onegoodmove

Hillary, policy wonk.

HIllary, war hawk.

Yeah, she'll policy wonk us into 'obliterating Iran'. What an irresponsible thing to say.

And now she's yucking it up with Bill O'Reilly.

Disgusting.

no matter what the differences are between Senator Obama and myself, they pale in comparison to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans

Oh really? I thought that she had said that she had passed the test for being commander in chief, and that McCain had also passed that test, but she wasn't so sure about Obama.

No one has asked the question of either democrat: Is it your intention to investigate possible illegal actions of the President and Vice President as well as their sweet-heart-deal dispensing appointees for the years 2000-2008?

Most of us besides Cindy Sheehan understood why impeachment would have been a waste of time, but Justice was never taken off the table.

What are they prepared to do?

I might vote for McCain if I were certain he'd wind-up a dedicated Independent counsel and turn him loose.

fp

Under no circumstances would I vote for John McCain. I'll hold my nose and vote for war-hawk Hillary because she is less of a war hawk than McCain.

If the U.S. continues to wage war against Iraq, Iran, Syria and the rest of the world, there will be no universal health care. We are in debt folks... deep in debt.. If we continue with this militaristic mentality, we will be digging our own graves.

No one has asked the question of either democrat: Is it your intention to investigate possible illegal actions of the President and Vice President as well as their sweet-heart-deal dispensing appointees for the years 2000-2008?

This.

No one has asked the question of either democrat: Is it your intention to investigate possible illegal actions of the President and Vice President as well as their sweet-heart-deal dispensing appointees for the years 2000-2008?

How about we ask our Democratic candidates how they feel about waging war.. period? The Democrats don't want war, but the Conservative opinion which is a matter of being afraid of "terrorism", although death via many other circumstances (vehicular deaths, guns, etc) are more substantial than death from terrorism, Americans are still stuck on the "blue-collar" vs "white-collar" argument.

Hillary Clinton will win this election based upon her ability to persuade gun-toting Iran-obliterating Americans to vote for her.

Barack Obama will win this election based upon his ability to persuade people to agree that we need to put an end to attacking Muslim/Arabic oriented countries and to rely on diplomacy and not war.

JoAnn,

Have you watched the video?

She discussed her statement on Iran in detail I'd be interested in your comments after watching it.

Everyone complains about the coverage of the Reverend but this is an issue oriented post and worthy of discussion.

I don't agree with all of her positions, but I understand them better than I did before. For example while I still think that a moratorium on fuel tax this summer is a bad idea I didn't know how she was going to pay for it.

Of course I was joking about voting for McCain. Aside from being the most-wrong on the war, the economy, oil, the deficit etc, etc, he is unlikely to pursue questions about governmental misconduct during the previous Republican administration.

fp

Thanks, Norm, for the excellent interview post.

Thanks for the issue-oriented post, Norm - it is a welcome respite from irrelevant Wrightshit.

Hillary's answer to the tax question is OK, The energy conservation measures she has mentioned are fine, but I didn't hear a single really new idea or a single aggressive policy initiative from her. On the short-term tax cut on gas - she is totally evasive. I didn't catch how she is going to "pay for it", but perhaps she has supplied this in writing on her web page or elsewhere. Most importantly, it is LOUSY POLICY. The American people have been pleaded with, hectored, and informed about the downside of energy overconsumption for decades. They have not been made to pay the true cost of oil. (Just how much of our monster military expenditures and decision making are made with our oil needs/desires as an overriding factor?) We should have sharply increased energy consumption taxes two decades ago. So now, as a result of our ever increasing consumption coinciding with worldwide incresed demand, we are paying higher prices to unstable, dictatorial regimes around the globe instead of paying taxes to reduce our own debt. The only thing that makes people finally think seriously curtailing their overconsumption is cost - period. And what do Clinton and McCain do - they want to pursue measures that will encourage more consumption!

What a great interview. She really is a great policy mind, considerably better than most of the other candidates who ran for president.

I found her answer on the gas tax kind of weasely, though. She said that we shouldn't ask people to change their behavior without getting the government to help them out. Of course that has a legitimate meaning and a bogus meaning. The legit meaning is all the things she mentioned to help business move to more efficient practices and technology, and investment in cleaner energy, getting rid of the oil/ gas subsidies, etc. The bogus meaning, which many people will hear, is that helping people out means repealing the gas tax for a while. Politicians spend all day dreaming up ineffective ways to promote energy efficiency, and then talk about repealing the really good ways of promoting efficiency that we already have. If the gas tax were 4x, 10x what it is right now, we'd be solving about a dozen of the most serious public policy problems in the United States in a very straightforward way.

