Time for Hillary Rodham Clinton to Quit the Race

This is really embarrassing. Barack Obama needs to be the Democratic nominee.

Steve Benen writes:

Clinton, on the attack, takes to the airwaves on ‘gas-tax holiday’ - The Carpetbagger Report: It’s one thing for a good presidential candidate to embrace a bad idea. It’s worse when the candidate knows it’s a bad idea. It’s worse still when the candidate attacks her rival for failing to embrace a bad idea. And it’s the worst when the candidate feels so strongly about the bad idea that she starts running television commercials about it.

And that, unfortunately, is exactly what we have in the case of Hillary Clinton and the “gas-tax holiday.” Her campaign unveiled a new TV ad yesterday in North Carolina and Indiana attacking Obama for not supporting a temporary suspension of the 18.4-cent federal gas tax....

I don’t doubt that Clinton’s focus groups found all of this quite compelling.... But Clinton’s proposal has no merit, and would probably do nothing but boost the profits of oil companies. Clinton... no doubt knows this.... It’s rather transparent demagoguery. Worse, it’s crude and cheap demagoguery.

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw noted yesterday, “I don’t know any prominent economist who favors this McCain-Clinton proposal. More common is the reaction of a friend of mine (a veteran of the Clinton administration) who calls the idea ‘ludicrous.’”

Paul Krugman, usually a rather enthusiastic Clinton supporter, explains:

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....

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

Alex Koppelman reminds me that “political campaigns are rarely about the actual merits of policy proposals.” That’s painfully true. Demagoguery works. Playing on voters’ fears and ignorance works. Confusing the public with bad ideas that sound good works. But I really don’t think Clinton wants to win this way. She’s smarter and better than cheap pandering.

Worse, all of this reinforces Obama’s argument that he’s more honest, principled, and willing to tell people the truth, even when they don’t want to hear it. Obama wants to present himself as a “different kind of politician,” and Clinton’s gas-tax attacks are making it easier for him to do so.

I’m absolutely certain that McCain and Clinton know full well this gimmick wouldn’t do anything to help consumers, and may actually make matters worse by encouraging consumption, pushing prices higher.

They know this, but are pushing the idea anyway, hoping, cynically, that it will pay political dividends anyway. What a shame.

Comments

[trotsky]

OK, whatever the economic theory might say, it's plain that taxes make a difference. Here's a nice wrap-up from the Turkish newspaper "Today's Zaman" (Hey, my trusty assistant Mr. Google turned it up):

"The price of a liter of gas in Turkey is around $2.6, while it is $2.2 in Germany, $2.1 in France and England and $1.1 in Italy and Canada. The price of gas is around $0.8 per liter in the US."

If they cut taxes in Turkey, would it just pad the bottom line of the oil companies without helping consumers?

[Erik]

And you argue that we need to hand over MORE power to these lying bastards?

[grwmiow]

One of the consequences of equilibrium theory is that within free and competitive market there is no such thing as inelastic price. In application to the gas prices, the decrease in gas taxes cannot be completely assigned to one side - oil companies. The equilibrium theory is the base of modern macro economics to such extent that Krugman cant have it both ways - either gas tax holiday will make gas cheaper or the assumptions of his science make it completely irrelevant to the real world.

[RKKA]

"But I really don’t think Clinton wants to win this way."

I'm sure Stevenson didn't want to win this way. And he didn't.
I'm sure Humphrey didn't want to win this way. And he didn't.
I'm sure McGovern didn't want to win this way. And he didn't.
I'm sure Carter didn't want of be re-elected this way. And he wasn't.
I'm sure Mondale didn't want to win this way. And he didn't.
I'm sure Gore didn't want to win this way. And he didn't.
I'm sure Kerry didn't want to win this way. And he didn't.

All the rethuglicans who did win wanted to win. A lot. And they did.

McSame wants to win. A lot.
She wants to win. A lot.

We haven't seen how much Obama wants to win.

Fact is, you can't govern if you don't win.

[anne]

"Time for Hillary Rodham Clinton to Quit the Race"

Run Hillary run!

[anne]

Cut the gas-tax. I love Hillary for such spunk, spunk right on Hillary.

[kharris]

So, NPR interviewed a pollster this morning about the primary race. She was of the view - I know this is a radical notion but it's hers, not mine - that many members of the voting public think that in a race this close, voters in the remaining primary states ought to have a say in the outcome. Stupid, huh? A complete afront to our democratic tradition of letting interested partisans declare when enough is enough and ending the whole thing. Kinda like the Supreme court did a little over 7 years ago.

