Lest I be accused of not offering proof…

http://uk.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUKN3038243520080430

A story on the “gas tax” move.

The Price of Gas

Allow me to offer another example of why I think Obama is the best candidate for the job:

I mentioned before that Hillary Clinton thinks we should put a hold on the gas tax for the summer in the interests of making things a bit easier on the average American citizen.  John McCain has also proposed a “gas tax holiday” along the same lines.  Here’s why they are both whores for votes:

1) Removing the gas tax would barely help people.  The percentage of the cost of gas that comes from taxes isn’t so great as to give people extra money.

2) The gas tax goes to the government, which then uses that money to, you know, function.  REMOVING THE GAS TAX DOES NOTHING TO THE OIL COMPANIES.  I know, shocker.  So the solution to high gas prices is to remove the only part of that cost that actually goes to helping Americans while allowing the rest to go to Oil companies???  REALLY???

3) The US government is sending out rebates in the next two weeks.  In other words, they’re giving away money they don’t have and, if McCain and Clinton have their way, will then STOP BRINGING IN MONEY.

4) You can’t just decide to stop a source of income without having a way of replacing it.  Obama makes the same argument with the Estate Tax.  Republicans want to eliminate it?  Fine, but first tell us how you’ll replace that revenue source.

So why would Clinton and McCain suggest options that clearly won’t work?  Because they think it will get them votes.

I’m not going to say that Obama has never played the crowd before, but I’ve yet to hear him suggest any kind of legislation simply to get votes.  But that’s exactly what Clinton and McCain are doing and it’s so ridiculous, even more so because it just might work.

Even better, most economists have backed Obama on this, pointing out that any suspension of the gas tax would have little affect on the American public.  On top of that, environmentalists also back Obama, as lowering the price of gas even a bit would surely result in people buying more of it, instead of making the hard choices to move away from gas because prices are high.

While two candidates work to find a solution that will get them elected, one works to find a solution that will actually fix the problem.  And that’s the one I think should be in charge.

Lying For Dummies

Yes, it’s gotten so ridiculous that now even AP is pointing out when Hillary is lying.

From today’s story on oil and Hillary’s attack on Obama:

“When it came time to stand up against the oil companies, to stand against Dick Cheney’s energy bill, my opponent voted for it and I voted against it,” the New York senator said at a rally at Indiana University in Bloomington. “And that bill had billions of dollars in giveaways to the oil companies. It was the best bill that the energy companies could buy.”

The 2005 energy bill actually raised taxes on the oil and gas industry by about $300 million over 11 years, according to the Congressional Research Service.

End AP article quote.

Not to mention the fact that those additional taxes were earmarked for research into new fuel sources.

But, you know, why should she let things like the facts stop her.

Also, according to Hillary’s ad in Indiana, she’s suggesting we suspend the gas tax this summer.

Soooo…we’re going to give rebates to everyone AND suspend the gas tax…

So the government is going to GIVE money to everyone and then SUSPEND a rather large source of income?

You know, if I did something like that I’d end up in debt and probably homeless.

PA Thoughts

So in the end it appears that Hillary will walk away with a victory of just over 9 points, which is convenient, as that’s the number of delegates she’s gained on Obama, who will more than make up those nine delegates in NC, most likely.

Clinton’s victory was so small, in fact, that she is no longer able to catch Obama in pledge delegates, which leaves her with only the popular vote angle to rest on, and even that chance for success has gotten smaller.

Here are a few things I’ve taken away from the Keystone State:

1) I would love for just ONE of the two of them to point out that gun control and the 2nd amendment are not opposites.   In fact, the phrase “gun control” is meaningless unless there are, you know, GUNS TO CONTROL.  Personally, I’m anti-guns of all kind, but there IS a middle ground, people.

2) 15% of registered Democrats still believe that Obama is Muslim.  I point this out because I heard the “well, Obama outspent Clinton 3 to 1 in Pennsylvania and still lost” line.  The fact remains that Clinton has been in the national spotlight for 15 years.  Everyone knows her and most know what she’s about.  The fact that 15% of registered Democrats don’t know that Obama is a Christian is proof that he’s at a significant disadvantage just on familiarity alone.  So he has no choice but to spend more than Clinton; they’re not starting from even ground.

3) Only 37% of those who vote Democrat are white males, which means I’m a minority.  In fact, Bill Clinton didn’t win the white male vote in either general election.  Neither did Jimmy Carter.  So this big concern about whether or not white men will vote for Obama in the general election is silly.  He doesn’t need them to vote for him any more than they voted for Bill Clinton, and probably less, considering Obama’s ability to get people who don’t normally vote to actually turn up at the polls.

4) Obama pretty much had the worst few weeks of his political career leading up to Pennsylvania and he still cut Clinton’s lead in half.  That’s pretty amazing.

Two weeks until the North Carolina and Indiana primaries…

Genius

Click on “Genius” for a fantastic take on Bittergate from Jon Stewart.

Cling

I have no doubts that Obama is becoming more a politician every day.  But everyone once in a while, he goes back to simply be an observant, intelligent, curious human being, and when he speaks the thoughts that come with being such a person aloud, he finds himself in trouble.

Here’s the quote that got him into troube, as well as the paragraph before it:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Specifically, there are two words that have caused a stir: “bitter” and “cling.”

“Bitter” has actually struck a cord with people because Obama is exactly right.

