« Hillary Drops New Indiana Mailer Attacking Obama On Guns, "Bitter" Comments | Home | CBS/NYT Poll: Obama Rebounds From Wright Damage, Public Split On Gas Tax »
Obama Releases Another Ad Hitting Hillary Over Gas Tax Holiday
Obama goes up on the air in Indiana and North Carolina with a third gas tax ad, this one pushing back against Hillary's last-minute ad on Friday hitting him on the issue...
The ad slams the gas tax holiday as "bogus" and a "gimmick," and says that "experts say it'll just boost oil industry profits." The ad also says this:
Clinton aides admit it won't do much for you, but would help her politically.
The Obama campaign says that this is a reference to the following in a recent Washington Post article:
Clinton aides think that even if the measure is a questionable way to reduce gas prices, it allows the candidate to bash oil companies and cast her opponent against an idea that has political appeal.
That's a paraphrase of anonymous quotes, though to my knowledge the Clinton campaign hasn't disavowed this.
Advertisement
That's a paraphrase of anonymous quotes, though to my knowledge the Clinton campaign hasn't disavowed this.
Wasn't this discussed by Garin or Wolfson in one of the neverending conference calls last week?
I thought one of the two admitted that the campaign knew the gas tax wasn't really going to help anyone but Clinton, politically.
Am I hallucinating?
May 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad Obama FINALLY did something
that economists find credible.
They sneered at his social security "reform,"
his "economic reform," and health plan,
calling it Republican.
May 4, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
From May 1, Election Central:
Is Hillary gaining politically by her support for a so-called "gas tax holiday"?
On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin claimed that the campaign's internal polling shows that it is.
So they think it's helping them, they admitted that, but it's not the case that they admitted, publicly, that it wasn't really going to do anything for the actual voters...I'm only half hallucinating.
May 4, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify this -- the Obama campaign told me specifically that the basis for the ad's claim was that line in the Washington Post. That's the Obama campaign's own sourcing, not mine. If they want to point to other sourcing, too, I'd be happy to post that.
May 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figured that out. I thought, wrongly, that the campaign had admitted as much to you on the conference call last week. I went back and checked, and I was wrong.
Thanks for the clarification.
I wonder which Clinton aide is going to be filleted for that comment to the Post....
May 4, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, though I didn't have any problem with the way you wrote the original post. I do, however, think it's a very effective ad, in particular, because of that line.
May 4, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that the paraphrasing is accurately done, however.
Besides, since when does Hillary not like anonymous sources? She was among those who cited the anonymous sources used in Britain's "dodgy dossier" as proof that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., you know...
Nevermind that the supposed intelligence cited was actually written by a student in California.
That's not just intelligence. That's *CLINTON* intelligence!
May 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Present" has an interesting tactic to avoid replies to his posts--the quotes prevent it.
Just wanted to mention that he is, predictably, incorrect in his above assertions.
May 5, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
GREG SARGENT YOU ARE A PARTISAN HACK!!!!!
(I didn't read the post. I just wanted to write that before anyone else did.)
May 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for covering the phones while I was taking a cig break.
;-P
May 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's cool. You can repay me by troll-snarking when I'm off duty.
May 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
His response are so much more powerful & classier than her original & silly attacks.
She sound like a nasty republican every time she open her trap.
May 4, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Chris Matthews Show: Doesn’t Matter What You Do, The GOP (And The Media) Will Make Wright An Issue"
Duh.
May 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they won't make Bosnia an issue because she won't be the nominee.
It means that he will have won the nomination. Get used to it.
May 4, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another predictable off-topic response.
May 4, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned Obama is welcome to go after this issue as much as he wants. I don't see it as anything pivotal. I think it makes him look desperate to change the subject from Jeremiah Wright. If not that, then just desperate to find any issue no matter how small. And I notice how this is being couched as Obama hitting back. Seems to me this is just Obama hitting, not hitting back, since the entire attack against Hillary's gas tax proposal started with Obama. Why is he constantly playing the victim? That reminds me of -- guess who -- Jeremiah Wright.
May 4, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, you couldn't find a single economist to back up the tax holiday plan.
May 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT. A. LIE.
Do you really believe your own bullshit?
She used it as a weapon against him - no more, no less, and he called her policy what it was, bullshit.
May 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter WHAT Obama thinks of it, or who said what first.
The plan is BULLSHIT. And you say what you want...but it is a BAD plan. A terrible plan. And it is pandering for your already solid vote for her.
For some reason you dont mind.
I am begining to wonder...maybe...you just dont respect yourself enough.
If Obama was in agreeance with it Id be cringing.
Im not saying you should become a Obama supporter or anything of the such. Im just saying stop being ignorant...this "tax holiday" can make things worst in the long run, and your not goign to save any money. Its false.
One further thing, I think they need to be focusing on McCain on this as well, he started this terrible idea.
May 4, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so sure it's minor.
Chuck Todd has a couple of posts about how Obama's getting traction against HRC on this. Plus it's gotten tons of coverage in IN papers saying that it's a pander. In the one big press endorsement she got in IN, the editorial called it a "gimmick." That's why Obama is hitting and hitting and hitting her on this and why HRC laid off it at the JJ dinner in NC on Friday. It's working for Obama and he's wisely capitalizing on HRC's mistake.
May 4, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Todd: The Oracle.
May 4, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee you had to come up with something after Hillary's filly meme went kaput.
May 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
From present:
Glad Obama FINALLY did something
that economists find credible.
They sneered at his social security "reform,"
his "economic reform," and health plan,
calling it Republican.
This is laughably lame.
May 4, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except it is the truth.
May 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you agreeing the gas tax holiday is crap, then?
May 4, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly, if the definition of "ecomonomists" is "Paul Krugman".
Your candidate is on the wrong side of this issue, gotalife. No amount of parsing, twisting, pandering, or misdirection is going to change that.
You can shout all you want about how this is going to help working class voters, but the reality is, it's not. It's going to harm them, and harm all of us.
Second, it's not ever going to get enacted by Congress. Ever. So your candidate is pushing the wrong issue, is on the wrong side of that issue, and knows that nothing is ever going to come of it.
Shameful pandering.
May 4, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul Krugman is a great econommist, but he cannot touch Nobel laureate, Obama-endorser Stiglitz, who chaired Clinton's President's Council of Economic Advisors.
May 4, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clintons?
:)
May 4, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
To give Krugman some credit, even he has come out strongly against the gas tax plan:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-follies/
May 4, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman gets a lot of credit for a lot of things.
This election cycle? He has spent considerable column space attacking Obama, criticizing his policies, and talking about how dreadful the Republicans are going to be. That's all fine.
What he hasn't done, in my opinion, is apply the same standard of analysis to the Clinton campaign. He supports her proposals (except this one, of course) but never really addresses the fact that those good proposals will mean nothing unless she's elected. And he seems to be of the mind that the Republican attacks on Clinton are not an issue. It seems extremely strange, to me.
Blind spot in his analysis.
May 4, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100%. I respected Krugman and his opinions before he began his tirade against Obama. To witness his normally insightful commentary devolve into an embittered partisan attack has been a sad and mysterious spectacle during this nomination process.
May 4, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, Krugman has been as tough with Clinton as he has with Obama.
The fact is, Obama's policies are to the right of Clintons. Should he lie and say differently?
May 4, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't argue with his criticisms of where Obama falls, relative to Clinton, ir with his criticisms of Obama's proposal.
It's his political analysis that seems skewed. He emphasizes the vast right wing conspiracy that Obama is going to face. The terrible awful Republicans Obama is going to face. But he never comments on the fact that Clinton is, if the nominee, going to face the same series of attacks.
