Just a few comments on Obama:

1. Like most senators, he probably spends eight months (or more per year in Washington DC, so I doubt that he's been a steady churchgoer at Trinity since campaigning for his seat or since.

2. Obama first met Wright at age 24 when he did not even attend any church. Wright introduced him to Christianity sometime after that... probably a year or two later.

3. Nobody has shown that 52 weeks a year, for the past 30+ years, that Wright has "preached" his unsavory sermons. Please provide copies of those 1000+ sermons. Be that as it may... I'm not saying what he did in those radical tirades was right. There are some truths in them, but his delivery makes them seem worse. Think about it... did we or did we not bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill 250,000 Japanese CITIZENS? The aids deal is bunk, but Tuskegee experiments on blacks for 40 years is true.

4. I still think we should be looking at the candidates and what they can do rather than looking at their baggage because they all have some. Clinton is a flat out liar who will say anything to get elected. McCain is an admitted adulterer who will accept endorsements from radical ministers, and Obama has Wright like a monkey on his back.

5. What is really pathetic is to watch losers like Sean Hanatty, he with the pen permanently affixed to his right hand (even when drinking coffee), be so frightened of Obama that he has dedicated his on-air time to creating a new "Bogeyman". He's actually worse than Rush and Coulture. Roughly 95% of Hanatty's shows are devoted to Obama, and the "saintly" Hanatty won't even mention the morally corrupt McCain, who dumped his sick and hospitalized wife to have an affair with Cindy Doll and marry her for her net worth of $100+ million.

6. Hanatty and Limbaugh spout on and on about honor, yet they don't mention that this administration is responsible for creating a civil war in Iraq and killing between 200,000 and 500,000 Iraqi civilians, and are indirectly responsible for the $4.00 gas, the trillion-dollar war, 4000 soldiers dead and 40,000 wounded. And we should be expected that we will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?

We have three marginal candidates, and anyone who thinks differently is not really paying attention. But to pay such special attention to Obama... in my mind, it makes me think Hanatty and Limbaugh are both racists at heart.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http:/www.votenic.com

Enter For The Votenic T-Shirt Giveaway Sweepstakes!

votenic.com-The Only Poll That Matters.

People really need to focus on this:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

If the media paid more attention to it, then we'd not even be discussing
Rev. Wright anymore~!

This is the type of thing the Media should be talking about:

Scowcroft, a former national security adviser said he agrees with the position, stated by Sen. Barack Obama, that the U.S. would benefit from having direct talks with the leaders of its most distrusted adversaries.,"Absolutely," said Scowcroft, when asked by whether he thought the next president should meet with the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It's hard to make things better if you don't talk. Scowcroft is a former Air Force general who is widely considered to be one of the preeminent foreign policy minds in the United States.

in contrast

Iran has complained to the UN about Hillary's remark that in retaliation to an attack on Israel she would obliterate Iran. She isn"t even the Democratic party nominee and she is rattling sabers -- a strategy of belligerent non-communication with key world players. We have seen for eight years how that has worked.

Iran complains to UN over Clinton's attack threat
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSflKoY8Vpa7KJzCGk8QmlG80Smw

This can be a message to the super delegates afraid of Obama because of Reverend Wright.

I learned this the hard way. As an African American you grow up hearing about the man, the man, the man. And I have met my fair share of racist European Americans. But the older African American men, Reverends to be exact, have taken advantage of African Americans for personal fortune and fame.

The church was about healing, but most focus on profits, almost like corporations. They have linked themselves with political movements and are very powerful. To get the African American vote, you have to go through the Church!

Some churches have property developments and a vast amount of businesses that do not reflect the member or their income levels. They get the property from the city, get grants to build the condos, get the materials as a donation, but they sell the condos/homes on lease to buy deals, using Sec 8 and rob the citizens blind.

I know several pastor's that have maids and butlers and lives in a Mansion. They are robbing the African American community blind. I heard that Keith Butlers church in Detroit has an ATM machine in the church so members do not forget to pay dues. Reverend Windell Anthony who runs the Detroit chapter of the NAACP has a $90,0000.00 dollar mortgage on his church and Bill Clinton visits the Church, he was linked to Reverend Wright who as two benzes and a $10,000,000.00 home. And the Clinton's help set up that Monday press conference!

That is what Obama will not tell the Press. He did not now about the Speeches, but he did not realize how tied Reverend Wright was with the Clintons. It was a setup, that was the Clinton secret weapon, to have Reverend Wright ruin Obama, if they needed his to.

Then Wright would get $250,000.00 for speeches and a book deal if you know what I mean!

So, Obama obviously did not agree with the Reverend, but in the game of city politics, he was the man.

Some people ask why with the growth in income levels have the African America families fallen behind and I blame drugs and for profit churches!
The African American churches have become the man!

This is what the mainstream media should be reporting on. Let's make it happen:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1771494

For those of you who think this case has been thrown out or is irrelevant:

"In the landmark civil fraud case against Bill Clinton in Los Angeles, where the former President is charged with defrauding a Hollywood dot com millionaire to help Hillary Clinton obtain more than $1.2 million from him for her 2000 Senate campaign, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled on Friday, April 25, 2008 that Hillary Clinton would not be required to testify in a sworn deposition as a material witness in the case until AFTER the November election!." (paulvclinton.com)
Here is the kicker - the judge is a Bill Clinton appointee!

Since the media is refusing to reveal/report the Paul vs Clinton fraud case in court right now, we need to create our own movement and flood every blog with information from the case.

For those that don't know - Google Paul vs Clinton and hold on to your shirt with what you read!!

What happened to the 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York Clinton promised during her 2000 New York Senate campaign? Not only did upstate New York not get the 200,000 new jobs as promised by Clinton but also they ended up losing nearly 40,000 jobs. Way to go Hillary. If you promised 200,000 jobs in New York and we lost 40,000, what will you do nationally?

Clinton has seized on a symbol of what she sees as the erosion of America's defense industrial base: a company called Magnequench which once had two factories in Indiana. The company used to make high-performance magnets used in precision-guided weapons.

A Chinese company bought Magnequench," she said in a speech in Pittsburgh on April 14. "The people of Indiana, the company and the elected officials begged the Bush administration to block the Chinese company from moving the jobs to China.... Not only did the jobs go to China, but so did the intellectual property and the technological know-how to make those magnets.... I'm not comfortable with the fact that we now have to buy magnets for our bombs from China."

She left out this fact:

Under the 1988 Exon-Florio law, either President Bill Clinton in 1995 or President Bush in 2003 could have blocked the sale of Magnequench or its merger with AMR Technologies.

• Every time you turn around someone from the Clinton's camp or supporters are continually injecting race into the election.

• Clinton prevarication on the Bosnia incident was a total fabrication with visual aids (Clinton acting it out on more than one occasion). This was not just Clinton misspeaking but it was a whole fantasy story that she acted out on 5 or 6 separate occasions.

• Clinton said that Obama did not own up to what he said? This coming from someone (Clinton), who voted for the war in Iraq and still refuses to apologize for her vote or admit that it was a mistake. The closest she has come is to say if she had it to do over, she would not have voted for the war in Iraq.

• Hillary Clinton said that Obama's words were divisive. Listen to what Clinton (be honest) is saying and tell me who is the one being divisive in this campaign.

• . The Clintons made over 100 million dollars in 8 years. Most working Americans will never see that type of money in our lifetime.

These are some of the reasons why the lead closing for Obama. Clinton is trying to divert attention away from her many shortcomings and fabricated stories.

Hillary Clinton has touted her foreign policy experience, so let us look at the countries that she has purportedly helped or attempted to help by her own account.

