Skip to main content

Why has the gas tax pander set me off so much?

Let me give you five reasons: Dominic, Louise, Catherine, Will and Oliver. They are ages 6, 4, 4, 2 and 9 months respectively. I happen to care about them a great deal.

If you were me, you would, too.

My nieces and nephews are truly children of the 21st Century. They will see the legacy of the environmental policies we enact...right now. They will also live to see the legacy of all that we don't do, as well.

We don't have time for a "gas tax holiday." We all know that's true. It's bad policy, it's DOA in Congress and it sends exactly the wrong message to the voters about future legislation we need to pass on energy and our environment. But, let me be clear, we have even less time for the politics implicit in a "gas tax holiday." And the reality of that, the political games being played by Bill and Hillary Clinton and their surrogates have only reconfirmed my opposition to the campaign of Hillary Clinton for President.

Let me explain...

I am a true believer in the United States Constitution and engagement with and participation in United States electoral politics.

I also understand that many have paid a price for us to have the privilege of participation in our democracy: my Uncle Jim served in North Africa, my Uncle Robert served in Germany, my new Uncle Vernon (what a gift to our family!!) served in Italy, my Uncle Wayne served as a medic with the Marines in the Pacific, my Uncle Leonard served as an MP in occupied Japan, my Uncle George served as an officer in the United States Navy. Our right to vote, our right to participate has not come cheap.

All of us Americans know that to our bones. It's the background story of the fabric of our lives. It's an ongoing story that we live with to this day. The Uncles and the Aunts and Grandparents who paved the way for my life of peace and prosperity here in the United States each knew that in a way only those who have served and waited and worked and risked all can tell.

What will I be able to say to my nieces and nephews? What obligation do we have to those who come next?

::

I am a Democrat. I believe in electoral politics because politicians write the laws, politicians sculpt the ongoing work of our Constitution, they have the power to shape our nation and our lives, they have the power to remake our planet if the need arise.

However, I am also friends with cutting edge sustainability activists here in Berkeley and Oakland who know that time is running out when it comes to energy policy and sustainability. Policy has not matched science. Politics has pandered when it needed to be bold.

We have suffered from a lack of honesty. We have succumbed to a politics of fear.

And, when the chips were down in the election of 2008, Hillary Clinton and John McCain pandered and played into precisely the kind of politics of fear that will make real energy reform impossible. I cannot stomach that.

I cannot face my nieces and nephews and say, "When the chips were down, I did nothing."

::

The gas tax pander isn't a bad idea because wonky people think it's bad policy. Though, in point of fact, wonky people overwhelmingly do. The gas tax pander is a bad idea because it perpetuates a mindset that will slowly destroy the United States economy and the innovation that made us the global leader in the 20th Century.

Green, renewable energy will be the economic engine of the 21st Century. It will not come easy, it will not come cheap or without sacrifice, and it will not come if we do nothing but politics as usual. We will not be innovators by accident. Change won't happen automatically or on the cheap.

Green, renewable energy, as the state of technology now stands, may not even be sufficient to steer our planet from the course we have followed for decade after decade. China is firing up coal plants faster than any nation in human history. China's coal reserves rival every nation in the world, even our own. We don't need mere science, we need diplomacy and effective statesmanship.

Given that, what do we need right now? What do we need to do?

What we need now, more than anything, is true leadership. Leadership based on honesty and courage.

The gas tax pander, as perpetrated by Hillary Clinton and John McCain is the opposite of that.

::

The very voters that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are pandering to with a "gas tax holiday" are the citizens who will bear the brunt of the massive changes yet to come as we face global warming and the tail end of the era of fossil fuels. There's a reason that two of the three leading candidates for President have chosen to pander instead of tell the truth about gas prices. That's the political easy way out.

However, truth be told, working class Americans, now, more than ever, are in need of innovation and honesty and public investment in the profound economic changes that will remake our nation and shape our lives for decades to come. Innovative energy policies are the engine that will create the jobs that will put healthy food on our children's tables and clean-burning sustainable fuel in our automobiles. Energy independence will make us stronger and safer as a nation. That's just the truth. It won't be easy. It will take coming together and making sacrifices.

And, given that, I have a direct and simple message to my fellow Americans tonight. If we don't do this, someone else will. And, yes, if others come up with this technology and innovation, we will end up working for them.

It is that simple. Our independence, our national pride depends on all of us coming together just like our Uncles and Aunts and Grandparents did, to put it on the line for America. We need to answer the call just like so many of our brothers and sisters are doing right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is not time to waste with the easy way out. We've done that. It doesn't work. We've read the "Made in Somewhere Else" labels for decades now. It's time to change that.

Katrina taught us that we need to invest in our American infrastructure. Minneapolis taught us one more time that we absolutely must invest in our American infrastructure. We can't afford a third strike.

So many bridges were built under FDR during the New Deal. Those bridges have patriotic plaques stating the years and leadership under which they were built. They stand proud to this day because our ancestors built them in tough times. But they won't stand forever. We have to face the facts; our gas taxes build bridges and create American jobs.

Energy independence is our new common cause in America. We need to put our shoulders to the wheel. Not just for us, but for all of our children. That's what it means to be a leader in our world. That's what it means to think about those who come after us. We are so much better than the easy answers our politicians have given us. We don't need politics driven by polls and sound bites; we don't need pander policies posing as "Real Solutions." We all know this is true.

It's time for a change.

::

I support Barack Obama for President. I support, in particular, the fact that this man is honest and a leader. I don't profess to say he's perfect. I've worked long and hard enough in enough different industries in American life to know that that's not what makes the difference.

What makes the difference is us.

Do we want change or do we want comfort? We could easily have stood by and opted out of WWI or WWII. We could have given up during the Depression or after so many of our most promising leaders were killed in the 1960s. We did not. We made a choice and that choice had a clear price; a price for those that lived and a price for those that did not. We chose to tackle the problems we faced head on. We were honest about them.

Honesty is patriotic. Barack Obama is telling the truth. That's something to think about tonight.

I am not alone in thinking of my young nieces and nephews during this election cycle, many of you have children and grandchildren of your own. What kind of world are we leaving them? What political tradition will they inherit from us? What will we think about as our legacy as we pass the baton to those who come after us? I would hope that our legacy would be one of courage and honesty and hard work, of doing the right thing when faced with tough facts.

When it comes the election of 2008, I know I'm not the only one for whom this is personal.

In fact, it's personal for all of us, that's the point.

What are we going to do about that?

::

There's three days to take action right now:

VOLUNTEER. TAKE ACTION. DONATE.

Originally posted to kid oakland on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:02 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  many have given (462+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, johnny rotten, Angie in WA State, boydog, chrississippi, Terri, Chi, tankej, teacherken, laurak, AlanF, lipris, mickT, latts, Dump Terry McAuliffe, pHunbalanced, TrueBlueMajority, nicolemm, ScientistMom in NY, Dems2004, PeterHug, RunawayRose, jkennerl, tnichlsn, Avila, Shockwave, hyperstation, sharbutt, Earwicker23, jdld, LauraC, jeremybloom, the awful truth, acuppajo, frisco, caliberal, marjo, theran, Carnacki, object16, bumblebums, bookbear, jeremyb, dnamj, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, dpc, shermanesq, RubDMC, concernedamerican, ReneInOregon, bronte17, Nellcote, rktect, Shadan7, elveta, MD patriot, djMikulec, ask, EmilyD, bluestateexile, highacidity, pattisigh, hekebolos, high5, roses, samddobermann, allysonsta, peraspera, skertso, badlands, skwimmer, juslikagrzly, k2winters, MJB, dchill, Shaniriver, Jesterfox, dmsilev, CocoaLove, TNdem, wader, DustyMathom, PresentMoment, hhex65, Dube, emmasnacker, BlueDWarrior, oldjohnbrown, weary hobo, jzso, lvv, Chicago Lulu, casperr, Nancy in LA, Nina, jaywillie, GN1927, Oy the Billybumbler, lizah, Sychotic1, rockhound, AbsurdEyes, beachmom, arielle, alizard, MeToo, walkshills, DelicateMonster, Cordelia Lear, ChiGirl88, ybruti, KayCeSF, bablhous, valadon, eve, boran2, howardpark, egmacrae, bibble, jim bow, wolverinethad, sawgrass727, ebbinflo, rapala, Bluesee, radarlady, 3goldens, Harkov311, Skaje, Ckntfld, JanetT in MD, CTPatriot, revbludge, relentless, zaraspooksthra, mjd in florida, PBen, Luetta, jhutson, frandor55, ZappoDave, Cynical Copper, ChemBob, huckleberry, Brooke In Seattle, owlbear1, cfk, majcmb1, kmras, John DE, sofia, peteri2, QuickSilver, lauramp, blue jersey mom, paxpdx, Isara, rb608, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Marcus Junius Brutus, petestern, sodalis, sbdenmon, jilikins, LisainNYC, Flippant, Ekaterin, ZinZen, soyinkafan, begone, curiousted, Nowhere Man, Mother Mags, MsCasey, Showman, esquimaux, PointGuard, Jennifer Clare, gwilson, Compound F, bluerock, Clytemnestra, plum, andydoubtless, Naranjadia, mr crabby, cookseytalbott, koNko, Samwoman, igottheblues, daMule, Triscula, Albatross, akasha, blueoasis, nogamez, goodasgold, birdbrain64, MJ via Chicago, StrayCat, Tanya, A Siegel, Rachel in Vista, real world chick, JVolvo, BalkanID, NY John, boatsie, smartballs, ER Doc, BarbaraB, quantumspin, Nedsdag, justiceputnam, Turbonerd, wargolem, rage, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, buckeye blue, toys, RantNRaven, MadMs, Statusquomustgo, crystal eyes, Temmoku, blueintheface, henna218, markthshark, Aaa T Tudeattack, lams712, pgm 01, Terlis, A Mad Mad World, dotsright, Cronesense, Duke S, Cat Whisperer, oscarsmom, dmh44, moodyinsavannah, godislove, leema, LV Pol Girl, trmasonic, correctnotright, yoduuuh do or do not, edsbrooklyn, Duccio, la urracca, Inventor, HeartlandLiberal, Matt Z, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, DWG, drchelo, St Louis Woman, Drowning Wave, brentmack, michstjame, geejay, cyncynical, keenekarl, Junglered1, SeaTurtle, Bridge Master, rogereaton, slowheels, malie, echohotel330, madgranny, KJC MD, ImpeachKingBushII, scardanelli, BasharH, roycej, Casey in TN, Empower Ink, bluesweatergirl, cville townie, VA Breeze, trivium, kafkananda, KingGeorgetheTurd, brouski, LightningMan, Hippokleides, christiana, zerone, fromdabak, Foundmyvoice, Faheyman, Mr Stagger Lee, elwior, VA gentlewoman, loree920, Rick Winrod, MiniGram, beltane, moose67, mikeinsf, Lujane, royce, mayim, pamelabrown, NMLib, evora, Nick Blas, MsWings, Jeff Y, ankey, noddem, dagnabbit, mommaK, JedReport, phrogge prince, LCA, luckylizard, GWboosebag, Blogvirgin, dlh77489, gaiilonfong, haruki, beabea, nklein, StrangeAnimals, Guadalupe59, goofygringirl, magicsister, OH NOT AGAIN, In her own Voice, debheadley, vengeance for mr sympathy, CIndyCasella, Wild Starchild, wv voice of reason, Pris from LA, hardtoport, stoneage, Bule Betawi, pileta, artmartin, cybrestrike, MufsMom, weaponsofmassdeception, Mr Tentacle, there will be blood, Texanomaly, aufklaerer, tbird, snackdoodle, not a cent, cantelow, Baldur, CanyonWren, Helenann, wonky, Sarge in Seattle, Ohiodem1, ScientistSteve, smash artist, jacurtz, history geek, Triangulate, SciVo, MingPicket, mkor7, Deltones, zackamac, Cuseology, Daily Activist, newyorknewyork, Osaka, smartheart, phrisbee, Kim from Pgh PA, redtex, Jentutsy, obiterdictum, AvoMonster, Aqualad08, asym, dsharma23, Zeke12, Hope Monger, sdrevmike, mhsteacher1, allep10, billssha, synductive99, OffHerRocker, Munchkn, marcirish, jazmen8, notquitedelilah, wasteland, Sinocco, SnowItch, Pandababy, elropsych, JTRicher, ElizabethAM, ck4city, Lava20, rainyskip, In search, flahawkfan, Donise, Katie71, haremoor, Nonconformist, reesespcs, zenmasterjack, jfromga, Integrity is fundamental, LastBroadcast, Bene Gesserit1, myelinate, nooso, crowjane, Rian Fike, Wisteacher, Emalene, AussieJo, citisven, 3O3, physic, LookingUp, paul94611, chimaeranyc, mannemalon, capasb, roaringbranch, Julia C, David Kroning, BigVegan, bradreiman, CalGal47, smileycreek, lmenshevik, TruthandTrust, mamamorgaine, oceanrain, SolarAngel, MariaWr, Alohilani, loud zoo, rb137, Paladine, kcandm, Costas, sovery, Queenie68, miss SPED, RBinDLH, budr, FrigginBoobs, nsfbr, Russ1985, politik, girlinbubble, Darqhorse

    what will we give, what will do to make sure that we take care  of those who come after us?

    Our children may not be able to ask us in so many words, but ask us, they do.

  •  Thank you hun (19+ / 0-)

    I couldn't agree more.  I find that on the whole, Hillary's and Obama's positions are very similar, but the conversation between each of them and the American Citizens they hope to represent is quite different.

    I would have preferred Edwards, but at least with Obama there is half a chance that we will get some hard truths and hard decisions.

    There are bagels in the fridge

    by Sychotic1 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:07:36 PM PDT

  •  That's the mission of politics, ultimately: (21+ / 0-)

    to give our children as good a chance, or better, as we had. That's the question of politics, ultimately: what kind of nation do we want to leave for our children?

    Right?

    ANother gem, k/o. Thanks.

    I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned. -Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by StrangeAnimals on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:07:37 PM PDT

  •  Hillary Clinton (44+ / 0-)

    will give us the "poll test" presidency.  If an idea polls 51% or higher, it will be policy, regardless of whether or not it's good for America.

    This gas tax pander makes that clear.

    I am a liberal and I'm damn proud of it

    by smash artist on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:07:41 PM PDT

  •  Kid...forget the gas tax... (21+ / 0-)

    we need to let our children know that it is immoral and unethical, and downright damaging to the social decorum of our nation to appeal to racial tensions to get votes.

    This goes beyond leaving a stain on a blue dress, the Clintons have now left an ugly stain on our national fabric and like some unfortunate hotel maid, we're going to have to clean it up ourselves.

    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. --Thomas Paine

    by David Kroning on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:08:14 PM PDT

  •  Hillary's Gas Tax Pander.... (26+ / 0-)

    is merely Exhibit 173 in the "She Will Say And Do Anything To Get Elected" Playbook  Just like "obliterate" Iran to pander to Jewish voters in the Philly suburbs just before the PA. primary, which was Exhibit 147, etc. etc.

    She must be put out of her pandering misery.  She cannot be our next POTUS.  

    Your diary is so spot on - I'm going to make 50 phone calls to Indiana and refer to the points in this diary when the topic comes up.  

    Awesome Diary, as usual.

    •  To beat the Rovians (4+ / 0-)

      To beat the Rovians in November the Clintons decided they had to be like them.

      Bad lesson to have learned.

      Even if their hearts are pure, and their underlying philosophy basically liberal, we have to show them that we want American politics to turn its back on that poison. We REALLY want to go back to the reality-based universe. We rally want our politics to operate there.

      Many of the things Hillary says are reasonable, and some even admirable. But she and Bill do the Rove dance far, far too often. I personally can't back a candidate who so often makes me say, "What on earth is she doing saying THAT?"

  •  We need to do everything in our power to make (18+ / 0-)

    sure new politics wins. It's about our future.

    "The struggle of humanity against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting." -- Milan Kundera

    by LV Pol Girl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:09:29 PM PDT

  •  Why has the gas tax pander set me off so much? (49+ / 0-)

    Because it is a fraud and she knows it is. Apart from Kid's big picture analysis, there is no reason to believe it will be passed, no reason to believe the price will go down, no reason to believe any reduction will make a difference in any one's life, and there is no reason to believe that it will help anyone but oil companies.

    It proves what everyone has said for over a year: she will do anything and say anything to win.

    The great triangulator.

    Oh, and it is not a "pander" it is a fraud.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:09:32 PM PDT

  •  Bravo, Kid (25+ / 0-)

    And the electorate is the problem. We only put in office those politicians who promise low taxes and massive governement, and pretend we can have cheap gas and save the environment.

    The other part of this pandering that bothers me is that a "tax holiday" isn't a holiday at all, it just shifts even more of the burden of the cost of our present day government to the next generation.

    We're closing in on 10 trillion in debt, and it seems every "solution" offered by government involves increasing our debt. We cannot continue this indefinitely without not only ruining our environment, but bringing on catastrophic economic collapse.

  •  Hooray! (8+ / 0-)

    Thank you Kid Oakland for another in a series of timely and well written diaries.
    Thank you for your time and efforts!
    From a former resident from west of San Pablo and later, off Ashby.
    Have an awesome day my dear fellow citizen!

    Peace

  •  Imagine a president . . . (7+ / 0-)

    who will look us in the eye and tell us not what we want to, hear but what we need to hear.

    Obama's Indiana 3-on-3: The Audacity of Hoop

    by Rick in Oz on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:17:24 PM PDT

  •  All this for gas tax????? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizen53, kck, thetis

    The gas tax is political window dressing. I know it's offending to "new politics," but I heard her say that she also has long term plans to correct the problems.

    You see, to us "old politics" types, we see pandering everywhere. for example, a lot of Barack's stump speech is offensive. i.e. All that was missing for Washington not to be corrupt was an elegant intelligent person to ask nicely. Reality: the Washington status quo is entrenched, and a new president will have to use ALL of his political capital to get the agenda through--health care, green energy, ending the war, etc. There will be no political capital to magically change Washington. So it's illusion. No, a lie for young voters especially.

    And such as: our problems in America exist because we haven't worked together. From the impeachment, to the stolen election, to the war in Iraq, to no green energy, our problems in America are a GOP that doesn't work with us. As charming as Barack is, he won't change that. As I've said a million times, if he wants to convince the other 49% of his "uniter" creds, let him use his powers to end the 60 vote filibuster that keeps this war going. I'd be on board if he did that.

    Until that time, here's some old politics for you. Politicians are bullshitters. I prefer Hillary's brand of Bullshit, because I find Barack's insulting and patronizing.

    •  How bleak (21+ / 0-)

      Oy, where to start..

      Our problems are a GOP that won't work with us?  So we adopt the same bloody shallow gimmicks and deceptive ploys as them?

      And by the way, if you want to end the 60 vote filibuster, the best way is to get downticket Dems into congress, and there's only one candidate who will help with that.  Ain't yours.

