Towleroad Guide to the Tube #294

COMPROMISE TALKS: Clinton, Obama camps holding negotiations to end Hillary's run.

LIFE IN REVERSE: The trailer for the upcoming Brad Pitt/David Fincher film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which Pitt plays a man who ages in reverse.

DAVID COOK: His appearance on The Tonight Show.

GREY'S ANATOMY: Last night's lesbian kiss.

Check out our previous guides to the Tube here.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted 3:15 PM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Brad Pitt, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Kiss, News | Permalink

Like it?

Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!

Comments

I think it's all a load of phooey. This is as much a Presidential Race as it is a horse race in the media to get the BIG SCOOP Of The Day. You see it in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Huff. Post, CNN, MSNBC, the ABC Blog and Time Blog --- all using unnamed "sources within the campaigns" who are saying this and that about what's going on behind-the-scenes.

Of course, no one will question them or file a FOIA because, really, who needs to go through that hassle when you can make this shit up?

As we all know, the media has been in Obama's bed and, objectivity is nothing more but a word in the dictionary. They are trying as hard as ever to wrap this up, in the nicest, most "respectable" way.

Having worked at several newspapers in both small and large markets (Chicago, In'polis, D.C. and Miami), I totally know how it works. That is the reason I dropped out. I'd had enough of the scheming and lying. The media is now a Business with a capital B. Not a business of informing and educating.

Posted by: Joseph | May 23, 2008 4:08:57 PM
Hell, "Difficult" could just mean that somebody forgot to bring the snacks and eats.

Reagan and Bush didn't like each other much but they united for their party. The Clintons and Gores didn't get along yet they united for the party

Clinton and Obama DID like each other before this whole thing. All skuttlebutt is that both liked each other a lot while working together in the Senate.

Obama/ Clinton 08

Sick it up both sides and work it out. politics is compromise

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 4:10:20 PM
"suck it up"

LOL

typonese

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 4:11:50 PM
Why is there a need for a "strategy" for Clinton to back out? Why can't she just back out because it's the right thing to do? Why can't she back out to keep unity in the party. Why must backing out come with "stipulations"? Does anyone else see something wrong with this?

Posted by: soulbrotha | May 23, 2008 5:07:17 PM
No soulbrotha

This is what politics is all about since back to when Rome was a republic

It appears that

Hillary's side wants VP and job positions for her campaign staff

Obama wants to help her with Senate majority leader

The compromise in the end/ best for all is VP for Hillary and probably no job positions for any of her current campaign staff except Maggie Williams, but also positions for old time clinton people like Reich who is supporting Obama (put him back in as sec of labor if Edwards does AG)

Hillary herself should lead the charge to beat Mark Penn off with a stick and don't allow him anywhere near the administration

Compromise compromise compromise= Politics

Obama/ Clinton 08

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 5:23:13 PM
Difference between Reagan/Bush vs Obama/Clinton is that Bush knew his place and was not a threat to Reagan. Clinton, on the other hand, would be a constant threat to Obama's power base. Think of Dick Cheney. Obama would not want to have to deal with Hillary and Bill's shenanigans.

Additionally, a lot of Obama supporters now HATE Hillary as much as the Republicans. They feel that she has pulled to many dirty tricks, including using racism, to win votes. For Obama to offer her the VP would mean that he would be willing to compromise in the traditional politics-of-Washington way.

John Aravois and Andrew Sullivan (the latter is kind of a jerk) are having fits at the thought of Hillary or anyone from her team being part of an Obama administration.

After her comments today about Robert Kennedy, what do you think Ted Kennedy, who is facing his mortality, is thinking? He has malignant tumor and knows at his age that the fight will be hard. Then to have the death of his beloved brother used politically? Puh-leaze! Ted Kennedy didn't like the Clintons before this. Now how do you think he's going to react? What counsel would he offer to Obama and senior party officials? Reports stated that Kennedy was furious with Clinton's injection of race into the campaign, now this? I think the side of the Kennedy family that sided with Obama will do every thing in their power to squash Clinton.

Remember, the Kennedy legacy of JFK, RFK, and Ted Kennedy is built on the Civil Rights success. The Kennedys and LBJ created the modern Democratic Party. I can't imagine that the last Kennedy of that generation will not use all that he can do ensure that Hillary's slip of the tongue haunts her. Put yourself in his position, two brothers assassinated and Dr. King killed. Teddy is looking back and doesn't want those deaths to be for naught.

Also, Obama staff were less than thrilled about what some see as a Freudian slip, wish fulfillment. Hillary gets the VP slot, Obama dies, Hillary gets the presidency by default. It's a slip of the tongue that after Mike Huckabee's talk about Obama dodging gun men really puts people on edge-- especially people named Kennedy.

Behind the scenes, I'm sure there are some seriously angry discussions taking place.

Posted by: noah | May 23, 2008 10:13:31 PM
Forget it JIMMYBOYO, if there was the slightest chance that Hillary was going to be the VP nominee it ain't happnin' after today's "assassination" statement.

Besides that some of the most ardent Clinton supporters have begun jumping ship, finally disgusted with some of the extremists who are making sulking and making threats to take down the party if Hillary isn't on the ticket.

