home

Krugman Says Obama Ad Misrepresents His Comments

Update: Here's the ad.

Ouch.

Paul Krugman says an Obama ad attacking Hillary on gas tax relief misrepresents what he said.

I did not say that the Clinton proposal would increase oil industry profits. If the ad implies that I did, it should be retracted.

....I was very clear when I wrote about the Clinton proposal that while I didn’t think it was good policy, it was not the same as McCain’s, and relatively harmless. If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they’re being deliberately dishonest.

Krugman's original column is here. It attacks only McCain's plan which is not the same as Hillary's.

More...

Krugman adds:

Krugman adds: "Just to be clear: I don’t regard this as a major issue. It’s a one-time thing, not a matter of principle…Health care reform, on the other hand, could happen, and is very much a long-term issue — so poisoning the well by in effect running against universality, as Obama has, is a much more serious breach."

As I wrote earlier today, meet the new boss, he's the same as the ones he's trying to replace.

Will Obama pull the ad?

< AP-Ipsos National Poll: Hillary Ahead by 7 | Late Late Night: Working Class Hero >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    No, he won't pull the ad. (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Iphie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:17:04 PM EST
    But in future ads, I think Hillary could use the "deliberately dishonest" and "poisoning the well" quotes to her advantage.

    No, Obama won't pull the ad (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:17:29 PM EST
    he's had several ads disproved, from the lobbyist claim to the "I don't take money from oil companies" crap.  And don't even get me started on the Harry and Louise mailer that he keeps pulling outta his butt.

    Krugman is one hand clapping in the Obama-dominated blogworld.  I suppose if he gets ticked off enough to go on some news shows, and uses the gas tax misquote as an entre into talking about healthcare, then more could happen, but it seems to me that he is being very careful not choosing firm sides and just stating the facts as he sees him (you know, being fair).

    Again, let's see how ticked off he gets over this.  He might just raise his voice a little louder.

    ObamaWorld already hates (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:30:48 PM EST
    Krugman with a passion.  The gas tax op-ed, as misinterpreted (apparently) by the Obama campaign, was an exception to the usual "Evil Krugman Always Trashes Obama" rule.

    Clinton using Krugman's words in a rebuttal ad would make heads explode all over The Blog That Must Not Be Named.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually. . . (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:35:02 PM EST
    I went back and read dKos for a day last week (I'm on a diet and it acts as an appetite suppressant) and wouldn't you know it -- after that column was published everyone was quoting Krugman left and right, as if he hadn't, a week before, been public enemy number two.

    I guess that's over.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't Obama do one of these (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM EST
    lying hail marys before PA, too--there was an ad he put out that was blatantly false the weekend before the vote, and we were yapping about it, and then PA came and the ad was never seen again.

    [ Parent ]
    Watch it become his own policy (none / 0) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:00:12 PM EST
    for the next primary :)

    [ Parent ]
    Yah, policies that he xerox: YES HE CAN (none / 0) (#215)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:56:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    A different kind of politician? (none / 0) (#207)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:52:03 AM EST
    Sure doesn't sound like he is.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well, Krugman hasn't (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:39:53 PM EST
    come out explicitly in support of Hillary, though it's pretty clear to me how he voted.

    But the OFB at dkos doesn't understand that it's possible to support a politician (Hillary in this case) and nevertheless disagree with her. They only know lockstep.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, if he's not WITH Obama. . . (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM EST
    then he must be against Obama is the calculus, I think.

    [ Parent ]
    Total agreement (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Step Beyond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:30:40 PM EST
    If I ever find myself in total agreement with a politician, I will assume they are my plastic surgery altered, evil doppleganger who is out to destroy me. That seems reasonable. :D

    [ Parent ]
    OMG! (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:42:41 PM EST
    Is THAT why I've been gaining weight?  Because I stopped reading The Blog That Must Not Be Named? Do I need to start naming AND reading it?

    Sounds easier than getting back on Weight Watchers, I'll give it a try.

    [ Parent ]

    Throw in a (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Iphie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:09 PM EST
    little Olbermann in there and the pounds will be melting off.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's see (5.00 / 8) (#86)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:15 PM EST
    I could cut my caloric intake to 1200 a day and start lifting weights again.

