Strange Days, Open Thread

by hilzoy

(1) I imagine this is supposed to be an appeal to The Youth Vote:

This strikes me as pretty lame, which means that one (or more) of two things must be the case: (1) I am now officially antiquated, and have absolutely no sense at all of what Today's Youth will find compelling. (2) Hillary Clinton's advertising staff, antiquated or not, have no sense of what Today's Youth will find compelling. If any of Today's Youth are reading this blog, please feel free to let me know whether you think it's me, HRC's staff, or both.

(2) Apparently, MSNBC's David Schuster has been suspended for his "pimped out" comment. (Chelsea Clinton has been making calls on behalf of her mother; Schuster asked: "But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?") I agree with Josh Marshall's take on this. On the one hand, Schuster's comment was repellent. It also made very little sense: I don't think that it's at all odd that Chelsea Clinton is making calls on behalf of her mother, and I think the "pimped out" comment would only begin to make sense if there were some reason to think that she was not capable of deciding for herself whether or not she wanted to help her mother out. If, for instance, Chelsea Clinton was calling around for her mother at the age of twelve, what Schuster said would still be vile, but at least it would be a vile way of making a reasonable point. As it is, it lacks even that redeeming feature.

That said, I really can't see how this should merit a suspension on a network that employs Chris Matthews. There's a nice long list of some of Matthews' comments about Hillary Clinton here. One seems directly comparable to what Schuster said about Chelsea Clinton:

"When is a politician like Hillary Clinton or anybody else going to admit they have the A-word, ambition, and stop with this coy thing about, "I'm so flattered by so much" -- it's just like a strip-teaser saying she's flattered by the all the attention."

Calling her the "Madame DeFarge of the left" was also pretty low. But my all-time favorite Matthews moment was this:

"Is there, out there in the country or out in the Atlantic Ocean, some gigantic monster -- big, green, horny-headed, all kinds of horns coming out, big, aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself: it's based upon gender, the fact that she's a liberal, that she's Bill, what -- and that hasn't shown itself, because people are being so nice in the polling, they are saying all the correct things?

Is there an anti-Hillary monster waiting out there that could deliver this nomination, or this election, to someone else?"

That kind of cool understatement gets me every time. And you have to love the followup: after Dee Dee Meyers says that she thinks people's views about Hillary Clinton have more to do with the fact that she's a Clinton than with her gender, Matthews asks:

"Well, therefore, does that silence tell you that there's something hidden out there in terms of animosity?"

He's like a parody of a Freudian analyst: "The fact that you are unaware of any hostility to your father indicates that your Oedipal rage is even more powerful than I had feared: so powerful and so threatening that you have had to repress it entirely." Right.

I can't see any reason why David Schuster should be suspended on the very same network where Chris Matthews gets to be a sexist jerk on his own show every night. So I agree with Josh:

"Many have rightly criticized Chris Matthews for his repeatedly degrading, often sexist and consistently clownish comments about Hillary Clinton. The most logical way for me to understand this development is that MSNBC is under a lot of fire for Matthews -- but Matthews is untouchable -- and Shuster's easier to can or suspend."

(3) According to ThinkProgress (h/t Ezra), Ann Coulter said this at CPAC:

"Hillary wanted [to change her campaign song to] “I am woman,” but it was already taken by Edwards."

And then:

"A few moments later, Coulter said that the best thing that had ever happened to the campaign of “B. Hussein Obama” was when he was born “half black.”"

Can she just go away, please?

(4) Ethanol: even worse for the environment than you thought. Yet another reason for dislodging Iowa from its position in the nominating process.

(5) Open Thread!

Comments

[rob!]

while i think what Shuster said was INCREDIBLY dumb, this is whole "outrage" thing is so completely manufactured it first makes me laugh, then sigh.

like you mentioned above about "today's youth", the phrase "pimped out" has moved from just being about prostitutes to being more of an all-encompassing reference to selling yourself or someone else (or even a thing) out. but of course Clinton is playing the "oh poor me" card, and itll work for a while.

hell, i'm more shocked little or no comment seems to have been made over something Matthews said on Tuesday night.

when Eugene Robinson said that HRC's campaign was going ok after NH and only ran into trouble after Bill Clinton "inserted himself in the process" Matthews said something to the effect of "there's always trouble after Bill Clinton inserts himself in something" causing panelist Dee Dee Meyers to cover her ears and probably wishing she was anywhere else at that moment.

[dutchmarbel]

1/ I think the add is awfull. Boring, slow and not funny. I doubt the targetgroup will respond much better.