      •  America's pretty bleak right now (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thetis

        I agree. One doesn't need a crystal ball to see that.

        So we adopt the same bloody shallow gimmicks and deceptive ploys as them?

        Because those gimmicks haven't worked, have they?

        And Kerry was a war coward. Gore was all about gay marriage. And Dukakis was going to let al the blacks out of prison. (Willie Horton ads)

        Politics has never been pretty and Dems have been losers because they're more concerned with process than power.

        I do agree with you on the importance of winning national races.

        •  What You Hillary Loyalists Fail to Recognize... (7+ / 0-)

          There is a huge difference between fighting back and fighting dirty. John Kerry lost because he sat on his hands for weeks while the swiftboaters spread their lies through the media without challenge. As a result, he appeared to be exactly the wimpy coward that the GOP was portraying him as. Still, had the election not been stolen in OH, Kerry would have won despite his horrible campaign. But he didn't even have the courage to fight that.

          Obama has addressed the attacks against him, and nearly always effectively. He has showed a willingness to fight rather than cave in to conventional wisdom.

          Hillary, on the other hand, has chosen to take the low road, not only using Rovian gutter tactics of personal destruction, but also getting in bed with the very people who spent hundreds of millions attacking her and her husband in the 1990's, and who continue to use their money to denigrate liberals and spread right wing propaganda throughout the media.

          It's not a matter of process versus power. It's a matter of HOW you choose to fight back. If you truly believe that the only way we can win is to fight as dirty and ugly as the Republicans, then you have lost both your moral compass as well as your ability to think creatively.

          The truth is on our side. Polling shows most voters support what we stand for. Obama is proving each and every day that it's possible to convey that message to the voters in a way that goes beyond process, and which reframes the issues. And he has done this in the face of a relentless McCarthy-esque character assault coming from the Clintons, the GOP and the media, not to mention Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos which inflated Clinton's vote totals significantly in every state since OH and TX.

          If we have to become as slimy and unethical as the Republicans in order to win, then we have already lost.

    •  Yeah, he's sure bullshitting (4+ / 0-)

      on suspending the gas tax, isn't he?  </snark>

      I think you're too close to the game to see the player you're supporting clearly.

      Posting a diary on the nomination? Pay your McCain Tax!

      by Seneca Doane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:27:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I second a lot of what this comment... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kck

      says.  There's no evidence I have seen that Obama will be better than Clinton.  Edwards was the one proposing change.  He's the one who asked us to look at what we leave to the next generation.

      I find it amusing that only Obama is laudable when it's clear from the campaign that he will do anything to win.

      Aside from the filibustuer issue of the comment, I would love to see him speak out as to what he will do about campaign finance, even if he is raising $300 million.  Clinton, too.

      Until I see them do it, I see them both in the pockets of the corporate powers who are invariably on the other side of the issues I most care about.

      •  Right Citizen but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alohilani

        you still have to vote Democratic. We all do.

        Don't forget that Nader was saying there's no dif bet gore and bush., They're both in the corporate pockets. How wrong he was.

        •  I am a Democrat... (0+ / 0-)

          always.  I know the difference between the sides.

          I just see a continual drift down the tubes.  

          I also see a large disconnect with how adamant a large majority here is to attack and dump on the other side, yet they also call for unity and consensus with them.

      •  The fact that the corporate media (11+ / 0-)

        is so intent on taking him down, with this over-focus on trivialities such as Wright and "Bitter" tells me that they're scared shitless that he might win -- which gives me a bit of hope that we're not facing another 4-8 years of Business and Politics As Usual.

        And what some hear as patronizing speech, others (including me) hear as someone who can actually speak the English language in the way it was meant to be spoken -- which after 8 years of fake down-home country may sound grating to a lot of ears. It's going to take a lot of getting used to.

        "Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher

        by Cali Scribe on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:59:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree... (0+ / 0-)

          because they don't care who wins at this point.  That's how I see it.

          I don't see policies that are transformational from either Democrat and certainly not from McCain.

          The problem around here now is that Democrats who disagree that Obama is best are, largely, treated with contempt.  As if there can be only one point of view.  As if truth is known.

          And if this is how other Democrats are treated, including Clinton, then how will there ever be consensus with those with whom there is real opposition?

        •  the corporate media has supported obama in the (0+ / 0-)

          primaries, for the most part. it probably wont continue. he's made matthews tingle and russert has been his atack dog. CDS has been Obama's friend. He has a losing coalition (latte kos/tpm/huffpo liberals and the af-am vote) for the general. he'll do better than dukakis but not as well as kerry.

          and once again the party's well meaning limo liberals will have given us a loser.

          thanks.

      •  What do you propose to do (0+ / 0-)

        about it?

      •  The candidates seem to be pretty quiet... (0+ / 0-)

        ...about their surrogates - Hillary's Shumer and Obama's Rockefeller and Breaux (Hillary's '92 foe) - taking health care reform off of the 2009 agenda. It seems to be a pretty major wrench in their plans to go unaddressed for this long...Maybe they're softening the field for the GE and maybe not.

        With Dems hedging on healthcare already, I'm inclined to want the meanest, shrewdest, hardest hitting advocate going up against these weasels or we'll be trading health care for energy, or energy for measly incremental changes plus jobs.  

        As much as I disapprove of it, I don't give a rats ass about some doomed pandering on a gas tax if it means fundamental radical health care reform which, if Congressional hearings don't start in 2009, will NEVER HAPPEN. Working across the aisle? Heck, we need a President who will wipe the aisle with the Democrats!

        HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

        by kck on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:01:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you see the Frontline on health care? (3+ / 0-)

          http://www.pbs.org/...

          In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures.

          Interestingly, Reid seemed to advocate that the Edwards approach might work best in America:

          San Luis Obispo, Calif.: Why don't we just expand Medicare, which has only a 2 percent overhead and with maybe a few tweaks could be the program that we need? Like HR 676?

          T.R. Reid: Medicare for all strikes me as a viable approach. Perhaps the way to do it would be to maintain the private insurance companies, but let their customers (of any age) have the option of buying Medicare instead. This would force the private companies to cut their overhead costs and reduce premiums to hold onto customers.

          My guess is that most people would migrate to Medicare, given the choice. But those who feel government-funded health care is un-American could stick with private insurance.

          Some countries with single-payer systems allow people who prefer private coverage to buy it as an alternative. Generally, only about 3 percent to 10 percent of people do so.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

          I agree, considering the state of affairs in America.  I also think that John Edwards was framing the issues in the right way to bring change.  Oh well.

          •  No, missed it but I'll check it out. Thanks. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            citizen53

            I ask Obama voters, what exactly are their expectations? How will they measure his success? They say nothing measurable. I have me some expectations, tangible ones that I can precisely say how they can be measured and when they need to be done over the next 4 - 8 years. The obstacles are gargantuan. We know what it's going to take to make them happen. I don't care about CSPAN hearings - I want results this time.  

            HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

            by kck on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:48:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  You're so right. (8+ / 0-)

      All that kumbaya hopemongering is much, much worse than Hillary's decision to the suicidal short-term instincts that have shaped Republican policy for year with regard to the most important issue of our time.

      And because she really is the better candidate - 35 years of experience with the old politics, knows how to  play the game, I hope she'll embrace this idea along the same lines:

      Anyone who donates to her campaign before May 6 will be  entered into a lottery to win....

             

              A New Hummer!!

                      title=

      Because the "H" in H2 now stands for Hillary.

      Help Russ Feingold help progressive candidates - support the Progressive Patriots Fund.

      by scardanelli on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:28:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You support someone who voted for the war (32+ / 0-)

      using the exact same rhetoric you espouse above?

      Sorry, but I reject that politics categorically.

      In 2004 Bill and Hillary Clinton stood with Bush on the war....Bill Clinton literally, Hillary playing politics...saying "How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath?"

      That's the politics of the candidates you support for President.

      I beg to differ.

    •  Can you explain why (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, Harkov311

      you find Barack insulting and patronizing?

      Consign corporatism to the dankest crypt, and assign justice to the highest crag. For a More Perfect Union.

      by Alohilani on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:36:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I can (0+ / 0-)

        I said it above in "ALL THIS FOR A GAS TAX. but I'll replay it here in its entirety.

        New versus old politics. Let's start with this. We [HRC supporters] don't see the country's need for unity the way Obama and his supporters do. To us that kind of unity is a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where the prisoners start to identify with the guards, or where a candidate will say anything to get elected. On our side, we saw an impeachment that defied the will of the American people in 98, an election stolen in 00 that was indifferent to the will of the people, a war started that the public didn't want, no-bid contracts that have to do with padding pockets, not the American public, and a GOP, from Newt's closing down the government-'fuck you,' in 94 to Bush's fuck you on everything from global warming to tax cuts for the rich. So this is not our fault as Democrats for not seeking unity.

        Now along comes Obama who says he will work with Repubs. We understand the need for this political spin. He's a peaceful, decent guy at heart. And it works for college students who still imagine that, say, we don't have health care in 08 because no one ever asked for it nicely or put the debate on c-span. I've said it before, if Obama can bring us all together, let him prove those magical powers to HRC supporters by breaking the GOP  filibuster in the Senate to end the war. We need 60 votes. Go do it, Barack.

        On our side of the bubble we know that the best Democratic ideas re: 'the best candidates' are often ridiculous, which may explain why, since 1952, we've had ONE two-term president, Bill Clinton. We see a guy in Obama who is smart, etc., but who made a good speech as a state senator and after two years in the Senate, ambition called and he ran for pres.

        HRC attitude is: this is another sham. Another Democratic way to lose. Under no illusion that any change in health care or anything else will not have to be wrung from the frozen hands of the corporate structure and the GOP who support and protect that structure--and won with force and grit, and that's what she has.

        OK, I know for someone or other I have to throw this in about health care, to combat the running fiction.

           Re: Health care: Let's go through it together, though this is not the main thrust of this diary. She tried health care in 93. At the time there was no consensus for universal health care. (Consensus doesn't = a poster that says UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE or everyone saying 'we'd like universal health care' but 60 votes in the Senate to get it through) In 94 the GOP took both houses of Congress which took health care off the table, and in 93-94 big INS and PHARMA spent 300 million in ads to vilify HRC's effort to change the status quo.

        •  You are missunderstanding bith (11+ / 0-)

          his unity message and her fighting one. obama's unity  message is to create a grassroots coalition that is strong enought ot overcome the special interests and entrenched entrophy of insider politics. That's why his campaign emphasizes noew voters, bringing in independents and building from the ground up with small donors, To equare this to Stockholm Syndorme means is profoundly mistaken.

          HRC on the other hand is so afraid to the right that in spite of her talk of fighting, when the going gets though she wimps out:the Iraq authorizarin, the Iran Resolution, her Cubam policy which is identitcal to mCCains, her effort to out-McCain McCain on Iran by babbling belligerantly about oblitereating them.  She ony mnoved to her current positon on Iraq because wshe had to inorder to be competitivve in the primary.

          Compare that to Obama who "just words" wqere righth in a time when she was wrong, who articlutaes a way to reframe our foreigh policy away from the war on terror which HRC accepts to a combination of addressing root causes, domestic defense, and law enforece ment, and his campanioning of Gitmo detainees and his leadership to restore habeas corpus.

          HRC has a great deal of force and grit but her record shows that she applies it mainly to self promotion, sertainly not to fighting the rightwing.

          Second star on the right and straight on til morning

          by wren on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:07:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A few rebuttals.. (9+ / 0-)

          We [HRC supporters] don't see the country's need for unity the way Obama and his supporters do.

          The rest of the party does not agree.  Which is why HRC is hemorrahaging resources, support and superdelegates.  

          To us that kind of unity is a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where the prisoners start to identify with the guards, or where a candidate will say anything to get elected.

          HRC is the only one doing this, Not Barack.

          1. NAFTA
          1. AUMF
          1. Sniper-gate.  Like I said, only a few.

          Under no illusion that any change in health care or anything else will not have to be wrung from the frozen hands of the corporate structure and the GOP who support and protect that structure--and won with force and grit, and that's what she has.

          Yes, she has force and grit.  The force and grit to:

          1. Smear a fellow Democrat.
          1. Race-bait and dog-whistle a fellow Democrat.
          1. Supress voters.
          1. Try to fund the Michigan re-vote with her own backers.

          The fact remains that HRC came into this primary with huge negatives.  Those negatives have only increased.  She's not a fighter, she's a flailer.  And too bad she didn't use any of this vaunted "force and grit" against Bush.

          Consign corporatism to the dankest crypt, and assign justice to the highest crag. For a More Perfect Union.

          by Alohilani on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:13:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  HRC is gaming the system (6+ / 0-)

          I admire Hillary's intelligence, her stamina, and her experience. But here's why she doesn't have my support: she's trying to game the system instead of trying to change it.

          Obama acknowledges that the system has been gamed by Bush/Cheney/Rove and needs to be changed. Hillary unfortunately, as I see it, just wants to keep gaming it but from the other side. That once would have been good enough for me, in the early days of the run-up to Iraq when I begged any Democrat to stand up to the Republican bulldozer, but no longer.

          Obama is the first one for a long time to have really articulated how far off the path we've strayed.

          So count me in the camp that is pro-Obama, more than anti-Hillary.

          •  obama brilliantly (0+ / 0-)

            gamed the system by winning primaries in ways that were de facto undemocratic (caucuses by their nature don't allow many people to vote) and winning states DEMS cant win in november.

            as we will find out, disastrously, if he is our nominee.

        •  Anyone who doesn't see a need for unity (3+ / 0-)

          in this country either has his head in the sand or, worse still, somewhere moist and dark.

    •  You're not getting it (11+ / 0-)

      It's not because Obama thinks he can just be nice and hard problems will disappear as Hillary is trying to say, it's that he is putting together a coalition of support that is ready to demand an end to the type of political bullshit that the gas tax pander represents (not to mention fear based politics). We are saying no more to ploys that offer short term political gain at the expense of real and deep problems that need to be faced and dealt with. It will take a motivated base of reality-based supporters to allow Obama to succeed at this.

      You must see through your cynicism in order to understand the break we are demanding from a divide and conquer type of politics that even when sold as "fighting for you" will continue to fail. It pits one group against the other in order to score some transient small bore victories while real repairs to our massive problems remain too risky to a base of supporters who are attracted to being selfishly pandered to. Hillary's base seems to admire her ability to shamelessly pander to her potential supporters. Obama's base would be pissed if he tried this (see the reaction of his supporters to his FOX appearance for a sample - and that was not even a policy pander. Hillary supporters seem to have no problem with her O'Reily, Scaife, Rush, Murdoch etc.. panders).

    •  You're offended by idealism and faith? (13+ / 0-)

      How ELSE do you think things change?  How ELSE do you think people get motivated?  I think you should reconsider your cynicism -- and your preference for Machiavellian politics -- they are ultimately destructive.

    •  Rubbish! (18+ / 0-)

      The gas tax holidy is offensive because it is patently stupid.

      If Hillary's experience has taught her that it makes sense to enact a temporary solution that will provide the average American a savings of $35, take away $10 billion from our already degraded and crumbling infrastructure and cost thousands of Americans their jobs, then, yes, she's too stupid to be President.

      But you and I both know that's not why she's proposing this, which makes it all the worse, though not because she's a sucker for bad policy.

      It exhibits a cold, calculating intelligence that reveals a not so subtle condescension for the voters.  In offering such a shallow gesture to reach out to voters, she's telling all of us that she' willing to forsake the general welfare of the nation for her own political gain; that she is willing to dupe the voters into supporting an iniatitve that is NOT in their best interest, that will create even greater profits for oil companies and will further strap the already overstretched budgets of the states.

      If that is leadership in your estimation, then I am afraid the policies and positions of the candidate and the "old" politics you support will be relegated to a most unsavory place atop the trash heap of history.

      I consider myself still a young voter(only 31) and to hear you demean your opposition as lies for the young reminds my of a line from a Grateful Dead song:  "With thirty years upon my head to have you call me child."

      It is the "old" politics that have so fucked this country, because the needs of the country have taken second place to selfish, ammoral politicians like Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush, whose career ambitions and place in history weigh greater than the American people.

      What else does a shameless pander like the gas holiday suggest?  If you are willing to enact bad policies for political gain, then it's a fair chance you're among the lowliest of craven, self-serving miscreants loitering in the swamp.

      Bringing in the Iraq War makes no sense on your part.  That's another issue.  That you are willing to tolerate and accept such blatant political gamesmanship as the gas tax holiday is indicative of your own cynicism.

      But it's probably no fun having your candidate called out for this nonsense; that probably bugs you more than anything.  It's not that you find Barack's "bullshit" insulting, it's that you cannot believe such a noboby upstart has had the audacity to try and take away Hillary's nomination.  That's what's really unacceptable to the Clinton camp!

      It's the realization that the Clintons, for the most part, are a relic of the past, as much as the confused leadership of George W. Bush will soon be.  It is also that the legacy of the Clintons is one of missed opportunities and leadership that has served their own goals rather than the interestes of the Democratic party and the country.

      Not so different from the Republican Party that I grew up with.

      But there is simply no more time for the games and pettiness of the Clinton Soap Opera; as my father might say, we don't have time to "piss around" any more.

      I bid you good day!

    •  And you don't find Hillary's lies insulting? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CTPatriot, miss SPED
    •  short term thinking (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux

      The gas tax is political window dressing. I know it's offending to "new politics," but I heard her say that she also has long term plans to correct the problems.

      Great, let's adopt a short term solution that the vast majority of experts feel is not just ineffectual but actually harmful in order to pick up some votes. Clinton is just demonstrating that her personal interests trump everyone elses.

    •  What a vision: you want nothing but bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

      Your thesis is politics is cynical and awful, we shouldn't be offended by cynical and awful, HRC is cynical and awful, Obama isn't.

      So what are we suppsoed to accomplish when we get the sixty votes in the senate and HRC is president, and we've all embraced cynical and awful...what then?  You'll get your gas tax holiday.

      What else?

      Who wants four more years of the bullshit?  Why would we pick HRC's brand of bullshit over McCains, particularly since they seem to be the same thing?

      "A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists John McCain." - Joe Andrew

      by Inland on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:42:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This "new politics" type (0+ / 0-)

      can only wonder where you got the idea that Obama has ever said anything like "[a]ll that was missing for Washington not to be corrupt was an elegant intelligent person to ask nicely."

      It was clear to me back in the Iowa caucuses, when we were forcing all the candidates to wade through all the muck we could find to look at our chickens (muahahahahaha!) that Obama was talking about building a political force wholly outside of the DC power structures and showing up there with an army at his back. Walk softly and carry a big stick isn't exactly new.

      The problem with old-school politicians like Clinton and McCain is that they remain beholden to the traditional power sources, which means any "fighting" they do will be within the terms dictated by the same people who have sent just about everyone else to Washington, DC. Obama, by depending on small donations from people everywhere for money, by galvanizing volunteer support so well that his campaign found well-organized ground support in places where they didn't even try to get it going (Idaho), has bypassed the traditional power structures to an unprecedented degree. That means he doesn't have to genuflect as much to people or lobbies that will dictate to him what he can and cannot "fight" for. Instead, we dictate to him what he can and cannot fight for, because if it wasn't for us, meaning the millions of people who have funded his campaign, made calls, canvassed neighborhoods, and talked to people, he would literally have gone nowhere.