    Or I could start reading DK and watching KO again.

    Starvation and exertion vs. reading and watching.

    Starvation/exertion vs. reading and watching.

    Okay, I've decided.

    Back to Weight Watchers and the gym.

    [ Parent ]

    Skip the gym a couple times . . . (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:23:35 PM EST
    and grab a dog for a good walk/romp in the park :)

    If you don't have a dog handy, there are prob a few at your local shelter that wouldn't mind a walking date  ;)

    REALLY lowers stress for me and keeps me bum in shape after sitting while working all day/night.

    [ Parent ]

    DKos and KO (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:40:27 PM EST
    are not appetite suppressants, they are brain-cell killers.

    Anytime I wind up at Dkos or inadvertently catch KO, I lose IQ points.


    [ Parent ]

    Kosorexia. (5.00 / 7) (#84)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:53:12 PM EST
    It's not just for starlets anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    :) thanks for the laugh (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Leisa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:56:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ok...I will let you in on a secret (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    Kos, in Arabic, means female genitalia, in the vernacular.  I could never go there cause one of the most obscene Arabic cuss words is: Kos umak.  So, like Obama says, it's in my DNA why I could never read that rag.  So the Kossacks, really make me laugh each and every time.  

    [ Parent ]
    Lambert (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:13:05 PM EST
    needs to know this.  It's too funny.  It will go along with their Molly Dance/Lek discussion.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh my goodness (5.00 / 8) (#140)
    by lambert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:44:12 PM EST
    Try to bring our political discourse to a new level, and look what happens... I feel terrible about this, just terrible.

    [ Parent ]
    Feels more like Kosulimia (nt) (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:14:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They love to kill messengers (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by facta non verba on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:55:13 PM EST
    Mayhill Fowler had another column today questioning Obama's campaign strategy in NC (which does seem odd, no public events today in NC only private meeting including a factory tour).
    She wrote about it and out came the knives.

    What is even more interesting is that her last column had been positive about Obama and so the OFB were all apologetic then. The OFB are such interesting people. Joe Wilson writes an op-ed about Hillary's national security credentials and he is told to shove it. General Sheldon endorses Clinton and he's called a traitor. I mean it's the Huff Post but who are these people?

    [ Parent ]

    please see NYT front page (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM EST
    graphic of places in NC and IN the Obamas and Clintons have campaigned.
    It appears the Obamas are avoiding small towns where bitter voters live with their God, guns, and racism.


    [ Parent ]
    Could that be an ad in itself (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:16:09 PM EST
    "Time and again, Obama uses spin and manipulation to misrepresent Hillary Clinton's positions instead of defending his own. Whether it is [insert example a] or [example b], [example c] or [example d], Barack Obama simply doesn't have the ideas or the plans to make real the change he talks about.

    "Hillary Clinton for America - Because ideas need weight - and boy do her balls weigh a ton!"

    Okay, maybe not that last part.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:49:56 PM EST
    Obama is high on hype and low on substance - but he makes an effort to criticize Hillary's substance.


    [ Parent ]
    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by owenaprhys on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:28:13 AM EST
    I'd vote for that ad!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Carville (none / 0) (#174)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM EST
    apparently recently said if Hillary gave Obama one of her cojones, they'd both have a pair.

    Heh.

    [ Parent ]

    Krugman (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:19:08 PM EST
    will get four thousand nasty comments from Obama supporters and will not respond to any of them.
    He's a gentleman and a scholar.
    That's just who Krugman is.

    Oh Krugman. (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:31:10 PM EST
    He used to be such a great liberal voice. Then he went and didn't back Obama based on purely liberal principles! The gall!! To think I used to respect the man!
    /snark

    [ Parent ]
    Has Krugman accepted Obama as his personal savior? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by lambert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:57:43 PM EST
    I think not!

    [ Parent ]
    Krugman's Jewish. (none / 0) (#170)
    by clio on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:05:24 PM EST
    Can Jews have personal saviors?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by shoephone on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:30:00 PM EST
    Unfortunately, Shecky Greene is no longer with us.