2/ I find the 'weight' of the pimp-comment hard to judge, but have read in several places that Shuster is probabely sacrificed instaed of Matthews.

3/ Ann also referred to Obama as “the least dangerous Hussein” I know and said that she might vote for McCain if he chooses Romney as a VP.

4/ Yeah, the bio-ethenol findings were pretty bad. Trouble with hybrid cars is that they can't tow - which means we can't choose one. Zo I'm currently reading up on what to choose when our current car needs to be replaced; diesel or gas?

5/ In the Netherlands they polled about which things would be acceptable for a Dutch premier. I blogged about the weird results (in Dutch, but with nice graph).

Female is acceptable for 93%, single is acceptable for 90%, atheist for 87, homosexual for 78, black for 75, jewish for 53, jonger than 35 for 43%, visiting prostitutes for 34%, very christian 33%, muslim 27%, previous harddrugs usage 26% whilst being older than 70 would only be acceptable for 19% of the Dutch. McCain would be toast ;)

[Gary Farber]

"On the one hand, Schuster's comment was repellent. It also made very little sense"

How is it any different -- other than that she's a Clinton, of course -- from the Romney kids campaigning non-stop?

(Did they ever get the dog off the car roof, and into the campaign? I didn't follow closely.)

I'm seeing cable tv, as of a few weeks ago, for the first time since a few months in late 2002, but mainly since around 1992 or so.

It's a very strange place, but I digress. The personalities, particularly of cable tv news, are known previously only to me from what people write about them, and from transcripts.

Chris Matthews, with a show on network tv for many years, is one of the few I'm familiar with, and long contemptuous of.

But I saw a hint of how he was regarded when Tom Brokaw was interviewed by Jon Stewart yesterday, and Stewart was making fun of Matthews (far too gently), and Brokaw made comments about being "the hall monitor," and getting Matthews to calm down, but also about how Matthews had studied politics all his life, was such an expert, etc., and you could hear that NBC/MS-NBC has a very serious longterm investment in the guy as one of their Key Political Analysts; I think it's clear they won't do anything serious about Matthews until absolutely forced to.

And then he'd just be whitewashed and on the air again in under a year, a la Don Imus (I toldja so!, I toldja so!), anyway.

[nick]

I think Shuster probably just made a dumb mistake; he wanted to say that Chelsea was pimpin' HRC, in the vernacular sense of promoting, but instead suggested that mother was pimping out daughter, something altogether nastier. when old dudes attempt youthful idiom, hilarity ensues!

and on the context of the old attempting youthful...something, that video. yes, indeed, it is bad. (i like those candles burning in the background: had me thinking soft-core porn or maybe Stevie Nicks video....) but at least they cast HRC in a clean-cut white musical context. imagine if they'd tried some multiracial funk collective shit?

[KipEsquire]

"Can she just go away, please?"

Not so long as people keep blogging about her.

=/

[Gary Farber]

I'm not copacetic with all the others, including "muslim 27%,", but I have a personal bias in being particular sorry to see this: "jewish for 53."

Damn. Now I'm never going to be Dutch Prime Minister. And I was getting so close, what with my advancing political career.

But seriously, in this day and age, well, all I can say is I wish people would stop telling me that antisemitism just isn't any kind of problem any more in Western societies.

[Bernard Yomtov]

dutchmarbel,

Jewish for 53%? I find that stunning and not really believable.

hilzoy,

I'm with you on the ad.

While your criticisms of Matthews are well taken, I don't see why giving him a pass means MSNBC has to give Shuster a pass also. I think he's getting off easy. Suppose he had said, in 2004, that Bush was pimping out Laura because she made some campaign appearances on his behalf. I think his career would be over.

[xanax]

Speaking as a professional ad man and one who is no stranger to political campaigns, I'd say this ad is perfect, really truly just spot on, if 14-year olds could vote.

[john miller]

I'm a little too old to really judge the video, but I have a feeling a lot of the age group it is meant for would see it as condescending. I think it also shows just how worried they are about the youth vote supporting Obama.

Concerning the Dutch poll, I agree with Gary and Bernard and would hope that the Jewish percentage, and in fact most of the percentages were much higher.

But then, I would imagine that for many of the categories in the US the response would be lower.

I do think Shuster's "punishment" was appropriate, and I think it is sometimes inappropriate to try to mitigate how one person is treated based on how somebody else is treated.

Matthews is a jerk and really has something in for the Clintons. I have to wonder what they did to him in the past. But actually, I think his jekiness is probably actually helping Clinton garner some sympathy.