Rwanda - Beginning on April 6, 1994, it was the start of one the most horrific cases of genocide in recent times. On that date (aforementioned), a plane carrying the Rwandan and Burundian presidents, both Hutus, was shot down over Kigali, the Rwandan capital, 8 months after the peacekeepers arrived to help (from Bangladesh and Ghana lead by General Romeo Dallaire of Canada). The red phone rang off the hook but neither Clinton chose to answer the phone. The Clintons were kept informed of the escalating situation in Rwanda but chose to ignore it. General Dallaire states: "He told me that his estimates indicated that it would take the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans to justify the risking of the life of one American soldier." This statement came from the Clinton Administration. In the next 100 days following April 6, 1994, upward of 1,000,000 Rwandans (men, women and babies) were slaughtered. This number works out to be 10,000 men, women and babies killed each day. Machetes (not exactly a powerhouse military) killed most of the Rwandans. There were arguments from the Clinton administration about who would pay for it and if it should be called genocide. While the Clintons were arguing about semantics babies were being slaughtered. General Romeo Dallaire of Canada did what he could even when ordered to leave Rwanda he refused doing what he could. Where was Hillary Clinton's voice through all of this, but she claimed to wanting to do something. Rwanda is an example of her foreign experience that she likes to tout. Is this the experience we want to answer the red phone or shall I say not answer the red phone.

Bosnia - Macedonian had opened its border to refugees before Hillary Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. Hillary Clinton's so-called mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea (I guess these were Hillary's foreign advisors). That was Hillary Clinton's involvement in this particular situation. This is another claim of her experience in foreign policy.

Northern Ireland - Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process. Tim Pat Coogan, an Irish historian who has written extensively on the conflict in Northern Ireland, said the first lady's visits were not decisive in the negotiating breakthroughs in Northern Ireland. Hillary played no role in negotiating with any leaders in the peace process.
China - Hillary Clinton "got strong reviews for threading the diplomatic needle with an impassioned speech that contained a wide-ranging denunciation of human rights abuses worldwide. She criticized China, without naming it directly." Sounds familiar to what Hillary Clinton has been saying about "giving good speeches", we know her speech came without any action on her part.
Iraq - Voted to go to war in Iraq, even though she claims it was for diplomatic purposes as she has previously proclaimed in her speeches leading up to the Iraq war. There is one problem with that and that is she held a press conference (the same day as Bush said that it seemed inevitable that there would be war) that stated that she was backing Bush all the way. Hillary had a meeting with a women's organization 2 weeks before the start of the Iraq war to reiterate her stance on the running Saddam out of Iraq. Here is the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZcY6TGfAxE . Listen to what the women' organization has to say and Hillary's response.

Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights. If this is the foreign experience that she claims she has we do not want near the red phone, America cannot afford that kind of judgment and fabrications that Hillary brings.

"Obama simply has the problem that he happens to be Black," Adelfa Callejo said when asked if it was smart for Sen. Obama to reach out to Latino voters.
The newscaster quoted her saying "Obama's problem is that he happens to be black."
Rather than doing the right thing and reject and denounce her comments of her supporter, she laughed it off, according to the transcripts of the interview.

Clinton: "Well obviously I want us judged on our merits. I believe strongly that the fact that we have an African American and a woman running for the Democratic nomination is historical and I'm very very proud of that. I want people thought to look beyond, look beyond race and gender, look at our records, look what we stand for, look what we've done and I think that's what most voters are looking for."

Q (paraphrase) Is this something you reject and denounce?

"People have every reason to express their opinions. I just don't agree with that. I think that we should be looking at the individuals who are running."

Q - Do you still want her support, though?

Clinton laughed and said, "You know This is a free country. People get to express their opinions. A lot of folks have said really unpleasant things about me over the course of this campaign. You can' take any of that as anything other than an individual opinion."

Way to go Hillary you do not stand up for what's right if it means losing support but expects her opponents to stand up. The American people need someone that will bring us together not tear us apart. Clinton has been one of the most divisive Democrats that have ever run for president.

How would Clinton ever know how frustrated, angry and yes sometimes bitter the working class American citizen feels? Obama spoke the truth even though I do not agree with how he phrased it. I know because in the field (technology) that I am in has been struck particularly hard by outsourcing and very hard to find work. I do not know about you but I (working class citizen) am frustrated, angry and at times bitter.
The Iraq war

Over 3,900 (almost 4,000) US lives lost (died) No cost can cover 1 American life let alone over 3,900
About $3,000,000,000,000 spent
• Enough money to give Americans 1,000,000 jobs at $75,000 each
• Free healthcare to over 50,000,000 Americans
• Feed every American
• Many other things beneficial for Americans
• Help put America into a recession.

NAFTA
Record job lost
• Also, help put America into a recession.
• Record job lost
• 63,000 jobs lost in February alone mainly because of NAFTA and the Iraq war

Obama, try your best to stay who you are, which is uniting the American people and try not to stoop to Hillary Clinton's negative, divisive tactics."
Ask yourself some questions: Why have so many people that were and are still close to the Clintons have endorsed Obama? Is there something that they know (being an insider) that the American public does not know? If Clinton is the best candidate for president wouldn't there close friends endorse them? If you are truthful with your answers you will see that there is definitely something wrong that is not public knowledge when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Why is it that every so-called controversy that has something to do with Obama stays in the news for months, where as the controversies that come out of the Clinton camp are given a day or two at most? Be truthful with your answers and you will agree that there is a double standard here. Is it because he is Black (he is half-white)?
Many will not vote for Obama because he is Black (his skin color) but he has transcended race, age, gender, and religious barriers. Many thought he would never make it this far and I praise the ones (white Americans) who supported Obama despite his skin color. You have shown me that there is hope in this country for all Americans. Thank you.

The press has been using the Wright controversy for the months against Obama, but can you name one Clinton controversy that lasted more than a few days. You mean to tell me this has been fair to Obama. It seems like race is definitely a factor when it comes to Obama. Every time you turn around someone from the Clinton's camp or supporters are continually injecting race into the election. Many will not vote for Obama because he is Black (his skin color) but he has transcended race, age, gender, and religious barriers. Many thought he would never make it this far and I praise the ones (white Americans) who supported Obama despite his skin color. You have shown me that there is hope in this country for all Americans. Thank you.

It's easy for all you Clinton haters to blame Obama's problems on the Clintons. But the truth is that Obama brought this on himself. He said so yesterday when he told people that it would have been easy to disavow the pastor the first time he opened his mouth. Well, he did not do so and now, after a weekend in which the pastor has thrown him under the bus, nobody believes him when he says that he broke with the man. When that hate sermon first came out Obama should have said something like " Boy was I ever wrong about this guy and this is the last time you see me in that church." He did not do that. He sat on the fence and his famous speech made it clear that he wanted it both ways. Now it's too late. His inexperience is shown in that he can't control this man, he does not have the clout in the Chicago black community to make him shut the hell up and he will pay the price for it. The latest polls show him even in Indiana, a state next to Illinois and a state that gets lots of Chicago TV. Since late deciders usually go for Hillary, he is in trouble there. As for NC, his 25% lead is down to Five. That too is ominous although he will probably hang on. Fact is: McCain is drooling to take on this guy and I would too if I was McCain

One commenter asks, "Why can't a group of church elders approach Wright on Obama's behalf, and tell Wright to go away until after November?"

So typical. Why hide this shameful man who has mentored Obama for these 20 years? He didn't just grow his horns yesterday. Because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

The electorate has the right to know the moral suasion of the man they may put in the White House.

Obama also demurs comment on his stance on the Palastinian issue, and has questionable relations with Black Liberation Army sympathizers. Time is now to get the answers, not later.

One commenter asks, "Why can't a group of church elders approach Wright on Obama's behalf, and tell Wright to go away until after November?"

So typical. Why hide this shameful man who has mentored Obama for these 20 years? He didn't just grow his horns yesterday. Because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

The electorate has the right to know the moral suasion of the man they may put in the White House.

Obama also demurs comment on his stance on the Palastinian issue, and has questionable relations with Black Liberation Army sympathizers. Time is now to get the answers, not later.

