Tips for an interesting and civil discussion.

Who's right here?  Is the ad "deliberately dishonest"?  Does it matter?

Yes it matters - Considering Obama is trying to run a "new kind of politics"

There's nothing I enjoyed more than watching Obama use Krugman's words against Hillary.

It is all too predictable that Krugman went crawling to the Clinton campaign, crying and begging for forgiveness. But it's too late - he's dead to them - just another Judas who didn't tow the Clinton line 110% of the time with no expectation of any reward.

It's not like it would be the first time Obama incorrectly cited a source in order to deceive.  Does anyone remember "boon"?

He continued to misuse that quote months after the periodical had issued a direct admonishment of his deceiptive practices.

He says it like he sees it and when his words are mis-used and twisted (as in politics as usual), he's right to speak up.

'Course I'm sure no one at Obama Central will bother to listen...until, oh, say a week from now.

Hope.  Change.  Bullshit.

And I agree. I'm against the gas tax holiday, but the outrage Obama supporters are expressing is a little over the top.

Lord forbid that something or someone actually helps lower income white families...

The issue on this post is not about the gas tax holiday, even though you have to concede, if B O proposed it, voters still would benefit from not paying the tax as well.

But the issue is did Obama falsely claim Krugmans comments and wrongly accuse him of false claims against Hillary's plan.  And the issue is without a doubt YES, as he consistently does, including false NAFTA attacks ads and his rebirth of Harry and Louise to attack Hillary's Universal Health Care.

Does this matter?  Of course it does.  Especially if one wants to claim his campaign would be above such low and gutter politics.  Again something he false claims against Hillary, when it's Obama's own conduct and no one could claim, not honestly anyhow, that Hillary has resorted to these false claims of attack ads and mailers.  She has not mischaracterized Obama's policies or outright lie as he has.  And being one of Obama's attack themes is to always claim Hillary is doing the negative attacking, when it is him, and the media keeps riding the negative attcks, of course they should cover this............but, as Krugman points out, it's Obama doing it, so they probably won't.

Thanks for a thoughtful and civil post.  I think my position is pretty much the same as yours - I like the idea of a windfall profits tax, but think that the gas tax holiday is more problematic.  

I do worry about the impact of gas (AND FOOD) prices on my neighbors, but at least this stuff is happening in spring - the return of victory gardens, anyone?  I'm only half kidding.  I am definitely planting more vegetables this year.

See, I live in a rural state without much in the way of public transportation, where median incomes are still quite low and many people drive long distances to work.   Once example: last year through a volunteer project, I met a young woman from the southern coalfields who spend at least 6-8 months commuting 160 miles round trip from Williamson to Huntington to and from a $10 an hour telemarketing job.  Why?  - well, in Williamson she couldn't find anything earning more than the minimum wage, and nothing with benefits.  By the time I met her, she'd managed to scrape together enough money to make to Huntington and so no longer had that commute, but it took quite a while for her to save enough money for her damage and utility deposits and first month's rent. Oh, and by moving, she lost her mom as a built-in babysitter.   She was really driven, and managed to start college (part-time) last fall.  But imagine if gas prices had spiked like this before she had scraped together enough to cover her first month in a new place without much in the way of a support network?  How on earth could she justify the commute to her $10/hour job?  

There are just loads of people in my state and region who are on the sheer economic margins and who have long commutes not because they decided to move out into exurbs to afford a larger and newer McMansion with better granite and upgraded travertine, but because they can't afford to move, because they have deep family and cultural ties to their rural community, because they own a piece of land and a home that they couldn't sell even if they wanted to and couldn't scrape the means together to purchase something in a larger town, closer to work, because they have kids, friends, neighbors, parents, great-great-grandparents or even graveyards to tend.

Both Clinton and Obama have energy plans that will help these communities in the long term - right?  Increased fuel efficiency, more and more thorough research into viable and efficient biofuels, not limited to corn ethanol, et cetera, et cetera.  We're still hurting in the short term.  

I'm quite sure that I am more charitable to the candidate I support (Clinton), than I might otherwise be on the issue.  Specifically, if popular support for a temporary summer gas tax holiday meant that our politicos had to summon the political will to pass an excess profits tax on Big Oil in order to get a popular gas tax holiday passed (...with, as Sen. Obama joked back in 2000, big signs on every gas pump saying "Congress decreased your gas prices!" Heh.) it might be worthwhile - because the gas tax holiday would end at summer's end, while the excess profits tax would continue, and could be redirected to green energy, energy efficiency.  

Why do I get the Feeling Krugman got the same "intense" phone call Richardson did?

I think HRC sent Carville to rough up Krugman

I think Krugman will have a more favorable view of the gas tax. I wonder if he still think her Idea is pointless and dissapointing?

the Clintons do not play nice

1. Krugman, who wrote the article, is in a better position than anyone else to evaluate wether or not he is being used by the Obama campaign in an honest or dishonest manner.

2. To the extent that the Obama campaign is using Krugman's words to portray Clinton's gas tax holiday as harmful rather than merely useless, it is dishonest.

I think it matters in the same context that Obama uses his latest and most negative campaign ad to date to criticize negative campaign ads, a contradiction in terms which amounts to wanting to have it both ways, a tactic Obama has labeled politics as usual and says he rejects.

The idealistic and cerebrally abstract Obama is just as conflicted as anyone else would be when cast in the real life role of a politician in real political trouble, and just as daunted at the prospect of paying the price to remain true to those ideals.

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.

Now it's much more difficult to get an excess profits tax through Congress than it is to get a tax holiday passed. Therefore the most likely outcome of Clinton's proposal isn't that much different than McCain's - removing the federal excise tax will increase oil company profits.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/200 8/05/06/gas_tax/

the author makes some interesting points, including a brushing aside of the notion that a drop in price of 16 or so cents will so spur demand it will drive up prices.  He speculates it would take a 2 dollar drop to change demand enough for "supply and demand" to kick in, given our current gas reserves.

He also makes the point that while the AVERAGE American driver might only realize a $25 saving across the summer alot of heavy drivers would see a significant savings.  That would include those who commute from small towns and the exhurbs to job in the city who can't afford a hybrid, those who drive for a living like salesmen, agents, contractors and may independent businesspersons.

The last interesting point he makes is about the Illinois gas tax cut that Obama voted for three times then decided it was a bad idea.  The point is (Salon has the link) the Illinois tax holiday was a success.