Coulter no longer even deserves to be quoted. Ignoring her is the best thing anybody can do.

Re ethanol, sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease. That's why there has to more effort to finding more alternatives ASAP.

[sildan]

Well, being 23, I suppose I'm more-or-less in the target demographic and am therefore obliged to respond. :)

Having watched the ad, the word that comes to mind is pathetic. Nothing says "I'm cool" quite like transparently pandering and failing miserably to pull it off.

And by-the-by, Hillary, I don't believe anyone says "shred" unless they're feeling retro.

As for the "pimped out" comment, it's a testament to linguistic drift that it took me a while to figure out what the comment meant. I took to mean, as Webster might put it, "dressed in the ostentatious manner of a pimp." This is, I believe, the usual usage among people of my generation.

[Louise]

Re: Alternatives to corn-based ethanol -

Today's Science Friday on NPR's Talk of the Nation was all about alternatives, and the show was full of details about microbe- and algae-activated fuels that can be produced at, and sent through the same infrastructure used by the oil companies, and at much less cost to the environment than corn-based ethanol.

I'm sure the podcast is available.

[Ugh]

Comments on the post and other random thoughts:

(1) didn't watch.

(2) the "pimped out" comment was directed at Chelsea, of whom most Americans have forgotten about over the past 7 years and thus still think of as a child (i.e., the 12 year old hilzoy references in the post). The comment was, therefore, out of bounds in those people's minds, hence the suspension. Matthews' comments, OTOH, were directed at Hillary, who presumably as a member of the "world's greatest deliberative body™", is able to defend herself.

(3) I read somewhere today that no one is buying Coulter's latest book, good.

(4) I have to vehemently disagree. As a family farmer™ myself,* subsidies for ethanol are the greatest thing since crop crotation payments. Pretty soon, I can retire by selling my land to a rich doctor in Des Moines.**

(5) A few notes based upon recent travels:

(a) In the Cambodian genocide museum, there are depictions of various torture methods used by the Khmer Rouge. One of these depicts waterboarding (a picture of which Andrew Sullivan has posted on his site more than once). The other depictions are of things aptly summed up by Marsellus Wallace as "a pair of pliers and a blow torch", and there is no distinction for waterboarding as merely a "enhanced interrogation technique." Clearly the Khmer Rouge needed better lawyers.

(b) The war remnants museum in Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City, if you prefer), contains pictures of American soldiers posing with a severed head of their adversary, and pictures of bodies being pushed out of American helicopters (supposedly published in the Chicago Sun-Times or Tribune). To the victors go the propaganda spoils, I suppose.

(c) Having a Cambodian tour guide tell you that the Khmer Rouge moved her to a forced labor camp at age seven makes one pay more attention to her (forutnately she was the best guide on the whole trip and thus worth paying attention to in the absence of this fact.).

(d) The Cu Chi-tunnels should be visited just for the opportunity to fire the weapon of your choice (M-16, M-60, AK-47, etc.). They are also worth visiting as a reminder of what people will do to defend their country/land/neighbors against foreign invaders imperialists agressors liberators.

(e) The Temples of Angkor are unbelievable. Of all the ruins I've been lucky enough to visit, these are far and away the most impressive (better than the Coliseum and other ruins in Rome, the Parthenon and other ruins in Athens, the various Mayan ruins on the Yucatan Peninsula, Machu Picchu, and Stonehenge, among others (not including the pyramids in Egypt that I have not had a chance to see, which may be Angkor's only rival)). As an indication of scale only, Angkor Wat is surrounded by a 1.5K by 1.3K rectangular moat. Big enough, but the moat is 90 meters wide all the way around - all carved out of the ground in the 14-15th century. Just mindblowing.

All that said, it's still good to be back in the United Soviet Socialist Republic States.

*Not that I have any idea how to farm, that's what the hired help is for.

**AKA, dad.

[Mithi]

I think I qualify as today's youth and that is not compelling at all. To be fair I also don't like MTV or droll little sketches so I don't know whether I'm really their target audience. I'd say her advertising staff is definitely out of touch, this is the classic 'old person trying to be hip and failing miserably' schtick, and I don't know anyone over 15 years old who'd see it as anything different.
You're in the clear there. But unfortunately, reading point 2 you may be a little antiquated after all. I don't think anyone of my generation would see Schusters remark as vile or repellent. They'd just understand it to be slang and move on. I can be rather oblivious to the subtleties implicit in certain language, so perhaps I'm just missing something. As it is, the worst I can blame him for is expressing himself poorly, I don't see anything controversial.