Albertan's are paying $1.30 or more - a litre at the gas pumps. That converts to approx.$5.00 per gallon. AND Alberta's major asset is oil and gas. Most Canadians have no tax write off's - which include interest paid on mortgages and other debt- unlike the Americans. We do have national health care - for which most pay a monthly premium. Most provinces have good education programs and infrastructure. It has been tallied we pay, out of earnings, approx. 60% in tax one way or another. Noted also is high earners pay higher taxes -IF they don't have an exceptional accountant. Unbelievable it wasn't done in the beginning and people given the opportunity to stay in their homes. To rewrite the mortgages within their ability to pay. Bank CEO's weren't thinking of the calamity to the country and importantly to the lives of the homeowners. It's the people, in the end, who drive the economy -not C.E.O.'s. Clinton was correct in stating a moratorium must immediately be placed on all home repossessions. Nobody is listening. Why not?

Since Jaan/08 I, with intense interest, listened to the media commentaries on the candidates,and watched the body language. It came as no surprise when Clinton stated the obvious - Oboma was the Networks favorite. He's, without a doubt, a great orator and charmer. Clinton, a woman, knows she cannot use women's wiles in the work place. Clinton 'trained' for many years for the President's post and is the only one, in many Canadian's opinion, who can lead the U.S. out of the horrible quaigmire the country is in.
Bill Clinton, as President, when leaving his post left the U.S. in better financial shape then most she could do the same.
Quickly dropped from the media was -Obama's messengers words to Canada's gov't, "He didn't mean what he said about eliminating NAFTA" - or words to that effect. Were those words then said to impress the voters?
Twenty years of church attendance with Pastor Wrights sermons must have left some strong impressions. Watching Wrights performance damning America was sickening -for Canada is part of North 'America.' Undoubtedly, much of what Wright had said was true and Negroes were treated shabbily but times have changed.I believe that initial taped sermon was because Pastor Wright believed it would help, not hinder,Obama as their ties were so close.
I wonder who funds Obama's war chest - it can't be the students with little money.
THIS forthcoming US election is choosing the 'smartest and most able' person for President. Clinton can't be told what to do - she knows what must be done. But, obviously warm fuzzies appear to please the populace. We've had pleasers and charmers as previous Prime Ministers for which Canada paid a price. If the U.S. goes down so does Canada; we are tightly tied together - unfortunately, we don't get a vote.

Mr Vision, the man that foresaw all, years in advance, when it came to Iraq, appears to finally be coming around on the Wright thing. This is what suddenly became clear to him earlier today.

Posted by: Dave! | April 29, 2008 4:31 PM

That should be Hillary's new mantra. Wrong on Iraq, but right on Wright.

The videos of Wright dancing, doing marching bands, and badly imitating JFK and LBJ are almost worth a McCain presidency.

Black Theology
Louis Farrakhan
Obama's Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago teaches and supports both.

Obama wants to rule like this.
It's scarey and the media has a responsibilty to show them in videos until the day of the election.

This is Wikiepida's Definition on Black Liberation Theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology

The goal of black theology is not for special treatment. Instead, "All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice and death to white people by any means at the disposal of black people. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, 'If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' [6] to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper.'[7]"[8]

So, excuse me,but it looks as if the pot is calling the kettle black. But of course it is now that the truth is coming out.

Incite racial hatred against Black Americans: Wrong it's the other way around. Go read it and weap.

Obama can break with Wright all he wants but you can not make me believe that this pastor just this ones uttered all this BS. Surely it happened before and you can bet that Republicans right now are looking over his previous sermons with a fine tooth comb to find, as far as they are concerned, more "jewels."If it does not come up again in the primaries you can bet that more of the same will surface in the general election.

This is Wikiepida's Definition on Black Liberation Theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology

The goal of black theology is not for special treatment. Instead, "All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice and death to white people by any means at the disposal of black people. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, 'If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' [6] to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper.'[7]"[8]

So, excuse me,but it looks as if the pot is calling the kettle black. But of course it is now that the truth is coming out.

Incite racial hatred against Black Americans: Wrong it's the other way around. Go read it and weap.

This is Wikiepida's info on BLT

The goal of black theology is not for special treatment. Instead, "All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice and death to white people by any means at the disposal of black people. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, 'If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' [6] to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper.'[7]"[8]

So, excuse me,but it looks as if the pot is calling the kettle black. But of course it is now that the truth is coming out.

Incite racial hatred against Black Americans: Wrong it's the other way around. Go read it and weap.

Is anyone stopping to think why the Republicans are working so hard to help Hillary win the Primary?

Posted by: boomer babe for Obama

Sorry that line has already been taken. Republicians want obama because they see hillary as their strongest competition.

That would be nice because everybody knows that is when the story really gets good. We would learn a whole bunch more "dirty laundry" if obam was the electee

To the catholic issue: Deflection, the obam tatic. Don't bring the catholics into this. They have addressed and are trying to resolve their problems. The fact is Wright as 1st pastor and obam as top man is the relevent question.

When a man from that church runs for president we will ask things about that church and that pastor.

{Wright} now it's Wright and Obam and Trinity.

News Flash Obama is running for president not someone from this deflective punt.

People question why Obama didn't leave a church pastored by Mr. Wright---but don't seem to care that catholics have no problem attending a church, where the upper tier of the church found it more important to protect the brand of catholicism and its priets than it was to protect children. Why are catholics still attending chatholic churches and listenting to the current pope who may have had some knowledge about what was happening with the musical chair predator priests?

Yo, who cares about wright, obama is still the best candidate out there. He gonna winn da Iraq war by talking to them. The reason we got bombed by the Chinese in WWI was because we never talked to them before hand. General Flapjak Pershing just fought, but he never talked to nobody. So Obama can win this. I believe this.

So,it looks like maybe Obama's Crazy Uncle
Rev Jerimiah Wright would be a more honest
choice for either Howard Dean as Chairman
of the DNC, or Nutcase Nancy Pelosi as the
Speaker of the House,or Democratic Senate
Majority Leader Harmless Harry Reid,since
it looks like Crazy Rev Wright has more guts and honesty then Dean,Pelosi,Reid and
did I mention Barack Hussein Obama and his
pekinese looking racist wife Michelle Obama
now then too? Oh I don't know who this
Barack Hussein Obama or Michelle Obama are
since they are soooo "Typical Chicago Black
Racist Sleazy Political Figures Democrats.
Just say NO to Obama and Obama!

apparently both of them did not vote on the economic stimulus bill or the amendments, probably for different reasons, b/c they both felt it was not comprehensive enough and Senator Obama just decided not to cast a vote at all; neither of them apparently showing a profile in courage.

lawyering you what kind of childish remark is that?

try and follow the argument. One it is not a solution, period. Can you understand that I have said that now at least 5 times.

Two an Obama poster said that US driving habits are increasing and that is the cause of rising gas prices. Rising US demand. One more time they said that since the US is in a recession that there is an INCREASE in US gas consumption. I would like to see evidence of that since US business is slowing and many US drivers are cutting down on their trips. Demand also has to do with increased demands in the Chinese and Indian economies which are not in a recession,have nothing to do with this discussion, but the point being made was that supposedly gas prices were going up because US businesses and drivers are driving up the demand for oil and therefore that demand will eat up any gas tax holiday. That is false on 2 basis one because your gas prices are more effected by fluctations in the dollar and speculators and second if prices will continue to go up as you speculate they will do so whether or not the 18 cents comes into play. Incidentally are you suggesting that 'US' demand is going up while we are in a recession b/c if that is true that would be historic.

Releasing strategic reserves is again only a temporary fix and usually only ads a few days more to the supply.
We all agree that all of this only helps at the margins and is temporary, but all of the other plans are truly long term and legitimate proposals that will likely take 5-10 years to offer relief, but once again all of the other proposals are long term proposals which won't even be given the time of day for consideration until january 21, 2009.

Hillary giving people a few bucks for gas is the 21st century equal to "Let them eat cake!" She is completely out of touch with what real Americans are feeling.