      It's not new politics to realize that the most reliable indicators of a politician's true agenda are the agendas of the sponsors behind them, whatever the politician's individual opinions are. Clinton and McCain are sponsored and championed by the usual suspects, so you can expect the usual policies, the usual disappointments, the usual corporatism, the usual MIC-approved foreign policies. Obama is a whole different ball game.

      No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.

      by oldjohnbrown on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:00:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just imagine (14+ / 0-)

    if we spent hundreds of billions for green energy instead of wars for oil (as McCain himself inadvertently admitted we are in right now, until he tried to claim he meant the first Gulf war--both a stupid response on his part and a lie).

    We could be on such a different path for a much better future.

  •  A sleazy fraud meant to dupe (11+ / 0-)

    the uninformed. Hillary has falsely presented herself as a fighter against the oil companies while championing legislation that helps no one but the oil companies. Just like the subprime mortgage lenders, she is preying upon the naiveté of a certain segment of the public. This incident is just one more example of Hillary's inability to lead on any issue of importance.

    She is unqualified to address the crisis of global warming. All Hillary is capable of is performing cheap political stunts and talking a lot of meaningless jargon. She is not a serious person.

    The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

    by beltane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:22:03 PM PDT

  •  hillary is a democrat (0+ / 0-)

    are you?

    •  Are you asking this (19+ / 0-)

      of the diarist?  If so, you should re-examine your thinking, because you are WAY out of line.

      •  Agree... (4+ / 0-)

        What on earth does posing the question "Hillary is a Democrat" have to do with the utter foolishness of her gas tax pander?  If anyting, just shows she is a dumb Democrat.  

      •  She might be joking (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Subterranean

        It could be a reference to the diary about the call form the Clinton campaign.

        Second star on the right and straight on til morning

        by wren on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:28:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  hillary is a democrat (0+ / 0-)

        democrats support democrats--even if they prefer one dem to another dem. diaries should try to be pro hillary and pro obama (offering constructive criticism where appropriate). otherwise, we may as well be half-freepers b/c we are doing their work for them.

        and "way out of line" you say? ever hear of free speech?

        hillary stood up for moveon in the senate, even though they villify her. did obama? i dont remember.

        •  You lose (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CTPatriot, esquimaux, JTRicher, RBinDLH

          You have now clarified well enough.  I'd commend you to read some of K/O's past diaries.  Loser.

        •  Part of the so called Kool Aid (0+ / 0-)

          thetis, is the fact that Obama supporters see HRC as a non-Democrat, who, they think, doesn't have the same plans, basically, as BHO.

          I'm on the other side of that,. I know BHO means well. I'm just not confident he can win, and if he does, not confident that he's the one to deliver change.

          In PA, he spoke to 20,000 here, 15,000 there and lost. I love a good speech like the next guy. I need a fighter with a resume.

          •  r u serious? (7+ / 0-)

            "I'm just not confident he can win, and if he does, not confident that he's the one to deliver change."

            yes because Hillary is certainly the arbiter of change this election.

            And sure, she might have a resume, but I seem to recall many things on that resume that she might want to white-out (i.e. Iraq Authorization, Kyl-Lieberman, NAFTA, etc)

            He didn't choose the times, the times chose him.

            by Porsche51688 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:58:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  thanks for the civility, ny writer, (0+ / 0-)

            and the common sense. i used to love this site b/c kos stood up for democrats. no democrat has taken more abuse since nixon than hillary. and now she takes it from democrats. (see anglachelg for a plausible analysis of this phenomenon.)  i was not a fan of hers until the election. i was in fact  for obama initially. and then he played the race card in sc and the sexist card throughout. i dont mind that he campaigns so viciously--i kind of like it--I just dont think he can win the GE after what he had to do to try to "win" the nomination.

          •  You have no business (12+ / 0-)

            speaking for Obama supporters.

            Poll after poll has shown that Obama supportws come election day will vote for HRC. But close to thrity percent of her supporters say the won't vote for Obama.

            So if any one is claiming that the other isn't a real Dem it's some HRC supporters.

            You have no business making that kind of  genralization.

            I think that you don't know either as much about Obama or his aupporters as you think you do.

            Second star on the right and straight on til morning

            by wren on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:13:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I must have gotten a different kool-aid flavor (15+ / 0-)

            Clinton and Obama are quite similar on policies (except most notably on this Gas Tax Holiday and the Iran Armageddon Initiative), but the implementation is very different. As has been explained exhaustively he wants to energize the electorate to create the political will to actually pass the legislation rather than the standard operating procedure of just kicking it around congress fruitlessly for a while then blaming the opposition.

            "I ain't so afraid of losing something that I ain't gonna try to have it." Zoe (Firefly)

            by geejay on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:24:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  my fear is that (0+ / 0-)

              pelosi and kennedy want obama to beat hillary b/c they think he'll lose the GE. i know this sounds crazy but how many times has pelosi let us down? that way pelosi gets to remain "opposition" leader and does not have to do the work to get dem. legislation passed through. i hope i'm wrong. but nothing about the dem. party suggets it is good at or interested in winning presidential elections. bill clinton is an obvious exception to this tendency.

          •  You are only talking about some not all (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Terri, geejay

            Some Obama supporters, NY, not all, just as some Hillary supporters are out of line in comments about Obama.

            Hillary herself has unfortunately been out of line about Obama much more often than he has been about her. Her "commander-in-chief-test" remark was hard to forgive.

            •  So Many Things... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Terri

              ...that Hillary has done during this campaign are hard, if not impossible, to forgive. I've lost count, but cozying up to Richard Melon Scaife would rate very high on the list, as would her behavior during the ABC debate in which she played right along with the worst of the guilt-by-association games.

              •  an effective leader (0+ / 0-)

                confronts her opposition. s/he does not hide from them, except strategically.

                besides, obama's financial adviser (goolsbee) wants to do away with social security. that's very progressive, wouldnt you say? maybe goolsbee didnt vote for the war either so i guess it is ok if he helps Barack "privatize" social security.

                i dont think scaife will be part of hillary's actual team. hillary took on o'reilly at fox. obama kissed up to wallace and fox.

                as president, hillary will be more oppositional to and effective against the bad guys than obama (who seems to genuinely like so many republicans.)

          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

            I know BHO means well. I'm just not confident he can win, and if he does, not confident that he's the one to deliver change.

            And you say this on what basis? Because by all known metrics he is WINNING and you darling candidate is losing, deal with it. I'm sure there is some "hidden" reason other than the fact that is ahead is delegate count, contests won and money raised. Could it be because you believe he is a Muslim (think BHO), or is it because he is black?

            In PA, he spoke to 20,000 here, 15,000 there and lost. I love a good speech like the next guy.

            Well new flash PA is NOT the only constest by which the winner will be judged. In fact, there have been over 45 contests in this primary and he has won 31 of those so come again.

            I need a fighter with a resume.

            Surely, you habe not ounf your fighter yet. And mlst certainly your fighter cannot be Hillary because the last I checked your so-called fighter is getting smacked on important fronts (i.e. deligate count, contests won, popular votes).

          •  Kool Aid not required... (0+ / 0-)

              In March, I was leaning towards clinton.

              THEN, clinton stated that mcbush was better suited to be president than Obama.

              OK, as of March, that was merely her latest act against working USA citizens.

              Look at her voting record here: http://www.votesmart.org/...

              Look at how many pro-worker laws she either voted against, or registered a non vote.

              And she even voted against a law to make sure imported drugs were safe. I know you are utterly ignorant of the fact that over a hundred people were killed in Panama because a Chinese drug company used poisonous anti-freeze in cough syrup instead of safe glycerin, so they could squeeze a penny more profit per bottle.

              clinton voted to allow Chinese drug companies to kill USA citizens with poisonous drugs.

              See here: http://www.votesmart.org/...

              THAT isn't very Democratic.

              The fact that EVEN ORRIN HATCH VOTED FOR IT places clinton to the right of fricking ORRIN HATCH.

              You are proof positive that the polls are accurate.

              The polls show that clinton's base is "low-information" (polite term for fricking IGNORANT MORON) voters, and Obama's base is highly educated people.

              Of course, I have seen enough absolute ignorant morons with college degrees (think bush) to know that clinton shares that electorate with mcbush.

              Posting a pro-clinton comment in absolute ignorance of clinton's voting record vis-a-vis Obama and mcbush's voting records puts you squarely in clinton's base.

              And for the record, it's "THAT IS"- NOT "THETIS".

              Fer chrissakes- If you were promoted beyond elementary school, you can make serious bucks by sueing your school district for malpractice.

              (Assuming you ARE that smart.)

              I think not.

              Begone moron.  

                 

             

             

          •  BHO (0+ / 0-)

            One of your tactics is to use his middle initial, in case anyone forgot he has a SCARY MIDDLE EASTERN MIDDLE NAME!

        •  Yah and then admitted that they had her number (0+ / 0-)

          "I don't agree with them and they know I don't agree with them."She knows exactly what she's doing.

        •  funny that (11+ / 0-)

          Has your candidate passed any commander in chief thresholds lately?  

          The fact that Hillary and her campaign have spent the last 2 months saying that Obama is fundamentally unfit for the presidency and that John McCain is more qualified offends you less than a comment on a blog?

          Really???  Shall I ask the question of you, is Hillary a Democrat?

        •  I should be able (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ck4city, ObamaLovingExDemocrat

          I should be able to say why I prefer Obama or Hillary without giving the Republicans ammunition against either. I agree with you on that.

        •  You really need to (0+ / 0-)

          read his diaries before you pass a judgement on him. If you still feel the way you feel about AFTER reading others, then I say, it's your opinion & you're entitled to it.

          Glass, china and reputation are easily crack'd and never well mended. - Ben Franklin

          by ck4city on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:52:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  that's more of a sad statement (4+ / 0-)

      about modern day Democrats than anything else.

    •  ha! She only thinks of herself (4+ / 0-)

      and what she wants--get in her way and she'll throw you under the bus.  Her loyalties are to herself first and foremost.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ~ H.L.Mencken

      by PoliSigh on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary's a DLCer (5+ / 0-)

      aka DINO.

      The difference between DLC/GOP neoconservative foriegn policy and neoliberal economic policy is so small that McCain's being forced to move to the far right (heard his new health care plan?) in order to make it possible for people to differentiate them.

      A President from either the DLC or GOP would be a national disaster. However, it isn't a choice we'll have to make. With Hillary persuading AAs to stay home, she's going to be buried in a landslide and probably take 100 Democratic congressional seats with her.

      As a Democrat with Hillary on the top of the ticket, I'd leave the top blank and vote for real Democrats downticket.

      I'm not interested in purity tests from hillbots.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:51:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and obama has more DLCers (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        wren

        and DINOS supporting him than Hillary does. I wonder why. . . hmmm.

        •  Obama has no (7+ / 0-)

          connection to the DLC. In fact when the DLC tried to use his name he contacted them and had his name removed,

          I notice that Theitis lists no examples or facts for her hint hint assertion.

          alizard, I hope that you will reconsider. HRC will frstrate and disappoint and be Repubican lite on foreign policy but she won't put authoritarina extremists on the Supreme Court.

          Second star on the right and straight on til morning

          by wren on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:17:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Daschle and Nelson and Rockefeller (0+ / 0-)

            are hardly my favorite democrats. And he used to say Lieberman was his mentor. Isn't Lieberman's tool, Dan Gerstein, an Obama man? Obama is always praising republicans. That may be good strategy. Or it may be a tell. He may be a DINO. If you say you know he is not, then you are saying so on faith. I hope you are right. I'd like to see him fight for something. Put himself on the line. I can't tell he has ever done that. The empty anti-war gesture does not count. Lincoln stood up against Polk's war on the house floor. Obama has no comparable gesture. But he is shrewd (knows when to vote present) and that's a good quality.

            •  Its not faith... (5+ / 0-)

              He has one of the most progressive voting records in the Senate. Thats not faith, thats a fact.

              This is not a good site to come and just spew random nonsense, most of us have done a pretty good job of educating ourselves. Have you?

              In the primary you vote for who you want to and in the general you vote for who you have to.

              by fToRrEeEsSt on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:13:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  "He may be a DINO." (0+ / 0-)

              Well, perhaps, but we already KNOW that Sen. Clinton is a DINO and this ridiculous gas tax "holiday" is a prime example of her foolishness.

              "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

              by green917 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:07:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  she has attracted more abuse from (0+ / 0-)

                republicans than any dem. (except maybe lbj) in my lifetime. why is that if she is a DINO? you are being played.

                •  Her taking flack from R's has NOTHING (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alizard

                  to do with it. Just because she's a DINO doesn't mean she's a Republican. I just don't think she has ever really espoused the things that make the Democratic party great (& my party). Her voting record speaks volumes to me. The AUMF (which she not only voted for but publicly lauded for months), Kyl-Lieberman, the "Obliterate Iran" comments, etc. etc.

                  For me, it comes down to even more than that though. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the lying stupid." I just don't trust her. Nothing she has said during this campaign has any ring of sincerity to it and I, for one, have had just about enough of being lied to by my President thanks.

                  I've said it before and I'll say it again:

                  If I wanted to vote for someone who's going to lie to me to cover their ass, I'd vote Republican.

                  "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

                  by green917 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Lieberman was his Senate-appointed mentor (0+ / 0-)

              Obama didn't choose him, and certainly he hasn't followed Lieberman's course.

              As for the others, they're not my favorite Democrats either, but neither are literal DLCers Tom Vilsack and Evan Bayh, to name two.

              No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.

              by oldjohnbrown on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:37:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I expect (0+ / 0-)

            Hillary SCOTUS nominees to be as corporate-friendly and government power friendly (don't look for PATRIOT Act repeals from a HRC appointee) as anything "Insane" McCain can dredge up from the depths of Hell.

            What it comes down to is that I will not vote for national disaster known ahead of time and McHillary is a case where "the lesser of two evils" can not reasonably be discerned.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:03:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Not when she proposes Republican (11+ / 0-)

      policy panders and states that McCain has Commander in Chief qualifications that Obama does not.

      That was unforgiveable, just like Bill Clinton's support of the lawsuit to shut down polling places in NV.

      Clinton is no Democrat when she links and an Af-Am church to Hamas and Farrakhan knowing how that would divide our coalition.

      Nor when she talks about the "faith of my father and my grandfather" in PA to differentiate herself from Obama.

      68% of PA voters thought Clinton attacked unfairly. Many of them still voted for her because her attacks were so brutal and divisive.

      That's not good for the Democratic Party.

      Sure, the Clintons are DLC Democrats who will do anything to win...including voting for the AUMF in 2002 to maintain her viability.

      That doesn't make her right. She was, in fact, quite wrong. And in 2004, she and her husband still propped up this war in Iraq even as we worked our asses off to elect John Kerry President. That's unforgiveable too.

      Btw, I'm not questioning whether you are a Democrat like you are doing to me.

      My beef is with Bill and Hillary Clinton. And I'm not backing down.

  •  I clicked the "uncle Vernon" link. Wonderful (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, crose, brein, paul94611

    story!  Thanks for sharing that with us.

    Oh, and you are right about pandering, truth, and all that.  But I'm a sucker for a romantic story!

    To say my fate is not tied to your fate is like saying, "Your end of the boat is sinking."--Hugh Downs

    by Dar Nirron on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:23:19 PM PDT

  •  Hillary will do just fine with my girls (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NY Writer, thetis

    and my grandchildren, and future generations because since the 70s, when Obama was a child, Hillary has been dedicating her work and talents fighting for children.  She's been doing so ever since.

    Go ahead -- check the public record..its all there.

    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

    by dcrolg on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:27:41 PM PDT

  •  Let's put all of the mud aside (20+ / 0-)

    for a second. Let's pretend Hillary and Obama are both OK folks. Obama has made the better policy decisions on the following very important issues:

    1.) protect the environment and don't pander with a gas tax holiday

    2.) negotiate with, don't threaten to nuke, those we disagree with

    3.) don't fight a dumb war

    Right on day one!

    Sometimes people do silly and useless things. They can't help themselves. They are often at the mercy of unknown vectors. Richard Brautigan

    by loud zoo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:27:55 PM PDT

    •  insofar as the war is about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      loud zoo

      oil and keeping the happy motoring suburbia america running, it may not be so dumb (if still immoral). that is, if people really thought they needed oil to maintain their stadard of life, most americans i fear would vote for the war. who wants to give up their cars, their houses, their cheap food. neither hillary nor obama is going to take our troops out of the middle east until the oil cant be used or we get chased out of there by china or russia and their allies. that's why obama's speech and hillary's "vote" on the war are basically meaningless. carter declared that the us would be in the middle east as long as it had oil and that has been a de facto bipartisan postiion since the 1970s.

      •  and now the McCain oops! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, thetis

        McCain: Did I just imply the war was about oil?

        Gotta give him credit for stating the obvious, even if it was a slip.

        Sometimes people do silly and useless things. They can't help themselves. They are often at the mercy of unknown vectors. Richard Brautigan

        by loud zoo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:51:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Barack Would Rather Be Right (0+ / 0-)

    Than be president.

    •  BS (13+ / 0-)

      you would rather appear "right" on dkos, that put your shoulder to the wheel.

      There's no justification for Clinton's current ad on the Gas Tax, it's pure pander:

      Sleaze and sludge that.

      •  I Hear That 150 Affluent Intellectuals (0+ / 0-)

        Rebuked Sen. Clinton for this ad earlier today.  Sixty percent of Americans approve the gas tax holiday.

        •  i believe those are similar numbers (5+ / 0-)

          to the kind of support the Iraq occupation originally received. so what's your point?

          Cure This : Let's talk about health justice

          by nalin on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:39:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Intellectuals=Bad (16+ / 0-)

            An uninformed public subjected to media manipulation=good.

            The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

            by beltane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:41:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Point Is (0+ / 0-)

            That simply screaming at people that they are wrong because a tiny, rarified group of "Cutting Edge Sustainability Advocates" is mad about something is not the way you become president.

            You become president by recognizing what people's needs are and making a commitment to addressing them.

            We can scream and moan and bring ourselves to orgasm over the wrongness of the Clinton/McCain gas tax holiday until the end of time.

            The problem is that energy costs are increasing compared to income and voters expect the government to do something about it.  Can this problem be solved by a gas tax holiday?  Likely not.  But people are telling us that they will accept even this cheap, temporary measure, if that is what is offered to them.

            This is a sign.

            •  Stop and think (7+ / 0-)

              Barack does not need 100% of Clinton's pander targets to win the nomination.

              Barack Obama needs about 10% of Clinton's current supporters and leaners in IN and  NC to upset the apple cart for her in NC and IN big time. Even holding steady means Clinton cannot win or even remotely close the pledged delegate count (she's already given up the popular vote rhetoric.)