Hillary will not be on the ticket and at this point I couldn't be happier.

Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 11:08:03 PM
zeke

Yeah

:-(

Earlier today I would have bet my house on Hillary having VP all sewed up

Things have changed quite quickly. That is also politics = quick change

I think it was an honest mistake born out of tiredness and desperation, but............it was a serious mistake

Aye yae yae

We will see what will happen with the super d's. It is all in their hands now

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 11:33:52 PM
I should add to what I said

I specificaly mean her Super D's

1 already switched to Obama today though I think that was pre the mistake

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 11:36:13 PM
NOAH:

You are absolutely right. The racism of the Clinton campaign made her unthinkable as VP weeks ago. I am addressing to you because you and Derrick were hugely helpful in helping me realize that most of my opposition to Obama really was racism. Once I was able to see at as such, it has been much easier to recognize and then ignore it. You were right. I was wrong. You helped me to see this, and I thank you for it.

If Obama feels a HUGE need to reach out to Clinton supporters, all he haqs to do is pick a female running mate. I do not mean to imply that he should make gender a big factor in his choice. I am saying that he can pander to Clinton supporters without bringing in the serious liability of the Clintons themselves.

Posted by: Landon Bryce | May 24, 2008 12:05:16 AM
really LANDON? if hillary were the presumptive nominee, would her picking just any ol' black guy as a running mate appease the obama supporters? you and others complain loudly about racism (and on an earlier thread you sanctimoniously craved respect for gluttony and the obese). yet, you and others have no problem with sexism.

i do not believe that hillary is racist, nor do i read anything nefarious in her "'assassination' statement". but like many on the obama side who revel in indignation, i guess it all depends on whose bull is being gored.

obama has had an easy time, and i am not a bit surprised. the same cannot be said about hillary. as syndicated columnist marie cocco stated a couple of evenings ago on PBS's "news hour", "...the drum beat of contempt... and vulgarity" toward hillary has been unremitting. just read some of the comments on this thread, then watch the doctored monty python vid ANDY (happily?)provided on a previous post. better yet, read a recent column by ms. cocco @
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403090.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

and don't bet the farm that there has been one night on late night tv without at least one hillary and/or pant-suit joke since she began her campaign, while there have been virtually no jokes about obama. yes, let's laugh at her. let's make jokes and call her names. but if we do, let us not forget that what still allows many heterosexual males (and more than a few females) the freedom to do so, is the tacit social approval of denegrating the "feminine other." let us not forget, too, that in their minds, we as homosexuals fall within that construct. that particularly american ethos is a stomach-churning fact for me, clearly it (still) is not for many sissies. nevertheless, when we confront the enemy, it should not include some of us.

now, i have never been a cut-off-my-nose-to-spite-my-face voter; i can see the bigger picture. so i will vote in november for the dem candidate, but it will be with a lot less enthusiasm than i had at the beginning. however, if I feel this way, i shudder to think how people feel who are not nearly as invested in either candidate as most on this blog are. this is no way to win a national election.

further, my friend, ZEKE, (though it may displease you, given that you have happily sacrificed hillary) i don't see us winning without an obama/hillary ticket.

JIMMYBOYO,

there are things we cannot live without: tolerance, secularism, and compromise. there are things we can not live with: racism, misogyny, ethnic cleansing (who in his/her mind would want that?), euro-centrism, homophobia, xenophopia, and all other -phobism. we have nothing to be afraid of.

Posted by: nic | May 24, 2008 4:02:52 AM
On a completely different note, David Cook is a sweetheart.

Posted by: Ernie | May 24, 2008 4:10:46 AM
I agree with you NIC that I don't think there was anything neffarious in her statment at all. The stress of the long primary season and tiredness played a huge part in what happened

Her refernce to primaries continuing into June didn't take into account that those primaries started around march while ours this year started around January. She did have a point on anything can happen in politics. The problem was she cited the worse possible example in this already stressful election cycle.

She did quickly appologize. That must be stressed. She herself realized the mistake she had made.

I myself was taken aback by internet news sources not printing her appology till way too far after she gave it. Which didn't calm the situation that their also quickly reporting on her quick apology would have done. I don't think that was due to sexism or Hillary hate but rather US news sources just loving sensationalism. Sad

I also now think that if Obama came on bended knee to her with the VP slot with even a bow on it, she wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole.

People being people, there would be just too many who see her as suspect #1 if Obama just gets a hang nail. It would hamstring her too much politicaly.

I find it ironic that the meetings that would have secured her the VP slot had just started.

But, seeing the reactions of the newspapers that endorsed her.......wether they are just looking for sensationalism to boost readership or they are truly upset about her mistake........it doesn't look good.

