If you have "no place to go," come here!

[Pounds forehead on desk]

As a more famous blogger regularly observes, please kill me:

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Oh noes!

Those are the mad negotiation skillz that are going to get us universal health care?

And on the question of whether it's better to be rigid or to get something done, one acronym:


Where many of us would have welcomed a little rigidity, and doing nothing was a lot better than doing the something on offer.

Oh, and on the merits, Krugman:

According to the Energy Information Administration, removing restrictions on offshore drilling would, at peak — about 20 years from now — add about 0.2% to world production, with an “insignificant” effect on the price of oil.

[Pounds forehead on desk]

No votes yet


FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

He HAS to do this in order to get elected. Once elected, it will be progressive heaven for all of us... with ponies!

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Whatever, Krugman. Quit shilling for your son that worked on the Clinton campaign. Obama's Awesome Awesomeness and the fact that he's not McCain will cause the flow of oil coming from offshore drilling to increase by orders of magnitude. If you quit trying to destroy the Democratic Party and the country by criticizing him, you'd realize that Obama is the one we've all been waiting for. He's the one our problems have been waiting for. He is the symbol that, in and of its symbolic self, will cause all the worlds problems to disappear.

Submitted by lambert on

One of the more stupid factions of the OFB tried to smear Krugman, saying he had a son working for the Hillary campaign. Trouble is, Krugman doesn't have a son.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Of all America's economists jumping in front of each other to condemn the foolishness of Obama's plan, right?

It's not like he's trying to do something stupid like shifting the economic burden from ordinary citizens to the obscenely profitable oil companies, right?


Submitted by lambert on

It sure is getting crowded under here! [waves.]

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

actually thrown Al under here yet? How will they do that? Or did I miss it?

Sing "Under the bus" to the tune of "Up On the Roof."

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I really don't get it. His stance on this issue wasn't exactly hurting him in any significant way, so why the...change?

This shouldn't affect, at all, the OFB. They'll find some way to pathologically rationalize this one like they do every change.

I don't want anyone to ever doubt again that Senator Obama is the candidate of change. This is most definitely change that we can believe in, and by believe in I mean believe that it will happen.

Yes we can!
Yes we can!
Yes he will!

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

Something about someone doing and saying anything in order to win.
Both Hillary and President Clinton run for office because their innermost personal desire is to make things better for as many people as they can. To govern, to lead.
People like Bush and Obama are on a mission to collect titles in order to legitimize themselves. It's all about them. Obama has spent more time running for office than he has spent IN office.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

The Clinton's are just as much politicians as anyone else. I hate to see people on the other side viewing everything through the same prism as the OFB (good vs. evil).

Submitted by lambert on

It doesn't do any good to say "they're all politicians." That's like saying, of garbagemen, "They're all garbagemen." But the garbage still has to be collected. Resolving conflicts is what politicians do. It's ugly. And they don't have the real power anyhow; the real power is held by the a few few, very rich men. No point getting worked up about the show with the people who don't run the show.

If I still had the choice, or had the choice again, I prefer Hillary* over Obama as a politician for three reasons:

1. Hillary's base is broader, because it's lower down on Maslow's scale. That's better for the party, and better for me. Universal Health Care would be more likely to come from the Hillary's base than Obama's base, both ideologically and in terms of interest, including my interest in avoiding the preventable death of my friends and myself without health care. Which is why Obama's plan was crippled (no mandates) and Hillary's wasn't.

2. I think that both Clintons, as politicians and/or people, have stopping points that Obama and the OFB don't have. For all the yammering about Hillary's 3AM ad, she ran nothing like the scorched earth campaign Obama ran, which I will not "get over," because when you reward campaigns that leverage false charges of racism and misogyny you'll just get more of it. Obama's shameful FISA vote cemented that view in my mind.

3. Quite simply, the wonkiness appeals to me. The bullshit soaring rhetoric doesn't. Again, FISA cements that view for me.

NOTE * I say "Hillary" rather than "the Clinton's" because a wife isn't the same as her husband, ya dig?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

semidi's picture
Submitted by semidi on

On Thursday afternoon, Obama blasted Grumpy McAngrypants for visiting Houston oil execs last month, raising over a million dollars in contributions from them, and then pimping offshore drilling.

On Thursday night, Obama went to Houston where he raised over a million dollars from oil execs at the $5 million home of John Thrush.

On Friday morning, Obama suddenly softens his opposition to offshore drilling and is willing to compromise with Repugs to make it happen.

If this asswipe were any more transparent, he'd be glass.

Submitted by lambert on



[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

""Is that the best you can do?" (Obama) said to absent Republicans. "Is that your idea of a serious policy debate? ... It's intellectually bankrupt, that agenda, so our job is to make sure we resist getting pulled into that nonsense.""

Yeah, good context to call the GOPers intellectually bankrupt.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

That was a reply to OxyCon, just so you know. I thought it was being just a bit naive and unfair.

But, looking at your reply, I agree completely with everything you said, especially on wonkiness. Her wonkishness is what originally impressed me about her. I'd originally thought her to be a capable and smart individual, but she absolutely blew me away in the 2007 debates with her grasps of just about everything. To me, we so very badly need a wonk back in the Whitehouse at this particular point.

BTW, your reply has also thrown me for a complete loop. I swear, I've reat it over about five times, now, and there is nothing in it that would suggest that you're even tepidly voting for Obama. Perhaps, then your sig should read "considering voting for" instead of the affirmative "tepidly'.

Submitted by lambert on

After FISA, I just started pounding my head on the desk...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

What matters the "x" in it? I know others have discussed this, before, but I wouldn't affirm my vote to anyone I had serious reservations about, especially considering that neither party has formally chosen a nominee, yet. Affirming that you will, as opposed to may, support someone this early in the game seems to be sending a horrible message to the campaign you support.

Is the sig a way to head off folks that would brand you a closet McCain supporter? Otherwise, I don't get the need to publically affirm your general election vote to a candidate that's not even the nominee of his party.

I don't fault people for making personal decisions about their vote pre-convention. Everyone's vote is their own to make however they see fit. I do question, though, anyone (PUMA, Obama supporters, and McCain supporters, alike) with serious reservations about a candidate) feeling the need to publically affirm before the convention.