Yet Another Hillary Ad Hits Obama Over Gas Tax
Hillary goes up in Indiana and North Carolina with yet another negative spot hitting Obama for not supporting the gas tax holiday...
"Barack Obama wants you to keep paying; $8 billion in all," the ad's narrator says. "Hillary is the one who gets it."
It quotes a voter saying: "Hillary Clinton is the candidate that is going to fight for working people."
In purely political terms, Hillary's gas tax holiday has never really been about gas tax relief itself. Rather, it's real goal was to implicitly make the case -- by suggesting she would take some kind of action, however dubious on the merits -- that she's the candidate who's in touch with voters' economic distress.
Indeed, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin insisted recently that the campaign's internal polling showed that this message was getting through.
Separately, on the conference call earlier today, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson was asked if the campaign would continue hitting the gas tax theme. He said they would for the foreseeable future. So get ready for lots more of this.
Full ad script after the jump.
[Announcer]: What has happened to Barack Obama?
Woman: Right now we are living paycheck to paycheck.
[Announcer]: He is attacking Hillary's plan to give you a break on gas prices because he doesn't have one.
Man: The price of gas is going up.
Woman: It's hard to fill up the tank.
[Announcer]: Hillary wants the oil companies to pay for the gas tax this summer - so you don't have to.
[Announcer]: Barack Obama wants you to keep paying; $8 billion in all. Hillary is the one who gets it.
Man: Hillary Clinton is the candidate that is going to fight for working people.
I am Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.
Comments (153)
They painted themselves into this.
Obama and others have been hitting them on this.
Clinton has no choice but to go down with her stupid idea.
May 5, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another page out of the Karl Rove/George W. Bush playbook -- make the wrong choice and stick with it no matter the facts, no matter what.
May 5, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Live by the stupid, die by the stupid
May 5, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The four Nobel prize winners at the top of this petition of 221 economists who agree with Obama are further proof that Obama is an elitist.
http://gastax08.blogspot.com/2008/05/open-letter-from-economists-opposing.html
Thank God Hillary will never read that petition. Too much head, not enough heart. And facts have a well known Obama bias. Did you know there are more nerve endings in your gut than in your head? Look it up!
May 5, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice they don't address her excess or windfall profits tax on the revenue of the oil companies. I wonder why?
May 5, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think maybe they want to keep the government out of the oil companies' business? God knows, I'm not a nobel prize winning anything, but I find it really strange that they act like the oil companies would get to keep any profits they make by raising the price of gasoline. I'm no Nobel prize winner, but shouldn't they really say something like the oil companies will raise prices and make more profits and she'll tax those profits away and even more money will go into the highway fund? Worst case? And if they don't raise prices because she's just going to take that profit away anyway, well then the consumers do get some relief while the highway fund gets just as much money as it would have anyway.
May 5, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! I just looked at that list. Stiglitz and the Chicago School? You know who those guys are? They have a big time "market economy" bias.
May 5, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Brookings? Have they endorsed anyone? Aren't they pretty conservative?
May 5, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brookings is a center-left think tank. They don't endorse politicains.
Joe Stiglitz is a progressive. He wrote Globalization and Its Discontents, among other things. Not every single person associated with Chicago is a Friedmanite.
You don't really know what you're talking about on this one. I'd do some googling.
May 5, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I know a lot about what I'm talking about. Let's debate it if you feel up to it.
May 5, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meet me at my comment down thread.
May 5, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's because, oops, Hillary already promised to spend that windfall tax on alternative energy. Or perhaps it's because she's proposing the gas tax holiday for THIS summer and there is no way that the windfall tax will get past George Bush. So that money that is not going into the Highway Fund THIS summer causes NC alone to lose an estimated 7000 jobs, while we wait around for a new president who might sign the windfall tax proposal, but, by then the need will be greater as the infrastructure will be worse off from the neglect and the economy will be worse because of all those newly unemployed.
May 5, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if she's tying the holiday to the tax? What then, genius?
May 5, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then I suppose it wouldn't matter so much that it's a stupid idea that wouldn't work, since it would never pass and would never get signed. So I guess that would make it brilliant? Is that how it works, Einstein?
May 5, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way too negative, man. Of course it won't work if we don't support her. Nothing either of our candidates want to do can be done without our support. If we get behind her she can do this. Since when do Progressives take the side of the oil companies in a fight?
May 6, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is submitting a bill that will ask Iraq to become stable and violence free before Memorial Day. What? You don't think it happen? How negative. I guess you don't want peace in Iraq.