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 24, 2008 8:21:22 AM
JIMMYBOYO,

what you say is all well and good, but it doesn't address the larger issue. many of the democratic stalwarts who have supported hillary have backed her because she has more than paid her dues. she has demonstrated over and over (from arkansas to the white house to the senate) that she has bigger balls than any of the other candidates. frankly, i would trust her to face down china and russia over obama and the war monger mcgeezer. moreover, she has the smarts to deal effectively with the middle-east.

i do not blame obama for the appallingly shabby treatment a former first lady and u.s. senator has received at the hands of a phallo-centric media and obama's own surrogates -- and never mind the piling on of web-sites which had at their core a mission to defeat repugs, but instead have devoted their energies to besmirching and sinking hillary (i.e. daily kos, move on.org, huff-po, etc). but surely you can understand the displeasure that many women, feminists, working-class whites and latinos feel about being kicked to the curb by a campaign that is increasingly viewed as petty, elitist and effete.

i do blame obama for that. he could have changed the tenor of his campaign to adress the bread and butter issues of the democratic party instead of relying on high-falutin speechifying and pontification. and he could have called off the attack dogs on this and other more blatantly misogynistic sites.

latino males may be "machistas", but they will not countenance attacks from outsiders on their mothers, sisters, and wives. the women will hold their cards close to the vest, but in the voting booth, their voices will be heard.

as i have repeatedly said, i will vote for the dem in november, but it will be the first time that i do so without a sense of hope and with an enormous feeling of foreboding. that is not a good thing, coming from a yellow dog democrat. plus, my conscience will be clean; i never attacked barack's character.

Posted by: nic | May 24, 2008 11:03:09 AM
No one has ignored the sexism that Hillary Clinton has faced. Chris Matthews is a pig. Penn Gillette is worse. Sexism is real in the media and one just needs look at the history of women in media and their mistreatment: Barbara Walters in the 1970s and now Katie Couric. The men in power have a boys' club and they don't care to share power. (Look at the closeted gay Republicans, they enjoy the privileges of being white males in Republican circles. They can hide their difference and succeed. White women and people of color can't. Nor can effeminate gay men. They all wear their difference on their skin or voice.)

Matthews comments about Clinton and his colleague's David Shuster's comments about Chelsea were also gross. Don Imus' comments were disgusting. The sexism in rock and rap is vile.

However, Clinton and her surrogates are making all criticism of her into sexism instead of there being legitimate concerns with her policy positions or misdeeds. Women who aren't Clinton supporters are called gender traitors! Obama has not repeatedly used veiled sexism to attack Clinton as Hillary Clinton has done so to go after him.

"Hard working Americans, white Americans"? Come now, who says something like that unless she was trying to communicate something. In politics, it's called coded phrases. Nice sound bytes tuned for a receptive audience.

Then there was the terrible Geraldine Ferraro fiasco wherein she said Obama was the Affirmative Action candidate. Ferraro said the same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988. Let's not even go into Clinton calling Obama an elitist. Clinton has an estate worth $100,000,000. She graduated from two Ivy League schools and served on the board of Wal-Mart while it was in union busting mode during the 1980s.

Clinton supporters call African-Americans racist for supporting Barack Obama even though they supported John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton with the same level of support that many of them are showing Obama. Look at the voting records. Hillary Clinton had 70 to 80% of the African-American vote in January. Obama was constantly questioned if he was "black" enough to get African-American support. What changed to push those voters from the Clinton camp? Come on, be real about this. Contrary to popular misconception, African-Americans don't vote for someone based on race.

In the last major election sequence, Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell, and Michael Steele, all African-American politicians, received little support from the African-American voters in their respective races. Clarence Thomas is the most hated Supreme Court justice amongst African-Americans.

None of Obama's official surrogates have made sexist comments about Clinton. None. The Illinois head of Naral, the national abortion rights organization, issued a YouTube video denouncing Clinton for lying about Obama's support of women's issues.

Go back and look at comments from Gloria Steinem or Erica Jong that suggested that even though Obama had more popular votes and delegates he should step aside because Hillary is a (white) woman. Huh? They actually claimed that white women suffer more from sexism than people of color, African-American, Latino, Native American, and Asian, women and men suffer from racism.

Really? A quick look at statistics will show that white women have been the greatest benefactors of Affirmative Action in all sectors: business, politics, etc. There have only been 3 elected African-American senators since reconstructions. How many white women senators have their been? Have you looked at the statistics on mortality rates for Native Americans?

As a gay man, do you think being openly gay in the work place is easier than being a heterosexual white woman? Survey says no.

Sexism is real. Racism is real. Homophobia is real. But playing games, dividing the Democratic Party along racial and gender lines to win the nomination defeats the very principles for which the modern Democratic Party stands! It's also frackin' political suicide! Face facts: the GOP may have loads of closet cases but they could give a rat's a$$ about the average gay or lesbian struggling to pay rent or keep a job. These are the guys and gals who happily help to plot homophobic attacks to win votes. They go home to their lovers, like Dick Cheney's daughter does, and don't care about the average queer kid who's getting the shit kicked out of him because of the psyops campaign they used to drive home to the voters that the queers are evil.

Like it or not, the Democratic Party is the best hope for gays and lesbians. If the party loses in November, expect John McCain to pack the Supreme Court with Right-wingers who won't be looking after our interests. Bush's appointees eviscerated Brown v. The Board of Education, who's to say that McCain's might not roll back and allow reimplementing the sodomy laws or worse?

