Week of April 27, 2008 - May 3, 2008
Ben Smith Has Joe Andrew's Statement
For some reason, nobody at TPM has seen fit to post it yet. So I will. Still haven't figured out how to post a hyperlink in one of these, so you'll need to highlight the following and drag it to your address bar:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/A_preemptive_strike_from_Andrew.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/A_preemptive_strike_from_Andrew.html
Advertisement
Hillary Hits a New Low
Hillary Clinton has made some thoroughly reprehensible statements during the course of this campaign, but this one was really beyond the pale:
O'Reilly: "Can you believe this Rev. Wright guy? Can you believe this guy?"
Someone needs to wash her filthy mouth out with soap.
O'Reilly: "Can you believe this Rev. Wright guy? Can you believe this guy?"
Clinton: "Well, I'm going to leave it up to voters to decide."
The voters. If there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind that she is willing to say anything to get elected, that statement alone should settle it.Someone needs to wash her filthy mouth out with soap.
O'Reilly to Grill Hillary--Here's a Preview
Unless I'm reading this completely wrong, I predict Hillary's appearance on O'Reilly's show will be a total hippie love-fest. Here's a preview of the type of questions I believe he'll ask her:
1). That's a lovely pantsuit. It looks very comfortable. Is it?
2). How's the race going? Are you excited about being ahead in both the popular vote and the electoral vote?
3). Who do you think is less patriotic--Obama or his anti-American spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright?
4). You supported a ban on flag burning while Obama still refuses to wear a flag pin. When elected, will you immediately support a law making flag pins mandatory for all Americans?
5). Why do you think Obama is such an elitist? Is it his privileged upbringing, or is he just naturally out-of-touch?
6). Do you think Obama is just ashamed to admit he's a Muslim, or is he deliberately lying?
7). May I "falafel" your back for you?
Etc...
1). That's a lovely pantsuit. It looks very comfortable. Is it?
2). How's the race going? Are you excited about being ahead in both the popular vote and the electoral vote?
3). Who do you think is less patriotic--Obama or his anti-American spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright?
4). You supported a ban on flag burning while Obama still refuses to wear a flag pin. When elected, will you immediately support a law making flag pins mandatory for all Americans?
5). Why do you think Obama is such an elitist? Is it his privileged upbringing, or is he just naturally out-of-touch?
6). Do you think Obama is just ashamed to admit he's a Muslim, or is he deliberately lying?
7). May I "falafel" your back for you?
Etc...
Will Hill Drill?
This morning, Hillary Clinton blamed OPEC for high oil prices and said that she was committed to "ending" their "monopoly."
Ignoring the sheer ignorance of her premise, it got me wondering where she stands on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Because, as far as I know, the only way to end a "monopoly" is to bring competition to the market. And America doesn't have many options in that regard.
My research showed that Hillary's voting record is clear: she is unequivocally opposed to drilling in ANWR. How, then, would she end OPEC's monopoly over the oil supply?
In the coming weeks, I expect to see a renewed and energetic assault on ANWR. Bush fired the opening volley in his speech yesterday, and unless I'm mistaken, we'll soon be watching a parade of "experts" trotted out to make the case that drilling in ANWR is our last hope and salvation. John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil, appeared on CNN this morning to make precisely that case. The argument he made, and one we will hear over and over, is that "we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil"--the keyword here being the term "foreign." The argument is no longer valid, and never really was. The projected reserves in ANWR would do little to address America's petroleum needs, and most experts agree it would likely be 10 years or more before the oil started to flow into the Lower 48. Besides, in the face of threats from global warming and terrorism in the Gulf region, our dependence on foreign oil is no longer the problem. It's our dependence on oil. ALL oil.
The Republicans have a vested interest in allowing oil prices to continue to remain high. High oil prices create anxiety among consumers and anxious consumers eventually accept formerly unacceptable solutions as a way to ease their pain. As the attacks on 9/11 created a casus belli for the Iraq invasion, high gasoline prices will allow Big Oil to make the case that we must open ANWR to drilling. And anxious consumers may just be inclined to go along this time. But make no mistake: this isn't about the oil. It's about the war against environmentalism. In the eyes of American business, a "win" by environmentalists in ANWR sets a dangerous precedent. They want to destroy America's last pristine wilderness in order to defeat and dishearten the tree huggers. That's the cake. The oil is merely the icing.
Hillary has already proposed a moratorium on the Federal gasoline tax. Most experts agree this would increase demand over the summer, drive prices higher, and do little to ease short-term pain at the pump. Now she's talking about ending OPEC's monopoly position in the supply of oil.