I don't know if we'll ever really know why the pastor is speaking up now, but to say the Clinton's are behind this as one poster did is silly. I think that this is going to haunt Obama, it will not go away for several reasons.
1) The pastor told the people over and over again that Obama says what he does because he it's the political thing to do. (thus letting the people know it is not the truth)
2) His staying in the church for 20 years and not commenting to the pastor that he does not agree with him. This would have been a great time to talk about bringing the races together not further apart. He missed that chance. Now he says he can do just that if elected president.
3) He lied when he said he heard no hate America sermons. His press and secret service people where with him and when the journalist called his campaign headquarters for a comment from the senator on his minister and his comments. He received no answer even though they knew he was going to write an article on it. But the next day he gave his race speech in Pa. (I think to save his presidency) Read this.
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_america_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html

4)By saying that the ministers' comments were fair game on Fox news he left himself open to have this debate about his pastor over and over again. That is all we will hear in the run up to November. We will loose again if he is our candidate.

Leichtman: The "economic stimulus package" was garbage. Giving $600 to everyone is an incredibly stupid waste of money, and I said exactly that when issue came up a few months ago. Obama didn't vote on that bill, but he probably would have supported it; every Democrat and most Republicans did. But it was still stupid.

Look, I just disagreed with my favored presidential candidate! Did I just blow your mind?

I'm on your side, Leichtman, but you have lost me. What the heck are you talking about? The gas tax should be rolled back, I don't care if its for one day, but when you say that demand in the US has no effect on gas prices ... ay ay ay.

mnteng, don't try to reason with him; just quit while your ahead. He doesn't listen, he will just ignore that you are right and try to pass off more Hillary rubbish about something totally unrelated.

He thinks as long as he keeps posting then he is still not wrong. No matter how many times you explain it to him, it won't help.

Good luck Leichtman, you apparently need it.

Leichtman:

Maybe I'm confused. Dave! said "The private sector has a 23 day inventory supply of gas (not oil) which is typical for this time of the year. There is, of course, the proposal to stop adding to the SPR by all candidates which would also add, very slightly, to supply." But I didn't think that made a lot of sense, since the small amount of oil we stockpile is miniscule compared to the worldwide supply, or even our consumption. I thought the candidates didn't want to add oil to the SPR because of the $120/bbl price tag.

Oh, and here's the link to the article on gas consumption.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0718533620080408?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Leichtman, you called it a short term solution in one of the posts above, stop trying to argue semantics when you have clearly been proven incorrect. Now you try to lawyer me, as if that is some kind of defense or agrument. You talk in many of your posts about how Hillary is connecting with voters over this issue? But if it isn't part of the solution than what is it? You have basically stated it isn't part of a solution, so then it is just pandering. I love that you point to the evidence you provided, and your right plenty of things impact gas prices. But let me get this straight--American consumption has no impact on gas prices? Is that your postulate? This isn't an "expert theory" I have provided, it is econ 101. You might have heard of a little thing called Supply and Demand? If as you talked about above, more Americans will be buying gas since the price will be so much more affordable,then the demand will grow. When the demand grows and the supply doesn't change...what happens Leichtman? The price goes back up. I am not the only one who has posted to this contention. And I also posted an article speaking to the ineffectiveness of the plan Hillary proposed. Others, actual expert's, have spoken in the past day that it will do nothing and may in fact raise gas prices, but "your expert theory" says no way. Even though your own theory says lots of things impact gas prices--uh ya think like maybe Consumption. And you try to compare the economic stimulus to the Gas Holiday. That is not meant to help you afford healthcare, it is suppose to help you stimulate the economy. The stimulus package isn't aimed as some kind of aid, they way you and Hillary are dreaming up this Gas Holiday to be. So, that is more rubbish you are sporting as logic.

Keeping trying Leichtman, perhaps eventually you will stumble upon an actual grain of original thought. A broken clock is right twice a day. Go back to Hillary's website and try to dig for more rubbish to pass off as logic, so far your 0 for forever.

Stop picking on me!

Way to be open-minded, Leichy-poo. Do they give you a T-shirt or decoder ring or sth for being so willfully ignorant of the world around you? or is it hypnotic conditioning?

Yuan. Sorry to overload you with details about what all is involved in gas prices since it is easier for you to just demagogue the issue, claim driving habits are going up when they clearly aren't and that the value of the dollar actually effects what you are paying for gas and not the taxes you pay on that gallon of gas which you spin will happen, rather than fully understand everything involved in that issue.

bottom line its been beaten to death and since you are an Obama supporter you obviously you can not see both sides of the issue and can only see it see through the lense of your candidate.

Leichtman, give it a rest. It's OK - the smart ones know I'm lying to them, but of those I still have the racists and those too lazy to put 2 and 2 together and realize that I WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE NINETIES. Even Bill, not so much.... the Cold War ended, and the Internet began. Hell, Chelsea could have run the country, and she was 12 at the time. What? Don't worry, the only people reading this now are those who would never vote for me anyway. Now come here and service me before I have to squawk some more.

I said NOW.

"interesting when I posted that driving is going down with carpools and shorter trips
bonjedi yelled that can't be."

You can lie to yourself, but you can't lie to us. What you wrote was "oil prices don't seem much effected by US demands or driving patterns." Again, it's a free country and you can believe what you want, but I don't see how you're establishing any credibility for your candidate with nonsense like that.

Go ahead and post some more econ mumbo-jumbo to dig yourself out of your hole. Bottom line - you have no idea what any of the ideas you are cutting and pasting from Hillary hate blogs actually mean. Stick to the sidewalk salt and donuts if you are trying to attract voters.

OK, I admit it. HC is a grasping, emasculating shrew.

(Why do you think Bill sought out Gennifer, Monica, et al?)

And yet I find her unlovely, calculating face strangely... thrilling.

Come, Wrinkled One, and squawk sweet nothings in my ear.

Ready on Day One? I'm ready NOW.

interesting when I posted that driving is going down with carpools and shorter trips
bonjedi yelled that can't be.
and then mnteng said:
"I saw an article a couple of weeks ago predicting that gas usage this summer will drop this year for the first time in a while due to the high gas prices, credit crunch, etc. That suggests that a significant percentage of us will not be taking our annual summer road trips or vacations."

Less US demand and rising prices never she said that is crazy. I still think that it is the declining dollar that has more to do with oil prices then actual driving habits, and ask others here to disprove that.

the bottom line is that oil prices will rise and fall as will pump pricess, regardless of what happens to the energy taxwhich is a fixed cost), and that is a false argument to say that if gas taxes are cut by 18 cents they will be directly correlated to fluctuations in oil and pump prices, which includes refinery, shipping, state and federal taxes.

Ma, I'll take that meatloaf now. MAAAAAAA! THE MEATLOAF!

"I am sure if you have inside info about energy futures, the diection of the juan, and what the feds will do with the prime rate and the value of the dollar,"

More mumbo-jumbo, thrown out there to confuse the issue. What the hell does any of that have to do with the plan Clinton took from McCain?

btw, is the "juan" some new Latin American currency?

"could actually end up raising prices", therefore offering either even less relief or no relief at all. She offers nothing to help stem gas prices for those above groups past the holiday.

1. Raising prices? Where is your evidence of that since Houston Energy publications I posted claim that have actual evidence that energy prices are effected by speculators and fluctations in the dollar based upon things like how the Feds decide what they will do with interest rates and how China values their yuan.

I am sure if you have inside info about energy futures, the diection of the juan, and what the feds will do with the prime rate and the value of the dollar, that Ben Beracki and CNBC would be thrilled to have you as an analyst or maybe a guest spot on this week's episode of Median.

If Opec is going to manipulate oil prices regardless then YOU EXPERT theory is bogus. If you are now claiming that oil prices have nothing to do with the value of the dollar, interest rate directions and what foreign governments do with their currency markets you simply are wrong.

2. She offers nothing to reduce prices beyond the holiday?

How would you have any idea about that. You and the rest of the Obama supporters claim that Obama's plan is the best.How would you know that. 1. have you and blarg actually sat down and read her plan and know all of its details? I would post it but it is very long and detailed and that would not be appropriate 2. Are you now setting yourselves up as energy experts if so what are your credentials?