Yes, people make slips of the tongues but this is a major campaign. These kinds of comments are calculated. In 1980, Ronald Reagan went Philadelphia, MS, the site where three Civil Rights workers, two Jewish and one African-American men, were slaughtered. Reagan went before a large county fair and declared forcefully: "I'm for States' Rights!" That was the call of the Confederacy. Reagan knew the symbolism of that act. It was part of the Southern Strategy, generating votes from racist whites.

Similarly, in 2004, the GOP used anti-gay propaganda to win votes. The GOP mailed hundred of thousands of mailers to Bible Belt homes with threats of homos destroying the family. Anti-gay marriage amendments were put on state ballots to get out the scared Republican base.

Do you think that Hillary Clinton's constant use of race isn't similarly calculated?

But the sexism in the campaign, as disgusting as it is, is not being orchestrated by the Obama campaign. That's coming from Republicans, like the scumbag who started a group called C.U.N.T. or pigs like Chris Matthews and others. The Obama campaign has to stay on message about being inclusive, post racial, feminist friendly, and gay friendly. (Seriously, how man times has Obama talked about gay issues in front of non-gay focused audiences? Churches? It's easy to preach to a friendly crowd but not to a doubting one. When has Hillary gone before a Church and spoke out against homophobia. Please, let's not go into a cliche about how terribly homophobic black churches are when we all know that Pat Robertson, the Pope, and Rev. Hagee are just as, if not more homophobic religious leaders. It's just easier to toss mud at black churches than look at the real power behind homophobia in America.)

As for the RFK comments, I don't think Hillary wants Obama dead. She just wants the presidency so bad that she is willing to
justify her stay in the race by any means. I'm not naive enough to believe that burning ambition in a politician is bad or unique, but I want my elected officials to have a modicum of integrity. I want them not to play racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or homophobic games to win votes!

The reality is that Clinton suffered vicious and horrible attacks during Bill Clinton's presidency. She put up with a lot. I respected, supported, and defended her.

But during this campaign, one can only turn one's eye away from so many gaffes and begin to recognize that something is just not right. You have to recognize that Clinton is willing to toss away basic principles of fairness and decency to win. Isn't that what we've seen for 7.5 years with Bush? Using racism to win votes? Was it okay for Bush to use homophobia to win votes? His supporters think so.

The RFK comments were made 3 times. Obviously, she doesn't want Obama murdered but it bringing up the assassination of a presidential candidate 3 times as a justification for staying in the race is CREEPY!

And, if you were a presidential nominee, like Obama, would you want a VP who makes those kinds of comments? It's sorta like would you be eager to marry someone who is always talking about the need to take out a $10,000,000 life insurance policy before the wedding ceremony.

The general election is crucial to gay Americans who want to live openly, without fear, especially those of us who are not wealthy. The majority of gay Americans, contrary to popular belief, are not wealthy and don't summer in Provincetown. Some of are in the Midwest, South, or BFI. A lot of us are living paycheck to paycheck in working class and middle class jobs, worrying that are jobs might be outsourced or eliminated.

I started this election cycle supporting John Edwards. After watching Clinton and Obama, I support Barack Obama because he has integrity, brains, grit, and a solid team of diverse people who want the best for all Americans.

Posted by: noah | May 24, 2008 11:38:19 AM
Noah

I wouldn't put all of the "racism" stuff on the shoulders of Clinton surrogates. A lot of it comes from the media

The whole dissecting up the electorate into "white working class" etc groups was first done by the media and not by either campaign. Though both campaigns played into it after the media already started it.

The media has played a big role in this long drawn out primary fight.

The media honestly egged both candidates, their surrogates, and supporters on. Stirring up things to turn them against each other more then they really were.

Clinton and Obama were supposedly very good friends prior to the elections, obama supporters love Women and support Women's rights 100%, Hillary supporters love African Americans and support civil rights 100%.

Yes mistakes were made on both sides, but the media played a huge role on egging it on for ratings. The long drawn out and at times painful primary season has been wonderful for ratings = kaching advertising $$$.

I honestly think that if the media hadn't done 1/2 of what it did then we would have had a dream ticket (my prefernce puts Obama 1st) Obama/ Clinton 08 a long time ago.

The season being drawn out like it has been eventualy led us to this mistake that I believe Hillary in her heart of hearts truly feels sorry for.

Though even her own supporting / endorsment giving news sourcs NYT, WAPO, etc seem to be beating up on even her appology.

I ask myself if the NYT, WAPO, etc are tru upset with even her appology or are they just trying to cash in on some sensationalism. They did endorse her so why attack her quickly given appology?

It took no more than 3 hours at most for Hillary to appologize. In politics that is like 3 seconds. Politicans usualy do not react that quickly at the best of times.

Her appology was very quick by political standards where one has to worry about the words of your appology being dissected and thus you must spend time on vetting and revetting what the appology will be before even delivering it. (super run on sentence there)

Anyway;

NIC

I hear you. I sympathize with your feelings at the moment. Don't feel like you have to "get over it" any time soon. You have a right to experience whatever you are feeling for as long as you want.

I of course am happy that you would vote for Obama, but in the end I would also support you if you wrote Hillary's name in. Just as long as mccain didn't get an extra vote. :-)

Fom my own experience I know many if not most Obama supporters defended Hillary and Bill multiple times against attacks from right wingers.

