What do you have to say about Hillary's "Nuclear Option"? The word is she plans a coup on the committee level, forcing the seating of MI and FL delegates to claim more delegates than her opponent. Aside from her giant cojones, how do you, her enthusiastic supporter, feel about a tactic that will destroy the party- and the new voters and a whole segment of Demoncratic voters (you know, those pesky black voters)? Do you think the party and the country can survive this kind of tactic?

How is this woman not a more horrible incarnation of GWB and his criminal gang? After all this is over, if this is the politics of the Democratic party, perhaps there is no hope and no change possible. I used to at least respect the Clintons. Now I despise them.

"ou should try to be a bit more informed about what you post. Sen. Obama voted to suspend the gas tax three times, now he is against it."

He learned from experience. HIllary has learned nothing.

He voted to repeal the tax, then voted to reinstate. He realized that the repeal did the consumer no good at all.

Why does Hillary reflexively support so many Republican programs?

Why didn't Hillary read the NIE before voting to give George the AUMF?

Her judgement is very bad, time and time again.

The remarkably stupid gas tax proposal, which is a gift of direct money to the oil companies, demonstrates the REMARKABLE contempt that Hillary has for normal people.

She believes that she can buy the vote of an ignorant, uninformed voter for the price of a bag of potato chips.

That is so demeaning and disdainful that it takes your breath away. It is one thing to spend good money for a vote. It shows huge contempt and hatred to try to buy a vote for $3, the amount a normal person will save on a fill-up BEFORE THE OIL COMPANIES RAISE PRICES.

It's a remarkably stupid idea, and demonstrates that Hillary cannot see beyond the end of her nose, strategically. She is a very bad long-term thinker and planner.

Hillary exhibits big, soft, dark...falsitudes. There is nothing courageous or ballsey in pandering and lying to the electorate. It takes real balls to be straight with us a la Senator Obama.

First of all, I'm inclined to agree with the analysis that the "gas tax holiday" is rank pandering as well as unsound policy.

AS I understand it, Clinton is proposing shifting the tax burden onto the oil companies through this "windfall profits" tax.

Is this fair?

One question, then, is then how she plans to spend the revenues from this "windfall profits" tax. Presumably (and I think I heard Clinton say this), the revenues collected above and beyond those currently used to fund roads will be spent on alternative energy development, etc. Is this correct?

The next question is, what is the likely long-term impact of lowering gas prices, because as I see it, we should be moving towards not away from higher gasoline prices, ones that more accurately reflect their environmental costs, the price of extraction, the foreign policy element involved in dealing with the middle east, etc.

So based on what I've managed to piece together, the real question is whether this "gas tax holiday" is compatible with the long-term goals of moving towards a "green economy," extracting America from untenable political relationships rooted in nothing but our dependence on oil, etc.

Is this a fair assessment of the issues at stake here?

Anyone?

Unfortunately, the editor hasn't shown a real willingness to confront the reality that some of the Clinton campaign's actions aren't just "tough" politics, but are the same politics of personal destruction that Bill used to condemn. Instead, her Hillary-blinders result in her honestly believing that Hillary's gross pandering and stubborn refusal to admit a mistake (the gas tax holiday), and her desperate attempt to round up a few more votes (trolling for old white guy votes on O'Reilly) are signs that Hillary has "balls."

Give me Obama's "audacity" over Hillary's "balls" anytime. Sometimes its a lot more courageous to not play the same old game.

I'll take Obama's audacity over Hillary's mendacity any old day!

Do all those men you know who love Hillary love her for her balls and the fortitude she demonstrated in casting those votes which have benefitted their fellow man (those members of the military, those who have lost their jobs, seen their standard of living decline, etc..?).

The next question is, what is the likely long-term impact of lowering gas prices, because as I see it, we should be moving towards not away from higher gasoline prices, ones that more accurately reflect their environmental costs, the price of extraction, the foreign policy element involved in dealing with the middle east, etc.

While I agree that gas prices should go up for any number of reasons, the mistake you're making here is assuming that the gas tax holiday would lower prices at the pump. It wouldn't. As with the sale of anything brought to market, the cost of making something is factored into the price at which it is sold. So, if they get charged .18 more for every gallon of gas they sell, they will add that in to the price at the pump. Outside of price controls and a state-run market, there is no way to avoid this outcome.

I realize that this is way off from the point of your question, and there's a lot to be discussed about sustainable energy, but it's important to keep in mind that the premise is logically flawed in an economics 101 kind of way. Not surprising, since it was an idea that John "I know nothing about economics" McCain came up with.

...because Joan Walsh sure loves sucking her dick.

As you requested, here are my comments:

1) The Marc Rich pardon was pretty sleazy and, though I had stuck with Bill Clinton all through the impeachment debacle, I finally felt he had really crossed a line here. However, Hillary Clinton didn't issue the pardon, so this point is immaterial re her candidacy.

2) The NYTimes has the clear option of asking for public records from any candidate, but the financial records you cite are not Hillary Clinton's. They are her husband's. So this point, too, is immaterial.

3) You see Hillary's statement about Bosnia as a blatant lie. The fact is she did travel to Bosnia of her own volition in dangerous times and conditions. Why not cite her for her courage and accept the strong possibility that she was very nervous upon landing and may actually have remembered the danger as being more immediate than it actually was? As it turns out, conditions upon her arrival were pretty darned close to what she described. Nevertheless, she has been beaten to death with her statement. Also, Obama has lied about or misrepresented many issues, some of them central to how voters might view his character. Do you hold Obama to the same tough standard? If not, why not?

4) I'm not aware of Hillary having 'forgotten' to read the 2002 NIE statement. I am aware that at the time of the Iraq vote, she represented the state of New York, which includes NYC, which incurred the brunt of 9/11 losses. This had to have been pretty fresh in her mind when the vote came up and may have had a lot to do with it. As far as Obama's pronouncement to the citizens of Ilinois re the advisability of the Iraq war: what did he have to lose by saying this? Nothing. As I stated before, Obama himself has said on more than one occasion (and written) that he does not know how he might have voted had he been in the US Senate. He may well have voted 'aye'. Why do you keep ignoring the latter possibility? And why have the media repeatedly allowed Obama to skate on this, as the war vote was all important re how Obama defined himself in opposition to Clinton?