to which scene he's in or merely a performer with so little range that he doesn't have a Desperate Choice not to try and get the lines in regardless.
Known Troll: +5
Contrarian Troll Modifier: +3
Seeking Refuge in Scorn: +25
Questioning the Critic: +25
Bowling for Soup Modifier: +30 (New!)
--------------------------------------------
Troll Rating: 88
May 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
(wipes tears of laughter from eyes)
You sir have me howling. Your posts are instant classics.
May 6, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please TrollCritic, don't leave us again!
May 6, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you took it on yourself to revise the original quote, you'll allow me the same privilege:
Or better yet, try this actual TR quote:
or this
or even this
May 6, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You work far to hard to not make a point.
Get some rest.
May 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us devote thought to the issue under scrutiny, and yes, this requires some effort -- not unlike the pains that must be taken to place complex economic issues in proper context rather than ponying up back-of-the-envelope, witch doctor economics in the service of duping the "screw 'em" voters into one more ride on the Clinton merry-go-round.
Some of us can't seem to mesh the cognitive machinery to the task at hand, so I understand your confusion.
May 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this just in: McCain is promising more far right Supreme Court Justices. We just cannot afford this threat. He is dissing Obama for voting against John Roberts; I am SO happy Obama voted that way. Our court is a joke. Lost all respect, albeit a couple of judges. Here is link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/mccain-woos-conservatives_n_100339.html
May 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is how he united his party.
The Dems should do the same.
May 6, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of the Supreme Court you just gotta watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GG7sj2APpc
May 6, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's this . . . Clinton is not aboard the 'Straight Talk Express' . . . John will be so disappointed.
May 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, instead of being dittoheads, you may want to actually research before you spew.
Exercise your minds and sweat out the kool aid. Check out her proposal on OPEC but you will not see one from Oilbama.
It is gop business as usual for Oilbama.
Clinton is leader who wants to help you but Oilbama wants to help big oil.
We do not need another oil man in the WH. Period.
May 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're rationales change so rapidly that it his impossible to track your intention so I ask again. If Obama is the nominee will you vote for him?
May 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep asking after every gotalife non-sequitur...I will assist.
May 6, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can answer that for Gottalife: No.
He has no intention of voting for Hillary in the general election either. He is a dittohead and is fullfilling his obligation to Operation Chaos.
May 6, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely, but the question asked repeatedly only crystallizes that fact.
May 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You keep saying that Obama going GOP business but why is the only support that Hillary is getting for her Gas Tax Holiday coming from Republicans?
I'd like to visit the world you live in one day just so that I can try to understand how someone's logic can get so twisted to the extent that everything it the opposite of the truth.
May 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so twisted because he is a repug troll, trying to pretend to look like a hillary supporter. He's just here to stir up mischief, not to be a true supporter of anything
May 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
After today, there will be no larger states left. That means that Hillary will drop her Gas Tax Holiday Pander Bear in the nearest dumpster.
Just as she always leaves a trail of unpaid bills behind her, Hillary will leave all those suckers who voted for Hillary's fantasy gas tax proposal standing at the gas station altar.
May 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even read past the headline?
1st: These are Republican--i.e., McCain-supporting--governors supporting this idea.
2nd: Have a look at this, from the article you linked to:
When Illinois and Indiana suspended about 7 cents of their state gas taxes in the summer of 2000, prices fell by an average of only 4 cents, according to a study by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, which opposed the plans. Drivers saved no more than $2.50 a month, while each state lost tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue.
Sometimes, leadership is better shown by not proposing something whose benefits are cosmetic at best and harmful to the general welfare at worst.
May 6, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was directed at gotalife, and I see Carol beat me to it anyway, AND those meddlesome blockquotes . . .
As y'all were.
May 6, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know - it's amazing that Goatlife would link to an article that proves that her plan is utter bullshit. It's actually not even fun to play around with him/her anymore. It's too easy! ;)
May 6, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks: When you come to some Goatshite droppings, just step around them. No need to step in them. Just move on.