I know I did especialy right after 9/11 when the repubs were trying to deflect attention away from bush ignoring the months old reports detailing Osama Bin laden using planes as weapons and the multiple warnigns the Clinton administration gave that were ignored by Rice etc. I gladly defended the Clintons and would do say again anytime against the repubs

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 24, 2008 1:03:12 PM
NIC, I didn't sacrifice Hillary.

I started out being a HUGE Clinton fan. I have a couple of years of archives here at Towleroad to back up my assertion. I have spent literally hours defending both of the Clintons on this site alone.

Though I respect your opinion I wholeheartedly disagree with it. It's my opinion that we can't win in November with Senator Clinton on the ticket; especially not after her recent misstep. African-American voters were already very unhappy with her, now they're absolutely disgusted.

Additionally, I disagree with you that Obama has had an easy ride while Senator Clinton has not. Finally, I disagree with you that Obama supporters have been more vicious and vitriolic that Clinton supporters and that Obama supporters have "reveled in indignation" over Hillary's missteps as if the same cannot be said for the other side.

I do agree with you on at least one statement. Perception really does seem to depend on whose bull is getting gored.

It really is time to come together as a united Party under our party's prohibitive nominee. We can't do that if we keep holding grudges and rehashing perceived misdeeds. There have been a lot of shameful words and deeds spoken and perpetrated by both sides. That is terribly unfortunate but we can't let our internal issues distract us from our COMMON goal of beating McSame in November. Forgiving and moving on is always harder for the side that comes up short. Trust me, I know this to be true. I grew up in Mississippi where they STILL haven't gotten over losing the "The War of Northern Agression". Way too many people there are STILL fighting the damned thing. However, continuing this back and forth "he said", "she said" is nothing more than a detrimental distraction of time, energy and good will that is need NOW to start our general election fight.

Posted by: Zeke | May 24, 2008 3:22:29 PM
Yeah, and guess what? An Obama/Clinton ticket is not impossible. JIMMYBOYO, I'm starting to feeel it...and that's all right!

Why not make America fulfill her promise?... Her TOTAL promise.

Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 25, 2008 1:59:14 PM
Derrick

I felt it, wanted to feel it, still want to feel it.

The gaffe might have totaly shiskabobed it.

If from Tuesday on through next week senator Feinstein takes back her comment on it being a winning ticket then it is impossible. She as a Hillary supporter will be someone to watch and see her reaction to what happened on friday.

Obama's response has sort of calmed my thinking it is impossible. I think it is in the realm of unlikely at the moment depending on the reaction to what happened. Hillary has the benefit of a 3 day weekend before it really hits the news cycle so it might calm down. Who knows.

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 25, 2008 2:38:27 PM
So there are very few people here that I respect more than Zeke and Jimmyboyo. However, I need your help understanding something. Zeke, I know that you are NOT a Clinton fan, but stay with me here. Clinton said that if she were president she would "take" the oil company's profits and now Maxine Waters, CA, says that she will "socialize" the oil companies! For the love of God can someone explain how I am supposed to support such socialists/communist views in America?!

I wouldn't care if they offered me full marriage I would not want to live in a communist country. I do not get it. I have tried, I have listened and yet these people still scare the living hell out of me! If you missed the clip or think I am exagerating please view the Utube clip below and listen for yourself. AMAZING!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE

Posted by: RB | May 25, 2008 5:52:26 PM
RB

I'm a coo coo crazy person so don't respect me to much. :-)

Maxine Waters is 1 rep out of 435. 1 out of 236 democratic reps.

She isn't going to be declared Prime citizen over the USSA anytime soon.

Her "nationalizing" was in refference to oil companies drilling on US soil. The FOX clips is not so artfuly edited. She was not talking about grabbing control of oil companies around the world, but rather companies that would drill willy nilly without restraint on US soil. The oil guy was demanding that!!!! No restriction drill anywhere on US soil the oil companies want. The compromise would be restrictions on allowing where they can drill and letting them keep control of those oil wells on US soil = politics

Clinton's "take"? I know she has rightly mentioned heavily taxing them. Beyond that, I am not sure what you are talking about

Obama has mentioned a windfall tax that would heavily tax the huge profits of the oil companies. Exxon Mobil for example is making a profit (after expenses) in the 10's of billions a year at the moment. Obama's windfall tax I think is maxing the cost of oil at 80$ a barrel and anything over that goes straight into gov coffers. It would 1) raise tons of tax money 2) force the over bloated fat cat oil companies to bring the over inflated prices down. I am going to assume he plans on doing the same to all foreign oil companies that the US imports oil from.

America has always grown in strength when it has combined the best of capitolism and socialism to form a better whole. Neither supposed "pure" capitolism works nor the same with socialism. America doesn't even have "pure" capitolism anyway, never has.

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 25, 2008 7:56:23 PM
We have had windfall taxes before and all it did was cause the oil companies to either move off shore or ship their oil elsewhere! Then, gas was the equivalent of $5 a gallon AND we had to wait in line to get it. Am I the only one that remembers the 70's? Windfall taxes just about broke the back of the entire economy!