This lack of discussion makes me think that he believes the Clinton campaign's argument: that the Republicans and the press are going to be easier on her than they would on Obama because, in Clinton's world, all that stuff is in the past.
This is, I think, his blind spot when it comes to political analysis.
Analysis of economic proposals? I have no problems with him. Analysis of political issues? He's got a blind spot right now.
May 4, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just him, either. I've really been appalled at any number of people I once admired.
This primary has been really good for disillusioning me altogether about a number of people.
I'm still in shock over Sid Blumenthal.
Dirty tricks, Sid? What. The. Fuck?
May 4, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except it's not the whole truth. Using the word "Economists" means nothing. There are economists who have criticized his plans and there are economists who have praised them. Same with Hillary, McCain and anyone else who has ever run for anything in the last 200 years.
What you did was dishonest because you implied that economists as a group have dismissed him. That's false. The fact is you'll have a much easier time finding economists who praise any of his plans than those who will praise Hillary's gas tax pandering.
But I'm glad you agree she's full of shit on this gas thing. And I'm proud of you for admitting it.
May 4, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voting present again, I see?
May 4, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's to notgotnoreasontokeeppostingbutstilldoes goatlive.
May 4, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is universal healthcare "republican"? Clinton supporters have truly jumped the proverbial shark.
May 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
As support for the charge that the tax is a cynical political ploy, the Obama campaign might have also cited Hillary's inability, at Steph's town hall, to cite any economist who supports the proposal -- which, since she has economists on staff, is telling.
The gas tax thing is looking like another big blunder, since even if it pulls a couple of points in IN or NC, it cost her heavily in elite opinion that has so far given some credibility to her quixotic and overlong quest and hurt her really badly with enviros, a group that had largely been unable to identify a clear policy basis to favor one candidate or the other.
May 4, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
WENCH HILLARY WANTS TO MASSAGE ME IN OIL. WHO IS ME I TO DENY THE WENCH HER PLEASURE!
SLICK ME, HILLARY! THEN LET ME RIDE THE CHELLY SEA!
BRING BACK THE CORPORATE 1990S! PUMP AND DUMP STOCKS! PUMP THE PUMP GAS!
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
May 4, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your schtick cracks me up :)
May 4, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I just scroll down. There are only so many hours in the day.
May 4, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In one of the debates, Hillary Clinton promised to put a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, and to spend that tax on developing alternative clean renewable energy.
Now Hillary is going to spend that same windfall tax revenue to pay for the loss of revenues in the highways and bridges funding.
So, far Hillary has now promised to spend the windfall profits on two different things. That is one hell of trick. Hillary should teach all those struggling working class people how to spend their wages at twice the rate that they get paid. That would solve all their problems.
Breaking:
New book deal for Senator Clinton
Title: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP THINKING AND LOVE FUZZY MATH.
By: HILLARY DOUBLE SPENDER CLINTON.
May 4, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will someone please explain to me why we are even talking about this? Whoever the next POTUS is, they will not even be elected in time to do anything about this summer!
And I'm willing to bet that by the time they are in office (in the dead of winter in 2009), we will be pining for these "high" gas prices.
May 4, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC introduced a gas tax holiday bill on Friday. Her position is that she can get it passed this month. It's another blatant lie because Pelosi and other House Dems came out on Thursday and said the bill is "DOA" and it won't come up for a vote.
As a side note, she is directly following Rove's advice on this one. He recommended in his "advice to Obama" column that O introduce legislation during the primary campaign to show that he is the "action" candidate.
May 4, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And George W. Bush will never sign a bill that taxes Cheney's Energy Cabal.
May 4, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That fits Hillary's narrative of not actually enacting meaningful change but of being this "fighter" who keeps getting beaten down by the Republicans and the activists and the intellectuals and the special interests but she keeps getting up because she's in it for you normal working class folks. Lot easier to say something like, "well, when I promised new jobs in upstate New York, I thought Al Gore was going to be president" than to actually create jobs in spite of unfavorable circumstances.
I don't think it's hard to imagine that if she were President, she'd have that Bush view of herself as being some sea captain trying to stay the course even as the storm (public opinion, expert opinion, fellow politicians' opinion, etc.) rages. She treats dissenting opinions as a nuisance and scores most of her political points by fostering this "Us vs. Them" mentality among voters.
May 4, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I'm surprised Obama hasn't pointed out that she never takes responsibility (a la Bush). It's a surefire winner and it does go to his theme that the red vs. blue grandstanding does nothing but allow politicians cover to blame their failures on the big bad other side (as she vocally did with healthcare).
May 4, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely stated.
I was never for Hillary in this election because I am against dynasty rule in America. I was concerned when she was the "inevitable" candidate. When Obama made a credible run, however, I really saw a side of Hillary that was unexpected. She used to strike me as the typical type-A personality and not particularly skilled in the art of politics (she is too impatient, like many type-A's).
But during this campaign run, I really have seen an odious person, one who's demons have come to the fore -- which is why I think we keep hearing these things about "being a fighter".
And you are correct, this is exactly the type of personality we don't need at the helm of state -- where her demons can become the country's as well!
May 4, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting.
To me, this comment exhibits the internalization of the Bush admin's efforts to rule us by fear-mongering since 9/11. That's because it is an emotional (read: irrational) comment, not a fact-based (read: rational) one. If Clinton's "demons" are so out of control, they would have revealed themselves to terrorize New Yorkers since she assumed her Senate seat in 2000.
The reality is, Clinton's demons (whatever they may be, and we all have "demons") have not terrorized New Yorkers. Like it or not, she won her second term by 67%.
Go ahead and criticize Clinton's style, her policies, her campaign strategy, but see if you can do so with actual facts. If that's not possible to do, then there's a problem with your argument.
Meanwhile, unless you're Clinton's therapist, talking about her "demons" is just self-indulgent and sloppy. And I'm being charitable.
May 4, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of her "demons" she has revealed herself to be a lot sleazier than many of her supporters, especially in the African-American community, ever dreamed. And I'll bet you anything she's not going to get anywhere near 67% ever again in NY.
May 4, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but NYers love sleaze. LOVE it! Remember, we have Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Leona Helmsley, Bernard Kerik . . . hell, the list is endless! New York is outsleazed only by New Jersey.
May 5, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Disagree, rtbag:
Hillary has never had to run a campaign before. When she showed up in NY in 2000, the State Dems basically cleared a path for her -- until then there was going to be a real primary, with a woman (not HRC) even in the running. She then ran against Rudy, who had to drop out at a critical time a few months before the election. Polls at the time indicated that things might have been closing in.
Then Hillary ran as an incumbent. That's a pretty easy path to reelection especially if you brought your state enough bacon.
Then she was supposed to waltz into the national ticket slot -- inevitable. Until IA that is.
The fact is you should go back and reexamine the health care debacle of the 90's. Many of the traits Hillary now displays were also evident then. Only now we know that this is her style. This is, of course, where she picked up her reputation at "being difficult". She worked damned hard in the Senate to disprove this -- mostly be being cozy with the existing power structure. That isn't the mark of a fighter.
We are all human and have flaws... but we all don't have demons. If you want to see a president with demons, go back to Richard Nixon. Here is a truly brilliant guy, who was an exceptional president in many ways, who was paranoid and so used (read "abused") the instruments of government to assuage his paranoia. The country doesn't need to suffer that type of behavior again.
The fact is: when Hillary doesn't get her way, all of a sudden we see a very scary person. She cakewalked from First Lady to Iowa... and as soon as the going got tough, we saw a whole new person. This is the reason you find many people saying they regret their earlier feelings about her.
