Like  you even had to look very hard for an example to prove that Hillary is saying ANYTHING right now to whore for votes, including acting out the very blowhard Republican doubletalker that Stephen Colbert skewers every night.  She may as well have scoffed that the "truth" is a Frenchified crutch that arugula-eating latte-sipping Volvo drivers lean on when they have lousy gut instincts.

I'm sure there are lots of people who eagerly want Hillary to win (pccostello, for example), but how many have a shred of respect for her except in the sense that she's the revenge candidate: George W. Bush in a pantsuit.

won't this destroy her in a general election campaign where she is competing against someone who refuses to offer policy papers and actual substantive ideas but is a war hero?  What the hell is she thinking? How is anyone going to take her seriously now when she cites expert opinion on global warming, foreign policy etc in a debate with McCain?  I think these comments are far more destructive to her hypothetical general election chances than anything Obama has said is to his.

I find it surprising, really.  Not because I think she's pricipled or stands for anything but her own election, but because it's such a losing strategy.  At this point, isn't she putting everything on the hope that the Superdelegates overturn the pledged delegate lead and hand her the nomination?  I keep looking at the math, and it seems she's lost the pledged delegate matchup (even if she wins all the remaining contests 60:40), so that must be her rationale for staying in the contest.  This stuff may work in Indiana (I don't really think it will, but maybe she does), but surely this sort of obvious populist pandering won't play with the supers.  I noticed today that uncommitted Colorado SD, Mark Udall came out and criticized her pandering.  What's she thinking?!

As a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I am chagrined by her support of the gas tax holiday and repulsed by her attack on "elites". The more desperate that she gets, the more her campaign goes negative and asssumes the trappings of faux populism.

The idea that this particular pander is not that bad because it would be temporary is incredibly naive. Once the federal gas tax is suspended it will never, N-E-V-E-R, be reinstated. Certainly not at the end of this summer, just before a national election, which means it will stretch on indefinitely and any talk of returning to normal will become a major Republican talking point trying to portray Democrats as Tax happy "elites" looking to raise gas prices on ordinary Americans.

I'm from California where a similar short term partial moratorium was placed on vehicle registration fees. When the temporary rebate period was over and the tax was set to automatically return to it's previous level the resulting "tax increase" became one of the major issues that helped make a washed up action hero our current governor.

"The idea that this particular pander is not that bad because it would be temporary is incredibly naive. Once the federal gas tax is suspended it will never, N-E-V-E-R, be reinstated."

If Obama has any instinct for the jugular, he needs to say exactly this, and then pointedly show up at a bridge construction site and talk with some of those "elite" construction workers whose livelihood Clinton obviously cares nothing about, and some commuters who are bouncing through the potholes of winter that won't be fixed a year from now, for lack of Federal road funds.

Too damned bad Minnesota has already voted - the I-35 bridge collapse construction site would make a nice foil for explaining for why most Americans need and want a road use tax (which is what the gas tax is).

(And before anyone hits me for loving cars and roads too much - I don't.  I think our transportation policy in this country is demonstrably counterproductive.  But killing the gas tax is no way to fix it.)

Sorry, Jonathon and the above posters are missing the point.  The gas-tax holiday is a gesture, not a policy.  What economists think about it is irrelevant.  And, as a gesture, it has its merits.  It tells the voters:  I'm on your side.  

Dan

dbuck.

It tells voter I am on your side for $30 and your vote

pathetic

dbuck: like the flag-burning thing, another gesture?  How about the Iraq vote, another gesture not policy?  See, once you go down that road - like PCC - there is no turning back.  Mrs. Clinton, the woman of 35 years as political spouse - the Tammy Wynette quip and the cookie recipe that followed; the failed Health Care initiative; her tour of Tuzla - all gesture and no policy.  Why the frack should anyone believe anything she says?

It's like that old Perry Mason line: "Are you lying now, or were you lying then?"

Gax tax?

If you needed an illustration of how close the Democratic race has become, look no further than Guam. Guam held its primary on Saturday, and Barack Obama won by seven votes .

Yo, Daily,

It might be close if it were starting from scratch today, but Obama has already won the race.  Even Hillary's campaign as admitted that they won't catch up in delegates and are very unlikely to do more than make the popular vote "close."  A tie is a win for Obama at this point.

Indeed, but for the self-interest of you and the rest of the mainstream media that wants a race to sell magazines, someone might have reported the realities a while ago and no one would be taking this at all seriously.

Is it that you cannot count, or are you just pandering to gin up reader interest?