[me]

"We haven't seen how much Obama wants to win."

I think this turkey can be swift-boated right out of the water. His "reaching across the aisle" rhetoric is not for this cycle. 80% say the country is on the wrong track and he wants to be buddies with the republicans.

And brad, as a professor, I thought you understood math? 2000 delegates are needed to win and by my count, he doesn't have 2000. Do you typically end class when it is half over? Do you only read half of a book?

[Dude]

Jerry,

Points 3 and 4 are simply incorrect. Talk about objectivity.

[Alan]

Dude,

Point number 4 is supported. Talk about accuracy.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/poll_hillary_takes_slim_lead_i.php

[sfguy]

I believe that Brad's point is that when Hillary starts making nonsense, Republican-style arguments about gas taxes, it's time for her to get out of the Democratic race. We expect our Democratic leaders to be wise and win on the merits in the primary, not win any way they can. Energy policy is a critical issue for the future and Hillary has essentially adopted a Republican position here, i.e., one that makes little sense and does nothing to solve the problem, but represents a short term solution designed to get some votes. We don't need Hillary to be Bush III just because she wants to be President.

I like Hillary - I support her, although a lot less strongly than I did before she started making this idiotic gas tax argument.

[Doctor Jay]

I wish Hillary hadn't done that, too. We all know its a freebie, though, because there's no chance that it will be enacted, or even considered. Obama's use of Harry and Louise is far more damaging to health care politics than the gas tax holiday, it seems to me.

Nevertheless, I share the opinion that all the votes should be counted. This will be good for the Democrats in the fall. It's generating more interest in a presidential primary than I have seen in my lifetime. This will translate to better fundraising, and bigger coattails.

Hillary is the likely loser, but if she bows out after all the votes are counted, her supporters are more likely to support Obama, who will be percieved as beating her "fair and square".

[sfguy]

Doctor Jay,
I agree.

[Doctor Jay]

From http://mediamatters.org/columns/200804300001

And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

[bigTom]

Primary voters have been complaining that there is very little policy space between the two contenders. Now we have a clear difference. Krugman may think it is a minor issue, but dealing with peak oil issues is likely to be the most serious national challenge facing the next administration. It looks like a clear choice, one candidate wants to pander to the publics delusions of business as usual, and another who will speak to the adults about the difficult times ahead. Which approach do you think is going to serve us better?

[DeanMan]

Consider Hillary Clinton’s vote in 2002 authorizing Bush to attack Iraq in light of this continued pattern of shameful pandering.

Once again she is making critical decisions for our nation’s future on the basis of cynical political calculation rather than the policy merits.

[dennisS]

One of the things I loved about Bill Clinton is he had the skill and the integrity to undo the Big Lie of Reaganomics. Bush I (voodoo economics) failed, Mondale and Dukakis failed, Dole and McCain both gave up and so has Hillary. Dishonesty is a huge problem, and has had too long a run in the arena of budgets and taxes. This is a much bigger issue than Krugman allows. Big change is worth the gamble this time, and the odds Obama can pull it off are pretty good.

[Emma Anne]

"She was of the view - I know this is a radical notion but it's hers, not mine - that many members of the voting public think that in a race this close, voters in the remaining primary states ought to have a say in the outcome. Stupid, huh? "

That's sure my view. Perhaps it is because I originally supported Edwards, but I sure see a lot of usually cool and collected bloggers getting seriously overheated about this primary (on both sides). Chill guys! Let the people vote.

[anne]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gqwHepIYjhPydpA-F5CxVzaZGegg

April 29, 2008

Rising Gas Prices Americans' Top Economic Woe
By AFP

WASHINGTON — The spiraling cost of gasoline tops a long and growing list of Americans' economic woes....

Me, I like pandering....

[DeanMan]

Anne - You like pandering? You may as well say that like placebos as well as actual medication, or sugar-coated nutritionless snacks as much as fruit or vegetables

This country is in the mess it is in because of the short-sighted, cognitively-challenged views of people like yourself.

Have a nice day.

[Colin Danby]

What sfguy said.

Along the same lines Fish re Ayers: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/much-ado/

HRC has merits and a plausible case can be built around them. Instead we get this sort of thing.

Good for Krugman, anyway. I've been arguing throughout his feud with the BHO camp that, however cranky he gets, PK is worth engaging and adds value to the debate.

[mierardi]

"But I really don’t think Clinton wants to win this way. She’s smarter and better than cheap pandering."

A conclusion in search of evidence. As the comments above show, Hillary's supporters want her to win this way, or any way she can. They love the pandering because they think it will work. The only surprise here is that Brad doesn't think Hillary agrees with her supporters. If you have evidence, Brad, that Hillary is smarter and better, please give.