May 4, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS... Nixon's tapes keep coming up with the words "I'm not a quitter"... this really does remind me of Hillary and "I'm a fighter". There is an internal dialog going on that scares me. Not that I would vote for her otherwise -- as I said, I'm very much against dynasty rule, it's bad for the country -- but it does show me that she isn't really emotional equipped for the job.
If you want it stated another way: people on TPM keep bringing up McCain's temper. So it is with Hillary's demon in this area.
May 4, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put, CT!
May 4, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you know more about Obama than you do about Clinton, clearthinker. See my rebuttal to your extremely weak argument.
May 5, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lame! You haven't provided a single fact, clearthinker! And because you speak with such unearned authority, I'm going to take you to task for it.
False. Look it up.
You're insane. State Dems wanted to win against Giuliani, so Charlie Rangel did urge Hillary to run for the seat. It worked out for the State Dems because Hillary had the star power to match Giuliani's. From Wiki:
However, Hillary's press reception in NY was rather chilly. Much was made of her middle name: Carpetbagger. Go ahead, Google "Hillary" and "carpetbagger" and see what you get.
Bunk. It is true that Giuliani dropped out of the race.
Wow! A sort of true statement! I'll give you this one.
You don't know anything about NY politics! It's brutal. A blood sport. And because all national news media are located in NY, there's lots of competition to sell news, lots of local reporters covering the political beat, lots of support staff to help dig dirt. NY politics is where "fighter" comes from.
Congratulations, clearthinker, you've got the standard MSM line down. I'm not psychic myself, so I don't happen to know what was in Hillary's mind about her chances at the time. It is undeniably true that when you are a former First Lady, you tend to have excellent name recognition across the country. Hence, you tend to do very well in the earliest polls.
It's true. I should. That way I can debunk all those myths and misstatements too.
Um, you haven't identified any traits. Next!
Wrong again!
You know where her "difficult" (as you call it) reputation came from? On the 1992 campaign trail, when reporters realized she would be the first First Lady to have her own stand-alone career, separate from her husband's. Being the type of person you are, you probably don't remember the importance of that. The press tried to smear Hillary for saying, "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies." That was before Bill was elected, and hence, before "Hillarycare." Look it up.
At least you admit she worked damn hard at something.
Anyway, she's considered a work horse in the Senate, not a show horse (like McCain). Look that up too if you don't believe me.
Again, you've provided no definition of "demons." Certainly your idea of demons are not mine.
Much literature has been written about the human condition. I think I'll go with the canon on this if you don't mind.
I know all about Nixon. I lived through him too. Hillary is not Nixon. They are two separate people.
Sorry, I can't debunk this claim because no facts have been presented, no terms have been defined, no proof has been provided.
I'll assume you mean she was simply handed a Senate seat after she left the WH. Again, this is false.
Wanna add up your score?
May 5, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Polls: Race tightening in North Carolina
Posted: 5/4/08 12:45 PM ET
A new CNN 'Poll of Polls' shows Obama gaining in North Carolina.
(CNN) — It appears the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination is tightening up in North Carolina.
A new CNN poll of polls released Sunday suggests Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has the support of 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in North Carolina, with 42 percent backing Senator Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and 8 percent still undecided.
This eight point Obama margin is down from a nine point lead Obama held in Saturday’s CNN poll of polls and down from his recent double digit lead in the state.
187 delegates are up for grabs when North Carolina and Indiana hold primaries on Tuesday.
The CNN poll of polls is an average of the latest surveys in the state.
May 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, how did you like Friday's Randi Rhodes show on Air America?
May 4, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poll of polls?
I'm confused. CNN is saying two thing.
1) Polls: Race tightening in North Carolina
and
2) A new CNN 'Poll of Polls' shows Obama gaining in North Carolina.
Sounds like you're writing their copy now Otto. Taling out of both sides of their ass.
LOL
I bet they mean the newest polls must show him improving, but their pol of polls still shows it as tighter since they include previous polls.
Such professionalism at CNN.
May 4, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's gas tax holiday proposal is in the main no different than the predatory lending scam.
Both are bait and switches, both prey on working people's need to save money, both employ illusory promises.
I wish Obama would make this argument. He IS arguing that oil companies would raise prices and there'd be no actual savings at the pump. But IMO, he should tie that in with the predatory lending scam to show that in both cases the "haves," duped/are duping the "have nots" with the lure of saving money while hiding the big picture truth.
The lenders made money, but their scam resulted in economic turmoil. Clinton will get votes, but the end result will be divisiveness and more gridlock. Both involve deception and cheating.
And both scams are dishonest and elitist. The mutual mantra: Dupe 'em, take 'em, move on.
IMO, Obama should be talking to voters on this level. He IS calling Clinton's plan a "shell game." But why not also show voters that it's the same kind of shell game the predatory lenders ran on them. No one's unclear on how rotten that one was.
May 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right in the full analysis of the problem, but the message "It's a political pander that won't help you" seems to be damaging enough, and can also be fit in a short spot to good effect.
May 4, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Hillary does introduce a bill for a gas tax holiday. Because it will make every house and senate superdelgate super pissed-off when they have to vote against it and she has handed their Republican opponents a ready-made attack to use against them in the fall.
May 4, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
She did and from the response, SDs that are House members are pissed.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gas-tax-holiday-is-doa-2008-05-01.html
May 4, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
wasn't she brilliant in not only taking McSame's idiotic plan, but then using it as a weapon against SUPERDELEGATE members of congress?
So wise. So experienced. Isn't she amaaaaaaaaazing?
May 4, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No vote needed: it'll die a quiet death in committee, unless she's stupid enough to offer it as a floor amendment.
May 4, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah the Obama SD's are spineless dems and they are going to have to stand with her or propose something else.
Doing nothing as usual is not going to work.
May 4, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spineless for not bowing to the queen b?
HA!
They are saying NO to the Clinton machine, the DLC and the Liebercrat wing of the Democratic party.
It's that wing that lost the congress, the presidency in 2000 & 2004.
Telling them to fuck off is called courage.
May 4, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is called leadership and trying to get these spineless dems to do something.
Obama leads by doing nothing.
Business as usual.
May 4, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whiner.
May 4, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is a fighter not a whiner like Obama supporters.
May 4, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elitist.
May 4, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Gotalife -- answer this for me, because I know that no Stephanopoulas will ever ask it:
It is Day I: What is Hillary planning to do?
May 4, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just the same old Goatshite droppings!!!
May 4, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was expecting HRC's campaign to put out that specious argument. Telling that instead, they are mum.
Face it, this was a bad move. Plays into Obama's strength (candor) and HRC's weakness (say anything/liar). Plus, there's the added benefit of showing that her fabled expertise on the economy and at manipulating the levers of power is nonsense. I'm baffled that her campaign did this and if I were a supporter of hers I would be fuming.
May 4, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were a supporter, I'd be fuming, as well. This stupid maneuver might get her votes in Indiana and North Carolina, but they probably won't be enough to change the overall dynamic of the race at this point. So some small gains, maybe.
On the other hand, this stutnt will anger the "undecided/undeclared" or whatever name they're going by, because of the problems it may create for them, because it's such obvious pandering and because she used, incomprehensibly to me, Bush language to shape the debate (with us or against us).
Lastly, this casts some real doubt on the image of Hillary as the wonk expert who will roll up her sleeves and solve our economic problems.
Small gains, bigger downsides.
Who's ready on day 1?
(sorry for that last snottiness. Couldn't resist).
