The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.—Archilochus (7th-century BC)
Mark Penn might not be appearing before the cameras on Hillary's behalf nowadays, but bet that he is beavering away behind the scenes on his polling. And judging from Hillary's dogged [to mix an animal metaphor] performance on this morning's Today, it's obvious the pollster's turned up one big thing: Dem primary voters hate oil companies.
Meredith Vieira gamely tried to get Clinton onto other subjects during her interview. But no matter the question, the answer was almost invariably the same: I Hate Big Oil. Since the questions were irrelevant, let's dispense with them and simply count the ways in which Hillary expressed her wrath at those evil purveyors of oil.
View video here.
We need to have people who are willing to take on the vested interests like the oil companies. Senator Obama wants the consumers to pay the gas taxes this summer; I want the oil companies to pay it out of their excess profits.
I really believe that this difference of opinion over the gas tax is critical. Because I think you've got to have a leader willing to take on the oil companies, starting now. I know that Senator Obama doesn't agree with me. I know that Senator McCain is willing to lift the gas tax but not pay for it. I'm willing to figure out a way to get the gas tax paid this summer out of the record profits of the oil companies. That is the beginning of trying to stand up to the oil companies, which is something we need to do.Throughout this campaign I have said we've got to take on the oil companies. They've been given so many tax breaks. I voted against Dick Cheney's energy bill in 2005 that gave them even more; my opponent voted for it.
Hillary finished in a frenzy of an anti-oil company-ism.
I think a lot of the people who answered that [a poll showing 70% think gas-tax holiday mainly politics], because I've heard a lot of the commentary, don't know that I want to make the oil companies pay the gas tax out of excess profits. But there's a larger question here. I think that if we don't begin to put together the political will to take on the oil companies, we're never going to deal with our long-term addiction on foreign oil. We are never going to begin to have home-grown fuels that can really compete. I'm
all in favor of bio-fuels—we've got to make the oil companies actually put the tanks in at their gas stations so people can get access to them. You know, there's a lot we have to do, so I'm both trying to give people immediate relief, but also give people the confidence that, once again, they would have a president who got up every day thinking about them and worrying about what was going on in their lives, and willing to take on these oil companies, not vote for them when Dick Cheney comes up with an energy bill to give them billions more in tax breaks, but vote against them as I did, and then begin to lay the groundwork to actually rein them in, make them part of the solution instead of a continuing problem that consumers and drivers and the rest of us have to deal with.
Hillary, hedgehog? Hell, Hillary makes the hedgehog look like a flighty ADD-afflicted teenager off his Ritalin. Will this kind of relentless, monomaniacal, I-would-say shameless sort of politics work against the foxy Barack Obama? Stay tuned.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Corporations don't pay taxes
May 5, 2008 - 08:52 ET by SGriffisWhen will Hillary and the Democrats learn that corporations don't pay income taxes out of their profits? Taxes are just another cost of doing business which are passed on to the consumers or paid by the stock-holders (in the form of lower dividends), which include many middle-class Americans and pension funds.
Agreed
May 5, 2008 - 09:30 ET by KC MulvilleI'd also like to know the Democrat criteria for "excess" profits. Hillary's attitude is that she'll allow them to make money, but she'll decide how much she wants them to have.
And by the way, why is it that we haven't built a refinery or nuclear plant in the last few decades? Instead of the three-month solution, maybe she can "take on" the trial lawyers and environmentalists and prevent them from obstructing a sensible energy infrastructure.
She evaded the question
May 5, 2008 - 11:07 ET by SGriffisBill O'Reilly had Hillary on his show and asked her what she would consider to be excess profits. Typically, she evaded the question and gave him a non-answer.
As for your second point, she wont take on the trial lawyers or the environmentalists - she's a Democrat.
Hillary Clinton is a
May 5, 2008 - 12:20 ET by DarkCurrentHillary Clinton is a sitting US Senator. If she thinks the oil companies are making too much profit she should draft legislation NOW that reigns them in. Such legislation should clearly define "excess profits" as well as mandate taking them for the federal government. She doesn't need to be President to take action. If she feels so strongly why doesn't she act now? I think she should do so immediately so we can all see exactly what kind of President she'd make.
Big oil, big cattle
May 5, 2008 - 18:36 ET by SickofLibsWell, one well-known Democrat benchmark for acceptably excessive profits would have be Shillary's meager little $1,000 investment in cattle futures turning into a $100,000 profit.
Why Learn Economics?
