digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Hillary Attacks Economists as being "Elite"

huffingtonpost.com — She continued the line of attack, criticizing "this mindset where elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans." But one member of the town hall was unconvinced. When given the chance to ask a question, a woman told her: "Call me crazy but I listen to economists because they know

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • thirdcoastborn, on 05/05/2008, -11/+171She is a very sad, desperate little lady.
    • dBass, on 05/05/2008, -4/+26"lady"?
      • sweetholymosiah, on 05/05/2008, -11/+2you sexist bastard!
      • Jamma27, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1It depends on what he thinks the meaning of "is" is
    • TheThirdLevel, on 05/05/2008, -6/+6I don't think she even categorizes into our species.
    • consonance, on 05/05/2008, -1/+44Hillary is like a little child. It's as if a schoolmate corrected her on an arithmetic problem and she responded, "Oh yeah? Well you're STUPID!"

      Now just replace the word "stupid" with "elitist" and you have her defense of her gas tax holiday.
      • jforjools, on 05/05/2008, -0/+18It's no longer: "It's the economy, stupid."

        It's now: "Economists are just STUPID."

        (And then I think she sticks out here tongue and crosses her eyes.)
        • tharju, on 05/05/2008, -1/+19i don't think we need another president who goes with their guts instead of consulting with the respective specialists. The statement may appeal to some stupid white trashes in rural area who has the direct line to god.
          • chaosium, on 05/05/2008, -1/+7Oh great, now we've got Democratic Bush2.0 and Republican Bush2.0 if Obama fails.
    • kelalo, on 05/05/2008, -2/+19Well, she was educated at Wellesley. That was practically a finishing school a couple years before she graduated, right? Bet they churned out "ladies."

      Okay, that was a lame attempt at bringing up the fact that if anyone is a member of the "Elite" in this Democratic primary, it's the woman with the millions of dollars, a resume that says "corporate lawyer for Walmart" and a hubby who was the freaking POTUS.
      • poxonyou, on 05/05/2008, -2/+8Repeat a lie enough times, and it becomes truth.
        She is manipulating the elderly and poorly educated white voters who do not have the desire or access to find out what is the truth. If she repeats someone is elite enough,that she is pro-working class enough, they just begin to believe it. She says that, but she does not bring up her privileges and history and rarely does the media.
    • aaaleman, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4... who often calls the kettle black.
    • formulathree, on 05/05/2008, -6/+1And you're a very sad little old man.
    • slaizer, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3No, she isn't. Well... ok, she is, but this time she's just her normal cold and calculative self and doing this only as a popularity stunt.

      It's all doublespeak and image building. She knows she hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell to get that reform through Congress and other needed legislative branches. No way in hell, nobody's backing her up. So it's a free ticket to say whatever she pleases, look like a martyr struggling for "a good cause" and middle-class rights, while bashing the establishment (siding up with "the people" to polish her image as a people's woman) for ignoring them, which is kind of retarded, since the Clinton family if anything is part of the establishment.

      She loses nothing because she knows she doesn't have to keep those promises, it's a win-win situation for her. Politics as usual. I'm sick of this *****.
    • Shuukyoku, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8Barack, "My opponent has no proof that her "Gas Tax Holiday" idea that she stole from the Republican candidate will do anything to stave off rising gas prices. Not a single economist backs this plan."
      Hillary, "The economists are the problem. My opponent supports economists! Do you want people who know how to deal with money writing YOUR nation's budget?!"
      ...yes please.
    • skcoder, on 05/05/2008, -9/+0When you're done suckling off Obama's taint maybe we can finally talk politics.
      • jsmith39, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2Ok, I'm done. Let's talk.... Whatcha got?
  • cg4et, on 05/05/2008, -4/+181I liked the question from the women who said she listens to economists even though she makes less than $25,000 a year.

    I guess she must be a minimum wage elitist.
    • JekJob, on 05/05/2008, -0/+29Was that part of the article deleted? I can't find it....unless I'm blind?
      • cg4et, on 05/05/2008, -1/+43No, sorry. I was referring to a question from an audience member during the broadcast of the "Town Hall" meeting. I should have been more clear.
      • JekJob, on 05/05/2008, -0/+21Oh okay, thanks, I didn't realize it wasn't in the article even though it was in the description above ^.
      • a6n28f, on 05/05/2008, -2/+48Okay, what the hell you two? Nobody's this civil on digg!! JekJob, you're supposed to call cg4et a douchebag and question his intelligence as well as sexual preference. cg4et, in turn, is supposed to cast doubt on JekJob's maternal lineage. Jeez!
        • consonance, on 05/05/2008, -1/+15Oh, you'd like to see an insult, would you? Um, alright, here goes.

          a6n28f, you're a frankfurter.

          There. I hope you're happy; that took a lot out of me.
          • sephiroth965, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2That's not an insult. It's a line from Rocky Horror Picture Show.
        • Wiwoz, on 05/05/2008, -1/+12Oh fiddlesticks, you've gone and brightened my day you... you lot of RASCALS, you!
        • TheJeffer, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5I'll be darned. You little scallywags are quite the precocious little ragamuffins, aren't you?
      • Darksoul, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4Dammit you two I agree with a6n28f you are throwing off the natural balance on digg. *starts to hyper ventilate" how could you *breathing* omfg *passes out*.
      • JekJob, on 05/05/2008, -5/+1Oh gawsh...

        Frankfurter is derogatory.
      • kyyled, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3This entire thread makes me smile.
    • drband36, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8I think, in Hillary's "I'm talking to blue collar people" mindset, elite can mean either rich, educated, or both. In this case, probably mostly "educated".

      Of course, her tens of million$ in assets and her JD aren't something she puts on the table. She's as "elite" as 90% of the people in any room on the campaign trail.