“Cling” has been a problem, and Obama himself has said it was a poor choice, although recently he’s been pointing to this, which supports his point:

Romans 12:9: “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.”

And while I consider the folks at crooksandliars.com to be a bit too black and white about things, one of their bloggers (who prefaced her comments by giving her background, which involved growing up in a lower class town) made a very good point: Obama’s comments were only considered “elitist” by, well, the elite.  The people he’s actually talking about had no problems with it.

Because he’s right.

In that same speech, Obama also makes a point that people become so disenfranchised by what their government can accomplish with regards to their economic health, that they only vote on social issues.  And, in many ways, they’re simply letting their views be heard, they’re not really voting for any real actions.  It’s more like a survey than an election.

Think about it: how did Bush win a second term?  He made gay marriage an issue.  And yet how big of an issue is gay marriage in the daily lives of most Americans, particularly those in the heartland?

But most Americans don’t think their government can really help them.  And it’s been like that for years.  And they’re bitter.

Shocking, isn’t it, that there’s a politician out there who not only recognizes the situation, but actually speaks out about it?

Seats

I’m not one of those Obama backers who thinks that Clinton staying in the race is a big deal.  While I’d prefer if Obama got a jump on the general election, I don’t really think Hillary is hurting anyone other than herself.  Quite the contrary, in fact, I think that the old addage that “any press is good press” applies to the Democratic primaries.  There’s clearly far more interest in Obama and Hillary these days than there is in John McCain.

 It actually makes me cringe when I hear left wing pundits complain about the ongoing Democratic primary.  It would seem to me that those who are entrenched in politics forget what it’s like to be a regular person.  The average citizen doesn’t start paying attention to the issues of a general election this far in advance.  I mean, it’s only April – most people aren’t going to think about the general election SEVEN months before it happens.  Only those of us with too much free time are doing that.

I think August, September, and October will be plenty of time for the Democratic nominee to make a case against McCain, although I do expect this to be wrapped up by the end of June when the primaries are over.

And speaking of primaries and the convention in August, there was an interesting article in, I believe, the Atlantic a while back on Hillary’s desire to see the Michigan and Florida delegates seated.  She claims that not counting the votes in either states disenfranchises those voters and runs contrary to our system of democracy.

Clearly, however, it’s impossible to count those votes as is.  While you could argue about Florida until your blue in the face, Michigan is a cut and dried case — Obama wasn’t even on the ballot.  So a compromise has to happen, particularly if counting those votes IS so instrumental in maintaining our society.

Here are two ideas from that Atlantic article, neither of which Hillary has suggested, but both of which solve the problem, which she claims is so important.

The easiest and least likely, of course, would be for Hillary to drop out.  Then you can count those votes however you want because Obama would be the only remaining candidate.  Hell, you could give them all to Hillary and it wouldn’t matter because she’d no longer be running.  But if she cares so deeply about those votes counting, shouldn’t she be willing to make that sacrifice?  (Yes, that is tongue in cheek)

The second option is completely reasonable and solves the problem, but the Clinton campaign will never agree to it: split the vote.  Sure, you could argue that a percentage of Florida voters would be unhappy, but Hillary got 50% of the vote in Florida, so she’d be getting all the votes she supposedly “won.”  And those precious votes which are so important to maintaining our democracy would be counted.  As for Michigan, Hillary would actually lose some votes (she won with 55%), but considering Obama wasn’t even on the ballot it would seem reaonable to think that some of those people would have voted for him.

So there you go: Hillary’s impassioned pleas to have those votes count would finally be heard, our democracy would be saved, and the system would move foward as it was meant to.  All would be right with the world.

I wonder why Hillary won’t agree to a 50/50 split, then?  If the issue is as important as she makes it out to be, why not?

Oh, that’s right, I forgot: because she doesn’t care.  Sorry, rather she only cares about winning at any cost.  She could give a rat’s ass about those votes unless they give her an edge.

Every day she gets more and more talented at being disingenuous.  And I think that every day more and more people see that.

If this long primary is going to hurt anyone, I think it will be Hillary Clinton.

Bias My Rear End

Okay, so let me preface this by saying that I’ve had a few drinks this evening.  Politics strikes regardless of sobriety.

But this link on the Yahoo main page (which I’m sure will have changed by morning) just really blew my mind.

The headline on the Yahoo main page for the article linked above is “Clinton leads in polls in four Democratic primary states.”  Sounds like a big deal, yes?  Well, not really, considering the fact that there are 10 primaries left and Obama and Clinton are projected to split those evenly. 

Even better, one of the states included in this article is Kentucky, which votes May 20th, the same day as Oregon, which should go to Obama.  But, lo and behold, there’s no poll out from Oregon, so that state doesn’t get to be in the article.  In other words, of the six states that vote between now and May 20th, Clinton is projected to win four of those.  Even better is the fact that May 20th is over seven weeks away!

But that headline would make you think that Clinton campaign is just chalking up big victories left and right.

Even the most devout Clinton supporter has got to admit that the media is adding fuel to the fire that is the Democratic primary fight.  While the story before might have been the underdog Obama who came from nowhere to challenge for the nomination, the story now is very clearly “death match ‘08!”  And the only way to maintain that story is by building up Clinton in any way possible — because the facts (aka the math) would deflate any such story.

So for those keeping track, the media is no longer biased; I think that pendulum has swung both ways enough to call it even.