Obama's not much better, talking about relatively minor issues like price gouging by the oil companies. HRC and Obama have said they want to find out if there is some Enron-style market manipulation. As much as it's fun to bash oil companies for their disgusting subsidies and lack of investment in infrastructure, that's barking up the wrong tree and I'd bet HRC and Obama know that.

I didn't catch how she is going to "pay for it", but perhaps she has supplied this in writing on her web page or elsewhere.

I tried to find where she provided details in the interview but only found the line "I have advocated a paid for gas tax holiday" distinguishing her position from McCain. I must have thought I heard what I only read. Here are the details.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7354

Hillary has said (many times) she would pay for the gas tax moratorium with a windfall profit tax on the oil companies. By raising the tax on gas to curb consumption, you're really hurting those who can least afford it, so you wind up with an energy plan that works kinda like our current health care plan.

Hillary has said (many times) she would pay for the gas tax moratorium with a windfall profit tax on the oil companies.

1. No one believes congress will Pass a windfall profit tax.

2. Prices are not set by American Companies alone. And American comanies would raise prices to cover the new tax.

3.

you're really hurting those who can least afford it

POOR PEOPLE RIDE MASS TRANSIT!! which is funded largely through the gas tax.

Hillary Clinton might as well say she is paying for the gas tax with fairy dust from tinker bell.

Pure fiction. Pure pandering.

Have you watched the video?

She discussed her statement on Iran in detail I'd be interested in your comments after watching it.

I can't watch the video. All I get is a "question mark" symbol.

But you have watched it. How would you justify her comments about "obliterating Iran"? Do you think it's a good idea to say something like that? The rest of the world is fully aware of this comment of hers about "obliterating Iran".

I've seen a lot of articles from Krugman here on his negative feelings towards Obama.

But what about Paul Krugman's latest article?

Paul Krugman says:

The impression that Mr. McCain’s tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday — a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits.

So why did Krugman attack McCain on the tax-holiday issue and not Hillary?

If it had been Obama/McCain who were blabbing about the tax holiday, I have no doubt in my mind that Krugman and Lemos would have been all over this story and that we would have read those very rants right here on OGM.

I can't wait until this primary is over and OGM gets back to fighting Republicans instead of a fellow Democrat.

Scrooge: Are not the work houses in full vigor?

Marie Antoinette: Let them eat cake!

Cheney: So?!

RedSeven: POOR PEOPLE RIDE MASS TRANSIT!!

Great Post Norm!

Scrooge: Are not the work houses in full vigor?

Marie Antoinette: Let them eat cake!

Cheney: So?!

RedSeven: POOR PEOPLE RIDE MASS TRANSIT!!

I wasn't trying to say that they all do or should have to, but simply that low income people already do rely on Mass Transit. Reducing their gas costs and cutting their bus line is a net loss for a low income family.

Those that are hurt the most are those whose income is fuel based. Taxi and Truck drivers. etc.

I don't think paying for the gas tax is all that important. The important part is that however it's paid for it's taking away the tax at the point of consumption and moving it some other place, like the oil companies. Are the oil companies going to reduce sales if they get a windfall tax slapped on them?

It's that same thing goes on with fuel efficiency standards. The government forces car companies to make little cars that won't sell at decent prices because gas is so cheap and you can drive a Hummer isntead. If there were a serious gas tax in place American car companies could make serious money on efficient cars instead of playing this stupid game with CAFE standards.

I can't watch the video. All I get is a "question mark" symbol.

But you have watched it. How would you justify her comments about "obliterating Iran"?

There was a problem with the video when I first posted it. You should be able to view it now, although you may have to reload the page a couple of times to clear your cache.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't personally use nukes. I'd use conventional forces while acknowledging that more Americans would die in a conventional attack, and so I understand the argument those who would use nukes would make.

I notice today the Indianapolis Star endorsed Hillary today. I think her performance here was the clincher.

Great video, I thought her China answer was very well thought out, I actually learned a bit from listening.

I still am against any "gas tax holiday", I agree with the Friedman article from earlier in the week where I feel that it doesn't end up helping in any way and actually distracts the country from further moving to more fuel-efficient cars and other modes of transportation. That said, I'm glad ot here that she's being more responsible in the funding of it, I hadn't caught that in previous news reports.

Norm, thank you for making this Hillary video available in downloadable form! Is there an Obama one available too?