Will Hillary Clinton Say Anything to get Elected?

She knows full well that democrats in the House and in the Senate would never go along with an ill-advised plan to create a 'gas tax holiday' for the summer. She also has seen the same information as Barack Obama that such a plan is folly which would do nothing for the consumer- It might even increase prices at the pump- but would most certainly increas profits for the oil companies that continue to break profit records.

Now she is trying to paint Obama as being against the little guy and pro Oil Company.The tax holiday plan, she says, could be paid for with a 'windfall tax' on the oil companies.

Is she really naive enough to believe that cost would not be passed on to the consumer?

I do not think so. More likely, she thinks we are naive enough to think that floating this idea will get people in North Carolina and Indiana to vote for her.

Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborrough, Bill Krystal and George Will are all lining up behind this idea as if it is a good one. Why would we start thinking that they suddenly care about us.

Obama says we should continue to investigate the possibility of price gouging and continue to discuss the possiblility of a windfall tax for big oil. He also says we need to continue to wean ourselves off of foreign oil (Hillary doesn't even mention this).

If gaining the White House means sacrificing basic liberal principals- I would submit that it is not worth it.

Apparently Hillary does not agree. And, if you believe like I do, that Hillary understands full well that this election year gimmick will never fly and see her continuing to promote it -while denouncing Obama as being 'out of touch' because he doesn't- then you have no choice to conclude that she is being ccompletely disingenuous. Or, in her own words, she is saying something that contradicts what she knows to be the truth.

If you want to talk about electibility issues come this fall- "who do you trust?" is a question she cannot win.

In a recent NBC poll there were six catergories where the negatives of each candidate were measured. McCain suffered biggest with his links to Bush, then Hillary as untrustworthy, then Barrack Obama with Reverend Wright. Next was Obama again with 'bitter comments'. rounding out the top six were Hillary again and McCain for issues of likability.

What was not reported anywhere is that While Obama's issues ranked at 34 and 32 percent which were much higher than anyone expected (net negative of 66) both Hillary and McCain had higher net negatives (McCain at 74 and Hillary at 68). The length of this process is not the problem. The problem is a candidate who will sell out hers and her party's principals in ordder to get a nomination.

How does Obama respond to that? If he returns the brutal and unscrupulous attacks he weakens the party's chances int he fall and is cast as being the big guy kicking the defenseless woman.

But how many times does a guy have to be slapped around by a woman before he is allowed to swing back. Perhaps there is no answer. But that ends up making Obama look weak.