May 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doing nothing is usually preferable to doing the wrong thing.
Like Iraq. Doing nothing would have been better than what we have now. Like the Bush tax cuts for rich people. Doing nothing would have left us with less debt and the rich people would have never missed the extra bucks in the first place.
In the case of Hillary's "tax holiday", doing nothing is better than doing something that 1)might not put any money back into consumers' pockets at all; 2)if it does put money back into consumers' pockets, it will be no more than an average of something like $50 spread over three months...gee, it's like getting 3 free McDonald's Value Meals each month!!!! I know that's really gonna help me out with the extra $100 I'm spending on gas every month...3)it gives a bigger break to people who drive the least fuel efficient vehicles - you know, the ones that have driven up demand through wasting fuel in SUVs, trucks, and cars a lot bigger than they really need - and have played a significant role in driving prices up for all of us.
It's a stupid idea. And in the vast majority of cases, doing the stupid thing is not better than doing nothing at all.
May 4, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - all I want Commander CooCoo do be doing these days is riding his damn bike - I don't want him talking to anybody, I don't want him to do shit - just don't touch anything else, George.
Doing nothing is often the best choice. You are so right.
May 4, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
More of the same old Goatshite droppings!!!
May 4, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why Hillary is now turning off many feminists.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/betsyreed/print
The Nation.
*
* The Nation
* US Politics & Government
* Hillary Clinton
Race to the Bottom
By Betsy Reed
This article appeared in the May 19, 2008 edition of The Nation.
May 1, 2008
May 4, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pandering pantsuit.
May 4, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
A campaign of guns, tax cuts and obliteration of our enemies.
May 4, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 4 Pres 08 Gallup:
Obama 49%, Clinton 45%
So much for the 'wright' damage. He's rebounding nicely.
May 4, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better to compare:
May 4, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what amazes me about this? How could you change your mind at this point with all we know about all of them? Do people just tune in for 5 minutes a day to find out what they are supposed to think?
May 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No shit? Wow. Even better and quicker than I would have thought.
As continues: reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated.
May 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He will survive and be a stronger candidate as a result. The tide is turning.
NC by 15. IN by 4. Bring kleenex for gotalife and otto and that weird turky-creature.
May 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary took a shot at the gas tax holiday, because, let's be clear, she has no chance at the nomination. It's a hail Mary. I don't think though she realized the degree to which it would backfire. It was an interesting gambit, but it's been eviscerated, and given Obama a much needed diversion from his pastor problems.
It's almost like she's trying to end this thing quickly. She's given Obama lots of rope to hang her with.
May 4, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could almost understand it as a hail Mary, but to attack Dems in congress, side with mcsame and use the idiot in chief's "with us or against us" language?
Real Dems don't like that.
May 4, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all the crap Hillary has pulled I am honestly shocked that Obama is not winning by more.
Maybe that will be Hillary's next tactic? She'll say, "Look at all the BS I have said and done, and still he is not winning by very much! He is unelectable!"
May 4, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media doesn't report on it, that is why. Most of Obama's recent endorsements have mentioned her gas tax gimmick as one reason Hillary shouldn't be nominated, but for low-information voters all they hear 24/7 is Wright Wright Wright Bitter Bitter Wright.
If people were actually well-informed there would be no way in hell she'd still be in this race. The media has carried her entire campaign, which is why her complaining about the media is the most ridiculous thing.
May 4, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's where the media plays their "role" in her campaign.
May 4, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great Hillary. Democrats/Experts = Elitists, whereas McCain, Bush and the Republicans "get it" and are out to help out the average American:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/hillary-attacks-democrats-and-experts.html
Nice Hillary, way to be a Republican. I hope the voters take note of this before it is too late. I'd hate for her cynical pandering and playing voters for fools to pay off.
May 4, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whereas Obama has to transcend his race, Hillary has to transcend her gender. Her tough talk of late is an attempt to demonstrate her "testicular" fortitude. The whole "obliterate" Iran talk, the "us versus them", the Commander in Chief threshold, etc is all structured to sway the white male demographic that leans towards Obama. Just as there are people that won't vote for Obama because he's black, there are also people that won't vote for Hillary because she's female. We all laugh at her pant suits, but there's a reason why Hillary won't wear a dress, and I don't need to spell it out.
This isn't to excuse all this. I've found Hillary's campaign style to be downright sickening, but I also understand the hurdles she's seeking to overcome.
May 4, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't laugh at her pantsuits. I don't even notice them, truthfully.
But you're absolutely correct in pointing out that she has to transcend her gender. And Obama has to transcend his race.
Clinton, however, has chosen to use race as one of her tools to gain the nomination. Obama hasn't used gender.
And here everyone says that society is far more accepting of misogyny than it is racism. Interesting that neither of Clinton's opponents have stooped to using it.
The media? That's a different story.
May 4, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, similar to McCains's embracing of Bush, I can't help but feel that both of them (Hillary and McCain) in their need to be Presidential and in the hoopla of 9/11/Iraq, redefined themselves away from being the very things that would make them most electable now.
An argument for having principles and sticking with them.
May 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest difference between Hillary and McCain is that McCain has the guts to call himself a Republican!
May 4, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has the guts to call himself a Republican? Who cares? For many reasons, public perception probably positions McCain as dead center.
Are you experiencing any other long-term memory lapses, clearthinker? :-)
May 4, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last I checked, he was never affiliated with the Dems or Indies in a formal way.
And certainly in this election he is GOP all the way...
May 4, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is not GOP all the way, according to many GOPers, whose opinions should rate on this issue. That was their main critique of McCain as the GOP nominee for 2008.
My unstated point is that it doesn't matter what party label anyone calls themselves anymore. Michael Bloomberg was a Dem, then a Republican when he ran for NYC mayor, and now he's an Independent. Why should you care? Because Bloomberg's name is being floated as an Obama VP choice.
Better to use lowercase words like conservative, I think.
May 4, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does matter. Congress is parliamentary and there are very real legislative perks by being in the ruling party.
For example, in the House, all agenda's have to go through the Rules Committee, which is a group stacked very much in favor of the ruling party.
This is why it's important for an "independent" to clearly caucus with the Dems or the GOP.
May 4, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
As always, clearthinker, your presumption that I'm ignorant prevents you from understanding my point and hopelessly derails the conversation.
We're not in school. You are not my teacher. We are equals. I don't need a lesson in American government. You're an insufferable boor (and bore) when you do this.
I always begin a conversation by giving you (and others) the benefit of the doubt that you have a brain and a basic facility with the English language. I must remind myself to stop doing that in your case.
May 5, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her campaign, sickens and disgusts MANY longtime Dems.
To think I used to always apologize about her and Bill.
What a fool I was.
I'm sick and tired of the Clintons period.
May 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see that as overcoming hurdles.
My conservative Republican female boss just says Hillary wants to be a man and contrasts her with the more feminine Pelosi. Believe me she doesn't admire Pelosi on policy but she has more respect for Pelosi as a successful female politician.
Few women want to become men or to succeed by adopting the worst stereotypical characteristics of men. I don't want the first woman President to be hawking guns to my children or sending them off to war.
May 4, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam, thanks for the link. The Nation article by Reed is excellent...and should be sobering for the Clinton folks.
May 4, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate the use of the word "principles". It's one of those wishy-washy words that isn't very descriptive and is subject to redefinition based on the worldview of the person using it.
The only "principle" that should guide a politician is reason. That's why I support Obama. He's open to changing his mind about an issue when new facts emerge warranting a reevaluation.