      • lordno, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I actually had a Hillary supporter tell me that her father was a blue collar worker because he made $219k and Hillary says anyone making less than $250k is in the working class, so he is poor. He is a damn attorney!
        • jsmith39, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Great, that means I'm never going to be white collar, 200 was my 'I'm now rich' goal.
          *****.
      • motivatedmama, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Real blue collar worker here, and I've known she's full of ***** for months now.
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4When you've already made a fortune by ripping off old folks with real estate and engaging in insider trading, who needs more than $25k a year?
    • ornitier, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0NYTimes article mentioning the lady earning less than $25,000
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/us/politics/04cn ...

      Ironic thing is, she calls the economists elitists, but responds to this lady saying that she listens to the economists.

  • jbdobd, on 05/05/2008, -2/+106Hillary listens to Hillary. No one matters to her, except herself.
    • suezach08, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3She is so yesterday!!!!
    • msjentay, on 05/05/2008, -2/+34Sound familiar? Sounds like Bush to me...
      • subterfuge, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8i seem to remember stories about hillary voting for domestic spying programs and funding for the war and all manner of bushbills. have these stories any credence? if so, she sounds like a bush who wants to raise taxes. not exactly an enticing candidate!
      • headzoo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6It's exactly like Bush. He ignores good advice, and goes his own way, and he surrounds himself with yes men.
      • elnerdo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4No way! George listens directly to GOD!
    • subterfuge, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8actually, i'm sure there are a horrifyingly large number of people out there who will inhale everything she says and believe it to be truth, for dumb reasons such as her being a woman or their favorite democratic candidate. it's called "the jesus effect".
      • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5exactly. and people say that Obama followers are blind. sheesh!
        • InnerRayg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Any one who just "follows" is blind, my friend. Goes for NeoCons and ardent Liberals alike. Stick to the party script and prove your own ineptitude, I say.
    • jpstanle, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6It's not about listening to economists. I'm sure *she* knows a gas tax holiday is stupid. What she is banking on though, is that the average blue collar American will not understand *why* it is a bad idea. They will hear 'gas tax holiday,' and think 'Woohoo! She wants to make gas cheap, so I can fill up my Tahoe for pocket change!' She is also banking on the bill never making it through congress; if it never happens, the general public will never realize what an utter disaster it would have been. Then later, she can point to her vote on it and say, "See?! I tried to help you!"
      It's a shameless use of pseudo-populism to pull in working class votes.
      • redleviathan69, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0Like Obama says, "It's simply to next through the next election"
      • jsmith39, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Thing I love most about the holiday concept is it saves what 17 cents a gallon? I fill up once a week on a 20 gallon tank, so... assuming the retailers actually give me the discount I save $3.40 a week, so $13.60 a month on average. I'm not so broke that saving $13 seems like a big deal to me, so I'm not sure why people are so excited over this obviously unsustainable holiday idea.
    • indigothirdeye, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2She listens to Karl Rove and the other PNAC Neo-Conservative advisors that have been influencing or running this country for decades. That's why she says she's the only one that can beat McCain. If it were those two in the running for President, the PNAC Neo-Cons will win no matter which side gets the majority, giving you the impression that you have a choice. More of the same. The United States of Fascism.
      • ultimateMJ, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0Does Major League Baseball factor into this at all? Maybe I should start wearing a foil hat.
        • kemp34, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Anybody who brings up tin foil hat so cavalierly likely has head-in-sand-syndrome.
    • gypsi, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"God Bless Us" - hc to bill o'reilly
  • barbiesnow, on 05/05/2008, -1/+29She sure waffled and bobbed and weaved on that one...come on Hillary..no one in Congress is going to vote for that this summer....except you.
    • headzoo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9Maybe that's the point. When the idea gets shot down, she can say, "See? I tried to help all the hard working, middle class Americans, and congress blocked me". And since it will have been blocked, no one will get the chance to see what an enormous failure it would have been.
  • mimundo, on 05/05/2008, -4/+90So there it is, Hillary is like GW Bush. Like Bush she discounts the opinions and research of professionals. Not one economist nor environmentalist agrees with Hillary's so called "gas tax holiday". Furthermore, she is playing the voters of NC and IN for fools. She has to have support of the House, Senate and the President for her proposal in order to pass it. I gaurantee you she does not have that support.

    • Picaroon, on 05/05/2008, -2/+6Actually, she isn't. Most of her economic policies don't really line up--look at Social Security, trade, taxation, fiscal policies behind social programs, etc. He's for free trade (which economists will tell you is a good thing) and she isn't.
      • subterfuge, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2obama claimed that the way to fix social security is to tax the upper income bracket more, which makes sense because in 100 years people are going to be living to be 150 years old and beyond, and collecting social security for the majority of their lives. the obvious solution is to make the age at which social security is collected a variable that is dependent on the current average lifespan. i can't believe obama doesnt see that.
        • bjornski, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6Plus raising the cap at which Social Security is stopped being deducted from your income.

          No more of this $98k crap (it may have changed, I'd have to look). If you make $250k a year, you should pay SS deductions on ALL of that income, unless you only want to claim the same SS benefits as someone who made $98l.

          Honestly, SS wasn't meant to be a retirement plan. If you make over a certain income AFTER retirement, there's no reason you should be collecting at all.
          • mbraynard, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1'SS wasn't meant to be a retirement plan' - no, it very much was. You want to turn it into a welfare plan.

            The reason you only pay on the first 100k or so is because the benefits pay out on a formula based on what you put in. So taxing up to 250K (or name some other amount you will never in your life earn, you socialist punk) will mean the government will have to pay out more later.

            People can invest their SS money with a higher return than the government can. So REDUCE the amount people are taxed and let them invest it, growing their own wealth and increasing the strength of the economy.

    • thedeadwalrus, on 05/05/2008, -2/+13George should have stopped her 10 seconds into her answer and said, "Whoa whoa whoa ... wait a second - is the problem really that Bush has been listening to 'elitists' in formulating his policies, or is the problem that Bush has ignored people who knew what they were talking about, called them 'elitists,' and done his own dumbass thing regardless of what they say?"