Taxation always kills growth, jobs, etc. The supply and demand theory never works when we tax the ever loving hell out of the industry. They will simply refuse to ship us the oil, thereby causing a "shortage" and the price goes up more. Very simply, oil prices are based upon the futures market. If we open North America for drilling and build refineries the price of oil would drop overnight! That is the truth plain and simple. The last thing we need is Maxine Waters, and if you think she is the only one you are kidding yourself, to mess with private industry!!!

Everything Obama has said sounds like a return to the 70's and I am amazed that so few get that. He said the other day that we need to return to 55mph speed limit and conserve. I remember that too and it did not help.

We have the answer, it is right under our noses. The reason he is so popular with the youth is because they are too young to remember the hell we went through in the 70's!

I had someone tell me the other day that we needed to work on a "cure" for our oil dependencey. Ok, I agree with that. However, solely working on a cure without using current resources is a lot like saying that if we cannot "cure" cancer outright we should not work on slowing the disease! If we took that approach we would not have had the multitude of cancer drugs we have today. How many years has Jerry Lewis searched for a cure for MS? We may never find it, but all of the research has made lives easier. I am not saying that we shouldn't look for alternative fuels, but use what we have first and do NOT shut it off while we search for a hydrogen fuel cell.

I just do not get it. I canot trust anyone that says they will "take" profits, nationalize private industry, etc. They scare me beyond belief!

Posted by: RB | May 26, 2008 4:32:30 AM
NOAH, it is hard to contest an aporetic argument. harder still, when it is in novella form. however, as it pertains to disparaging statements, i repeat, "i guess it all depends on whose bull is being gored."

if it is your and ZEKE's contention that obama has not had an easier time of it, simply google "youtube hillary sexism" to find plenty of examples. then, tell me where to find examples of the msm's equal verbal raping of obama. and, since you two agree that it has not been the "official surrogates" of obama's campaign that have helped in the feeding frenzy, then go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke64670GkZ8

@ZEKE, you said:

"[NIC] I do agree with you on at least one statement. Perception really does seem to depend on whose bull is getting gored."

well, gee, thanks for that ass-backward compliment. the implication is that you really do not agree with anything i said except that we perceive things differently. you simply disagree with every point i was trying to make -- without refutation, yet you respect my opinion. you go boy!

i can't think of a better way to unite us queers and our party, as is your stated desire. in that sense, i respect your opinion just as much.

unless we can admit that there are things that continue to oppress our national psyche: misogyny (and its cousin, homophobia), racism, classism, anti-immigrant-ism (a veiled form of ethnic cleansing), fundamentalism (in religion and the court system) ad absurdum, we cannot unify our party. thus, i maintain that an obama/hillary ticket is necessary: he to bring in the vote of affluent liberal and educated (white and minority voters) and the work-a-day black vote; she to bring in the working-class white, disaffected feminist, labor, and the work-a-day latino vote. a democratic candidate cannot win without that coalition.

the most curious thing about this whole campaign is that it has not rested on the wide shoulders of policy differences, but rather, on the very narrow shoulders of personality. i hope that the cult of personality will not supersede a greater goal.

JIMMYBOYO and DERRICK have consistently taken a cosmic, and at times, comic view on this conundrum, and i deeply appreciate that. that is the stuff that comity, collegiality and compromise are built on: for while we (however we self-identify) can certainly survive without each other, we cannot thrive without each other.

this is getting tiresome, but i will reiterate: i have no dog in this fight, other than the one that fights for our self-preservation. nonetheless, i know that all of us will gain from one democratic candidate or the other -- or both.

Posted by: nic | May 26, 2008 7:23:54 AM
RB

Clinton years = higher taxes = economic growth and prosperity

Bush years = lower taxes = retched economy and growth slowed or reversed

FDR and after = income tax/ higher taxes = unprecedented growth in america

Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 26, 2008 7:35:11 AM
RB, you seriously believe anyone in the Democratic party is even remotely close in ideology to communism or socialism (which are not the same thing, btw)? The most left-leaning Democrat in the U.S. is still far to the right (in terms of economic policies) of right-wing parties in many other countries, like Canada and European nations.

Posted by: RJ | May 26, 2008 6:04:08 PM
changing the topic for a moment: sydney pollack has died. his death is a huge loss for american cinema ("tootsie", "out of africa"). he changed my life with the great existentialist 1969 film, "they shoot horses, don't they?". i was in my mid-teens, but the film hammered home the themes of albert camus' "le mythe de sisyphe" and the struggle against suicide and euthenasia in the face of a purblined doomster and an absurd universe. back then, i could not have articulated these sentiments, but they took hold, nonetheless.

as gig young shouted in the movie, "YOWZA, YOWZA, YOWZA", for a life well lived, mr. pollack.

Posted by: nic | May 27, 2008 3:16:41 AM
NIC, that was exactly what I was saying. I'm sorry if you consider it a sin to state one's complete disagreement with the opinion of a person whom you like and admire in a polite, civil and humorous way without going for the jugular or using cutting sarcasm.

Yes, my point was that I disagree with just about everything you said but I didn't feel the need or desire to go through my disagreements point by point because, like I said, I think that that would accomplish NOTHING but to distract us with inter-Party bickering over "he said, she said" arguments that in the end are going to do nothing but strengthen McSame's chances while harming our own.