May 6, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stepped in goatshite. Shite!
May 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny........
May 6, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton thinks voters are children. The Gas tax Holiday is Santa Claus.
It is possible that the voters will behave like children, but this notion that she actually has a fucking plan on gas prices is beyond silly.
I look for her to co-sponsor with McCain!
May 6, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see the Daily Show last nite? With the picture of the "Charlie Brown Gas Tax Holiday Special" with Linus on fire (and Snoopy on top of a gas pump)? It was priceless! Here it is in case you missed it - it's worth watching!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=167642&title=panderers-box
May 6, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Missed it. Went to bed early for once, figuring I'd be up late tonight. Thanks, fellow New Yorker.
May 6, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very glad to oblige!!
May 6, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
PROJECT NUCLEAR OPTION IS ABOUT TO COMMENCE 3...2...1...
May 6, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you better hope not - if Hillary pulled that shit, that would be the end of her career as a Democrat.
She wants to go back to the Senate? She pulls that shit and she's going to get shunned.
May 6, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammmmm so everything she has done up to now is ok?...I agree with you Tena, but is just sad that people will let her shit go even further...lol
May 6, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think her career as a Democrat already IS over. Good luck with your senate run, Hillary. You're gonna need it. Furthermore, isn't her financial situation gonna factor into her decision here at some point? I mean if she's going into debt for this run, she's gonna be scrambling to pay it off for a senate run. Er, no?
May 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is Mitt Romney in a Pandersuit.
May 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting thread on IN over at the NYT,
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/all-roads-lead-to-indiana/#comment-22663
Seems to me that Hillary's fortunes there will determine if the voters in IN are as middle of the road, and long haul thinkers as the writer seems to believe. My feeling is the place is a Red State, and probably has more conservative white Dems than most places, so not the most fertile ground for Obama. However, Hillary has damaged herself lately with the shameless level of pandering. Makes for an interesting race, even if it an Obama loss, the margin will be the story. If its within a couple points, pandering lost. Either way, of course, the fundamental of the race are the same: Obama winning, Hillary can't catch up.
May 6, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
She will win both states.
May 6, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take them odds. I will make a $25 donation to Hillary's debt relief fund (campaign) if she pulls it off, if you make a $25 donation to Obama if she doesn't.....You in?
If not, I guess you're just full o' goatshite.
May 6, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you are so sure and the odds are against Clinton you must give odds.
How about:
me: $25 to Obama if she loses both.
you: $250 to Clinton if she wins both.
After all, you're so certain this should be a gimme. Right?
May 6, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least you admit your a 10-1 'dog.
May 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You actually shouldn't be so gloomy....Intrade has Hillary at 21%, thats more like a 5-1 'dog, so buck up!
May 6, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's character?
Oh, that is rich with his Wright character.
Too funny.
May 6, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Wright running for office?
If Obama is the nominee, will you vote for him?
May 6, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife is 100% mccain all the way. he only feigns interest in hillary to stir up shit here.
think about it...
how many times has gotalife said nice things about gop and/or mccain? too many to count
how many other clinton supporters act like such obnoxious asses here? most of them went elsewhere as obama started racking up primary wins. and never were any of them such jerks. and those who stayed don't act like such turds
ever been to freeper land? it's full of right-wing pricks, like gotalife here. it's their way. it's not the way of people who truely support democratic candidates
gotalife's support for hillary here at TPM is his own little "operation chaos" -- inspired by the commands of his overlord Rush the pill popper
May 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice try.
Polls show Wright has not hurt Obama as much as you'd like.
BTW, any Supers switch to Clinton yet?
May 6, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope and change is gone.
Replaced by a waffle.
May 6, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright for Prez
Ayers for VP
May 6, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary / McCain trolls getting desperate.
They know the end is near.
May 6, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
and their little "operation chaos" here will be over.
what ever will they do when all they have is their free republic site left to circle jerk to as they bounce their smart-assed comments off each other?