[Colin Danby]

Anne sometimes posts in less than total seriousness, DeanMan, and the danger now is that she'll retaliate by spamming the thread with 25 more wire stories about how people are distressed by high gas prices.

[jerry]

I LOVE THIS LONG PRIMARY. How many times have we let the media pick our candidates, and how many times have we seen the promising candidate forced out long before we got to vote? Even this primary had its two candidates chosen by the press. "The black guy and the vagina guy, that's who we want to do the stories on."

The process should be reformed yes, but reformed to make sure more primaries are held before candidates are forced to drop out.

On Diane Rehm this morning, I heard one analyst describing how over the summer this might return at most $100 to a family. And he described that $100 as trivial and ignorable. But $100 means quite a bit to many families. And compares reasonably well to the stimulus checks. And if the stimulus checks are a nice Keynsian response, why isn't the tax holiday (with windfall tax paygo replacement) described as a Keynsian response?

Other people scare us by saying a 3 month gas tax cut will cause bridges to fall. But the bridge fell any way when we had that gas tax in place. If the country thought we should spend on infrastructure, the stimulus checks would have gone to infrastructure projects. If the country didn't want bridges to fall, we would issue bonds to pay for infrastructure projects and could still have a tax cut. If the country didn't want bridges to fall, we could just deficit spend for the interim as we do with Iraq.

I see no evidence that a 3 month tax cut will or should cause bridges to fall.

Krugman forgot more on his first day in econ than I learned in my year of econ. Brad forgot more in his first week. But I thought the Keynesian response to depression was borrowing/spending our way out of it.

I think Clinton should have announced: gas tax cut and free weekdays at our National Parks and Monuments along with plans in her presidency to start a national infrastructure rebuilding project, and asking states to have plans ready to go for start within 90 days of the new administration.

[jerry]

Barack Obama doesn't pander, he just out and out rolls over to the folks that say, SSI is doomed, Single Payer Health Care is nonsense, and he and the country are post-racial (until he found out he wasn't and it wasn't).

With respect to the guy, most of his campaign has been based on the giant panders to the conservatives that he is post-partisan, and to so called educated, young, college folks that he is post-racial.

The folks who can see through that pander? There the ones he has having troubles getting to vote for him.

By the way, Earl Ofari Hutchinson has some interesting thoughts on Obama, dirty tactics, and pandering.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/ten-troubling-questions-i_b_94166.html
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Ten Troubling Questions I Asked Obama to Answer before McCain Asks Them - Politics on The Huffington Post

As well as in:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-should-be-the-last_b_96688.html
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Obama Should Be the Last One to Scream About GOP Dirty Tactics - The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-not-wright-is-obama_b_99294.html
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Obama, Not Wright, Is Obama's Worst Enemy - The Huffington Post

[me]

Delete my posts I unsubscribe from your blog.

[DeanMan]

The vote authorizing military action against Iraq was one of the most momentous and far-reaching in the history of the US Congress. As result of that decision the blood of thousands of Americans has been spilt and trillions in national treasure has been, and will continue to be, diverted from more worthy uses.

As a college student with an interest in Political Science during the Viet Nam war the parallels between the Iraq vote and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution should have been unescapble to Hillary Clinton. She should have known full well that Congress would be writing a blank check to one of the most untrustworthy and dangerous men to ever occupy the White House. Yet for no other plausible reason than cynical political calculation, she voted to give that blank check to George W Bush.

I can't help but see Hillary Clinton's pandering on the Gas Tax issue as a continuation of this harmful pattern of behavior. The decisions of a good President should be anchored in civic values and based on solid policy merits and empirical knowlege. Time and time again Senator Clinton's demostrates a willingness to override these in the interest of political gain.

[save_the_rustbelt]

If I understand the economists correctly, at a tax holiday they believe the oil companies will immediately in unison add .18 to the retail price of gasoline.

But of course there is no price fixing in retail gasoline. It is a free market.

[bob]

Yes, alas, Barak has pandered to some degree (e.g. support for ethanol fuel; exaggerating problems of Social Security; a too-conservative - though not Republican - Health Care plan). But these stands are mitigated (e.g. his energy positions do include many good ideas as well) -- does this compare with Hillary's over-the-top pandering (e.g. support for an anti-flag burning law, support for this idiotic scheme to cut federal gas taxes, and of course her enthusiastic support for the invasion of Iraq?) I don't think so; the difference is between Barak's s.o.p. politics and Hillary's sleaze.
I'd prefer somebody who would really talk sensibly to the American voters, but we won't have that this year. Given the choice we're left with, Obama is clearly the better choice.