Offtopic: Sup marbel. Dutch people representing! I like the way that poll was phrased. 'Percentage of respondents that would find the following description of a new prime minister acceptable.' I wouldn't really be happy with any of those terms describing a prime minister.
"How would you describe the PM?"
-"Female."

[Gary Farber]

I wonder why John McCain's campaign didn't come up with this ad for him.

[swarty]

Several days ago, long before Pimpgate erupted, I read that Chelsea Clinton was calling Super delegates to ask for their support. I was immediately struck that it was odd that they chose her, as a non obvious political figure, to twist those arms. As a layman, it seemed to me that a call from Chelsea asking for their support is something entirely different than Mark Penn making that same call. There is a certain transparency in a call from Mark Penn (or similar), but with Chelsea, the calculus is very different.

As someone who has been paying way too much attention to this election, I have been aware that the super delegates will be THE important story of this election and will very likely decide who is the nominee. So when I saw that Chelsea was calling them, it sent up a red flag.

When I saw Shuster last night, that is EXACTLY (in my brain) what he was getting at when he poorly worded his now infamous phrase. Watch the video you posted. He really hits the super delegate point.

I won't get into a long defense of Shuster's comments other than to say that I think his skepticism is correct: Why is Chelsea twisting those arms? That is the fair question that he was inelegantly trying to ask last night.

Fortunately for the Clinton campaign, they took that ball and ran with it. Shuster was the blocking back who opened up the hole to run through.

[Redstocking]

People my age don't use "pimped out" so casually and found the remark extremely offensive. Many older women have been told all their lives by condescending men that offensive statements really aren't offensive; it is just that they are overreacting. They have had enough.

If you read blogs written mostly by women, you would know that hundreds of people were outraged, bombarded MSNBC with email, phone calls, and faxes. And they managed to hold them accountable, which seems a victory for all Democrats.

If Obama wants to appeal to increasingly infuriated older women, he should express outrage about the vicious misogyny directed at Clinton once in a while. When Obama supporters mock"manufactured outrage" and smirk about the "oh poor me card," more women decide to vote for Clinton. They also stop reading and commenting on blogs they used to think were progressive.

[john miller]

Redstocking, I agree fully with your first statement and somewhat with your comment that Obama could be more forceful in decrying some of the statements.

At the same time he has frequently stated that gender should not be an issue in this campaign, and has never amde it even a side issue in any of his statements.

In regards to supporters, both camps have supporters who have crossed the line at times, sometimes even supporters who are officially part of the campaign.

When the comments. come from outside the campaign staff itself, it is very hard for either candidate to rebuke each and every one.

OTOH, and I may be wrong, I don't remember Obama ever alluding to his race as an obvious way to garner support. Whereas Clinton has referred to gender in that manner.

Look, I will vote for either of them. I happen to think that Clinton would be a good President. However, I happen to think that Obama would be a much better candidate. And I can say without any hesitation that that statement is not in any way, shape or form grounded in her gender.

[blatherskite]

I saw that Hillary video earlier and thought it was put together by a misguided fan of hers. It was pretty embarassing.

Now it appears that she paid good money for that misguided botch? No wonder she burned through her coffers so quickly.

Whatever you think of that Obama video "Yes We Can" by Will.I.Am, it's being sought out, viewed and independently downloaded millions of times (I really doubt And it didn't cost Obama's campaign a penny.

Hillary's "shred" video:
Added: January 30, 2008
Views: 186,857

Barack's "Yes we can" video:
Added: February 02, 2008
Views: 2,636,540

(Note that, for both videos, that's just the viewings at their main YouTube page posting. )

[nick]

With all due respect, redstocking, it's also a question of idiom: this isn't necessarily about men casually referring to young women as whores, unless you feel that sense #1 was intended.
(#1 "pimp out" [archaic]: to employ as a streetwalker)
Now, maybe it was--sense #2, while more current, due, as another commenter says, to linguistic drift, makes no sense in context.
(#2 "pimped out"=dressed or accessorized ostentatiously)
Which is why I still think sense #3 is the most likely intended one
(#3 "pimp" (verb, trans)=to advertise, promote)
Chelsea, I suspect, was being (rather incoherently) accused of overly aggressive promotion of HRC (as swarty says)--still an arguably sexist contention, but not quite the same thing as accusing her of prostituting her daughter!

[wonkie]

I don't thinkthat it should be acceptable for a perwon who is speaking ano what claims to abe a respectable outlet to us the phrase pimping. It isn't professional.. Sloppy slangy degrading language degrades the professin of journalism.