      My guess is he would have gotten a round of applause. Hillary is a ***** lying power-hungry she-bitch whore.
      • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8But then George 'Clinton Whipping Boy' Stephanopolis wouldn't get his biscuit treat!
    • mbraynard, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2You are projecting incorrectly on one hand and making a silly statement on the other.

      'Environmentalists' oppose anything that lowers the price of oil or increases oil consumption. So duh.

      And what the economists disagree with isn't a moratorium on the gas tax (it's not even something that can be disagreed with - it will lower the price of fuel just as surely as raising the gas tax will increase the cost). What the economists disagree with is the OTHER part of her plan - a windfall tax on oil companies. And Obama doesn't actually disagree with THAT part of her plan.
      • Risingashes, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9Um no- economists disagree with the lowering the tax making an equal difference to the price.

        If you take 18 cents off the price then to maximise profit companies would be best to raise the price 18c back to the original price as well.

        That's why the plan is stupid. It's actually so stupid that economists (a group that hardly ever agree on anything) actually agree.
        • dexter411, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Do you not understand how a free market economy works?

          The dumb part of her idea, as stated above, is the windfall profits tax. Carter tried it in the '80s and prices went up as production decreased.
        • thedeadwalrus, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Apparently YOU do not understand how a free market economy works:

          Exactly like Risingashes stated, when price drops, demand will pick up AND PRICE WILL GO UP until an equilibrium is reached. THAT is the stupid part of her plan - taking away the tax will make prices drop - until they raise right back up nearly instantly as demand picks up. Then that 18 cents will go directly to the oil companies instead of to the US treasury. Creating a windfall tax after that will merely take back the extra money that the oil companies had been making - so THAT is the pointless part.

          Read something before chiming in with your expertise.
          • mbraynard, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2The only reason demand would pick up is if the price decreased. Demand for oil is relatively inflexible.

            If what you are saying is correct, than why not increase the gas tax $1 - since it apparently makes no difference to consumers?
          • ultimateMJ, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0If producers can raise the price of goods at will, why would they only raise the price to pre-tax holiday levels? If deadwalrus is correct, the gas companies would just keep raising the price until gas was $10/gallon.

            Except thats not how it works. Because gas stations face a lot of competition. And consumers tend to check around for cheap gas stations and support them, so any gas stations not engaging in price gouging would get all the business.
          • dexter411, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Exactly. Competition between Shell and the Citgo across the street would have a very real effect on pricing. I for one, looking at the graphs released by the White House showing gasoline consumption vs. price simply don't buy that an 18 cent increase would raise demand as much as some people think. 20 cents in two weeks has had almost no effect.
          • thedeadwalrus, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Have any of you bothered to learn any microeconomics concepts before blathering? If price drops, demand goes up. Gas demand is relatively inelastic - not inelastic. This means people do use less gas when the price increases (which they most definitely do - look up some stats). When demand goes up, producers can increase the prices to maximize their profits. As they raise prices, demand will drop. There is an EQUILIBRIUM point where the companies would start losing money if they raised prices any more. Let's say the equilibrium with an 18 cent tax is $4.18 - by dropping the tax by 18 cents, oil companies will simply increase their price to $4.18 to meet the equilibrium to maximize profits (Since the prior equilibrium was $4.18, this implies that any price above this will make them less money because of dropping demand).

            Now - what would be a smart policy for our country? Maybe you guessed it - but I doubt it. Raising the gas tax. Surprised? If they raised it to $1, what would happen? At first demand will start to drop, then prices will drop as a new equilibrium is found. If demand were perfectly elastic it would drop to $4.18 again, and oil companies would only get $3.18 in profits per gallon of gas. Now, demand is not perfectly elastic, so the price would probably end up somewhere around $5. But, this would have the added effect of increasing the federal budget while curbing gas consumption and driving people to more fuel efficient habits and smaller cars.

            Its tax effects in Econ 101. Again, read before you spout off. There's a cool site called Wikipedia that has all this neat info in it - check it out sometime.
          • dexter411, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Fundamental problem with your argument: you use the assumptions that undergraduate textbooks in economics courses make in assuming a readily-available product with simple supply and demand curves. If we drilled for oil in the United States, we wouldn't be paying $120 / barrel (ask Venezuelans who pay something like 30 cents for a gallon of gas), so nice try. Alas, government efforts to control prices (as you can check with anyone who has knowledge on Soviet-era economic practices can tell you) through taxes and tariffs simply don't work. Lower prices by increasing supply domestically and then developing alternative energy.
          • thedeadwalrus, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Dexter, you just love to talk about things you know nothing about. Oil production peaked in the US in the 70s, and we've been importing a massive amount since:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Oil_Producti ...

            In addition, there is not enough oil in Alaska to make a significant difference (estimates range from 50 cents a gallon less than it is now to no difference):
            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

            Meanwhile Venezuela has 80 billion barrels of oil and exports 2.2 million a day:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Venezuel ...
            And Saudi Arabia exports 4 billion barrels a year. The US total is less than 21 billion barrels - and we consume 20 million barrels PER DAY. Hmm ... let's see - by my calculation we would use every last drop in less than 3 years. Not to mention is would be impossible to extract that much that quickly.

            Everything you have stated contradicts agreed upon facts. You know nothing about economics or even basic micro. Every economist in the world disagrees with you. To summarize - you are a ***** idiot, and I'm done arguing with you.

          • ultimateMJ, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Using your example of $4.18/gallon with the tax, I have trouble believing that the price without tax will conveniently raise back to $4.18. Obviously it will be above the $4/gallon mark because of increased demand, but I want to see a good explanation for why demand will increase the price the exact amount of the tax.

            Also, even if the tax-free price rose back to $4.18, more gas is being sold at that price than with the tax, and more people are driving more miles. Personally, I don't see that as a benefit, but many Americans might.

            And if you decide to respond, lets bring the debate back to a civil level. Some of us have studied micro and macro, and all the "***** idiot" talk is a bit over the top.

