And While We’re On The Subject
May 5th, 2008 at 11:16 pm by Susie
Is Obama misrepresenting what I said?
I don’t have a link to the ad itself, but apparently there’s an Obama ad citing something I said about McCain’s gas tax holiday as a way to attack Hillary Clinton.
I did not say that the Clinton proposal would increase oil industry profits. If the ad implies that I did, it should be retracted.
The Clinton proposal is financed by an excess profits tax. At worst, it sends money in a circle. In practice, it would probably reduce oil industry profits at least slightly, since the rise in the pre-tax price of gasoline probably wouldn’t wipe out all of the tax cut.
I was very clear when I wrote about the Clinton proposal that while I didn’t think it was good policy, it was not the same as McCain’s, and relatively harmless. If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they’re being deliberately dishonest.
Well, no it’s not a wholesale a misrepresentation of what Krugman said, in that Clinton’s propoaal is clearly pandering - to quote Krugman:
“Is the supply of gasoline really fixed? For this coming summer, it is. Refineries normally run flat out in the summer, the season of peak driving. Any elasticity in the supply comes earlier in the year, when refiners decide how much to put in inventories. The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that. So it’s Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies.”
And to quote him further:
“The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.”
In other words, he says explicitly that consumers do NOT benefit from the Clinton cut. And that the tax cut money essentially goes to the oil companies (and is maybe recouped by the govt. through a new tax on the companies … riiiight …). Krugman is now misrepresenting his own prior statements in his column.
Not to mention that there’s no way in hell either the gas tax or the excess profits tax gets passed (Hillary wants to show leadership, let’s see her push THAT mofo through congress! ^_^) This is all kind of quibling, and not a major deal, but Hillary’s gas tax cut is most definitely just political pandering, and of no real benefit to consumers.
And all the meme/change crap Obama’s spouting isn’t pandering to the creative class?
Like Obama won’t have to deal with a Congress that is composed of people who must deal with politics as they are, every 2-6 years? An opposition party that has acted like a feral dog since the 1990s? People in the permanent shadow government who want to drown government in a bathtub, and with NOLA, damn near succeeded?
Oh, it’s pandering when it’s aimed at people who aren’t as rich and pretty as the ideal voter Obama fans see in their heads. Right….
Oh get real. Obama will face the same Congress etc that either Hillary or (god forbid) McCain will face, when elected. It’s not pandering to try and take a more positive approach to this than we’ve seen for the last bunch of years.
Beyong that, Hillary’s vote to go to war (… but if I knew then what I know now …”) was the ultimate pander. Puhleez. I friggin’ knew then what she knows now, and so did a lot of people. It was clearly known at the time that the Bushies were lying and hankering to invade Iraq. Hill was complicit and enabled it. Now THAT’s pandering!!!
Krugman’s feigned “outrage” at an ad that quotes exactly what he fucking said is just about as believable as McCain’s “righteous indignation” at the DNC ad that uses a clip of his own words.
It’s a good thing Krugman isn’t a Clinton partisan or anything, or one might think he was being completely disingenuous.
Oh wait. He is a rabid Clinton partisan. Never mind.
beyond that, it is a waste of time and a sign of desperation for hrc to claim this gas tax “holiday,” which everyone that actually has any insight into the issue or expertise uniformly agree is a stupid idea , will solve the problem.
signed,
a not rich, not real pretty, guy that drives 42 miles to work and back each day in his 1986 toyota corolla, Obama supporter
PS
“people who aren’t as rich and pretty as the ideal voter Obama fans see in their heads”
boy, I sure wish susie would turn some of that psychoanalysis on her fellow travelers.
there are some real issues there.
oh, and even though I support obama and cannot possibly fathom the struggles of people that drive to work, I must make it clear that I have an 84 mile round trip each day in my toyota with 175k miles on it.
I am the master of misogyny, I just suck down lattes and make fun of poor oppressed former first lady senators that have made $109 million since 2001 the whole way!
Except Clinton never said the gas tax holiday will solve the problem, so quit attacking straw men and look at her substantial plans, which aren’t perfect, but are far better than Mr. nukes, “clean” coal and ethanol.
Amazing how “progressives” forgave Kerry for his war vote, and lavish praise on Edwards despite his, yet continue to pillory Clinton. What’s different about that one politician? Hmmmmm…
hrc can not cite one anaylist/expert who claims it is a good proposal. evan as the master policy wonk she is - she can not explain it other than complete pander…
forgave someone for the war vote??? maybe after they acknowledged they were wrong…and when they don’t go around threatening to obliterate civilizations…
Amazing how “progressives” forgave Kerry for his war vote, and lavish praise on Edwards despite his, yet continue to pillory Clinton. What’s different about that one politician?
i never forgave kerry for his war vote. but when faced with the choice of kerry or bush, i supported kerry. just as i will support clinton against mccain if she ends up with the nomination. you might also remember that kerry had almost no progressive support during the primary precisely because of his war vote.
as for edwards, frankly, his war vote is why i did not support him either. although, i ranked him much higher than clinton because of his extremely good apology that he published in the new york times. i give him a lot of credit for that, and likewise the fact that clinton acted so differently is something i hold against her.