A good example was this morning on MTP. Russert tried to play gotcha with Obama about his support for a gas tax holiday in Illinois. Russert quickled chimed in and said, "So it was a mistake, then". And Obama, rather than denying it admitted it was a mistake and he learned from it. Reason people. That's all we should ever expect from a politician.
May 4, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point, and am only arguing semantics, but I think it seemed reasonable to Hillary, in 2004 or whatever that, in order to be President, she would need to hawk it up in a big way.
Similarly, McCain, after 2000, must've felt overwhelmed by the realization that his style of politics wasn't "good enough," to be beat by a nobody who was willing to pander and kneecap.
Both made moves that should have put them in better positions to be President, judging by the climate. Both moves (seemingly) went against their previous judgments, principles, whatever.
Now, both moves are the very things that are going to deny them the Presidency. If Hillary had been more feminine, more dovish, she would be in better shape. If McCain has maintained his criticisms of Iraq, he'd be in better shape.
"To thine own self be true" may not always be reasonable in politics, but in this instance it would have served them both well.
Works out well for Obama though. Right on.
May 4, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
To thine own self be true.
Gore seemingly kept changing how he presented himself to the AMerican public. I say "seeming" because the press coverage and political commentary was execrable in 2000. (What's "execrable" exponentially? That's what we have now).
What was Kerry's self? Who knows? But one defining image is of him seeming to change his position.
I'd like politicians to be true to themselves. I don't know that they can, given the execrable coverage we receive. It seems that being true to oneself is a gamble. You might get clobbered before you can even get out of the starting gate. If you can make it past that part, though, it might keep you viable longer than changing yourself to be something you aren't.
(Sorry to all for the horseracing analogy. Yesterday's Kentucky Derby results are stuck in my mind. And not in a positive way.)
May 4, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly, I agree that being one's self has little to do with politics in general. I mean, politics sort of demands one be whatever they need.
I guess I'm mostly just marveling at the fact that McHillary changed their perception for this moment, only to find themselves, more or less, debating their own former opinions half the time.
What was Kerry's self, you ask? Who knows. I mean, I think we get a sense of it from him now, and it's a good persona for a Senator, but a President does seem to need to carry a stronger appearance of "self". Even if that appearance is total b.s.
Both Hillary and McCain have pretty much put that appearance in jeopardy by changing so drastically.
May 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I think there is a lot to the whole "authenticity" issue. Obama has stuck to his principles on a lot of things (not beating the drum for war in 2002 when it would have been easy to do as a prospective Senate candidate; not going for the easy out by disavowing his former pastor but rising above it with his Philly speech;not going for the easy kneecap of Clinton re: Bosnia in the ABC debate; not pandering on the gas tax; etc.). And he is being rewarded for it by voters in state after state.
Clinton dismissing his speeches as "just words" is a snotty way of avoiding the hard truth that many voters clearly respond to what they (accurately IMHO) perceive as his authentic, heartfelt sentiments on the stump.
2 books I read in the last couple years amplify this point -- Politics Lost by Joe Klein, and Political Brain by Drew Westen. I recommend them both. Klein shows how candidates perceived by voters as "authentic" flourish (esp. Reagan) and Westen shows, with much documentation as a psychologist, how voters respond emotionally to such candidates.
I don't doubt that many voters respond in an emotionally positive way to Clinton as well (my wife used to be one of them) but this latest pander on the gas tax strikes many as inauthentic. Guess we'll see how many voters and supers feel that way in the coming weeks. Emotion is a funny thing; it can work for you and against you...
May 4, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is time to focus again on the stupid Iraq War that Hillary and McCain helped create.
Things are falling apart again in Iraq. Baghdad has returned to being a violent hell hole. US Troops are dying their in growing numbers. Now we have the so called Sunni Awaking in Anbar province starting to fall apart. The Surge has not brought about a lasting peace. Here is the very latest Al Anbar, the place that Bush and McCain have been bragging about.
===================================================
Four US marines killed in Iraq blast
by Amal Jayasinghe Sun May 4, 8:01 AM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Insurgents blew up four US marines in Iraq's Anbar province, marking one of the deadliest attacks against US troops in the former Sunni rebel bastion in months, the military said on Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
In Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, at least 10 more people were killed in overnight clashes, security officials and medics said.
The marines died when their vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device on Friday, the US military said in a statement, without specifying the exact location of the attack.
The attack came 10 days after a similar ambush in the province in which two US marines were killed and three wounded.
Friday's attack brought to 1,290 the US military's losses in Anbar since the March 2003 invasion, according to independent website www.icasualties.org, closely trailing the 1,298 killed in the capital Baghdad.
Most of the US dead in Anbar, the biggest province in Iraq, have been due to roadside bombs.
The losses in Anbar make up nearly a third of the 4,071 US troops killed in the conflict so far.
The vast desert province that borders Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan was a key stronghold of the anti-US insurgency in the first years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.
May 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq has turned into the worst foreign policy adventure in U.S. history. Worse even then Vietnam.
And yet, I don't get the sense that there's any real, profound concern from the American electorate about it. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but people are more concerned about gas prices then they are about the living and dying happening everyday in Iraq.
May 4, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, sure. Gas prices are an issue in people's faces on a daily basis.
News about Iraq? It's barely reported, at all.
And furthermore, I think the electorate understands that nothing is going to happen wrt to Iraq until the incompetent loser currently in the White House leaves.
People would care about Iraq, if a) there was the possibility they'd have to go there b) if they had a family member affected by it and c) if the media quit cowering in the face of the Bush administration and demand to be allowed to cover it properly (funerals, Walter Reed, etc).
May 4, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media began their descent in the 1980s where the Reagan administration was never to let access to a war via the press again. Press-access is still considered one of the reasons why we lost in Vietnam.
But the real issue then (as now) is that there is no draft of the middle class. In fact, war protests for Vietnam begin around 1964, and you don't see real action until 1968. Then it was blamed on the Tet Offensive, but it's clear in retrospect that Tet was a propaganda victory, not a military one.
May 4, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies, the post above is mangled. My point is that I agree that the draft is what caused the protests in Vietnam and, if it existed, would similarly cause protests in the present.
May 4, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Jon Stewart made this point very well in his interview by Bill Moyers half a year ago. He said something to the effect of "You start a draft, and people will start caring about Iraq real fast."
May 4, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
O much worse.
We haven't reached the total casualty level yet, but hell, from a strategic standpoint Iraq is an unmitigated disaster.
There was at least some thinking behind Vietnam - wrong headed as it was.
There wasn't any thinking here. When Gore finally conceded, I turned to Mr. Tena and said: "I guess you know we're invading Iraq."
I knew he would - I knew he wanted to - I will say it has made Cheney and Bush I even more obscenely wealthy than they were.
May 4, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad dovetails nicely with Obama's comments in SF that low-income white voters vote against their economic interests. I wonder how Indiana voters will sort that one out.
It seems legally risky to choose an Exxon logo to represent Big Oil. I wonder if the campaign got permission to use the logo in such a deliberate manner? Hope so!
May 4, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oilbama is bought and paid for.
They are getting their money's worth.
Damn shame Americans can't see this reality because his kool aid is consuming their minds.
May 4, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just more Goatshite droppings. Just step over them folks.
May 4, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
RIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGHHHHT --- And WHO voted for this war? And WHO was against it?
May 4, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How come no one pays any attention to the fact that Hillary's proposal would save each struggling billionaire the same amount, as it would each struggling blue collar person.
Hillary feels all billionaires pain.
May 4, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm telling y'all - Obama's got his game on.
I love it.
May 4, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny!
You go girl!
Fo shizzle!
Off the chain!
