Filed under: 2008 elections, Feature — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on March 29, 2008 @ 10:23 pm CET
Here’s Barack Obama’s latest ad. Watch it, then leave a comment with your thoughts on it in the comment section (via Dean Esmay):
Dean comments:
I have never entirely understood the urge to specially tax so-called “windfall profits.” And I’m not sure that I believe that the Senator has the best plan to achieve energy independence. Still, it’s a pretty good commercial, and should appeal to a lot of voters, including a lot of centrists.
The reality of the matter is that energy independence isn’t feasible. It just won’t happen. Impossible.
I’ll never understand why American politicians aren’t just honest about this.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
1 kranky kritter
March 29, 2008 @ 11:20 pm CET…and so begins the race to be the candidate who is most strongly opposed to high gas prices! Woe betide the hapless pol who defends Exxon these days. Can you say "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore?"
2 Dave
March 30, 2008 @ 9:37 am CESTHigh gas prices have everything to do with the weak USD and rising demand for oil in other parts of the world…
Anyway, Obama continues to see sky-rocketing gains, as this blog points out;
Obama vs Clinton- Social Bookmarking Sites & the Web:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=83
3 Doug
March 30, 2008 @ 1:02 pm CESTHe obviously doesn’t know anything about commodities or capitalism. How is this different than Hillary saying, "…we’re going to take those profits [from the oil companies]…"? As soon as the government starts penalizing companies for making too much money, we can kiss our way of life goodbye.
Unfortunately, I can see this verbiage coming from McCain as well. We’re screwed.
4 Bill W
March 30, 2008 @ 4:44 pm CESTShows how much more he knows about economics than say, John McCain. The rising prices are due to supply/ demand, the weak dollar as Dave points out plus a few more items. What they are not is because greedy oil companies are gouging. They are making the same or less on a percentage of their revenues than they were before the price of oil was going up.
Think about this. $ billions spent on exploration. One offshore rig takes about 3-4 years to build and over $1B. Drill for oil a mile or so under the ocean or in places in the middle of nowhere like Kazackstan. $ billions to develop these fields. You have to find and pay for specialists willing to live in these shitholes and on platforms, and quite rightly pay pretty good salaries. Oil pipelines to take it to ports, ships to move it, platforms to offload it more pipelines, refineries that cost hundreds of millions to build and many millions to operate safely year after year, more pipelines, gasoline stations, fleets of tanker trucks - and it only costs $3/ gallon. They take all of this risk, invest all of this capital, and the one time in a generation where they are actually making a decent return, lets kill them. (BTW Barry - "making" money is the net income - not the overall revenue. You can have $40B in revenue and still not "make" a dime. Something that high school home ec should have taught you, you economic guru you)
I did not hear Barack & Hillary wanting to help the oil companies in the 90’s when their 10% profit margin on oil prices that had not increased in 15 years were causing bankruptcies and these mega-mergers just to stay in business.
5 Bill W
March 30, 2008 @ 4:55 pm CESTHaving said all that, I am not as pessimistic as Michael about not being able to achieve energy independence. Wind, solar & nuclear with a corresponding shift to more electric vehicles could make us independent in the time it took to build out some infrastructure. The hydrogen fuel cell is just a short way from being commercially viable, and as long as OPEC wants to keep supplies tight enough to keep oil prices at this level, it will hasten the day that these are built out.
I only hope it happens before we ruin the environment and economy by pursuing bio-fuels - the new crack for politicians and agri-businesses.
6 C Stanley
March 30, 2008 @ 5:54 pm CESTPretty much agree with the commenters as to the content and message of the ad. And as for energy independence, it is a canard to act as though that’s achievable, but it’s still essential that we shift focus to alternative fuels and that would make us less dependent, but not independent- which is still a good thing.
I wanted to comment too on the style of the ad, which I thought was pretty appealing and probably effective. I like the feel of the direct, talking to the people approach, even though I didn’t agree with what he talked about so it didn’t ultimately work for me. For his target audience though, it’s probably a good ad.
7 custody
April 13, 2008 @ 2:43 pm CESTcustody…
The best way to insure adequate visitation between the non- custodial parent and a child is to make sure it is provided for in the first parenting plan entered. This is because there is a strong presumption against modifying parenting plans in order to…