May 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope.....convention is a couple months away
PROJECT NUCLEAR OPTION IS ABOUT TO COMMENCE 3...2...1...
May 6, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once Obama has an absolute majority of pledged delegates and has sealed it with superdelegates, I don't see how Clinton can argue for the inclusion of Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. How "sore loser" is that going to look?
May 6, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said in Nov of 07......She's in it to the end. The very end.
May 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently your wallet and your mouth are in two separate places on this issue.
I'll even sweeten the bet by calling it a win for you if Hillary gets within single digits in NC.
Hmmm?
May 6, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you are so sure and the odds are against Clinton you must give odds.
How about:
me: $25 to Obama if she loses both.
you: $250 to Clinton if she wins IN and comes within single digits in NC.
After all, you're so certain this should be a gimme. Right?
May 6, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
ha, you donating to a democrat. that'll be the day, republican troll
May 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, moving the goalposts, are we?
May 6, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"PROJECT NUCLEAR OPTION IS ABOUT TO COMMENCE 3...2...1..."
The superdelegates won't let that happen, a person splitting the party for their own benefit - The Nuclear Option being utter horseshit: 3...2...1.. Ok, it already is.
May 6, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary wants to launch Project Nuclear Option, because she plans to treat our Democratic Party like Iran, and Obliterate it.
Hillary is the new Lieberman.
May 6, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will even venture to say that she is WORSE than Lieberman, and that's hard to do.
May 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is Mitt Romney in a Pandersuit.
Now THAT'S funny....LOL
May 6, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No what would be really funny?
Hillary gets all the Florida and Michigan delegates seated...
and they vote for Obama!
May 6, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
ooops, Know.
Need more caffeine.
May 6, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not funny...more like poetic justice
May 6, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
gottalife and fogo2 = clinton 2.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhx-TYK4zP0
May 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's the one who campaigned on this 35 years of experience. So, it is perfectly fair to point out that her experience doesn't match the crap she's spewing now.
May 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of coooouuuuuurrrrrssssse
she's and entitled elitist! She obviously doesnt love herself because she has been attacking people like that the last few weeks..lol
May 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
typcial load of crap from Obama. Freakin lying ass.
May 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
....unlike the Belle Dame of Tuzla....
May 6, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the lie?
May 6, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He knows her stand on this issue and others. He was on the floor with her. Oh, thats right, he's been running for President since he got there so maybe he wasn't there. He continually takes her stances and twists them to fit his "idea" of the day that he has taken from somewhere else. Typical Mr. Empty Suit.
May 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't get any more specific?
May 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because he knows fully that she has backed policies that were for better gas milage and bringing down OPEC. Name a Democrat that doesn't? Its completely dishonest to say otherwise.
May 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
While she's stolen McCain's Gas Tax Pander, Hillary also likes McCain's Iraq policy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/clinton-in-2005-i-agree-w_n_100168.html
May 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money quote.
May 6, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whats your point? Are you seriously telling me that you think our involvement there is going to a Vietnam like withdrawl? The death and destruction that we would leave behind would pale anything that has come before. We all know that. Just imagine in your head tomorrow what happens in Baghdad without the Green Zone in existence? Do you seriously advocate allowing the bloodshed that would come with that?
May 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is two-fold.
1. Hillary's track record of co-opting Republican ideas is getting quite long.
2. Her position on Iraq is anything but consistent, which goes to her trustworthiness. rom voting for the war to endorsing McCain's plan for a long-term presence to now advocating pulling out all troops in 16 months? It's enough to make your head spin.
May 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing like answering a question with another question. yeah, I've heard the IF I WAS There statement from Obama. Well if grandma had balls she'd be grandpa. Doesn't show nothing. She has been consistent on her views. Both in votes and in statements. However, Obama. Says he would get us out quick but hasn't led any fight to stop funding or any vote to stop this war has he? No.
Stop trying to cloud the issue. He is always twisting words to fit what he wants them to say. He never says specifically what he'd do on any issue. Mr. Empty suit.
