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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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 / 2) (#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 / 0) (#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
    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
    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 / 5) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 6) (#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
    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 / 1) (#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 / 2) (#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.

    Parent

    riiiight (none / 0) (#168)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:05:00 PM EST
    Understanding Peak Oil helps to understand a lot of what is going on in the world.

    So, the billions invested in shale oil, the huge field off of Brazil and possible drilling in the northwest passage don't really count?

    Somebody better tell Russia they planted that flag on the bottom of the ocean for nothing.

    Parent

    He's right about this, Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:55:22 PM EST
    Shale oil is poor quality oil, as I understand it, and extremely expensive to get and to process.  It's a last resort, basically.

    Peak oil is here. Overall world demand is rising partly because of China.  Oil prices are not coming down significantly ever again.

    Eventually, busy bee inventors will find substitute technologies, but probably not soon enough to make a difference in our lifetimes.  It's a very depressing prospect.  I've already switched almost completely to wood heat, and I'm seriously considering getting a horse that can live largely off my land and can take me at least the three miles to my nearest general store.


    Parent

    I have heard and read (none / 0) (#213)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 06:32:43 AM EST
    for decades of car and oil companies buying patents and derailing alternative energy research. So much for letting the consumer (market) decide! I lay this at the feet of the GOP and their personal savior, Ronnie. In fact, I lay the whole climate disaster on them, with help from some Detroit Dems. But it's the corporate, not conservative mindset, the GOP has held fast for the last 30 years.
    And Obama calls them the "party of ideas"...

    So if HRC tosses peanuts to a knowing crowd, they eat it up. They (and myself) know it's a pander, but when she sticks it to Big Oil, it's like a valve is released and the crowds are rolfed and energized and THEY DON'T CARE.

    Parent

    If we're lucky (none / 0) (#176)
    by andreww on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:18:12 PM EST
    those finds will help sustain current production (currently around 85 - 87 million barrels per day) until 2013 or so.  Demand however will continue to rise.  Also keep in mind, new finds such as the one in Brazil take 4 to 7 years to bring on line.  The Brazilian find by the way was made by Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company.  US companies are not investing anywhere near what they used to.  If you are actually interested in the subject, I recommend Twilight in the Desert by Matt Simmons.

    Parent
    If we're lucky (none / 0) (#177)
    by andreww on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:18:13 PM EST
    those finds will help sustain current production (currently around 85 - 87 million barrels per day) until 2013 or so.  Demand however will continue to rise.  Also keep in mind, new finds such as the one in Brazil take 4 to 7 years to bring on line.  The Brazilian find by the way was made by Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company.  US companies are not investing anywhere near what they used to.  If you are actually interested in the subject, I recommend Twilight in the Desert by Matt Simmons.

    Parent
    The ad is at tthe top of the thread (none / 0) (#195)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:25:08 AM EST
    in an update.

    Parent
    Ad linked at top (none / 0) (#209)
    by DFLer on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:45:22 AM EST
    I just started reading this morning...ad is linked under "update"

    Parent
    What I find hilarious (5.00 / 7) (#131)
    by ChrisO on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:32:28 PM EST
    is that Hillary's plan is so inconsequential that the savings to consumers will be meaningless, yet so consequential that it will destroy our infrastructure and raise the temperature of the earth.

    That Clinton power is amazing :-) (none / 0) (#137)
    by RalphB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:42:42 PM EST
    Contest (none / 0) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    for a one week vacation in the Sierras of California, fully equiped cabin, name one original Obama idea.  You have one year.  

    Parent
    We are the change we've been waiting (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:51:37 PM EST
    for?

    That way, if not nothing changes, it's our own fault?

    Parent

    No...done before (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:52:25 PM EST
    by some science fiction movie somewhere or the course in miracles.

    Parent
    Tilting at waffles? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:52:18 PM EST
    Don't worry about the vacation, I can't afford the gas money.  And i'm selling my car. and I'd rather pay for some dental work i need. ho hum...why don't we have universal health care. gaaah.

    Parent
    That's easy..LOL (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:56:41 PM EST
    The idea that he is qualified to be President is certainly original with Obama. Unfortunately, he has conned a lot of people into going along with that ridiculous idea. But it is original with him. No way Hillary ever said he was qualified..or anyone else until he came up with it. But I can't leave the farm for a week, so you can have the vacation..on me. Heh.