              Further, the same pandering that seems so awesome to Mark Penn is not a winner with Super Delegates, even some of them embroiled in races for U.S. Senate in states like, uh, Colorado.

              •  Obama Needs 100% of Clinton's Supporters (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                thetis

                To win the general election.  Sen. Clinton will not be the nominee.

                •  and he ain't gonna (0+ / 0-)

                  get enough of them either.

                  •  So the not-real Dems would (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Alohilani

                    bethe one who refuse to vvote for the Demo nomimnee, right? And according to you, that would be a significant percentage of Clinton supporters?

                    Second star on the right and straight on til morning

                    by wren on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:22:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  unfortuntately, (0+ / 0-)

                      those democrats see obama as the "not real" democrat. and he has done little to address this perception. perhaps he will. i fear it is too late. had he stood up for hillary when she was attacked early in the primary by the media boys (and now the blogger boyz like KO) and said he will not tolerate sexism, he might have swept to the nomination and a GE victory. but instead he is looking at a dukakis like showing. and i've read the polls so dont send me there. he will get trounced in the GE unless they can prove Cindy McCain and John had 3-ways at a sex club (like he did with Ryan, a brilliant move, obviously.) but you identify the problem. neither side's core supporters views the other candidate as legit. and posts like ko's dont help.

                      •  Foul (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Terri

                        "Blogger Boyz"? and "sexism"?

                        Where, specifically, do you get the justification for making that accusation and using that term from my post?

                        •  your title and tone (0+ / 0-)

                          obviously, i might be wrong. i'm just telling you how i, as a hillary supporter (who will vote dem in the ge), hear you. your tone seems needlessly aggressive and attack oriented. most of the readers who may have the same sense of hearing i have, have gone to other sites. but a lot of people, who are otherwise friendly to you, hear you as "shrill" and "strident" on the hillary question. you have your candidate--that's fine. but i think you are wrong to treat hillary as if she is a republican.

                          things are more complicated than that. you disagree. that's fine. but i think we should talk about our top dem. candidates with respect, not (near) contempt.

                          •  Calling me (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RBinDLH

                            one of the "blogger boyz" or "sexist" on the basis of the diary title and some vague notion of tone is really unfair and unjustified.

                            You think I am attacking Clinton as if she were a Republican. That's hard not to do on the gas tax pander, since she effectively xeroxed John McCain's Republican policy idea and used it to attack Barack Obama.

                            The hypocrisy of Bill and Hillary Clinton is genderless. It's not gender-based to discuss their poll-driven pandering.

                            Clinton has, as dotcommodity points out, some very fine environmental and energy proposals and advisors (whom she has pissed off with this, btw); however, with the Gas Tax Gimmick she is sending a clarion message to those who care about the environment that her real priority is pandering simply to get elected.

                            This is personal to me. I know that the next generation, our children, do not have a vote on this.

                            I am standing up for them on this one.

                            Clinton won't pass real energy reform if this is the kind of stunt she pulls to get elected.

                            We don't have time to waste on politics as usual...on Democrats using Republican policies to attack Democrats.

                          •  and obama's use of the (0+ / 0-)

                            harry and louise ads? the worst republican talking point attack ever used by one dem on another?

                            and hillary's proposal is not the same as mccains--she took it away from him and that is a favor to obama.

                            as i said, you dont have to agree with me. but in this post you come across as one of the blogger boyz to me. your willingness to respond to me suggests that you do not want to come across this way. the only way i can help you is to tell you when i think you sound shrill. you can choose to think that i am deluded. and you may not care what i think. but as a lifelong dem who has never been so alienated by a dem candidate and his supporters as i have been by obama this cycle (and finds lots of others who feel the same way), you may be making a mistake to kiss me off as "factless" or "obtuse" or as a "troll."

                            i think you are going overboard on hillary-hate ("this is personal") on an issue that is purely symbolic and on which obama has been on both sides. to my eyes and ears, you are using a typical in the middle of an election poltical feint (gas pandering) to pile on hillary.  that seems to me your real intention b/c otherwise the issue you idnetify is so inconsequential in the grand gw and peak oil scheme of things.

                            and i noticed that you did not say you would vote for hillary if she were the nominee. which brings me back to my original question:

                            are you a democrat or do you only support obama come november?

                            if obama supporters were to say that they would support either hillary or obama in nov., that would go a long way to helping mend the potentially disastrous split we have now.

                          •  I've said that time and again (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AbsurdEyes

                            as recently as last Tuesday:

                            I have said that I would support Senator Clinton if she were the nominee and would work on her behalf. That's still true. The hypothetical path to Clinton's nomination, however, gets narrower and more patently divisive by the day. It is Clinton's right to persevere, however, and even if I'd prefer she'd run a cleaner and fairer and less right-wing campaign, there's little say I, or any of us bloggers, have in that matter.

                            Clearly, you don't read my stuff and hence feel free to call me a "blogger boyz" and attribute my writing to sexism and cast doubt on my Democratic bona fides.

                            That's on you, not me.

                          •  i admit i go in and out (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AbsurdEyes

                            b/c of the virulent hillary hatred on this site. i'm never sure how seriously to take "this is personal" langauge.  it sounds overblown to me but maybe i have a tin ear.

                            i've always liked your stuff pre dem nominating process.

                            thanks for the responses. we'll unite soon. :)

                •  I'm really confused about your thesis . . . (22+ / 0-)

                  Over the past few days you seem to be saying that Obama or anyone supporting him has to STFU about the continuing primary race because he's won it, while letting Clinton continue to bloody up Obama and incrementally destroy his chances in November as she pushes to continue the primary race that she can't win.

                  And, everything ever said or thought about Hillary Clinton in this race---wholly deserved or not---must be atoned for because "Obama needs 100% of Clinton's supporters to win the general election." Even while she continues to produce reason upon reason to be ripped.

                  Here's my question: where the hell is Hillary Clinton's responsibility in any of this? She doesn't have to do anything to protect the interests of the party, but she's owed everything? That's the only thing I get from this . . . and it absolutely makes no sense to me.

            •  no one is "screaming at people" (6+ / 0-)

              and i doubt anyone here is currently having an orgasm. this is a diary on a progressive community site. responsible energy solutions are a key progressive goal. taking issue with a gas tax holiday should come as no surprise. but its not just sustainability advocates who are against a gas tax holiday. there are plenty of economists and policy experts as well. i'm not surprised that a majority of Americans support the idea but i also wouldn't be surprised if most Americans knew about how (forget about the environment for a second) it would actually end up raising the price of gas and actually save them very, very little. if they knew, the might be less in favor of it.

              part of the reason for the rising prices has less to do with limited crude oil supplies and more to do with limited refinery production (to get that crude oil to gasoline). if gasoline consumption increases this summer for no other reason than a perception that gasoline is cheaper, then the price of gas will rise as the summer progresses anyway. Hillary knows this. She has to. So therefore she is trying to win the support of people who react to terms like "tax holiday". good for her. that's why she's the kind of politician she is - aka the kind i don't vote for.

              Cure This : Let's talk about health justice

              by nalin on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:50:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The point is that it's a gimmick and sad.. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nalin, bablhous, geejay, mayim, Alohilani

              for lots of people of course they would look for a quick fix but if you would actually explain to them the consequences maybe over 60% wouldn't be so in favor of the plan... Don't try to do this just so you can get a few extra votes and then screw all of those people your claiming to help over!! This would not help anyone in the long term... the gas tax will only raise the price of gas and thousands of people will lose jobs and billions of dollars taking out of other programs that we need all for daving $30 dollars in three months!!! Are you kidding me? I can't believe that there are people that are even defending this...

              "If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress." - Barack Obama

              by sillycilla on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:55:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  So I guess you think the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              esquimaux, geejay

              Bush tax rebate is a fine idea too?

              And get over the faux-anti-elitist crap.  There is no benefit to using that against fellow Deomcrats. After all the Republicans are gong to use that against us no matter who we nominate!  

              Second star on the right and straight on til morning

              by wren on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:20:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  And at least that number supported (9+ / 0-)

          invading Iraq. How did that work out?

          The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

          by beltane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:39:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (8+ / 0-)

          Affluent Intellectuals - you forgot to add elite and effete.

          May 6th 2008: IN Insignificance Day

          by stevej on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:44:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  How about being honest & calling them economist? (9+ / 0-)

          Stop trying to act like a Republican and calling people elitists. While economists differ with scientists when it comes to climate change, they do realize that climate change is real and that it will have huge economic impacts on developed and developing countries. If we don't address that problem NOW, it will never be addressed; we will continue to push it back and back and back until the dam finally breaks.

          Our politicians have to start being honest and real to the people. Yes some people will be affected; there will always be winners and losers but best to know which one you might be so you can start planning ahead.

          What our politicians need to start telling us is that this is our time to start making sacrifices just like our predecessors did for the good of our country and the world.

          •  Stop Acting Like an Elitist (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thetis

            And understand that people out here in Americaland are starting to get desperate when it comes to their pocketbook.  The average person does not have the luxury of thought required to achieve the sublimities of enlightenment expected of them here.

            We have no time.

            We have no money.

            Things are breaking down.

            People want economic relief.  Barack Obama today in a speech showed that he recognizes that people are having problems.  The next step is to offer concrete promises of relief to regular people.  John McCain has already launched into this.  Barack Obama has been telling people for months that we need to "work harder" and create opportunities for change.

            Now, he is shifting gears ...

            A gas tax holiday might not have been the brightest idea on the Planet, but it is singularly unlike such crimes as ... well, you know ... bombing Nagasaki, or the Holocaust, which you would think it were reading recent Daily Kos diaries.

            Call it pandering, I don't care ...  Gas tax holiday or no.

            Barack Obama must find concrete promises that he can make to people.  Throw the American public a rope, for God's sake!  We're drowning.  If he doesn't do it.  John McCain will.  (And his rope will have an anchor on the other end.)

            •  "people out here in Americaland" (11+ / 0-)

              That phrase shows the same good grace as George Allen's "welcome to America."

              You assume that people who don't see this your way - what, don't drive cars?

              People in the America where both of us live understand the difference between a short-term fix and a long-term solution because we make those trade offs in our own budgets every day.

              If anyone's out of touch here, it's not the people standing with Obama on this.

              Those who support the gas tax holiday are in touch with their inner child. The rest of us are trying to deal with the reality principle.

              Obama routinely mentions that one part of his economic solution is a middle class tax cut, worth about $1000/yr at the median income. That's versus the $30 gas tax joke.

              If you don't know that, you don't know enough to be bashing him in your comments.

              Help Russ Feingold help progressive candidates - support the Progressive Patriots Fund.

              by scardanelli on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:58:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If this is your argument, you should've made it (0+ / 0-)

              earlier instead of throwing GOP labels.

              Disclaimer: And am I elitist? You damn right I am; I have an education and I know I'm better than some people out there. Am I arrogant? No; my friends, family, and myself are hurting and I know and recognize the economic troubles we're in. And no, I'm not affluent either, just intellectual.

            •  A gas tax holiday won't reduce prices! (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Albatross, crose, Port City Moon

              Obama recognizes that a gas tax holiday won't reduce prices.

              It just might do the opposite, no matter what America thinks.

              Only two things will actually reduce prices: less demand or more supply. The approach or expectation of either of these will reduced speculation, which itself could reduce prices somewhat.

            •  Stop acting like an apologist (0+ / 0-)

              and take the very minimal time necessary to realize that this gas tax rebate will do literally nothing other than but $9-$10bn in the pockets of the oil companies. Literally nothing else will happen.

              Remember the gov't bailout of the airlines after 9/11? It'll be that all over again.

              There is no debate over the need to help struggling Americans. The debate is over how to do that, and one side is transparently full of shit.

              No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.

              by oldjohnbrown on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:00:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  And it was economists on both sides (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bablhous, Alohilani

            of the aisle politically speaking that came out against it -- and those guys (and gals) never agree on anything.

            I've heard that about 700K people would lose their jobs because of the lack of revenue to pay them -- these folks keep the roads we drive on in good shape. How many people who'll save $30 with a gas tax "holiday" would end up spending hundreds of dollars on transmission and suspension repairs after hitting a major pothole?

            "Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher

            by Cali Scribe on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:08:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Wow. (11+ / 0-)

          A comment that calls people who know what they're talking about 'affluent intellectuals.' Congrats on perpetuating anti-intellectualism, aka stupidity. Is that you, Mr Inhofe?

          Help Russ Feingold help progressive candidates - support the Progressive Patriots Fund.

          by scardanelli on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:50:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  More than 60% of Americans are sheep and get (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          crose, MacGumaraid

          their 'news' from cable. What's your point?

          "Change doesn't happen from the top down,
          it happens from the bottom up." Barack Obama

          by shpilk on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:21:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Because they don't know (0+ / 0-)

          what it means. The "savings" will not trickle down to them. It's a straw man issue.

          "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Graham Chapman

          by crose on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:52:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No economist thinks this is a helpful idea (0+ / 0-)

          and yes I know, those educated employed enonomists, how dare they give us their elitist, educated opinion!!

          I only want to hear from people who have GED;s on complicated economic issues!!!!

      •  Amen! (0+ / 0-)

        No...Hold it...
        Double do AMEN!
        Keep on rockin, Kid Oakland

    •  It is probably (4+ / 0-)

      that fact that makes him the most qualified to be president.

      May 6th 2008: IN Insignificance Day

      by stevej on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:43:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did you cross the picket line? n/t (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      bink

      1964 Cassius Clay vs Sonny Liston, 1997 Masters Tiger Woods vs Field, 2008 Barack Obama vs Field

      by ZenMaster Coltrane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:18:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You see this as a fault (3+ / 0-)

      I see this as a strength

      "Change doesn't happen from the top down,
      it happens from the bottom up." Barack Obama

      by shpilk on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:19:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  gas tax pandering is the stupedist policy issue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTRicher

    that it almost doesnt even count for policy. she knows it's not going to get passed. its just political posturing.

  •  Political expediency tends to trump long term (6+ / 0-)

    planning and political expediency has tended to be a trait of the Clintons. One of my fears of having Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee will be the interference with greener technology, nuclear power (she says she is 'agnostic' about it...the scientists say otherwise), and gas prices. We will never have the push for green technology if we continue to keep gas prices low. There are already truckers out there who are campaigning for the federal government to step in and to somehow subsidize them or to forcibly lower gas prices; this will only keep the country in a never ending loop of gas hunger. We're only going to break away from this when gas prices have reached such a high price that people have become pathologically ill of gas.

    The climate change can only be effected by combining reusable technology, lower carbon emissions technology, common sense, and political will. The lack of one of these will essentially make the whole effort futile.

  •  windfall profits tax (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kid oakland, Harkov311, brein

    Unlike McCain, Clinton wants to offset the gas tax cut with a windfall profit tax on oil companies. In all likelihood, this would have roughly the same impact on the price consumers pay as the gas tax.

    For HRC, this is really a head-fake. Consumers would save nothing at all under her plan, but that's not the point. The point is the perception that they'll save.  

  •  Bandaids (6+ / 0-)

    Hurt when you pull them off.
    The suspending the gas tax is a bandaid.

    Thanks Kid Oakland. Well said.

    "I've been ionized, but I'm okay now."

    by crowjane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:39:08 PM PDT

  •  KO, you Kick A! (0+ / 0-)

    Great depth, context and motivation.
    Is it possible that Hillary just got the same bad advice as McLame? I'm a little tired of everyone assuming that every HRC mis-step, bad idea and/or blunder is malicious. Perhaps she and her campaign are just incompetent, and not evil?
    Whatever that case may be, Obama is clearly the best choice for America in the 21st century.
    Cheers!

    What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?!? Elvis Costello

    by BigVegan on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:42:39 PM PDT

  •  blessings to your new uncle... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kid oakland, alizard

    and the rest of your family. Your Uncle Vernon displays the sort of persistence and determination we need in our public energy policies - no compromises, no excuses (but the roses help, I'm sure!).

    I am so frustrated at the media and their focus on Wright and other kerfluffles. Why are we not talking MORE about the global food riots which are exacerbated by ethanol production? Why is Congress being so slow in rebuilding our economic engine toward green energy technologies?

    I wander the streets of my beloved Alameda and it makes me so sad that I will not be able to live here the rest of my life. It will be underwater by the time I'm 50 years old. These old, grand Victorians will become nothing but underwater ghost towns.

    I can haz sound economic policy?

    by Isara on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:44:01 PM PDT

  •  I'm going to a HIllary Party tomorrow, (16+ / 0-)

    thrown by a neighbor who knows I support Obama (but she wants me to attend). I'm going with a couple of little facts:

    the 18. cents per gallon gas tax is an excise tax taken by the government at the point of production - the refineries. Nothing guarantees it will be passed on to the consumer.  Even it if were, is saving an average of $12 or $13 in gas over the summer going to be worth losing 2,881 construction jobs in Oregon, and losing $82 million in Oregon that we need to maintain our many bridges?  Do we need another Minneapolis bridge - here in Oregon, to prove that our infrastructure is crumbling?  The Sellwood Bridge is now off limit for trucks because of structural faults, but fire trucks still need to drive over it.  How are we going to repair it by giving away millions of dollars from our construction fund?

    My friend knows I support Obama, and asked me anyway.  I don't plan to argue with anyone there, but just ask them some pertinent questions.  I'm usually good at keeping my temper in a debate, so I hope to just get them thinking before they vote.

    I'm open to any suggestions on how to approach my neighbors in a non-aggressive but convincing way.

    "Words are a form of action, capable of influencing change." (Ingrid Bengis)

    by Pandababy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:46:24 PM PDT

  •  Nailed it. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terri, latts, Cali Scribe, bablhous, geejay

    You nailed it KO. The gax tax holiday is the equivalent of Bush's ownership society. A policy that's designed to short term perpetuate a way of life that people don't want to give up but will ultimately result in the death of that way of life -  at the expense of the middle and lower class.

    And yes, this is personal. Voting Obama is easier than breathing for me.

  •  thanks KO (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous

    I've been on Dkos awhile now and you are truly one of the very genuine voices here on Dkos and so glad you see what I see the same things I see in Obama..

    Obama see this Gas tax thing as the farce that it is and trust the opinion from many experts but not HRC ohhh no if this can get her cheap votes so be it..  

    Can the freaking Oil Co's not make a Gazillion dollars  and just laugh at us anymore?   C'mon I'm all for making a profit but you can't make hundreds of Billions of dollars and not expect people to say hey WTF is going on here... We as people of the US have every right to go after these bastards Companies and get our money back since they obviously weren't fair and reasonable and are waaaaay out of proportion..

    Besides how are we going to pay for our roads if go on a "holiday"..Road repairs don't go on a holiday and where this money going to come from?  Our infrastructure is falling apart if anyone has noticed and the last thing we need to be doing is cutting the money..  I hate taxes as much as the next guy but please don't cut the ones for the important stuff like you know roads.   Obama understands this and won't use cheap stunts to could undermine our infrastructure unlike some others..

    great diary as always and tip/rec'd as always.. peace

    "Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes." Oscar Wilde- GO Cubs!

    by ebbinflo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:48:25 PM PDT

  •  Didn't Obama support gas tax holidays (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, thetis, The Third Way

    when he was in the IL legislature?