- Unwillingness to admit mistakes - even exceptionally bad ones that result in massive deaths and a horrendous plummeting of the US image around the world.
- Pandering to people with proposals known to be impossible to deliver on.
- Proclaiming that an unprecedented alignment of experts agreeing on an issue is irrelevant and that the politician’s pandering to his/her base is the more “real” solution.
Gawd, haven’t we had ENOUGH of that crap for the last 7 years? Why in the world is Clinton doing this grotesque Cheney/Bush imitation and why would seemingly intelligent beings claim to support this idiocy?
oh gee,
as noted, maybe if she ever apologized for the war vote and admitted she was wrong instead of lying about it she would be forgiven.
I love how all of you working class hard scrabble salt of the earth types get so worked up on election days!
makes me want to have another latte…
Someone else sees the similarities between Clinton’s current fantasies and Bush baby. What readers of the NC Charlotte Observer woke up to this morning:
http://www.charlotte.com/290/story/611115-a611112-t2.html
Someone else sees the similarities between Clinton’s current fantasies and Bush baby. What readers of the NC Charlotte Observer woke up to this morning:
http://www.charlotte.com/290/story/611115-a611112-t2.html
I don’t blame Krugman; I think that he’s expressing the common frustration when one’s words are used in a way that you didn’t intend. (Of the “it’s not WHAT you said, it’s HOW you said it” vein)
It would be great if an oil-company profits tax were passed. How about using the money to help pay for the Iraq war? Not enough? Okay, then how about veterans benefits? But unfortunately, right in the middle of an election campaign is not the time to do this.
And that “in one pocket, out the other” stuff is just pointless. Why bother, if there’s no benefit to consumers?
Now, IF the candidates REALLY wanted to deal with gas prices, they should start immediate talks with Venezuela to see if they can ship over some already-refined gasoline.
But that would mean getting cozy with that LatinoFascistCommie Hugo Chavez, and probably giving him a big hug and sloppy kiss in public. John McCain has some real experience getting cozy with dictators, so should be the one that shows real leadership on this issue.
I think they should make the gas tax a % of the cost if it is not already, maybe even make it ramp up as the price goes higher in the amount.
that way as the price at the pump goes up the government gets a bigger and bigger share.
it’s time to deal with this issue instead of relying on bullshit pandering like “holidays”
Also, its funny, but it seems as though the hrc bots are distorting obama’s position on nukes and coal. Saw him on russert this weekend and he gave a far more nuanced answer on those topics.
and hrc is running around talking lots about “change” too so I guess she is pandering to the so-called “creative class”
as well???
meanwhile…
it’s LATTE TIME!!!!
maybe if she ever apologized for the war vote and admitted she was wrong instead of lying about it she would be forgiven.
Clinton did say that her vote for the war was a mistake. At the debate in Cleveland, when asked what vote she would take back if she could, she cited that vote in particular and said it was a mistake. (Obama cited his vote on the Terry Schiavo matter as the vote he would take back.)
I realize that this way of saying she was wrong is not as convincing as Edwards’ way of saying he was wrong. Perhaps she’s just saying it now because it’s convenient. However, it’s incorrect to say that she never admitted she was wrong about this vote.
I am the master of misogyny, I just suck down lattes and make fun of poor oppressed former first lady senators that have made $109 million since 2001 the whole way!
What exactly is your point here?
I love how all of you working class hard scrabble salt of the earth types get so worked up on election days!
Or here?
Gotta love that unity! Because claims of misogyny are to be mocked! So are hard-scrabble salt-of-the-earth people! Let’s all mock each other some more! That’s really going to bring us together to defeat McCain!
Zon: Sorry, but Clinton only half-heartedly backed away from her pro-AUMF vote long after the base of the Democratic Party had made it clear she couldn’t keep defending it and expect support from the rank and file. It was a politically motivated reversal – something she did through gritted teeth. She was damned proud of her vote and used it as a selling point – until such time she realized it was hurting her when she kinda said gosh, maybe I shouldn’t have. And in the general election? Should it appear the war is going well what are the odds she’ll suddenly reverse course and trumpet her vote again?
Yes, politics, I know, and Obama has done the same on many occasions – as have all politicians. The reason this one is so important is because it’s about a war – with hundreds of thousands dead. This ain’t the same as pandering on a flag-burning bill, or some detail of your energy policy; this is life and death for hundreds of thousands of people. That the Senator from New York is so willing to be so politically craven about so big an issue does not speak well of her.
And that’s not misogyny.
“Because claims of misogyny are to be mocked!” Actually, they can be if they are made in bad faith or in a ridiculous manner. I was accused of sexism in comments here for pointing out only Clinton’s name was on the ballot in MI. There are reasonable arguments to be made about the situation in MI from both sides. But sexist? Ok, whatever.