    Parent
    You win!!! (none / 0) (#158)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:37 PM EST
    Ding...ding ding...

    (there is a critter that lives in the shower, but you can manage)

    Parent

    It'll take me five minutes to pack! (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:00:53 PM EST
    "Hey, Tony, why don't you come look at this house with me?  Michelle and I really can't afford it, but we love it so much.  I was thinking..."

    Parent
    I am trying to sell it (none / 0) (#175)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:16:55 PM EST
    Yeah....bring Tony and I will cook kibbeh for him, give him Arak and we will get all the goods.  

    Parent
    I think you better be more specific about the idea (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by tree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:02:35 PM EST
     you are looking for.I would assume you mean a policy idea. He's had lots of original ideas, like having his campaign brand the Clinton's as racists, claiming that 4 years as a child in a foreign country equals foreign policy experience, running a campaign on "judgment" and then admitting that he never knew that his mentor had "outrageous" ideas. The list goes on, but sadly, none of the ideas has anything to do with government policy.

    Parent
    What is this: (none / 0) (#5)
    by Faust on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:20:54 PM EST
    meet the new boss, he's the same as the ones he's trying to replace.

    supposed to mean?

    Are you saying that Obama is the same as Bush?

    it means the people (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    in Washington he's trying to replace. It's a reference to his bringing change to Washington.

    Parent
    He's a pol (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    Just like the rest.

    Parent
    Fell like a broken record, but (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by clio on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:29:04 PM EST
    As I keep saying and saying:

    If you don't understand that Obama is a Chicago pol from the Daley Machine then you understand nothing about Obama.

    Any Illinois politician who reaches national prominence has the support of the Daley Machine. It's just the way it is.  I would argue, in fact that it's even more true today under Richard M. than it was under Hizzoner Richard J.  

    Richard M. is more polished, lots quieter, but just as determined (ruthless).  A bit like the Mafia after they discovered MBAs and banks could get them further than muscle men and machine guns. He and Obama speak very highly of each other.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#110)
    by Faust on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:11:16 PM EST
    thanks for the clarification.

    Parent
    Obama is always talking (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:34:48 PM EST
    about Washington as if he'd never been there.  

    Parent
    Well, was he there? (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by lambert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:35:52 PM EST
    He didn't hold any hearings.

    Parent
    I forgot (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:40:05 PM EST
    It's just that he was supposed to be there.

    Parent
    Speaking of being there (none / 0) (#121)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:21:49 PM EST
    Do committees chair in the senate get extra $$$ for the position?
    Here in Canada they do.
    He never called a meeting for his committee, that's why I'm asking the question.

    Parent
    Not unless (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:37:11 PM EST
    you're Duke Cunningham, in which case the extra $ are offset by hard time later on. ;)

    Parent
    hehe, indeed (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:38:08 PM EST
    I have seen him in the Capitol Building myself, not far from Hillary, actually.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#38)
    by bjorn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:38:22 PM EST
    I really don't think he has been there.

    Parent
    lambert, love your blog (none / 0) (#41)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:39:40 PM EST
    and you are smokin' hot tonight.
    just sayin'.

    Parent
    No, it means he's the same. . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:28:53 PM EST
    as Roger Daltrey.

    Parent
    That deaf dumb and blind kid (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM EST
    sure plays a mean bean bag.

    Parent
    You know. . . (none / 0) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    you're a lot funnier since Edwards got out of the race :-)

    Parent
    it's nice (none / 0) (#64)
    by Nasarius on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:50 PM EST
    After your horse is out of the race, you can just sit back and throw spitballs at everybody ;-)

    It's that sort of state where you know disaster is coming and you're helpless to prevent it, so you might as well enjoy yourself as best you can.

    Parent

    Ha! (none / 0) (#88)
    by Faust on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:38 PM EST
    :D

    Parent
    CNN ran clip of BO on Politicians in Washington (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ellie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:46 PM EST
    Really, Barack Obama?!?

    It was on the clip of Obama's latest yelling / inspiring stump speech and CNN let it run without challenge.

    THAT's the problem with this Unity / "post" partisan spiel: it's not new politics, but warmed over old political meatloaf offering neither leadership nor substantial solutions.

    Complaining about the "Politicians in Washington" is so hackneyed, The Simpsons ridiculed it by showing C. Monty Burns, complete with No Jacket and rolled up shirtsleeves, raising his voice whenever he vowed to show those "politicians in Washington" a thing or two.

    Distoring the statements of a Liberal in good standing like Krugman just shows yet again that Obama doesn't meet his own standards of being above these "politicians in Washington" he's supposed to improve.

    Parent

    Todd said that?? (none / 0) (#73)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:00 PM EST
    That sounds downright insane.

    Parent
    Yep: Politician Obama complains about Politicians (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ellie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:45:30 PM EST
    On CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Sunday May 04 2008

    [Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert] REICH: ... Now, the gas tax, is, you know, granted, it's stupid and it's dumb and I don't know why Hillary Clinton kind of proposed it. But there is a lot other things to talk about.

    BLITZER: All right. Before we move on to some other stuff, we're going to continue this, because this is a hot-button issue right now. It affects a lot of people potentially. Says a lot about these two Democratic presidential candidates, where they stand on the economy.

    [economic adviser to Hillary Clinton] Gene Sperling, let me come back to you and play this clip of what Barack Obama said at the University of Indiana on Wednesday.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    OBAMA: It's a gimmick! It's the kind of thing that's done before every election, when gas prices go up so the politicians in Washington can pretend they're doing something instead of actually taking seriously the need for an energy policy in this country.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    BLITZER: Is there any serious economist out there who thinks this is a wise policy? Because as you heard Robert Reich just say, there is -- the notion out there, if you eliminate this gas tax, the demand will go up, and then the price will simply go back up right away. (CNN 05/04/2008)

    In the absence of, you know, AN ACTUAL ENERGY PLAN, presumably Obama's alternative is to run everything on the perpetually renewable energy of windy speeches complaining about Politicians in Washington.


    Parent

    Running against politicians (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:53:25 PM EST
    in Washington?  Doesn't that remind you of someone?  Someone from Texas?

    Parent
    Hillary sound bite (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:04:08 PM EST
    It's so subtle, but I would not expect the MSM to catch it.  Hillary was talking about Washington not paying attention, she said: "we don't listen".  Meanwhile the CNN reporter was criticizing her that she was trying to pretend she was an outsider when she spent 8 years in the White House.  

    Did the reporter hear her say"we don't listen in Washington"  Man.  These people are absolute idiots.  

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:42:46 PM EST
    Well, if the reasoning is that Hillary's plan is different because of the DOA windfall tax component, I think Obama is still right in a way.

    McCain and Clinton both have the same plan on the gas tax -- have a summer holiday. If Krugman thinks this will increase oil companies' profits (presumably he does since it's McCain's "plan"), then it will do so with Clinton or McCain supporting it. If the profits are then taxed -- they won't be, of course, Bush is in office -- then that doesn't affect the profits, that affects the post-profits worth, right?

    So Clinton's proposal would increase oil companies profits, she just plans to somehow tax those increased profits. And since that tax is never, ever going to happen this summer, well...

    This is all overly legalistic, and assumes Clinton is going to offer this gas tax bill up, but still.

    For you to be right (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:45:56 PM EST
    we have to assume that Hillary is only interested in one part of her plan.

    In fact, everywhere I've seen her promote it, she's been very explicit about the windfall profits tax. I have seen no indication that she'd support suspending the gas tax without that alternate funding mechanism.

    So it seems to me that you're just being dishonest.

    Parent

    She Proposed the Windfall Tax First (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:49:03 PM EST
    Then everywhere she went she heard people complaining about gas prices and McCain had his plan, so she countered by linking a gas tax holiday to her windfall profit tax plan.

    Parent
    We need to think on this... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Leisa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:19:25 PM EST
    If we have our gas tax holiday and the oil companies and refineries have to pay this tax on the cost of gas through their profits....  do you think that they may actually lower their profit margin in order to pay less in taxes?  If so, would that not reduce the price of gas to the consumer?

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:47:57 PM EST
    ...there's a difference between her being interested in her entire plan, and the remote possibility of more than one part of her plan ever, ever, ever passing this summer. That's what I'm talking about. The utter impossibility of the windfall tax ever passing Bush's desk makes the plan -- as a whole -- purely hypothetical and not a real solution.

    Parent
    This Obama mentality (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:36 PM EST
    that you only promote solutions that you believe are politically possible right now is really beyond me.

    I reject your reasoning and your dishonest attempt to suggest that Hillary would accept a plan other than the one she has publicly touted.

    Parent

    Its inconsistent with "Yes, we can" (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by tree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:50:52 PM EST
    which appears to be an inoperative Obama campaign slogan these days. Its been replaced with "Oh no you can't".

    Parent
    That's not what I'm saying... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:21 PM EST
    ...I don't think that she would accept a gas holiday only plan. I don't think she'll vote for that if it comes up. I'm merely saying her plan isn't a solution because it won't pass. I hope that clears that up.

    Parent
    Well, first of all (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:57:26 PM EST
    that's not what you said in the first place. And secondly,

    I'm merely saying her plan isn't a solution because it won't pass.
    is logically fallacious anyway. It's an irrelevant reason, unless you're changing the definition of "solution" mid-sentence.

    Parent
    Ok... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:03:01 PM EST
    ...I see where the confusion is. I was saying that the gas tax holiday portion of McCain and Clinton's plan is the same, and so Krugman's analysis of that portion could be applied to both of their plans (gas tax holiday = higher oil company profits). Of course Clinton has another part of her plan, but that won't ever pass, so is it correct to factor in that complete hypothetical into any real-world discussion as to how this will play out economically? I don't think it is.

    As far as your second point, right, I often put "plan" in quotation marks, to indicate it's no such thing. I didn't there.

    Anyway, this is now way off topic and I hope that my original comment is now clear.

    Parent

    You're using a ridiculous slight of hand (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:08:31 PM EST
    This

     

    Krugman's analysis of that portion could be applied to both of their plans

    Is horse manure. If you look at Krugman's column, you'll see that he treated the two plans differently. That's because they are DIFFERENT PLANS. It is not correct to say that because parts of the two plans are the same, and in your judgement the parts that are the same are more politically feasible, that you can apply the same analysis to both whole plans. In fact, it's a borderline lie.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:11:52 PM EST
    ...at least now we're disagreeing about the same thing.

    Parent
    That Makes It Even Better Politics (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:39 PM EST
    The Democrats should work to pass a plan, dare Republicans - including McCain to oppose it.  Then dare Bush to veto it.

    The idea that we should abandon politically popular ideas because Bush will veto or Republicans will filibuster is wrong.  We should make them do it.  

    Parent

    Right, ok... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    ...if that's your favored method of politics, fine. It's not my strategy, it's not what I like to see my candidate do, but it's a strategy nevertheless. But don't call it a solution, or a plan, to fixing high gas prices. It's a show vote, not a solution.

    Parent
    It's Not a Solution (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:59:13 PM EST
    And Clinton isn't selling it that way.  She has a robust energy plan.  All she's claiming is that it's an attempt to get people who are hurting now some immediate relief.

    If Obama thinks it won't work, then he could propose his own plan for immediate relief.  But he hasn't.  That's my problem with his response.  He acknowledges the problem, picks at Clinton's proposal and offers up nothing in return to address the problem.  

    There may be a better way to get people immediate relief from high gas prices, but Obama hasn't proposed one.  

    Parent

    And There's Nothing Wrong with a Show Vote (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:03:53 PM EST
    God forbid any politician should suggest the government try to do something to show Americans it realizes there's a problem and that the government is willing to try to help.  

    Or to stoop so low as to outmaneuver the Republicans by taking McCain's irresponsible proposal and turning it into something that, at the very least is harmless and may actually help someone.

    Nope, it's so much more principled to tsk-tsk politics and lose presidential election after presidential election.  Because four more years of a Republican Administration is so much better than stooping to putting on a show vote.  

    Parent

    There is no solution... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:04:25 PM EST
    ...to the short-term problem -- and not even a solution to the long-term problem that Bush will let pass -- currently available given our political circumstances, our Democratic system of governance, and our capitalistic form of economy.

    Parent
    Politics (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:22:07 PM EST
    What did Hillary do?  Well something that it will take Obama and his followers a few reincarnations to sort out, of course they will need Lakoff's playbook to figure out how to "frame it", meanwhile Hillary figured it out.  

    Stop with all the trust and honesty stuff.  She put on the table for the taking the profits of the Oil companies.  Something that Teddy, Kerry and Pelosi have not offered for us to take.  

    So, we don't get the tax in the summer, but people know that the oil company profits are for the taking.  What does Obama do?  Act all holier than thou and ruin the offer.  

    Gee...grow up folks.  It's about changing minds of people through their pocket books.  Stop with all the elitist liberal yacking all ready.  

    Parent

    That is what she has done. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by alexei on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:27:33 PM EST
    Clinton gets the politics.  The Dems are foolish not to follow and put the onus on the Repubs.  If they filibuster or Bush vetoes, they're to blame for not helping the common people but for protecting their rich oil friends.

    Obama was totally outmaneuvered as was McCain.  This is exactly why the Clintons beat the Repubs and the rest of the Dems lose.

    Parent

    You could reduce demand (none / 0) (#200)
    by Manuel on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:31:10 AM EST
    by incenting alternate methods of transportation, limiting driving (as they do in other cities in the world) and encouraging conservation.


    Parent
    It's really hard to reduce (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:04:52 PM EST
    the cost of gas. You'd pretty much have to subsidize heavily beyond a certain price. You could impose a price ceiling and release from the strategic reserve, but we'd probably nevertheless have shortages.

    Parent
    most of politics is a show vote (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by sancho on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:31:29 PM EST
    or vaudeville as so and so had it. the trick is to run enough "show" proposals up the flagpole that earn enough political capital to actually get something done when the rare and sudden moment presents itself (as lbj did with civil rights) to do something truly good and substantive. i think hillary knows how to do that and will do it, if given a chance. mccain wont and i dont think obama cares enough to play the game that would result in something better for americans who most need it. hillary has proven to me that she is resourceful and will put up with a lot of bad will just to get something good done. the ratio of bad will endured to good act performed is discouragingly high. but her patience and resilience and resourcefulness amaze me.

    Parent
    Nice post and I totally agree. (none / 0) (#182)
    by alexei on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:28:20 PM EST
    It could be a solution (none / 0) (#198)
    by Manuel on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:27:41 AM EST
    for President Clinton in the summer of 2009 (or do you think prices are coming down anytime soon).  In fact the permanent elimination of this regressive tax together with some taxing control on oil company profits sounds like a good small way to start a progressive energy plan.

    Parent
    But Obama's solution to the problem (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    is that we eventually, in the future, reduce our dependence on oil.  All well and good.  EVEN MORE hypothetical and even MORE unlikely than Hillary's plan. Which actually COULD have gone through if not for Nancy Pelosi, Disappointment Speaker of the House.

    Parent
    Oh man (none / 0) (#192)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:07:39 AM EST
    You don't even get credit for a good try with that one.

    Parent
    The other Krugman op-ed (none / 0) (#125)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:23:54 PM EST
    I assume andreww's post was deleted because of guideline issues regarding calling out this site, so I'll post his quote from the other, unlinked Krugman article, with the important bit -- for this post, anyway -- emphasized:

    Is the supply of gasoline really fixed? For this coming summer, it is. Refineries normally run flat out in the summer, the season of peak driving. Any elasticity in the supply comes earlier in the year, when refiners decide how much to put in inventories. 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.

    So Krugman did appear to say that Hillary's plan would increase oil companies' profits, only she would then take some or all of it back in the form of a windfall tax (the fate of which I'll leave to your imagination to avoid furthering that particular debate).

    my post is still up.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by andreww on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:27:50 PM EST
    just a lot of people on i think.....did I do something incorrectly though as it relates to quoting the Krugman article?

    Parent
    That's weird! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:30:37 PM EST
    That's weird! I can't see it. Maybe it floated upthread, sometimes comments do that. I rated it a "5," so maybe that caused some bug to crop up for me? I don't know.

    As far as you doing something, after it disappeared it seemed to me that you could be interpreted as accusing the site's proprietor of dishonesty. And since the comment had been deleted (or so I thought) that was the only reason I could think of.

    Parent

    Ah.... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:32:16 PM EST
    ...my comment thread viewing setting is on "highest-rated first," I never noticed that before. When I uprated your comment it made it hop up over the unrated ones. Mystery solved. That's a confusing feature...

    Parent
    Ahhhh - I see. (none / 0) (#136)
    by andreww on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:42:10 PM EST
    no, you are fine (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:27:33 AM EST
    Your comments are still up.

    Parent
    Chattering ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by plf1953 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:40:21 PM EST
    I've had enough ... knock it off or go home if you can't.

    Parent
    Cut the dishonesty (none / 0) (#135)
    by RalphB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:41:34 PM EST
    It only appears he said that if you read the first paragraph and ignore the second.  The ad is a lie.


    Parent
    can someone please (none / 0) (#138)
    by andreww on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:42:49 PM EST
    provide a link to the ad?

    Parent
    Not sure this is the right one... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    but there's an ad embedded in this article   that points out:
    Singer goes on to make a razor-thin point about the wording of the ad, but in the process draws attention to the similarities between Senators Clinton and McCain.

    I am referring specifically to the line in this latest attack ad that they are putting out called "Boost," where the announcer says, "Experts say it will just boost oil industry profits," and it refers to a column in the New York Times of April 28th. In fact, the column that they are referring to is one written by Paul Krugman, where he writes, "The impression that Mr. McCain's tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday, a measure that would in fact do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits."



    Parent
    You are right (none / 0) (#206)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:48:56 AM EST
    Krugman should say he misspoke.

    Parent
    Look, (none / 0) (#219)
    by frankly0 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    do you not get that, in terms of after-tax profit, obviously the only thing of relevance here, Clinton's proposal would not pass along anything to the oil companies, since whatever they might gain in terms of before tax profit would be taken away in the increased tax on their before tax profits?

    Obviously, if Obama's campaign is claiming that Krugman is saying that Clinton's proposal is actually "profiting" oil companies in any sense anybody should care about, then it is a complete misrepresentation of what Krugman actually said.

    Parent

    You can't criticize something (none / 0) (#204)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:38:10 AM EST
    If you vote to fund it!!!!

    D'uh!

    Maybe (none / 0) (#217)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:45:54 AM EST
    But then why didn't he use his great oratorical skills and position as chair of the European Relations subcommittee to try and do something about it?

    Why? Because Obama doesn't like hard work. Period.

    Parent

    I disagree obviously (none / 0) (#223)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    Funding and Authorization tacitly acknowledge support in equal amounts.


    Parent
    A lot of this is Krugman's (none / 0) (#205)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:46:24 AM EST
    Fault, actually.

    Great economist.  Not so great pundit.

    Calling it the "Clinton/McCain" plan (and it's NOT), well, if that's not what it is, then he should not have said that.

    He can say the Obama folks are pushing a lie, which they are, but he can't say he was misquoted.


    Please, (none / 0) (#220)
    by frankly0 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    Krugman notes the absolutely critical difference between Clinton's plan and McCain's in the very next sentence, for God's sake.

    The very next sentence makes it 100% clear that in terms of after tax profits, oil companies will not be better off under Clinton's plan, but will be under McCain's.

    Parent

    I know that (none / 0) (#222)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    But why even have a first sentence or paragraph with the "Clinton/McCain plan" sentence in it???

    He's the one who wrote that.  And he and people can point to the whole thing all they want, but there was never any reason at all to have the offending paragraph or sentences in there in the first place.

    That is unless he was trying to be a clever pundit.


    Parent

    Only if (none / 0) (#210)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:47:03 AM EST
    they wear tees and sweatshirts with big letters saying "BSC". I have a few acquaintances for whom I would purchase such apparel.

    that is his modus operandi all along (none / 0) (#216)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:08:05 AM EST
    We've seen this before, nothing new.  The oil ads in PA backfired on him.  The local radio stations had a constant stream of informed voters who repeated by word of mouth the truth against the onslaught of 24 hour a day advertisements by O that were pure fairy tales.

    The Easter Bunny and Santa believers are too young to vote.  

    They may call us low information voters but it is the high information voters who do not fall for his big old sham.

    The Link To Krugman's Original (none / 0) (#218)
    by flashman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:07:51 AM EST
    article is not the same as thei one HE provided.  Probably too late to fix it though.