You keep posting that someone has told you the gas tax holiday is a solution, where did you get that idea. Its a short term relief exactly like nancy Pelosi's economic stimulus package. Its short term and targeted and no one has claimed that $600 will cure cancer or end the recession.

Since that too was a short term stimulus relief why did Sen Obama support a $600 rebate. We could say the exact same thing about $600 costing $150 billion dollars. It won't pay for healthcare it won't pay for a house note you should tell your candidate that he was buying votes for $600. Both of those arguments are nonsense. Its targeted temporary relief period. You oppose, you don't need it, you don't want on it fine, how is that relevant. Lets just see what Indiana voters, truckers and farmers say about it next Tues.since they are the ones most effected, not you not me. If they come out in mass and say they reject it that will certainly be the end of it, but if they reject your premise you and your candidate just might want to reconsider unless you are willing to totally disregard the wishes of farmers and truckers across the country since hispanic and elderly voters now appear beyond your campaign's reach.

mnteng - What does oil have to do with gasoline?

Dave!:

I think Krugman's initial premise is that our refineries are running at capacity during the summer months to cope with demand. If that is true, then the supply would seem to be more inelastic.

I saw an article a couple of weeks ago predicting that gas usage this summer will drop this year for the first time in a while due to the high gas prices, credit crunch, etc. That suggests that a significant percentage of us will not be taking our annual summer road trips or vacations.

The idea of stopping the addition to the SPR doesn't strike me as being a very effective way to deal with gas supply. What do we add, something like 70,000 bbl/day? If the candidates were talking about not adding to the SPR to avoid paying out the nose for oil, then that might make more sense to me (yes, I think the price of oil will go down in the future). But doing it to ease high gas prices doesn't seem very rational to me.

In his NYT column yesterday, Bob Hebert became the latest pundit to lob a slew of hyper-charged code words at Barack Obama:

"A candidate who stands haplessly by as his former spiritual guide roams the country dropping one divisive bomb after another is in very little danger of being seen by most voters as the next J.F.K. or L.B.J. . . . The apparent helplessness of the Obama campaign in the face of the Wright onslaught contributes to the growing perception of the candidate as weak, as someone who is unwilling or unable to fight aggressively on his own behalf."

Obviously, these weren't racial code words, but for an aspiring president they were code words of an even more damaging sort. Hapless . . . Helpless . . . Weak . . .
"Unable to fight aggressively"--they all add up to one inescapable conclusion: Barack Obama is a wimp.

that's what being a political wimp is all about--being incapable of firm, decisive, and resolute action when the situation calls for it.

I never seen people get so excited about someone telling them something that they already know

One thing is readily apparent in the last few days' back and forth - whenever the issues are debated, the Clinton cadre is exposed as hitching its wagon to the bizarre ideology of the McCain campaign (who threw his ideals in the trash and started a run as a Bush clone).

Now it is much clearer why Wright, Rezko, flag pins, bowling, etc. have replaced substance as Clinton talking points. While she gets clobbered when it comes to displaying competence as a prospective Prez, Hillary can at least fight to a stalemate with sleaze and innuendo.

Obama's slogan: Yes we can!

Hillary's mantra: Four more years!

We are so frustrated by always losing. Now our hate-monger has been exposed for the poltroon he is. what is a devoted leftist hater to do? drindl, leads us.

your jackals

Blarg,
I have to disagree with you on Obama having the best enery policy. No efforts to get US oil production increased, cap and trade (or as i call it "a regressive hidden pollution tax"), and the aforementioned high emphasis on ethanol and other bio-fuels. To be fair, McCain has a cap and trade proposal too.

The health plan proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would, by design, replace employer-based health insurance with individual-market insurance--a concern for people with chronic disease. Employers do not charge workers or their families different premiums based on their age, gender, health status, or health history. They also offer equal benefits and choices of plans. The individual market, however, plays by different rules. Individual insurers in most states can exclude people with pre-existing conditions directly by denying them coverage or indirectly by charging them exorbitant premiums.1

This could be remedied with stronger rules for insurers--but the McCain plan moves in the opposite direction. It would allow insurers to play by the rules in any state--including the one that has the least protection for people with chronic diseases.

According to an analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 56 million non-elderly adults with employer-sponsor health insurance have at least one of 12 chronic illnesses.2

This does not count chronically ill children with employer coverage who would also be at risk of losing coverage under the McCain plan. Employers insure 62 percent of all adults with chronic illness, including (note: numbers add to more than 56 million because some individuals have multiple diseases):

21.2 million with hypertension
18.5 million with arthritis
7.8 million with asthma
6.3 million with diabetes
5.5 million with cancer
4.5 million who experience disruptive anxiety or depression
If these Americans were to lose health coverage through employers, they might not be able to regain it. Research has shown that over 70 percent of individuals in poor health found it very difficult or impossible to find affordable, individual-market coverage.

F**k all of you. If you are too dumb not to realize that gasoline grows on trees and Hillary should be named Queen Bizzatch For Life, then you don't deserve her.

"bonjedi claims that hedging, dollar fluctations and the war have nothing to do with rising gas prices"

One, you're talking out of your bum. You haven't the foggiest idea what hedging and dollar fluctuations are, let alone how they impact the price of a tank of gas.

Two, what I pointed out was the insanity of the statement that American supply and demand has nothing to do with the price of gas. To take your "logic" to its natural course, if over the next year all American motor-vehicles were switched to solar-powered ones, does your "theory" hold that the price of a gallon of gasoline would be what it is today? 50% of all cars? 25% of cars? Cars belonging to voters Hillary is pandering to in her death march?

While you flip through your hate blogs looking for an answer, we'll be waiting.

Via TAPPED, John McCain's foreign policy spokesman Randy Scheunemann recently gave an interview to Radio Free Europe about the growing tension between Russia and Georgia. Scheunemann took a hard line against Russia's "undermining of Georgian sovereignty" by moving to establish direct ties with breakaway regions of Georgia.

Interestingly, neither Scheunemann nor the interviewer mentioned that Randy Scheunemann used to be employed as a lobbyist for the Georgian government. That's right, the person who's giving John McCain advice on Russia and Georgia was "registered with the U.S. Department of Justice as a foreign agent working on behalf of the government of Georgia."

Scheunemann is a longtime neoconservative activist and lobbyist. In addition to working for the government of Georgia, Scheunemann was was the director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a neocon front group spun off from the Project for the New American Century (where Scheunemann also works as a foreign policy and national security analyst) which lobbied for the invasion of Iraq. Scheunemann's firm, Scheunemann and Associates, also lobbied for the National Rifle Association between 1999 and 2002.

Of course, Scheunemann is only one of the many former lobbyists helping to drive the Straight Talk Express. In fact, as Media Matters reported, "McCain has more current and former lobbyists working on his campaign staff than any other candidate in the 2008 presidential election."

Now Bill O'Reilly is claiming we didn't invade Iraq. I guess it's all a mass hallucinatiion.

O'Reilly's claim is almost as unbelievable as Wolfowitz's statement earlier this week that the U.S. "occupation [of Iraq] ended in June of 2004."

Be sure and vote for John McCain and more neocon loonytunes.

Once again where has anyone stated it is the 'solution'. That was your slanted word certainly not mine in fact i went out of my way to post it is only a short term relief at the pump that will help truckers, farmers and perhaps ease inflationary prices on exploding food costs, but once again it is you using the word solution for obvious partisan purposes.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 3:27 PM

Leichtman, I posed three questions to you above, none of which you can answer about Hillary's plan. How is the Gas Holiday going to help any of those groups you have named? I and others have posted how the Gas Holiday will not bring any relief to these parties at the pump. Not short term, or long term. So, how is that short term relief as you call it? You just ignore the economic and financial data that is relatvent to the situation. We have been over how suspending the Gas Tax will save on average $30. We have also discussed how suspending the Tax could actually end up raising prices, therefore offering either even less relief or no relief at all. She offers nothing to help stem gas prices for those above groups past the holiday. So, come this September everything is still too pricey for the groups you named above and their circumstances don't change. So, this proposal (or whatever you want to call it) ends up netting the average American nothing. A lot of sound and fury signifiying nothing. You even alluded to her pandering, stating "we will see what Indiana voters say". Not that the plan is good for them, or America, simply if they vote for it it must be right. If you can actually refute any of that, with reasonable logic, then we have something to discuss.