Also I am not aware of this inciddet being caharacterized as a faux outrage incident by obama supporters. The diary on this incident on Daily Kos is written by an Obama supporter, for example. I think Hillary is a lousy candidtaeand would be as much of a compromiser and collarborator as president as she was as senator, but I am outraged over this.

I admit I did think the second tearing up incident was a bit much.

[Turbulence]

If Obama wants to appeal to increasingly infuriated older women, he should express outrage about the vicious misogyny directed at Clinton once in a while.

I think you meant to say "when Obama wants to appeal to Redstocking". I don't believe that you speak on behalf of all older women in the US, increasingly infuriated or otherwise. Certainly, some older women that I know have no desire to see him express such outrage.

When Obama supporters mock"manufactured outrage" and smirk about the "oh poor me card," more women decide to vote for Clinton. They also stop reading and commenting on blogs they used to think were progressive.

Let me see if I have this straight. You're complaining about one single comment on this thread, even though the majority of comments are openly hostile to NBC's misogyny. You then use that one comment (which was written by someone I have not read before and is thus unlikely to be a regular around here) to tar the entire OW community, even though most commenters here were critical of the misogyny and hilzoy was quite explicit in her criticism.

I don't think that is very fair of you. Getting only a handful of dissents is as close as any community on the internet can ever get to true consensus.

Also, I find the passive aggressive tone of "they also stop reading..." unhelpful. Who is they? Are you threatening to stop reading and commenting on this blog unless every single commenter agrees with you on this issue?

[Bruce Baugh]

Redstocking spends more time threatening to leave various blogs than I think is likely to be productive. Redstocking, you may want to tinker with the phrasing. There are ways of saying "that disgusts me" that preserve a bit more focus.

As for the pimping comment, I'm delighted to see someone get in trouble for it, and I'm not much worried right at the moment about the fact that others are doing worse. Start where one can, work from there. It's not that people like Matthews don't deserve grief too, and more of it, for the bile they spew, but if it's feasible at the moment to make Shuster face some music, hey, it's a start. I'd like to all this hip use of slang based on prostitution go away; every bit along the way is improvement.

[kris]

There appears to be a fundamental difference in how people seem to approach Ms Clinton, both on progressive blogs and on television. The default assumption seems to be that whatever she does, it is out of some ulterior (and impure) motive, while whatever her opponents do always get a positive spin put on them. The comment just above by swarty is a perfect illustration. It really seems like she is given the benefit of malice, and her opponents, the benefit of the doubt. I dont know why this is, but I guess it is an unattractive combination of misogyny and buying into the republican frames of the Clintons.

PS: John Miller, I certainly agree that there are legitimate and important differences between Ms Clinton and Mr Obama, which are reason enough to vote for either of them. This blog has outlined some of them quite well in the past. However, a lot of the attacks on her, especially by people who support her opponents are not based on any such reasons. I strongly believe that the republicans did an excellent job of smearing her and her husband in the 90's, so much so that many democrats have bought into their framing of her and her character. Add to this, she faces barely hidden misogyny in the media and among many people.
Also, it is true probably that Sen. Obama has ever directly alluded to his race as a means to garner support, however it seems that blatant racial targeting is much more unacceptable than blatant misogyny especially in most of mainstream media. If Shuster had made a racially loaded remark instead, he would have lost his job a lot earlier, and not just been suspended. In this regard, Sen. Obama's campaign did use race successfully and with justice, in response to Mr. Clinton's remarks during the South Carolina primary.

[hilzoy]

sildan and mithi: thanks. I thought of saying that I believed "shreds" to be at least a decade out of date, but then I thought: who knows? It might have somehow come back. I also thought that the style of music was out of date, but had the same worry.

[Randy Paul]

A truly lame ad.

As for ethanol, let's specify that it's corn-based ethanol. I just got back from Brazil where I rode in a lot of flex fuel cars using cane-based ethanol and it certainly seems to be working fine. The only down side I could see is that it's increased the cost of cachaça, which may actually be a good thing.

[Adam]

You know, I think I'd be more apt to vote for Chelsea than Hillary. I mean, if the "Bill as co-President" argument that the Clinton campaign keeps making is true, then it shouldn't technically make a difference, right? And Chelsea, at least, actually seems like a nice person.

[mightygodking]

They also stop reading and commenting on blogs they used to think were progressive.

Except to passive-aggressively return every once in a while to complain, of course.

[Adam]

Except to passive-aggressively return every once in a while to complain, of course.

I'd complain more on your blog, but I'd actually kind of like to see you write Teen Titans, and I don't understand Canadian law at all.

[Matthew]

As a 20-year old college student, I have to agree with your conclusion, Hilzoy. The ad reminds me of videos they showed us in high school featuring "hip", "totally cool" teens listening to rap music on their iPods (all the kids have those now, right?) while disparaging drug use and unprotected sex.

The phrase "the blogs were going crazy," in this context is cringe-worthy. They're trying too hard.

Obama's "Yes We Can" video is a good example of something that actually IS appealing.

[Adam]

but I'd actually kind of like to see you write Teen Titans

Or Legion of Superheroes, whatever. But this is proof -- if comics were worth reading anymore, I would, and I wouldn't make this mistake...

I'll write Teen Titans myself, I guess. First thing, Robin gets recast as a girl. I bet no one's thought of that before. Man, that'll throw people for a loop.

[GNZ]

biofuel is a screwball idea - its destined to kill hundreds of millions via raising the cost of the products of arable land / fertile ocean (I expect considerably more than global warming itself) - whilst sending the planet to hell in a hand basket as per the article.

[Ara]

I think we need an open thread just to document the pointless, bizarre anti-Hillary sexism everywhere. I found this to be breathtaking. From Peggy Noonan:

Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.

And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"

Fatal Attraction? Come on.

You know, in the era of shows like "Pimp My Ride", I think in some ways the sexism here is deeper. It's just directed at HRC herself rather than as an attack on her daughter, which is why it's not as outrageous.

[Adam]

From the transcripts of Cheney's top-secret energy meetings:

Cheney: Biofuel is a screwball brilliant idea — its destined to kill hundreds of millions via raising the cost of the products of arable land / fertile ocean — I expect considerably more than global warming itself — whilst sending the planet to hell in a hand basket!

[Gary Farber]

"As for ethanol, let's specify that it's corn-based ethanol. I just got back from Brazil where I rode in a lot of flex fuel cars using cane-based ethanol and it certainly seems to be working fine. The only down side I could see is that it's increased the cost of cachaça, which may actually be a good thing."

I'm not sure I follow you, Randy: the primary objection, at least in this current wave of stories, to ethanol is the carbon increase; does cane-based ethanol have fewer carbon costs?

[GNZ]

I was at a lecture a number of years ago where the lecturer explained that the earth was being stretched beyond it's replacement capacity in terms of producing food in many areas - such as fish. While the earth currently produces enough food for everyone it isn't by a hell of a lot - and the economic system distributes the supply of food in particular ways from food sources and to various populations.

Some time after that I started to hear people talk about biofuel so I asked myself - how much land would hey need to convert to biofuel to displace fuel - well as far as I could tell - "all of it" - increasing over the years to "much more than all of it". And it doesn't need to be that bad - if food prices go up by a few cents there is almost certainly some guy out there who will be pushed from "on the edge" to "starving" - it is happening under our eyes right now - but in the long run we are not talking just a few cents we are talking huge increases.

There is talk of using algae and so forth but none of that really gets around the fundamental problem.

So what happens when a bit less food is produced and a bit more bio fuel? yeah food prices go up and energy prices go down. And what happens if food prices go up and energy prices go down?

Worse yet - what happens when countries starve?

BTW I don't propose ignoring global warming I propose taking serious action against it - but I refuse to be wrong just because it puts me on the other side of hte fence to cheney. If Cherey agrees with me then I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Randy Paul]

The article made mention of corn-based ethanol primarily. It is remarkably less efficient for creating fuel. Cane based fuel has been used in Brazil for 33 years. Much of what is used is bagasse, the waste material from the cane after it is crushed. In order to create the alcohol from corn, the corn starch first must be converted to sugar, ethanol from cane does not need this step.

The article linked to above does not mention ethanol from cane. Ethanol from cane is much more efficient than from corn.

[Adam]

The article linked to above does not mention ethanol from cane. Ethanol from cane is much more efficient than from corn.

If we're discussing biofuel in the U.S., this is a distinction without a difference. To put it bluntly, we're not going to be using any non-corn-based ethanol anytime soon, if ever. We might as well just assume corn-based ethanol so we can realistically compare it against other energy alternatives rather than simply muddying the waters of the debate.

[Randy Paul]

To put it bluntly, we're not going to be using any non-corn-based ethanol anytime soon, if ever.

If they got rid of the 54 cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol it might get used here. I'm not holding my breath, however.

[Michael]

A few thoughts on the ad (I am turning 26 in 2 months, male, and politically active, so I I think I'm in the target demographic. I also taught and coached HSers and still keep in touch with a lot of them, so I have a read on that age group too)

1-It's really pathetically bad. Insultingly so, actually. That's been the case with Clinton's appeals multiple times, where I look at the fruits of her "flawless" campaign's efforts and think, "really? You expect to win my vote with that?" The transparency of the "Obama is the black candidate now" ploy comes to mind as another example of this.

2-We're constantly told that "the youth" doesn't vote. And in this election, multiple times, young voters have come out in droves, matching or out-pacing seniors. And they're breaking heavily for Obama. I think this video (when compared to, say, Yes, We Can) is a good demonstration that the "problem" with the youth vote, to the extent that there is one, has more to do with most politicians being completely clueless about what appeals to anyone under the age of 35 than anything else. Obama's campaign and specifically the man himself gets it, and as such they respond to him like just about any other "interest group" would: send him money, volunteer their time, organize, and vote. The reason people under-35 haven't voted in large numbers in the past probably has more to do with appeals like the "Shred" video than with any problem endemic to those age groups.

3-This is, IMO, also a sign of the coming Clinton loss. Mark Schmitt accurately gets the overall dynamic here: we have the classic insurgent/establishment contest going on, only for the first time, the insurgent has a legit shot at winning. As the establishment candidate, Hillary started as the default option for just about everyone, and Obama's early surge in the polls reflected his ability to consolidate the two groups most likely to be looking for alternatives to the familiar old political hand: young voters and higher-educated, well-off voters. That's the classic base of any insurgency. Obama's goals, from there on out, where to poach away Hillary's base, while Hillary's goals were to portray Obama as unable to bear the Democratic standard (naive/inexperienced/unelectable/not vetted/insubstantial/just a talker). She just had to protect herself from defections. She's largely failed at that task. First, she lost the African-American vote, big time. She's also ceded a ton of ground for 35-50 voters, women, union and working class voters in the mid-west and west. She's started to see Obama's numbers rise with hispanic voters (44% in Arizona)...this is a problem. The longer the race goes on, the more time he has to continually add to his base by poaching away her voters, bit-by-bit. And he's gotten far enough now where he could probably hold his current base and end up with a slim delegate lead in the end. Now her job is two-fold: she not only has to protect her flanks, she also has to start peeling away some of his base. So that means lame-o appeals to the youth like the video above. Or maybe she could dress-up her policy lists by saying yes we can! That sounds sexy! Or she could pepper her new stump speech with mentions of "optimism" and "vision" (while not really offering it).

It's so transparent that, again, it's insulting. Which brings me to another point: Hillary is really bad at campaigning, as far as I can tell. Sure, given 100% name recognition, built-in high favorables throughout the party and being spotted a 30-point lead, and enormous institutional support, she can win some states. And she's real good at taking the knives out during a debate. But is she actually any good at offering voters some affirmative argument for why she should be their President? As far as I can tell, no. If she was, she would've never lost so much ground to Obama. His task was so much harder than hers: He had to introduce himself to voters, make them like him, make them trust him, and make them believe that it's imperative they choose him over the candidate everyone assumed would be their nominee and was otherwise happy with. All she had to do was offer a compelling reason why everyone was right at the outset that she was the right candidate. And she hasn't been able to do that! Further evidence, I think, that its no guarantee she will be able to hold any theoretic lead she has by simply having a "D" next to her name the day a general election fight begins.

At least we (hopefully) won't have but one more month of this. She's officially adopting the Rudy G strategy of riding out a string of losses in small states before the big states vote later on...hopefully its as successful for her as it was for him, and we can move on to Obama v McCain.

[swarty]

Kris said:
"The comment just above by swarty is a perfect illustration. It really seems like she is given the benefit of malice, and her opponents, the benefit of the doubt. I dont know why this is, but I guess it is an unattractive combination of misogyny and buying into the republican frames of the Clintons."

I'm sorry but that comment can not go unanswered. The reaction today of the Clinton campaign was a political reaction. That is not to say that Shuster's remarks were not wrong. Just because I describe a reaction as political does not mean that it is pejorative, and therefore misogynistic. The campaigns make political decisions all the time. Sometimes they dovetail. Their outrage today has to be taken in context with a host of competing interests. The debate challenge had begun to lose steam and MSNBC was signed up for one in Ohio, added to Shuster's idiotic remark, were all figured into the decision to crank up the outrage. I did not and will not defend the pimp remark.