    [ Parent ]
    If Shecky's gone doesn't that prove the point? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by clio on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:34:51 PM EST
    Oh.  And ha ha!

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Iphie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:35:57 PM EST
    But they don't always recognize them. Just ask your mother.

    [ Parent ]
    plus (none / 0) (#21)
    by Nasarius on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    Someone else at the NYT apparently reads and filters out the nasty blog comments he gets. Suckers.

    [ Parent ]
    Krugman (none / 0) (#56)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:44:05 PM EST
    is such a nice guy, he once patiently explained to blog readers that it takes quite a bit of time for comments to show up on his blog, so please don't think he's censoring comments.  ;)  I had to laugh.

    [ Parent ]
    We should boycott the times (none / 0) (#169)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:05:17 PM EST
    at least January (if you aren't already boycotting them), and ONLY take links to Krugman's articles/feed or the Public Editors and comment that you are doing so on each krugman article.

    I'd love to see aggregated news + boycott have an impact on nytimes behavior.  I think their election cycle and OFB blog-ad views have encouraged them to stay sloppy.

    [ Parent ]

    The battle against GOP ideas (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    began when Obama sent out his first GOP-like Harry and Louise mailer in an attempt to destroy universal healthcare.

    We are battling GOP ideas (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:21:40 PM EST
    Too bad it's Obama who's pitching them.

    Gimme five, Kathy! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:23:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If it was embarrassing (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:25:14 PM EST
    Then it remains.

    But if Krugman is right, Obama is lying. Does that qualify as an embarrassment?

    Hyperbolic much? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:32:26 PM EST
    LOL.  I much preferred the joke where Obama gave Hillary the finger and pretended she was at once dirt on his shoulder and crap on his shoe. That's a class act, for ya.

    [ Parent ]
    user Leibnicht' (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:49 PM EST
    has been banned twice before using different screen names (but I don't think he's proudliberalpatriot.)

    His account has been erased and his comments gone.

    [ Parent ]

    It is certainly a shame (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:33:35 PM EST
    that Senator Clinton has not been as dignified
    as Senator Obama lately.  

    She certainly has not lived up to his high standards of shoulder brushing, leg brushing, waffle whining, kitchen sink references, and talk of buffet throwing.  But what do you expect?  She's only a woman.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh and thi Bataan Death March (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:39:56 PM EST
    of a primary can't be helping.

    [ Parent ]
    And I Feel So Good About Voting for Him (5.00 / 9) (#62)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:40 PM EST
    Based on all the insults his supporters hurl my way and all the working class people they are willing to toss under the bus (hey, at least they'll have plenty of company).

    FYI, my vote in the primary and in the general is my own.  If Obama is going to get it, he needs to ask for it.  So far, he hasn't.  Unless being repeatedly insulted and dismissed is the new way of saying "please."

    [ Parent ]

    Now That The Troll Comments Have Been Deleted (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:56:06 PM EST
    My post makes no sense.  And I'm only pointing that out to make it clear I'm not replying to the post above mine.

    [ Parent ]
    None of us (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:02:18 PM EST
    make sense now.
    Kinda fun in a way. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Um, (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:47:12 PM EST
    focus on getting your head around a different reality
    Creative Class condescension at its best.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the advice. (none / 0) (#58)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:45:25 PM EST
    You made a flat statement, followed by a conditional statement.
    Wonder why.

    [ Parent ]
    If that were really true (none / 0) (#70)
    by nellre on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:48:28 PM EST
    If that were really true you wouldn't be here.

    [ Parent ]
    Why would Obama be embarassed by lying? (5.00 / 11) (#27)
    by lambert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:34:51 PM EST
    He claimed, in a nationally televised debate, that he gave his October 2002 Iraq speech "in the midst of" a "high stakes" Senate campaign. However, as his own website shows, he didn't declare for the Senate until January 2003, and at the time, the speech was so unimportant that he didn't even mention it in the press release announcing his candidacy. So unimportant was it then when his Presidential campaign needed to run TV ads based on the speech, they had to re-record it, from scratch. Adding in applause. Of course. This is Obama, after all.

    [ Parent ]
    also blatantly lied in the last debate (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by miguelito on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:05:42 PM EST
    about his signature not being on that infamous questionnaire,  even though it is.  