As I said above, I think raising taxes on the Oil industry is silly. I don't support that policy. I dislike the fact that Obama supports that policy, so it doesn't matter to me when he decided on the idea; I wish he would forget it. And yes, I believe if the Gas Holiday came to a vote this summer it would fail. It is nothing more than pandering for votes and as I outlined above you have provided nothing to support the contrary.

It's 'proud2baracist' that always pastes from weekly standard.

she apparently just can't stop thinking about the Scary Black Man of God.

So, there are 3 main blame-themes here...
the media is to blame, the Clinton campaign set it up and are to blame, OR the Obama campaign set it up and are to blame. Hmmmm.

How about this... BO has had political aspirations for a long time. He became a member of a well known African American church in Chicago to be connected to that community and further his aspirations. In this regard Rev. Wright was an asset, hence his participation for 20 years.

Now BO wants to be President. In his inexperience does not see the train wreck that is Wright approaching. Tries to be nice to his "uncle" while appeasing the rest of us until said uncle, furious at being "politicized" by dear nephew Obama, comes out in full force attack mode with not a care for said nephew... because Wright is now crystal clear that BO is a part of the very political system(USA) he hates AND accuses of creating the AIDS epidemic among other things.

Wright is now no longer an asset and will not play nice so BO now needs to sever the "mentoring".

Folks, it's politics. Pure unadulterated politics. And blame? How about just responsibility. Obama and only Obama is responsible for his "strategies" & choices for the last 20 years on the road to now.

Stop the BLAME-GAME. It's a waste of time and energy. I will not pile on.

I support Senator Hillary Clinton for the 44th Presidency of the United States of America, however, it is with great sadness that I watch the discouragement and disillusionment of Senator Obama at the abandonment and disrespect of a one-time honored pastor. Let's get back to business.

What does our country with all of it's diversity need now, and who can best provide us with thoughtful solutions to our challenges? I know we all have our opinions on this. We are expressing them at the ballot box so let the process continue. And let's start talking about the candidates PLANS and how to get them accomplished. We need a democrat in the White House without a doubt. There is still lot's to do to get this done.

Is there anyone else out there besides Hillary Clinton who is remembering that we are all in this together and will need to VOTE together in November... bitter pill or not.

mnteng - "if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount."

It is highly arguable which is more inelastic - supply or demand of gas. Krugmans assumption, apparently, is that supply is but the continued use of gas by Americans over the last several months while prices have skyrocketed makes this a debatable point. The private sector has a 23 day inventory supply of gas (not oil) which is typical for this time of the year. There is, of course, the proposal to stop adding to the SPR by all candidates which would also add, very slightly, to supply. Now it is true that in summer, consumers use gas for recreation which is where they could cut back demand but that remains to be seen.

Good thing Mommy knocks before entering my basement "office" with my lunch. She might catch me doing naughty things while I look at pictures of Ann Coulter.

Okay, so President Bill clinton got Nafta passed... when there was a Republicen conress, remember? But how has that law been tweaked since, and by whom? The Republican congress, right? Right. Many new laws need tweaking to get the bugs out, but it does depend WHO gets the bugs out, right? And it seems clear to me that it was the Republican congress... who put more bugs in, not took any out. So don't blame President Clinton for having the foresight that globalization was going to take place whether we like it or not. Blame the Republican congress for turning Nafta into a free-for-big-money game. He didn't do that. The Bushies DID do it.

Boy did Mommy make me a nice tuna fish sandwich today! Thanks Mommy!

"trying to pass this idea off as a solution is ludicrous. Raising Taxes on oil companies isn't going to bring the price of gas down. And I know full well Obama supports the same initiative."

Once again where has anyone stated it is the 'solution'. That was your slanted word certainly not mine in fact i went out of my way to post it is only a short term relief at the pump that will help truckers, farmers and perhaps ease inflationary prices on exploding food costs, but once again it is you using the word solution for obvious partisan purposes.

I have posed 2 questions that I asked you to research. As you know Harry Reid unsucessfully pushed a Windfall Profits tax in March 2006. he desperately looked for supporters and only a handful of Ds offered to help. Very few Dems joined him because it was a brave proactive move to take on the oil industry. Its great he now spend million on Indiana and N Carolina to claim he opposes rising oil prices but where was he when was needed to actually do something about it?
HC was by Reid's side 2 years before Indiana. Since you claim to know Obama's positions then please tell us if he enthusiastically supported Harry Reid 2 years ago when he needed help to pass a Windfall Profits tax. Its great if he now has joined Harry Reid and HC call for a Windfall Profits tax NOW but he is once again a day late and a dollar short.

My quesrry was what you think a D Senate would do if this proposal comes to a vote this summer? I have no idea, but I doubt you will find more than a handful of Ds who would vote no. It is mere speculation but do you doubt that McCain will not push for that vote this summer if Obama is the nominee?

Ed Morrissey notes an oddity in the Washington Post's water-carrying editorial that lauded Barack Obama's most demonstrative denunciation of Jeremiah Wright to date:

"But Mr. Obama is right when he says that his entire career is antithetical to the divisiveness of the Rev. Wright's comments."

To which I can only respond, "What career?"

Coming out of Harvard Law School in 1991, one would have expected young Barack Obama to set the world on fire. He was editor-in-chief of the Law Review, graduated magna cum laude, even penned a well-received memoir soon after his graduation.

And yet for a dozen years after law school, Obama toiled away in obscurity as a community organizer, a lawyer at a small firm that had the infamous Rezko as a client, and as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. This career path famously forced him and his wife to have to stretch to pay back their student loans.

Much of this was of course laudable on Obama's part, passing up the big bucks to better serve humanity. But he didn't have a career that engaged in policy issues. He was an obscure figure whose efforts to forward his obvious political ambitions were uniformly thwarted until his successful run for senator in 2004.

Besides, as Morrissey notes, if Obama's "entire career" really has been "antithetical to the divisiveness of Rev. Wright's comments," it would have been swell if the Post had provided an example or two to support such a sweeping assertion.

Against the Post's unsupported hyperbole, there stands the formulation "20 years and $40,000." For 20 years, Obama worshipped at Jeremiah Wright's church. And yet Obama's campaign would have us believe that he only became aware that Wright is a moral cretin on Monday.

Perhaps even more bothersome is the $40,000 + in donations the Obamas gave to Wright's church in 2005 and 2006. Given Michelle Obama's repeated whining about the precarious state of the Obamas' finances, we can assume they didn't demonstrate such largesse without first giving the matter serious consideration.

It's a measure of how problematic the Reverend Wright situation will remain for Obama that his champions in the media have resorted to ludicrous exaggeration in a vain attempt to make it go away. They'd be better off standing by their tried and true (though still ineffective) method of shrieking "Distraction!!"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6692

apparently bonjedi you have developed expertise in cutting but not posting.

Are you suggesting that American driving have actually gone Up in the US? That is contrary to what energy experts are saying who have recorded LESS Us driving and more carpooling, oy those stubborn facts.