May 5, 2008 - 10:28 ET by pilsenerHillary and the Democrats will "learn" when newspaper reporters, pundits, and, especially, TV personalities start asking the follow-up questions. Don't hold your breath!
Q: Don't corporations just pass the cost of taxes on to their customers, so that consumers still end up paying?
Q: Should the federal government be able to seize any private company's legal profits? Don't those profits belong to the shareholders of those companies, which include millions of working men & women who invest in companies they hope will be profitable.
Q: Isn't the international oil market a lot more complex than what you are portraying? Since Democrats are blocking development of new sources, severely limiting refining capacity, and mandating higher-cost blends, doesn't Congress bear most of the responsibility?
When the public realizes
May 5, 2008 - 10:35 ET by dscottWhen the public realizes they are Exxon-Mobil and Marathon Oil and those so called excess profits go to the investors via their 401k, at that point Hillary's shell game is exposed.
The State governments make more money off of gasoline sales than the oil companies, therefore who should be slapped with a windfall profits tax?
BTW - How Marxist can you get? Excess Profits (Costs)? Duh? where did you expect investment money for new wells, alternative energy, etc. would come from????
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
the public will realize?
May 5, 2008 - 10:40 ET by candanceWhen did the public shareholders realize they were Phillip Morris - when the company moved to Switzerland and laid off thousands of workers?
Nice quip, but the
May 5, 2008 - 11:20 ET by dscottNice quip, but the investors financially benefited by that maneuver and if you owned the Dow 30 index, you owned Phillip Morris which is now called Altria. As of Feb this year, Altria was removed from the Dow 30. http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=136079
If you owned/invested in the S&P 500 or Wilshire 5000 index shares you own part of Altria. Yeap, you and I are the cancer stick people whether we like it or not. <sarcasm>
On March 28th, 2008 Altria divested itself of PM http://www.altria.com/download/pdf/TaxBasisInformationStatement.pdf
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
missing my point
May 5, 2008 - 11:25 ET by candanceAn industry was demonized and targeted for their profit until it moved its main headquarters overseas. Altria's stock is almost junk status now since PM International spun off (hubby used to work for them so I know plenty about their history).
I really don't understand how people think these ideas won't fly because the public will magically wake up and stop it.
Well, I don't know if
May 5, 2008 - 12:05 ET by dscottWell, I don't know if moving to Switzerland makes them immune to lawsuits, but I don't think so. But yes, demonizing an industry comes with negative consequences, but by now everyone should know or come to appreciate that the self righteousness of people like the Clintons is nothing more than the diversion from their own less than righteous behavior. I find that the more self righteous a person acts (emotionalism) especially when getting other people to buy into it, the more likely they have a very unrigheous side they don't want people to notice. Self-righteousness is a form of Projection where you justify yourself by condemning others just like the Pharisees of old.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Oil corporation profits
May 5, 2008 - 12:12 ET by merlin61Excuse me, but how is Hillary getting around the
country? What kind of fuel is used to transport
her big butt around to campaign? Oh, I know,
its just her gaseous campaign promises that will
never be realized.
So HRC is "really in favor
May 5, 2008 - 08:58 ET by motherbeltSo HRC is "really in favor of biofuels"? Did Meredith ask her how she would do that without creating the kind of grain shortages just recently experienced, or how she would keep prices down (liberals always claim they can do that).
Big Oil
May 5, 2008 - 09:14 ET by docbThis is a Wink Wink---check her campaign donations and you will find that sizeable donations are from Big Oil, Pharma, munitions , Wall street, and Big Corp.
we've got to make the
May 5, 2008 - 09:22 ET by Franksamwe've got to make the oil companies actually put the tanks in at their gas stations so people can get access to them.
She might be onto something, because after that, we can 'make' Microsoft quit messing with operating programs that work, 'make' the schools teach our children better, 'make' people quit using things like tobacco and heroin that are bad for them, 'make' lazy people get up of their a**es and support themselves......
There might be no end to the things that Hillary could make us do.
*shudder*
May 5, 2008 - 09:47 ET by candanceWhen Big Oil doesn't have enough to pay for all of her lofty communism, she'll demonize Big Medicine for their windfall profits, then Big Retail, then Big Cellphone, on down the list until every profitable industry is choked to death.
All small business owners beware: if you think you're safe because it starts with Big Oil, I pity you in about ten years.
Big Tobacco has been driven overseas where they can actually make a profit, and now Hillary runs around NC (where the economy that was built on tobacco has collapsed) blaming their economic woes on everything else.
The very concept of taking someone's profits by force is the beginning of the end.