            On a side note, I would love to see a $1/gallon tax, if not more.
      • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Why would a temporary moratorium on the gas tax lower the price at the pump? Not only is it something that CAN be disagreed with, it's something that CANNOT be agreed with. What incentive would gas companies have to lower prices? They pay less to get the gas to the pump, you pay the same to get it, they make more money. You really think they'll be so altruistic as to lower prices? And then, when the moratorium is over, everyone will be expecting the price to jump up $.18, so why would they disappoint everyone? So then after the summer of more profits for the gas companies they just up the price and keep on raping us at the pump. The moratorium doesn't solve a single problem, and I'm pretty sure every economist in the world would agree with that.
        • dexter411, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1"What incentive would gas companies have to lower prices?"

          I'd assume the whole, "If we lower our price by 10 cents, we'll make a killing" part. Free market economies are jolly, no?
          • ChildeRoland420, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Except this lowering of gas taxes comes along with a raising of gas company taxes. The oil companies will just pass along the increased cost of doing business to the customers.
          • dexter411, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1"Except this lowering of gas taxes comes along with a raising of gas company taxes."

            Except that John McCain wouldn't raise taxes.
  • dn11, on 05/05/2008, -3/+41Pathetic.
    • subterfuge, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2i think democratic candidates are interesting in terms of political evolution. many times you hear them talking about the rich with a negative connotation and insist that raising taxes on the rich will fix most or all funding problems, yet they themselves are rich [at the present and to the extent of my knowledge]. i suppose this makes sense because even though their own personal taxes may be raised, they will be the most powerful human on earth. aside from the guy who's fooling around with the smallpox virus in a lab, of course.
  • msjentay, on 05/05/2008, -1/+42Forget the gas tax holiday. SHE should take the holiday!
  • guitarplayer673, on 05/05/2008, -2/+44A gas tax holiday is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. We're trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, so we're going to lower the price so that everyone can afford buy more of it? How does that make sense to anyone? As for Hillary's comment on economists being elite, this is just as bad as John Duncan saying that it is elite for people with academic degrees in health to think they know more about sex education than parents.
    • mikelist, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1dude, i don't want to scare anyone, but isn't that the kind of thing that nearly bankrupt companies do with prepaid gift cards to prop up sales while they look for a buyer? ni hao?
    • subterfuge, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3arent most democrats pro-alternative energies? arent most democrats anti-tax cuts? o, lol sry, i forgot hillary's not a democrat!
      • dexter411, on 05/05/2008, -1/+11) Alternative energy is great, but I don't understand why Democrats wouldn't want to get America independent of foreign oil first. Drill in the United States, get an extra few hundred billion gallons of oil (i.e. shore up a big national security threat), and then deal with clean fuels.

        2) So you're saying straight off that part of the Democratic platform is taxing the people more? Well played...
    • Berkana, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1What will happen if they do pass a tax holiday is that people will surge out to get gas, driving up demand, which will drive prices right back up to what the prices would have been without the tax holiday. And instead of the money going to fund what the taxes would have funded, the money goes into the coffers of the oil companies. Pure idiocy!
  • Scopitone, on 05/05/2008, -1/+116"name a credible economist that has backed your idea "

    "Well uh, I'm not into the whole math and numbers thing and I think it's elitist to kno..."

    "So none. You can just say none"
    • jforjools, on 05/05/2008, -1/+18Name one NEUROSURGEON who will agree to remove this brain tumor.

      "Well, uh, I'm not into the whole expert elitist neurosurgeon thingie, 'you know'.

      Well, I guess I'll just settle for this tree surgeon."
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/05/2008, -13/+5It's just like Ron Paul supporters!
      • WolverineBlue, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Assuming you don't count everyone in the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
        • diggrnumber1, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1who are a tiny minority of economists
        • diggrnumber1, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4it is somewhat telling that the president of that institute has a degree in ENGLISH, not economics
        • kemp34, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Without a degree in economics there is no way to learn the subject. /s
          Most of the slop I learned in my economics courses was in fact easily refutable crap.
  • peticsu, on 05/05/2008, -1/+44that son of a bitch elitist Adam Smith!
    • Scottievm, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3Oddly enough, Smith was a bit of an elitist. Not quite of an elitist as Hillary though...
      • LBobRife, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10What's wrong with being elitist? They're not "down to earth people" like the rest of us? Give me a break.
        • Spottswood, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6Wtf does elitist even mean? When someone with knowledge and experience agrees with a politician their wisdom is revered. When someone with knowledge and experience disagrees with a politician theyre denounced as elitist.
        • InnerRayg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Elitist is meant to imply someone enamored with wealth to such an extent that they do not understand the problems of the poor or middle class and focus only on improving their own lives, a'la the 1920s. Somehow elitist has also come to be a synonym for "College-graduate", since everyone knows getting a degree guarantees you money (sarcasm)
    • subterfuge, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8seriously! the majority of the free world adopted his system of economics, and what has it done for us beside give us enormous increases in standard of living, huge technological advancements, and a consumer-driven market where greedy corporations have to compete for sales?!

      /monty python reference
    • NSResponder, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3Damn those economists who like to flaunt their grasp of the obvious!

      -jcr
  • GhostyBoy, on 05/05/2008, -2/+170Hillary, do you seriously think we are retarded? Shut the hell up about people being "elite".

    YOUR HUSBAND WAS THE PRESIDENT AND YOU ARE A MILLIONAIRE.

    • kinerry, on 05/05/2008, -0/+19the correct term is "centa-millionaire"
    • kemp34, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Also, went to Yale, also a member of the Bilderbergs. This chick's entire resume could say "ELITE".
  • leontes, on 05/05/2008, -5/+34Could we stop with using the word elitist as a pejorative? Quotidian wisdom is fine and dandy, but you really don't want rabble theorizing about economic outcomes. I want my goddamn elitists. We've had someone who epitomizes the classic non-elitist in the white house for the last seven years and we know he hasn't worked out well.
    • kelalo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+15No kidding. Turning "elitist" into a bad word is just another attempt to scrabble for the votes of the working class. Personally, I want someone who is elite to be running the country... By all means, the more education the better.
    • subterfuge, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4digg agrees with you, but i'm not too sure about the rest of the american public. unfortunately.
    • quetzzz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Dugg for sweet big words.
    • KILLnwoPLANS, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2leontes and kealo - elite has nothing to do with years of education... in the BIG money - power - globalization sphere, it's all about control. How many Bentleys can one drive at a time? (Or be driven in, excuse me.)