I am not disrespectful, rude or uncivil to you or Senator Clinton. If you want to get down in the mud and brawl over Clinton or Obama or their supporters then you'll need to find someone else to do it with because it won't be me.

Posted by: Zeke | May 27, 2008 1:42:06 PM
Sorry, the rest of you are right--they'll be no Obama/Clinton ticket. I was still feeled with guilt and drinking Saturday afternoon when I posted.

But she and her supporters have to be respected. Obama is handling the situation just right--he won't disrespect or ridicule Senator Clinton, and he has no need to.

LANDON, I never thought you were pro-Hillary because of racist feelings about Barack. Your comments were never that vicious--I'd have remembered.

Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 27, 2008 2:04:26 PM
RB, I wouldn't agree with taking the profits away from the oil companies but I am 100% for taking the ridiculous tax breaks that they have been given, didn't need and didn't ask for. It is absolutely CRIMINAL to be making the kinds of profits that they are making while they are getting billions in tax breaks from the American people (who CAN'T get them) while they are paying all time high gas prices at the pump. The ONLY people who are REALLY making out like BANDITS are the oil EXECS not the workers or even the share holders (who are generally wealthy as well).

You seem terribly concerned about Hillary's position on this but you have to remember that Hillary is not going to be the nominee (to the dismay of some here) and Obama has never said that he shares this opinion. Please don't buy into the conservative talking point that any DEMOCRAT who has ever brushed up against another person automatically shares their opinions on everything (for some reasone that doesn't seem to hold true for Republicans).

Furthermore, what exactly in Senator McCain's position on this problem. Is your focus on what you don't like about the Democrats' positions while ignoring the deplorable positions of the Republican nominee? That also seems to be a common campaign tactic on the Republican side of the aisle. Rather than run on their positions they run on a plank of "look over there at what those Democrats are doing. Pay no mind to the fact that our position is worse or that we have NO position at all."

Could you cite your references for your claim that the 55 mph speed limit change didn't help anything? Preferably a report that wasn't written by the oil industry. Everything I've read said that it saved billions of gallons of gas (and billions of tons of CO2 emissions) over the term of its use. Once the oil supply was increased, the oil market was stabalized and the economy was re-established the need for the reduced MPH was determined to be unnecessary (I happen to think they were wrong and a continued 55 mph speed limit would have had many and no negative consequences had it been continued).0

I would suggest that the Bush/Republican stripping of CIVIL LIBERTIES, their consolidation of power in the Executive Branch, their display of complete and utter incompetence with military and foreign policy issues, their drunken sailor spending, their "crony over competence" method of governance, their complete failure to respond to domestic crises and their attacks on gay families would be a greater concern to the average, hard working, conservative, gay father and family man than whether or not a Senator who will not be our President has a personal opinion about the profits of the world's largest and richest companies. I can't imagine why a conservative voter would be moved more by Exxon/Mobile's wefare than by what is being done to his country, his community and his family.

I'm pretty sure Exxon/Mobile can take care of themselves with or without your concern. I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Exxon/Mobile won't give so much as a rat's ass about the health and welfare of you and your family or whether or not the government helps or harms you. They don't even give a rat's ass about their own gay employees.

Posted by: Zeke | May 27, 2008 2:10:47 PM
ZEKE,

i do not accept passive-aggressiviness. do you concur with my premise or not?

Posted by: nic | May 27, 2008 3:52:19 PM
HEY NOAH, GUESS WHAT? ALOT OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS HATE OBAMA. AND THEY ARE 50 PERCENT OF THE PARTY. THE VOTE HAS BASICALLY BEEN A SPLIT. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO CLOSE THE DOOR ON THEIR CANDIDATE? REALLY? AND PLEASE DON'T BRING THE PIG TED KENNEDY INTO IT? ASK MARY JO KOPECHENE'S PARENTS IF THEY FEEL SORRY FOR THE MAN WHO LIVED TO AND OLD AGE AFTER LEAVING THEIR DAUGHTER TO DROWN AND NEVER FACING JUSTICE? DUDE, READ UP BEFORE YOU WIND UP.

Posted by: dw314 | May 27, 2008 4:08:43 PM
DW314,

nobody hates obama. the teddy thing? that's old news. what? you ain't got nothing better!?

i'm still waiting for my friend, ZEKE, to give a little on the misogyny thing. he'll come around. i know it -- gosh darnit!

Posted by: nic | May 27, 2008 4:53:22 PM
AND LANDON, STEP INTO THE LIGHT, LOOK AT THE SPINNING WHEEL, YOU'RE NOT A RACIST ANYMORE, YOU SUPPORT OBAMA! YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR CHILDRENS CHILDREN WILL LIVE IN A WORLD OF COTTON CANDY AND LIGHT. LAAAAANNNNNDDDDOOOOONNN YOU ARE NOT A RACIST!