I'd like to thank the DNC for allowing my children grow up in the English version of the USSR. The police take away your kids based on religion, the schools indoctrinate them to be communist, fuel and electricity are rationed, the TV is full of propaganda, and anyone with money is a target. It's gonna be a blast!
Big oil and Hillary
May 5, 2008 - 12:15 ET by merlin61Candance, and when all this happens, the media
will say we have a "wonderful, glowing, economy".
Things couldn'd be better, Hail all Hail, Hillary!!!
Bah, humbug!!!!
It won't get
May 5, 2008 - 09:58 ET by docbthrough congress and Bush would not sign it...Stupid pandering.
Bush won't sign
May 5, 2008 - 10:01 ET by candanceI doubt she'll get it to fly this summer, but mark my words next summer it'll come up all over again, and even if McCain is prez they'll probably have a veto-proof Congress.
America is going into another FDR phase and I'm not sure we'll be given a reprieve this time.
I's just like for someone, anyone, to ask Hillary what gives her the constitutional right to confiscate someone's profits.
Hillary and Hugo - one step closer
May 5, 2008 - 09:59 ET by mom_roxWatching Hillary yesterday on This Week reminded me so much of watching Hugo Chavez. How many times does an interviewer/debate moderator have to prompt Hillary to quit speaking so he can ask the next question. She, like Hugo, loves to hear herself speak. (and watch out, because Hugo arranged it so he can broadcast his presidential speeches on the broadcast networks without commercials for as long as he wants to speak.)
Hugo put his friends in charge of PDVSA (the Venezuelan oil company) which retroactively demanded additional payments from foreign companies. I think Hillary would love to micromanage Big Oil and seizing their profits is just the start.
Another similarity: H&H are both supported by the poor and poorly educated.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
Sure Let's Tax the OIl Industry.
May 5, 2008 - 10:29 ET by WesternGuyLets tax big oil. After all, we wouldn't want them to reinvest those profits to find us more oil, because we don't need more oil, right? (or security of supply) After all we can always plant more corn.
Let's call a spade a spade here.
May 5, 2008 - 11:17 ET by LCT688Both Clinton's and Obama's position that the government should dictate to the oil companies what and how much they should produce, how much profit they would be allowed to make is called National Socialism. It is EXACTLY the economic method the Nazis used to run the economy in war time Germany. It is only one step away from International Socialism i.e. Communism.
"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one."
Alexander Hamilton
"I want the oil companies to
May 5, 2008 - 12:17 ET by Killgrave"I want the oil companies to pay it out of their excess profits."
Folks here have already addressed this point (and very well), but I'll reiterate.
It's absolutely incredible that this harpy is insinuating that a company making a profit is a "bad" thing. Profit is the very essence of capitalism. By declaring war on profits, one is seeking to dismantle capitalism itself.
And Hillary is considered to be "right" of Obambi. God help us all.
She love's big government, though!
May 5, 2008 - 12:24 ET by mattmBig Oil. Big Oil. Big Oil.
If it wasn't for the Big Government there would be alot more competition in the marketplace, and alot more "little oil" which would increase efficiency in the market and bring prices down.
Big Government is the culprit - not 'Big Oil'....
What's next Senator Cartoon....
May 5, 2008 - 13:43 ET by connmanoooh I know after you slay the big bad oil companies try this one. You get Steve Jobs over there at the evil Apple corp. to reduce the price of our itune downloads. You just tell them that with their record (excess) profits of 07 they must be punished! Yea yea that's the ticket! Stupid BongI TongCong Hong!
This town needs an enema! - The Joker
Revenue Is Not Profit
May 5, 2008 - 16:54 ET by Junk Science SkepticAnybody who doesn't understand the difference between record revenue and record profit has no business being the chief executive of any enterprise more complex than a sewing circle.
Virtually everything in the oil business, from the well to the wheel, is priced by volume. After the initial economies of scale kick in at a pretty low point, the profit curve is pretty flat. Doesn't much matter whether sales revenues are $10 million or $100 trillion, the net profit to the oil company is still going to be 7-9% of total sales.
Any move to penalize profits, over a certain dollar level or over a certain percentage, will do only one thing - send more jobs overseas as oil companies relocate to countries with a more realistic approach to taxes.
ABC 2008 (Anybody But Clinton)
The Government treats ALL
May 5, 2008 - 17:08 ET by NL207The Government treats ALL tax receipts [revenue] as "profit" which may be spent without a second thought.
This Hag is determined to
May 5, 2008 - 17:10 ET by NL207This Hag is determined to return this country to the gas lines and shortages of the 70's.