      HilLIARy will be our next Decider in Chief, because that is who David Rockefeller wants in the slot for the next 4 years.

      Please go to bradblog and read my comment about the Sequoia e-voting machines in NJ - supposedly implanted by Obama's people...
  • AntiMud2008, on 05/05/2008, -4/+21She truly is out of her mind. IT IS THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!! and who studies the economy????? Apparently Hillary...WTF??? Although watching her rant on the stump about this is quite interesting. Time to make noise people....and write to all those people she calls fools in Washington to get them to line up behind Obama.
    Clinton is more likely to lead a 3rd Bush presidency then McCain...Think about it Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. She is a closet republican......no WAIT....Stop the PRESSES....I would say she is a true blooded Corporate Theocrat
    Wake up America.............DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS WOMAN!!! The Wrong Woman is not the RIGHT ANSWER.
    Believe me.....I will be the first person standing in line to vote for a woman for president....but that woman has to be honest and have integrity. Clinton has neither. She is interested in promoting herself and the corporate doctrine that we have been living under for nearly a quarter of a century. Just think about how many favors Bill has to repay once Hillary is elected.
    • breadfred, on 05/05/2008, -3/+6I find it amazing that her hubby did comparatively well with such an idiot power hungry wife.
      • WasntMe, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2He got some on the side, kept his marriage going. And the country.
    • Spottswood, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Its amazing how ppl never get tired of preaching to the choir. This is digg, your words are wasted.
      I agree with your emotional sentiment but not with the ridiculously overdramatic way you've pitched it. Too much caps lock sensationalism and dumbed down criticism.
      On the other hand, maybe im just being too 'elitist'.
    • Spottswood, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2And also, 'corporate theocrat'?! Who's ass did u pull that out of? She's a closet atheist. Always has been, always will be.
    • Gorgamel, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4Took me about .8 seconds to glance at your sentence structure and grammar before clicking the 'thumbs down'. Like SERIOUSLY!!!!! WTF???OMG/.
  • glibpaxman, on 05/05/2008, -1/+83is it just me or is anyone who disagrees with Hillary considered elitist these days?
    • BishkekBuddy, on 05/05/2008, -0/+15We also don't count! (I'm from a caucus state...)
    • headzoo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9Elitist is the new unpatriotic.
    • stalzdiggity, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6youre just saying that because youre an elitist
    • zacharytelschow, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Hillary has a lot of idiotic economic ideas, from getting rid of the gas tax temporarily to banning foreclosures to freezing interest rates. None of them has a chance to work, and if me saying so makes me elitist, so be it.
  • Carv, on 05/05/2008, -0/+69*Sigh*...We just had eight years of anyone who "knows stuff" being called elite and shunned away. No more, please.
    • TheDarkstarter, on 05/05/2008, -0/+14Yeah, no kidding, after eight years of a dumbass for president, I think we need an elite president. And by elite, I mean well educated, honest, eloquent, etc.
  • alexm1309, on 05/05/2008, -15/+1Just another ploy to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job.
    • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4If anything it proves that our leaders are too ***** retarded to understand something so complex, much less pull it off.
  • evilcaptain, on 05/05/2008, -12/+1Economists miss out altruism from their calculations :(
    • rebotfc, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Altruism = Inflation
    • evilcaptain, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
    • unpolloloco, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5so altruism is increasing gas prices for a couple of weeks in order to cut them by 20 cents a gallon for one day? And at the cost of 9 BILLION dollars in lost tax revenue, which will simply be printed to make up the shortfall, thereby further increasing inflation???
    • sovereign3, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6Economist use data that focuses on reality, while politicians feign altruism to gain a vote.
    • sadfly, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I guess cutting gas taxes that have absolutely no effect on the price of gasoline and are subsidies for the oil companies is altruistic. I think that the altruism might be directed towards the wrong people though :(.
  • airwalkery2k, on 05/05/2008, -1/+56Hillary said of Obama, "He would rather side with the oil companies over the interest of middle-class families."

    That makes no sense. I want her to explain this. How does a corporation benefit from the taxes on its product? That higher price drives down demand. Getting rid of the tax would drive up demand and actually benefit oil companies.

    Next she's going to tell us about how getting rid of the tax on cigarettes will reduce chain smoking.
    • ralphodog, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1He plan included a tax on oil profits to make up for the lost revenue, which is probably where that comment comes from. There are plenty of problems wrong with this plan and her delivery of it, no need to make any up.
      • airwalkery2k, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3I see. Well, that's silly. It's just hiding an already hidden tax. The oil companies would simply raise their prices by the amount they are taxed. That wouldn't even save the 30 cents a day Hillary touts. It would result in zilch created but political points.
    • redleviathan69, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4No, since oil is an inelastic product (meaning that price does not really influence demand. we need it now, you can't put off going to work), the demand would not increase. what would happen is that we would stop seeing revenue to fix roads, and put those people out of work. then, truckers would have ***** roads and have to drive in the wilderness. Then we kill the forests. Now, I ask you, why would Hillary want to kill the environment? Because she's a crab person......
    • motivatedmama, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Will someone please get Hillary a cup of coffee. She's not thinking too clearly.
  • jforjools, on 05/05/2008, -0/+25Hillary turns the old phrase "it's the economy, stupid" to:

    "Economists are just stupid."