    Do you understand that Clinton has a comprehensive long term policy plan on energy?  Your post seems to suggest that the "holiday" is her policy.

    Frankly, if it gives people some hope that the govt is listening, and it's paid for by the oil companies, I don't see the harm in it.

    •  I believe he said he did (8+ / 0-)

      but it failed miserably (ie. IL lost revenue and there were no savings passed on to consumers). It's a big reason why he's not supporting it now.

      I can haz sound economic policy?

      by Isara on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:55:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Harry Reid say unequivocally that he does NOT (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brein, ObamaLovingExDemocrat

      support a gas tax holiday.  No policy experts support it as part of any intelligent energy policy.  It's ludicrous for a lot of reasons.  It's highly irresponsible - read some of the experts who've already written statements about it.

      Hillary knows it's irresponsible and she doesn't care.  She wants power - and will say and do anything to get it.  Twelve years in the Governor's mansion in Arkansas and eight years in the White House in DC wasn't enough for the Clintons.

      "I have not heard Senator Obama try to make people afraid to vote for Senator Clinton because she's a woman." Michael Moore

      by keeplaughing on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:25:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BTW (0+ / 0-)

    I think this is another instance where Hillary siding with Mccain is actually helping Obama. It gives him room to take the high ground. The pander might have worked if it was just Mccain and Obama. Right now the Mccain must hate her. Every time they take a position, she crashes their party and makes them look ridiculous.

    I still don't know if she's doing this on purpose or not but it may be a good thing in the long run.

  •  They deserve each other (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thetis

    In 1968, the national Democratic Party tore itself apart over the issue of Vietnam.

    In 2008, the national Democratic Party is tearing itself apart over...what?   What issue divides Hillary and Obama, such that they have to rip our party apart?  A gas tax holiday?

    I am beginning to really dislike both Hillary and Obama and doubt their commitment to anything other than their own personal ambitions.   Let these two dislikable people run on the same ticket, they deserve each other.  

    •  You don't get it, it seems. (9+ / 0-)

      Clinton hasn't just pandered cynically on the gas tax.

      She talked about how Barack's church supports Hamas and Rev. Farrakhan, she said McCain and she both met the CinC threshold (through their war votes) but Barack had only "a speech", she used Bill Ayers to vilify Obama by association.

      You can't see that a candidate who talks in code words like "the faith of my father and grandfather" when attacking Barack Obama in a Democratic primary is something entirely unacceptable?

      68% of the voters in PA thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly and yet many, many of them voted for her due to the scorched earth nature of her attacks on him.

      That's bad for our party. Extremely bad.

      •  but had she pandered optimistically. . . ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        acquittal

        would your take be different?

        •  Lol (5+ / 0-)

          you know that Clinton knows exactly what she's doing.

          Mark Penn told her what to do.

          This is exactly like school uniforms. Tell the people whose votes you need what Mark Penn tells you they want to hear.

          Look where it got the Clintons.

          Look where it's gotten us as a nation.

          She is utterly cynical.

          And, yes, Obama is uabashedly willing to be attacked as optimistic. Be his guest.

          His success is based on drawing people together, not tearing people apart.

          Me attacking Clinton is not tearing anyone apart, so spare me.

          Bill and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves. The gas tax pander is an ultimate betrayal of our children.

          They must have gotten word that Gore and Carter were not going their way, eh?

          •  seriously, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dotcommodity

            how is this a betrayal of our children? it won't even get passed. and if it did, it is so inconsequential as to be meaningless. strategically, it makes a lot of sense for one dem to support it (by demanding taxes elsewhere)and one to oppose it.  but talking about the economy of the issue should in the long run be good for dems and bad for repubs.

            ultimately, there is no easy solution to the problem except complete transformation of how the machinery of our society works. no candidate can afford to explain that.

            unless jerome a paris were to run!

            •  indeed, and how to transform the machinery of (0+ / 0-)

              society? Switch away from the gasoline powered internal combustion engine entirely, and operate a carbon neutral economy, as Clinton does in her well thought out plan:

              1. Make the Production Tax Credit for Wind and Solar permanent. (Obama only extends it 5 years so the Repubs can cancel it like they always do.)
              1. Pay people to put solar on the roofs and sell power to the grid (like in Germany where a pigfarmer is netting $60,000 a year from panels over his fields) (Obama no such plan)
              1. Require every Federal building from 2009 be carbon neutral (ie have solar roof) (Obama: by 2030)
              1. By executive order, end the perverse subsidy that makes it profitable to emit CO2, no compromising with unwilling Repugs needed: (Obama: no such plan)

              Requiring Corporate Disclosure of Financial Risks Posed by Global Warming:

              Global warming presents both risks and opportunities for companies. Investors need and deserve
              information about the risks that companies face due to global warming, and what their plans are
              to address them. Companies are required to disclose to shareholders major threats they are
              facing in other areas. Yet, the potential costs of global warming are not incorporated into most
              firms’ financial projections. Some companies have stepped forward, forming a voluntary
              "Carbon Disclosure Project," a voluntary program that works with shareholders and corporations
              to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions of many major corporations. Hillary would build on
              this work by requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt disclosure obligations
              for all companies that are potentially impacted by climate change-related risks

              Now that you've got a ton of clean power, stop driving on gasoline:

              Accelerating the Production of "Plug-In" Hybrid Electric Vehicles:
              PHEVs offer the promise of achieving more than 100 miles per gallon of gasoline consumed; and a flex-fuel
              PHEV running on E85 can potentially get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline.
              Hillary would authorize $20 billion in low-interest "Green Vehicle Bonds" in order to provide immediate help to retool the oldest auto plants to meet her strong efficiency
              standards.

              Hillary would invest in research and stimulate demand for the first commercial PHEVs by:

              · Investing $2 billion in research and development to reduce the cost and increase the
              longevity and durability of batteries;
              · Offering consumers tax credits of up to $10,000 for purchasing a plug-in hybrid; and
              · Adding 100,000 PHEVs to the federal fleet by 2015.

              Obama just takes credit for all the legislation the entire Dem congress tried to enact all last year when he is just another Dem vote, like Clinton, less because he's not even on the environment committee like her...

              Look at how Boxer endorsed her, v Bingaman who endorsed him. Is Boxer not more progressive when her climate bill was called the Gold Standard by the UCS?
              Look at Bingamans bill here: it barely brings down emissions: this is progressive? Boxer/Sanders is clearly best and comparable to Waxmans Safe Climate Act in the House.
              comparison global warming bills

              This is what your kids will get with an Obama energy policy: Bingaman levels of effectiveness, because his policy is not enough: there is a limited amount you can do with policy that is primarily :
              Photobucket
              If Obama cared, he would have come to the Climate Debate sponsored by Grist
              One of the sobering messages she delivered is that when she mentions energy independence, crowds go nuts. When she mentions global warming, there's silence. "The public isn't there yet." This means, for one thing, that greens need to do a lot more to carry the message out. For another, they need to be realistic about what can be accomplished in the current political environment. Effectively, she was saying, "I'm with you; I understand the problem. But you need to give me some room to work -- attacking those of us on your side for insufficient purity isn't helpful."

              Clinton was by far the most responsive to specific questions. She argued in some detail for why she is uniquely able to accomplish something on this issue.

          •  obama using the harry and louise (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dotcommodity

            ads to attack hillary's more comprehensive health care plan (according to krugman and eliz. edwards, two pretty good sources) is the worst thing that a democrat has done this election--i cant think of a worse move by a demo going back to '72. that was unforgiveable, if it is ok to call our candidates' campaign tactics unforgiveable (and i'm not sure it is). health care is the most imporant dem issue in this election and obama undermined it.

  •  Ho Hum Another Obama Good Gillary Bad Diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thetis, BJJ Fighter

    If Obama is so Green, why does he suppoert nuclear power and clean coal, Did you say that in your diary?

    What is Obama going to do about NAFTA?  Repeal it?  Tell me.

    •  Ah (10+ / 0-)

      funny thing, I get attacked for being an Obama supporter from all sides.

      One thing I've learned is to stand firm. Obama's positions aren't static, it's a bottom up campaign. Saying he "supports" nuclear power and clean coal is simplistic. He supports 100% cap and trade and working in the system (while refusing to pander) to save the planet.

      His philosophy can be summed up as Tikkun Olam.

      What are YOU going to do? That's the point of Obama's campaign.

      One candidate is for the kind of transparency and open government that will let us have a very real and new say in how legislation is passed. Obama has already passed legislation (w/ Coburn and Feingold) to do just that.

      What are you going to do?

      •  Kid For You (0+ / 0-)

        All three presidential candidates have the same position on nuclear power plants.  Why didn't you mention that?

        Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates - support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.

        •  Obama is not on the energy comittee (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldjohnbrown

          nor the environment comittee like Clinton is.

          Obama is not a leader in congress on eco matters. He votes like all the Dems, and sometimes he has to be dragged kicking and screaming from the other side of the aisle.

          Your kids, kid oakland would have suffered mightily under this scenario Obama voted for 118% worse than gasoline emissions, till the eco groups battled him back with the Democrats
          Photobucket

          All the Dems have fought to pass the PTC, the RPS, the 100% auction of permits in cap and trade etc.

          To read Obama's plan, you'd think these were his ideas.

          The 100% auction of permits in cap and trade was Clinton's amendment:

          Clinton/Sanders No industry giveaways

          in Lieberman -Warner (cap and trade bill

          •  One of his liabilities (0+ / 0-)

            has been his role as the "Senator from Illinois." Until very recently, Iowa literally ran on Illinois coal. Now, after major projects to move to wind power, only the majority of Iowa does.

            As Obama has broadened his power base, his positions on coal have steadily improved. He just condemned mountaintop removal and backed away from clean coal. Nuclear power is a sore point, but that's never been just about energy production and it never will be.

            No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.

            by oldjohnbrown on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  obama's campaign is so vague (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dotcommodity

        that it lets his supporters project any fantasy they want on to him and call it his. thus, when obama is criticized, his supporters too often feel they are being criticized. it is a little scary to watch. this pattern is what provokes the "kool aid" remarks.

        i support hillary (and if i have to, obama), but i don't feel that when you attack hillary ("this is personal') you are attacking me.

        that said, some people have attacked me tonight--but, again, i dont take it personally.

        i just despair for the GE.  

    •  What's wrong with nuclear and clean coal? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BJJ Fighter

      First of all, I support strong efforts to fund and research greener technology. But at the same time, I am well aware of the realistic problems that stand in the way. Coal is an old source of power but it will continue to be a source of power in the near and even long term future because of its plentifulness and cheapness. If there is a way to make coal cleaner, we should continue to look for it while we're making a transition to greener technology. The only way to completely cut coal out of the equation is to find an energy source that is cheaper and that provides some sort of economic solution to the coal jobs that will be lost. That or have the country suffer some sort of near death experience to shake it out of its stupor.

      Secondly, nuclear power has already demonstrated itself to be a good answer to cleaner energy. You can argue all you want but the data that scientists have generated completely agrees. Nuclear power has to be and must be a part of an effort to combat climate change. Its only too bad that elements of the left disagrees with science on this one.

      •  Wkats the problem with clean caol and nuclear Rya (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dotcommodity, LaKathie
        1.  Nuclear waste is the problem with nuclear power, there's no place to dump nuclear waste.  The Bush administration tried to dump it all in Yucca Mountain in Nevada a few years ago, but they didn't want it, so there it sits in God knows how many states with a half life of a billion years. (I exaggerate for effect)
        1.  There is no such thing as clean coal.  It's a myth.

        Clean coal myth

        •  Small problems shouldn't mean to discount them (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tinctoris

          Nuclear waste is a small price to pay for the enormous advantages it provides. Moreover, most of the nuclear waste can be recycled and reused, resulting in actual little waste. The amount of waste that is actually produced is small in volume, allowing for relatively easy storage. And people don't want to store nuclear waste in their states because of decades of fear mongering; education can cure this.

          Clean coal has not produced much because there has been no serious attempt to pursue it on a larger and more rapid scale. That doesn't mean we should completely discount it though, due to simple economic and political realities. One of the big problems so far has not been with the actual process but with technology transfer rights and other bureaucratic stuff. Clean coal needs to be considered as one of our long term strategies.

          (PDF -->) www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2005/cp_clean_coal.pdf

          •  Coal leaves residual waste no matter what (0+ / 0-)

            The time and money you speak of could also be used to harness solar energy in the Mojave dessert. Free and no waste, no mountain-top mining, no coal mine deaths, no black lung disease...

            "Your silence will not protect you" -Audre Lorde

            by LaKathie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:18:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Clean coal and nuclear (0+ / 0-)

        As another commenter mentioned, the problem of nuclear waste is more emotional than practical. Any radioactive material is either very radiative or very long-lived. "Hot" nuclear waste sits in pools for several years. By the time it's ready for more permanent storage, it's hardly radioactive at all, and can be handled safely.

        As for "clean" coal: that refers to using filters to scrub particulate emissions from coal plants. It does nothing to address the more important CO2 emissions of coal. Addressing that problem is called "carbon sequestration" or "carbon capture and storage", and the technology to do it just doesn't exist right now.

  •  We had 30 years warning (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, mightymouse, geejay

    and as a nation, we chose to bury our heads in the sand, failed to use the time the early warning alarms in the 70s gave us.  The illogic was of the exact same cloth as the whole "gas tax holiday", the desperate clinging to the oil addiction and the belief in endless cheap energy from non-renewable resources.    As a result, 30 years later we have a vehicle fleet on the US highways that gets worse aggregate gas mileage than the fleet that was on the roads in 1979.  How much stupidity, how much denial, did that require?  The "gas tax holiday" is the perpetuation of the politics of denial.

    Yes, now it will be neither easy nor cheap to transition away, because of this national procrastination.  That procrastination, those practices of denial, have been bipartisan.  It's true that it was Ronald Reagan that discarded Jimmy Carter's energy plan, who took the symbolic action of removing the solar panels from the White House, who turned the Department of Energy into primarily a nuclear weapons complex.  But it was the Clinton Administration  that did nothing to reverse the Reagan-Bush plan, did nothing to call us back to reality, that in fact multiplied the denial and accelerated the waste by writing the regulations that allowed SUVs to be exempt from CAFE standards under the "small truck exclusion".  It was my fury over those mindless, pandering, self-destructive, self-defeating policies, more than anything else, that led to my vote for Ralph Nader in 2000.  

    We had our chances to deal with this in a mature way, and we threw them away.  30 years ago the US stood on the forefront of all the renewable energy technologies.  Today we lag behind economic and industrial giants such as South Korea in solar energy technology, lag behind Denmark and Spain in wind power, and nothing has happened at all on such once-promising fronts as tidal power and ocean thermal energy conversion.  30 years of selfishness, 30 years of shortsightedness, unfortunately it is those future generations that you mention that will be the ones to pay for our contemptible delinquency and lack of self-discipline.  Based on 30 years of bitter experience I tell you right now, in the USA the "gas tax holiday" will be a political winner that  will bulldoze anyone that dares stand in the way of conspicuous consumers "saving" $5 the next time they tank up the Yukon, the Tahoe, the Excursion, the Navigator, the F-350.

    •  Bill Clinton tried to get better (0+ / 0-)

      CAFE standards for cars and failed, how's Obama gonna get any of his legislation passed, waive a magic wand?  

      The gas tax holiday is a short term fix, as is the windfall profits tax or do you oppose that too?

      •  No he didn't (3+ / 0-)

        It was his administration that rewrote the rules about the "light truck exclusion" to include SUVs, and rewriting regulations does NOT involve a vote of Congress.  it's an executive authority.

        And where in my comment do you see a brief for Obama?  All I know is that with Hillary pandering to her constituency of SUV drivers her husband's policies created, the politics of denial, of "gas tax holidays" and the like is guaran-fucking-teed.  Their very likely with Obama as well, but with Hillary, a damned sure thing that 30 years wasted turns into 35 or 40.  Apres-elle, la deluge.

        •  From Businessweek July 3rd 2001 (3+ / 0-)

          In 1994, things changed. A boom in demand for gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks led the new Clinton White House to propose a hefty 40% increase in the required corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) for light trucks. Detroit appealed to Congress, which blocked the tough Clinton plan by prohibiting the Transportation Dept. from spending any money to develop stricter regulations.

      •  Bill Was Busy With Other Things (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        miss SPED

        Bill Clinton delivered Peace & Prosperity.  Not bad.  He was also too bogged down with other issues, not just Monica, to deliver a legacy for the future.  He cared little and delivered less on energy policy.

        It's time to turn the page.

        Ain't no time to hate.

        by howardpark on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:18:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bill wasted his Dem Congress (5+ / 0-)

          Bill wasted his Democratic majority in Congress and then came Newt Gingrich and the Republican Majority, and as if that wasn't bad enough, then came Monica.

          The most incredible wasted opportunities.

          •  He wasted it alright, VA (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BJJ Fighter

            Passing an economic program that balanced the budget and created 21 million jobs.

            What's all this about Monica?  When did Dems become so puritanical?  I will never excuse his extramarital BS, but you're doing it because you think Obama walks on water.

            Well, the first people ol' Barack will disappoint is the true believers.

            Good luck VA

            •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              geejay, miss SPED

              I don't think anyone walks on water, certainly not our presidential candidates.

              I didn't say Bill was a disaster or that he accomplished nothing useful. I said he wasted opportunities. He did.

              I have no personal moral position on Bill and Monica, so you are completely wrong about why I was "doing it". But his impeachment on his statements concerning his relationship with her certainly cut into his ability to pass legislation.

              And the method he and Hillary chose to use on the health care issue was not exactly very effective. Their egos got in the way, they held themselves above Congress and P.O.'d a lot of Congressional leaders, even fellow Democrats, in doing so.

              I'm no "true believer," Third Way. Far from it. I'm a pragmatist. Don't let your own allegiances get in the way of your thinking.

              •  Obama goes the full hr. with Russert tomorrow... (0+ / 0-)

                so good luck. He's going to need it.

                He will have a hard time explaining his answer, "I hadn't seen them" when asked why he didn't denounce Rev. Wright's remarks sooner.

                Trust me--Tim Russert will maul him to a pulp on that one, folks. Barack thinks Charlie Gibson was mean to him? The party is just beginning.

                Barack's attempts to convince us that he really didn't hear anything offensive during his 20 yrs. attending Rev. Wright's church will be shown to be pure, unadulterated horse manure....and a big lie. And it will make the exaggeration on snipers in Bosnia look fairly minor by comparison, trust me.

                •  If the worst thing he faces on Sunday (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  latts

                  is Russert asking about Rev. Wright then he'll do fine.  The topic has been asked and answered, several times.  So much that even the religeous right are getting uncomfortable with the amount of persecution Wright is getting and coming to his defense.  The more Clinton and her surrogates poke at it, the more they turn away the actual Democrats they would need to even have a prayer in November.  