This is what political campaigns do. They try to dominate the news cycle as one of the tools of winning our hearts and minds. The Clinton campaign knows exactly what it is doing here. That is not being mean. That is a fact and if I was a Clinton supporter I would take today's news cycle as a good one. Again that does not mean that the Shuster remark is some happy byproduct of the news cycle. But they took that awful remark and made it an issue to benefit their campaign.

Obama's campaign has done exactly the same thing as well. Because I chose to highlight the Clinton team's decision today does not qualify me as a misogynist. Be very careful at how you throw that charge around. There is nothing in what I have written that can be seen in that light.

[GNZ]

yes sugar is the only one that passes the criteria from the article - but even that depends on context. Ethanol from sugar cane works in Brazil because they have an equatorial year-round growing season. You'd have to waste a lot of energy to grow a plant in an unnatural environment. then again if the subsidy was big enough someone would do it.

[GNZ]

I'm starting to think Obama will take the election - the gap is opening up in the head to heads - and the super deligates surely want to actually win the election - and as much as I argued before that Hilary might still go ok in an election there is a point at which the polls show a gap too big for her to make up and it looks like they might be heading in that direction.

That together with Obama probably winning the next round or two and Clinton may be the one in the weak position when they sit down to pressure one of them to quit.

Still maybe others here know the odds better than me.

[ELorax]

I'm in the target audience (18), and I can confirm that the ad fails miserably. Hillary's 'band members' were annoying. It was almost like watching VH1--washed up has-been band members talking about the glory days, blissfully unaware that no one but them cares and the rest of the world has moved on. The ad doesn't use its time effectively either. It spends too much time trying to make Hillary seem cool and not enough time trying to change my mind about not voting for her.

And yes, hilzoy, shred is seriously out of date.

On the other hand, I though the Obama video was pretty well done, and interesting to watch if nothing else.

[Joe Thomas]

As a member of the "target demographic," I actually thought that video was mildly funny, but badly paced (it could have been 30 seconds, not a minute), which is kind of clutch for humor. I'm also not sure how much of the humor was intentional. . .the idea of making an intentionally kind of bad video so that it'll go viral would not be new to the Hilary campaign.

Also, some people still say "shred." They are, however, only hardcore metalheads (and some crossover thrash/punk kids) who didn't notice that the 80s are over. It's also sometimes used semi-ironically (what isn't?). While it is theoretically possible that Hilary employs a thrash fan, it's highly unlikely. Most of them don't vote.

[Randy Paul]

And, as I said before, removing a 54 cent per gallon tariff might make importing it here more feasible.

[Gary Farber]

"That together with Obama probably winning the next round or two and Clinton may be the one in the weak position when they sit down to pressure one of them to quit.

Still maybe others here know the odds better than me."

No one's sitting down about anything before Texas and Ohio.

Note also the Time poll I just posted about.

[Adam]

If they got rid of the 54 cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol it might get used here. I'm not holding my breath, however.

Yeah, it's unfortunate, but with the farm lobby manning that particular gate, the ethanol-source issue is a foregone conclusion. Once we're using ethanol, trying to craft a policy that distinguishes between corn and cane is at least three steps too technical to ever get any traction.

1. There's just way too much money in it, and it's all on one side.

2. The policy debate is over "stuff that burns" and "renewable energy" -- once you accept "stuff that burns," the game is already over.

We can't even get a decent discussion of clean coal technology, let alone different sources of ethanol.

Trying to explain the difference to the electorate without putting them to sleep is a fool's errand. Even if you had enough political capital to do it, given the payoff, you'd get better dividends working toward other potential energy sources.

3. There's too many other angles to demagogue. Before you even get to square one on explaining the difference, the farm lobby will hit you with "why should we buy foreign ethanol!? Aren't we supposed to be reducing our foreign energy dependence!? Liek OMG!!"

4. Corn ethanol subsidies dovetail too closely with farm subsidies in general.

The bottom line is that we grow a lot of corn in the U.S. -- too much of it, in fact -- and so in the end, corn-based ethanol is just too damn easy for legislators. It lets them feed the agricultural-subsidy beast while selling a "green," "alternative energy" policy. We're already wasting that money in the first place; even holding the line here would be an accomplishment.

[Anthony Damiani]

STOP GIVING COULTER WHAT SHE WANTS

[Alan Macleod]

I've yet to read some of the comments, but isn't it pretty much established that the Clintons were offering their daughter as a date during the Nevada Caucuses?

[Adam]

STOP GIVING COULTER WHAT SHE WANTS

Too many... potential jokes... must consider posting rules... agh... snark overload