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    "When asked to name a credible economist who backed her idea to use a windfall profit tax against oil companies to fund the suspension of a tax on gasoline, Clinton responded: "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists.""
    • KILLnwoPLANS, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1LUCKY people, those economists! (Evidently Barry Seals wasn't quite so lucky. - Or Gennifer Flower's neighbor. - Or the two kids in Mena who were brutally murdered, then left on the railroad tracks. Or any of the witnesses. Or ... )
  • bincoder, on 05/05/2008, -1/+19I like elite economists, what is her idea, hire an illegal farmer who has never even seen a dollar in his life to make the economic decisions for the country? That would be like hiring a tupperware sales lady to run microsoft.
    • Billman1, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Dugg for somehow relating a tupperware sales lady to Microsoft.
  • blast_flame, on 05/05/2008, -0/+30"Your plan of printing off 100 trillion dollars and spliting it between every american simply won't work..."
    "Economists are elitist!"
  • whatthefu, on 05/05/2008, -1/+37Totally. These economists aren't people well-educated in their field or anything. They're snobs who don't know how the economy works at all. Hillary on the other hand knows exactly how it works.
    • pseudononymist, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I wonder what The Economist thinks about that.
  • shadowmoose, on 05/05/2008, -9/+6So is the term "elite" the new "change?" Elite this elite that, change change change ect... I hope whoever gets elected actually does something and stops all this name calling.
    • coup, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1are you saying that using the word "change" is a form of name calling?
    • unpolloloco, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3no - "change" has a positive connotation, "elitist" has a negative
      your analogy = fail
      • eyepower, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0I'm not sure it was really an analogy in the terms you are thinking... more of a replacement really. It IS the new buzzword. an analogy would be something like "elite is to change as buttpirate is to fartknocker"

        fartknocker
    • LBobRife, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Politics often can be distilled to what happen on an elementary school playground.
  • ichbeineinrcg, on 05/05/2008, -2/+50I'm also sick of these elitist doctors telling me to lose weight. I'm 410 pounds and proud, and they need to stop being elitist!

    And that reminds me, I'm also sick of these elitist females who won't sleep with me. Where the hell do they get off? Not with me, but that's not the spirit of the question.

    Or those elitist scientists with their unproven "don't get drunk every night" theory for why my liver is failing. ***** elitists.
  • bitfreak, on 05/05/2008, -5/+21Hello, Pot? Yah, this is the kettle. YOU'RE BLACK!!!! You millionaire former first lady silver spoon *****. Only an elitist hasn't pumped her own gas in more than a decade and can't work a coffee machine. What a friggin' joke.

    She is so full of crap it makes my stomach turn.
    • Tanishh, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3 To be fair, I've never pumped my own gas either.

      But then, I live in one of the two states where it is illegal to do so.:/ (And New York isn't the other one)
      • LadyKofNYC, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It's illegal to pump your own gas???? That sounds crazy! What's the logic behind that law?
      • bitfreak, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I grew up in Oregon, you can't pump your own gas there either (but I did work in a gas station while in school). Not sure on the 'why' part.
  • mikeesco, on 05/05/2008, -0/+14... and yet, she's poised to win Indiana. It is incredible how she's transforming herself into the common man's candidate. And she's doing it because a lot of voters eat this stuff up. Pennsylvania believed her talk. She's running just as Bush did; Experts are out of touch with the common man, and 'wouldn't you like to have a beer with me?'
    • jforjools, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4She won Ohio with a pile of NAFTA lies. (Remember 'Shame on you, Barack'?)

      Just say what you gotta say and move on to the next electoral pool.
    • unpolloloco, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Probably more because IN and PA are former (and still somewhat current) union strongholds. Old power = love of hillary
  • chillmandan, on 05/05/2008, -0/+12I can see someone attacking a CEO or Attorney as being elite, but most economists just don't make that much money. I think the most money you can make as an economist would be as a tenured professor of the field, which really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.
  • x252, on 05/05/2008, -16/+3I look forward to Obama losing the Democratic nod.
  • Khast, on 05/05/2008, -0/+12"politics as usual"

    yeah, the experts don't know ***** about anything, and the politicians know everything....

    Hillary can just go.......
  • kinerry, on 05/05/2008, -6/+20isn't this what evangelicals do, call anyone with facts "elitist" and "arrogant"?
    • sandbun, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Yes, people do say that about them. But thanks on trying to add religious flamebait to the discussion for no apparent reason.
  • alimighty1, on 05/05/2008, -0/+31Obama losing to her would be like an eagle losing a flying contest to a rock.
    • Galagaboo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+7Yes, if the contest was judged by people who did not know what flying was.
    • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8Of course, in this case the rock is doing its best to smash the eagle on the head, even if it brings down the both of them in the process.
  • jivatmanx, on 05/05/2008, -2/+18This woman was on the board of WalMart.

    Give me a Break
  • thetimekeeper, on 05/05/2008, -0/+15I'm an economist...thanks Clinton. Way to go on making yourselves more popular. She is getting quite desperate now, and I highly doubt she has any chance at the presidency now.
    • eyepower, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0I guess you have more faith in the public than I. I am scared as hell that she does have a real chance. I guess I'll, just vote libertarian. Seems more dignified than not voting atr all
  • pixelguru, on 05/05/2008, -0/+33Great... another politician who is threatened by facts and smart people.
    • MJDub, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3It's a shame that these are the people in power. Not the actual smart people.
      • InnerRayg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Smart people don't run for office, they know how to pull the strings behind the curtain.
  • prometheanspark, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7The best way to ease consumer gas prices would be to eliminate the boutique gas blends that various states and regions use in different seasons. This is used to justify the 20-40c price increase on memorial day (switchover to summer blend), and also exacerbates price spikes by making gasoline less transportable - causing localized supply pinches on a regular basis. A good way to take this on and save everyone money would be to make a 'gas is gas' bill that sets a national standard gasoline mix that all states must allow to be used as 'regular' gasoline. It could even be a relatively 'clean' sort of gas because the economies of scale of making it nation-wide would still be more cost effective than the current mix of dozens of types of gasoline, costly switchovers and artificial supply disruptions.
  • jh9110, on 05/05/2008, -7/+2No You're Elite...bitch
  • Ryan166, on 05/05/2008, -3/+7In all fairness, do any economists support Obama's ridiculous tax plan?
    • foxfire1311, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Nope.
      The worst part of his plan is his wish to raise the taxes on dividends and capital gains. Talk about the WORST thing to do to an economy teetering on recession. Economists have been lobbying to eliminate taxes on capital gains for years, but the economics gets bogged down with politics where people like Obama and Clinton call it a tax break for Wall Street. I want to believe that Clinton and Obama have had more econ training than a simple 100 level course, but their actions suggest different.
      Seems like every election cycle economists are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
    • prometheanspark, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4Economists aren't fans of the supply based economics that some republican policies have touted, but in general the best thing for the economy is to keep a stable regulatory and taxation system. When they change the tax code, companies are forces to spend a lot of money and effort shuffling their business around to minimize their tax exposure. This money and effort would be better spent, you know, being productive. This is part of why new taxes are problematic in a recession, the transitional costs can be considerable.