                  While I doubt George Stephanopolis is going to give his former boss' wife much more than softball questions, Hillary should worry about any question linked to the gas tax holiday.  That idea made her look like a chicken in every pot panderer

                  •  You don't get it. It HASN'T been answered. (0+ / 0-)

                    All Barack has done is mumble, stutter and stammer about his "spiritual advisor" and his hate-mongering. He has never answered the question as to why he sat there in Rev. Wright's church and listened to all the vitriol for 20 yrs., instead of having the guts to get up and walk out. Or at least not subjected two small children to these messages of hate.

                    Many of us have left churches and/or faiths we were raised in, because the exclusionary attitudes and messages got a little too toxic. In my own case, the stuff I walked away from was bad, but nowhere near as heinous as the stuff that Rev.Wright spewed--and that Barack has now suddenly decided he is outraged about.

                    The answer is that for an aspiring African American politician in Chicago, Trinity United was the place to be on Sunday. That Obama chose this political expediency doesn't make him a bad person; it means he is just another politician.

                    •  You say this because? (0+ / 0-)

                      The answer is that for an aspiring African American politician in Chicago, Trinity United was the place to be on Sunday.

                      Every aspiring AA polician in Chicago during that time went to Trinity United? What a leap of logic. Care to provide a list of those politicians?

                      My guess is you probably still belong to the group that insists he is a Muslin too.

                    •  Most people (0+ / 0-)

                      Don't get up in a huff and leave a church unless the pastor does something completely out of character.  And for that matter, my pastor now gets controversial on a weekly basis.  I have no problem with him letting his opinions fly from time to time.  And looking at Wright, he built a huge church for 30 years.  It can't all be about hating America.  

    •  And Oh by the way we'd still be driving (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BJJ Fighter

      Chrysler Cordobas with the rich Corinthian leather if Detroit had their way, those fuel efficient hybird are from Japan, a result of free trade, which you despise.

      •  Let me repeat (9+ / 0-)

        because you are so fervent in making a campaign case out of this shitful situation and not actually reading what I wrote, and not actually coming to grips with the crisis, practicing the politics of denial and diversion very well:

        We had our chances to deal with this in a mature way, and we threw them away.  30 years ago the US stood on the forefront of all the renewable energy technologies.  Today we lag behind economic and industrial giants such as South Korea in solar energy technology, lag behind Denmark and Spain in wind power, and nothing has happened at all on such once-promising fronts as tidal power and ocean thermal energy conversion.  30 years of selfishness, 30 years of shortsightedness

        We were in the lead in those technologies, those jobs could have gone to American workers whose noses you  want to rub in shit in a race to the bottom in the Holy Writ of "Free Trade", but the practitioners of the politics of denial whom you adore without fail, that you are waxing poetic for here, sold us out to pander to the worst in AMerican consumer mentality.  Well, it's exactly people like yuo that threw away these 30 years, and you can deny it as much as you like, denial is clearly your specialty.  we could have had those technologies, those jobs, but it was more important that your white-shirted, white collar white-skinned suburbanite buddies could get behind the wheel of a Navigator or an Excursion to sho off their conspicuous consumption.  Now you want to give then a "gas tax holiday" you miserable panderer.

        •  don't waste your bandwidth arguing Hillary. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          highacidity, miss SPED

          Her campaign is a corpse lying there, still twitching from residual financial and political clout from her husband's rapidly tarnishing legacy...

          Support democracy at home and abroad, join the ACLU & Amnesty International http://www.aclu.org and http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org Your voice is needed!

          by tnichlsn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:17:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well said;& if we really did ever deep-six NAFTA (0+ / 0-)

        like the liberals want, the Canadians would probably laugh at us, and tell us to go by our oil from Hugo Chavez. Wouldn't that be a great scenario.

        If the left wing had their way, we'd get rid of trade with China, Canada, Mexico (no NAFTA!) and resolve never to trade with Colombia. But at some point, we should inform these folks that if it weren't for exports, our economy would really be tanking now. The 0.6% increase that we eeked out in GDP during the first quarter would have been a major decrease without exports....great American companies like John Deere, Cummins Engine, Cat, and more, are turning in solid numbers. But hey...why confuse liberals with facts or logic?

    •  global warming, as i understand it, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotcommodity

      and i may be wrong, started when europeans first started using coal as a major energy source in the 18th century. it has gotten steadily worse since then. it really got a jump start, though, with the oil and population explosion of the 20th century.

      but gw is bigger than the last 30 years. and i agree we have to do something if only like sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill.

      but the terrible truth is that we are probably already cooked. being right on the dread "gas tax pander" is not going to make a difference.

    •  how do you feel about that nader vote (0+ / 0-)

      now?

  •  i wish he would (0+ / 0-)

    make an argument tying this with the war, terrorism, and global warming because they're all connected. he needs to talk more about terrorism.

  •  If the Treasury can write $1500 stimulus checks.. (7+ / 0-)

    why hold the gas tax and starve all the road building projects?  WTF, just give everyone $50 and call it good.

    Clinton is sounding like a cheesy ward heeler.  Like Bush, more every day.  Pander, pander, pander, wallow, slime, pander.  Not pretty.  I hope the voters write her a ticket for public pandering.

  •  Another great one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kid oakland, mayim

    Thanks K/O!!  And I love the Uncle Vernon story :-)

  •  The actual 'tax holiday' is not what pissed me (4+ / 0-)

    off, it's that anyone who could fall for this as meaning anything could be so damn stupid as to believe it.

    Like Bush's 'economic stimulus' of $600, which won't even cover the delta in how much more I've paid for heating oil and gas so far in the past 4 months over what it was last year, the Clinton/McCain plan presumes the American public to be a much of mindless rubes. The worst part is, most Americans fall for this shit, every time.

    Until there is a change in the way energy is distributed and used in this country, we shall continue on a fast track to hell.

    "Change doesn't happen from the top down,
    it happens from the bottom up." Barack Obama

    by shpilk on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:27:21 PM PDT

  •  Secure the Blesings of Liberty... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mayim

    Sad how so many politicians forget the "and our posterity" portion of the Constitution.  By forcing us to face hard truths, Mr. Obama will not only help shape our generation, but generations to come.  Great work, k/o!

  •  I like the diaries better that say the average (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ObamaLovingExDemocrat

    ... driver is going to save $60 to $100 bucks, but the amount of revenues used for road repairs is going to be X billion lost over the summer, and it will put xxx,xxx thousand construction workers out of work.  

    Let her pander all she wants, it just makes her look bad.  I thought the "gas tax holiday" was already dead as an issue because it had been shut down already.  It would be better if somebody was stumbling onto here for the first time if that part of the argument was mentioned.

    •  Nothing Will Be Lost Amerian River (0+ / 0-)

      She plans to propose a windfall profits tax on oil conpanies to offset the gas tax holiday, do you oppose that too?

      •  I never oppose fantasy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dotcommodity

        There will not be a winfall profits tax, and someone should tell Obama that too,

        This is a capitalist system and unless we are planning to nationalize energy, there is no such thing as too much profit in business, unless you can prove collusion or price-fixing or withholding product, which we might be able to prove.

        Better are the suggestions for a HUGE gas tax, with a rebate to citizens, this way people get a break but oil companies don't get the profit.

  •  as we post here (4+ / 0-)

    the overwhelming majority of us--and our children--will live through the end of the age of fossil fuel, and yet, out there in the real world, the majority have no clue that the end of fossil fuel is at hand. Nor do they realize the implications of how drastically life will change.

    It will be hard enough if we react to this reality now, but with politicians that can't even be honest about it, it will be unecessarily harder.

  •  Mine are named Brian, Sarah and Kyle (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fumie, Chicago Lulu, bablhous, susan in sc

    and they are 22, 20 and 17 respectively.  They all want Obama, they support him passionately, and they deserve to have him. It is our generation that fucked up and voted for Bush (I didn't, but my generation and the generation that came before me did) It is our children's world, and they deserve the hope and the promise and the world that McCain and Hillary can't and won't give them.  

  •  i think "swindle" is a more appropriate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SherriG, crose, ObamaLovingExDemocrat

    word than pander. hornswaggling is good too.

    Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

    by rasbobbo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:56:50 PM PDT

  •  I'm optimistic (0+ / 0-)

    that many of the voters who might've originally been with her on this idea, will not be by Tuesday.

  •  FIVE children? (0+ / 0-)

    Are they biologically yours? If not, my hat's off to you.

    If yes, morally reprehensible.

  •  Sorry Dude (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hope Monger

    Time isn't running out; it's already run out.  Pretending we can still stop the serious consequences of global warming isn't as bad as pretending there's no such thing as global warming.  But it's still pretending.  Your nieces and nephews (and mine, too) are going to suffer tremendously no matter what we do now.  It's too fucking late.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:41:02 PM PDT

  •  i needed this tonight k/o (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chicago Lulu

    I went a few rounds with a newbie troll and didn't want  to go to sleep for the night on that note.

    it's personal for all of us.  that's the point.

    it's definitely personal for me now.  more personal than I ever could have imagined.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
    Give to Populista's Obamathon 2.0!

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:53:24 PM PDT

  •  Hey! (0+ / 0-)

    Very nice kid oakland.  I love to read what you right.  I am in Berkeley.  E-mail me.  Helenann

    Health care is a human right.

    by Helenann on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:54:57 PM PDT

  •  KO, as usual I couldn't agree with you more. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geejay

    This gas tax holiday idea has once and for all separated the career politicians from the true leaders.  

  •  Personal here too. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kid oakland, Chicago Lulu

    You can add to that list my kids, nephews, nieces, and goddaughters.| It's a long list.  I'm not even going to start.

    Over a dozen of them are voters already.  I'm going to be contacting them, too...

    •  I read in one diary (0+ / 0-)

      here about the Obama volunteer canvassing a neighborhood in Pennsylvania, and finding a lot of resistance and negative reaction from the white elderly.  He said when that happened, he would put their hands in his, and he would look into their eyes and say something like,"Then do this for your grandchildren, and their children".  

      That is powerful.

  •  patriotic plaques (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kid oakland, mayim

    Funny.  I initially misread that as "patriotic plagues", and, after I quickly realized my error, I then realized that that's exactly how Republicans would see them: a plague of popular belief in the power of the people, mobilized by themselves and by the government, to do good things for this country.  

  •  The environment is my number one issue (0+ / 0-)

    I detest the illegal and abhorrent invasion of Iraq and want our troops HOME; I'm sick with grief for the hundreds of millions of people trapped in worldwide poverty; I'm mad as hell about the neglect of our schools and public infrastructure; I'm scared stiff that my husband and I won't be able to enjoy our retirement because of high medical costs and runaway inflation; and I really, really, really want to see Bush and his cronies rot in jail and then in Hell for their many crimes.

    But most of all, I'm terrified that we may well have already waited too long to reverse global warming.  This is first and foremost the reason that I am supporting Obama for president.  I think he gives us the best chance to put together a working coalition to implement bold solutions to address this problem.  We don't have time for more bickering.  We need action. immediate. action.  Maybe not even Obama can do it -- but I don't believe Hillary or McCain will even try.

    I'm looking forward to November 5th, 2008

    by susanWAstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:11:00 AM PDT

    •  you need to check her plan then (0+ / 0-)

      hers is the actually the only one that will get us to a carbonfree economy

      Consider this. Her advisors are at The Center For American Progress, a progressive Democratic thinktank. They are furious about this gastax pandering, (Joseph Romm is the author of Plan B. 2.0), but in the larger picture, she is the one with the progressive Democratic plan. It incorporates all Al Gores ideas like the Sallie May loans in purple at the bottom:

      Photobucket

      Establishing a "Connie Mae" to Help Homeowners Improve the Energy Efficiency of Their
      Houses:

      Builders often neglect to make energy efficient investments because they add to the
      purchase price,
      even though they save money down the road. As President, Hillary will establish
      a "Carbon Reduction Mortgage Association," or "Connie Mae," by directing Fannie Mae and
      Freddie Mac to facilitate the origination of energy efficiency improvement loans in order to
      subsidize the additional costs of investing in energy efficiency from the outset. Fannie and
      Freddie could guarantee some loans, securitize others, or hold loans in their own portfolios.
      Individual loans will be capped at the greater of 5% of the property’s value (up to $10,000) or
      $5,000,
      and tough efficiency standards would apply. An energy audit of the home will determine
      the size of the improvement loan needed, and the energy bill savings that will result. Borrowers
      will not be required to make down payments on the loans. And the energy bill savings will
      ultimately offset the cost of the loan. Hillary would commit up to $1 billion per year to the
      program, assisting upwards of 100,000
      homeowners annually. The program will target lowerand
      middle-income homebuyers.

      •  You do this in every environment / energy thread (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity

        While I don't disagree that Clinton has some good energy proposals that have responded to the challenge that Richardson and Edwards and Obama laid out (and that you are consistent about posting that laundry list in every thread!), you make exclusive claims for Clinton that don't hold water.

        In fact, the gas tax pander goes to the heart of the matter:

        Ezra Klein on Cap and Auction:

        Obama was first out of the gate with a full cap-and-trade plan -- and when I say full, I mean 100 percent of carbon is auctioned -- and he's right on the macro point of politicians seeking symbolic, and even counterproductive, measures and then using the pleasantly named legislation to pretend they've solved the problem. All in all, a good response, and showcases Obama's impressive ability to relate almost all attacks back to the central themes of his campaign.

        Or Brad Plumer disagreeing with Krugman:

        There is a principle here. Most of the policies designed to curb fossil-fuel consumption are going to raise prices—be it a gas tax, carbon tax, cap-and-trade... There are ways to cushion the blow—as with Peter Barnes's cap-and-dividend plan to rebate the proceeds from auctioning off pollution permits back to taxpayers—but price signals are the surest route to getting people to use less carbon-based energy.

        I'm still not convinced that Obama's an expert at navigating these shoals—see Noam for more. But if we want a realistic shot at averting drastic climate change and weaning the country off oil so that Americans don't keep getting slammed as prices rise inexorably to $200 a barrel, well, then it's not enough for presidential candidates to just lay out nice policy white papers; we'll actually need politicians who don't shriek and start pandering furiously at the first sign of higher prices. Right now, Obama's edged closest to doing that.

        •  I do it because you lie (0+ / 0-)

          Obama was not the first out of the gate with cap and trade.

          He is not on the environment committee. (Clinton chose to be on that committee)

          The Lieberman/Warner Cap and Trade bill S2191 was marked up in the environment committee in December.

          Here is cunctator's story on that markup in December.

          Here is the Clinton/Sanders no giveaways amendmentthat makes it cap and auction

          And both Obama and Clinton support 100% auction/no giveaways to polluters. Every Democrat has.

          Only Clinton put forth the 100% auction amendment to the Lieberman Warner.

          Kid, rather than simply quote "news" accounts by journalists who have no clue, you should start to follow the eco bills in congress as written up by cunctator, who doesnt even bother with the few of us eco voters here anymore, but he writes at hillheat, if you truly care about preventing cataclysmic climate change, you will start to realise that if thats your concern, you have been backing the wrong horse..

          •  You should (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            highacidity

            read his recent posts if you are going to cite him!

            Sheesh:

            In July 2007, Yale economics professor William Nordhaus wrote a paper entitled, The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy. In it, he wrote:

            The measure of whether someone is serious about tackling the global warming problem can be readily gauged by listening to what they say about the carbon price. Suppose you hear a public figure who speaks eloquently of the perils of global warming and proposes that the nation should move urgently to slow climate change. Suppose that person proposes regulating the fuel efficiency of cars, or requiring high-efficiency light bulbs, or subsidizing ethanol, or providing research support for solar power – but nowhere mentions the need to raise the price of carbon. You should conclude that the proposal is not really serious and does not recognize the central economic message about how to slow climate change.

            [...]

            James Handley at the Carbon Tax Center describes the problem in especially vivid terms:

            Now the specter of catastrophic global warming is snapping into sharp focus like a jack-knifed tractor trailer blocking all lanes as we careen along at 75 mph. Sirens are wailing and lights are flashing thanks in large part to the Nobel-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Dr. James Hansen’s NASA-Goddard Climate team, un-muzzled despite Bush Administration threats. And yet, U.S. energy policy is still "pedal to the metal" on the global warming accelerator — with McCain and Clinton urging us to "step on it" with a gas tax break. The exact opposite of what economists say is the essential step: pricing carbon emissions.

            The next president will have to make up for eight years of lost time in confronting the climate challenge. And it is critical that person recognizes that this a threat that can’t be pandered away.

            •  did I cite Nordhaus or Handley? (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't.

              I absolutely agree the gastax is silly pandering.

              However. There is zero indication in her clean energy plan that she would do anything so dumb. Its just politics. Like like saying you will "change the culture of Washington". Just politics.

              And I quoted her own advisor Joseph Romm from The Center For American Progress saying so, abovethread, not merely some journalist/blogger.

              But I believe the reason she is so passionately driven, is that she truly cares about this issue, as evidenced by her well thought out plan, and is afraid that neither Obama or McCain will be able to fix it. (Or healthcare.)

              Just the fact that she includes so much of Al Gores proposals, tells me that she believes good policy can save us. (despite competing with Gore for de facto vp)

          •  There's two (0+ / 0-)

            cunctator's, lol. Your cunctator at HillHeat is not the one who posts here at dailykos. Argh!

            As I've said before, I don't say that you lie or that Clinton does not have good energy proposals, she has good policy proposals on many things, I just say that you make arguments that have holes in them, or make false implications, or are poorly sourced and then come at me and call me a liar, time and again.

            It's tiresome. And in this case, you are simply wrong.

            The topic of this post is the gas tax pander. And, no, you don't have a leg to stand on defending Clinton on this one, dotcommodity.

            Her gas tax pander is a clear indicator of how we should view her entire energy platform.

            She isn't serious about carbon. She just proved it in the critical moment, when the chips were down in an election campaign. She pandered.

            •  he is too the same person, (0+ / 0-)

              back when he posted here he included links to his column hillheat with the identical column, but you never show up in any of the eco diaries, so how would you know?

              Thats how Obama gets voters who think ethanol will save us. He gets ignorant voters.

              Paying 18 cents more or less for gasoline in an election year has nothing to do with being serious about carbon. Spending the time it takes to develop a truly serious clean energy plan has more to do with that.

              I read all the great breakthroughs in other countries on how they got to reducing carbon and when they succeed its always through well thought out policy. And when I see those ideas in her plan, and left out of his plan, it tells me she cares nough to research that. He doesn't take the time to research what worked.

              •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                for someone who has already called me a liar, you've certainly gone off here. More ad hominem.

                You attack me about cunctator and ethanol because you have no leg to stand on the gas tax pander!

                And you can't show me where I defend ethanol. I don't. I blast UC Berkeley for taking BP's money and legitimizing the idea that biofuels will save the day.