This is what energy experts are actually saying since bonjedi claims that hedging, dollar fluctations and the war have nothing to do with rising gas prices, and she is so certain that Americans are driving more:

"Instead, many observers blame speculative traders for bidding up the price as a hedge against inflation and as protection from the sinking U.S. dollar. Some see that as evidence of a bubble."

notice experts claim the link is to speculators and a sinking dollar and not to what you incorrectly claim is RISING US driving patterns.

interesting that your cutting and pasting taught you how to clip posts but not the pasting part of the whole post that said:

"speculators,demands by the Chinese, the devaluatioin of the dollar which converts what we pay for a barrel of crude and the war" are all causing oil prices to spike.

nice try learn how to read.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THE CURRENT SCENARIO HAS BEEN PURPOSELY CONJURED BY BOTH WRIGHT AND OBAMA. WITH THE SUDDEN ERUPTION OF PASTOR WRIGHTS VITRIOLIC REMARKS TO DERAIL OBAMA'S ELECTION IS MERELY A DEVIOUS AND CLEVERLY ORCHESTRATED PLOY BY BOTH PARTIES TO BRING ABOUT A WAVE OF SYMPATHY AND MORE VOTERS OUT FOR OBAMA. THIS IS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION WHICH COULD EITHER BE ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS RIDICULOUS OR RIGHT ON TARGET. HOW IT CONTINUES TO PLAY OUT IN THE WEEKS TO COME WILL EITHER PROVE I'M A CERTIFIED IDIOT OR A PROGNOSTICATER. AS FOR THE ELECTION ITSELF I AM STILL NEUTRAL, AND JUST STATING AN OPINION THAT COULD EASILY BE DISMISSED AS FOOLISH OR BE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION THAT SOMETHING MAY BE ROTTEN IN DENMARK.

"After all, it takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. "

Who is filling their tanks with ethanol? It's mostly used as an additive.

What exactly does any of this have to do with why the Gas Holiday is a good idea?"

Plenty.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 2:19 PM

No Leichtman it doesn't. Apples to Oranges again. I have not said she doesn't have a long term plan, simply that trying to pass this idea off as a solution is ludicrous. Raising Taxes on oil companies isn't going to bring the price of gas down. And I know full well Obama supports the same initiative.

Raising Taxes on Oil companies is how Hillary proposed to pay for her pandering, not how to lower gas prices. Again, if you stopped reading Hillary's website for two minutes to go do some actual research you would stop trying to pass off the illogical Gas Holiday as part of her "energy policy". You say every Dem will vote for this....where is your proof? That is a bold statement, but as usual you are just shooting from the hip. There is not one ounce of truth to that statement.

You should go back and re-read what I and others have said about the Gas Holiday. I don't believe the topic can be outlined any better than what is posted above.

"actually oil prices don't seem much effected by US demands or driving patterns."

Oy. Leichtman, are you for real or is this some stab at performance art? What about donut prices? This is the sort of economic expertise you expect from the campaign that has spent itself into a financial hole.

Please tell us which Hillary hateblog is feeding you this line. I want to read about how the universe revolves around the Earth.

I ummm.....just want to say.....(pause).........that I really just............ummm...........make this up as........I umm.........................like go along.........so cut me some slack please. you did it all last year, why change now? I am like...........ummm...........ready to be sworn in already so can you like umm..........................hurry up and get to it..................before ummm....................like anyone else finds out the umm..........................................truth about me.

Hi Chris,
I remember a lot of media praise for Obama's so called Gettysburg respose, so why was such an "eloquent speech" now reversed? Obama is the pathological liar. He even spoke the untruth about Wright's growing up where he is compared to the under privileged young blacks of the 60,s when Wright was an intelligent young man, educated in one of the best high schools (the Central Hi in Germantown) PA, his father, a minister and his mother a high school teacher, and vice principal of a girl's high school. Obama grabbed his story out of the blue. So, maybe I can list more lies. This man is a farce, he is hollow and so little (other than Rev. wright) to show. And now, a little bit later tries so hard "to be outraged" and denounces his pastor. And he claims not to know what the pastor preaches? Who is this guy who wants to become president of the US? How could the media have plugged him so much and bashed Hillary, be stupid and not looked at the man before. And the press waited to bring the pastor relationship umtil they were sure they had enough blind supporters behind him? And the so called young educated people bragged that they, the intelligent were looking for change, could be so gullible and easily blindly led to follow this unknown man? who is this man and what is he made of. And they said "experience did not matter?" I am intelligent, educated, and old, Once upon a time I worked hard and I learned to disagree, but I do not hate. Chris, I do not call people names, but I just hope that you people in the press think harder. And Chris "hardball" Matthews seemed like he never missed a day from day one to bash Hillary and even bring up Bill's "sin" as baggage, to say the least. And he calls Obama "charismatic", an adjective I would never use. I'ld call him a salesman, who will say anything.( to get a vote). thanks.

Barack Obama obviously doesn't agree with Reverend Wright. Obama simply believes Wright clings to religion due to his bitter feelings from bad experiences with racism. Obama, on the other hand, clings to religion to try and garner a few votes.

Barack Obama obviously doesn't agree with Reverend Wright. Obama simply believes Wright clings to religion due to his bitter feelings from bad experiences with racism. Obama, on the other hand, clings to religion to try and garner a few votes.

I thought that Michelle Obama had become less prominent on the campaign trail, but on Friday she spoke at a rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana. C-SPAN broadcst the speech last night. It seemed to go on forever, but the seeming length was proportional to the pain inflicted by listening to it.

By contrast with Barack Obama, Michelle Obama doesn't know the words and won't learn the music of American politics. She therefore does not wear well.

While she preaches the gospel according to Barack, she wears resentment and bitterness on her sleeve.

In her Fort Wayne speech she expanded on the condescending political sociology that Barack Obama preached at his closed-door fundraiser with the San Francisco Democrats.

Given the modesty of her nd her husband's family backgrounds, Mrs. Obama denied that she or her husband are elitists. Yet her political sociology is the mother's milk of those such as the San Francisco Democrats to whom Barack Obama preached.

Apparently Mrs. Obama believes that only those born to wealth are capable of looking down their noses at their fellow citizens. In her case the proposition is self-refuting.

Barack wasn't born with "silver spoons" in his mouth, she said. And nobody knows the trouble they've seen.

The burden of paying for her undergraduate education at Princeton and her law school education at Harvard remains a motif of her stump speech.

No one is granted a chance to ask her if she thought about attending the University of Illinois, or if she's grateful for any financial assistance that facilitated her and her husband's attendance at the finest institutions of higher learning in the United States.

Mrs. Obama omitted her warning to the Los Angeles disciples from her current iteration of the gospel she preached in Indiana:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

As long as Senator Obama won't require us to listen to the missus, I might be willing to settle for the compulsory mental readjustment.

Can I rephrase, my poll numbers seem to be dropping?

I am so sophisticated, it takes months to decipher what I really mean. Can I get sworn in before I have to explain anything?

Please allow me to remain the most inane poster on this blog. i promise to post only dimwit insults and one line unfunny jokes.

"it seems that most politicians from both parties support ethanol, because it's a good way to suck up to farmers and appear to do something good for the environment"

John McCain is against corn subsidies, and said so during the Iowa caucuses. He's the only one with the guts to tell it like it is, despite the political fallout.

That's the kind of leadership this country needs.

Dave!, as an Obama supporter, I agree with you. Ethanol is a terrible idea in terms of the environment, economics, and morality. I wish that Obama didn't support it. But it seems that most politicians from both parties support ethanol, because it's a good way to suck up to farmers and appear to do something good for the environment. Obama's energy plan is by far the best of the three candidates', but his ethanol support is its big weak spot.

"What exactly does any of this have to do with why the Gas Holiday is a good idea?"

Plenty. All day long you have posted incorrectly that HC does not have a long term energy plan and is only pandering whort term, which is utter nonsense. She thought through our energy crisis and offered a plan to resolve it 2 years ago. Since you claim that her position is purely political then I can ask you the exact same question. Where was Sen Obama's energy policy 2 years ago when Harry Reid begged Dems to join him in taking on the energy industry. Seems like he may be a recent convert now that he is running for Pres.

Additionally I will ask you how many Dems you think would vote against this proposal in the US Senate if it should come to a vote this summer. My guess: you won't find a D(except maybe Sen Obama) who would vote against it if they plan on getting re-elected in Nov. And what is your answer, that Sen Obama would certainly vote no?

bondjedi - "That would be a good one for Hillary to propose. Now she can throw under the bus all those Iowa voters so crucial to her third place finish there."