[jerry]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/ten-troubling-questions-i_b_94166.html
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Ten Troubling Questions I Asked Obama to Answer before McCain Asks Them - Politics on The Huffington Post

Here are ten troubling questions for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama that he'd be wise to answer coming from me. If he's the Democratic presidential nominee you can bank that John McCain and the GOP truth squad will ask him them. The questions were sent directly to him at his national campaign headquarters Friday, March 28. The questions are not campaign rhetoric, gossip, and partisan allegations. They are fully documented, and totally a matter of public record. If Obama won't answer them, then the challenge is for his supporters to answer them point by point. This doesn't mean hurling the usual cheap shot, brainless, personal invectives, name calling, personal insults, or character assassination. This is no substitute for factual answers. The questions.

1. You stated that you were not in the Senate in October 2002 when President Bush rammed through Congress the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But you also stated that "perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence." This implies that you might have voted for the war if you had been in the Senate when the vote was taken. Why then do you condemn Hillary Clinton and other Senators who voted for the war authorization resolution when you admit the possibility that if you had been in the Senate you would have done the same?

2. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Foreign Relations you could have held oversight hearings, called witnesses and offered alternatives to Bush's disastrous efforts against A Qeada in Afghanistan. Your subcommittee held none and provided no alternatives to Bush policy that you condemn, why?

3. In the Senate you have one of the poorest attendance records, and you often simply vote present on thorny issues, why?

4. Senate Legislation was proposed to require nuclear giant, Exelon to make public disclosure of its radiation leaks. You did not fully support that requirement. Exelon has been identified as your fourth biggest campaign contributor. Why did you oppose the tougher regulatory proposal for Exelon?

... Heh Indeed. Read the whole thing.

[anne]

"As a college student with an interest in Political Science during the Viet Nam war the parallels between the Iraq vote and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution should have been unescapble to Hillary Clinton. She should have known full well that Congress would be writing a blank check to one of the most untrustworthy and dangerous men to ever occupy the White House. Yet for no other plausible reason than cynical political calculation, she voted to give that blank check to George W Bush."

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/04/paul-berman-is.html

April 1, 2008

For the record, I was in favor of the war on Iraq in the winter of 2003. I reasoned:

Condi Rice is not-stupid and not-malevolent, and is for the war.

Colin Powell is not-stupid and not-malevolent, and is for the war.

This means that even though the public intelligence is bs, that there must be solid evidence of an advanced nuclear program in Iraq and of a willingness to give serious weapons to terrorist groups--otherwise attacking Iraq while we have real enemies like Osama bin Laden running loose would be really stupid.

And although Bush is really stupid, not everyone in the administration is.

Wrong on all counts. I am very sorry.

I may be the stupidest man alive.

-- Brad DeLong

[anne]

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/28/headlines#14

April 28, 2008

Truckers Protest Rising Fuel Costs in D.C.
By Amy Goodman

Hundreds of truckers are converging on Washington, D.C. today to protest the high price of diesel fuel. * The price of diesel is now approaching $4.50 a gallon. Many of the truckers are calling for an investigation into oil company profits and government subsidies of the oil companies.

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042800787.html

[Clinton listens to, like, people.]

[anne]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gqwHepIYjhPydpA-F5CxVzaZGegg

April 29, 2008

Rising Gas Prices Americans' Top Economic Woe: Survey
By AFP

WASHINGTON — The spiraling cost of gasoline tops a long and growing list of Americans' economic woes....

[Clinton listens to, like, people.]

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/04/paul-berman-is.html

April 1, 2008

For the record, I was in favor of the war on Iraq in the winter of 2003. I reasoned:

Condi Rice is not-stupid and not-malevolent, and is for the war.

Colin Powell is not-stupid and not-malevolent, and is for the war.

This means that even though the public intelligence is bs, that there must be solid evidence of an advanced nuclear program in Iraq and of a willingness to give serious weapons to terrorist groups--otherwise attacking Iraq while we have real enemies like Osama bin Laden running loose would be really stupid.

And although Bush is really stupid, not everyone in the administration is.

Wrong on all counts. I am very sorry.

I may be the stupidest man alive.

-- Brad DeLong

[Clinton was wrong, too too too many were wrong.]

[anne]

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1525

May 3, 2007

Statement On Deauthorizing the War
By Hillary Clinton

U. S. Senate

Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day. Madam President, I yield the floor.

[Clinton will leave Iraq.]

