Of course, if ever implemented, the following year the smart oil companies' profits would mysteriously disappear be it due to upgrading equipment, unforeseen investment losses, money losing subsidaries, etc. and we'd be back to square one - no alternative energy and more taxes to support some gov't controlled energy program....sweet baby sweet!

Not only does she sound like Hugo Chavez, she's beginning to look like him too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it on this very site, several times in the past few months, and by its most frequent (currently sole) contributor, that we have been treated to tacit endorsements of a strategy whereby energy independence or other goals (most often the devaluing of the automobile as the major mode of transportation in America) should be promoted by higher taxes on gasoline? Insofar as taxes directed at big oil companies (presuming that this is what Clinton actually means; she's a little short on detail in the clip) will inevitably result in higher pump prices, what's the difference? It's not like she's advocating for rule by decree, or for nationalization of the oil industry.

Consumption, not income.

When she says the word "take" without some caveat about just compensation, it sounds like nationalization to me-it's their money, their contracts, their infrastructure, their strategic plans that got them that money - she would only talk about taking it unless she was thinking regulation and possible nationalization.

Ya gotta understand, for her, the word 'take' has spiritual significance.

Remember the speech she gave in San Francisco about 2 or 3 years ago, when she said pretty much the same thing, except she was taking from one 'class' and giving to another?

She just should have gone whole hog (or bull?) and said "I am the one who will make Marxism work. All before me were pikers."

I said it before and I'll say it again...unelectable!

[shudder]

Josef Stalin in drag.