On the heels of McCain's admission yesterday that his support of President Bush's proposal to open up the US coastline to offshore drilling would have ZERO short term effect on gas prices and would only give Americans a "psychological benefit" (read: voters think it sounds nice), here's another doozy.

Today, McCain pledged that America would have "strategic independence" from foreign oil by 2025.

Doesn't that sound nice?  Do you have any idea what that means?  Neither do I.

[Cross-posted on my blog.]

McCain's mysterious new phrase sounds an awful lot like McCain a couple months ago:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

If "strategic independence by 2025" is the same as "eliminat[ing] our dependence on foreign oil", here's the big problem with that (via the Carpetbagger Report):

[T]here isn't an energy expert in the world -- not one -- who thinks we can "eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East." It's a child's fantasy, but McCain spouts this stuff as if solving our problems really were just that easy. It reminds me of his solution to the fighting in Iraq: "One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, `Stop the bullshit.'"

McCain, you are tiring me out this week.  Can you come up with any energy proposal isn't a lie, distortion or an ineffectual pander?

I am proud of Obama for standing up against McCain's latest ineffectual pander.

Just like McCain's absurd "gas tax holiday" proposal (which all economists agree would save Americans either nothing or $28 on average), McCain's recent proposal to open up America's coastal waters to offshore oil drilling operations (which is, to boot, a 180-degree flip-flop from his earlier position) is a shameless, useless sop to voters that assumes that Americans are too stupid or ill-informed to realize what crap it is (according to recent polls, Americans may indeed be just that stupid ill-informed).

Here is Obama on the latest McCain silliness:

Believe me -- if I thought that there was any evidence at all that drilling could save people money who are struggling to fill up their tanks by this summer or this year or even the next few years, I would consider it. But it won't. And John McCain knows that.

Cross posted at Clintonistas for Obama.

TalkLeft had an interesting post about a story in the The New Yorker, discussing requests by MSNBC executives to moderator Keith Olbermann to back off his sharp criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton:

At MSNBC, Phil Griffin was worried, and with good reason. The average "Countdown" viewer is fifty-nine years old, and forty-five per cent of the viewers are women, presumably Democratic--a fair description of a Hillary Clinton supporter. Griffin believed that Olbermann was beginning to alienate his core audience, and asked him to ease up a bit on Clinton, and possibly even make some conciliatory gesture to the Clinton camp.

McCain is at it again.  He is planning to resurrect the absurd "gas tax holiday" that he proposed back in March, which was so completely and unequivocally excoriated by every notable economist and commentator who could be reached for comment those many weeks ago.

As a refresher, here are my earlier posts on how ineffectual, wrong-headed and intellectually dishonest the whole proposition is.  Barack Obama has routinely spoken out and called this idea out for the shameless pandering that it is.

Here's the word out on McCain today:

John McCain is planning to resurrect his call for a national gas tax holiday, which became a staple of his stump speech in late April and early May.  A McCain aide told CNN's Dana Bash on Monday that the Arizona senator planned to plug the gas tax holiday in public statements throughout the day.

Along with Barack Obama, many economists largely dismissed the notion of a gas tax holiday as a political ruse that would do little to lower prices, but McCain has repeatedly said he does not believe the proposal would be a panacea for America's energy woes.

Instead, McCain argued, low-income families could save some extra cash to pay for their children's school supplies this fall, or perhaps treat themselves to a nice dinner.

Most economists have estimated that a gas tax holiday would save Americans nothing at the pump, because retailers would simply raise their prices to compensate.  Even if we took McCain at his word that it would save some money, it would only save the average consumer $25-30!

Great, by that logic, how about a $25 gift card to Office Depot (you know, for the school supplies) or McDonald's (for the "nice dinner" that $25 can buy a family of four)?

At least that way we could waste the same amount of money giving out worthless freebies to people without depleting the state infrastructure renewal funds that are funded by the federal gas tax.

As mentioned earlier, the timing of Howard Dean's comments about sexism in the media seemed curious. Now, in light of this Washington Post piece, I think we may know why Dean timed these comments as he did.  As it looks like ol' Johnny boy is making a REAL play to poach HRC supporters turned off by the sexism in the primary.

A top adviser to presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain said that she believes Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has faced sexism on the campaign trail.

"I think women in positions of power are treated differently, and the treatment of her demonstrates that," former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina told Portfolio magazine in an article published today. "I have a lot of sympathy for what she's gone through. A lot of women recognize she's been treated differently, whether they're Democrats or Republicans."

The timing of Fiorina's comment is intriguing, given that the McCain campaign has reached out to Clinton's supporters in a low-key but targeted way. It also comes as many Clinton backers are still smarting from the divisive Democratic primary and as a significant number say that they will not vote for Clinton rival Sen. Barack Obama in the fall.

The McCain strategy for reaching women across the aisle involves praise for Clinton and connecting with some of the newer women's media outlets, such as the community BlogHer and MOMocrats blogs, which have been invited to join McCain campaign conference calls. BlogHer has also been treated to an interview with Fiorina. Health information sites -- women are the primary consumers of health information -- have also been targeted.

Clinton "has inspired generations of American women to believe that they can reach the highest office in this nation," McCain said at an appearance today in Nashville.

It seems rather ironic that political posturing is what it takes to get ANYONE to call out sexist behaviour.  Thoughts?

Pandering to Iowans. In the words of Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder and chief editor of dailykos, candidates who removed their names from the Michigan ballot were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire:

Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

Part of running for office is getting your name on the ballot. In fact, it's step 1.

WILL HE STILL DELAY TILL 2012, WHILE 100,000 or more DIE (26,000 each year in the US die from lack of care they can't afford) - MANY IRAQS IN THE US, DIE NEEDLESSLY FROM LACK OF NEEDED HEALTHCARE. BECAUSE OF GREED.

Also, HOW WILL HE PAY FOR IT WITH NO MANDATE BARGAINING POWER - IT DOESN'T SEEM POSSIBLE?

I think the Obama campaign needs to explain this change.

They have changed their wording on their healthcare plan to go from
"Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums"

to this:

"Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status."

HOWEVER, even their own economic advisors had said that doing that would be impossible without a mandate.

IS this real, or is a baldfaced lie? He needs to CHANGE and commit to begin fighting for REAL universal healthcare on a date in late January, 2009, like Hillary has, not 2012.

Is Obama making promises he knows he can't keep?

Read on for some references:

oh the righteous indignation and guffawing by the right wing creeps towards this silly clinton mccain idea of a gas tax holiday...in this merriment are many so called progressives who sniff about how insignificant this measly amount of money is, how its a ruse, oh, yes, easy to mock and minimalize, which is what many of you progressives here are doing, the struggling blue collar workers, as a whole.

i recognize that many young working class peeps are for obama, as is my son, who lives on his own and he and his girlfriend are finding it tough nowadays...but he does yearn for change, i can understand that, and him being my spawn, well, i expect him to have a mind of his own, and he does....but most blue collar middle aged voters are not so sold on this change being offered.

while it might not be fiscally tidy, while it might be sneered at by folks who drive tanks posing as highway motor vehicles, drinking $5 coffee, the impact of gas, food, medical costs are killing lower class families.