                If you could set aside your need to attack for one second, there would be room to figure out, among other things, the multiple blog identities of cunctator! I will happily read his stuff wherever I find it, or am pointed to it.

                In this case, he disagrees with you.

                If you could chill on the need to go off topic and distract in these threads there might also be room to work on energy policy that builds consensus. I'm not a total fan of Obama's energy policy think tank in point of fact. (But I don't make misleading arguments on the blogs about it.)

                However, I don't think your evergreens about guilt by association on ethanol and nuclear get us anywhere.

                •  Obama is all about ethanol (0+ / 0-)

                  just count the paragraphs devoted to it in his plan. Plus nukes, plus clean coal. Since this is essentially how the minders of Little Boots have written his clean energy plan, and we in the eco movement know there is no way that we get to carbon neutral with this plan, it matters.

                  I am glad that the progressive movement is waking up to eco matters as they are the killer up ahead, not the war which is just a symptom.

                  As a leader in the progressive movement I am glad you have started to look at this. Because it was your writing on red counties/blue counties that got me started in activist campaigning for a neighbouring county (for Jerry McNerney.) But to spread the erroneous idea that Obama started the auction of credits and other innacuracies is wrong and I see lies in the media all the time, and it is leading us to select the more timid candidate on energy policy. And lives depend on us turning the carbon economy into a carbonfree economy.

                  (I agreed way upthread already, that the gas tax is just election year pandering (and not likely to pass.) thats why I didn't mention it again, I thought you had read it. She threw us ecovoter policywonks under the bus! A very foolish move. Not the smartest thing to do.)

                •  btw here is (0+ / 0-)

                  cunctators page here, as you see he notes on his page that he also crossposts at hill heat, not that this is earthshaking :-)

      •  You're missing my point (0+ / 0-)

        Which is I believe Hillary is so divisive and ineffective that her program will be DOA.  Obama has a unique quality to build the kind of cooperative coalitions that will be needed to get energy initiatives implemented.  And when the time comes, he will be listening to environmental experts - and other interest groups - to get the best advice on the way forward.  AND he'll have the conversations publicly, so activists can have a voice in the process.

        I'm looking forward to November 5th, 2008

        by susanWAstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  And more personal reasons to dismiss Clinton: (0+ / 0-)

    Sen. Clinton: Here's what 'totally obliterating' Iran would look like.

    Do we want to talk irresponsibly about "totally obliterating" a nation of 70 million people, more than two-thirds of which are under age 30?

  •  if she really thought this was a good idea (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary would be back in Washington working like hell to get the gas tax holiday passed in the Senate. Where, by the way, it has no support.  What does a presidential candidate have to do with it? By the time the President takes office, it will be winter. It's a total load.

    Obama is using this issue to pivot and make his larger point about changing politics.  He's using it to express the faith that supports his campaign: that Americans are smarter than this.

    We'll see if Indiana and North Carolina fulfill that faith.  But having listened to his closing argument (30 min.) and seen his closing two minute ad, all I can say is that he's made his case brilliantly.  And that's the best anyone can do.  

     

    "The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

    by Captain Future on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:01:11 AM PDT

  •  kid oakland. i hope you realize that... (0+ / 0-)

    ... people like your uncles are the ones who are now voting overwhelmingly for Hillary in the primaries.  Does that make you respect "The Greatest Generation" less?  

  •  And don't miss this quote from (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fumie, Chicago Lulu, Hope Monger

    the NYT:

    "I was appalled by Hillary going with the gas tax," said Alice M. Rivlin, a budget director under former President Bill Clinton who supports Mrs. Clinton for the nomination. It "looked like pandering," Mrs. Rivlin said.

    An open letter signed recently by more than 100 economists said the proposed tax holiday would do little to reduce gas prices. In part, that is because a fall in prices would lead to more demand, which would cause prices to return to their earlier level. The result would be that overseas oil-producing governments would get money now flowing to the United States government in gas taxes.

  •  For me its (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fumie, Chicago Lulu, Hope Monger

    Andrew, 18 months, Shealyn, 6 months, and Addison, 1 month, as well as my 20 something kids and a bunch of nieces and nephews of various ages.  Since the little ones came, though, I am worried anew for all of their futures.

    My respect for Obama grows daily when I see that he is dead serious about changing the way Washington works.  Would that my fellow citizens see through the short sited pandering of the other two candidates.  sigh

  •  During the 2004 General Election (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    global citizen, Hope Monger

    I recommended that Kerry have a JFK moment and say "Energy independent by the end of the decade"

    Perhaps Obama can prick up the mantle and say "within 10 years"

    My University (In Canada) is already WAY ahead of anyone else in the world on Alternative Fuels.

    If America is the land of invention, it's time to show it, or someone else (as you say), will steal it.

    -6.5, -7.59. John McSame - running for Bush's third term. We can't afford it.

    by DrWolfy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:25:48 AM PDT

  •  I have been writing about these issues (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotcommodity, Hope Monger, LaKathie

    since 1971 and in that period I have never seen so thorough a betrayal of environment-economy-society principles by someone who knows better. You have it exactly right. So many in the USA understand this, like the people in Greensburg, Kansas who are rebuilding their tornado destroyed town to green standards. But many do not and this pander just reinforces the mentality that says the USA has a right to not change anything and to take what is left of the world's oil by virtue of wealth and if necessary by military means, environmental consequences be damned.

    Instead the USA should be assuming the leadership position that its vast wealth and technological capabilities thrust upon it. The pander just spits on responsibility in so many ways.  

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:50:41 AM PDT

  •  Today, I go to see a great man. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotcommodity, limpidglass

    Al Gore.

    I've been a Gore-o-phile since way, way back.  I still am a very persistent, committed, passionate Gore supporter.  "An Inconvenient Truth" is well titled.  There is nothing comfortable or easy or pleasant about the challenge all of humanity and our civilization face.

    There was an assumption that a Gore-o-phile's money, energy and passion were transferable.  It hasn't happened yet for me and the reason is very simple.  No candidate has yet shown that Peak Oil, Fossil Fuel Dependence, Global Warming and Climate Change are anything but back burner issues to them.

    We need to change our entire way of life.  We need to change our entire economy.  Everything that depends on fossil fuels will become more expensive.  We are finding out now that means practically everything.  

    Welcome to the future.

    Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:26:17 AM PDT

  •  pandering is the least of her character defects (0+ / 0-)

    hard to understand why it would take a minor flaw like pandering to wake you up about this woman.
    she has thrown the kitchen sink for 10 months now and destroyed a good man's reputation.
    any liberal who can still support this woman is a liberal in name only.

  •  Amen Kid (0+ / 0-)

    Pandering is the Clinton's middle name.  Let's stop this nonsense and get Obama nominated.

  •  The issue is minor the show of character is major (0+ / 0-)

    The gas tax holiday is wrong in so many ways, but it pales compared to the task at hand to achieve sustainability. The real issue here is character. A real leader asks us to sacrifice where it's justified, a bad leader panders. Look at Bush and his Iraq war. No sacrifices have been asked of the general public, just go shopping. We have had pandering presidents for a long time, starting with Reagan. Obama is of the JFK mold, a strong leader who will ask for sacrifice when needed, is intellectually honest and is willing to put principle above pandering. Are we ready for that? I hope so, if not it will say volumes about us as a people.  

  •  Your diary helped me connect Barbara Tuchman's... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund

    "The March of Folly" to today's environmental-energy situation.

    In this book Tuchman uses examples to make the point that leaders and nations have often failed to make the right situations in times of slowly developing crises - even when all the information needed to see the correct path was readily available.  The leaders were not able to change how they operated.  They had too much invested in doing things the old ways to change, or they simply didn't want to examine alternatives.

    This is where this nation is when it comes to the linked environmental and energy crises.  We have all the information we need to see what the first steps must be.  More and more people are wanting to do what is necessary.  The leadership is all that is lacking.

    Now we see two presidential candidates unable or unwilling to take the correct path, while one is risking losing votes by standing against the errors of the other two as well as the inertia of the current administration and the corporate leaders who are the real leaders in this march to folly.

    As you have made it clear, all of our children depend on us picking the leader who will march with us against this folly.  Senator Barack Obama is our last best hope, and we must help him become the next president of the United States.

    "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

    by LookingUp on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:04:23 AM PDT

  •  Dear G-d, please send ko an editor (0+ / 0-)

    Far too much meandering (despite a pleasant writing style) en route to an important, irrefutable point.

    Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.

    by Quicklund on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:50:04 AM PDT

  •  Agreed, it's time to stop stone age politics (0+ / 0-)

    ..and the politicians that still think pandering will win votes.   And this goes for every politician who still says things like 'I will fight for you...' when the record shows maybe some verbal fighting in the Congressional Record, but no a c t i o n.  

    I have said many times, over months, that 'what you see is what you will get.'  Seeing is believing.  Too many however, hold to this mantra: believing is seeing.  

    The entire country is being "Enron'd" from all directions now--even or water will become privatized, with resulting skyrocketing prices.  The corporations, the corporate politicans, the corporate medi, are not going to stop this.  We have to.

    "What you see is what you (will continue to) get."

    --good luck

  •  I am reaching the tipping point... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RomeyDa

    between holding my nose and voting for Hillary IF she somehow got the nomination, and staying home because I can't bring myself to vote for this shrill woman.

    When she calls economists who disagree with her gas tax holiday "elitist", I start wondering why she does not do an honest check of her soul and go over to the Republican party.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by Suvro on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:28:54 AM PDT

  •  ClintonWithdrawNow (0+ / 0-)

    "Dear Senator Hilary Clinton,

    This petition respectfully and humbly requests that you make what may be the hardest decision of your public life and withdraw from the 2008 presidential contest. Your service to this country, passion about the issues and qualifications to be President are recognized by any fair-minded observer. In addition to your many accomplishments and service in the US Senate, you have come closer to the US presidency than any woman in history while bringing many important issues and positions to the national discourse. We now call on you to act as a statesman and perform a noble service to the nation by suspending your campaign. As is often the case in history, and had been the case in your life before, you are being asked to serve in a way that is so cruelly different from the way you imagined. "

  •  Your entire diary (0+ / 0-)

    is premised on a strawman that you knock down.

    HRC supports green energy and long term solutions to our energy problems.  

    If HRC were, in fact, able to shift the gas tax from consumers to the gas companies for several months, it would be a great idea.  Her idea is within the realm of possibility, even if extremely difficult.  

    And what if the gas companies were to agree?  They are despised by most people.  Is it possible that they might think, "our companies are financially solid, this would be great PR for us to pick up this amount for a few months...," or something similar?

    BO should change his motto to: No we can't.

    Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:30:25 AM PDT

    •  Weak and inaccurate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      highacidity

      From the NYT:

      "I was appalled by Hillary going with the gas tax," said Alice M. Rivlin, a budget director under former President Bill Clinton who supports Mrs. Clinton for the nomination. It "looked like pandering," Mrs. Rivlin said.

      An open letter signed recently by more than 100 economists said the proposed tax holiday would do little to reduce gas prices. In part, that is because a fall in prices would lead to more demand, which would cause prices to return to their earlier level. The result would be that overseas oil-producing governments would get money now flowing to the United States government in gas taxes.

      •  I was aware of the (0+ / 0-)

        information in the quote you provided.

        I understand, maybe not as well as an economist, the dynamics of supply and demand.

        However, all of the opposition's arguments are predicated on their belief that the demand would increase and the price would increase.  Well, it doesn't have to be that way.  

        Gas companies decide what to charge for their product; it is not entirely market driven.  Over the years, they have managed to increase the price of gas for any reason at all.  In the '70s, there was this cartoon about gas companies, showing the companies using any excuse to raise prices [demand is low, therefore they have to raise prices to stay profitable; demand is high, they have to raise prices just because; OPEC has limited production, time to raise prices; OPEC opens the spigot, time to raise prices, a hurricane hit this area, time to raise prices]....you get my drift.

        I don't believe that gas prices are driven purely by supply and demand.  I believe that the energy companies have enough power over that supposedly invisible hand of the market and could sale their gas at a lower price and still be profitable.  They just have to decide to do it [or be forced to do it].

        I suppose I could be wrong.

        Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:55:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you are wrong (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kid oakland

          The main driver that determines the price of gasoline isn't what oil companies want to charge for it, it's the global supply/demand balance for crude oil.  For decades, global demand has been growing faster than supply.  Old production fields have been declining in output nearly as fast as new production has been brought on line.  

          Global demand has been increasing largely due to rapid economic development in places like China and India, though the gluttonous appetite of Americans -- 5% of the world's population who use 25% of the world's oil to fill up our supersize me gas guzzlers -- certainly has a lot to do with too.

          The overall effect is that the world once had a lot of spare capacity to produce crude oil, and now it has little or none.  The law of supply and demand has increased the price of crude oil, not some backroom conspiracy.  The price will keep increasing until demand is adequately reduced.  Americans keep complaining about the price increases, but demand in America is down by less than 0.5% since last year.

          Crude oil supply disruptions in the middle east, Nigeria, and other areas of the world haven't helped the supply situation.  Because of the extremely tight global supply, any supply disruption, anywhere, even the fear of a supply disruption, sends crude oil prices higher.

          The plummeting value of the US dollar has also contributed to Americans having to pay more for crude oil.  

          Crude oil is a commodity, and its price is determined by global commodity markets.  The OPEC cartel has manipulated the supply to boost pricing in the past, but there's little of that happening now.  The world is producing all the oil it can produce at the moment.

          Lately, investors fleeing other investment markets have jumped into the crude oil commodity market to make a buck, and that too boosted prices somewhat.

          Likewise, gasoline on the wholesale level is a commodity, and its price is also determined by the law of supply and demand for gasoline at the wholesale level.

          At the pump, transportation costs, taxes, and the cost to run the gas station are added onto the wholesale gasoline price.  

          America has pursued government policies and individual purchase decisions based on a false premise of a long term abundant supply of crude oil and low prices for gasoline that would result from that abundant supply.  The premise is wrong.  The supply/demand balance will not get better, it will get worse.  

          Ah, but there needs to be a villain in all this, and by golly, we sure aren't going to point the finger where it really belongs -- at our unwillingness to reduce our demand and our insistence that we have a God given right to cheap gasoline.  No, we have to imagine a villain in the oil companies.  It may make us feel better, but it is a dangerous distraction that is preventing America from doing what we need to do, and that's to get really serious about reducing demand.

          Both Clinton's gas tax holiday and her proposal to take oil out of America's Strategic Petroleum Reserveare based on the false premise that current high gas prices are a temporary blip rather than a result of long term market fundamentals.  This premise is dangerously false.

          •  So you are saying (0+ / 0-)

            [and I'm not talking about any conspiracy here], that if I, as CEO of Exxon, decide to drop my price by 17 cents per gallon sold to gas stations, that I cannot do that?  

            It would be impossible for me, as CEO of Exxon, to do that?

            Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:21:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It doesn't work that way (0+ / 0-)

              The CEO of Exxon Mobil doesn't determine the price of their gasoline.

              That is not the way ANY commodity market works.  In all commodity markets, sellers sell their product to the highest bidder.  Farmers sell their grain to the highest bidder.  Oil producers sell their crude oil to the highest bidder.  Iron ore producers sell their ore to the highest bidder.  

              Buyers are bidding up the price of oil, and farmers' grain, because in both cases, the supply/demand balance dictates it.

              In all commodity markets, price signals are sent to the consumer to adjust their demand.  If prices are low, they can and will increase their demand.  If prices are high, they can and will decrease their demand.  This must happen for supply and demand to have any hope of staying in balance.

              Let's say we threw out the law of supply and demand, and reduced wholesale prices below what the commodity market is willing to pay.  This could be done by government via price controls, or via your hypothetical scenario of a Big Oil CEO dictating it.

              Either way, this would increase demand beyond supply capacity.  The net result would be supply disruptions, shortages, rationing, long lines at the pump, a downturn in the economy (worse than the current one), lost jobs, and host of other ills. Some of us are old enough to remember what this is like.  This would also delay our taking the rational forward-looking steps we need to take to reduce demand and mitigate the coming global warming catastrophe.  The cure would be worse than the disease.

              •  I have a problem (0+ / 0-)

                with believing that 'markets' have absolute control over prices [for any product, not just gas] or that supply and demand alone explain pricing, and that no human anywhere along the pipeline of delivering a commodity to the ultimate consumer has any power to change any price a few cents.

                Now, the oil companies are very, very profitable.  Why would it be impossible for these companies to sell at a less profitable price?  Can you explain why a large company, buying a commodity couldn't accept a smaller profit margin for a few months?

                Demand for gas is not infinite; isn't it one of the more inelastic products in the short run?  Is it realistic to think that the chaos you describe will happen in 3 months?

                Sorry to be difficult-obviously, I'm not an economist. I just get tired of the argument that everyone is at the mercy of the 'market.' IMO, it's used to justify numerous dysfunctional situations, like excessive compensation for executives. Or even the monopolistic power the oil companies seem to have...  

                Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

                by dfarrah on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:27:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  a different approach (0+ / 0-)

                  You wrote:

                  Why would it be impossible for these companies to sell at a less profitable price?

                  Would it be possible for farmers and agribusiness to sell their grains for less, to mitigate the fact that millions of impoverished people around the world are starving on account of exploding food prices?  

                  Yes, it would be.  But the current high food prices will stimulate more farmers to grow more grain, which will keep prices from going higher and perhaps bring prices down, and will prevent even worse food shortages and worse starvation.

                  Likewise, your solution for Big Oil to reduce prices artificially would simply cause more harm to America in the long run.

                  I lean toward a different approach.  I'm looking for a way to use the high profits that Big Oil is enjoying to help America over the long run.  We need to reduce our demand for all crude oil products for two reasons (1) to mitigate the pain caused by an increasing supply/demand imbalance, and (2) to stave off a global warming catastrophe.  Both Clinton and Obama want to impose a windfall profits tax on Big Oil and invest the proceeds in research into alternative fuels.  I have doubts that this would be a good approach.  

                  I've seen no evidence that government does a good job of picking effective winners in the energy marketplace, and the government-mandated and subsidized corn ethanol boondoogle is prime evidence of government's incompetence.  

                  Government does has a critical role to play though.  Government needs to create a well-reasoned science-based legal and regulatory framework that will stave off global warming.  This will also have the side benefit of reducing our dependence on oil products.  

                  A cap-and-trade system for GHG emissions seems to be the preferred approach by the experts.  The GHG cap needs to be aggressive, and programmed to decrease over the years as required to mitigate global warming.  For example, it might include a ban on all new construction of coal-fired power plants that don't have CCS.  It would implement a much more aggressive increase in CAFE fuel economy standards than the one that recently passed. This would effectively tax CO2 emissions to such a degree as to make low CO2 energy sources the only cost effective option.  Build the low CO2 playing field, and the players will come.

