My finger must have slipped when I voted for Obama.

Not since the legendary Frank DiSalle was posting here regularly have I felt the need to constantly reply to the stupidity of a single poster. Until Wellstone, that is. And this makes me really sad, because 1) I originally thought Wellstone to be a good, reasonable person, and 2) It really bothers me that I can find real commonality between a conservative moron like Frank and a guy like Wellstone, supposedly who is on my side of the aisle.

Rather than reply to all your inanity this time, Wellstone, here’s a different way of thinking about one of your central tenets. Those college-educated, semi-wealthy people you mention that are going for Obama… Why is there so much mistrust for the opinions of educated, intelligent people? SHOULD there be? It reminds me of the derision that Bush backers (and conservatives in general) have for the opinions of highly educated people (i.e., college professors). It is absolutely ridiculous to me that, somehow, MORE education, MORE intelligence makes your political opinion less valid or less trustworthy. I thought that this kind of sentiment was localized on the conservative side of the aisle, but it looks like I was awfully wrong about that.

See, that I can understand, and even respect. You’re explaining something reasonably specific that you like about Hillary. A much better way to make your argument than the ranting about why Obama is all bad that you’ve been using lately.

More “I support my candidate because” and less “And yours has no redeeming qualities whatsoever” goes a long way towards not making you look like a Hillary-bot who has no opinions of his own.

The fact is that she talks a great game, but she’s a shitty salesperson and shitty coalition builder. The net result is that she would lead with tough talk and brave pronouncements and then end up being less effective than Carter. Sorry, but I don’t feel like reviving the Republican beast.

Treating me like an adult. Not just telling me whatever I want to hear to get ahead. Not underestimating the intelligence of the American public, but not underestimating their dumbness either.

Hmm. I dunno, has that ever been done before?

I guess that’s why she’s only won 15 states to Obama’s 30, right?

Oh right, 17 counting FLA and MI. 18 if you discount the caucus vote in TX.

But….she’s still losing.

That’s not what you said, and it is no where near what Obama has said.

t’s the “We Own This” crowd, the ones who earn $50k plus and the power Elites with the college Educations and the Volvos and BMW’s that are supporting Obama and donating money to his cause.

I call bullshit. I drive a Ford truck and make WAAAAAYYY less than $50K.
Seriously, ‘stone, you are spinning like a top here lately.

Wow, I’m an elite because I have a college degree and make over $50k? I even drive a European car! I’m just like the Bush’s and the Trumps and the Buffett’s!!!1111!!!@@ America Fuck yeah!!111!1@

If “America understands” that Hillary is the one fighting for them, than why is she losing? Are there more elites than regular folks now? And if that is true, than are the elites truly the elite?

I like Hillary’s brand of leadership better; that’s someone who is not afraid to step out in front, and someone I will get behind.

America understands this, too: It’s the “We Own This” crowd, the ones who earn $50k plus and the power Elites with the college Educations and the Volvos and BMW’s that are supporting Obama and donating money to his cause.

The working class mother and father have, time and time again, in state after state, voted to put Hillary forward as our candidate.

Yes, but then it cuts into the power of the ruling class, and Lord knows we don’t want that. The Clintons’ actions in terms of the Democratic Party are a microcosm of how they feel about the rest of the nation…We Own This.

Ummm, what’s wrong with that? Sounds good to me. Didn’t Jesus say something like “what you do to the least you do also to me?” Bringing up the the weak and disenfranchised can only make our country stronger.

Yeah, that’s a method that’s worked so well for the current Commander in Chief.

It is misguided, immature and totally lacking in any actual understanding to think that you can just bully folks around and they will just do what you say.

First and foremost, the president just doesn’t have the position of strength from which to do that. Duros’s comment on the meth addict is not too far off the mark. Do we really want a president who doesn’t really understand what their position is? I can understand not wanting to show your weaknesses to the folks on the other side of the negotiating table, but you do have to know what your weaknesses are yourself.

Wellstone: That’s the kind of President I want: Obama’s kind of leadership is better suited to building movements and communities of the weak and disenfranchised,

And just what do you think in a very real sense the vast majority of Americans are? You were ranting earlier about the mother who has to drop her kids off at daycare at 7 in the morning. How much power do you thing she wields compared to the smallest of the oil companies? How much influence do you think most citizens have compared to the special interests and lobbyists who actually control much of Washington?

A growing chorus — including a top congressional Democrat — labeled Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s proposal for suspending the federal gasoline tax ineffective and shortsighted yesterday, even as she continued to paint Sen. Barack Obama as insensitive to drivers’ woes for not endorsing the plan.

Harvard professor N. Gregory Mankiw, who has written a best-selling textbook on economics, said what he teaches is different from what Clinton and McCain are saying about gas taxes. “What you learn in Economics 101 is that if producers can’t produce much more, when you cut the tax on that good the tax is kept . . . by the suppliers and is not passed on to consumers,” he said.

Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, said the laws of the market argue against a tax suspension. “Every summer, the refiners are running full out. If the price fell, people would want to drive more and there would be shortages,” he said. “It’s a basic economic principle that if the supply is fixed, the price is going to be determined by demand.”

Joining in the criticism was House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who said that the Democratic leadership of Congress has no intention of pursuing the summer tax suspension that Clinton touted. The move “would not be positive,” he said. “The oil companies would just raise their prices.”

Clinton stresses that she, unlike McCain, would push for a windfall-profits tax on oil companies to offset any benefit to them and replace the revenue loss to the highway trust fund. Burman called this “utterly incoherent,” saying that a windfall-profits tax would over the long term only exacerbate the supply problems caused by lifting the gas tax, because it would discourage the exploration for and development of new sources of petroleum. “So a policy intended to lower prices, but which won’t do that, will be offset with a policy that’s likely to raise prices over the long term,” he said.

“It sends a confusing message,” said Kevin Knoblauch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “What’s more helpful is if [politicians] help consumers understand that this isn’t about near-term gas prices, it’s about a comprehensive and smart approach to energy policies.”

..Robert Shapiro, formerly the undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration…

“My” expert? Nice try, thanks for playing.

Clinton will give us relief NOW, and it will come at the expense of the oil companies,

No, it won’t. You repeal the gas tax for three months. Great. A gallon of gas is .18¢ less for the oil company. What is their incentive to lower the cost at the pump? None.
Pull the other one.

Hillary Clinton understands that the best way to get the oil companies to the table is not with some vague and hopelessly naïve plaint that we should all sit down and hold hands and work together for America, but by busting them across the chops with a 2X4 and THEN giving THEM a chance to request the privilege of sitting down with US or facing the consequences.

Oh sure. That’ll work. It’s like a meth addict trying to negotiate a lower price from a dealer. The dealer KNOWS he has the upper hand because the addict NEEDS his product more than he does.

Others have tried to convince you, but I’ll give it a shot. If the gas tax holiday is such a good idea, then why do economists hate it? Even Krugman (clearly a Hillary supporter) called her plan “not evil” (his description of McCain’s plan) but merely “stupid”.

Read his column from Monday. Then pick up a decent economics textbook and read the section on taxes.

Given the inelasticity of gas demand during the busy driving summer months, any difference in gas prices from lifting the federal tax would be greedily absorbed by price increases.

Clinton will give us relief NOW, and it will come at the expense of the oil companies, and she has aleady promised detailed plans for long-term investments in alternative energies, new ways of thinking about our future, and real, solid policies instead of Obama’s Kumbayah rhetoric.

Hillary Clinton understands that the best way to get the oil companies to the table is not with some vague and hopelessly naïve plaint that we should all sit down and hold hands and work together for America, but by busting them across the chops with a 2X4 and THEN giving THEM a chance to request the privilege of sitting down with US or facing the consequences.

That’s the kind of President I want: Obama’s kind of leadership is better suited to building movements and communities of the weak and disenfranchised, not solving strong, real-life problems, taking on and winning against powerful, ruthless adversaries, and making executive decisions. Obama leaves that to others, like his wife, while Hillary LIVES to make a difference.

I’m not looking for a visionary, I want a Chief Executive.

And Calvin Jones, the 13th apostle, can kiss my stupid ass. Hah!

And to z_adura, McCain and Hillary’s proposals could not be more different. Hers is MORE right by far since she proposes to have the OIL COMPANIES, not the taxpayers, foot the bill.

I get a kick out of all the “experts”, like Gregory N. Mankiw, Bush’s Economic-Adviser bitch who wrote a book that called supply-siders “charlatans”and had the passage excised out the latest edition after he BECAME a Bush bitch, saying the tax reductions would encourage the oil companies to charge even more for the product.

Hillary’s got’em there too: The higher their profits, the higher the windfall charge to them will be as well. That money’s going into the alternative energy well one way or another.

Way to go Hillary!!

Hey, Ollie, where’s the HUGE thread about Hillary’s bravura Presidential performance with Falafel Bill O’Reilly last night?!! She left skid marks on his shiny forehead and played him like a chump.

I can’t wait for the audacious Obama to try and stay ahead of O’Reilly. But he will not dare to risk his punk ass after he came off weak on Sunday against Chris Wallace, the guy Bill Clinton all but bitch-slapped.

What Obama (and these guys who know a thing or two – economists) say is that how about we get ourselves into a marriage. A caring, nurturing long term relationship in which we eventually do lower fuel costs and DONT FUCK UP THE PLANET.

Look, in a week or so Clinton’s going to tell us she wasn’t really for this plan so it doesn’t matter much, but its just stupid. It’s like voting in favor of a war because of what a momentary poll says without worrying about the long term effects of that vote.