      Obama claims that a handful of fund managers making billions is the reason why he wants to raise the capital gains tax on everyone. If that's the case why not raise the rate but only on capital gains over $1 million (scaled to inflation). That would exempt the vast majority of people with retirement savings and selling property, but catch these fund managers Obama seems to willing to screw everyone to get at.

      Economists also support free trade, something which both parties disagrees with at various times (agriculture for republicans, everything for democrats).
  • RRJackson, on 05/05/2008, -12/+1Heh... "Attack!! Attack Clinton!!!"

    Doesn't matter. She's already won the nomination.
    • jaalin, on 05/05/2008, -3/+0then we're in pretty bad shape
    • catachip, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5You meant to say "He's already won the nomination".

      There is no mathematical means for Clinton to win it.
      • RRJackson, on 05/05/2008, -4/+1There's no way for either of them to "win" it. They're running at a spread of less than 2%. Neither of them can win the nomination by Denver. Which means Clinton wins, since she has more connections inside the DNC.
      • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4unfortunately there are plenty of illegal and immoral ways for her to win it, and you can be damned sure she'll try every last one.
        • RRJackson, on 05/05/2008, -6/+1A win is a win. How it happened isn't important.
  • ThrstForKnwldge, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5"n. pl. elite or e·lites

    1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status."

    Well that describes Obama and Clinton. Maybe she look it up, took me like 10 seconds.
  • tufftugg, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4It would be so comical if the only choice were Hillary and McCain for President.
    • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5comical != sad
      • tufftugg, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2 I'm not an American, so it would be comical they would be your only choices.
        • nakani, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1You may not be American, but I bet you're within range of one of our new "usable" nuclear ICBM's. Still find a Clinton or McCain presidency funny?
        • s1mph0ny, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Yeah, because the president of the US has no effect on your local economy.
  • attercob, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4About a year ago I was a big HRC fan... but now I honestly would rather vote for the republican than her. The quote in the news clip is simply ridiculous. She says she won't listen to the people who study the economy and instead she will somehow "use the power of the president" to make it help the little guy. Wow, what a terrible idea. There are many, many very liberal economist who devote their lives to figuring out how one could set policy to help the lower 50% of american wage earners. Instead of listening to them she want to use the "power of the president"... honestly that sound like some saturday mooring cartoon more than reality: "Oh no, Captain Starfire is going to crash! Quick put on the magic ring and use the power of the president to make his engines restart!."

    Sigh. I'm sad.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Luckily you don't have to vote for a republican instead, there just happens to be another democrat who's not full of *****.
  • T8erT0T, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Wow, Hillary's response is the "would-a" game. She doesn't answer the question, she can't even explain the rationale behind her ***** idea, all she can she is "if we did it right, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively..."
    Thanks for that completely thorough and concise answer Hil-dog. I can know rest my head knowing how great things will be knowing how you plan to be so effective.
  • psdabfm, on 05/05/2008, -8/+1Clinton wants to repeal taxes on gasoline, why would anyone oppose this? If fuel prices are somewhat lower do you plan on buying a crap-ton more of it? NO. What's the big deal, the people who buy the stuff all the time will save some money. I am not an economist, but to say repealing a tax on gasoline will put money right in the oil companies pockets is just stupid. The oil companies will make their money regardless of what the tax on gasoline is. I for one jump at the opportunity to keep some of my money away from the government. If removing this tax only gets you a single tank of gas, wouldn't you be in support of it. Please don't respond with some BS Obama rant on how we need to reduce our dependence on oil, that will take decades and we're talking about the next few months.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6The big deal is that it will cost billions, save you about $25, prevent many badly decayed roads from being repaired, and cost jobs. Is one extra half tank of gas really worth all that?
    • sdsoloist, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2If the price decreases, the quantity of gas demanded will be higher at the new price than the old one. You said yourself you'd support the tax cut if it means getting one tank of gas, so what do you think that means if EVERY consumer in the country purchases an additional tank of gas at the lower price? It's simple; the oil companies will make more money as a result of selling a higher quantity of gas.
    • letherial, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Ya dont listen to obama, he only has experience in a similar situation AND is listing to those pesky economist...damn elitist.

      id love to see gas go down 18 cents, id hate to see it crawl back up then at the end of the summer tack on another 18 cents, and that is EXACTLY what will happen.


    • psdabfm, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1The government wastes billions every year anyways, cutting taxes is the best way to do it. If the government could balance a budget, there wouldn't be a problem. I won't hurt roads if funding is shifted from elsewhere, perhaps the Iraq war. I didn't say I'd purchase an extra tank of gas if fuel was less expensive, I said I'd perhaps get one tank free from the lower tax rate. What do you have against oil companies making money, you buy their product, they have a right to profit from their efforts.
    • Key2gb, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4the gas tax 'holiday' won't do ***** for you..it just sounds like it will which is why Hillary supports it...in the end, the holiday saves you no money (because, though the price is 18 cents cheaper, consumers are still WILLING to pay those 18 cents and gas companies can just charge a higher price....you save nothing and the oil companies get more profit...GENIUS!)
    • fanclerks, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3How about this then... with lower prices, people will be less likely to think twice about taking a leisurely drive or driving somewhere instead of using some alternative form of transportation. This means that demand will increase. Lower prices always means demand increases. It's simple Economics 101. And, as others have stated, if taxes are repealed for the summer, then the gas companies will simply raise their prices to bring it back to the prices they were before. They'll do this cause they'll either get dinged with the taxes by our government or do it just cause they can and we the consumer will just take it cause we've been paying the prices as they are right now. The best part is that at the end of the summer, the oil companies would just raise the prices 18 cents since the consumer would be expecting it anyways. The oil companies will always do whatever they can to maximize profits. It's capitalism at it's finest.