    [ Parent ]
    The problem (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Leisa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:11:47 PM EST
    about thinking that he is embarrassed by being caught in a lie is that I do not think he holds himself accountable to that level of ethics.  I think his mind set is very different.

    To him, this is a game.  He did  not technically lie because his advisers came up with his advertisements and speeches...  I think he has demonstrated a big disconnect between his actions and his words.  

    I will be surprised if there is a contraction.  This issue was a big way to attack Hillary this week and I doubt that Krugman's challenge will be covered well before the polls open tomorrow.  The timing was impeccable to put out this ad.  People may vote before they know the whole story.

    Sound familiar?

    [ Parent ]

    Sounds like Watergate in the making (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:19:12 PM EST
    to me.  Seriously.  You note a disconnect between his actions and his words -- but what you describe before that really is his disconnect from his surrogates' actions.  If this would be the way of an Obama White House, watch out -- Nixon got in deep by delegating and setting up deniability this way.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, that's "plausible deniability" (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by lambert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:00:27 PM EST
    Bush II learned it at his Daddy's knee.

    [ Parent ]
    I hear you! (none / 0) (#122)
    by Leisa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:21:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I was thinking more like Bush II (none / 0) (#165)
    by Iphie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:02:41 PM EST
    But I was thinking more about his apparent belief that if he does it, it's not wrong. There are a different set of rules for Barrack.

    [ Parent ]
    Cream (none / 0) (#211)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:59:59 AM EST
    you said it "sounds like Watergate in the making" to you.

    Does that not then say that like Nixon, Obama's arrogance allows him to do things his integrity should condemn? No one would suggest that Obama is not a very smart man. But so was Richard Nixon which made his actions incomprehensible unless you add arrogance and a lack of integrity.

    Not all villains are stupid and not all stupid things are said and done because of a lack of intellect.

    Sorry, one of my pet hobby horses, no relation to unity ponies, is why smart people do, and say, such stupid things.

    [ Parent ]

    Per Ben Smith (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Iphie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:58:59 PM EST
    The campanig has removed the quote from the North Carolina version of the spot, but not the Indiana version

    I wonder what the calculation was there -- why NC but not Indiana?

    [ Parent ]

    The comments on that posting (none / 0) (#181)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:28:17 PM EST
    make me want a shower.

    [ Parent ]
    I never read the comments, (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Iphie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:34:26 PM EST
    I don't with a lot of the big, commerical blogs. Back in the day, when I used to read the HuffPo, I made it a rule to never even let my eye drift down. It's mental (not to mention grammatical) sludge.

    [ Parent ]
    Hahahaha! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:43:31 PM EST
    Carville's 'balls' joke was a real knee-slapper

    Wasn't it, though?  I about busted a gut.  That man can spin a phrase.  Reminded me of why I like him so much.

    Fightin' dems!  Go get 'em!

    [ Parent ]

    He's fantastic with words (none / 0) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:07:09 PM EST
    people who like his style saw the compliment for Hillary immediately.

    [ Parent ]
    When you found out Obama served up... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:35:57 PM EST
    a plan in Illinois similar to the one he is now attacking, you felt???

    [ Parent ]
    Were you just banned (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:42:45 PM EST
    as proudliberalpatriot?  I could be in error but plp could not quit discussing Carville.

    [ Parent ]
    no, see above (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:36 PM EST
    he's another previously banned poster so he's gone.

    [ Parent ]
    I would say (none / 0) (#55)
    by Iphie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:43:34 PM EST
    the outright lying qualifies more for shame than embarrassment, but I have seen no signs of either.

    [ Parent ]
    I swear you must be Nuevoliberal (none / 0) (#59)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:45:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I thought it was funny. (none / 0) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:47:39 PM EST
    Wouldn't you think it was funny if he deployed it with reference to Obama and McCain?

    [ Parent ]
    Zombie talking point 'Name one Economist' persists (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ellie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:00:07 PM EST
    TeamObama continues to eat lunch off this practice of being worse than what they purportedly revile. This latest d0uche pile-on centered on misrepresenting Krugman is like the astro-trolls and pester squadrons going after that Elusive Fifth Dentist.

    The one who always won't support the latest in oral hygeine and needs to be taught a lesson.

    Why won't that minty-breathed b@stard just get in line already?

    [ Parent ]

    Gas tax holiday works in fact (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by lambert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:02:28 PM EST
    here, and in IL, too.

    But does it work in theory?

    [ Parent ]

    Crazy talk! (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:06:38 PM EST
    Don't give us facts when we prefer our figgers!

    If tax holidays actually worked, then states like NY, FL, AL, MI and others would be considering them at this very moment.

    Oh, wait...

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (none / 0) (#173)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:09:36 PM EST
    and he is from Berkeley...that will teach you know who.  

    [ Parent ]
    Why Is It Embarrassing To Try to Help People (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:25:23 PM EST
    What has Obama offered as an alternative?  He'll fix Washington.  That's not a plan to help people right now who are in distress.  

    Maybe Clinton's plan will work, maybe it won't, but at least she's trying to help people.  If Obama doesn't like this plan, maybe he could suggest one of his own.  And, btw, even if it only saves a family $30 a month, that's 15 weeks of school lunches for kids whose parents earn between 130 to 185% of the poverty level under the school lunch program (which charges these families $.40 per lunch).

    And Obama isn't trying to (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:37:51 PM EST
    help himself by trying to resurrect fond memories of Ronald Reagan?

    [ Parent ]
    While never once (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    honoring the work of the Clinton administration. I lose more respect for Obama every time he does that.

    Tom Hanks pulled the same thing in his self-created video endorsement of Obama today.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny Thing About Memories (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:20:12 PM EST
    My memories about Reagan have to do with the fact that he won by appealing to white supremacists, he tried to roll back civil rights legislation, coordinated attacks on the poor (particurly AAs) to divert advantages to the rich and engaged in criminal activities in Iran/Contra.

    Evidently Obama and the "Creative Class" has created a "new Reagan reality"  which surprisingly matches the old Republican reality. They are "Creative" that way.

    [ Parent ]

    All I remember about Reagan (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:22:03 AM EST
    is his war on drugs and Nancy's "Just say No." I never took another word of their's seriously after that.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by DFLer on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:34:15 AM EST
    the union busting.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the Opposite of Bushian (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:40:57 PM EST
    McCain's plan, which gives a tax cut without paying for it is Bushian.

    Clinton's is progressive in that it would take away a tax paid for by consumers, at least temporarily, and replace it with a windfall tax on corporations.  

    Is it good politics?  Yes, because people are hurting and this might help them.  It might not, but it's also good politics to show that you know people are hurting and try to find some way to lift their burden.  

    If Obama has a better plan to get immediate relief to families hurt by gas prices, I'm happy to hear it.  If it's better, I'm happy to praise it.  But so far, all I've heard is that we can't give working families relief because high gas prices are good for us,  they lower consumption.  In other words, the poorest among us will just have to take one for the team and hey if they have to quit their job because they can't afford to pay for gas and daycare, to darned bad.  At least the "creative class" can be happy gas consumption is dropping.  Personally, I'd rather save energy in ways that are progressive instead of regressive.  But, hey, I'm a liberal.

    [ Parent ]

    That's a truly sad statement (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:47:57 PM EST
    If you are going to discount all the work the Clinton's have done for people over their 35 years in public service, you are really missing out on the awe of such incredible Americans.

    She goes almost non-stop 7 days a week for this country.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's opposition to (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by clio on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:58:28 PM EST
    trying something - anything - for the mortgage crisis and gas tax relief in favor of waiting on big, overarching, someday change, reminds me of Harry Hopkins replying, in 1932 when some Americans were literally starving, to a Republican[t] congressman who opposed any government help for anything:
    "because the economy will recover in the long run."

    "People don't eat in the long run, Congressman.
    They eat every day."

    Barack should listen up.
    And that goes double for Johnny McMoney.

    [ Parent ]

    If you honestly think this, then YOU are the (none / 0) (#20)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:33:13 PM EST
    one who hasn't been paying attention the last 7 yrs. And most likely you've been asleep the last 20.

    [ Parent ]
    It May Not Do Any Good Right Now, But Good (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:26:16 PM EST
    for Paul Krugman.  He is an honorable and intelligent man.  What obama has done with this ad is what he always does, misrepresents whomever and whatever to make himself look like a winner.
    Which, more and more I am convinced he is not.

    Hillary's retort (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by nellre on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:33:36 PM EST
    When Obama went after her health care plan...
    "He can't attack the problem so he attacks my solutions" (or something like that)

    Trying to get big mileage dissing HRC for her tax holiday proposal is weird.

    Seems to me like Hillary's gas tax holidaty (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MarkL on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:36:52 PM EST
    is the best kind of pandering.. harmless and a real vote-getter.

    [ Parent ]
    Yet for some reason (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:39:08 PM EST
    Obama is trying to make it her death knell. Keep bringing up Obama. Keep reminding people that she wants to give them a break and you don't.  He is so not as smart as I thought he was.

    [ Parent ]
    He doesn't have anything at all (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:45 PM EST
    to offer, so he condemns her efforts.  Yep, that's the president we need...oh, wait, that's the kind of president we have!

    [ Parent ]
    You can't attack her solutions (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by nellre on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:42:35 PM EST
    You can't attack her solutions unless you have something better to offer. So it doesn't matter if it was good politics or a sincere attempt to help folks.
    While I think the gas tax holiday is small stuff, the fact Obama's team thought it was an opportunity to attack her is ludicrous... and I hope it backfires.

    [ Parent ]
    Even this last ad. (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:00 PM EST
    Really Obama? You STILL got nothin'? Still just "she's old politics and she sucks" and that's IT?  He offers NOTHING. Other than that he's not her. If only he were!

    [ Parent ]
    It worked in IL (again, the link) (none / 0) (#166)
    by lambert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:03:37 PM EST
    Here.

    [ Parent ]
    How the heck did the Obama (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:25:18 AM EST
    campaign find 200, yes 200, economists to disagree w/Clinton's gas tax holiday proposal?

    [ Parent ]
    Please stop with the (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:33:54 PM EST
    "Obliterate Iran" meme.  You know that you are taking it completely out context -- the context of talking about a deterrence policy in which Iran is told that a nuclear attack by Iran against Israel would trigger a counterattack that would "obliterate" Iran.  In other words, if you obliterate Israel, you will be obliterated.

    Kinda like the policy we had with respect to the Soviet Union, designed to prevent anyone from obliterating anybody.

    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:37:34 PM EST
    Krugman's reputation as a straight shooter has not been dampened by Hillary's decision to distance herself from the pointy-headed set.

    This is a pretty clear misrepresentation.  I understand that it's advantageous to Obama to paint Clinton's plan as identical to McCain's, but that won't make it true.

    Plenty of Obama Supporters (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    on TV tonight claiming the gas tax holiday will cost $10B in losses to the infrastructure, and other misstatements. That ploy is to keep getting those inaccuracies out there so they stick in people's minds.  

    It works really well for the Obama campaign. Just think back to all the invalid statements you've seen posted over and over in comments because people didn't listen for the correction.

    ** Chuck Todd tonight on Hardball said Michelle O has said this will be Barack's ONLY run for the Whitehouse because in four years they will be too wealthy to be able to relate to the people of the country.  Anyone ever hear her say this?

    Yes.... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    Now you're going to make me look for the article.  Someone else asked and I provided the quote... now I can't find the thing.  Ah ha...

    Just before the Iowa caucus, Obama began telling voters about a phone conversation with his wife, who said this year was the right time to run for president because they are "still almost normal." She meant that before her husband became a U.S. senator and received a $1.9 million book advance, they juggled school loans, grocery shopping and mortgage payments like other middle-class families.

    "Michelle's point was, in eight years from now, 10 years from now, we may still be nice people, but we may be in this orbit where we just don't remember, we don't hear people's voices anymore," Obama explained at the time.

    Politico

    [ Parent ]

    I found it (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:54:16 PM EST
    "BAM MAY BE 1-TRICK PONY. Hints he won't run a 2nd time. "Daily News (New York) December 29, 2007 Saturday

    "My wife and I were talking the other day, and she said, 'We're not doing this again,' " Obama said. "Those of you who have met my wife or heard my wife, you know she doesn't mince words. I mean, she's a tough cookie."

    Obama said their stance has less to do with the grueling campaign schedule that separates the family for large swaths of time, and more with the couple's belief that eight years from now, they wouldn't be the "same people."

    Washington insiders, Obama said, lose touch with reality because "you think your worth is tied up with a title, or a chauffeur or people opening doors for you." Obama regularly portrays Clinton as a Washington insider.

    Just five years ago, the family was living in a condo that was getting to be too small. Obama, not yet a senator, regularly bought the groceries and his wife was "still shopping at Target." (Obama noted that "she still does.")

    "Eight years from now, we will have lost a little bit of touch with what ordinary families are going through," Obama said yesterday.

    Washington insiders, Obama said, lose touch with reality because "you think your worth is tied up with a title, or a chauffeur or people opening doors for you." Obama regularly portrays Clinton as a Washington insider.

    Just five years ago, the family was living in a condo that was getting to be too small. Obama, not yet a senator, regularly bought the groceries and his wife was "still shopping at Target." (Obama noted that "she still does.")

    "Eight years from now, we will have lost a little bit of touch with what ordinary families are going through," Obama said yesterday.



    [ Parent ]
    Interesting that (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:46 PM EST
    there are multiple articles on the same subject.  It could have been a message for the party insiders that there is just one shot with him.  

    It's just my bias, but he just doesn't seem that interested in serving his country.  He'll do it now, but later... eh, not so much.  More about how he can package himself than what he can do accomplish for people.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama and Michelle (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by miriam on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:32:01 AM EST
    really don't have much imagination, do they? I've come to think neither of them have a creative bone in their bodies.  This is why Obama has to snatch other people's ideas.  I've know a lot of people like that--they do very well scholastically and they may be smart enough, (or think they are) but when it comes to original thinking, which IQ tests still don't measure well, they are simply average.  The thought that you can no longer relate to those without money because you've become wealthy is typical of what I'm talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    I Remember When She Talked About obama (none / 0) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:07 PM EST
    only running once for the WH, but I don't know about the rest of the quote.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't hear that comment (none / 0) (#81)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:37 PM EST
    at least not like that.  

    What I have heard:

    • I heard Michelle say in the past that Obama wouldn't run again because she didn't think their family could take the strain of another presidential campaign.

    • I listened to Tweety this evening, and I recall a discussion in which Tweety and Todd were speculating about whether Clinton would run again in 2012 if McCain became president, and whether Obama would run again, whether Clinton would be Obama's VP, etc.  In the middle of all that, there was a remark by Todd that Obama has said that this is his only run for the WH.  I don't remember this being attributed to Michelle, or to an anticipated inability to relate to working class folks due to increased wealth.

    • Michelle was quote some months ago as saying that her husband was probably the smartest person ever to "deign" to run for public office.

    This exhausts my knowledge about whether or why Obama would or would not run for president again if he doesn't win this time.  

    [ Parent ]
    Was that before or after. . . (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:55:07 PM EST
    there was a remark by Todd that Obama has said that this is his only run for the WH.

    he promised not to run this time?

    Seriously, I wouldn't put any credence at all in such a statement.  He needs to resist the "it's not his time, let him try again in four or eight years" idea.

    [ Parent ]

    As I recall (none / 0) (#98)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:01:28 PM EST
    the "he won't run again" statement was made in direct response to the "why not wait 4 or 8 years" question.  I myself never put much credence in it.  It's like a presidential candidate saying, "I'm not running for VP" or "I wouldn't accept an offer to be So and So's running mate" because you're afraid that otherwise no one will take your own presidential campaign seriously.

    [ Parent ]
    It really was attributed to Michelle (none / 0) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:13:45 PM EST
    I watched it twice tonight to make sure I got it right.  Todd was almost interrupted when he started talking about it, and it didn't generate further discussion.  Unfortunately, that segment of the show hasn't been posted on the Hardball web site yet.  

    [ Parent ]
    Here are some links about Michelle.. (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:41:12 PM EST
    very enlightening. She doesn't think much of thinking, apparently..
    On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally couldn't stay silent any longer.
    "Barack," she interjected, "Feel -- don't think!" Telling her husband his "over-thinking" during past debates had tripped him up with rival Hillary Clinton, she said: "Don't get caught in the weeds. Be visceral. Use your heart -- and your head."

    And this..
    Mrs. Obama said her husband's effort to bring people together is grounded in the lessons he learned growing up. "You don't rip your opponents apart, because you never know when you're going to have to sit right down next to them and figure something out," she said. "That's how he was raised. Imagine a president of the United States who is trying to bring those values to the Oval Office."

    And this is what Obama said about it..
    It's now or perhaps never, Obama and his wife, Michelle, concluded, because, "We still remember what it's like to be normal," he told a crowd here six days before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses..snip...    Obama said their stance has less to do with the grueling campaign schedule that separates the family for large swaths of time, and more with the couple's belief that eight years from now, they wouldn't be the "same people."

    The first article is very interesting.
    You know, those two sure think a lot of themselves.  And not much of the rest of us.


    [ Parent ]

    The last link seems to be (none / 0) (#145)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:50:20 PM EST
    what Todd was referring to.  

    He'll run again.  He's a politician.  Suppose Hillary Clinton is elected president, and she has two successful terms.  He's not gonna run again?

    Let's suppose McCain is elected and its the third Act of "Bushed!"  He's not gonna run again?

    I'm not buying.

    [ Parent ]

    Java...This Was All I Could Find (none / 0) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:08:36 PM EST
    The funny thing about that comment is (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    that when Obama said it before Iowa, DKos went ballistic over it. Said he was trying to blackmail people into voting for him. Now or never. Fine. I say never.  

    [ Parent ]
    Krugman is right... (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:13 PM EST
    that this is a minor issue in the scheme of things.

    To hear Obama and his supporters, there is nothing more important.

    I think it's a deliberate smear (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by OxyCon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:55:20 PM EST
    I think the Obama campaign is deliberately maligning what Krugman said. Look at all of the Democrats the Obama campaign has gone after and smeared. This is no coincidence.

    Krugman equals progressive strength (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by lambert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:06:02 PM EST
    And Obama's attacking strength.

    Remind you of anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    Misrepresentation (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by andreww on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:14:56 PM EST
    First let me point out that no one has a link to the Obama ad for us to judge whether it's misleading (if I am wrong - link please).  Second, Jeralyn points to the FIRST Krugman op-ed about the gas tax, but conveniently not the one he put up the following day on April 29th. where he says Hillary's plan is "pointless, not evil".  Note specifically the following:  "The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that. So it's Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies.

    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. But it is pointless, and disappointing."

    Knowing however that no bill is going to pass taxing the oil companies excess profits, any gas tax decrease would in fact result in what Krugman outlines and Hillary's plan wouldn't END up being different than McCains.

    This is a nasty fib that I address (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:18:17 PM EST
    unthread.

    [ Parent ]
    Why won't a bill taxing oil companies pass? (none / 0) (#150)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    Because the oil company employees donate to campaigns?? I think the screaming of the American people, the ones who vote people into and out of office will have more effect than contributions. Especially if we vote out the ones standing in the way. And we will if we have to. For a company to make $40 BILLION profit in ONE YEAR is obscene. The only ones who are going to mind the oil companies being taxed are the oil companies. And I for one don't give a rat's ass what they think. And there are a lot of people who agree with me. Personally, I am all for nationalizing the oil companies. Put them in the hands of the people who use the oil, not the ones who sell it. Non-profit.

    [ Parent ]
    The Truth (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by andreww on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:24 PM EST
    The truth behind big oil's profits lies not solely with high gas prices, but mainly with a lack of investment.  Peak Oil is here.  The world is producing as much oil as it will ever produce.  World production has been steady since 2005.  Therefore, in the past when the oil companies were drilling in new fields, putting new Rig's in the oceans, etc they were putting a lot more money back into finding more oil.  The problem is the finds are fewer, the investments are lower, and there is more profit to pocket.  Anyone arguing over this whole Gas Tax BS should at least understand Peak Oil.

    Understanding Peak Oil helps to understand a lot of what is going on in the world.

    [