[anne]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWMkqiZJ3tIyHnF1cQ5bpwyQ9c5AD90B9TDO0

April 28, 2008

Gasoline Prices Top Concerns Over Jobs, Health Troubles
By KEVIN FREKING – Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Paying for gasoline easily tops the list of economic woes facing families in the United States, according to a survey on how changes in the economy have affected people's lives.

About 44 percent of survey participants said paying for gasoline was a "serious problem" for them. Across all income levels, the cost of gas was the most frequently cited economic concern. The price of gas nationally averaged $3.60 a gallon on Monday, according to the Energy Department.

More than a quarter of households earning more than $75,000 a year described paying for gasoline as a serious problem. For those with incomes of less than $30,000, about 63 percent felt that way....

[Me, I like pandering....]

[david]

Clinton will leave Iraq just as soon as marriage is properly defended.

[christofay]

The DC madam hanged herself

There goes the last honest person in Washington

What worries me is Clinton's voting for Bush's pocket Iranian war resolution, the Kyl Lieberman Resolution

[dennisS]

Perhaps if Obama said "obliterate" more we could take him seriously. What a good word.

What a disconnect for people who'd like to see less beligerence in US foreign policy. Their domestic policies aren't far enough apart to worry about, even the health care difference. Their style differences are pretty big for everyone, but not the bi-partisan stuff, at least the fact that they both have bi-partisan streaks. (Which one of them is sitting down in backrooms with Murdoch and Scaife?) Where I see a big difference and a chance for big constructive change is in foreign policy. Chest-thumping rants on Syria, Iran, and Hamas get us nowhere. Obama's competitors should save their concentrated animus for Bin Laden, he deserves it and is a real threat. And, they should give us more honesty.

[DeanMan]

And whats up with Hillary Clinton hanging-out with the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife and Bill "Falafel" O'Reilly? It was Scaife who invented and promoted and diseminated every lurid, despicable smear directed against Mrs. Clinton and her husband during the nineties. He accused them of murdering Vince Foster, smuggling cocaine, and looting an S&L among other famous peices of garbage. Scaife is a deranged right-wing monster, why would she ever legitimize him by meeting with him, pretendg that he is a responsible publisher and have her photo taken with him.

I'm beginning to think she would pose with a life-size cut-out photo of Adolph Hitler if she thought that would win her votes.

The same can be said of Fox News, which for all practical purposes is the propaganda arm of the Republican party, and the enemy of the party she wants to have nominate her. Why would Clinton legitimize Fox or help support the illusion that Fox is an objective news source? In my opinion no Democrat should ever appear of Fox ever.

[jerry]

DeanMan, just a stylistic note. When ranting about the deranged evil insanity of others, it helps to keep your spelling and grammar errors below a half-dozen. Also, it's just a preference among many, but reaching out to Hitler, even a photograph of Hitler is at times considered counterproductive by many.

We can ignore Obama's appearing on Fox, because facts have little to do with rants, so it's really not an issue for you.

I hope that helps, best of luck to you, and 7/20/93, never forget!

[bob]

Regarding beligerence in foreign policy: what is up with HC's picks for top foreign policy advisors: Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke? Wasn't Darth Vader available?
With people like that telling her what to believe, you can count on insane beligerence.

[DeanMan]

Hillary stands head and shoulders above any Republican and there is no doubt that I will vote for her if she is the Party's nominee. However, I think her conduct during this contest for the nomination has been despicable and has diminished her and her husband.

Senator Clinton is an intelligent woman with a good grasp of policy issues. That's what makes it even more shocking for me when she is willing to abandon sensible policy positions for short-term political gain. Instead of showing off her greatest attribute, her intelligence and sensible policy positions she is behaving as if she is fearful to demonstrate these qualities and risk appearing "elitist". Would Senator Clinton be championing this gas tax holiday if this wasn;t an election year? I doubt it.

The contest for the nomination has opened up alarming social rifts and racial fisuures within the ranks of the Democratic party. Rather than move to heal those divides Hillary Clinton has gleefully and shamefully exploited them. This reminds me of Pat Buchanan's infamous advice to Richard Nixon, "Who cares if we tear the county in half, as long as we get the bigger half".

By appealing to the ignorance, prejudices and resentments of poorly educated, blue collar whites, the Senator Clinton risks alienating not only African-American and Hispanic voters, but the young voters who are flocking to the Democratic party and represent it's future.

I deeply and personally resent the term "elitist" and can only interpret it as an mean-spririted and gratuitous insult directed at anyone who bothers to think deeply about the important issues confronting this nation, even if it means challnging the conventional wisdom