Mister we could use a man like Jimmy Carter again

Smarter people than I have already weighed in on how ill-advised it would be to suspend the federal gasoline tax, as John McCain has proposed. Let me add my own voice nonetheless: This is a really, really, stupid idea. Our so-called leaders should be telling us to consume less fuel, not giving us license to use more. (Not to mention the loss of funds for road and bridge repair.)

And I'm not letting the Democratic candidates off the hook. They can spar all they want over oil company profits, or who did or didn't vote for the Bush administration energy proposal, but I don't hear either one of them giving the hard truth to the American people: The age of cheap energy is gone, probably for good, and neither technology nor alternative fuels will save us unless we make fundamental changes in the way we live.

Second verse, same as the first

Hillary Clinton doesn't want to rock the boat:

Sen. Hillary Clinton is planning a smooth honeymoon.

Her plan for the first 100 days of a second Clinton administration, traditionally a period of comity for new presidents, is made up mostly of practical proposals that are likely to succeed, analysts said.

But if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and general election in November, she doesn't plan to use the popular support new presidents typically enjoy as leverage for major battles over issues such as universal health care. (link)

Just like her husband -- play it safe, split the difference and allow our serious problems to fester. No thanks.

Really?

Here's an interesting statement:

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Clinton had made the case superdelegates should exercise independent judgment about who would be the best for the party and the country.

"Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The last thing they need is a lecture from the Obama campaign," he said. (link)

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton was president in 1994, when the Democrats suffered their historic electoral route. I could be mistaken, but I believe there were not only fewer Democratic members of Congress when Clinton left office than when he assumed it, but fewer Democratic governors as well.

How is that building the party?

Hodge podge

This article suggests the long knives are out for the Clintons. Closer to home, the URA is finally lowering the boom on Bernardo Katz. (More here and here.)

That's going to leave a mark

Frank Rich delivers a smack-down to Hillary Clinton in today's New York Times.

That woman

Hillary Clinton has warned her opponents that her husband's impeachment is off limits as a line of attack in the battle for the Democratic nomination for president. Fair enough. Bill Clinton isn't running for president, and he is no more relevant to his wife's campaign than the spouse of any other candidate.

But if other Democrats can't use the former president's impeachment against her, then it doesn't seem right for her to be able to cite his accomplishments in bolstering her candidacy. And I'm apparently not the only one to have this thought:

"She's using him in this campaign, so why can't somebody else use him?" asked a veteran of Democratic presidential politics who is not currently aligned with a candidate but who, like numerous other Democrats, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering the Clintons. "She's just made him fair game. He's part of her strategy, so why can't he be part of one of her opponents'?" (link)

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the Clintons were victims of a right-wing hate machine which had spent years leveling scurrilous and defamatory charges against them. For that reason I'm glad that the Senate did not vote to remove the president from office.

But Bill Clinton did lie under oath. He repeated that lie to the American people. He repeated that lie to members of his administration, who staked their own reputations on defending him. And while I'm no prude, I'll point out that he engaged in conduct in public office that would get most of us fired were we to do it at our jobs. I would have been perfectly happy had he resigned from office upon coming clean with the American people about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Imagine the standard that would have set for the conduct of future presidents.

Instead, President Clinton dug in and fought, sensing that his enemies would beat him in their race to the bottom. As a result, the government was more or less paralyzed for weeks on end, and anything that might have gotten accomplished during Clinton's second term was squandered. I certainly wasn't pleased to see George W. Bush take office in 2001, but I was happy to see Bill Clinton go.

That said, I think that Hillary Clinton's fellow candidates would have to be pretty foolish to use her husband's impeachment against her. The impeachment remains deeply unpopular among liberal Democrats (and many other people as well). Clinton's on the ropes with the party's base over her refusal to apologize for her Iraq War vote, so why would her opponents do anything that would earn her sympathy?

I'm aware of what David Geffen said about the Clintons. But here's a news flash: Most Americans don't know who David Geffen is. I'm guessing that even a majority of Democratic primary voters don't know who he is. It was a mistake for Hillary Clinton to make a fuss over this. As another Democratic president once said, if you can't take the heat...