The question is: is Hillary truly committed to ending OPEC's monopoly? And if so, how would she accomplish it? Will she do it by committing America to an absolute path toward energy independence by ending our dependence on ALL oil? Or will she give in to Big Oil pressure to tap our last remaining petroleum reserve?
Hillary Clinton is simultaneously vowing to end OPEC's monopoly, protect ANWR, and drive demand for oil up over the summer by lowering gasoline prices. One or more of these proposals is a lie, and all three are in conflict.
You can't have it three ways, Hillary. Pick a side.
Ignoring the sheer ignorance of her premise, it got me wondering where she stands on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Because, as far as I know, the only way to end a "monopoly" is to bring competition to the market. And America doesn't have many options in that regard.
My research showed that Hillary's voting record is clear: she is unequivocally opposed to drilling in ANWR. How, then, would she end OPEC's monopoly over the oil supply?
In the coming weeks, I expect to see a renewed and energetic assault on ANWR. Bush fired the opening volley in his speech yesterday, and unless I'm mistaken, we'll soon be watching a parade of "experts" trotted out to make the case that drilling in ANWR is our last hope and salvation. John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil, appeared on CNN this morning to make precisely that case. The argument he made, and one we will hear over and over, is that "we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil"--the keyword here being the term "foreign." The argument is no longer valid, and never really was. The projected reserves in ANWR would do little to address America's petroleum needs, and most experts agree it would likely be 10 years or more before the oil started to flow into the Lower 48. Besides, in the face of threats from global warming and terrorism in the Gulf region, our dependence on foreign oil is no longer the problem. It's our dependence on oil. ALL oil.
The Republicans have a vested interest in allowing oil prices to continue to remain high. High oil prices create anxiety among consumers and anxious consumers eventually accept formerly unacceptable solutions as a way to ease their pain. As the attacks on 9/11 created a casus belli for the Iraq invasion, high gasoline prices will allow Big Oil to make the case that we must open ANWR to drilling. And anxious consumers may just be inclined to go along this time. But make no mistake: this isn't about the oil. It's about the war against environmentalism. In the eyes of American business, a "win" by environmentalists in ANWR sets a dangerous precedent. They want to destroy America's last pristine wilderness in order to defeat and dishearten the tree huggers. That's the cake. The oil is merely the icing.
Hillary has already proposed a moratorium on the Federal gasoline tax. Most experts agree this would increase demand over the summer, drive prices higher, and do little to ease short-term pain at the pump. Now she's talking about ending OPEC's monopoly position in the supply of oil.
The question is: is Hillary truly committed to ending OPEC's monopoly? And if so, how would she accomplish it? Will she do it by committing America to an absolute path toward energy independence by ending our dependence on ALL oil? Or will she give in to Big Oil pressure to tap our last remaining petroleum reserve?
Hillary Clinton is simultaneously vowing to end OPEC's monopoly, protect ANWR, and drive demand for oil up over the summer by lowering gasoline prices. One or more of these proposals is a lie, and all three are in conflict.
You can't have it three ways, Hillary. Pick a side.
Advertisement
Obama's Long Odds
Barack Obama's momentum in this race has clearly slowed down, if not stalled completely. According to recent polls, Indiana is tied (some polls now show Hillary ahead) and North Carolina is tightening. It's easy, if you're an Obama supporter, to get a little dicouraged about the current situation, but let's look at what he's up against. Barack Obama is currently under attack from a laundry list of powerful opponents:
1). Hillary Clinton
2). Bill Clinton, former president, and proxy/stand-in for the "Clinton years"
3). John McCain
4). The RNC
5). The NRCC
6). State-level Republicans
7). Republican 527's
8). Democratic 527's supporting Hillary Clinton
In contrast, Hillary Clinton is running against Barack Obama. The Republicans are essentially ignoring her.
As we enter the final stages of this nominating process, I'm going to try to keep this in mind. I think the superdelegates will as well.
Just a little buck-up for the troops.
1). Hillary Clinton
2). Bill Clinton, former president, and proxy/stand-in for the "Clinton years"
3). John McCain
4). The RNC
5). The NRCC
6). State-level Republicans
7). Republican 527's
8). Democratic 527's supporting Hillary Clinton
In contrast, Hillary Clinton is running against Barack Obama. The Republicans are essentially ignoring her.
As we enter the final stages of this nominating process, I'm going to try to keep this in mind. I think the superdelegates will as well.
Just a little buck-up for the troops.