Bob–
And that’s not misogyny.
I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say that your argument about Clinton’s stance on the war is misogyny. Actually, I’m probably in closer agreement with your assessment of her record on the war than you realize.
“Because claims of misogyny are to be mocked!” Actually, they can be if they are made in bad faith or in a ridiculous manner.
Fair enough. But when steveeboy was mocking claims of misogyny, he wasn’t responding to any particular claim, he was just spouting off in general against Clinton supporters. That kind of mocking just pisses off people who could be natural allies.
Frankly, I think a lot of men just don’t really understand how alienating and infuriating this election cycle and its coverage has been for those of us who consider ourselves to be progressive feminists. Please take seriously the very real claims that sexism has been blatant, even among so-called progressives, during this election. Of course, there are many reasons to like or not like either candidate that have nothing to do with sexism. However, let’s not deny that sexism is real, it has been a factor in this campaign (though surely not the only factor), and it rightfully pisses many women off (even nice middle-aged ladies like me, who have been socialized to dutifully suppress our anger– so unladylike). No, I’m not accusing you personally of anything– I’m just explaining why I responded to steveeboy’s snark in the way that I did.
and maybe if you realized that there have been a long-running series of bs claims of misogyny here–to include such classics as the claim that the use of the word “periodically” and clinton together in a sentence is sexist or that the entire obama campaign was built on misogyny–and that there have been a variety of claims that all obama supporters are rich “goat cheese” loving elitist grad students that have never worked a real job, etc, etc, you would realize where the snark is coming from…
there is such a thing as crying “wolf” and there has been a great deal of that where hrc and sexism are concerned.
and, if you want to do that, you better not be surprised when people– who will be perfectly fine with voting for hrc if she fairly wins the primary– call you on the bullshit with a nice healthy dose of sarcasm and ridicule.
now, I simply must get a latte and tend to my arugula garden.
where did I put that williams-sonoma catalog???!?!?!?
PS
Rocky is a Pansy!
PPS
Obama has no balls!!!
PPPS
Obama’s mother wasn’t really “single”!!!!
and, if you want to do that, you better not be surprised when people– who will be perfectly fine with voting for hrc if she fairly wins the primary– call you on the bullshit with a nice healthy dose of sarcasm and ridicule.
Sarcasm and ridicule– there’s that unity thing again. Actually, I don’t think that I personally have engaged in any bullshit that needs to be called out. I do support Clinton for feminist reasons, but I haven’t engaged in the kinds of name-calling that you accuse me of. (Or by “you” do you just mean anyone who shows a hint of support for Clinton, and therefore must agree with what every other Clinton supporter anywhere has said?) I do think that sexism has been quite present in this campaign, though I also clearly acknowledged in my prior post that there are plenty of non-sexism-related reasons to support or oppose either candidate.
I think part of the problem is that you are lumping together different kinds of people who have said different kinds of things, and painting them all with one brush (a nasty sarcastic brush at that).
Once again: unity? You are alienating feminists whom (one would think) you would want to rally to your candidate’s side in November.
“Clinton did say that her vote for the war was a mistake. At the debate in Cleveland, when asked what vote she would take back if she could, she cited that vote in particular and said it was a mistake.”
Day late and a dollar short. She supported this effing war insistently for years, and only allowed that maybe it was kinda sorta a mistake when it became politically necessary to do so, to maintain positioning in the Dem primary race. Others here have pointed out this same thing, in addition to her current stance on issues like bombing Iran “if they launched a nuclear attack on Israel”. WTF???? Her answer about having the power to obliterate Iran in retalliation might at least not be completely nonsensical if Iran actually … HAD nuclear weapons! Which they don’t. But Hill’s still on the warmonger track fundamentally.
If she’s still, even now, so ready to off hundreds of thouands of innocent people so cavalierly, then I don’t give a shit if she’s feminist or not - she ain’t HUMANIST, which is a bigger deal to me. She wouldn’t really do it? She already voted for just this, in Iraq, and supported it right along. When the chips were down and the money was on the table, HRC mortgaged all principle and allied herself with the darkest of dark sides, in the persons of Darth Cheney and Emperor Bush. And she’s still talking that talk. She’ll do it again. She’s better than “Hundred Years McCain” … but really, this is no minor gaff on her part, and it’s ongoing.
If I were voting based solely on the war, I would vote against Clinton too. No argument there. I’m no hawk and I won’t try to defend hawkishness. But there are other issues that matter to me, too (e.g., health care, and advocacy for policies that directly affect/empower women, not just in the US but around the globe). That’s what has made this a difficult choice for me.
(I realize that I am out of line here in expressing ambivalence, as apparently the expectation is that people are supposed to belong clearly to the category Us or Them.)
Krugman agrees with what I said a few days ago- the gas tax holiday would not have much effect on oil company profits. Please kill me if he now agrees with me.
Plus Susie, Krugman just wrote the worst is over for the economy. Since he is always wrong (but never uncertain) now you just may get that depression you have been wishing for.