Posted by: lootekukur May 4, 2008
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Having seen months of tussle between Obama and Hillary for the democratic nomination for the presidential candidate, to me, these days, the race looks nothing better/more than a minuscule brawl between an irritant dog and an equally exasperating kitten.
As most of you, who have been seeing this race with a close-up lens, must have realized by now that there is NO major idealogical differences between the two candidates. Most of these so-called debates between them, apart from one or two issues, represent nothing really of a substance other than petty differences using race/gender/emotion and other cheap cards so to speak.
Rather than the kind of great ideological contests we've seen in the past, like those between Carter and Kennedy or Gore and Bradley or Kerry vs. Dean, where there have been real differences on the big questions that face the country, Clinton and Obama have relatively small differences on actual issues, and instead are running on biography and character, change vs. experience.
Now what's with this dispute over Gas Tax Holiday this summer?
Clinton and McCain support the idea of lifting the 18.4 percent federal excise tax for the summer driving season, saying it will give consumers much-needed relief from soaring gas prices. Obama opposes it, saying his experience with a similar move in Illinois shows that the oil companies won't pass the savings on to consumers, and it won't encourage conservation. It will in fact end up giving benefits to the oil dealers themselves rather than the customers.
########
If you ask me, this is more of a political move by Clinton to win favor from the voters (a considerable number of whic are still undecided especially after the Rev. Wright's issue that somewhat, dare-i-say, deteriorated Obama's otherwise reasonably irreproachable image until then) in the upcoming primaries in NC and IN.
Clinton claims to make up for the lost revenue for the state and nationwide by imposing "windfalls profit tax" on oil companies. It's a no-brainer to come to a conclusion that her claim is not only economically non-viable but juvenile and stupid to say the least in expecting the oil companies to pay out of their own pocket when hit by this tax.
So who's going to suffer? We, the customers. It's a vicious cycle!
The big question is: do average Americans (especially voters from NC and IN since they are going to be in action shortly) understand the downside of Clinton/McCain's so-called idea?
But believe it or not, Clinton might as well clinch few votes in her baggage with this as no matter how stupid her claim may sound on economic grounds, politically (for the people), it does sound alleviating amidst the skyrocketing trend of gas price over the past few weeks.
As most of you, who have been seeing this race with a close-up lens, must have realized by now that there is NO major idealogical differences between the two candidates. Most of these so-called debates between them, apart from one or two issues, represent nothing really of a substance other than petty differences using race/gender/emotion and other cheap cards so to speak.
Rather than the kind of great ideological contests we've seen in the past, like those between Carter and Kennedy or Gore and Bradley or Kerry vs. Dean, where there have been real differences on the big questions that face the country, Clinton and Obama have relatively small differences on actual issues, and instead are running on biography and character, change vs. experience.
Now what's with this dispute over Gas Tax Holiday this summer?
Clinton and McCain support the idea of lifting the 18.4 percent federal excise tax for the summer driving season, saying it will give consumers much-needed relief from soaring gas prices. Obama opposes it, saying his experience with a similar move in Illinois shows that the oil companies won't pass the savings on to consumers, and it won't encourage conservation. It will in fact end up giving benefits to the oil dealers themselves rather than the customers.
########
If you ask me, this is more of a political move by Clinton to win favor from the voters (a considerable number of whic are still undecided especially after the Rev. Wright's issue that somewhat, dare-i-say, deteriorated Obama's otherwise reasonably irreproachable image until then) in the upcoming primaries in NC and IN.
Clinton claims to make up for the lost revenue for the state and nationwide by imposing "windfalls profit tax" on oil companies. It's a no-brainer to come to a conclusion that her claim is not only economically non-viable but juvenile and stupid to say the least in expecting the oil companies to pay out of their own pocket when hit by this tax.
So who's going to suffer? We, the customers. It's a vicious cycle!
The big question is: do average Americans (especially voters from NC and IN since they are going to be in action shortly) understand the downside of Clinton/McCain's so-called idea?
But believe it or not, Clinton might as well clinch few votes in her baggage with this as no matter how stupid her claim may sound on economic grounds, politically (for the people), it does sound alleviating amidst the skyrocketing trend of gas price over the past few weeks.