May 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every American casualty in Iraq is blood on the President's hands. Unlike GWB, Obama may actually feel the awesome responsibility of that fact, and get us the hell out of Iraq. I lead you to a piece by Joe Klein in Time regarding Petraeus' testimony at the Senate, and Obama's questioning. Clearly Obama understands this issue, and the complex factors involved in a withdrawal. It seems disingenuous for you to now posit the idea that Obama is advocating disaster in Iraq....It already is a disaster, after all.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729525,00.html
May 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things.
1. Joe Klein is a reporter. A Journalist. Whatever you want to call him. He reports on what people did. He doesn't have experience in either leading people or making decisions involved with leading people. His text on the issue is laughable. A nice read...but still he is a shill for Obama.
2. The reason that his questioning got no further recongnition is that was simply stating current facts. What was new there? His "hammer" question was geez things are better why are we there? Stupid question if you take into consideration the actual facts on the ground. I contend again because of his questioning he has no real grasp of the intracacies involved. Moreover, he would have advisors like samantha(she's a monster)powers making the decisions for him. If that isn't enough to scare any American I don't know what other evidence is needed. Has he stated anything about what he would do other than move troops home? How about the Kurds? How about Iran? How about Syria? What does Hamas and Hezbollah decide in that vacuum? Isreal? Egypt? How will the Saudis view it?....I hear nothing but typical silence and "hope" from Mr. Empty Suit.
May 6, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's noble of you Louisville, caring about bloodshed in Baghdad.
Let me ask you, though -- is preventing that potential bloodshed in Baghdad worth sacrificing your children for, or your siblings? How many generations in your family would you sacrifice life and limb to keep the lid on their sectarian differences? How many more hundreds of billions should America spend from its treasury?
From a different angle, do not the people of Baghdad and Iraq have a right to live without US occupation dictating the terms of their military and economy?
May 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes the people there have that right. Would I want my children to go to fight that battle? Both of mine didn't join the service so its not exactly from a honest place that I comment. Still, I would hope that they would if needed. Even now. We created that problem in Iraq with our own hands. We can wring our hands and say "I wasn't for it" but honestly we all didn't do anything to stop it. Nothing at all. Sure we watched movies and voted. But, we should have done far more. Pointing the finger at myself as well here.
So, yes, we have an obligation to those mothers and children of Iraq. To put it right. To at least try to help put it right. A drawdown of troops? Absolutely. Some pushing of responsibility onto the Maliki gov't YES. But we will have to pay for this for decades to come. As a people we made one of the largest we've ever made. We ALL need to learn to take the responsibility of it.
Finally, we aren't gone in 16 months. I don't think. And, much as I hate to admit it our troops and casualties will be there as well. It hurts to say and admit..but its reality.
May 6, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've been meddling there for far too long. The CIA helped Saddam and the Baathists to power ages ago, as they did the Shah of Iran, and so forth. We all know about Rummie shaking hands with Saddam in the 80s. The 90s were all about sanctions we imposed that led to perhaps half a million Iraqi deaths or more, and that's after we simply buried alive about 100,000 in the deserts of Iraq during Desert Storm I (we literally used bulldozers to bury "troops" defending Iraq).
Many of the local issues far pre-date even our, the Brits, or the Turks meddling, if you wanna go back 100-200 years.
It's a lot more mucked up and complicated than just that we stormed the place in 2003.
We gotta get out, and the sooner the better. Not that we can't offer continued aid if they want it, but running things from the top down, from us to them has gotta stop.
May 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a refreshing break from Goatalife inane comments check this Obama song by the Rockabelles (2 young girls).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA_oPtsX2ew&feature=PlayList&p=A8BF3964FC186418&index=2
May 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops...3 young girls.
May 6, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other developments today, Indonesia mulls opting out of OPEC.
May 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait for this insufferable process to end. The sooner the party focuses its ammunition on St. McCain, the better.
May 6, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink