home

The "New" Politics

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

M.J. Rosenberg writes:

[I]t is silly to get bent out of shape when [Obama] says something he may or may not believe in order to win . . . That is precisely what I want him to do . . .

I suppose that is why Rosenberg supported the Obama campaign's saying:

Proving once again that [Hillary Clinton] will say and do anything to win . . .

All the "outrage" Rosenberg expressed about the Clinton campaign was just a big lie apparently. Now my own view is that ALL pols will say and do anything to win - the trick for us as citizens is to make the politically wise thing to do be the things we want the pols to do. That is why we hold their feet to the fire:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

I keep repeating this statement because the more I read, the more I realize that most folks seem to either not agree or not understand the point.

Speaking for me only

< A Question Of Character | GAO Analyzes The Surge >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The "New" Politics | 207 comments (207 topical)
    People understand it selectively (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    If they've joined the cult of one candidate or another, it's an insult. Otherwise, it's obvious.

    personally (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    I think it goes without saying.

    This reminds me of fights I have with sabremetricians.

    I say "what?  You read 8 baseball abstracts and just then finally came to the profiund conclusion that you can't score runs if you don't get on base??!!"

    I realize there's a lot of noise out there and we now live in a world where staring the obvious is required.

    At the same time, i also believe there are no hard and fast rules that account for everything.

    Pols are pols is true but it also oversimplifies.

    [ Parent ]

    The cult of the candidate (none / 0) (#64)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:16:36 AM EST
    is the bane of democracy. All we ever seem to get from the cult approach is major disappointment and a lack of anything beyond reinforcing the cult status. Pathetic.

    [ Parent ]
    Gawd (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    How can any student of politics insist that the only time when voters have leverage over a politician is precisely the time at which they must give him a free pass to do as he pleases?

    Never mind that election season is the time when candidates actually care what voters want.  Keep quiet, we wouldn't want to mess anything up!  We can always leave a sternly-worded message with the White House switchboard later.

    No activist who is not up for a patronage job has any excuse for thinking like this.

    I think there are two things going on (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    First, as I think you imply, some of these stooges really do want some kind of important job (I'm thinking in particular of a certain Daily Kos diarist who freaked out about the Nevada Caucus).

    For others, it's the desire not to feel like they've been sold a bill of goods. Cognitive dissonance?

    [ Parent ]

    Cognitive dissonance? (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:58:06 AM EST
    if thats correct we can expect this to get way way worse.

    [ Parent ]
    with his penchant for (none / 0) (#163)
    by ccpup on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    introducing people to the underside of buses, what makes anyone think Barack will give anyone ANYTHING -- let alone a blogger -- should he win in November.

    One thing I've come to realize in reading Obama's history is that it really is All About Barack and if people get hurt because they believe -- in giving themselves, their time or their money to assist him -- that they'll be repaid in kind, they're in for shock when he says "thanks" and walks away, leaving them empty handed.

    I've known, befriended and quickly disassociated myself from people like this.  They never change and there always seems to be a fresh supply of starry-eyed fools willing to suspend common sense, go all out and then be b*tch-slapped by Reality in the end.

    [ Parent ]

    I remember reading a bio peice on him (none / 0) (#184)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    Early in his community organizing days Obama's first principle was to purge the do-gooders from a community. He operated on identifying a person's needs and then ensuring them that their needs would be met if his goals were met as well. He didn't get the do-gooders. His epiphany was realizing that their intrinsic need was the work itself, not necessarily whatever goal they were working towards. He realized that just pointing zealots in the right direction for him  was very powerful. There are a lot of people that are going to wake up next Jan. 21 wiping powder burns off their skin, realizing what it feels like to be cannon fodder.

    [ Parent ]
    On the grounds that Jeralyn. . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:05:47 AM EST
    does not allow rude comments about other bloggers at Talk Left, I'm withholding my opinion of Mr. Rosenberg's ability to reason logically.

    [ Parent ]
    One Doesn't Need (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    to be rude towards another blogger to point out the cognitive dissonance and double standards behind his or her remarks.

    The excuse-making I'm seeing all around from folks who were all-too quick to jump on the slightest perceived transgression from the Clinton camp has left me convinced that these same people cannot be trusted to remain true to any principle, rather that they have loyalty only toward their chosen candidate and the movement he leads.  We've suffered through enough years of this already; it is imperative that those who want our support agree to work on our -- and by extension, the nation's -- behalf.

    Saying whatever it takes to win is not a sin for most politicians, only those who claim to be different and to hold themselves to higher standards.  If that's their claim, we must hold them to it.  To give them a pass does no one any favors.

    [ Parent ]

    There's a logical fallacy here. . . (none / 0) (#155)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM EST
    Saying whatever it takes to win is not a sin for most politicians, only those who claim to be different and to hold themselves to higher standards.

    If saying whatever it takes to win is not a sin for politicians, then surely saying "I'm different from the people who say whatever it takes to win" fits into that category, doesn't it?  Because it's pretty standard political fare.

    While it's galling to listen to someone be no different from other politicians by claiming to be different from other politicians when you think about it it's actually better than a lot of what we hear from some politicians.  Notwithstanding the fact that they may well believe what they're saying.

    I don't believe the folks who are blind to the illogic of their "it's ok for Obama to say anything necessary to get elected in order to defeat Clinton because she's the kind of person who would say anything to get elected" are necessarily so because of any particular dedication to Obama or his "movement".  Frankly, when he's in, and he's the establishment, they'll be just as illogical in opposing him.

    [ Parent ]

    Larry... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    Rogers and Hammerstein could have done something with this...or at the very least, Rogers and Hart.

    There's definitely a Broadway musical in this material somewhere...

    Let's see now...oh, yes:

    "Wintergreen for President!
    la la la la la la la...
    He's the man the people choose...
    Loves the Irish and the Jews..."

    [ Parent ]

    Hart. . . (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    another LarryInNYC.

    My favorite lyrics:

    I'll go to hell for ya'
    Or Philadelphia
    Any old place will do.

    (my wife's from Phila)

    [ Parent ]

    Priceless. (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:08:03 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My Head Hurts (none / 0) (#200)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    from trying to follow the twists and turns here, though I think I generally agree.

    But I'm just not at all confident that those to whom you refer in your last paragraph will indeed oppose him in any way, establishment or no.  If they were unwilling to acknowledge their illogic during the primary season, it speaks to their emigration from the reality-based community of which I have tried to remain a citizen.

    [ Parent ]

    Well I Won't (none / 0) (#91)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    Corrections should be made when facts are wrong. This is not rude - it is just fact.

    When Armando put up two quotes attributed to Rosenberg and said the following he was wrong:

    "I suppose that is why Rosenberg supported the Obama campaign's saying::

    If you follow the link from the quote above provided by Armando it does not lead to what Rosenberg said. It leads to 'The Page' written by Mark Halperin. Not only that it isn't written by Mark Halperin, it is a communication he received from the Obama campaign and Rosenberg's name is no where on it.

    So I guess apologies are in order to Mr. Rosenberg for misrepresenting that he said and wrote something he didn't.

    Someone correct me if I am wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    BTD doesn't claim that Rosenberg said "Hillary Clinton will say and do anything in order to win."

    BTD claims that Rosenberg had no problem the Obama campaign making that statement.  The link is to the statement by the Obama campaign.  Frankly, the link wasn't even necessary, everyone knows that was an Obama campaign theme.

    You're just misunderstanding.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh OK, I read that wrong (none / 0) (#131)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    That said, where is Rosenberg's statement that he has no problem with what the Obama campaign said in that particular instance? Is one necessary?

    Is Rosenberg obligated to respond to everything Obama says? And if so by who is he obligated by to respond to everything he says? Armando? And where should he do that at if obligated? TPM? HuffPost?

    See how ridiculous it gets? If someone says something at TPM and then Obama releases a statement then that person at TPM MUST respond or they are being hypocritical? Nonsense isn't it?

    By those rules every time that Armando writes about someone he must then follow that persons every word from now until eternity and respond to every syllable uttered.

    And WTF is Rosenberg anyway that what he said and didn't say makes a hill of beans?

    [ Parent ]

    Where I got confused (none / 0) (#150)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:54:25 AM EST
    was in how the following was written:

    "I suppose that is why Rosenberg supported the Obama campaign's saying:"

    Supported? How does a link to an Obama press release show that Rosenberg supported anything?

    [ Parent ]

    It doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    You are the only one, apparently, who believes that point needs to be established.  If you want to treat it as unproven and completely unknowable because you have never heard of M.J. Rosenberg, okay.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry but I am not (none / 0) (#174)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    the one who tried to establish that "Rosenberg supported the Obama campaign's saying..."

    If you want to treat it as 'proven' and completely 'knowable' because you have heard of M.J. Rosenberg, then okay too. But it seems a silly position to treat something as provable and knowable when you can offer no proof doesn't it?

    Fact is Steve is that these silly gotcha blogger wars add nothing to what is going on in our country nor do they address solutions to the problems we face. They are rather unimportant in the big scheme of things but I comment on them because that is all that is being offered up for discussion.

    [ Parent ]

    Shrug (3.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:44:12 AM EST
    This falls into the category of people not wanting to do your homework for you.

    To me, at least, it's blindingly obvious that a hardcore Obama supporter like Rosenberg was also a supporter of his major campaign themes.

    If what gets you off is hunting through posts you don't even find that interesting for background assertions that a visitor from Mars might consider to be insufficiently documented, that's fine, but don't expect everyone to go scurrying on a link-hunting expedition just because you're bored.

    [ Parent ]

    Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:33:04 AM EST
    You are arguing that M.J. Rosenberg did not support Obama's attacks on Clinton, and in particular the one where Obama said Clinton would say or do anything to win?

    Do you know anything at all about M.J. Rosenberg? Or what he wrote during the primary?

    I will not do your research for you and I KNOW I need not apologize to him for saying he supported Obama's attacks on Clinton, and in particular, the one I identify.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I might have read Rosenberg in passing (none / 0) (#144)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:49:22 AM EST
    a few times. I imagine that is the case for most people here at TalkLeft. I certainly don't know what his agenda was during the primaries as one can't read every person who writes online nor can they read everything a particular person writes.

    As for you question in your first paragraph please refer to this post above

    [ Parent ]

    You might have read? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM EST
    Friendly word of advice for the sake of your blood pressure.  Before you get yourself into a tizzy about some post unfairly characterizing something, get familiar with the subject.

    FYI, Rosenberg has been a relentless, strident, shrieking Hillary hater from the beginning, and a worshipful glassy-eyed Obama booster.  His posts at TPM have been absolutely over the top, one after the other after the other.

    [ Parent ]

    Here here. (none / 0) (#193)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:45:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the fact is (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:55:54 AM EST
    if Hillary had in fact been willing to "say or do anything to win", she would have won.
    it would not have been hard.

    I'm not so sure (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    Indiana and North Carolina were really what killed her, and I'm not sure what else she could there to get more of the white vote than she did (the black vote was obviously lost). The gas tax holiday was pretty close to "saying anything" IMO. I suppose in NC she could have gay baited, but that wouldn't have seemed credible.

    [ Parent ]
    well then (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:00:56 AM EST
    you should just wait and see what the republicans do.


    [ Parent ]
    She could have used the Wright tapes (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:01:25 AM EST
    pre-Iowa -- you know she had them. She choose not to use them because she didn't want to do that to a fellow Democrat. If she had, though, Obama wouldn't have made it no NH.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually I don't know that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:03:51 AM EST
    If she had them, she frankly would have been stupid not to leak them to the press--unless she's a much worse politician than I think she is.

    She did use the SF comments, remember.

    [ Parent ]

    The SF comments were outed by (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    an Obama supporter -- NOT Clinton. Furthermore, imo, those comments were fair game -- he was specifically talking about voters -- in a way that the Wright tapes are not.
    And EVERYBODY had the Wright tapes -- to think they didn't is just naive.

    [ Parent ]
    To clarify (4.42 / 7) (#30)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    the SF comments were comments made BY OBAMA -- do you actually think she should NOT have commented on them? Personally I can't believe anyone in the right mind would still vote for that moron after those comments -- one of the many, many reasons I am not.

    [ Parent ]
    Can you prove that "everybody" (2.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:07:16 AM EST
    had the tapes?

    [ Parent ]
    Up until recently the Wright tapes (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by tree on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    were available for sale through TUCC's website. Anyone who wanted to buy them could. That's how Fox News got hold of them.

    [ Parent ]
    I will if you can prove that (4.00 / 7) (#37)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    you are capable of understanding the difference between the Wright tapes and the SF comments -- since you obviously don't, however, you aren't worth arguing with.

    [ Parent ]
    they are BOTH legitimate issue (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:17:41 AM EST
    the SF comments because Obama said them

    The Wright issue is legit because he CHOSE to attend that church for 20 years.  And, his explanations for this from the beginning have evolved so much over time it's apparent he has never told the whole truth about why he joined, why he stayed and what he heard when at that church.

    As far as I'm concerned, quitting the church now, doesn't absolve him from needing to explaing why he was a member for 20 yaers.

    [ Parent ]

    jeremiah wright (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kelsweet on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:41:45 AM EST
    sean hannity showed them on Fox a year ago.

    [ Parent ]
    Ach, whatever (2.25 / 4) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    I have no tolerance for cultists of any stripe.

    [ Parent ]
    whatever (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    you have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you or calls you out on your illogical and flawed analysis. Words Obama actually says v. words his pastor said -- same diff, according to andgarden.

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense (2.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:15:42 AM EST
    I have never said that there was no difference.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, you did (none / 0) (#156)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    that is exactly what you have been arguing -- you brought up the SF comments in rebuttal to my post that she could have used the Wright tapes earlier and said "she did use those." Read what you write.

    [ Parent ]
    That is not the same (none / 0) (#164)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:08:56 AM EST
    as saying that there was no difference. Since I do not believe, not have I ever, that there is no difference, there is no reason for me to have said so.

    [ Parent ]
    Your logic skills are totally lacking n/t (1.00 / 0) (#180)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:31:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The press had the tapes. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    What happened is that no one in the field made an issue of them.  

    I'm still stunned to find out that Richardson Dodd or Biden were not infact her deep cover surrogates. I'd have bank rolled a no hope candidate to act a transmitter of my negative ads.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, so Clinton had the Wright tapes (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    since the press did.  I would put money on it.

    Obama would not have won Iowa or Wisconsin, two primaries at crucial early points.  Why Clinton didn't use them, I have two theories (at least) -- but they don't matter now in terms of this topic.

    In terms of this topic, though, see also Brooks' column today on the two sides of Obama. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Obama had the lock (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:03:33 AM EST
    on gay-baiting.  I don't think people would have believed Hillary even if she had wanted to try it.

    [ Parent ]
    however (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    I will admit she was constrained to a point by common decency and the fact that the average democratic primary voter is less receptive to this stuff than the average general election voter.
    still.
    there was a helluvalot she could have done that she did not do.

    [ Parent ]
    Please, do tell. (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:04:37 AM EST
    What was this off limits stuff that she could have done?

    [ Parent ]
    Ill let no quarter answer you (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:09:59 AM EST
    Btw.... I don't think the Pubs need to scare off white people by bringing in race. I think all they need to do is play a few Farrakhan speeches and show this photo around a little. When you add those with Wright and Pfleger Sermon... People will start to question Barack and who he's been hanging around with for the last 20 years and start asking what kind of person is he. All without bringing up the elephant in the room...his skin color.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, so she could have race baited? (2.33 / 3) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:12:51 AM EST
    I would submit to you that she already got every vote from people uncomfortable with the fact that Obama was black.

    Now, it's possible that some measure of extreme racism could have gotten white indys in NC to show up and vote for her, but the problem was that she was already Hillary Clinton. And such voters were never going to vote for her, even against the black guy.

    [ Parent ]

    so (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    to you, pointing out his and his churchs cozy relationship with Farrakhan is "race baiting".
    thats interesting but I doubt that a majority of voters will agree with you.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I think that issue came up (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    in the April debate in Philly. who knows why she chose not to run with it? We don't have her internal polling of NC and IN.

    [ Parent ]
    "the issue came up" (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    thats truly funny.  it will come up again.

    [ Parent ]
    You almost seem excited about that (1.00 / 2) (#112)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    thats pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:45:21 AM EST
    but not surprising.

    [ Parent ]
    You're deeply disappointing (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    me, Andgarden.  Just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]
    Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, Meeks Rezko etc (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM EST
    where all issue that she could have raised early on but didn't. I, as just an average voter knew of them from just living in Chicago surely the people in the campaign knew of them.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course, Chicago newspaper readers knew (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    of all these topics.  I expect that Clinton expected the national media to do what it usually does and pick up these stories.  That they did not do so and failed in their responsibility -- well, that's another topic we've discussed here. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    I'll Play (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:38:09 AM EST
    She could've run negative tv ads on Rezko.  

    She could've run negative tv ads that more explicitly called Obama inexperienced.  The RNC had one with his "resume" that seems particularly effective to me.

    She could've hit him harder in her tv ad on bitter-cling.  She ran a rather lame ad that focused on god and guns when she could've focused on the clinging to racism and xenophobia.  She could've used the laughter from the video and showed the millionaire's row where the comments were made.

    In short, she could've done really hard hitting tv ads that did more than focus on an issue.

    Of couse, she would've been hit very hard for doing all of this, but if she'd wanted to take Obama down, really take him down, she could've.  Whether it would've hurt her more than him, I don't know, but she pulled her punches, IMO.    

    [ Parent ]

    Good points (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    I think the bottom line for me is that she did what she could get away with. That's not an insult of her, as some here seem to read it.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know if it was off limits, but she could (4.20 / 5) (#47)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    have/should have pointed out that Obama intended to govern in the same hands off "I'll pay someone to think about it" strategy that Bush has. She could have pointed out that he wanted to support an anti-choice judge. She could have pointed out that he wanted to put the Defense and State Department in the hands of conservative Republicans. She absolutely should have pointed out what a ridiculous fraud and hypocrite he was on the subject of lobbyists.

    [ Parent ]
    Being close to the bone economically, I agreed (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    with Hillary's gas tax holiday for a  discrete period of time, along with an excess profits tax to pay for it.

    I'm not so close to the bone I right now have to decide between a gallon of gas OR a gallon of milk, but there are many people who do have to make that painful decision. For anyone on a fixed income, there's only so many cuts to make before the cutting is very, very painful.  

    Ah, I do recall my salad days...and no financial worries. Now, I've got some, mostly due to medical costs.

    But to tell people that a few dollars a month don't count? That takes a certain cavalier attitu7de toward their economic straits. Beware, Dems, of ignoring real needs and real pain of others. Just because you don't feel it does not mean it doesn't hurt others.

    [ Parent ]

    the point of the objection to the gas (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by tben on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    tax holiday was not that $30 over the course of the summer was totally inconsequential, it was that this money would never materialize for the people, since the gas companies could simply pocket the money.

    Gas prices are set by supply and demand. If the S/D environment supports a $4/gal price, then that is what it will sell for. If you suspend the federal tax portion of that 4$, that doesnt change the fact that they can still get 4$ at the pump. So there is no, or very little, reason for them to lower thier price, and the tax forgiveness just goes into their pocket.

    A gimmick, that sounds good on the surface, but ends up benefitting oil companies. No surprise that the GOP candidate supported it. Quite a surprise that one of ours did.

    [ Parent ]

    Typical Ivory Tower arguement (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:51:29 AM EST
    In the real world things are different. In my county gas is more expensive than the neighboring county because of tax differential. Same gas companies, same distribution network. But gas prices drop 5 cents a gallon within 5 miles. If your arguement was true then why are gas prices lower in the low tax county? Why don't the gas companies pocket the difference? Because of competition.

    An even larger difference exists if I go to the neighboring state. They even require full service at all pumps in the state. And gas is still cheaper because of lower taxes. I make sure I fill up my tank before going back through the tunnel. Same gas companies, same distribution network. But competition still happens. In all three markets the profit margin is the same for the companies but the pump price differs. The companies just pass on the tax difference but competition holds down their profit margins.

    [ Parent ]

    federal gas taxes (none / 0) (#199)
    by tben on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    apply to everyone in the US who sells gas. There is no competitive advantage, as in the examples you discuss.


    [ Parent ]
    So prices will drop (none / 0) (#219)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    Two gas stations across the street from on another. One keeps prices up and the other drops them. Who sells more gas? I see it every day. Prices go up together and drop together. They are rarely a penny different. If people know the tax has dropped 16 cents per gallon and the prices don't drop, there will be hell to pay.

    In NY we have successful sales tax holidays routinely. Stores do not just pocket the difference. In fact they compete vigorously for the market activity during those times.

    [ Parent ]

    Are gas prices set by... (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by santarita on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    supply and demand?

    Aren't there Congressional hearings on that very subject right now?

    [ Parent ]

    If you've only got (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by tree on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    a freshman course in Economics it really doesn't behoove you to try to lecture others in economic theory. You fail to take into account the inelasticity of demand and also fail to note that there are actual case studies, in Illinois for example, in which a gas tax holiday did in fact result in a positive benefit for consumers.
     
    In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

    The study is titled "$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium," by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that "the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%."

    This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.



    [ Parent ]
    That's such BS (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by Inky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    Barack Obama's own gas tax holiday -- the one he voted for and which passed in Illinois -- demonstrated that such holidays do produce actual savings for actual consumers, despite Obama's new-found belief that the gas companies would pocket all the profits. As pointed out in Salon magazine:

    But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

    The study is titled "$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium," by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that "the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%."

    This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.

    http://www.salon.com/src/pass/sitepass/spon/sitepass_website.html

    What also irks me is this misunderstanding of the what "average" consumer is. Yes, the average consumer drives 12,000 miles a year, but truckers and farmers are disproportionately and painfully impacted by gas price hikes. Prices always go up in he summer -- the old supply and demand business -- and they may not drop much in the fall, because the world may indeed be experiencing peak oil shocks. But providing a little bit of temporary summertime relief, paid for by windfall profits taxes on oil companies, is a perfectly reasonable, and even progressive, step to take

    [ Parent ]

    Yes but then (none / 0) (#204)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    either Wall Street or the Oil Companies would look bad, not us the dem candidate for appearing like another in the pocket of big business, out of touch candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    the media didn't help (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    all the talk about the gas tax holiday being a pander.  And then they allowed Obama to get away with his explanation that he voted for the same thing in ILL  and it didn't work, so now he was doing the RIGHT thing.

    Clinton NEVER said the gas tax holiday was the long term solution.  But, the media always portrayed it as either /or.  Like you couldn't do the tax holiday and also be FOR the long-term solutions that she always proposed at the same time.

    And, I never understood the claim that an 18 cent reduction in price would lead to people buying MORE gas when what they would actually do is use the savings to help pay for rising food prices.

    Then a couple of days AFTER the IN primary comes the news report that the gas tax holiday in ILL that Obama voted for actually DID WORK.  The majority ofthe savings did go to the people and the gas companies DID NOT raise their prices to take back the savings.

    [ Parent ]

    Hard to hold a pol's feet to the fire when the MCM (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    keeps putting the fire out with it's misleading analyses, lies, fluffing, fog machinery, more lies, etc.

    The MCM selects our leaders--for some reason, they decided to go easy on Bill Clinton prior to his actual election. Then, they seemed to turn almost overnight from almost adulatory (Clinton was brilliant at the business round table, inviting supporters and critics of his proposals; he seemed to know more about his critics' points than they did! Such a pleasure to have an intelligent politician going into the WH. etc.) to hypercritical--and remained than way his entire 8 years.

    What will happen with an Obama presidency? We know that MCN enabling is very bad with pols who have a tendency toward authoritarianism. What will they do? What kind of president will Obama actually be? What in his record shows us how he will govern????

    It's not too late to know your candidate and the candidate's stands, even post primary--plus, it's still pre-nomination vote.

    (Is it true Dean has said their will be not vote? Hillary's name will not be put to a vote? Can he do that?)

    [ Parent ]

    The Bimbo eruptions (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    were designed to destroy Clinton.  I 'm not sure they went easy on him. Bill was there at the twelfth year of a waning republican starnglehold on the executive.  If the press had their way Tsongas would have been the nominee.  yes TSONGAS.

    [ Parent ]
    They clearly adopted his talking points (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:18:10 AM EST
    as early as the first two or three debates.

    the entire campaign was covered in a way that was clearly very compatable with Obama's case againt Edwards and Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary was the only candidate (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    saying the future's market was to blame for high gas prices.
    Now Obama is mimicing that same line.
    And Congress finally holding a hearing today about it. Supposedly, if the hedgefunds weren't involved in oil, the price would be $70 a barrel lower.

    [ Parent ]
    Once the real estate game collapsed (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:29:23 AM EST
    speculators went into commodities.

    It's quite obvious for those with eye's in their heads that this is what is happening.

    [ Parent ]

    but Obama wouldn't admit it (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    until after he became the presumptuous nominee.


    [ Parent ]
    Likewise with windfall profit tax (none / 0) (#149)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    right?

    [ Parent ]
    i dont think you understand how this works (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by tben on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    Gas prices are not set by the government. As should  be obvious when you see them change day by day, and vary station by station.

    If the government suspends collection of the federal tax, there is no mechanism to force gas stations to lower their prices by that amount. They can set the price anywhere they want. They might lower it a bit - maybe even the full amount to start, given that people might expect to see the decrease. Or they might not. Or they might lower, then raise the price the next day, or next week. If you are willing to pay $4/gal., then they will get that out of you. Not paying the tax benefits them, much more than you.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok, the gas tax holiday (2.66 / 3) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:11 AM EST
    wasn't a pander. Whatever.

    [ Parent ]
    it may have been a pander (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:14:04 AM EST
    but why did the media let Obama get away with his FALSE claim that it didn't work when he voted for it in ILL?  Why did the analysis that the ILL version actuall did put savings in people's pockets not come out until AFTER the Indiana primary?

    It seems anything that couls actually hurt Obama always comes out TOO late to have a major effect.

    The Wright tapes would have done him in if they had come out eariler.  But, they didn't come out until AFTER his 11 wins in a row in Feb

    [ Parent ]

    That's just one of (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    the things she could have said had she been willing to do anything to win.  She could have continually attacked him as a mendacious flip-flopper.

    [ Parent ]
    rofl (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:26 AM EST
    Heh, so if the outer boundary of "saying anything" would be something like leaking the Rev. Wright videos before Iowa, you think Clinton's gas tax proposal goes like 90 or 95% of the way towards that?  Come on.

    I happen to think Clinton's proposal was actually an excellent political gambit that Democrats were stupid to ignore.  And it's hardly her fault that the media applied a standard to that proposal that they never, ever apply to proposals by other politicians.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know what the "other boundary" (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:14 AM EST
    of saying anything is. But my sense is that if Hillary had something else effective to say, she would have done so.

    [ Parent ]
    You're just being ridiculous (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:14:02 AM EST
    You think the gas tax holiday is even in the same galaxy as a campaign tactic like leaking the Rev. Wright tapes before Iowa?

    Clinton's gas tax proposal was nothing more than a run of the mill attempt to neutralize a pander by the GOP candidate.  It's no different than Obama's $1000 middle-class tax cut or any of a host of similar proposals made by 99.9% of every politician who runs for office.  Suggesting that it comes anywhere close to the outer boundary of "saying anything" just shows an astonishing lack of perspective.

    [ Parent ]

    No, they're not the same (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:16:57 AM EST
    I don't know where people got this idea that I think that ever pander is the same and every form of negative campaigning is the same.

    [ Parent ]
    Your own words (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    The gas tax holiday was pretty close to "saying anything" IMO.

    Just ridiculous to employ that kind of hyperbole about a garden-variety political position.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok, fine, I should have just said (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:33:51 AM EST
    that it was a pander and obvious so.

    [ Parent ]
    And One The Dems Should Embrace (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    The brilliance of Clinton's gas tax holiday was it tied together two incredibly popular ideas - a tax cut for customers and the windfall profit tax.  It was important symbolically not only to show that the Democrats would choose the little guy over the corporation, but also to fight off the GOP attacks (which we're now seeing) that the Democrats don't have any plan to help Americans right now with gas prices.  That's going to be the GOP's argument for offshore drilling and ANWR drilling and everything else (yes, I know that wouldn't really reduce gas prices immediately, but we're talking about the GOP here).  

    In response to this, the Democrats talk about a lot of long term plans and tell Americans to eat their vegetables.  Which is fine and good policy, but it doesn't give Americans any reason to believe Democrats feel their pain, so to speak.  

    And, of course, despite the wailing from economists the Salon article showed the gas tax holiday worked in Illinois, passing along most of the savings to consumers.  But, as lambert said, just because it worked in practice, how do we know it will work in theory?

    Regardless, it's good politics.  Which is why Nancy Pelosi pronounced it DOA on the Hill.  Had to save room for issues like funding Iraq and caving on FISA where Democrats could cave to the GOP instead of leading a fight against them on a very popular gas bill (one that made it hard for the GOP to oppose the windfall taxes because it was tied to the tax rebate).

    [ Parent ]

    Its a brilliantly dishonest proposal (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by tben on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    The money goes to the corporations, who can pocket the savings. It does not go to the consumer.

    This isn't hard to figure out. If you can sell a product for $4, and part of that price is a tax you pass on to the gov't, and then one day the gov't tells you not to bother passing on the tax - but the market is such that you can still get $4 for the product, then what would you, as a businessperson out to maximize your profits, do?

    [ Parent ]

    Competition does work (none / 0) (#203)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:59:29 AM EST
    The gas prices in my county are higher than the neighboring one due solely to the tax differential. The gas companies in the low tax county do not raise their prices to pocket the difference. And it isn't a poorer market. The per capita income in the neighboring county is higher.

    [ Parent ]
    So you (none / 0) (#188)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:38:57 AM EST
    don't think the oil companies will pass on the windfall profits tax to the consumers?

    [ Parent ]
    She could have had a stalking horse (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:58 AM EST
    who did an ad about Wright.

    [ Parent ]
    If she knew about the tapes, sure (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    It's hard for me to imagine that she wouldn't have somehow used them if she'd had them. That frankly goes for almost every other candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Hannity was playing them. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    Or am I mistaken about that?

    I think they were hoping to have Obama as their Veep.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, Hannity was -- and there was (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    much more in Chicago media for quite some time now that she could have used.  Clearly, the reaction to some of Clinton's early, typical, politics-as-usual points must have suggested that she tread warily.

    The expectation would have been that national media read Chicago media and do their typical job.  They didn't, Clinton couldn't, and there 'tis -- we got the nominee the media wanted, and we will see why.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm, I don't watch him so I don't know (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:32:05 AM EST
    But it seems to me that they would have become an issue sooner.

    I think your VP point is a good one, but Hillary's back was really against the wall in March.

    [ Parent ]

    She knew about Rezko (none / 0) (#207)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    She only brought up Rezko when Obama criticized her Walmart board service. And she did not follow up on it either.

    [ Parent ]
    Loving A Pol (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    Is a dangerous thing. It is best to keep ones eyes open and on the ball at all times, because even the best of them need to be kept in check.

    With all the criticism lately (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:07:40 AM EST
    of what Obama said vs what he's done or hasn't done, he's not listening to anyone but himself. One can campaign on issues, while still courting voters. He's not courting dem voters, he is assuming he'll get their vote. Who's really watching? All his new, (some)young voters? The more seasoned ones (who at least talk about trying to hold his feet to the fire)simply, obviously cannot!

    [ Parent ]
    Well You Can't Have It Both Ways (3.00 / 2) (#166)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    On one hand you criticize him for his allegedly wanting to vote for Roberts but then voting against Roberts because his feet were held to the fire on it.

    But now all of a sudden he listens to no one?

    You capacity for paying attention is severely limited by the grinding sound of your axe.

    [ Parent ]

    Change of position (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    not in response to his constituents.. only to his peers.  If your constituents say... don't vote for FISA, fight it and you don't.... if you know it's going to pass and your peers (providing political coverage) are voting for it, and you wait until the last moment to come out and vote against, there is no leadership.

    Roberts is not a good example for Obama IMO.  He didn't vote because of political advice, and then excused those that voted for Roberts.

    [ Parent ]

    That's a good point (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:01:01 PM EST
    I wasn't sure whether he changed his vote based on constituents holding his feet to the fire or something else. But this is a good example if it's the former.

    IMO, more people would listen to this kind of thing without the insulting last sentence.

    [ Parent ]

    Small point of difference... (none / 0) (#158)
    by santarita on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:04:42 AM EST
    I don't think Obama is listening only to himself.  I think he is listening to his advisors, which is troubling to me because of who his advisors are.

    Once Obama got past the Dem primaries, his (and his advisors') reasoning is probably that he doesn't need to worry about offending any particular segment of likely Dem voters because they won't vote for McCain.  Hence, he'll give lip service and put on a good show regarding FISA and other issues important to progessives but he doesn't need to "pander".

    I'm more convinced than ever that BTD's point is correct - issues deserve support.

    [ Parent ]

    Whaa? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Mike H on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:59:04 AM EST
    I'm really unclear on why this makes it a good idea to give Obama a free pass.

    It also seems to me to be a really bad long-term strategy for the voter.  As politicians learn more and more that they will never be held accountable for broken promises or bad policies or bad governance, there's no leverage at all to "hold their feet to the fire".

    Regarding the election, we've gone from optimism to cynicism in just 8-10 months.

    See the light and drink the Koo-Aid, then you'll (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:07:27 AM EST
    have no problems giving him a pass.

    It will come upon you like an epiphany and you will know you must support every change and Change.

    As the fundraiser young person told me, Obama is the one who will bring change. (So did Bush, I told him--that I wanted to know what change he had in mind....)

    [ Parent ]

    I assume you are not responding to my post (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:16:01 AM EST
    but rather to Rosenberg's.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with the comment</