May 4, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html
I have been patient, and willing to let this ride the course, but enough, she has to be stopped. She is destroying all the good will a lot of voters have had when casting their lot to Obama. He is not trying this backhanded crap. She is just obsessed with winning to the point of nothing and no one else.
May 4, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop whining.
Geez.
May 4, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The premise of that ad is so ridiculous that it should embarass the Obamites.
If the oil companies could simply raise the price whenever they felt like it we'd be paying $10 a gallon (like they do in some place in Europe) not $4. It is a competitive market largely governed by the oil producing countries willingness to increase or decrease supplies.
Totally bogus economics from Obama the Deceiver. Let's hope the residents there are not as dumb as the Obamites on this blog.
May 4, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
fogu2,
http://www.factcheck.org/gas_price_fixes_that_wont.html
Please read the above and reply with any new thoughts. :)
May 4, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trolls don't do facts and they also don't do thought.
;)
May 4, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny!
May 4, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Their premise is based on speculation, not facts. There is no guarantee that demand will increase or that gas supplies are maxed. And they don't take into account that and increased demand could be met with increase world oil production which would counter any price increase based on demand.
2. My quick read is that there analysis does not account for the $8.5 billion being replaced by the windfall profits tax.
In other word, they are either wrong on most accounts or just speculating on the markets behavior.
In other words, they are wrong.
May 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does your "analysis" include that there are fewer than 3 weeks to Memorial Day, and that George Bush will never sign, and will most likely veto any tax on oil companies? Anyone with half a brain (sorry -- I know you just have a tiny little chicken-brain) could see that.
And to this:
How about the experience of the past 50 years? That's a pretty good guarantee.
May 4, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
But like Obama trying to change the subject YOU haven't responded to the fact that premise for the ad is completely and totally bogus. Oil companies can't just raise prices whenever they feel like it. That is the ads claim. Market forces prevent that.
Obama thinks the voters are idiots. His deception and arrogant elitism is breathtaking.
May 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Charlottesville, Virginia. If I drive 2 hours north to DC, the gas is at least 30 cents higher than here. If I drive East to Richmond, Va, it is 10 cents higher.
Are you saying that the gas companies aren't doing that? Simply because they can? Then who is?
May 4, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have worked in the Oil business. You are incredibly naive.
There is a marginal amount of competition in certain local markets but the macro trend is to always set the price to what the market will bear. The market for gas is relatively inelastic, and the guys who run the oil companies know this. They aren't clawing at each other tooth and nail to reduce the price point for consumers.
The reality is that they go out of their way NOT to compete. When one company pushes the price upwards, do the other companies then lower theirs in order to kill the competition? No, they do the opposite, they raise the price as well.
May 4, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that were the case there would be a race to raise the price sky high. You're a fake. Market forces decide the price not some arbitrary decision to ask for more. Colusion and monopolistic accusations have been repeatedly refuted in court over and over after many many investigations.
Market force decide. You're a liar. Obama arrogantly assumes people are dumb.
Hussein must mean elitism because that is Obama's middle name.
May 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Collusion has been refuted by the courts over and over? Well I guess OJ didn't kill his wife either because the courts always reflect reality.
The truth is it is almost impossible to prove antitrust cases like this.
Reading your comments above about how you say "increased demand could be met with increase world oil production which would counter any price increase based on demand." It is obvious you are an idiot. We don't pump oil into our cars moron. The supply is fixed by the refining capacity. It takes years to build refineries, and thus the increased demand could not be met with an increase in oil production.
May 4, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Increased oil supplies has an immediate effect on gas prices. Always has, always will.
May 4, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Through magic!
May 4, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What increased oil supplies are you even talking about by the way? World oil production has pretty much leveled off in the past 3-4 years. At the extremely lucrative price of oil, you would think that oil production would be increasing regardless. Sadly, not the case.
An increase in oil production would lower gas prices only if the price per barrel of oil went down as well. No reason to believe it will, and no reason to believe the production of oil will increase.
May 4, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
GEEEEEEEEEEEZ!
There must have been a shit-load of gas supply before we invaded Iraq then, because it only cost me $25 to fill up my car.
May 4, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You an idiot. If gas was $10 we would find another energy source.
May 4, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Find? Find? Find a source. Europe hasn't. You don't think there are companies who would love to corner the market on a new source.
You're an idiot.
May 4, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not contributing to the conversation; you are ruining it with your "idiot" pronouncements.
Please. Do us all a favor. Take your stupid avatar and cross the road.
May 4, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
From CNN
The overall fundamentals still heavily favor Democrats, but the controversy over Wright is a source of significant Democratic angst.
In the words of Republican pollster Whit Ayres: "Blue-collar white voters are this year's soccer moms."
Ayres said that in recent days, "we've been doing a lot of focus groups with blue-collar whites in swing states. They're open to voting for Hillary Clinton because they think they did better economically in the Clinton administration than they have in the current administration.
"But there's no way on God's green Earth they're going to vote for Barack Obama. They will vote for John McCain instead. So reaching out to those people we used to call Reagan Democrats is a very smart strategy for John McCain."
Now, Ayres is a Republican with a bias, and Obama has time to repair the damage should he emerge as the Democratic nominee.
But the remarks of many Democrats privately are not that far off from what Ayres says publicly about his findings from recent focus groups.
"Jeremiah Wright is not going away," Ayres said. "There are an awful lot of people, when you just ask, 'What do you think of when you think of Barack Obama?' who bring up Jeremiah Wright's name. They bring up the anti-Americanism. They wonder why it took him so long to separate himself from him. Jeremiah Wright is an albatross around Barack Obama's neck that he's going to have to carry all the way to the election."
Asked about his research, Ayres describes the recent groups as "blue-collar white voters. Democrats and Republicans. More Republican than Democrat but they cross party lines."
If he is right about this next part, it would explain why many Republicans who began the year believing Clinton had high negatives, and that Obama's inspirational message of hope and change would be harder to beat, are suggesting that they would rather run against Obama because of the Electoral College map that dictates presidential campaign strategy.
Ayres said of white blue-collar voters, "They've picked up on a lot of this stuff. And they, they don't believe that Barack Obama has the same cultural outlook on the world and on America that they do. They know that, and they don't like it."
May 4, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, tell me again what Randi Rhodes was saying on Air America on Friday? You never responded before.
And nice touch quoting a Republican operative about how Democratic voters feel.
It's the same sort of sharp political analysis that brought the Republicans those victories in the special elections in Illinois and Lousiana.
Oh. Wait.
May 4, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You trust that guy? His last name is Ayres. He's obviously a terrorist.
May 4, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, even a radical thinks he is too radical.
Wow.
May 4, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just the usual Goatshite droppings. Just step around them folks.
May 4, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife -- Pretty funny. (Oh, and sorry about that new CBS poll.)
May 4, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
this year's soccer moms?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Please give me a break. Please.
I could give 75 reasons why this is the single stupidest analogy of all time but I'll just say this - comparing blue collar workers with latte drinking suv driving yuppie mothers?
Really and truly - that's the comparison?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 4, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto: The blue collar area I live in support Obama, because they feel he cares about them. No other candidate is coming across that way, other than talking points to win, not to help people. I don't know who these pundits are interviewing, but the average Joe/Joan know honesty and that will prevail in the end, I believe.
May 4, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife: This comment from a guy with a chicken on his head.
May 4, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has the chicken.
Obama IS the chicken.
May 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, have you looked in the mirror latelY? I didn't think so.