It's also about as realistic as Hillary's "bill" if it includes the windfall tax (it's not out on Thomas yet, but her rhetoric makes it sound like she'll worry about that part later) and about as realistic as her statement, "We won't let OPEC be a cartel anymore."
But the point is, throwing these bills out as an election eve gimick t(hat you know will not get passed) makes it HARDER to pursue these things in a measured, more cooperative, serious fashion--not that I think dismantling OPEC is a serious possibility, ever.
May 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe because the opinion on that is more varied, and they wanted to keep the message to a simple one everyone could agree on? My understanding is that a windfall profits tax doesn't necessarily get allocated to the highway fund, so maybe that's related, too; but I'm just guessing there.
May 5, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing the Congress can allocate the tax wherever they want to. The point is, leaving the windfall profits aspect out is misleading and they are doing that on purpose. They're not distinguishing between Clinton's proposal and McCain's. I wonder why.
May 5, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I don't. This is a snow job, and the sheeples are bleating.
May 5, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
hi workerbee,
can you clarify your comment? who are the sheep? i'm being serious here, and i'd love to hear your perspective. i haven't yet heard a viable argument in favor of this gas tax holiday, but if there is one that i'm blind to or haven't figured out yet, i want to know!
May 5, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good evening, ma'am.
The thing is, The current sitting president is against it. The think tanks are against it. Congress is against it, the MSM is against it.
So I think to myself, "self, the last time we saw an all out information blitz like this was over the war," and I think to myself, I was smarter than them.I marched against it and I was right.
I think Obama got it wrong on healthcare, so it wouldn't surprise me if he got it wrong here. (It won't stop me voting for him in November, but I might actually, physically, have to hold my nose.)
I see Exxon-Mobile broke another record with an 11 billion quarterly proifit, (not exactly widely reported, mind you) but those oil company friendly folks sure are yelling at Hillary for threatening them with a bat, and I says to myself, "self? She's taken a page out of John Edwards notebook, she's gonna use it on these obscene oil companies, and ain't it about fucking time someone did?"
Hillary's tax holiday ain't about the .18¢ a gallon. It's about a war tax. A historic tax we've always had in times of war to prevent profiteering and the appearance of the poor going off to fight for the interests of the rich. (Like we have now.)
It isn't much, nor is it enough, but it's a start.
That tax will pay for 3 months fed tax holiday for some folks I know that are hurting, and beyond.
I'd like to see it fund a new GI bill. And the VA.
If you tax the excess profits of the oil companies, they'll have no reason to raise prices. unless they feel a little guilty. I doubt that.
Am I arguing for a gas tax holiday? No, not really. I'm arguing for the excess (war) profits tax, which is historically and patriotically proper.
May 5, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aha! Thank you. That makes sense now. The gas tax holiday I still don't get, but I see your point now.
But my understanding is that Obama also favors a windfall profits tax (or is that not what you're talking about)? How is Clinton's plan different from Obama's in this regard? Or is it more that you don't think Obama will follow through?
Personally, I'd love to gas tax raised in some form -- whether at the pump or directly on oil company profits -- because I'm convinced that the only way we'll ever be able to revamp our infrastructure is if gas becomes expensive enough that it's in our national (and local) interest to do so. I think that gasoline, right now, is under-priced because there's no real economic cost associated with the environmental damage that gasoline production and consumption cause. In other words, that the reason US oil companies are so profitable is that we (as a country) have been artificially depressing gas prices for too long.
So, all that said, my assessment of Clinton's over-all plan is that prices at the pump would just rise back to customary rates (because the supply of gas is static in the near-term), and that an excess profit tax would return the $8-10 billion back to the government sometime next year. In which case, the net impact for consumers is nothing, the net impact for federal funding is a delay, and the net impact for oil companies is a short term loan. (And if, somehow, congress is able to pass an excess profit tax along with a gas tax holiday, then the result is a net impact of 0 across the board, except for the additional work required to change the tax system.)
I'm no economist, so please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points! And thanks for your thoughts, bee!
May 5, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the gas tax holiday gives her is a populist proposal to get her fight for an excess profits tax and greater transparency for the oil industry off the ground. She's using the holiday to marshall public opinion and frame the debate. Are you with the oil companies or the people? What I can't figure out is how Axelrod and Obama ended up on the other side of the argument. Bottom line. She said she'd take the oil companies on and she's doing it.
May 6, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why associate a serious goal--the windfall tax--with a pandering useless and discredited gimick--the gas tax holiday? Couldn't she just propose the windfall tax and still frame it as a fight against big oil without undermining her own effort by attaching it to a gimmick that everyone thinks is a dumb idea?
I know you desperately want to see this as a brilliant move on her part, but here's what it really is: a gimmick she thought would be easy points for her, and that she thought Obama would jump on the bandwagon for. Instead, he raised the discourse and counted on the American people to understand that "doing something" is not a good thing if that "something" is harmful and wasteful and pointless. Now she knows she's on the wrong side, but like George Bush, she doesn't know how to do anything but dig her heels in and say, "My voodoo economics will work and anything else is elitist."
May 6, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Hillary on this one. I just found out I need some transmission work on my car and I could really use that $8 billion.
May 5, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post, with this avatar, is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!
May 5, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad is just plain sad.
May 5, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, does anyone think that the DNC is going to give her the nomination after she's shown she can't beat an upstart Senator who had to build his organization from the ground up....
Does anyone really think the DNC will overturn the pledged delegate leader and vote to instill her on August 28, the 40th Anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream Speech"?
Anyone?
May 5, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Sound of crickets chirping drowns out the shrieks of gotalife, matt weaver, Richmond, otto, and others too numerous and sundry to name....)
May 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, 'I Have a Dream' was August 28, 1963..not 1968...lol But I still like your argument.
May 5, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is still the matter of a broken federal system. Obama's populist (and ergo legitimate) wave is about to hit a Federal wall that has been deaf to The People after three years of negative polling, and a sweep election in 2006, including many Democrats.
Watching the deep denial, I give it a solid 60% chance Sen Clinton will take this court before it's done, DNC be damned.
Pax,
M.
May 5, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really depends. I wish I had the certitude of this crowd, one way or the other. I do think that if the polls at the time of the Convention UNIFORMLY show that BO would lose to McCain by 15-20 points, there will be a crisis, and possibly a floor fight -- one that BOTH HRC and BO might lose. Ever wonder why John Edwards is on the sidelines? He is a plausible dark horse. I still think he is a great man, a great son of the South, and a great candidate. His wife is fantastic. Faced with very long odds, BO (being a politician) might opt out for the sake of "party unity' (a/k/a political survival in 2012). On the other hand, HRC's greatest strength (and one of the reasons she has such a devoted following) is her "true grit" (as Morning Joe puts it), and she will fight until the end. If the polls UNIFORMLY show her beating Sen. McCain by 15-20 (with BO losing by 15-20), she is a very strong contender, regardless of the pledged delegates (who can always change their mind).
I know that all of you folks have a crystal ball, and there is only one politician in it, but there are a few twists and turns left. All roads do not lead to BO.
May 5, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
All semblance of honesty and substance has been subsumed by political expedience in the Hillary campaign. Thank goodness I will never be forced to hold my nose and vote for this woman.
May 5, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This idea and the shrillness of its promotion are proof conclusive that the Clinton campaign is about one thing and one thing only - Hillary wants to be President so badly, she is not only willing to damage her political party but also the nation to get there.
I hope with all the hope I have that we never, ever see a Clinton or a Bush in the white House again. Both families have no respect for the USA, but they sure do for the power rush (and lining their pockets).
May 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In purely political terms, Hillary's gas tax holiday has never really been about gas tax relief itself. Rather, it's real goal was to implicitly make the case -- by suggesting she would take some kind of action, however dubious on the merits -- that she's the candidate who's in touch with voters' economic distress."
I'm sorry, but I don't get how you write paragraph without some kind of background. who said this? the clinton campaign?
seriously, I don't understand. I'm not a reporter, but how do you know this is the goal? and if it is, isn't this 'means-to-an-end' a bigger story than you're allowing here?
May 5, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, Eric - Obama picked up 2 more supers today. Any chance on getting a post about this?
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_picks_up_maryland_superd.html
I know you love to breathlessly post any kind of bullshit coming out of Garin's and Wolfson's asses, but this is news, don't you think? On the eve of the primaries in NC and Indiana he picks up 3 supers?????
May 5, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn you are fired up today, Carol. I am sensing that you are pretty much fed up.
The mere fact that someone with such a nice smile is so exercised just makes me realize how frigging ridiculous and desperate Hillary is sounding at this point, and how eager the MSM (and TPM it seems) is eager to keep the drama alive.
May 5, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am fired up. The coverage on this site for the past few weeks has been so one-sided and biased that it's disheartening. I mean, at least sites like TaylorMarsh and TalkLeft make no bones about their bias, and so I don't visit those sites. But here, it's more insidious - Greg and Eric just don't post stuff that they deem "unimportant", and so we have to ferret out the stuff ourselves. I have this extraordinarily heightened sense of "fairness" (I always have, ever since I was a child), and this just reeks of unfairness and imbalance. I feel the same way about the way Hillary has run her campaign - dirty pool has never sat well with me!
Don't you know, it's always the ones with the "nice smiles" that you gotta watch out for LOL!! ;)
May 5, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fired up! Ready to go!
May 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kill 'em with a smile, I say.
As far as TPM goes, I think they just fall prey to the same problem that afflicts the MSN, they want to be relevant, and covering a live story. If the news is that Obama has this thing sewn up, we can all turn off our laptops and go to the beach until September. This is self preservation at work, conscious or unconscious, the coverage will be slanted toward the dramatic.
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume it is unconscious, but we have to "call 'em as we see 'em".
May 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama thought the gas taxes were a good idea until he didn't think they were a good idea. Obama is out of touch with the working people who make this country run.
May 5, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOL! Obama voted for the gas tax holiday - and then came to the belief that it was the wrong thing to do because it WAS PROVEN THAT IT DIDN'T WORK!!! He actually learned from the past and took that experience to make his current judgment. How refreshing.
By the same token and to rebut your argument, Clinton opposed the gas tax holiday in 2000 (as did her husband, then President Clinton). They knew then that it wouldn't work - what changed her mind now? Why is she ignoring the advice of every economist on this issue? Shamless pandering, that's all it is - pure and simple.
May 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, Bob Dole ran against Bill with this stupid idea in 1996.
Bob Dole later dropped the idea when he revamped his economic platform.
Jeez, I wonder why.
Hillary dumber than Bob Dole.
May 5, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen. If you can show me that Bob Dole ever proposed a windfall or excess profits tax on the oil industry when he was running against Clinton, I'll yeild to your superior wisdom and I'll eat my words. If you can't show me that, eat yours!
May 5, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, not quite.
Obama thought they were a good idea until they were enacted in his home state and he witnessed first-hand that the consumer saw no reduction in price.
It's called learning from past mistakes. Something George Bush (and Hillary, apparently) equate with weakness or flip-flopping.
Please, sign me up for 4 more years of that!
May 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're too quick, Carol.
May 5, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, gotta stay on top of these things, ya know? ;)
May 5, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Obama witness a windfall or excess profits tax along with that gas tax holiday in his home state? Let's keep it apples to apples. You're a reasonable person. I know you wouldn't want to compare two proposals that weren't the same and say they were. Would you? Not even if it made Obama look right when he's wrong? I don't think you'll do that. Others around here might. But you don't argue that way. I know I'll get a square deal from you.
May 5, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, it ain't the normal working person. It's the congenital idiots that Obama is out of touch with. Only a congenital idiot would believe this moronic crap about a "gas tax" suspension.
Not only does the gas tax attract the morons, congenital idiots and total bozos, but it is a TOTAL INSULT. If you are not a moron, then here's my question: Why are you selling your vote for the price of a bag of potato chips? You must hate yourself to place such a ridiculous value on your vote.
if you want to buy my vote, it takes more than a bag of potato chips.
May 5, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is what the Oil companies say.
You sound juuust like them.
You wouldn't be a chump, though. Not you.
May 5, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
this could actually help hillary if the supers decide that ability to pander is the most important quality in a nominee. otherwise, not.
May 5, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you watch the replay of HRC and Wolfson's appearances on Morning Joe this morning, it's abundantly clear that their polling on this shows that it's still an issue that they think will compel some voters to their side, but also that Obama's counter advertising is working and working well.
Both went to great lengths to make a two-pronged argument:
1. This is a short-term stop-gap solution; Obama voted for it in IL, too!
2. Don't forget we also have a comprehensive energy plan!
Obama's ads contrasts their gimmick with his blueprint for energy independence or whatever he calls it; clearly this message is working or else Clinton and Wolfson would just take the simpler path of attacking Obama's opposition to the gas tax rather than defending their own position in a way that's far more nuanced than anything else out of their campaign.
May 5, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The interesting thing is Clinton's been hitting this issue about 800% times harder than McCain, but McCain seems sure to benefit in stature as much as Clinton from the framing here among anyone these ads actually connect with. Once again, the Clinton campaign lands on a strategy that in the end is not practically getting Clinton closer to a nomination, but may do a bit of long-term good for the McCain campaign...
May 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis, mcc! You are exactly right. She is despicable. In some ways she reminds me so much of GW - clinging to her decisions stubbornly in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are the wrong decisions. We certainly don't need another President like that!
May 5, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but by September, summer is over and this Gas Tax Holiday nonsense will be forgotten. The potential damage to Obama generally still remains though.
May 5, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that you mention it, I wonder if McCain will pick up Clinton's "I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists" ploy and run with it. McCain's reportedly not very big on economics anyway; being able to brush off anything about economics he doesn't understand as "elitist" would be potentially useful from his perspective.
May 5, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really interesting. She needs to bring some Institutional Economists into the debate. They know how prices really get set.
May 5, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bring it Hillary, it will be the rope you end up hanging yourself with in the end:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/hillary-attacks-democrats-and-experts.html
Oh yeah, and the most recent poll shows the majority of voters see it for a political gimmick. So keep it up!
May 5, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has been out front hammering Obama with Right wing talking points from the beginning....Commander in Chief Test, "Jesse Jackson" in SC, Elitist, etc.
She has been running the Republicans plays for them, and McCain doesn't even have to get dirty. Thanks, Hill. Really.
May 5, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billionaires would also get the same 18 cents tax relief from Hillary. She feels the pain of all those struggling Billionaires.
May 5, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would the tax holiday apply to jet fuel?
May 5, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Announcer]: Hillary wants the oil companies to pay for the gas tax this summer - so you don't have to.
Hillary: in the fall and winter, you will have to resume paying those taxes at the pump. I know that you will then have to pay for back to school expenses, and very high heating costs, but by then your primary will be over, so Screw You Then!!!
May 5, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary the Pander Bear stikes again.
She went after Bush because he didn't listen to experts and now she's doing the same thing. She doesn't need experts--Hillary knows best.
If she got the nomination, the Republicans would have a field day with her. She really can't stand the heat. She says she can, she may even think she can, but she can't. Obama has much more grace under fire than she does.
I hear she copped one of McCain's songs, too...bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
May 5, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the customs for a Gas Tax Holiday?
Do we hang stockings? Decorate a tree? Who's coming down the chimney, Santa or Hillary?
Help me out. I want to be ready.
May 5, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know about the Gas Tax Panda?
She is faster than a speeding bullet in Tuzla, stronger than a magnet made in China, an has more balls than the lotto machine.
If you don't beleive she owed her due, she will eat her own.
May 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone puts up a cardboard cut-out of Hillary. Then you spray it with cheap gasoline and light it on fire while singing "nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye"
May 5, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Pander Bear will come to your house! All will get a bright orange baby carrot, hung with string from stick, the stick jutting out from a head band.
Oh, how much fun it will be, chasing that carrot!
May 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you'd know. The only ones that are pandering are the oil companies and think tanks.
They, however, thank you for your support.
Stay away from their obscene blood soaked profits. There IS no man behind the curtain.
Want an elite to tow the line? Just tell them they're "smarter" than everyone else.
Works every time.
May 5, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait for Obama's response #4!
OBAMA: Mention the $10 BILLION boost it would give to the oil companies she keeps saying she is "taking on"!
May 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's the thing, consumption taxes are by their very nature regressive. The people at the top will benefit from any real lowering of gas prices (although I agree that the practical impact will be nothing) just like the other 99.5% of us Americans. The difference is they are, in general, driving up per capita consumption, causing this very problem.
What's troubling is HRC's drastic and dramatic tack to the right and the extreme right at that. Her statement on Sunday seems to indicate a "W" style of decision making. Coupled with her statements about Iran, she is making a pretty good point that while she has 35 years of experience, she lacks the sound judgment to lead.
Didn't we get into this mess in Iraq by failing to listen to experts? Wasn't the politicization of every single decision, be it science, justice, war, budget, also an abject failure to follow the best advice out there?
I would argue yes.
How HRC thinks this can actually bolster her case, that she'll be more like W than Barack, is beyond me.
May 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is that the oil companies will simply pass whatever additional taxes they have to pay back to the consumer, who will save nothing with Hillary's "plan." Plus, it's not like Congress is going to pass this plan anyway or, even if they did, Bush would sign it.
It's such a transparent political ploy that shows Hillary for who she really is--someone who will do, say, promise anything to get elected.
May 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary proposes a one-time raise in the allowance of all Americans! I predict Candy store and Movie theatre business goes through the roof this weekend!
May 5, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see, they can't do that because the excess profits tax would take that profit away too. All they would accomplish by raising the price is sell less gasoline.
May 5, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billionaires would also get the same 18 cents tax relief from Hillary. She feels the pain of all those struggling Billionaires.
May 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's Obama's plan to help with the gas price crunch now? A lot of people can't afford to wait ten years to wait for new CAFE standards to kick in.
Economists are lined up against ethanol subsidies and Obama is a big ethanol backer. No pander there?
May 5, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's kind of the whole point - there isn't anything they could do to reduce prices now. Gimmicks like the gas tax "holiday" are worse than useless - they are actually detrimental because they give the impression of addressing the problem but don't. Unfortunately, this is all too common in the Washington approach to solving problems and it's why we need someone who will do things differently.
May 5, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
there isn't anything they could do to reduce prices now.
Possibly not. But I'm sure there are ways they could lessen the impact of these prices especially on low income drivers. Tax credits, gas stamps, I don't know. Think outside the box. People are getting killed at the pump right now.
Obama's "blueprint" won't help people any time soon. I'd like to see Obama throw out some ideas that might help NOW rather than just bash Hillary as a panderer.
And his position on ethanol is a pander too so let's dial down the indignation level a bit.
May 5, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not debating that Obama has been a proponent of ethanol subsidies. But it does appear he's willing to consider the complexities of the issue and the fact that such positions don't exist in a vacuum.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080504/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_ethanol_1
May 5, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The government just sent out income tax rebates many times larger than the measly 30 bucks you'd get from the gas tax "holiday".
May 5, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found this. It's not exactly outside the box but it's something.
May 5, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why he's siding with the Oil Companies. He's feels their 11 billion dollar profit "pain."
May 5, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
BLEAAAHH.
Please Hoosiers, wise up and resoundingly reject this craven shill.
May 5, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is where Bob Dole was on this. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/5/4595/33889
And will soon be wherever Bob Dole is now, if anyone can find him.
May 5, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kos is stupid. I'll make you the offer I made above. If you can find proof that Bob Dole ever proposed taxing the excess profits of oil companies, I'll yeild to your superior wisdom and STFU. If you can't find the proof, you do the same. Deal? By the way josephcast is still out there looking for his proof. Maybe you guys can get together and shut me up. Or maybe Kos can help you out with that link. Let me know what he says? And ask him this. Since when do Progressives side with oil companies?
May 6, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Announcer]: Hillary wants the oil companies to pay for the gas tax this summer - so you don't have to.
Hillary: in the fall and winter, you will have to resume paying those taxes at the pump. I know that you will then have to pay for back to school expenses, and very high heating costs, but by then your primary will be over, so Screw You Then!!!
May 5, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oilbama voted for Dick Cheney's Big Oil Energy Bill. Could this be the reason he is against a windfall profit tax against Oil companies? Gee, you think? Scumbag Oilbama is the candidate of Big Oil. Blame him when you ahve trouble paying for gas.
May 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
This is the eighth time someone has to point out to you that Obama in fact includes a well-thought-out non-temporary windfall profits tax in his energy policy, and Clinton has a similar plan. The difference between this plan and those plans is that this one is disastrously stupid.
This is also the eleventh time someone tells you that the "Dick Cheney Energy Bill" raised taxes for those "Big Oil" companies. It certainly was not a great bill, but there clearly are no actual issues you can take with it; resorting to outright lies, though, is rather unbecoming. And kills whatever credibility you may otherwise have.
May 5, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"scumbag oilbama" I think was what diminished his credibility for me...
This Discourse-Raising Moment was brought to you by: Dembillc.
May 5, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
All you do is post on the energy bill. Why don't you actually Wiki it and google it and read up a bit on it before you post these inane comments.
May 5, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is so negative, isn't she? No wonder Obama called her Annie Oakley.
May 5, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As if Annie Oakley was anything near being compared to Jesse Jackson in SC, your democratic opponent saying that John McCain is more fit to be president than you, clumsily saying "..as far as I know" about Obama being a Christian, lying about his stance on Iraq repeatedly.. Yeah, being called Annie Oakley is so much worse.
May 5, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Annie Oakley's gun of choice a left-handed Mauser 66 rifle?