      Also, those taxes that would be repealed during the summer are used to mend and build roads. Those roads that are used even more during the summer because of people vacationing and such.
      • letherial, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0No roads equals no driving...Hence, no gas problem

        hey mcain, BRILLIANT idea!!!
  • Darksoul, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10Whats even sadder is she keeps screaming and calling people "elitists" yet she is the biggest elitist of them all at one time she needed to bow out of the race and give it to Obama now she just needs to shut the ***** up and go away. Earth to Hillary get out of the race stop trying to destroy something that could help our country you psychopathic bitch. She needs to go the ***** away seriously I am sick of seeing her face on tv and on the net I use to respect Bill to a point now he makes me want to puke.

    He has seriously degraded himself pushing her agenda and especially him attacking Obama on them saying he doesn't have enough experience behind him they said the same thing about Bill you'd think he would say something about that but no what a joke.
    • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Isn't one of the negative connotations of elitist someone who feels they are entitled to something? Cause that's exactly how Hillary feels and acts. "I deserve the presidency! Waaaah! I want it I want it I want it!!!!'
    • glibpaxman, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1wait i got it. Bill was an expert on women right? Well, at least experienced. Anyway, even he decided to find someone (and from the look of monica, anyone) else to suck his *****. So, for the $64000 question... was that rejection elitist or was it what every man not overdosing on viagra would do?
  • thesandbender, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8The US has gone from being a creditor to a debtor. Anyone who suggests a policy that keeps us from getting out of hock is an idiot or has an alternate agenda. This applies just as much to the "tax rebate" as it does to the "gas tax holiday".
    • tufftugg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3"The US has gone from being a creditor to a debtor"...Although Americans hear about the debt, they think its the governments debt, not theirs.
  • cerealjynx, on 05/05/2008, -0/+13Next she's going to promise better food in the cafeteria.
    • Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3and another soda machine!
      • InnerRayg, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3I'd be happy if she could fix the one that is already there and just eats your change
      • redleviathan69, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0and Pizza everyday!
  • oselznick, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9Hard to believe the people of Indiana would vote for a politician as duplicitous and deceitful as Hillary Clinton, or her husband for that matter.
    then again, I can't believe she won in Pennsylvania, or that she was ever elected Senator from New York -- esp. after she was told the large number of Jews in New York and she suddenly discovered she had a Jewish ancester. Yeah, right.
    What's next Hillary? An African-American ancester?
    Get out, Hillary, GET OUT! and take all the lying Clintons with you!!!
  • Luv5, on 05/05/2008, -18/+1Hillary is not going to win. America is not mature enough for a woman President. Like it or not, America never had nor will have a woman President. Trash the Clintons and vote for Obama now and McCain later.
    • kb29, on 05/05/2008, -1/+9I believe that America is ready for a female president. However, any woman in the US is better qualified to be president than Hillary.
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Spam much?
    • SargedeathXmode, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Technically, it would be more fair to have a woman president first, as suffrage was given to black males before it was given to females in general. Nevertheless, the way Hilary squandered her political capital and is now trailing is really quite pathetic. If she manages to win the nomination, she has my vote, as she has proven she can get anything in the most impossible situations (but don't follow my lead, stay home or vote for McCain and hope Hilary loses if you hate her that much). I'd vote for Obama if he wins (my first time voting); anything is better than a Republican president now.
      • OralCavity, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1when did "fair" come into politics?
        • SargedeathXmode, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Well, at least we strive for fairness... If a little unfairness makes people give up the hope of some fairness, then why don't we all just install a Stalinist dictator and forget about fairness?
      • motivatedmama, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1My hubby and I have made the agonizing decision not to vote in the general should Hillary miraculously become the nominee (my first vote in a general too). To make a huge understatement; There is something seriously, dangerously wrong with that woman. As wrong as McCain. I don't know what other palatable options are left, but I just can't do it. Let's "Hope" it doesn't come to that.
    • ZGambit, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Luv5: I think your comment was an idiotic statement.
      Personally Hillary is not the right woman for the presidency role but I don't think you should make a statement about a women not being able to become a president.

      Believe it or not there is a lot of support behind Hillary but if she acted differently through out her campaign she may be in a better position to win it.
  • adeptation, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0: (, She hates me. . .
  • bernlin2000, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4This gas tax thing is a petty matter, but it really does show how typical a political Hillary Clinton is. I can't say there's anything particularly evil or menacing about that, but Obama promises more than that. I'm tired of presidents who enact stupid little policies that just hurt us, instead of admitting that there is no band-aid fixes. Hillary, why don't you just be honest with your supporters and Americans? She knows this gas tax holiday is dumb, yet she uses it for political capital. It's really lame on her part.
    The attack on economists is even more dumb. Does she think that blue collared workers praise her for fighting against people who are well versed on good policy making? If so, she can have those people, I guess they can't see pandering from the truth. Economists are elitist? Cmon, most of the people I know that are in economics or are going into it wouldn't fit any definition of elitist, except that they are above average with regards to critical thinking. Few economists make six figures or more: it's not a high paying career choice. Rather, they choose it because a good economy is crucial to any country's well being. They're there to make sure politicians can't propose too many of these wrong-headed "gas tax holiday"-style proposals. They focus on real solutions, and Obama appears to recognize that, unlike the other two presidential candidates.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.