May 4, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/top-10-inducements-to-vote-for-hillary.html
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Top 10 Inducements to Vote For Hillary (For Letterman)
The Chicago Tribune's blog "The Swamp" has called for suggestions for the "Top 10" list for Hillary Clinton's upcoming Letterman appearance.
Happy to oblige:
Top 10 Inducements From the Clinton Camp To Vote for Hillary
10. All future Hoosiers, Tar Heels teams can draft players from the NBA
9. Will sell Guam to pay for "Gas Tax Holiday"
8. Will not laugh.
7. Promises to use only one personality throughout first 100 days of Presidency
6. Husband will be limited to "low traffic" zones of White House
5. Will hold Inaugural Ball in Smiley's Pub, Allentown, PA.
4. Free rides on Mark Penn
3. Will provide personal armed one-woman security detail through any combat zone
2. New shampoo: No More Tears
And the number 1 inducement to vote for Hillary Clinton:
1: (Today's) New National Bird: Barbeque.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/top-10-inducements-to-vote-for-hillary.html
May 4, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife: I must commend you.
When I need some humor in my day, I search for your comments.
Thank You, for your humor.
By the way, shy isn't Wlick Willy talking about this gas tax cut?
May 4, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
meant to say, Why isnt Slick Willy.
May 4, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are talking about President Clinton, he is talking to rural NC with 9 stops tomorrow.
A secret weapon to win NC Tuesday by 2.
May 4, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
4. Free rides on Mark Penn
Uhhhh---that kind of depends on the meaning of "on". I have a feeling it is not related to the gas tax holiday.
May 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read the latest quote from one Clinton's economic advisor who said her statement on ABC was "politics as usual". They ought to make an updated ad using that.
"Even her own economic advisors calls Clinton's stand 'politics as usual'".
May 4, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
It's nothing more than "20 acres and a government mule."
May 4, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny!
May 4, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only gas tax abatement that would pass...would be a suppository in Slick Willys Butt.
May 4, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
Since Nancy Pelosi already said last week - NO. I can't believe Hill is still out there feverishly flogging this really truly dead horse.
May 4, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psst...Tena... Pelosi is part of the anti-Clinton conspiracy (pick a wing).
May 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psst - so am I so I'm glad I'm in good company.
May 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing Hill is doing on this gotalife is passing gas!
May 4, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel about Hillary the way I feel about door-to-door salespeople. I want to say 'I've said I'm not interested in what you are selling. Now please just go away and leave me alone.'
I'd venture to guess others feel that way too.
May 4, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Pee Wee Herman does. Feel better?
May 4, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and by the way: Do you realize that 20% of earmarks are in the highway bills? Take that Hill and your 2 plus billion earmarks for NY...
Which ear are you cutting off to fund your earmarks to NY?
May 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thomas Edsall on Hillary's Nuclear Option
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html
She will be taking this court before it's over.
May 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well she's 89 times a fool then, if she is going back to the Senate.
I really don't think she'll do that. She's mad as a hatter, but she also knows politics and she can't do that and stay a Democrat.
Have y'all seen this on the front page? I was drinking some iced tea when I read it and I had to clean up where I spit it out.
May 4, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may well be my favorite Hillary line of all time:
roflmao
May 4, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having a hard time telling if she's running as Nixon, Reagan, Harding, Coolidge or Hoover.
May 4, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh we saw who she threw her lot in with, and he cost her the election.
Who will tell Bubbuh Emeritus that it's over?
May 4, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
First time I've heard the term "economists" said with disdain. Like it's their fault her plan sucks.
May 4, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that makes 2 candidates that don't know shit about the economy (McWar and Clinton). Jesus, how fucking stupid is she becoming? I too spit out my drink when I read that shit on the main TPM page. She has gone absolutely batshit crazy! ;)
May 4, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more important question is. Who in the Democratic party believes what she and/or her campaign says. They are already out of out of money, gas, ideas, veracity and credibility (other than gotalife of course).
May 4, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my question is - what do you mean by Democratic Party?
Are you asking who in the hierarchy believes her campaign or just Democrats in general?
Well considering that she's so far pissed off: red state Democrats, purple state Democrats, small state Democrats, Democratic activists, most every African American voter and now I read - some feminists are turning on her, that's a good question.
I think her base is down to elderly Democrats. She does great with elder white Democrats. I know she is holding her place with most Latinos, too, but I think they'll vote for the nominee.
Along those lines, I think Bill Richardson would make a great running mate - but I want Obama's people to be careful. I've heard he has more in common with Bill Clinton than just the first name.
May 4, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope he continues turning the page with his Veep. He has plenty of cabinet space to fill up with the Wise Elders. Kathleen Sebelius would be a brilliant choice, for example. Someone fresh and exciting, and part of the New.
I've seen Wes Clark's name come up....yeesh, too much a symbol of war, of the past. Jim Webb needs to stay in the Senate because VA will not select a dem replacement. In another Era, both would make excellent veeps.
Aye, Bill Richardson has a touch of the Roman Fingers and Russian Hands. There's probably a place for him somewhere though.
Pax,
M.
May 4, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually prefer a woman and if Bill Richardson gets a nice cabinet berth - all the better.
May 4, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how much Big Oil is giving Oilbama for his hysterical attack on Hillary's proposal to windfall profit tax Big Oil?
Of course I am sure Oilbama has been paid off handsomely for his support of Dick Cheney's Big Oil Energy Bill. Oilbama represents Chicago, Where are there Oil companies, Oil fields, or Oil refineries in Illinois? Why wwould he vote with Cheney for Big Oil unless he is getting money???
May 4, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doubtless for the sole purpose of feeding your loony conspiracy theories. Nothing else matters.
May 4, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has his own windfall tax plan, so none.
May 4, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off-topic moment from HuffPo:
"With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an estimate.
Spokesmen for the Obama campaign declined to discuss their strategies for dealing with the May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, or to speculate on what they think the Clinton forces with try to do."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html
May 31st meeting. The day after the Kentucky primary. IF it is a blowout for Clinton the committee would, should and will seat the FL and MI delegates as voted.
May 4, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope she knows she'll be nuking the party.
And I know you want her to, not because you support her because you don't.
You're just a troll - possibly and probably a wingertroll, which means you'll be here trolling for McCain all through the whole damn thing.
She won't do this. She wants to go back to the Senate and she won't do this.
May 4, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that hurts my feelings.
How would you like it if I called you a lawyer.
May 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since it's true, I take it that you are admitting you're a troll.
May 4, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny!
Did you wear pantsuits in court?
May 4, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I almost forgot. Rezko is testifying this week. Expect a reappearance in the MSM.
May 4, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, not only will Clinton have the delegate lead, she'll have the popular vote lead too.
It's over indeed...for Obama
May 4, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a great day for Democracy.
Let the American people votes count.
May 4, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the small states; they don't count. Oh! And except for the caucus states; they don't count! Oh! and Except for the previously red states; they don't count!
The only states that count are the ones that Hillary won, even though she flip flopped on her agreement not to seat the Michgan and Florida voters [because back then she was inevitable and so, screw them! she didn't need them]
May 4, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the rate the Clintons are burning through cash, I doubt they have enough attorneys willing to take this (Nooklear Option) on. And when did Hillary; suddenly become an economic expert, when she can't even balance her own campaign checkbook?
May 4, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yah that's the other thing.
They are already paying lawyers out the wazoo - There's a fund raising fraud suit against Bill on hold in LA - they don't have any money to take this thing any further at all. And how many times can you tap your friends for a legal fund?
It's over.
I think she'll announce sooner rather than later. I just have a feeling -
May 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another $50 to Hillary.
May 4, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that'll buy them 8 minutes of a $400 an hour lawyer's time.