"Honest politics" would say that Obama should be suggesting this. After all, it takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol since corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Current subsidies for ethanol run $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon. That does not include the handout to corn farmers. Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. And which farmer is the leading producer of ethanol? Mr. Archer Daniels Midland.

But ethanol is a large part of Obama's long term solution. So basically, part of his long term solution will help to starve people around the world, drive up food and fuel prices for us, and waste energy. Given that, I'd take my measley Gas Tax Holiday.

But note jnoel she also on April 6, 2006 gave a very detailed considered to be a wonkish speech about long term energy policies in response to Harry Reid's efforts to get a Windfall Profits Tax passed in the US Senate.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 1:48 PM

What exactly does any of this have to do with why the Gas Holiday is a good idea?

And that is the point, your candidate is trying to propose a non-solution and pass it off as an accomplishment to further her own political gain. Don't try to brush it off as: that is how the game is played. This is exactly what Obama is talking about when he says "politics as usual". Hillary is promoting something that will produce zero results for the sole purpose of garnering more votes. The Gas Holiday isn't what is best for America, it is what's best for Hillary Clinton.

I encourage you to do some research on what economists and other financial analysts have said the results would be of the Gas Holiday.

Jeremiah Wright is not going anywhere.

He is a newly retired geezer with the national spotlight on him; these are his lifetime victory laps.

Can his parishioner and spiritual son, Barack Obama, go away from him? Obama had the chance to cut the cord when Hurricane Wright first blew in March, but, while criticizing certain of Wright's views, he said he could no more disown him than he could disown his white grandmother.

Wright is Obama's family, and more. Obama needed Wright when he was a young community organizer and nascent pol to give him street cred; he needed him, at a deeper level, to replace his deadbeat Kenyan father and his hippie-screwball white mother.

Most people say, at one time or another, with gratitude or resignation, you can't choose your parents. Obama chose this parent.

JNoel:

To add a bit to your explanation to Dave! (from Paul Krugman's blog) ...

"Why doesn't cutting the gas tax this summer make sense? It's Econ 101 tax incidence theory: if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.

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.

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."

The reverend's worldview is an intoxicated mix of despair and narcissism: White America is corrupt and all-powerful, and can only be shaken by an endless chorus of complaint, led by Afrocentric divines.

There might be some Christianity mixed up in all this detritus, and someone might even find salvation in it. But such a disciple will have trouble persuading the electorate to make him president.

actually oil prices don't seem much effected by US demands or driving patterns.If anything with the slow down of the economy and most drivers reducing their driving patterns, prices have gone up. Why: speculators,demands by the Chinese, the devaluatioin of the dollar which converts what we pay for a barrel of crude and the war. To claim that a reduction in the tax means higher pump prices is patently ridiculous and I doubt you have an oz of empirical evidence to support that theory just mere speculation. If you oppose it for political reasons that is fine just don't act like you know exactly how energy traders speculate I doubt even they understand what drives their madness.

Cliffhanger
Wright and political wrongs.

BY Peter Wehner

The extraordinary public feud between Senator Barack Obama and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. would be an enormous threat to any candidate running for president, but it is particularly dangerous to Obama.

The reason is twofold. Sen. Obama, because he is such a new figure on the American political scene, is largely undefined. People certainly have impressions of him, but they are tentative and certainly not deep or enduring.

Like hot wax, people's judgment about Obama can be easily molded and reshaped. New information and new revelations can radically alter people's impressions of him.

Secondly, Obama's campaign has been far less about his ideas than it has been about him. This separates Obama from political figures like Ronald Reagan. Reagan was also a very attractive personality but his candidacy was, at its core, based on his political philosophy and a set of (conservative) ideas.

Obama, as much as any national politician I can recall, has made his presidential candidacy personality-based.

Its success depends on the public's sense of who he is -- and that puts added importance on the public having confidence in Obama's character and values, his judgment and his integrity.

Many of us were attracted to Obama precisely because of how he came across: reasonable, thoughtful, measured, a person who was attempting to transcend racial divisions. We found his liberalism troubling -- but we found him to be personally impressive.

When the Wright story broke, it raised serious questions about whether what Obama was projecting to the public was consistent with his life.

It was jarring to think that the Obama of the 2008 campaign -- who presented himself as a unique, unifying figure in American politics -- could for 20 years attend church and develop a close personal relationship with a minister of hate and division and bigotry.

The questions we had are beginning to answer themselves, and in a way that could be politically lethal for Obama.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmRjZjU5MTZkN2FjYzNlZDJmODMyODY0YTAxMjlmYTE=

Anon @ 1:17P

You can add Friedman to that list ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?hp

I have not heard the analysis of how the Gas Tax Holiday would do this (drive prices higher).
Posted by: Dave! | April 30, 2008 1:39 PM

The logic is, the reason to suspend the tax is so that Americans can take advantage (which means drive more or further). If Americans take advantage, then the possibility exists that demand would increase. If demand increases than so does the price. Which would basically wipe out anything gained by suspending the tax.

And that is exactly why no matter what I won't vote for her.

that is fine you know my sentiments as well.

But note jnoel she also on April 6, 2006 gave a very detailed considered to be a wonkish speech about long term energy policies in response to Harry Reid's efforts to get a Windfall Profits Tax passed in the US Senate.
Exactly where did your candidate stand in 2006 when gas was $2/gallon and Sen Reid implored Dems to join him taking on the oil industry? Its clear where HC stood 2 years before campaigning in Indiana can your campaign claim the same?

and as to there also being a political component, get over it. Its a Presidential campaign it not bean bag and if your side doesn't think that your candidate is doing absolutely everything he can politically to win, then you naively believe his confrontation with Rev Wight yesterday was anything more than a political stunt made exactly a week before a very important primary where his pollsters and contributors were imploring him to stop the political bleeding. But since it is was done by Obama I am sure you believe that there was absolutely nothing political about that tact. I am not challenging his right to do so, but to claim it was nonpolitical is patently ridiculous.

The most damaging thing Rev. Jeremiah Wright said at the National Press Club on Monday had nothing to do with God damning America, or AIDS, or chickens coming home to roost. It had to do with whether Barack Obama is telling the American people the truth about himself.

"Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls," Wright told the Press Club. "Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. . . . I do what pastors do. [Obama] does what politicians do."

A few days earlier, in an interview with Moyers, Wright said Obama, in his Philadelphia speech attempting to calm the controversy created by Wright's sermons, had said "what he has to say as a politician."

The most damaging thing Wright could ever say is that he knows, based on his long personal relationship with Obama, that Obama agrees with him but can't say so publicly for political reasons.

It is not clear whether Obama has fully renounced what he said about Wright in Philadelphia. In that speech, Obama said, "I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community."

Is Obama disowning Wright now, or not? He wasn't asked that specific question in North Carolina Tuesday, but he will need to have an answer in the future.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGZhZGQ2Mzc3NDVmMzAxNmU1MjgzODk2MWFjODg1ZjY=

"My advice would be to pay for it by eliminiating the Ethanol subsidy."

That would be a good one for Hillary to propose. Now she can throw under the bus all those Iowa voters so crucial to her third place finish there.

Dissent is a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to an idea (eg. a government's policies) or an entity (eg. an individual or political party which supports such policies). The term's antonyms include agreement, consensus (when all or nearly all parties agree on something) and consent (when one party agrees to a proposition made by another).
Dissent may be expressed in many ways. In some political systems, dissent may be formally expressed by way of opposition politics, while politically repressive regimes may prohibit any form of dissent, leading to suppression of dissent and the encouragement of social or political activism. Individuals who do not conform or support the policies of certain states may be described as "dissidents," or in extreme cases, "enemies of the state".
Several thinkers have argued that a healthy society needs not only to protect, but also to encourage dissent.
--Wiki