Notes Tagged ‘clinton’

It's automatic!

February 19th, 2009
523. 

CLINTON: [T]here’s 100 economic studies which show that you get a better return in terms of economic growth on extending unemployment benefits or investing money in energy conservation jobs to improve buildings than you do giving people in my income group a tax cut. But it doesn’t stop them. Those guys are on automatic. You punch a button and they give the answer they give you.

[via Think Progress » Clinton hits GOP for automatically opposing Obama’s agenda.]

This quote makes me think of this site:

http://gopproblemsolver.com/

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

On Caroline Kennedy

December 18th, 2008
488. 

The more I think about Caroline Kennedy being named to the U.S. Senate as Clinton’s replacement, the more I like the move. I understand the whole “dynasty”/using-her-name argument, but I Caroline Kennedyalso think those are valid reasons to support her appointment. Hear me out…

Clinton, coming off her Presidential run, was set to be one of the most powerful senators in DC (she was already, but more so now), so we need someone that can step in and fill that void as much as possible. Kennedy provides that star power and clout, more so than any other name mentioned as a possibility. She can step in and immediately have the ear of Obama and many, many senators – all because of her name. Those are significant benefits to New York and the country at this point in time, when we actually need to get things done… and fast.

I understand she hasn’t run for public office, but I think folks are underestimating and discounting her life experience. She’s been around politics and in the public spotlight her whole life. She’s very well educated, a Constitutional scholar/author, and has made significant contributions to the public good in her many ventures. She can handle the position, no doubt.

My only concern is she will be too heavily focused on New York City and not Upstate. But I also think that is a valid concern of any top contender, outside of Byron Brown and Brian Higgins, both of whom I’d support, but are polling well behind Kennedy and Andrew Cuomo who seem to be the top two for the position. I think Cuomo would do well in the position, but I also think he fits better as NY Attorney General right now. 

And the great thing about all of this is if you don’t support Kennedy, you’ll have your chance to not vote for her in 2010. Right now, though, we need someone who can fill HRC’s shoes and Kennedy is that person.

Photo from Flickr: joeburnham

Tags: , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Wow. Glad I don't live in West Virginia

May 15th, 2008
200. 

The Daily Show looks at the West Virginia primary:

Tags: , , , , , ,
Noted in Politics, Videos    |    Permanent link

Krugman on the proposed gas tax holiday

April 30th, 2008
198. 

Krugman and every other economist/analyst I’ve heard over the last few days come to the same conclusion when talking about McCain and Clinton’s proposed gas tax holiday.

Pointless and borderline pandering for votes.

Here’s Krugman’s take:

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.

And on Clinton’s plan, specifically:

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.

And who’s the only canidate with the guts to stand up against this useless plan (even when it sounds so good at first listen)? That’s right, Obama.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Hilary's Math: How is she still viable?

April 29th, 2008
197. 

Using the Slate.com delegate calculator, along with the New York Times Democratic Delegate Count, I’ve come to the idea that Hilary needs, at the very least, 99% of the remaining, unpledged super delegates to win the Democratic nomination.

Here’s my logic and guesses for upcoming primaries:

Guam – Obama wins, 55-45, 2 delegates each
Indiana – HRC wins 53-47, giving her 38 delegates to BO’s 34
North Carolina – Obama wins 55-45, giving him 63 delegates to HRC’s 52
West Virginia – HRC wins 53-47, giving her 15 delegates to BO’s 13
Kentucky – HRC wins 53-47, giving HRC 27 delegates to 24
Oregon – BO wins 54-46, giving BO 28 delegates to 24
Puerto Rico – BO wins 54-46, giving BO 30 delegates to 25
Montana – HRC wins 55-45, giving HRC 9 delegates to 7
South Dakota – HRC wins 55-45, giving HRC 8 delegates to 7

At the end of all that, Obama has 1,699 pledged delegates to HRC’s 1,536. Throw in the AP’s count of super delegates and you have 1,939 for Obama to 1,802 for HRC. That count also leaves 226 non-committed super delegates to get to the 2,025 total needed for nomination. So BO needs 38% of the super delegates and HRC needs 99% of the remaining to win the nomination. In fact, in order for Hilary to get to the total Obama would have at this stage, she’d need to win every contest named above by 80-20 margins!

Things get a little murkier when you throw in Florida and Michigan, since so much of that is unknown at this point. But, if you split delegates 50/50, you get 2,096 for Obama and 1,959 for Clinton (including super delegates)… so Obama gets the nomination with no need for the extra super delegates.

Even if you go 60/40 split with FL and MI in HRC’s favor, Obama still wins the nomination 2,064 to 1,990.

Why is she still in the race? It’s virtually impossible for her to win!

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

So this is the kind of person you want answering the phone at 3am?

April 28th, 2008
195. 

Hilary Clinton on the morning of the PA primary:

…she told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that, if she were president, she would “totally obliterate” Iran if Iran attacked Israel.

And…

This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world.

Boston Globe

So why wasn’t this made into a bigger issue? You think it would have swayed some votes if it was given the same press and Obama’s lapel pin, Rev Wright, or some other minor, trivial topic?

And why still isn’t is a big deal?

The Boston Globe article concludes:

While Clinton has hammered Obama for supporting military strikes in Pakistan, her comments on Iran are much more far-reaching. She seems not to realize that she undermined Iranian reformists and pragmatists. The Iranian people have been more favorable to America than any other in the Gulf region or the Middle East.

And…

A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran – and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran – should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.

Totally concur. I don’t want someone like here, with this kind of reaction, leading our country. In fact, this is the same kind of thinking the Bushies have made famous. And look where it’s gotten us. We need change in Washington, not Bush the Third. And McCain and Clinton seem to want to make that a reality.

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Daily Show on Clinton's Hypotheticals

April 25th, 2008
192. 

Tags: , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

MSNBC Calls Pledged Delegates for Obama

April 24th, 2008
191. 

Time for HRC to drop out! Let’s focus on McBush.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link