Clinton Vows to Take On OPEC
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Politico reports that Hillary Clinton is energized about OPEC:
“”We’re going to go right at OPEC,” she said. “They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at,” she told a crod [sic] at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.
“That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly,” she said, saying she’d use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.”
Unfortunately for Hillary, the Obama campaign remembered that she was not among the 13 cosponsors of this 2007 bill that would have amended the Sherman Act “to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.”
— DRJ
“go right at OPEC”? Whatever could that mean?
Eric (09e4ab) — 5/5/2008 @ 4:20 pmSounds like a new war to me.
With Hillary, we’ll be invading Saudi, the Emirates, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela.
With Barack, we’ll invade Pakistan.
I thought the Dems were the Party of Peace?
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 5/5/2008 @ 4:30 pmI’ll bet those OPEC members were really impressed and scared by Hillary’s words today. In fact, right now, I’ll bet a bunch of them are calling their good buddy, Blowjob Bill, on whom they’ve lavished millions of dollars, reminding him who butters his bread and telling him to tell his loudmouth wife to shut her trap.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/5/2008 @ 4:37 pmOh boy a REAL War for Oil with C in C Hillary leading the charge–on her broomstick.
The reality is that in a world where production doesn’t quite meet demand, Ms. Hillary, or Mr. Obama can yap and yap at OPEC all they want–and have about as much effect as a small dog barking. Right now the middle class guys standing in line to buy new cars in India and China–or the guy who is willing to pay $11 a gallon in Turkey will happily take whatever oil is not sold to the US at whatever price we’re not willing to pay.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 5/5/2008 @ 4:52 pmWould that she would vote to allow new refineries, offshore drilling, opening of ANWR and nuke plants right HERE. That would increase domestic energy production at least marginally. If the socialist cheese eating surrender monkeys in France can derive most of their electricity use through nuclear energy, what the hell is the problem about doing it here? I thought the Euroweenies were on the cutting edge of liberal admiration. Juan McCain could have been the deciding vote FOR opening anwr and I just assume Obamawad voted “present”.
Re: OPEC, we could charge them more for the goods they buy from us. If a barrel of oil is worth x in dollars, why shouldn’t our goods have the same price flexability?
madmax333 (4e336c) — 5/5/2008 @ 5:11 pmDoes she actually believe the things she’s saying or does she know it makes no sense and she’s saying it because she thinks we’re stupid enough to buy into it?
stevesturm (f8b3ed) — 5/5/2008 @ 5:27 pmRemember she is addressing her remarks to democrat audiences, trying to win the democrat nomination. And yes, the typical democrat is stupid enough to buy into it, not realizing that it doesn’t make any sense. (At least in the real world. In liberal la-la land, it makes perfect sense)
Kenny (76922b) — 5/5/2008 @ 5:36 pmObama’s people may have missed the point. Do they think that our Congress can dissolve an international group of which we are not a member?
roy (91a62c) — 5/5/2008 @ 5:58 pmThis rhetoric of hers is far more “cowboy” than anything George W. Bush can be accused of saying by even the most ridiculous of the Left’s distortions.
Wow. Universal health care, and global anti-trust legislation enforced by what? The Sixth Fleet’s new cartel busting air strikes?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/5/2008 @ 6:09 pmglobal anti-trust legislation enforced by what?
That’s about what my reaction was.
However I would approve not amending the Sherman act. It’s far more likely to be used against US companies the government can prosecute than any foreign international groups.
This rhetoric of hers is far more “cowboy” than anything George W. Bush can be accused of saying
kishnevi (3cf898) — 5/5/2008 @ 7:12 pmAgain, I agree. I think she’s driven by the need to “prove” that she, a woman, can be as aggressive as any man, and that’s where much of her bitch factor derives from. (Of course, after so many years of faking aggression, it’s probably turned into second nature for her by now.) Of the three candidates, I think she’s the one most likely to continute GWBush’s policies in Iraq and the GWOT, if only because she’s afraid of not looking “strong”.
I agree with you, daleyrocks. What a hypocrite!
Patricia (f56a97) — 5/5/2008 @ 7:31 pm“Sounds like a new war to me.”
More sensible would be to promise no more handholding.
stef (2e4cae) — 5/5/2008 @ 7:35 pmYou know, Hillary should just keep talking. Go Hillary! Yes go, go go away and never come back! Dont let those “snipers” get you first.
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/5/2008 @ 7:47 pmStef, that’s incoherent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/5/2008 @ 8:19 pmThis will strike fear into the hearts’ of OPEC…
The word is out that CA’s own Gov. Greenie – oops, excuse me, Arnold the Governator – will buy one of the new Tesla Sportscars to reduce his carbon foot-print (might do more if he grounded that GulfStream), at a cool $110K.
Man, the futures market in oil is just going to collapse.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/5/2008 @ 8:42 pm#10 kishnevi:
From what some of the military guys I know seconded to the Secret Service Presidential Protection details tell me, it wasn’t faked.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/5/2008 @ 8:47 pmEW1(SG)–I don’t doubt your friends. But don’t forget she would have been trying to project an aggressive personality for many years before then–probably from adolescence on. It was probably already second nature to her by the time she was Governess of Arkansas. Hence the reactions your friends had to her (and from her, no doubt).
kishnevi (2dbd61) — 5/5/2008 @ 9:04 pm“Stef, that’s incoherent.”
You’re not familiar with our OPEC handholding?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/dailyUpdate.html
stef (5e2e3a) — 5/6/2008 @ 4:50 am#17 kishnevi
Hillary was the “woman employed to educate and train the children of a private household” for the entire state of Arkansas? Who knew? I’d heard she was just a Sunday School teacher at one church, but ya never know.
Anyway, who could blame her for not co-sponsoring that idiotic 2007 bill (gee, I wonder why it didn’t get passed)? Those who did should be ashamed of themselves and each other. What she’s displaying now is an inability to learn from the mistakes of others. She’s pandering: “Oil companies bad! Oil producers bad!” She’s like the Hulk with a college degree and a Marxist bent.
Missed It By THAT Much (28d384) — 5/6/2008 @ 12:49 pmOne of Hillary’s great accomplishments in reforming Education in Arkansas (for the children) was the imposition of a Sales Tax on groceries to fund schools.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 5/6/2008 @ 1:12 pmWhy am I not surprised that she didn’t tax Cattle Futures?
#19 (Missed It By THAT Much)–given her enthusiasm for the nanny state, Governess seems much more apt than merely Governor’s wife.
kishnevi (33a0bd) — 5/6/2008 @ 2:23 pm#21 kishnevi
Didna mean ta bust yer chops; just lookin’ fer sumthin’ mo ‘riginal — like “governette”, or “Goldwater Girl gone ga-ga”. How dare you use a metaphor that precise!
Missed It By THAT Much (c1c3ad) — 5/6/2008 @ 7:54 pm