Friedman today is a must-read, btw.

also your whole argument boils down to "look at what obama did! EEEEH!"

Well, gee, Erica, it's nice to see you coming around to that view after regularly spitting out posts judging Obama on one stupid, pandering policy point or another in isolation. Which is, of course, why we were all guffawing at your sudden silence on a Clinton pander in the first place.

Good Lord. I fear where the Stranger "news" bureau goes from here.

1. As already mentioned lower taxes by 18c and the demand goes up slightly and the price goes up more than slightly. Americans use some small percentage more gas and 10+ cents of the tax change goes to producers. It's colossally stupid.

2. It's a worse idea than the stimulus checks! FAR WORSE. If gas prices are hurting and Clinton sees it (unlike Obama) just write another check. At least that would get to the people rather than the oil companies. But the checks are so obviously also bad that she has to use some razzle dazzle like a gas tax holiday to hide the stupidity.

Anyway who's going to focus on the differences between our folks and McCain when the democratic party is self-destructing! How can you look away?

Any why do you assume that because I'm an Obama supporter I've automatically given him a free pass on his clean coal/ethanol support? I can assure you that is not the case, but I'm not sure that my assurances will change your opinion that anyone who supports Obama is a fucking ignorant cultist robot.

Because she's a partisan hack. Duh.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to articulate here, though, exactly. This was sort of a scattershot, "but what about?" barrage of bullet points that don't really cohere into a single argument.

i agree with the one decision in isolation vs. evaluating the entire policy, but i think tsm dealt with that @4 above well.

another thing to consider about this isolated incident is the timing. clinton made this choice now for some very important reasons, and she has to know to which group this would most appeal.

But if we're judging candidates based on how dirty they've gotten from scratching backs, I'll pick the one with dirt under his nails over the one who is dirty up to the elbows.

Super! And the drop in gas prices will be immediately erased by an increase in demand. But instead of the money going to the Highway Trust Fund, it ends up in the pockets of the oil refiners - nice compensation for them for the "windfall" tax. Econ 101. You might want to check it out.

"And she addresses some of the actual reasons gas prices are at record highs: America’s refusal to dip into oil reserves, and OPEC’s stranglehold on oil production."

Uh, no. Clinton's plan calls for halting additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve - which currently amount to 0.1% of global demand. Once you've taken that Econ 101 course, Erica, you can report back on why that won't make any difference. The SPR is the liberal counterpoint to ANWR: won't make a damn bit of difference to the price of gas, and much better off left alone.

And I can't believe you're actually impressed with her pledge to "pressure" OPEC to increase production. I mean, really Erica, if it were as easy as complaining to the WTO, don't you think some other president would've gotten that bright idea already?

And even if emptying the SPR would make a difference and even if we could leverage OPEC to increase production - we wouldn't want to do it, because that would decrease the price of gas. Which, as you point out later on in the post, is a bad thing - because we want to be using less gas.

In sum: Clinton's plan sucks because it won't work, and would suck worse if it did work. And all you had to do with this post was admit it.

PS: "Where were Obama supporters when he backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, contributing $4,200 to Lieberman’s campaign?"

I guess I was at home. Maybe at work. I really wasn't paying too much attention at the time. I guess I dropped the ball. Wait, what does this have to do with the gas tax holiday?

Ugh. It never ends.

We weren’t commenting on HRC’s hypocrisy, we were commenting on yours.

Basically anyone against nuclear energy at this point has as much scientific validity as someone arguing against global warming or against evolution. Nuclear power could fix almost all of our energy needs RIGHT NOW! And it would reduce our emissions of green house gasses immensely.

Everyone else knows it's a fake argument. You'd be far better off taking a fraction of the total cost money and putting it into installing C02 scrubbers on every single existing coal power plant in the US (most of our energy supply, FWIW).

Haven't seen many attempts by al-Qaeda to attack coal plants ... or use "spent" coal to attack us ...

She links to herself like its a reference. But when you say something wrong twice it doesn't make you less wrong.

She describes Rick Boucher as a lobbyist for coal. He is, in fact, a Democrat congressman! ECB is running down Obama for getting an endorsement from a congressman who is a member of the Democratic party! Can she get any more nutty?

I say "yes" but only time will tell.

How eviel of a

Talk about drinking the kool aide.

It doesn't cost significantly more to build a nuclear power plant versus a coal power plant. The biggest difference in cost is due to the insurance involved (why not have the federal government take care of that?). So sure you can install CO2 scrubbers now, but as you take coal plants offline, replace them with a nuclear plant. There is simply no reason not to.

Coal is just as much a finite resource as oil. It's stupid to build plants that require something we know we are going to run out of.

There's no credible way al-qaeda or anyone else could attack a nuclear power plant and cause any real damage. It's a straw man argument. Attacking a chemical plant or oil refinery would cause much more damage and would be much easier to do.

If you are really worried about spent fuel being used against (again another straw man) just recycle the damn stuff.

Do you even know how they mine it? I do.

Properly inflate your tires: estimated to increase fuel efficiency on average by 3%, all year long = $200 to $300/yr. Plus, it helps people use less gas instead of encouraging them to buy more.