DUDE, IT TOOK GEORGE WALLACE A LOT LONGER TO GIVE UP RACISM THAN A FEW POSTS FROM ACOLYTES OF A CHRISTLIKE FIGURE. YOU'VE GOT A WAYS TO GO. I SUGGEST YOU START BY LEARNING TO SAY CHITTLINS NOT CHITTERLINGS. ORDER VINEGAR WITH YOUR COLLARDS. PUT SUGAR IN YOUR CORNBREAD. ORDER RED KOOLAID. LEARN TO NOT REFER TO YOUR FRIENDS AS "MY BLACK FRIEND". GO TO COUNTRY BARS AND TELL THEM THAT LINE DANCE THEY DO IS THE BUS STOP.GO SIT AT A PACKED HOT BLACK CHURCH ON A HUMID DAY NEXT TO A 300LB SWEATY SISTER WHO GETS THE HOLY GHOST ALL OVER YOU. BUY A 300C. GET YO HAIR DID. AND LEARN NOT TO SCREAM "GIVE ME THAT BLACK DICK" WHEN GETTING FUCKED BY A NEGRO. RINSE AND REPEAT. THEN YOU WON'T BE A RACIST AND YOU CAN GO BACK TO MSNBC AND GET YOUR "I USED TO BE A RACIST WHITE HONKEY OPPRESSOR UNTIL OBAMA SHOED ME THE LIGHT" BUMPER STICKER.

SHEESH!

Posted by: dw314 | May 27, 2008 4:57:49 PM
"VINNEGAR IN COLLARDS"

Oh, man, that is so Yankee white. I don't even think a Georgia Hillbilly would do that.

Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 27, 2008 5:08:16 PM
OMG! THE TEDDY THING IS OLD NEWS!ARGH! OK SO NICOLE SIMPSON IS OLD NEWS? CHARLIE MANSON IS OLD NEWS. ALL OF THE MURDERS LAST YEAR ARE OLD NEWS. TELL THE PARENTS OF JEFFREY DAHMERS VICTIMS THAT THEIR KIDS BEING EATEN BY A NUTJOB IS OLD NEWS. NO WAIT, CALL THE KOPECHNES AND ASK IF THEY THINK WHAT KENNEDY DID IS OLD NEWS? IS THAT ALL I GOT? YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT? HOPE IS NOT CHANGE IF CHANGE IS GLEEFULLY TAKING THE SUPPORT OF AND OLD DRUNKEN LECH WHO LEAVES YOUNG WOMEN IN A CAR TO DROWN WHILE THEY MAKE SURE THEY DONT GET PUNISHED. AND THEN THERE'S THAT WHOLE WANDERING AROUND DRUNK IN HIS DRAWERS WHILE HIS NEPHEW WAS RAPING A WOMAN. OR MAYBE HIS NOT BEING ABLE TO KEEP HIS PANTS ON DURING HIS MARRIAGE TO JOAN WHICH TURNED HER INTO BIG OLE ALCHY. PUH-LEEZE! IT GETS ME HOW EVERYTHING IS WHITEWASHED (LANDON, PAY ATTENTION, THATS WAS PROBABLY A RACIST COMMENT) WITH OBAMA. WOULD ANYONE HERE GLADLY SAY THAT IT WAS OLD NEWS IF HILLARY HAD LEFT A PERSON IN A CAR TO DROWN? OR THREW HER GRANNY UNDER THE BUS? (LANDON, THAT WAS NOT RACIST JUST SORTA FOR THE HELL OF IT)

Posted by: dw314 | May 27, 2008 5:09:25 PM
YO DERRICK IVE BEEN BLACK QUITE A FEW YEARS NOW. NEVER BEEN TO GEORGIA BUT I DO LOVE SUZANNE SUGARBAKER. I ALSO HAVE HAD MANY MEALS AT HOME AND AT M&MS ETC WHERE THERE IS A BOTTLE OF VINEGAR ON THE TABLE, OFTEN WITH PEPPERS IN THEM. MAYBE YOU MISSEDTHIS DELICACY WHEN YOU ORDERED YOUR BRAISED FIELD GREENS IN AN INFUSED TRUFFLE FOAM? SO YOU KNOW, YOU TAKE THE CAP FROM THE VINEGAR BOTTLE AND FILL IT WITH VINEGAR AND POUR OVER GREENS.

NEXT TIME YOU ASSUME SOMEONE AINT BLACK ENOUGH CHECK YOSELF. DONT MAKE ME GET MY GRANMA AINT SIS TO COME AND PUT A SWITCH TO YO BEHIND BOY.

Posted by: dw314 | May 27, 2008 5:16:42 PM
DW314,

you are not well.

Posted by: nic | May 27, 2008 5:51:02 PM
NIC.FINALLY. SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS. KUDOS.

Posted by: dw314 | May 27, 2008 6:11:35 PM
DW314,

I can't afford soul food restaurants--not even Ruthie's on DeKalb in Brooklyn. I've used vinegar to soak greens before washing them, but never added it after they were done.

Well, you learn something new everyday.

Oh, and yes, I still use the term "trade"--I wish they still existed. They were more "real" than "down low" hypocrites. Now, if you've got a muscular "piece o' trade" in the family who could take switch to my behind--I'd thank you kindly.

Posted by: Derrick from Philly | May 28, 2008 11:52:15 AM

Barack Obama | Brad Pitt | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | Kiss | News

Towleroad Guide to the Tube #294

Like it?

RECENT STORIES:

Comments

Post a comment

Recent Comments