I fear our favorite troll Otto may have suffered some sort of brain damage. He just keeps repeating "Jeremiah Wright" all the time.

IT'S VOODO ECONOMICS !

If this scam actually works who know's what she'll pull next! We must stop any form of economic relief before it catches on!!!!

VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR WHITE GUILTY CONSCIENCE

Tell it brother!

I, too have been oppressed by the white woman.

Meheheheh.

The last thing I'd want to do is defend Hillary on this. But I'm not sure the choices are quite as binary as you present them.

Hillary and Obama have fundamentally different theories of political rhetoric. Obama believes in wrapping his proposals in inspirational and uplifting language; that's been noted so widely, it's become a cliche. But Clinton's every bit as much a showman as Obama; it's just that she's committed to the theater of substance. Her gas tax plan is simply the most blatant example of something that's been generally true of her policy proposals this spring - very few of them have any connection to reality. She's proposed a smorgasboard of discrete (and often costly) initiatives, and liberally sprinkled them through her speeches. Every time she addresses a different constituency, she rolls out another initiative, complete with focus-group tested title and three- or ten-point plans. And the media treats them seriously, as vague or impractical as they might be. Because they, like the voters, understand that there's little chance that Hillary will actually do any of this were she to be elected. Rather, her endless succession of policy proposals is simply intended to illustrate her seriousness, diligence, and concern.

That, I think, is why she unveiled such a ridiculous proposal, and why she and her staff were so clearly unprepared for the ensuing backlash. They didn't expect anyone to treat this as anything other than what it was intended to be - a piece of political theater. They didn't expect it to be subjected to serious analysis, or to have its flaws exposed. That wasn't an unreasonable expectation; it had held true until now. But two things changed - Obama, desperate to change the subject, engaged her directly on the substance of her proposal; and this particular initiative was so patently absurd that the absurdity was easy for the media to grasp and to explain to voters.

So you could call it a pander; but I'd call it a symptom of a broader problem. Hillary rolls out these initiatives to underscore her seriousness and her engagement. It's her way of saying, "I hear you, and I'll do something to help." What frustrates me is that the media has often mistaken this for substantive expertise, when it's simply a rhetorical posture, no different from Obama's embrace of hope. And that's what's happened here - her rhetoric has finally been exposed as deeply unserious. Too bad it took this long.

It's a common theme to treat the educated as anathema.

Correct as usual, DF.

While I wouldn't want the pendulum to swing back to the days of the "best and brightest" -- brought to you by the JFK administration by the way, it's amazing how few PhD we elect to office. Compared to most Western countries, we fall way behind in electing people who know something besides law -- or who are real estate magnates.

Instead we get dogmatic views trying to control the political debate -- none of which has helped in the past and is therefore likely to help in the future!

Stevie Wonder is a genius. And genius follows genius. So grow up.

The dramatic thing about Clinton's proposal is that a windfall or excess profits tax will mean that the oil companies have to open their books to the public, justify their profit margin and submit to government regulation of their profits as the oil runs out. That is a very big deal. It's too bad that aspect of her proposal isn't getting more attention.

Look, 18 cents isn't going to make a difference to me, but to many people, 18 cents a gallon does mean a lot. When I hear these kids talk about buying text books at 50, 60 bucks a pop, art supplies at 100/200 bucks a quarter, paying tuition, driving to work and to school and back again, yes, I'd like to see them get a break. We've bailed out the auto industry twice, the savings and loan industry, the airline industry and investment bankers, but when it comes to giving the little guy a break, Christ, you'd think it was the end of capitalism as we know it.

The gas tax isn't passed along to the consumer, the consumer pays the tax in the first place - the tax is collected at the pump, not at the refinery.

Most low income people don't live in cities, they live in rural/suburban areas. They drive quite a distance to work, because they have to. I don't think people get what's going on here in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Michigan - factory jobs are far and few between, and factories that do exist are moving farther and farther out - not everyone works in an office. People who clean other peoples' houses have to drive to those houses, they have to drive to those construction sites, they have to drive to the health clinic - they can't take a bus, they can't take a cab, they can't jump on a train, they can't get on the subway, so 18 cents a gallon is a godsend to many people.

Catch up, Tom. We're now at the point where it lowered prices in Illinois back then, but things are different now. The echo chamber is working on what info Obama had back then that convinced him the tax holiday hadn't worked. See the problem? He has egg on his face. Little working paper problem. Little study as opposed to deduction from a theory.

So where we are now is that gas and oil companies don't necessarily raise their prices to take advantage of the fact that the market has borne a higher price. As a matter of fact, in the real world, we don't know what the companies will do if Clinton lays an excess profits tax on them and lifts the gasoline tax.

I say lets get Obama out of the way and find out.

Actually the demand for gas is falling. In fact, the demand for gas has fallen .08% in the first quarter. Supplies of gasoline are at an all time high.

"Historical fact. Consumption is inversely proportional to price."

I was about to post that but instead I give you kudos...so, kudos. Clinton's people know this and so do a lot of people. No one saves a dime on this proposal especially when you add indirect costs into the equation (we always forget this, eh!?). We should remember, any government action costs us money, the costs asociated with including a windfall tax ( which include legal and administrative fees) means everyone eventually pays more for this "holiday". It's not just bad economics, it's bad government.

You know, you don't like the label of "elitist" but this is elitist thinking. There are people in the tri-state area of Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana who are really, truly suffering. To them an extra three bucks a week means alot. Three bucks a week can mean the difference between having something for their kids to eat on the day before payday. With an extra three bucks a week, people can buy two loaves of bread, three boxes of cornflakes, two pounds of apples, a jar of peanut butter, a lb of hamburger, a dozen eggs or two quarts of milk. You don't see these people lined up at the food banks, you don't see them at dollar general counting out quarters to buy food, to many people 3 bucks a week is chump change, but there are many, many people to whom three bucks makes a hell of a difference in their lives. They have older cars that get poorer gas mileage, they have to have car insurance to drive, they have to drive to work, they cannot afford to live in cities.