Andrew Leonard: Hillary Clinton throws economists off the bus. There's something perversely satisfying when any politician deigns to attack the economics profession, even when said politician is dead wrong. After all, it's not as if economists never screw up. But this does follow an already disturbing trend: even when Clinton manages to come up with a relatively sound policy on an issue, she backs it up with bad instincts and misunderstandings, leaving us with no confidence that she'll follow through or avoid numerous pitfalls. Leonard walks through the "gas tax holiday" issue carefully and tenaciously. Bottom line is that gas prices and especially gas taxes are already too low, even if they have been pumped up through speculation; that speculation is a distinct problem from the oil market and should be addressed on its own terms, in the more general case; and that even with reasonable fixes bigger problems are in store.

Perhaps you won't win a primary battle in Indiana by telling voters that "during my presidency, you can expect to pay more for gasoline than you do now, because that is the only way we can truly break free from our addiction to oil," just as you weren't going to win a primary battle in Ohio by lecturing voters on the benefits of free trade. But by blaming "elite opinion" for not being on the side of ordinary Americans, Clinton is dismissing everyone who says the current status quo can't be sustained, that sacrifices will have to be made, and that the era of cheap oil is over.

One thing that should be added here is that even Obama's commitment to "truth" comes up short here.

Josh Marshall: Clinton to put gravity under scrutiny. Report here is that Clinton intends to break up OPEC, using some combination of antitrust laws and the WTO. While I'd be as happy to see her turn into a new Ida Tarbell as I would to see her lead a revival of Jeanette Rankin's pacifism, her talk still reeks of opportunism. Marshall writes:

Hillary is certainly not the first candidate to bash the oil producing states or oil companies around election time. And the polls seem to show it's working for her. But I'm concerned about the widening gap between reality and her campaign trail statements. First with the pledge to obliterate Iran if they attack Israel, then the rebellion against economists and now this.

Andrew Leonard: Now, Paul Krugman throws economists off the bus. Thought I'd follow up Leonard's post yesterday with Paul Krugman's reaction, but there wasn't one yesterday, and Leonard sums up today's response nicely. Krugman doesn't support the gas tax holiday scam, but he also refuses to budge an inch toward Obama because of Clinton's gaffe. Krugman seems to favor Clinton over Obama because he'd rather see a Democrat push hard on populist themes than soft peddle them, even if the Democrat has no credibility and a busload of interests that promise to derail any possible change. For one thing, a clear rhetorical stance would make it easier to push legislation through in the wake of a Democratic landslide, as happened in the first 100 days of FDR and LBJ. On the other hand, I think the next administration is going to have its hands full well past 100 days, and will be judged more on how they react to new crises than what their opening play is.

Alex Koppelman: Quote of the Day. Speaking of Clinton, she's just picked up this ringing endorsement from Bill Kristol:

She's running a right-wing campaign. She's running the classic Republican race against her opponent, running on toughness and use-of-force issues, the campaign that the elder George Bush ran against Michael Dukakis, that the younger George Bush waged in 2000 and then again against John Kerry, and that Ronald Reagan -- "The Bear in the Forest" -- ran against Jimmy Carter and Walter F. Mondale. And she's doing it with much the same symbols. [ . . . ] She is hated on all the right fronts. The snots and the snark-mongers now all despise her, along with the trendies, the glitzies; the food, drama, and lifestyle critics, the beautiful people (and those who would join them), the Style sections of all the big papers; the slick magazines; the above-it-all pundits, who have looked down for years on the Republicans and on the poor fools who elect them, and now sneer even harder at her.

So add Kristol to her growing list of admirers on the far right, starting with Richard Mellon Scaife and Bill O'Reilly. The basic problem with this demonology is that Kristol remains a moron. He also wrote:

It is a truism that liberals think people are formed by exterior forces around them and are helpless before them, while conservatives think individuals make their own destiny. Liberals love victims and want them to stay helpless, so they can help them, with government programs; while conservatives love those who refuse to be victims, and get up off the canvas and fight.

Just look at Kristol, who came from nowhere to make himself the leading intellect of the neocon right? Well, not exactly nowhere -- his father got there first, paved the way, and handed it to him on a silver platter. I don't know about liberals, but leftists recognize that external forces molded them -- it's almost a commonplace that books by leftists start with a personal introduction on how one came to view the world. Conservatives take the opposite tack, assuming they represent God given truth even when all they ever try to do is to represent the inherited interests of their class.

But their fawning recognition of Clinton does seem to be heartfelt. They recognize that her willingness to say and do anything to grasp hold of power is a worldview, not to mention conceit, that they share.