                  The Big Oil companies are energy companies.  They will see the writing on the wall.  If they want to stay in business, they will get serious about wind, solar thermal, solar PV, and other alternative energy sources.  Big Oil will take those massive profits they are currently earning because of high oil prices and invest them in profitable low CO2 alternatives.  They will do a better job of picking cost effective winners than government could ever do, in part because their ability to pick cost effective solutions is why they are in business, and in part because government cannot do anything without pandering to some special interest (e.g. agribusiness in the case of corn ethanol)

                  The only way to achieve the energy future we need is for government to force it through mandates.  That is the proper role of government -- not to try to pick specific solutions (e.g. corn ethanol) through mandates, taxpayer-funded subsides, or taxpayer-funded research -- but to create the regulatory framework that will allow the most cost-effective solutions to be realized through the marketplace that satisfy our long term energy needs AND that stave off catastrophic global warming.

                  Some people in Big Oil understand this.  The CEO of Shell wrote last year in the Financial Times

                  In order for market forces to work we (paradoxically) need more regulations. Governments must urgently provide the rules that can foster lower carbon dioxide emissions. These regulations must encourage both investment in new technologies and energy ­conservation.

                  •  You're thinking very (0+ / 0-)

                    long term.  All I asked is would it be possible for oil companies to absorb the gas tax for 3 months.  And whether or not this action would this create the havoc you describe in your earlier post [lost jobs, etc].  You really didn't answer these questions.

                    And your comment about grain--I would really question the morality of a policy that would allow people to starve to death in the name of the 'free market', especially in the case of grain.  The market cannot adjust quickly enough for that sort of problem, in other words, people will starve faster than entrants into the grain market can provide grain.  But, then again, the grain market has been compromised by the actions of large producers and US protectionist policies.

                    Now, you really sound like a shill for the oil companies.  Especially when you say that the oil companies will see the writing on the wall.  And that these companies are better suited than government in determining solutions [sorry, I appreciate inventive minds whether they work for the government or the private sector].  There are numerous examples throughout the years of various companies' putting profits before any concern for the environmental impact.  

                    Your faith in market solutions is....what can I say....well, I just don't know.

                    Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

                    by dfarrah on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:27:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We are going to be in major league trouble (0+ / 0-)

                      if we don't think long term.  Starting now.  

                      Just curious, but are you capable of conducting a conversation without resorting to name calling?  I've respected you in this dialogue, is it asking too much that you return the favor?

                      If you insist on a quick fix, increase the gas tax, and use the money to fund a rebate for low income taxpayers to offset the gas tax increase and help them transition to a higher MPG vehicles.  Those of us who can afford it can do without the tax rebate and buy more fuel efficient vehicles.  This will decrease demand, which is in our short and long term interests.

                      Oil companies won't see that it's in their economic self-interest to massively invest in alternative energy sources now.  But they will when they have no legal recourse to do anything else, or else go out of business. That's what I've proposed.  

                      Let me be clear here, I'm talking about giving oil and other energy companies no legal alternative but to produce low GHG emission energy sources or else slowly go out of business, because high GHG emission energy sources will be phased out under government mandate.

                      Again, I'm not arguing for a hands off approach by government.  I'm arguing for government to impose aggressive laws and regulations to force the change that is required to prevent a global warming catastrophe, but for government to not try to pick the specific technological winners in the energy marketplace.  

                      Are you saying you'd prefer to have you and other taxpayers roll the dice and pick the energy winners now when we don't even know yet what they will be, and pay energy subsidies and fund R&D of alternative energy sources?  Or would you rather force the oil companies to take the risks and fund the alternative energy R&D out of their massive profits, which costs you nothing?  

                      Government programs to fund research into alternative energy sources or impose specific alternatives through mandates and subsidies are popular once again, as they have been at times in the past.  What has the public got to show for these programs?  

                      The US taxpayers funded research into shale oil that went nowhere.  

                      The US government imposed a pointless oxygenate mandate that led to MTBE in gasoline and contaminated water supplies.  

                      The US taxpayers funded high MPG hybrid drivetrain automobile research with US auto companies, who promptly did nothing with the fruits of that research, and instead ceded the lead in that technology to Japanese automakers.  

                      The crown jewel of the US government's energy policy is the corn ethanol mandate and subsidy program.  This program has increased GHG emissions, increased ground and water pollution, increased global food costs making it partially to blame for poor people starving, done nothing significant to reduce our use of fossil fuels, is costing the taxpayers a boatload in a subsidy that costs about 50 cents a gallon, and has lined the pockets of agribusiness.  This loser of a program has had widespread bipartisan support in the US government.

                      Fundamentally, these programs didn't pan out because government doesn't seem to understand that their pet projects will not find their way into the marketplace if they don't make economic sense.  

                      Yet government has always had within its power to force change through laws and regulations.  The CAFE mpg standards and the gas guzzler tax are examples of good government energy programs.  Both of these should have been increased over the years but were not.  The very kind of thing government should have done, that would have helped, they dropped the ball on.  Had the CAFE standards and gas guzzler tax been increased over the years, consumers would be paying less now for gasoline for two reasons: gasoline would not cost as much per gallon as it does because global demand would be lower, and our vehicles would get better gas mileage.

                      So tell me, what R&D programs, specific energy solution mandates, and taxpayer subsidies has the US government been involved with in the energy sector over the past 30 years that have borne fruit and been in the public interest?  I'm sure there must be some, since even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  

                      •  My gosh. (0+ / 0-)

                        Sorry about calling you a shill.

                        Look, I just wanted an answer to the 2 questions I had in my prior comment.

                        All I asked is would it be possible for oil companies to absorb the gas tax for 3 months.  And whether or not this action would this create the havoc you describe in your earlier post [lost jobs, etc].  That's all.  Just an answer to these questions and not a lengthy dissertation.

                        Will you please provide an answer to the questions, which address short term issues, without going off on a tangent involving long term analysis?  The candidates have already explained their long term plans.

                        Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

                        by dfarrah on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:07:12 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  Re: the working class (0+ / 0-)

    I hate it when it is assumed the working class in America won't play a role in the greening of the economy, won't be manufacturing green products or providing green services, that we don't have the wherewithal to refocus and retrain our working class to meet the demands of becoming an energy independent society.

    And think fo what being energy independent means from a national security standpoint as well.  If we wean ourselves off the foreign oil teat, then oil prices will plummet, we won't need to worry about Arab petrodollars controlling our economy, we won't need to spend as much on defense because our national defense policy seems predicated on protecting oil supply much moreso than supporting nations which support democracy and our ideals, and we'll be injecting money into the domestic economy.

  •  When I was going to school in the 70s (0+ / 0-)

    I studied women's history and there was a major feminist essay called "click" (contemporary to the time I was in school)

    Its premise was that women lived in a world stacked against them and played their role but at some point in your life you had this ephiphany or "click" moment where  like a photograph that snaps frozen in your mind you realize a series of still life moments in your life when things happened to you that were really about gender.  Once those moments froze in your mind they made connections and you saw the world differently.

    Its been years since I read that powerful essay (and I probably am not describing it very well) but I am reminded of it because Hillary gave me my "click" moment when she sat down with Schaife in Pennsylvania.  I had defended her for decades.  I am a feminist who wanted to believe in this powerful female and I had gone to bat with her in so many conversations but in that moment; in that CLICK I could only come to the conclusion I had been played. As I thought back through a hundred "stills"; pictures in my mind of defending Hillary all of them added up to something I could no longer support.

    so I guess it did become personal for me too.  I don't trust her in any way and would be so sad to have to choose between McCain or Hillary that I don't even want to think about it.

  •  NC's NAACP sues robo-callers for vote suppression (0+ / 0-)

    The NC NAACP filed suit against the Women's Voices Women's Vote group which did the robo-calls about registering in NC.

    From Facing South of the Institute for Southern Studies, posted by Sue Sturgis of The Independent:

    --------------------------------------

    N.C. NAACP files formal vote-suppression complaint against Women's Voices, alerts U.S. DOJ of concerns

    The North Carolina NAACP has filed a formal complaint of possible voter suppression against Women's Voices Women Vote, the D.C. nonprofit that as we revealed earlier this week was behind the deceptive and illegal robo-calls made to state residents.

    The N.C. NAACP hand-delivered its complaint today to state Attorney General Roy Cooper and State Board of Elections Executive Director Gary Bartlett. It's also alerted the U.S. Department of Justice that it's collecting more information from its national network and is contemplating filing a formal complaint with that agency.

    N.C. NAACP President Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II (center in photo) announced the filing of the complaint at a press conference held this afternoon outside the N.C. Department of Justice. He was joined by his group's attorney, Al McSurely (left), and Bob Hall (right) of Democracy North Carolina. The state Attorney General's office is already investigating Women's Voices, but the N.C. NAACP and Democracy North Carolina want to be parties to that investigation.

    "When you mess with the right to vote, you're messing with everything that is fundamental in our democracy," Barber said.

    http://southernstudies.org/...

    Follow link for full text of article & complaint.

ethan, Sharoney, pontificator, Leslie in CA, Lee, Malacandra, Deep Dark, Bob Johnson, Paolo, paradox, johnny rotten, Vet 4 Dean, Angie in WA State, buffalo soldier, democrattotheend, Danny Boy, chrississippi, Terri, dugjxn, tgs1952, Chi, catdevotee, Phoenix Woman, True North, eugene, lowkell, Sally in SF, ogre, Rayne, raatz, teacherken, laurak, anju, kate mckinnon, Trendar, Better Days, bball, Subterranean, PoliticGeek Pro, lipris, daninoah, mickT, DelRPCV, Bundy, latts, TaraIst, lrhoke, Delaware Dem, Raybin, pHunbalanced, TrueBlueMajority, nicolemm, Bruce HB Lee, whataboutbob, ScientistMom in NY, existenz, Dems2004, janinsanfran, RunawayRose, wytcld, MikeHickerson, tnichlsn, JTML, BooMan23, Avila, dengre, annalivia, Shockwave, byteb, wu ming, donna in evanston, kpardue, SanJoseLady, liz, Jim W, rhubarb, Earwicker23, jdld, lns1122, the awful truth, TX Unmuzzled, MakeChessNotWar, kdub, djs, acuppajo, blksista, frisco, caliberal, marjo, blogswarm, theran, Carnacki, FyodorFish, object16, jaybeck, bumblebums, bookbear, Ruth in OR, dnamj, silence, Heart of the Rockies, kissfan, dpc, RubDMC, Morgana, bara, alain2112, Troutnut, tyler93023, concernedamerican, ReneInOregon, bronte17, sponson, Mariposa, BlackGriffen, mentaldebris, wonkydonkey, ProfessorX, petercjack, elveta, C Mac, understandinglife, MD patriot, djMikulec, twcollier, brown girl in the ring, HippyWitch, ask, PsiFighter37, peace voter, bluestateexile, KMc, Pithy Cherub, boadicea, stevej, Porfiry, gayntom, muledriver, mkfarkus, pattisigh, Dante Atkins, MisterOpus1, nomes, roses, nabwilson, chechecule, samddobermann, allysonsta, peraspera, oslo, CodeTalker, k2winters, Indiana, MJB, DiMe, dchill, itskevin, chrisfreel, Shaniriver, fumie, Glinda, diana04, dmsilev, kozmo, Alna Dem, dksbook, OutOfManyOne, aitchdee, jdmorg, socratic, bigmama, mayan, WeatherDem, kharma, Dube, Getreal1246, Alizaryn, annan, emmasnacker, oldjohnbrown, weary hobo, nj mom, pointsoflight, Chicago Lulu, casperr, Nancy in LA, MA Liberal, gmb, Nina, jaywillie, churchylafemme, BMarshall, newore, Black Maned Pensator, joan reports, Oy the Billybumbler, Sychotic1, chachabowl, MmeVoltaire, betson08, applegal, beachmom, arielle, lecsmith, RenaRF, welshvalleymaid, Anna Luc, alizard, 4jkb4ia, Brian82, MeToo, TheJohnny, walkshills, One bite at a time, CabinGirl, Cordelia Lear, ChiGirl88, MH in PA, dft, green917, KellyB, randallt, smartgo, DemDog, KayCeSF, tomjones, Clzwld, JayDean, TexasLefty, Black Max, bablhous, kmbo, valadon, eve, AaronBa, Sybil Liberty, Dave in RI, howardpark, pat208, bibble, thereisnospoon, faithfull, babaloo, environmentalist, wolverinethad, Sol Fed Joe, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, ebbinflo, Karma for All, soros, Massman, chumley, bloomer 101, Bluesee, sandblaster, radarlady, 3goldens, Tinfoil Hat, Skaje, Ckntfld, simca, JanetT in MD, CTPatriot, revbludge, relentless, zaraspooksthra, mjd in florida, LostInTexas, zeuspapa, PBen, Luetta, jhutson, Omir the Storyteller, Far left coast, ZappoDave, karpinsky, huckleberry, kaye, juliesie, TigerMom, Brooke In Seattle, Simpletonian, boofdah, NeuvoLiberal, owlbear1, mojo workin, cfk, SaraBeth, chicagovigilante, jorndorff, jimreyn, John DE, sofia, sheddhead, lauramp, blue jersey mom, paxpdx, Isara, SBandini, Geekesque, buddhafrogsaypeace, petestern, miguelmas, The Raven, nanobubble, Gottayo, serrano, sodalis, Lisa Lockwood, sbdenmon, Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady, jilikins, Rogneid, Ekaterin, ZinZen, Erevann, mightymouse, Pacific NW Mark, Land of Enchantment, soyinkafan, begone, forbodyandmind, SSMir, Nowhere Man, Mother Mags, MsCasey, makeitstop, Audio Guy, martini, third Party please, Legolas, Showman, esquimaux, PointGuard, Jennifer Clare, gwilson, Compound F, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, keeplaughing, BlueRock, Clytemnestra, BlueInARedState, the freak, venatrix, andydoubtless, DemInLux, Naranjadia, mr crabby, rl en france, Yellow Canary, cookseytalbott, liberalconservative, koNko, kestrel9000, RoyT, igottheblues, daMule, The Wizard, Wary, Albatross, mcartri, carolita, Lurky Lu, charlestown dem, nogamez, SherriG, zigeunerweisen, birdbrain64, MJ via Chicago, global citizen, StrayCat, Tanya, A Siegel, Rachel in Vista, VegasLiberalStevo, real world chick, FireCrow, JVolvo, BalkanID, NY John, boatsie, ER Doc, realitybasedliberal, dirtfarmer, BarbaraB, quantumspin, Pilgrim X, justiceputnam, engine17, blitz boy, Persiflage, Timothy J, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, buckeye blue, Stripe, RantNRaven, MadMs, Statusquomustgo, AmySmith, crystal eyes, FrankieB, duha, Intercaust, Temmoku, blueintheface, henna218, ms badger, markthshark, Aaa T Tudeattack, GoldnI, ammasdarling, subav8r, lams712, Acee, darrkespur, nathguy, Reagan Smash, malik5470, dotsright, Cronesense, Duke S, Haningchadus14, Cat Whisperer, oklacoma dem, oscarsmom, dmh44, Opinionated Ed, moodyinsavannah, godislove, LV Pol Girl, UU VIEW, WeBetterWinThisTime, crankyinNYC, terryhallinan, Sam from Ithaca, Brix, lynmar, la urracca, Blue Waters Run Deep, kath25, Inventor, HeartlandLiberal, noofsh, shruticounseling, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, DWG, ballerina X, drchelo, Maaarrrk, bnasley, Rex Manning, Drowning Wave, jayden, brentmack, michstjame, vbdietz, Junglered1, SeaTurtle, montanajen, Bridge Master, rogereaton, theorem, slowheels, Dar Nirron, echohotel330, madgranny, KJC MD, ImpeachKingBushII, JML9999, scardanelli, BasharH, cacamp, seabrook, roycej, Casey in TN, Empower Ink, bluesweatergirl, cville townie, chicago minx, trivium, prikaza, FishBiscuit, Dem in the heart of Texas, poblano, KingGeorgetheTurd, Spoonfulofsugar, gfv6800, LightningMan, Hippokleides, Port City Moon, MikePhoenix, ScottyUrb, zerone, Cordwainer, Foundmyvoice, rikyrah, SmedleyButlerUSMC, pepper mint, VA gentlewoman, Cat Servant, CDH in Brooklyn, loree920, lineatus, wvablue, mikeconwell, beltane, Lujane, royce, pamelabrown, NMLib, evora, smartdemmg, icebergslim, Nick Blas, pickandshovel, Populista, karpaty, MsWings, Jeff Y, Ladyhawk, noddem, moneysmith, Chrispy67, mommaK, JedReport, LCA, luckylizard, GWboosebag, gaiilonfong, haruki, nklein, StrangeAnimals, Guadalupe59, goofygringirl, magicsister, Ellinorianne, In her own Voice, debheadley, Yoshi En Son, watercarrier4diogenes, Robinswing, Leo in NJ, Wild Starchild, oldliberal, Fiddlegirl, wv voice of reason, brein, RedMask, Pris from LA, NetRootsDaily, hardtoport, Bule Betawi, multilee, Rhysling, artmartin, Ran3dy, cybrestrike, MufsMom, weaponsofmassdeception, Mr Tentacle, there will be blood, driftwood, Neon Vincent, Texanomaly, tbird, liluli, The Dead Man, Madeleine Crowd, sunhaws, Dopeman, countmein, hope4achange, cantelow, Baldur, leftneck, CanyonWren, fatbeagle, Helenann, Jdories, Sarge in Seattle, futurebird, susanWAstate, notrouble, Partisan Progressive, Ohiodem1, ScientistSteve, adamchaz, smash artist, jacurtz, latinadem, someotherguy86, MingPicket, zackamac, EquationDoc, 4Honesty, Daily Activist, BirderWitch, smartheart, delillo2000, phrisbee, beijingbetty, lizardbox, yazilikaya, Jentutsy, manucpa, elziax, obiterdictum, AvoMonster, Calfacon, Aqualad08, Buck Power, ZilV, dsharma23, badger1968, aniljitsingh, Knight Rider, Rick in Oz, Hope Monger, soms, Leslie in KY, RyanR, hyper, billssha, Craig Hickman, Shelley99, calalaila2008, clarkowitz, synductive99, OffHerRocker, Munchkn, yamanote, marcirish, notquitedelilah, Denni, Sinocco, jackbauer8393, SnowItch, Pandababy, realwischeese, JTRicher, txjenny, RoCali, WaitingForGodot, proseandpromise, haremoor, ayjaymay, Nonconformist, reesespcs, SheaG, jfromga, TheSilverMonkey, LastBroadcast, independo, BA BarackUS, mr tater, Sarahsaturn, myelinate, orangeuglad, Adept2u, spaceman, voila, Wisteacher, AussieJo, citisven, physic, stefanielaine, mannemalon, roaringbranch, Lauren S, David Kroning, worriedgranny, Culebrito Blanco, BigVegan, CalGal47, BurntSierra, Fairy Tale, dissertator, lmenshevik, TruthandTrust, sedagive, kararay, oceanrain, SolarAngel, Alohilani, LaKathie, sovery, LeftBob1326, rocksteady758, Queenie68, Sand in Florida, budr, ObamaLovingExDemocrat, timfred

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site