Good going, Mike the Headless Chicken!
May 4, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are awful close to the $2300. Be careful now.
May 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aye, Indiana is not going to be nice to Sen Clinton.
May 4, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
With her own personal funds, there's plenty of Clinton money for frivolous lawsuits.
But, I'm sure they'll happily accept fogu2's profligate contribution.
May 4, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Hillaries spiritul Advisor would say:
So?
May 4, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'd give for a reaction from Paul Krugman.
May 4, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta know one of them was him. But I sure wish I knew -
I'd love to hear that, too, since I'm now quite sure he's as big a hypocrite as Sid Blumenthal, dirty trickster.
May 4, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oilbama alleges it is all smoke and mirrors and a political trick to shave the federal tax on gas. He again sounds like the elitist he most certainly is. He can't bring himself down to a level where he can see that there are folks who drive old cars because they can't afford new ones, who are compelled to get around in gas guzzlers and in some instances have wheelchair vans and when you drive one you can hear the sucking noise from all the gas it uses for which there is no choice if you are in a wheelchair and then there is the really big savings that a federal tax holiday translates into for truckers - who also have no choice. They won't save a small amount for gas, they'll save hundreds of dollars and the industry will save billions with a tax holiday. And that will also translate into a savings for consumers because higher pump prices are always reflected in higher cost for those goods transported in those trucks. But just like Obama opposed giving money to stimulate the economy because he can't bring himself down below the clouds. Remember he is a politician who has a net worth in the millions and lives in a $1.6 million dollar mansion which is not too shabby for someone who is a freshmen U.S. Senator and was in the Illinois legislature only a short time (a politician who gave favors and got favors). He also opposes insurance for everyone which under the Clinton plan would be mandated coverage for everyone. Oilbama is an elitist. Neocons are more liberal than Obama - which is the problem with much of the left today. They are less liberal than the neocons, who they so despise for advocating a strong defense, and many of the "politically correct" liberal left are also elitists because they would have to be to support Barack Hussain Oilbama.
May 4, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh boo-hoo, your issue is dead, dear. Stop beating the poor thing.
May 4, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read you first word, skipped down to the end. didn't bother to read.
May 4, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea is a bad one because the dollars lost during the 'holiday' is money taken from repairing the nation's infrastructure.
Forget for a moment that there will be jobs lost as a result of the 'holiday' ... think about how you would respond to someone who has lost a loved one in a bridge that has collapsed for lack of repair ... or what do you say to the hard working, bt struggling working family who have to figure out how to pay for front end work because again, the money, excuse me, the $30 the average driver pocketed was not spent on road repair.
In my day this kind of half-ass approach was called "nickle-slick" and some can probably remember when it was described as "penny-wise; pound foolish".
I'm empathize with you on your gas-guzzling dilemma, but I also shudder at the thought of your gas guzzler crushed by a collapsed bridge.
May 5, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how they will be able to do their so called conference calls, when they can't pay the phone bill?
May 4, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
After the federal election reports come out, the question will be; Where is the $10 million?
May 4, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife, this has gotta hurt:
"CBS Poll: Support For Obama Rebounds"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml
"He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent."
"Obama’s lead over Clinton has increased -- he now leads Clinton by twelve points, 50 percent to 38 percent. "
Ouch!
May 4, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elitism may also refer to situations in which an elite individual assumes special privileges and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity.
See Web's definition above. I love how people are trying to make this the new "bad", what a joke.
May 4, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually they are resurrecting an old bad.
This is an ancient smear on the left - we are intellectual elitists. This goes all the way back to Marx, Trotsky and Lenin.
May 4, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true Tena. I have read quite a bit of Russian history and that is exactly it.
May 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Elitist is the new Liberal. Maybe I need to enhance my handle: Kathleen Hussein Elitist in Maine.
May 4, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oo - it rhymes!
May 4, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, but does it make me look fat?
May 4, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me quote a recent post from the great Mark Kleiman:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/barack_obama_/2008/05/time_to_vote.php
Let's go folks.
You know how Washington works: Money matters most.
You want to win?
Me too:
Click to cast your vote.
Just do it.
And yeah verily: Yes we can.
May 4, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Already sent in my rebate, trxfer to Obama....I don't make much as a DAV...But it is a 100% donation!
May 4, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a great idea, and very generous of you!
May 4, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a great idea, and very generous of you!
May 4, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is for gotalife:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/80486/....Hillary
May 4, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh like they've repealed the laws of supply and demand just so that harpy and her hubby can get back into the WH?
Ain't rocket science. It's Econ 101.
Repeal the tax and the price will hardly budge because supply is very inelastic relative to demand (which isn't terribly elastic itself)
The price will go down less than the amount of the tax and the oil companies will pocket the difference...not to mention the hit your roads and bridges will take..
Not to worry. She can't even get her fellow democrats behind her.
But she's ready to lead from Day 1 dontcha know
Just not today you understand
May 4, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woah woah woah, that fancy "educated" talk is elitist! Just like those pesky Democrats and environmental groups and "experts"!
Don't you know that the people who support Hillary's gas tax plan are the same people fighting for the middle class and the poor against the evil rich people? People like Bush, McCain and the Republicans are the real working class heroes! According to Hillary they are:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/hillary-attacks-democrats-and-experts.html
May 4, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
With less than 48 hours on the clock!:
CBS News/New York Times poll points to a "rebound" for Obama:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml
May 4, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. I got me a basketball jones.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIbp5C-5WXM
May 4, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/mccain-calls-for-700-new_b_100053.html
OMG, McCain has gone bye-bye. From Huff Post.
May 4, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
BO STOP PUT up neg ads.. stop attach hillary clinton...that's not presidency for... b.o better comes up idea..not stolen idea from hillary clinton...she is very smart..intelligent..strong..a good fighter...not a person who spent 20years in that church
SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON
May 4, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh man, you have totally convinced me to vote for Hillary, because she's not a person who spent 20 years in that church! Do you think they'll let me declare residency in IN tomorrow so I can vote the next day?
May 4, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
me no lik HC
what lang we speek?
May 4, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
VOTE 2 MORE DAYS... I know 20 years with that rev jermith wright... called American "G.D AMERICAN" "chicken comes home to r. " and B.O called us "BITTER" CLING TO GUN
turn on FOXNEWS handity and colme to hear all about it..
FOXNEWS/CNN/MSNBC they all talked about how B.O friends with terriost...
our country not need to face this issue we all want peace and so..who is so strong and fighter against mccain not B.O he is not strong..he is hurting middle class working families here
May 4, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
FIRE.....BAD!!!
May 4, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
hee hee
May 4, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know someone who can help you get clean.
May 4, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is onlive now
here go here to watch ONLINE LIVE!
http://www.wishtv.com/
May 4, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
RIGHT NOW: CNN broadcasting live HRC and BO speeches at Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Indiana
May 4, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fox is carrying it live
May 4, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the difference between occasionally going to church 4 to 20 yrs and listening to drivel; and living with someone who told you 4 to 20 yrs.(suspension of belief) "I did not have intimate relations with someone"...It is a matter of belief or expedience. Given that...the next question must be, in their public (not pubic) judgements; who has been more circumspect in their statements or deeds.
May 4, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC gave a really good speech.
Does anyone know what time BO is scheduled to give his?
May 4, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike most of u I can't afford $30 a month to get cable (But I can to donate)...So please if u could, elaborate on what u r hering.
Thanks.
May 4, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
C-span is showing both speeches on the internets at 9:30. http://www.c-span.org/
May 4, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink