home

A Serious Charge

Here is the problem with the Left Blogs:

I get the sense that Clinton has decided to game entirely on going after conservative Democratic voters, using the gimmick of the gas tax holiday, pugilistic foreign policy ideas, and race-baiting.

And finally, the ease with which the destructive and inflammatory charge of "race baiting" is levelled, without citing even one example of this so called race baiting, is an indication that the Left blogs are simply smearmongers now. Disgraceful. Let me quote Charlie Rangel, ironically cited in the same post for other purposes:

More...

Thinking is no longer a part of the Left blogger process anymore. Inflammatory false smears are all the rage. Three points: First, is Obama NOT going after "conservative" Democratic voters? Heck, "conservative" voters period. Isn't that what the Unity Schtick was all about? Second, it's wonderful that the gas tax holiday, a stupid political gimmick to be sure, is now intended for "conservative" voters. Is there any basis for that statement? Of course not. And we all know that the $600 "stimulus" rebate that ALL Democrats supported was a pure policy initiative. My gawd, did all Left bloggers just fall of the political turnip truck?

RANGEL: Well, one thing is I worked with Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. I worked with her when she was first lady in education and health issues and, certainly was a part of her dynamic victory in the state of New York where Republicans, Democrats, real people.

So I know her, I worked for her and there's no question in my mind that her experience would lead this nation out of war and out of this recession we're in. And I have the highest respect for Senator Obama. I just don't know him, don't know what he has done. There's a lot said that he's against the war. But unless you've had the obligation and the emotional obligation to vote for or against the war, what you do in state legislature, I don't really think attaches to the importance as to whether you are for or against the war and had the opportunity to vote for it.

So, there is a pride and should be a pride in terms of seeing Kennedy if you're Irish or a Jewish candidate. If you're Jewish and certainly in an African-American candidate. That's why I was so completely surprised when the question was raised as to whether or not Bill Clinton, when he was attacked by Jim Clyburn who certainly doesn't speak for all African-Americans and he's supposed to not be involved in being neutral in this race, when Bill Clinton raised the fact that Jackson also had won in South Carolina.

Heck, we're not color blind. Jim Clyburn is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. I am one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus. Senator Obama is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. And so, the Clintons have already proven and I don't think they have to wear it on their sleeve that more African-Americans prospered in terms of jobs, education opportunity, moving forward. So I don't think, really, they have to put a banner.

(Emphasis supplied.) On this, I trust Charlie Rangel and not Matt Stoller.

Comments now closed.

< USA Today/Gallup Poll: Obama "Significantly Hurt" by Wright | Clinton Media Conference Call - Setting Expectations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you for this post, BTD.... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    ...a sanity infusion to start out my day is always appreciated.

    BTD - thank you (none / 0) (#46)
    by noholib on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    This post is crucially important.
    Please spread the Rangel quote as far and wide as possible.
    Thank you!

    Parent
    The gas tax holiday is POPULIST. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:24:23 AM EST
    Switching tax payments from consumers to corporations is somehow conservative?  Jeez Louis, a mind really is a terrible thing to waste.

    This is classic populism.  Not being a fan of populism I believe that it's kind of meaningless.  But it's certainly not conservative.

    Well, she's couched it in populist (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    language. So certainly that's the aim. She's not making a conservative argument for it.

    Parent
    I just watched her on CNN (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:27:06 AM EST
    and you are completely spot on!

    Parent
    They've been ignoring the switch (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:27:47 AM EST
    They've been focusing on the gas tax only and totally ignoring the windfall profits tax on oil companies, which is the really good thing about this proposal. It's easier to demonize Clinton if you ignore anything she does that you agree with.

    Parent
    But even _without_ the transfer. . . (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:33:25 AM EST
    to a windfall profits tax, Clinton's proposal is still populist -- cutting a regressive tax on working people.  It may be bad policy, but it's populist bad policy rather than conservative bad policy.

    Parent
    It shows you how (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:39:38 AM EST
    far the party has fallen when everyone agrees with Bush on this score.

    High energy pirces are now POLICY.

    Parent

    Hillary said "windfall profits tax," and (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by jawbone on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:38:24 AM EST
    Zing went the strings of my heart!

    Just to hear a politician actually bring up that concept, about the obscene profits of the energy sector, makes me feel better.

    Gas prices, as I assume about most other Big Oil pricing, are based on a percentage profit of the costs of their product.  As the base cost rises, the percentage of profit goes up (10% of $100 is double 10% of $50), for no more investment, work by employees, etc. If the price per barrel goes up, their initial outlay goes up, but their profit goes up.  

    With some other areas of the economy, where the consumer really has an alternative, producers may have to do with slightly lower profits in order to keep their customer base.  I have no choice but to buy oil for my furnace or gas for my car. My only alternative is to not heat my house using my furnace (electric heaters, for example) or to not drive (bicycle to nearby shops, take the bus where possible to further places, but pay in time with a 20 minute car trip to a doctor taking 1 and a half to two hours via the bus system/walking).  Most people have not choice but to pay what the gas and oil cost. Cuts come elsewhere.

    Hence, the gallon of gas for the gallon of milk choice. I haven't priced powdered milk as a substitute for fresh milk, but I remember the taste difference!

    Hillary's "pandering" of the gas tax holiday does mean something to people on the edge financially.  And the choice is between that gallon of milk (or other food or medicine or shoes that fit) and the gallon of gas.  Calcium/food for the kids or getting to work.

    Again, long term, gas and heating oil prices will continue to increase. What will we do to assist those whose earnings can't handle this kind of increase? Transportation Stamps, to go along with Food Stamps?

    I'd love a Prius; I can't afford one, and I'm not as close to the edge as many in our nation are.

    What do we do as a society?

    It seems that Hillary at least shows conignizance of what's happening to those earning less in the economy.  I'm surprised Obama hasn't taken this approach, even if he thinks the tax holiday is wrong. What does the Un of Chi economics school think about this kind of thing?

    What does he think is right?

    Parent

    Couldn't have said it better myself, thanks (none / 0) (#201)
    by allimom99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:49:11 PM EST
    The windfall tax.... (none / 0) (#198)
    by kdog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    is the worst part of her proposal.

    Doesn't she realize that anytime you tax a corporation, the tax gets passed on to the customer...and that would be us eventually.

    Eliminate the gas tax and get road funding from the existing budget...if that requires cuts, I recommend the DEA budget for the cuts.

    Parent

    Tax per gallon (none / 0) (#164)
    by cal1942 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    is actually a regressive tax. It disproportionally affects middle and lower income people as well as small truckers and other small businesses.

    I admit that I'm not aware of the way the tax would be passed to the oil industry but if it has progressive features then, since I have a problem with all regressive taxes (ex: sales tax), I have a problem with anyone making a big fuss about shifting the burden.

    Parent

    Bill "committed candor," (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:24:37 AM EST
    as he likes to say, when he accused the Obama campaign of playing the race card against him in a radio interview just before PA.

    Of course there's no perfect response to this. Rangel's words go some way though, I think.

    Committed candor (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:26:27 AM EST
    I didn't know he was fond of saying that, when playing politics though that is a pretty funny phrasing.

    Parent
    how is this for candor? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:20:25 AM EST
    Stelllaaa posted this link, wherein we find:

    Ninety per cent of [Obama's] popular-vote lead over Hillary Clinton comes from Illinois, and two-thirds of that 90 per cent comes just from Cook County.

    My god, is that true?!


    Parent

    Illinois vote (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:12:23 PM EST
    Obama 1,301,954
    Clinton 662,845

    Difference: 639,109

    Yes.

    To me, this was always another reason he isn't a strong as some present him.

    Parent

    The Chicago machine is very efficient.. (none / 0) (#167)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    it is almost as efficient at getting out the vote as it is corrupt. After all, they are betting that Obama will elevate some of them to national office if he wins the presidency. Just what we need, the Daley machine in DC.

    Parent
    Obama likes to link himself to JFK (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    and hopes to win in 1960 as JFK did -- down to Michelle Obama's "Jackie makeover -- but mainly with the winning edge from the Daley machine.

    Parent
    Michelle only WISHES (none / 0) (#203)
    by allimom99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    someone would EVER think to compare her to Jackie. AS IF!

    Parent
    This form of media has so much to offer (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:24:55 AM EST
    and yet, it is really sad what has happened during this primary.  I remember checking out Red State sometimes before 2006 and thinking, wow, these people never engage their intellect they just regurgitate to "create" a bubble reality.  Now most of the left blogs have become that as well.  I have read some of the most thoughtless things written by people who are extremely intelligent recently.  Almost everything out there is screeching rhetoric.

    There's more critical... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    ...thinking going on there than you'd expect.  But they are conservatives first, last and always.

    Parent
    Just one more charge on the pile (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    The most recent offensive meme I've seen is that Clinton is "hobbling" Obama because she wants McCain to win so she can run against him in 4 years. They have been saying, rather ironically, imo, that Clinton feels a sense of entitlement to the office of the Presidnet. It's ironic because they have been acting as if Obama is entitled to the office and anything Clinton does to win at this point is cheating.

    For example, the "Clinton lost 4 games in a 7 game series and wants to play all 7" comment in your link. It's clever. But it assumes that the contest is over, when in reality their candidate has not won. Not even once, much less 4 times. A better analogy would be that we're in the 7th inning of a baseball game and their candidate is ahead. But that won't occur to them because, in their minds, Obama has won and Clinton is just trying to spoil his win.

    Similarly, (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:32:54 AM EST
    the MSM, at the urging of Obama supporters, constantly ask "can the superdelegates take it away from Obama if Obama is winning in pledged delegates."

    You can't take something "away" from someone when that someone doesn't yet have it. The fact that you're winning a race doesn't mean you've won. To continue dianem's analogy, a very wise sage once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over."  Just because it's the bottom of the 9th with two out doesn't mean that the game is over -- especially if the game is at Yankee Stadium.

    Parent

    I guess in Chicago (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:35:31 AM EST
    everyone get a nomination! (Oprah joke, stand back!)

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:55:35 AM EST
    No wonder the Cubbies have had such a hard time.

    Parent
    TeamO strategy: Declare win, make rival fold, win (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Ellie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    Obama hasn't closed it because these legendary "insurmountables" aren't borne by the actual vote.

    his kind of (non)enthralling Lo, Teh New Coolness! message ping-ponged between media and blogren hasn't swayed the voters.

    Sen Clinton didn't fold.

    No wonder Team Obama and the blogren are in hair tearing mode. The astro-trolls and Pester Squadron spreading the word on all the media blogs that The One had finally come are looking more obviously like nano-bots programmed to deliver spin.

    Parent

    I think that is "Team R" strategy (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    It worked for Rove in 2000 so Axelrod figured that it would work for Obama in 2008. But Hillary Clinton is not Al Gore. As much as I like Gore (I always did), I disagreed strongly with his refusal to go to the mat for the win in 2000. I want a President who will fight for the office, and he didn't. Clinton has proven that she is willing to fight. Win or lose, she has my respect.

    Parent
    Rove had a goon squad and lock-steppers (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ellie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:47:41 AM EST
    Dems don't have the muscle, the 'nads or the follow through for a Repug-style pile-on.

    No wonder Sen. Clinton has been able to stay in this no matter where they move the goalposts.

    Even the Clinton Derangement Syndrome is a second-hand weapon TeamObama and their coterie of ambitious, hand-wringing Saruman Dems haven't thought through very well. What rancid piece of chewed over anti-Clinton meat do they think will get the d0uchebags in media ravening?

    Clinton LIED We Think!?! She may or may not have practiced racism depending on what your monitor's gamma is?

    Please. If the Dems oust her, Rezko and Wright will be on the fresh meat platter the media will be feasting on.

    And in over-using easily debunked claims of racism to pile on the Clintons, TeamO has innoculated the media against being called racist, freeing them to join the Repugs in busting wide open the cold civil war in place since the Voting Rights Act.

    Parent

    Gotta luv the conspiracy theorists out there ;) (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:29:01 AM EST
    It has been a "puzzlement" to me (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    that Left Blogistan has consistently portrayed Obama as the true progressive in the race, given not just oft-stated desire to "bring Republicans and Democrats together," but also his demonstrably less progressive health care policy, and his kinder-than-necessary words for Ronald Reagan and Republican ideas generally. Don't forget, one of Obama's big mentors when he first came to the Senate was Joe Liebertoad.

    The passage BTD quoted above is disgusting.  Are only "conservative" Democrats having a hard time paying for gas? Are only "conservative" Democrats having a hard time paying for -- or even getting -- healthcare?  Since when is deterrence a "pugilistic" foreign policy?  And what race-baiting are we talking about here?  Clinton has been quite restrained on the Rev. Wright issue, whatever she's said on that issue has not been even remotely "race-baiting."

    Obama's supporters seem to think he's got a glass jaw; there seems to be very little criticism that can be made of him without crossing some sort of line.

    Not the way a "frontrunner" acts.

    It's true (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    they are terrified for him. Remember, most didn't actually support him in the first place for several of the reasons you cite. It's fun to go back and read David Sirota on Obama before he got on the unity train. Matt Stoller, at least, has mostly avoided suspending his disbelief.

    Parent
    Sirota's latest (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Fabian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:41:35 AM EST
    is especially vomitrocious.  He puts the "pathological liar" meme in his title.  The killer is that he's harping on Clinton talking about projection win/loss margins - not any actual Issue.  

    [major eye roll!]

    Parent

    Well, I've never liked Sirota (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:43:42 AM EST
    though I know that a lot of people feel differently. Fact is, he's always been this way.

    Parent
    Dude, you are shattering my fragile world (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    I used to like David Sirota a lot when he was as much of a freak about the same things that I was.  Now he's just another idiot out there, life is so unfair........so many feet of clay and my tears keep eroding and melting them :)

    Parent
    Sirota latches onto an idea (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Fabian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:01:39 AM EST
    and runs with it - he acts like he's always writing for a deadline.  So whatever is at hand is what he uses - trash or treasure.  Some bloggers have higher standards than others.  It just galls me that Sirota harps about truth and lies when it comes to polls of all things!  The next thing you know, Hillary will make a comment about the weather and people will attack her for saying it was a fine sunny day when any fool could see there was a cloud in the sky!

    Parent
    Sirota wrote something. . . (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:45:40 AM EST
    months ago lauding Richard Viguerie's (sp?) role in the Republican Party.  It appears he wants Democrats to go directly from out of power to hopelessly split along ideological lines, skipping the part in the middle where we get to be in power for 30 years.

    Parent
    He wants to be (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:48:00 AM EST
    a one man liberal Club for Growth.

    Parent
    While I aspire. . . (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    to be a one man liberal Hair Club for Men.

    Really, I found that piece shocking in its admiration for party self-immolation.

    Parent

    David Sirota (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    is another I once respected and who is no longer welcome in my house or in my mailbox.

    Time will tell if once the Democrats have a nominee if there will be a "healing" going on. I really doubt it.

    Because once these people have shown that they can't be trusted to tell the truth when it comes to Hillary Clinton; why should we believe them about anything else? I know I won't.

    Parent

    kid oakland got me to work for Jerry McNerney (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:16:21 AM EST
    now, admittedly I could see for myself how McNerney was a good Democrat, but how ironic to be now fighting for the good Democrat against the puppet of the RW with kid oakland!

    Certainly, I find I now skim over kos stories on who one should back...I don't trust his judgement anymore.

    I have subscribed to the actblue pages of a siegel because at least he looks at eco policy, but the big blogger boiz....no more.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Fabian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM EST
    Darn you - and your principles and your issues!

    Don't you know all that trivia gets in the way of a good biographical narrative?  Rags to riches, raised by a single mom and all that!

    [snark, snark I say!]


    Parent

    Is it against the rules (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    for me to call DS "un hijo de puta"?  Because this...

    This headline is a serious question - I'm not trying to be vitriolic or unduly harsh. I'm being sincere when I say this is a very real, honest question.  

    ...is just obscene. The headline, btw, is "Is Hillary Clinton A Pathological Liar?"

    Equally "vomitrocious" (great word, Fabian) is this:

    Indiana is squarely within the Race Chasm (ie. the group of states whose black populations are above 6% and below 17% of the total population). Clinton has won most of her victories in Race Chasm states. I believe that is, at least in part, because of her deft use and exploitation of racial politics.

    What's the proof?  Well, the proposition proves itself: there's a "race chasm," and Clinton has won many states in the "race chasm."  Thus, she MUST be exploiting racial politics.  Because, you know, working class African-Americans couldn't possibly share the same economic concerns as working class whites. Nah. Not possible. Any appeal to the problems of working class people is definitionally racist, right?

    Ay, Dios mio.

    Parent

    There is no proof (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    They have not been able to point to a single instance of Clinton using "racial politics", even though they have been searching for monthes. The "logic" behind this charge seems to be an assumption that since Obama is the better candidate, the only reason that anybody would not vote for him is that he is black, and since Obama is running as a "post-racial" candidate, the only reason anybody will notice that he's black is if Clinton reminds them. Therefore, the only reason that Obama isn't winning by overwhelming margins is that Clinton is turning Obama into "the black candidate".


    Parent
    when I see this it tells me the traffic (none / 0) (#188)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    fumes are clouding their thinking, and judgemenet. I'm so done with them. Kids afterall.

    Parent
    when I see this it tells me the traffic (none / 0) (#189)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    fumes are clouding their thinking, and judgemenet. I'm so done with them. Kids afterall.

    Parent
    Sirota (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:42:53 AM EST
    is an intellectual midget. He didn't even follow on with his initial policy interests.

    I'm sorta neutral, both candidates have weaknesses geographically and philosophically.

    I'm just flogging them both--mainly Obama at this point because he's ahead.

    Parent

    The one reason that I kind of like (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    Clinton better than Obama is because she has over the course of this primary shown herself to be responsive and adapatble in a way that Obama has not.  Obama definitely has a problem with economic populism because if he didn't he'd be doing and saying things that would appeal to those working class voters that are more and more elusive to him.

    Axelrod made the claim today on Morning Joe that Obama doesn't support the tax holiday because he thinks it is insulting to voters.  Okay - fair enough - maybe that is true - but Obama is not offering any alternative ideas.  He is just saying "no" which is frankly kind of stupid given the fact that he is having a hard time engaging the very voters that are hardest hit by this energy crunch.  He has to show that he is listening and that he will respond with concrete solutions.  My feeling is that Clinton's team understood that allowing McCain to appear the sole populist and responsive candidate would be not only a mistake for her campaign, but also a mistake for the Democratic Party - one that the party has made many times - by either not responding, rejecting without an alternative offer or doing both - but getting caught out offering an alternative much too late to be believable or trustworthy.

    Parent

    He can't even fake it. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    Which is remarkable to me.  There's got to be something like that in him given his activist bio.  Michelle kinda has that ability but he doesn't.

    Most Dems should have that instinct, especially one who seems to have a bit of social activism in his past.

    It makes me question what he is.

    Parent

    What activist bio? (none / 0) (#160)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    Organizing is not "activism". Obama was a low level pol with good public speaking skills who got the attention of some "king makers" and ended up way above his head.

    Parent
    Please insult me some more! (none / 0) (#175)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM EST
    If getting a little relief from gas prices is insulting, I'll take the insult!


    Parent
    There Is So Much Of This Going On And That (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:31:46 AM EST
    is why we are left to going to just a few sites for "real" information.  Look at what some of these former great sites have become, i.e. DKos and HuffPost.  You don't even recognize that they once were "the" place to go for well-thought out commentary.  As for Clyburn, he should be ashamed for what he has done.  But if you saw him on Face The Nation yesterday, he certainly tried to backpedal on his spew on the Clintons.  Where does it end?

    Negative characterization of Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Coral on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:32:00 AM EST
    on the lefty blogs has bothered me a great deal in the last months. Why would they want to split the coalition that's needed to win in November by defaming an important portion of the Democratic base?

    Thanks for pointing out that post, which I noticed today, too, but decided to ignore it. Because, well, life is short.

    They've hurt their credibility with Democrats like me, who back Clinton because we believe she is more likely to steer the country in a more progressive direction than Obama.

    the good news:? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    they are preaching to the choir.
    no minds are being changed.  havent been for a long while now.  IMO.

    True. (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Fabian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:09 AM EST
    It's just that the reality check is going to be that much more painful.

    I never understood why people would willingly seek that environment out.  I started coming to blogs to find objectivity, reality and thoughtful discussions.  Obviously, there's a greater need for the self gratification of the echo chamber.

    Parent

    It's great to find (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by lefty lawyer on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    someone else who uses the "turnip truck" metaphor.  I used it yesterday, and had several people look at me like I was from Mars.

    Anyway, since we have been hearing for several months now that Obama has the nomination wrapped up (even though he clearly doesn't), it's easy for people like Matt Stoller to claim that anything, truly anything, that Hillary Clinton does is hurting the Obama candidacy and is therefore "illegitimate" and "destructive."

    Things like competing for the nomination, or being critical, or making policy distinctions, are per se wrong because they're being done BY Clinton and being done TO Obama.  And of course, my favorite Daily Kosism, anything that Clinton does, says, thinks or implies is "Rovian," a word which, to the extent it ever deserved to exist, has now been leached of all meaning and significance.  In LeftBlogSpeak, it now means "anything that YOU or YOUR candidate does that makes ME feel bad or MY candidate look bad."

    Yeah, whatever.

    Note that on Daily Kos, there's a banner running that shows Obama with a 131 delegate lead.  That data was originally taken from DemConWatch, which had several tables, showing Obama with leads of anywhere from as much as 131 delegates to as few as 10.  That's right, 10.  It's still there on the left of the front page.  Kos, of course, cherrypicked the data that made his candidate look the best, excluding/disenfranchising Michigan and Florida altogether (after praising Clinton for staying on the Michigan ballot, but never mind).

    If the votes of Michigan and Florida are counted, the lead is 10.  Let me say it one more time:  10 delegates.  If she wins Indiana decisively and stays close in North Carolina, she will be ahead under this latter scenario, with Kentucky and West Virginia still to go.

    But Hillary Clinton is wrong and illegitimate for even continuing to fight for the nomination.

    Re 'turnip trucks'... (none / 0) (#172)
    by oldpro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    folks of a certain age have always used that expression...the kids will adopt it if somebody tells them it's cool or embeds it in a song lyric...Springsteen, anyone?

    Another local favorite of many of us (oldtimers) is "This ain't(isn't) my first rodeo!"

    Sooooo....the lead is 10?  TEN!?

    Curiouser and curiouser...

    Parent

    More re "turnip truck" (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by tree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    I learned the term from my Mom, as she came from good farmer stock. Just last year as I was driving along I-5 through California's Central Valley, I spotted an open topped truck. As I got closer, I realized that it was carrying turnips! Luck for me I was alone in the car, because I would have had a hard time explaining why I was laughing hysterically for the next 5 minutes!

    Parent
    thanks for that report that further confirms (none / 0) (#190)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    my judgement not to give the Kos Kidz anymore cred for the crud they post for facts.

    After this is over  I doubt they'll have the traffic that has made them dizzy with fame. They have really harmed themselves.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:36:48 AM EST
    They have to trash Clinton for vaporware reasons?  This shows that they know what we know -- that Clinton is the better candidate --so they have to invent reasons to trash her.

    And I'll say again, what separates the Clinton supporters from the Obama supporters...:

    The Clinton supporters aren't frequently reduced to propagating untrue smears.  (doctored video, morphing voter registration into voter suppression, accusing a guy who has his office in Harlem of being a racist -- what a joke!)  The true putrid ugliness of this campaign has not been at the hands of Clinton supporters.  We are NOT the same as them.

    And yet, she keeps going (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by felizarte on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    and looks like beat everyone to the finish line.  And she gets her foot in the door of the NASCAR crowd even:

    May 04, 2008
    Indy 500: Hoosiers Support For Senator Clinton Led By Sarah Fisher

    INDIANAPOLIS, IN - Hoosiers for Hillary today, opening day of practice for the 92nd Indianapolis 500, announced the endorsement of groundbreaking IndyCar Series driver and team owner, Sarah Fisher.

    "We need a president who will stand up for us and be a fighter for Hoosiers and all Americans," said Fisher, who will attempt to qualify for her seventh Indianapolis 500 this May 2008. "Senator Clinton will be a president who steers our country in the right direction and puts our economy back on track. Something Senator Clinton and I have in common is our commitment to achieving our goals, leaving roadblocks behind, refusing to be knocked down. Senator Clinton is a doer and a fighter who keeps getting out there, going for the checkered flag."

    Fisher, 27, of Indianapolis, has competed in six Indianapolis 500s. She is the first woman to earn a pole position at an IndyCar Series event. Fisher is also the youngest woman ever to compete in the Indianapolis 500 at age 19 and the fastest female to qualify for the world's greatest race, with a four-lap average of 229.439 mph in 2003. She is the first female owner/driver of an IndyCar Series team and will compete in her next Indianapolis 500 on May 25.

    "I'm honored to have Sarah's support. Not only has she has broken down barriers in her sport, but she continues to be a role model for young people aspiring to realize their dreams," Senator Clinton said. "Trailblazers like Sarah prove that with hard work and determination, anything is possible in our country."

    Fisher will debut her new team, Sarah Fisher Racing, on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 12:00 p.m., when she beings practice for the Indianapolis 500.  




    Parent
    Link: (none / 0) (#68)
    by felizarte on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    Link: (none / 0) (#72)
    by felizarte on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    Short term fix? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:45:07 AM EST
    Sure, it is, even Hillary says so, but she has other methods for the long term fix...  It's summer vacation time and the kids are out of school, they want to go places like the mall, a party, the skating rink, meeting freinds, maybe the lake, kids use a lot of gas, just try to keep them home to conserve gas.... Short term fix sounds great, just to get us through the summer....

    Anyone who can think past (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Fabian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    their next paycheck can see it's not a long term fix.  Of course, anyone who can think past their next paycheck should also be planning what their, personal, long term strategy to higher gas prices will be.

    I think the real problem with gas prices is that it isn't something you can avoid thinking about like Iraq or Climate Change.  It's something that you are aware of every day.  A skillful politician or an incredibly gifted candidate would be able to turn high gas prices into a symbol of Limited Resources and the necessity of Conserving and Maximizing Efficiency.

    We are going to go there, whether we want to or not.  Better to create a piece of Shiny Rhetoric, frame it as a part of National Pride and Global Leadership than to point fingers.  It's an opportunity for the taking.

    Parent

    She also made a good point (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:03:07 AM EST
    that what seems like just a little bit of money to the average driver is a lot of money to truckers and small business owners.

    Parent
    Urban/Suburban/rural divide. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ben Masel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:06:38 AM EST
    Around here, kids take the bus for most of that stuff.

    Parent
    This is why the holiday works: (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    Americans are not long-term financial planners, and as a group, we tend to think economists and scientists who say they know better than us are crap.

    It's sort of like my polling creed, where I only believe polls that support my candidate.  A lot of people only believe science or "facts" that seem plausible to or directly benefit them. (It's why republicans oppose stem cell research until they need it to cure their own cancer...)

    The gas tax holiday is perfectly spun because every American who puts gas in their car knows that with the holiday, they will save money.

    I would also argue the knock-on effect, which is that people may get some emotional relief that will make them feel better about their circumstances.  Is it a temporary fix?  Sure, but how many of us have lived paycheck to paycheck at one point in our lives (or still do) and have said, "If I can just get through this bit...if I could just get an extra fifty bucks this month...it would give me room to breathe."  Perception drives the market more than anything else on earth.  

    Parent

    Biggest saving for me, ironically (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Ben Masel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    would be on my trip to the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair, June 18-20 in Custer Wisconsin.

    Parent
    This election season (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Dave B on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:08 AM EST
    I have completely lost respect for the left blogs and the MSM in this election cycle.  The left blogs have turned into a smear mongering machine.  The intensity and zeal with which they pounce on and embrace smears and fraudulent political hit jobs is breathtaking.

    As for the MSM, I am coming to understand how it much feel for a Republican watching most of network and cable news.  I see most of the MSM coverage as unfair to Clinton as we have always perceived Fox New's coverage of Democrats.  I have learned to trust no one, well except for the excellent writers here at talkleft!  Thanks!

    DUH!! Bloggers Do This All the Time (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:31 AM EST
    Talking about something as if it's common knowledge, as if no case has to be made, as if everyone knows the thing is true, and no other discussion should transpire about it.

    This is also a decidedly Hard Line Conservative way to build narratives.

    While I admit there's a shorthand to it, and blogging certainly would be tedious to if you had to re-present your case every time you stated your conclusion the fact is, .... in most cases it is reductive and not deductive, and one is compelled to deride the blogger accordingly.  To counter attack.

    And indeed, because everyone knows Matt Stoller is a liar, well, this one is just too easy.

    The blogosphere (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:49:22 AM EST
    has always had a blind spot when it comes to conservative Democrats.  The conventional wisdom is that the sooner we banish these millions of voters, the party will be better off.

    One of the reasons I supported John Edwards is that he had the ability to keep conservative Democrats voting Dem while still running an unabashedly liberal campaign.  But even if we don't compromise our principles, some people still want to play purity troll.

    The Blind Spot Now Is That Obama Is Running (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:09:29 AM EST
    as a progressive. None of list below is anywhere close to being progressive:

    Social Security Is In Crisis (Republican Mantra in 05 to Privatize SS)

    Harry and Louis ads against UHC (duplicates Republican 90's ad
    used to destroy the chance for Americans to receive health care)

    Reagan was an iconic leader and WJC is a failed president.

    Republicans have better ideas government regulations and schools.

    Republicans appointments at Sec. of Defense and Sec. of State.


    IMO no one has done more to help rehabilitate the Republican Party than Obama.

    Parent
    you forgot Republican clean energy policy (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:53:45 AM EST
    BushCheney invested in ethanol, "clean coal" and nuke power, Obama continues the same policy but talks the Climate Change talk as if he's a Democrat.

    Parent
    Elite thinking... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by white n az on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    Says that they can cede populist ideas to McCain and expect that Americans will be happy to pay 18 cents more a gallon because economists say it is the right thing to do.

    Of course Axelrod on NPR stating that the white, working class doesn't vote for Democrats anyway isn't supposed to be part of this equation.

    White working class whites (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:08:07 AM EST
    don't vote for Democrats? Huh? What?

    Parent
    Axelrod said it on NPR (none / 0) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:24:50 AM EST
    really.  I can't find the exact quote, but it was they don't vote for Dems.  sigh

    Parent
    Here's a link to the interview (none / 0) (#105)
    by DFLer on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    Exact quote was: (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by DFLer on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:41:26 AM EST
    "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes." -Axelrod

    Parent
    The Obama 527 Blogs Have Been Completely (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:53:04 AM EST
    irresponsible on  the issue of race.  The Democratic Party, not the Republicans Party, is now the party of racists.  Obama's campaign and his supporters in and on the media and the 527 Obama blogs should stand up and take a bow for this great achievement.

    How does branding Clinton and her supporters as racists help the party or the country? How does continuing to harp on this false and destructive theme as part of their political strategy help to unite the party? At this point, this whole issue has been so destructive that neither candidate may be able to win in November.  What a great achievement.


    to those of us who actually live (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    in mixed communities--you know, with 12-30% aa population, as opposed to states like WA and ME that have around 1% aa's--these specious charges of racism have been particularly damaging.  It has changed the tone of many communities in such a negative way.

    Parent
    Race Baiting (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    has become, in my mind, the most disgraceful aspect of this election.  What happened to the candidate of change?  Why hasn't he spoken out against this political smear, as John McCain did when conservatives made a smear of Obama's middle name?

    Why hasn't he spoken out on it?? (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    It came from his campaign to begin with!  This was their strategy, I'm convinced, from the very beginning, to take out the Clintons with accusations of race-baiting and racism.  The Blogger Boyz didn't make this up by themselves, they followed their Dear Leaader.

    Parent
    let me clear up some of nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cpinva on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:03:45 AM EST
    being spouted, by both the obama campaign, and the "left" blogs, regarding sen. clinton's proposed gas tax "holiday".

    1. she has incorporated a means of making it, as much as possible, revenue neutral, by virtue of the imposition of a "windfall profits" tax (and make no mistake, the oil companies are enjoying record profits) on the oil companies.

    2. while the 20 odd cents a gallon at the pump won't have a huge direct effect on consumers at the pump, it will have a ripple effect. everything you buy will ultimately be affected; the cost of transporting those goods should decrease, and be reflected in the price you pay at the store.

    the second part of her plan always seems to get lost in the overall discussion by the talking heads and the obama campaign, though it's an entirely logical economic extension of it.

    i'm not sure if it's intentional, or their grasp of basic economics is so poor they completely miss that which is self-evident.

    It's intentional (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Radix on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:08:48 AM EST
    They get a twofer, they can claim it's "conservative" pandering; as well as' claiming that it deprives us of much needed revenue for the highway fund.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    It is absolutely intentional (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:14:40 AM EST
    In fact, if Obama had beat Clinton to the punch and announced this plan himself to neutralize McCain, everybody who is out there loudly denouncing it would be singing it's praises.

    Parent
    Regarding your 2nd point (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ben Masel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:11:32 AM EST
    There's be a greater effect damping inflation throughout the economy from cutting the diesel tax while raising the gasoline tax. This would push refineries to shif production towards diesel, an more sustaining effect.

    Parent
    It's a bad idea b/c the oil companies (none / 0) (#127)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    won't actually pay the tax. They'll simply add it to their cost, which is paid by consumers.

    Gas will not go down under this plan. That's why it is a shell game.

    Companies don't pay taxes. Consumers do.

    Parent

    It's amazing (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    Before this issue came up, the only people I ever heard argue "there's no point in taxing corporations, they'll just pass the cost on to consumers" were Republicans.  In the real world, it's not nearly as simple as that.

    Parent
    No, it's not, but when you're talking about a (none / 0) (#152)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM EST
    90 day period, it is. They will pass it on for those 90 days.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#157)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:33:51 AM EST
    it strikes me as far less likely that a short-term tax would get passed on to consumers, but you seem awfully confident.

    Parent
    Are you saying (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    That a windfall profits tax on the oil companies is a bad idea?

    Is that what Obama is saying?

    Parent

    What I'm saying is that (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    prices will not go down this summer b/c of the suspension of the gas tax and putting it on oil companies.

    I'm not Obama. Do you speak for Clinton, or only say Clinton-approved opinions?

    Parent

    You are partly right and partly wrong (none / 0) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:30:45 AM EST
    Even in the studies that took place after Illinois and Indiana implemented a similiar plan, gas prices did see a decline compared to national average.   It wasn't perfectly proportional to national price fluctuations so there is some truth that the oil companies can raise prices to some degree during the holiday, but there was a also a clear gain to the consumer as well.

    Parent
    Are you really that much of a parrot? n/t (1.00 / 1) (#150)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:24:14 AM EST
    Now I get it... (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:22:02 AM EST
    When Obama ran his whole Democrats-for-a-day thing, he wasn't appealing to conservatives, he was appealing to all those liberal Republicans.

    Same when he went on FOX News, and when he praised Ronald Reagan, and when he called the GOP the party of ideas. He wasn't going after conservatives, he was going after all those liberals who watch FOX, who like Ronald Reagan, and are registered Republicans.

    Now I see that Obama would never go after conservative votes. Thanks for clearing that up, OpenLeft.

    nail on head (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    The race-baiting charge is absolutely the most offensive one.  With each new utterance of that charge since SC, I have been outraged all over again.

    And his supporters use it as a tool as well.  I've been called racist and republican without any provocation or cause.  Two heinous insults.

    What Makes a Good Political Blog? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by santarita on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    Angie Koiro (sp) on Green960 in the Bay Area asked this question the other day,  For me, it is one where there is well-sourced commentary (i.e. with links to source articles and quotations) and meaningful (i.e. rational respectful and relevant) discussion.  Obviously no blog with any amount of traffic can be like that all of the time.  But when the chaff to wheat ratio exceeds 80% then it becomes a waste of time to visit that site.  What troubled me most about my former go-to sites was not just the cheerleading for one candidate (which is at least positive energy) but the destructive and irrational banter (which is simply negative energy).  And when one adds to the mix a lot of unsourced commentary and a lot of out of context, incorrect paraphrasing and twisted quotes, then it became clear that these blogs had become at best a waste of time.

    Charlie Rangel is one helluva guy. . . (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by bslev22 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    and he doesn't have to worry about stepping up to the plate and saying what he really feels like saying.

    BTD, I'll get over the campaign, I'll support Senator Obama with vigor if he is the nominee, but I don't think I will ever feel the same way about those whom the so-called "Left Blogs" are speaking for.  What we have seen in the blogosphere, by hosts and readers, is no different than what all of us have complained about for 20 years concerning the conduct of the radical right.  It is no different than Rush and his merry band of dittoheads.  It is only worse because we are being charged with racism for supporting a candidate other than the choice of the herd.  It's a charge that will stick with me; it is a charge I will not forget.

    Well (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:09 AM EST
    I guess we can all see what we want to see.

    I don't buy into the race baiting stuff but the other 2 points aren't too far off the mark.

    Proposing B.S. tax cuts is part and parcel of Conservative political dogma.  You know how we know this?  Because John McCain proposed the same thing as Hillary did a week before her.  The fact that she is couching it in more populist terms, without actually explaining how, doesn't make her tax cut populist unless you think that tax cuts are populist.

    Her new hostile language regarding Iran is absolutely pandering to Conservatives.  Do you know a single Liberal that feels comfortable with the phrase "Obliterate Iran"?  

    Ahem (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:58 AM EST
    The fact that she is couching it in more populist terms, without actually explaining how
    Actually, she does explain how: the windfall profits tax. Of course, none of this is going anywhere, but her plan is not the same as McCain's. As Paul Krugman says:
    The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it's pointless, not evil.


    Parent
    That's all well and good (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:08:05 AM EST
    Except she doesn't explain how she plans on actually taxing the windfall profits from the oil companies.  Personally I think that the windfall tax is a bunch of a hooey despite the fact that Obama supports it.

    There are actual bills being proposed on the gas holiday.  Of course they haven't gone anywhere because the Democratic leadership is killing them, rightly so.

    But there isn't a thing being offered on this windfall tax idea.  

    So while her plan is ostensible different than McCain's it is only because she claims to be doing something that she hasn't actually done yet, propose a windfall tax bill.

    Parent

    It is not a separate bill (none / 0) (#70)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:14:28 AM EST
    Proposing a windfall profits tax as a separate bill would simply invite Congress to pass the McCain plan and reject the tax that pays for it.  Hillary's plan requires both.  If you want to complain that she hasn't actually introduced a bill that looks like her plan, I'm sure we can find a long, long list of plans that Senator Obama has proposed on the campaign trail but hasn't introduced in Congress.

    If your point is that we have no idea what a windfall profits tax would even look like, you'd be wrong on that; we actually had such a tax back in the 80s, and Sens. Dorgan, Boxer, and Dodd introduced a bill to that effect not too long ago.

    Parent

    OK (1.00 / 2) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:15:56 AM EST
    So you got a S.R. number on her plan?  

    Parent
    Can you read? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:20:16 AM EST
    I am serious about this.  Did you even read my comment?

    If you want to complain that she hasn't actually introduced a bill that looks like her plan, I'm sure we can find a long, long list of plans that Senator Obama has proposed on the campaign trail but hasn't introduced in Congress.

    I don't think you'll get very far with this bizarre argument that no one has any idea what a windfall profits tax would look like.

    Parent

    The difference being (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:24:39 AM EST
    that Hillary is proposing a gas holiday tax for THIS SUMMER.  Summer is next month.  So if she is being serious she would need to either propose a bill or back a bill that is in line with what she is advocating.

    Unless you are saying that she is purely pandering and has absolutely no intention of proposing any such thing.

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#96)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    Since the Democrats in Congress have indicated that they have no interest in Hillary's proposal, introducing a bill would be nothing more than posturing.

    You know this, but you want to set up this disingenuous test of her "seriousness" anyway.  If she had introduced a bill, would you concede "oh, I guess she really is serious about this idea, it's not just pandering."  Of course you wouldn't.

    Parent

    Where to begin? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Radix on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:16:58 AM EST
    Since none of the bills being introduced in the House include a windfall tax, none of those bills can rightly be attributed to Hilary, now can they?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    Certainly tax cuts are populist. . . (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    as long as they're cuts on working class salaries.  Windfall profit taxes on the the "corporations" that living high of the hog while the working man suffers are classic populism.

    The ability of some people to treat words as if they mean whatever they want them to mean is astounding.  Of course that's a genuine problem with a meaningless term like "progressive", but populism is  better understood.  Cutting consumption taxes on daily needs is absolutely progressive, and doubly so when accompanied by the idea of taxing corporations to make up for it.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    I guess fixing the AMT is a conservative idea too.

    What about Obama's hilarious ad, where he criticizes Hillary for pandering, and then promises a $1,000 middle tax cut at the end?  Another conservative idea, I suppose!

    Parent

    No, it isn't. (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:15:06 AM EST
    Actual tax cuts that make an impact are progressive.  B.S. tax cut proposals that fly in the face of public policy and that will yield almost no discernible gain for consumers are Conservative populism.  

    Taxes on windfall profit is one of those utterly meaningless phrases you reference.  It is doubtful that you could legally impose such a tax even if you could somehow come up with a coherent plan, which is unlikely.

    Parent

    Here's a perfect example. (none / 0) (#91)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:26:27 AM EST
    You want "populism" to mean "sound liberal policy", but it doesn't.  It means an appeal to the working majority at the expense of the elites.  The gas tax holiday is just such a proposal.  I'm not defending the proposal on its merits, but it is populist.

    I wonder where you come up with the notion that a windfall profit tax is somehow "illegal" -- a startling notion that I suspect would shock anyone in government.  It may or may not be wise policy but it's certainly legal.

    Parent

    2 points (none / 0) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:29:12 AM EST
    Then I have to leave.

    Populist is neither liberal or conservative.  It can be either.  So simply calling her plan populist and ignoring who it appeals to serves little purpose.

    A windfall tax in a specific industry is dubious at best.  Why should oil companies pay a specific tax that no one else does?  How do you define oil company?  Exxon Mobil?  Shell? Dow? Dupont?  

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    if you read the comments you respond to - which I'm increasingly coming to believe you do not - you would have seen my comment that we actually had a windfall profits tax on the oil industry in the 1980s, and then you wouldn't look silly by pretending that it's some mythical creature.

    If you're genuinely curious what a windfall profits tax might look like, and if you're actually reading this comment for once, it's not hard to find out.

    Senators Dorgan, Dodd, and Boxer introduced the Windfall Profits Rebate Act of 2005 (S. 1631), which would impose a temporary windfall profit tax on large oil companies and return the tax collected back to American consumers in the form of a rebate. Profits used toward investments in new refining capacity and alternative energy infrastructure would be exempted from the tax. The bill was introduced in the Senate on September 7, 2005.


    Parent
    I do read the comments (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    but I can't respond to every point made by 4 or 5 different posters.

    If you are honestly interested in discussing the possible legal problems with a windfall tax we can.  It isn't as simple as you may think.  

    Yes it can be done but it isn't simply a matter of taking the extra profits from corporations.

    Parent

    your opinion would matter so much more (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    if we could respect you in any way.  

    Parent
    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#165)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    So not only is a personal insult not censored it is actually rated highly.

    Perhaps Steve M. has a better understanding of why it is difficult to engage in conversation on this site. For every Steve M. or Andgarden there are 3 or 4 Kathy's who are only interested in attacking people who disagree with them.

    Parent

    Good lord! (none / 0) (#101)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    Why should oil companies pay a specific tax that no one else does?

    Have you ever heard the word "excise"?

    You're right that populism is neither liberal nor conservative.  As I stated before, it's an appeal to the majority of working people at the expense of the elites, and Clinton's gas tax holiday is a perfect example.

    Parent

    Excise taxes (none / 0) (#115)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM EST
    do not tax companies.  They tax goods.  

    Parent
    Oversimplification of a Complex Topic (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by santarita on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:13:49 AM EST
    Taxes on goods purchased can be an indirect tax on companies that purchase those goods.  That indirect tax is a cost of doing business for that company (which ten passes that cost on to the consumer of the goods or services provided.)

    A gas tax is considered regressive because it is a uniform tax that has a disproportionate effect on poorer people than it does on wealthier people.  Compare the percentage of income devoted to gas tax between two people - one with an income of $10.00 and the other with an income of $20.00.  $5.00 excise tax on gas has a disparate impact on their incomes, no?

    Parent

    They tax INDUSTRIES. . . (none / 0) (#131)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:00:15 AM EST
    which is what a windfall profits tax would do.

    Parent
    No they do not (none / 0) (#166)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    Simply saying so doesn't make it so.

    Parent
    Flyerhawk (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:14:58 AM EST
    Cutting marginal tax rates and capital gains taxes are conservative dogma because they don't affect most middle or working class voters. Cutting a regressive tax like the gasoline sales tax -- a tax that is paid by everyone at the same rate, regardless of their income -- is not conservative dogma.

    And yes, I am an anti-war liberal who is comfortable with what Clinton has said about Iran.  Her "obliterate" comment was in the context of a proposed nuclear deterrence policy, in which an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would be met with commensurate force. A deterrence policy is designed to prevent the actual use of force by either side. She is not an advocate of "bomb bomb bomb Iran" just for the sake of showing how tough we are, or for the sake of distracting us from Iraq -- that's McCain's position.

    Parent

    Thank you, Litigatormom... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Camorrista on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    Nicely put.

    Parent
    What,, we should threaten (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    to send Iran a nasty note if they nuke Israel instead?

    Don't be an idiot.  I'm perfectly comfortable with the "obliterate" Iran statement.  It's called "deterrence."  Worked fantastically for keeping the Soviet Union in check during the cold war.

    It's a totally moot point in any case because Iran is not going to nuke Israel or anybody else.  If you can't keep them from getting nukes eventually -- and you can't, btw -- you certainly can keep them from ever thinking about using them if you make the consequences clear.

    This is a far, FAR better and less destructive idea than bombing the bejesus out of them in an futile effort to keep them from getting nukes in the first place.

    I say bravo to her on this.  It's a superb policy.


    Parent

    Depends on if you're proposing (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:56:17 AM EST
    Cutting a progressive tax or a regressive tax.

    I'm OK with the "Obliterate Iran" thing but only because she has a history and a record whereby I can look at a statement like that and know, with complete confidence, that it is in referrence to a very specific situation and set of policies that I agree with.

    Parent

    You've been beating (none / 0) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    that progressive vs regressive tax argument since Hillary issued this particular pander.  You do realize that excise taxes aren't regressive, right?

    Parent
    Any tax (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:15:20 AM EST
    1.  On a good or service that people require in order to pursue opportunity

    2. Impacts rich people and poor people the same.

    Those are the conditions by which I determine regressivity of the tax.

    Since I've been pointing out that it is regressive, you're the first person who has suggested it's not.  The arguments that I have seen to date are merely that removing this regressive tax is unworkable given the political climate of the moment.

    Parent

    Great (none / 0) (#81)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    You can make up whatever definition you like.  

    Are Capital Gains taxes regressive?

    Parent

    If you disagree with the definition offered (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:24:02 AM EST
    Come up with a better one.

    But tell me first, on a spectrum with Milk on one end and a diamond ring on the other, which side do you think gas should appear?

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#92)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    How many poor people own cars?  

    Do poor people use as much energy as rich people?

    Excise taxes serve a specific purpose that you wish to ignore.

    Parent

    A lot of poor people (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:35:42 AM EST
    Own cars.  And while poor people do not use as much energy there is a certain amount they do require to live.  They are not in a position to say to themselves "Ok, I can live without that."

    What I apprehend about the excise tax here is that it hurts poorer people more than it hurts richer people.  


    Parent

    Well the same is true (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    of all taxes.  

    Poor people don't spend nearly as much on gas as wealthier people.  

    Parent

    Poor people (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:01:17 AM EST
    probably don't spend as much on rice, bread and milk either.


    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#132)
    by tamens on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    Personal anecdote:  in my neck of the woods, if you don't have a lot of money, you drive a crap car, ie some 20 year old Buick that you paid $500 for and gets about 8 miles to the gallon while spewing smoke behind you everywhere you go.

    Its also believed to be fact that the poorer you are, the MORE you pay in gas taxes because you can't afford to live where you work and you can't afford to drive those darling Hybrids.  I know Barbara Erhenreich (sp?) wrote a book about it.

    Parent

    Also, it depends on where you live poor (none / 0) (#159)
    by DFLer on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:40:58 AM EST
    urban poor may not have as many cars, but have more public transportation available. Small town, rural poor may have cars by necessity..but often older, less fuel efficient beaters.

    Re the charge that a lower gas price will only encourage more consumption (Mika B on AM Joe)..NOT! We use the car only when necessary....and have been for the last couple of years. Lower prices would only save money, not finance some cross-country jaunt!

    What about the inflation of the price of natural gas, heating oil and electricity? Now that's real pain around here.

    Parent

    A Lot Of Poor People, Especially In Rural (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:47:33 AM EST
    areas own cars/trucks out of necessity. Many are older models trucks, for work reasons, and are not fuel efficient.

    Poor city folks at least where I live often need their old junkers to get to places of employment out in the burbs because of that is where the jobs are and there is inadequate alternate transportation.

    Your questions seem to indicate that you are not real familiar with the actual lives and struggles of poor people. $30 to you is probably chump change. No so for many people.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#56)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    I know a great many liberals who are comfortable with Hillary's answer to that question.  I am one of them.

    I like how the talking point reduces it to the phrase "obliterate Iran," completely divorced from context, because everyone knows what a lead balloon it would be to argue, "Hillary says she would obliterate Iran if it launched a nuclear attack on Israel, only a wingnut would agree with that!"

    Parent

    Well that's great (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:11:47 AM EST
    Glad to hear you are ok with our political leaders saying they will obliterate another nation.  I guess you were ok with Axis of Evil as well?  

    I am no dove but I absolutely despise saber rattling rhetoric and rah-rah we're so tough BS.  Her comment was meant SOLELY to show how tough she is.  It is playing into Conservative framing.

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM EST
    I am okay with Hillary saying she would obliterate Iran IF THEY NUKED ISRAEL.  Amazing how your point would disappear if you were ever honest enough to include the context.

    What's your "non-dovish" idea of how that question ought to be answered?  "Well, gosh, if Iran wiped Israel off the face of the earth with a nuclear attack, we'd definitely have to keep all our options open."  Is that what you think the Democratic position ought to be?

    Parent

    It DOESN'T MATTER (4.00 / 4) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:21:36 AM EST
    what the context is.  

    I know what the context is.  

    Will we really obliterate Iran if they nuked Israel?  Nuke all of her cities?  Turn it into a parking lot?  Kill all of her citizens?  This is what we would do if she nuked Iran?

    I would say something like "Any nuclear attack on Israel would result in a certain strong and severe response from the United States".

    I don't need more bar stool diplomacy.  

    Parent

    Meaningless diplospeak (1.00 / 0) (#182)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    "Any nuclear attack on Israel would result in a certain strong and severe response from the United States".

    That's truly pathetic.


    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#86)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    As long as you understand that your claim to speak for all liberals on this is ridiculously false, that's fine that you would prefer a vaguer response.

    Parent
    Oddly enough (none / 0) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    I didn't say I spoke for Liberals.  I make an anecdotal statement.

    Luckily here at TL we can find plenty of that rare bird, the Liberal Hawk that supports pugilistic rhetoric towards our international foes.

    Parent

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    Here is flyerhawk "not speaking for liberals":

    Do you know a single Liberal that feels comfortable with the phrase "Obliterate Iran"?

    You still can't help yourself, can you?  You still can't acknowledge the context of this one specific remark, and you have to go on pretending that anyone who thinks it is okay to vow retaliation IF IRAN NUKED ISRAEL is therefore okay with the general concept of "pugilistic rhetoric towards our international foes."

    I've seen you argue with the wingnuts at Redstate with far more respect than you show towards the Clinton supporters here.

    Parent

    I try to be respectful (none / 0) (#112)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    but you guys seems utterly unwilling to treat my comments with any sort of respect.

    I made an anecdotal observation.  Do you know a single Liberal?  That is a question.

    I rarely chide Hillary for policy comments.  The gas tax and the obliterate Iran comments were, IMO, really poor decisions.  IMO, she is taking the pander road because she is behind.  I don't believe that she  believes in the gas tax holiday and I think she would operate with greater deftness than she did with her obliterate Iran comment.  But they are both bad panders, IMO.

    Most of you seem fine with it.  Some seem to actually think the gas tax is a good idea from a public policy standpoint.  That level of apologia is too great to overcome.

    Parent

    Several people (none / 0) (#126)
    by Manuel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    have said they are liberal and support Hillary's answer.  Even though I found "Mutually assured destruction" horrible to contemplate, keeping the concept in the public arena went a long ways to keep it from happening during the cold war.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#199)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    You say: Do you know a single Liberal? [that feels comfortable with the phrase "Obliterate Iran"?] and then you say: Most of you seem fine with it.

    Either you believe none of us here are Liberals or you've answered your own question.  And you wonder why some of us don't show you a great deal of respect?

    Parent

    Looking for the Anti-war Candidate? (none / 0) (#145)
    by santarita on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    The foreign policy statements of both front-runner candidates are pretty hawkish.  Neither breaks new ground.  Of course both are better than the Mr. Stay the Course McCain.  Obama has certainly established his hawkish credentials with his discussion of bombing Pakistan and embracing the "wise" foreign policy of G H W Bush.

    Parent
    And oddly enough (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    he was roundly criticized by Republicans and Hillary supporters for his comments on Pakistan.  In that case he was being diplomatically tone deaf.  Yet now Hillary is simply being honest, even though her rhetorical level is far more harsh.

    Parent
    Flyerhawk from Agonist? (none / 0) (#176)
    by bslev22 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    If so,  you rock.  But in any event, so sorry about the treatment you've endured this morning.  I'm puzzled by the low ratings you got for expressing your views on here.  I've not seen that since coming here, although I came here to escape similar treatment from so-called Obama sites.

    Is the gas tax pander?  Perhaps, but let's not get carried away with self-righteousness.  Politicians pander, including Senator Obama.  So, yes, we don't like to hear about obliterating Iran, and Obama knows that so he panders to us and says that Hillary sounds like Bush.  But then, almost in the same breath, he turns around and panders to the more conservatives among us and says that he will not allow Iran to go nuclear.  So there's a double pander, and we're talking missles.

    But, seriously, I am kind of embarassed about the low ratings you received.  I'm gonna fix it to the extent that I can.  Don't leave!

    Parent

    Any Dem Candidate Going Into The GE (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    with the response you recommend would be made a laughing stock by the Republicans in a matter of seconds. The response would be something like: What are you going to do? Will you send them strong and sternly written letters?

    No way any pol is going to win the WH with comments like that.

    Parent

    Except Obama Supporters Want To Ignore (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    that The Great Liberal, Progressive Obama agreed yesterday on MTP that he would do the very same thing. The only difference would be that he would softer words before taking the same action.

    Parent
    You guys don't seem to get it (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:22:41 AM EST
    It isn't that I think the policy is bad.  I think her tone is horrible.  What does using such harsh language achieve, other than to maybe get some Conservatives on board?

    Parent
    Of course it's (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:30:37 AM EST
    intended to get some Conservatives on board -- she's trying to cut into Obama's lead among Conservatives and cross-voters.

    If you don't object to the policy, and you agree Obama has exactly the same policy, is it Clinton's honesty in stating the policy that you object to?  Isn't straight talking a good thing?  What other policies do you believe that Obama has that he's keeping hidden during the campaign?

    Here we have one candidate who states her policies openly and another who argues in favor of keeping them hidden.  Just as in their respective Senate races (when Obama promised not to run for President but Clinton refused to make any such promise) how Clinton gets labeled as the one with honesty problems is beyond me.

    Parent

    You do realize (2.33 / 3) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    that the entire point of this diary was to argue that Hillary wasn't trying to appeal to Conservatives, right?

    Your argument about hidden policies is sophomoric.  Diplomacy is the art of saying things without saying them.  That has been true for thousands of years.

    Parent

    You missed the point of the diary. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by santarita on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    The diary started out discussing the state of the liberal/progressive blogs during the latter days of this campaign.  The state is not so good if one is looking for intellectually challenging and honest discussion of the candidates.  And one only has to read the comments here to get a flavor of what is wrong: failure to read opposing comments, failure to respond to points made, oversimplification of complex issues, making definitions up to fit the argument, for starters.  

    Off the general subject of the diary but more to the point of taxes - have you ever looked at the U S. Tax Code with the various interpretative rulings?

    Parent

    Yhe only thing that upsets flyer (none / 0) (#123)
    by Radix on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:49:13 AM EST
    is the fact that Hilary, with the use of this language, may have taken votes from Obama.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#170)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    You guys have me really figured out.  

    Parent
    Iran reacted to it (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Manuel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    which means that they are paying attention.  Which means they are less likely to engage in the conduct we want them to avoid.  Recall how Saddam was not deterred before Gulf War I.  More deterrence back then could have saved us a lot of trouble later.

    Parent
    First of all (none / 0) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    Iran is NOT going to nuke Israel.  It is silly to think they would.  Perhaps they might give terrorists nukes but even that is highly unlikely.  

    Saddam wasn't deterred because we made absolutely no effort at all to tell him that we would oppose an invasion.  Glaspy gave him the green light, knowingly or not.  Had Glaspy simply said "The United States would find any territorial aggression in the region unacceptable" she very well may have averted Gulf War I.

    Parent

    I am not so certain they won't (none / 0) (#192)
    by Manuel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    but they might develop the technology and then provide it to a terrorist group that might use it.  They also might invade Iraq which poses a problem for both Clinton's and Obama's plans for withdrawals.

    Afganistan was another example where deterrence was not used effectively.  Both the Clinton and Bush administrations failed to make it clear to the Taliban that their support for Bin Laden would have severe consequences.  We tried diplomacy but without a credible threat of force, our position is weakened.  This is why I have never been critical of the Democrats who voted for the AUMF.

    Parent

    flyer Did You Object When Obama (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:24:59 AM EST
    said Social Security was in crisis to get Republicans on board?

    Did you object when Obama said that Republicans had better ideas on government regulations and schools to get Republicans on board?

    Did you object when Obama indicated that he might put Hagel and Lugar in positions of Sec. of Defense and State to get Republicans on board?

    Did you object when Obama said that he would adopt a foreign policy like Reagan and BushI to get Republicans on board?

    Parent

    You Don't Seem To Get That Her Position (none / 0) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    including tone helps establish that she will be strong on defense. This is an area where the Republicans have repeatedly and successfully convinced the majority (enough to win the WH) of Americans that Dems are weak. Clinton's actions are geared not only for the primary but to take away areas of Republicans attacks for the GE.

    Obama OTOH courts Republicans and conservatives by reinforcing the theme that the Dems are weak on defense and therefore he will adopt the Republican foreign policy of Reagan and place Republicans in positions as Sec. of Defense and State.

    Parent

    And using softer words (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Manuel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:40:46 AM EST
    actually lessens the deterrence effect and isn't politically attractive.  This is how the Republicans outflanked the Democrats during the cold war and came to own the national security issue.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:42:36 AM EST
    she's trying to out-Republican either Obama or McCain?  

    Do you guys realize what this diary is about?

    Parent

    It seems to me (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:18 AM EST
    that you disagree with BTD's thesis that deterrence theory is the polar opposite of neocon aggression.

    The reason to send a tough message is that it is a lot cheaper than sending the military.  In Hillary's case, the primary audience for her words is not Iran - if they're crazy enough to nuke Israel, it doesn't matter anyway - but the other nations in the region who are going to want nuclear weapons to keep Iran from becoming the dominant regional power.

    The entire concept of the "umbrella of deterrence" is that if the region knows we will react strongly if Iran ever uses its nuclear weapons, then they're not as likely to want nuclear weapons of their own.  But we need to be clear and unambiguous if we want other nations to feel confident regarding our position.

    I think foreign policy is a more complex issue, and the differences between liberal and conservative ideas are more complicated, than simply saying "Republicans talk tough and Democrats don't."  If that's the takeaway from this situation, then we're really framing ourselves into irrelevance.

    Parent

    I do not agree with BTD (none / 0) (#168)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:12:14 PM EST
    on his views regarding deterrence.

    Public threats of nuclear attack achieve nothing, IMO.  Well at least nothing positive.  The leaders of Iran are not going to change their plans based on  random utterances by American political leaders.  However they WILL use those comments to further clamp down domestically.

    I don't know why you think that the other nation's of the region will feel any safer when the United States says it would obliterate Iran if it nuked Israel.  Most of the nations of the region are probably thinking "Why in the world would they even discuss such a hypothetical when incredibly unlikely that Iran would try such a thing?"  

    If her attempt was to bolster the umbrella of deterrence among regional powers then using one of the Arab nations probably would have served far greater value.

    I think foreign policy is extremely complex.  I think foreign policy being discussed in Presidential elections is little more than panders and modern jingoism.

    Parent

    Old Politics (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Manuel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:07:22 AM EST
    Don't frame every issue in liberal vs conservative terms.  Politically, Hillary's position appeals to Jewish voters and pro Israel SDs several of whom are quite liberal.  The position is sound and the wording is appropriate.  Many liberals, myself included, don't see why we should accept your argument that Hillary's framing is "conservative".  

    Parent
    Often, in politics, it's not (none / 0) (#143)
    by Radix on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    about the argument itself, it's how it can be framed. By framing Hilary's statements as pandering to conservatives, Obama and his supporters hope to shore up his liberal support. In other words, Obama is the true progressive and Hilary is a secret Republican.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    Well yse (none / 0) (#137)
    by Radix on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    The basic precept is that Clinton is going after conservative Democrats using, essentially, three arrows, lower taxes, militarism, and race baiting, is that correct? First, how is tax relief strictly a conservative issue? Do you not suppose there are a few liberals who might not wants some relief on this front? I wonder what the yes response percentage would be, if you asked every working person whether or not they would like to pay lower taxes, I'm guessing better than 90%. Tax relief, in general, is neither conservative nor liberal, it's how it's applied and to whom that defines that. Obama has also offered tax relief, is he appealing to, or using conservative talking points?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#90)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    Of course his position would be the same.  Only in the realm of people who don't actually want to be elected to find anything will you find alternative responses, like "we give Israel enough foreign aid, they can take care of themselves."

    Parent
    Agree and disagree (none / 0) (#173)
    by ChrisO on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    I wish she hadn't proposed the gas tax holiday. I don't follow economics that well, but it is telling to me that not a single economist that I've seen has supported it. You know the Clinton campaign would at least be trotting out their own economic advisors to back it if they could. I realize you can find economists to support either side in any economics argument, but the fact that I haven't seen a single one endorse her idea is telling to me. It may play with the voters, but I don't see how it's a positive to propose a plan that gets universal criticism. And I know we're all caught up with using the term "elite" now, but I think it's simplistic to dismiss all of the opposition as elitists who don't know what it's like to have to pay for gas.

    As for Iran, as far as I can tell the misinterprtation of her remarks has unfortunately taken hold as the conventional wisdom. From what I've read, she never said we would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. She said she would respond with force, then said "they have to know we can obliterate them," which I take to mean that Iran has to understand the consequences of an attack. Saying the fact that our ability to obliterate them serves as a deterrent is much different than saying she will obliterate them. Much different.

    Parent

    She got the question about (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    courting conservatives from a fake scandalized George Stephanopolis.  I wish she had mentioned Obama doing that all along, though I did love her line about Rush having a little crush on her.  

    I was glad when later there was a question from an Obama supporting Republican in the audience.  Hillary subtly referred to it later.  Unfortunately subltety is lost on most of the leftie blogosphere these days, unless they are making up fake racial slights.

    Windfall Profits is the issue (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:44:42 AM EST
     I don't know about you guys but she is the only candidate talking about the gas prices in the same context as the massive profits of the oil companies.  DUH!!  Obama's campaign so concerned with attacking Hillary, should have come up with something about the windfall profits.  This is the issue and she brought it on the table.  People have no political acumen whatsoever.  

    Of course the tax holiday will go nowhere, but maybe people will acknowledge that we should tax the windfall profits of the oil companies since someone is discussing it.  

    Obama should have picked up the cue and come up with something bold and challenging with the windfall profits, instead he dorks around and wastes his prominence and any challenge to the status quo.  

    Parent

    Good Point! (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by santarita on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM EST
    Tying the concept of a gas tax holiday to taxing windfall profits for oil companies is an example of how a leader could get a tax  on windfall profits,  Tax relief for the people tied to taxing the greedy oil companies makes it politically difficult for a candidate or congressperson to oppose the tax on windfall profits.

    It's actually the kind of tactic that Obama should embrace because it is a way of uniting adversaries for a common good.

    Parent

    My favorite part (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    of the "This Week" interview was when she said to Stephanopoulos:
     
    "Now, you remember this, because George did work in that '92 campaign, and George and I actually were against NAFTA. I'm talking about him in his previous life, before he was an objective journalist and didn't have opinions about such matters."

    He, of all people, should know that she isn't about to be a sitting duck for anyone.

    Parent

    "before he was an objective journalist and (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM EST
    didn't have opinions about such matters."

    Nice snarkalicious comment...

    It is funny how the media keep telling the NAFTA lie when anyone who can read books can read the (anti Clinton's) books covering that time in the WH and uncover the fact that she railed against NAFTA to Bill, and was furious that her word was not law with him on this.

    And also that this was unusual: on most policy matters she had the final decision with Bill, and that that upset the others, like Gore.

    Parent

    As someone who recently fell off (none / 0) (#35)
    by Faust on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:48:26 AM EST
    the blogging turnip truck, I'm no expert on progressive blogs. However, it seems to me that Matt Stoller is one of the least interesting posters on that site. He seems...simplistic in most of his analysis.

    I understand the direction of this progressive blog critique and there is validity to it. But there are still solid bloggers out there.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#39)
    by lansing quaker on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:11 AM EST
    We sure must have a turnip surplus, what with all these people falling off the turnip trucks as of late. ;)

    I just see BTD using the expression more and more as the primary goes on.  

    Falling off turnip trucks (none / 0) (#49)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    is not good for people that can't afford healthcare. Perhaps we should step carefully off the turnip truck. (And take a few with us to put on the dinner table.)

    Parent
    Yea, I've noticed (none / 0) (#47)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    Some of the other blogs that are pro Obama, talk about Hillary as if she were the enemy, they make Imus look mild...   I guess they don't realize that if Obama wins the nomination they will pandering to us...  I think I will tell them, I just vote for women the way AA's vote for blacks..  And guys if your name ain't Sue, you can just forget my vote...

    This is the joke. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    People here talk about Obama as if he were the enemy, but it's the other blogs who make an enemy of Clinton that are wrong, batty, irrational, hateful, mean, dumb, blind, and wicked.

    Do you all seriously not see your own contributions to the demonizing on both sides?

    Does TL and its readers seriously think they've been above the fray, treating Obama with respect, and demonstrating a united Democratic front?

    Seriously?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:02:43 AM EST
    if Hillary were way ahead you better believe I would not be insulting Obama's supporters, talking about what a lousy person Obama is, etc.

    The amazing thing about Obama's supporters is that they are 100% convinced he has the nomination locked up due to delegate math, but they feel no obligation to try and unify the party so that their candidate can actually win in November.  Instead, it's one diary after another about how Hillary is a lying b*tch.  Tell me, if the nomination is already locked up, what is the point?

    Parent

    But since Obama is ahead you think (none / 0) (#146)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:20:29 AM EST
    it's completely justified for people here to take shots at him all day, calling him all kinds of crooked and dishonest?

    Is that your standard? Who's in the lead?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#158)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    It's a political campaign.  People tend to like their candidate and not like the other candidate.  That's how it works.

    But the time when one candidate has it wrapped up is about the time that savvy folks usually start getting real magnanimous towards the other side.  I don't know whether Obama supporters fail to appreciate this concept, or if they actually feel like the nomination remains significantly in doubt.

    Parent

    Both sides believe they have it locked. (none / 0) (#195)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    Clinton and Obama both believe they're gonna be president. So, if it is tight, then the back and forth between supporters shouldn't be a problem. We're all trying to talk the other side into giving up at this point. It's no longer about policy for 99% of us. We've decided. It's just about which side can convince the media that it's over. Right now, Clinton has the media on her side. In February, they clearly backed Barack.

    We'll see who gets to ride the media carousel in the front after tomorrow.

    Parent

    its appropriate to expose Obama for who is (none / 0) (#191)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    and what he is not. We don't have to say he's evil and call him four letter words like his surrogates on the other blogs do Hillary. or make u facts or cherrypick. We're saner, balanced and mature.

    we prefer to tear him down claim after claim.
    We take comfort in our decision that Hillary is the better choice and most electable and Obama is not ready for prime time.

    I think he's a nice guy, btw.


    Parent

    If you look around here, (none / 0) (#193)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:55:36 PM EST
    you'll see that plenty of people don't share your tact, and if you look elsewhere, you'll see that not everyone on his side hates Hillary. There are reasoned and logical rejections of her out there, too.

    My particular issue is that BTD enjoys calling out all the probama blogs while allowing those at TL who don't have class in their rejection of Obama free reign.

    Parent

    That is not true (none / 0) (#153)
    by cymro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:27:19 AM EST
    Obama supporters are criticized here making for unreasonable statements about Clinton. In most instances, Obama himself is criticized for being inexperienced and not an electable nominee for the Democratic party when we come to the GE.

    Parent
    Hillary has plenty of supporters here (none / 0) (#197)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:04:46 PM EST
    who don't put her campaign in the best light.

    We should not be giving those people on the other side of this debate the power to push us out of the party, and that is what I see happening here.

    If BTD opens a thread asking who will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination, you'll see the crazies crawling out of the wall. They're here. TL is not immune from leftwing battiness.

    Parent

    What you utterly fail to get (none / 0) (#183)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    is that it's reactive.  Most of us felt quite positive about Obama in the beginning, whether we were supporting him or one of the other candidates.

    And then his campaign started calling Hillary and Bill Clinton and a whole long list of other superb Dem. leaders racists and race-baiters, and well, the  hope and change and unity bubble just completely burst.

    That told me, and lots of others, that his campaign and his candidacy was based on a lie and a fraud.  Everything else stems from that.


    Parent

    I've never seen you here before. (none / 0) (#196)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:02:29 PM EST
    I started coming here back in January, and people here have never liked Obama on the whole. You have some people like BTD who claim to be 'tepid' supporters, but TL is a Clinton blog, and has been from the start.

    As to supporters, if you actually give Obama supporters more power over your vote than Obama or Clinton, then I think you have your priorities distorted.

    I don't deny that plenty of Democrats are jerks, a-holes, or whatever, but your vote is not for them, it's for the party, and HRC and BO have both made it clear that they'll be asking you to vote for the other in the fall should they not be the nominee.

    Parent

    gyrfalcon has written 456 posts since March (none / 0) (#200)
    by cymro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    Maybe you don't really pay attention?


    Parent
    From my perspective (none / 0) (#202)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:51 PM EST
    I haven't, to my knowledge, written anything about Obama that could be considered demonizing by rational people.  I don't like him, I don't trust him, and I won't vote for him, but we've had worse than him in the White House and no doubt will again.

    I have, however, been very, very tempted to go after him and many of his online supporters in a much more vitriolic way, and I don't only because I suspect it isn't good for me to indulge in a public hatefest, not because I think he/his supporters don't deserve it.  After the way I've been personally treated on the pro-Obama blogs and after the things I've read Obama supporters writing - long before the Clinton supporters decamped to safer climes - I am left with nothing but contempt for both Obama and a majority of his online supporters.

    What amazes me the most is how many Obama supporters consider that unreasonable - that I should, somehow, be perfectly willing to accept vicious abuse, more than a little of it couched in misogynist terms, and feel nothing about it.  I wonder how all of you have reacted to the abuse dumped on all Democrats by the Republicans in recent years - did it make you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, that's politics for you"?  Because I can tell you, the Republican abuse left me with the absolute conviction that I will never vote for one of them and will celebrate any kick in the a$$ that any of them get.  I do not forgive and forget.  And as far as I'm concerned, Obama and his supporters haved earned their place next to the Republicans on my list of the loathed.

    Parent

    Oil futures break $120/bbl, new record high (none / 0) (#135)
    by jawbone on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:03:38 AM EST
    Just reported on MSNBC and NPR.

    This is going to hurt so much, I don't know how many people are going to make it in the near term (meaning next few years, actually).

    There was no R&D done to ready alternative for this situation (thank you, St. Ronnie -- NOT).

    Any predictions as to how high oil will go before Little Boots leaves office?


    Let me just say this. (none / 0) (#139)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:07:40 AM EST
    Big Tent Democrat,

    Perhaps other readers of this blog would find this comment unnecessary. However, I really want to thank you for thinking out your posts and for being an impartial analyst.  It has been very painful to learn that both in MSM and the blogs, objectivity is the rare exception, not the norm. So thank you for trying to be fair in every post and call it as is.  

    There is nothing I can add to your post.  You said it perfectly.

    The charge was race baiting not racism. (none / 0) (#181)
    by fiver5 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    The charge made by Stoller is not that the Clintons have an irrational dislike or fear of African Americans, the charge is that the Clintons are fanning the flames of racial division for their own benefit. While the Rangle quote might counter a charge that the Clintons are racist, it has no logical relevance whatsoever to a charge of race baiting.


    Distinction without a difference (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    Using race-baiting for personal political gain is racist.

    Which makes St. Obama....

    Parent

    For whose benefit (none / 0) (#194)
    by Manuel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:57:06 PM EST
    The race baiting charge has no merit.  In retrospect many have asked (assuming the charge to be ture) "What was Bill Clinton thinking"?.  The answer, of course, is that he wasn't thinking anything.  He was the victim of a well executed tactic by the Obama campaign to get an advantage in South Carolina and the Feb 5 southern states.

    Parent
    A full-blown ... (none / 0) (#204)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:53:40 PM EST
    ... dust devil?