They've been releasing their attacks gradually, letting Obama's numbers go up for a while before they crash as a result of some scandal (or pseudo-scandal). Anybody who believes that Wright is the worst skeleton in Obama's closet is naive.

<sarcasm>

Yes, and everyone knows that Hillary's closet is skeleton-free, so she could never be the target of this kind of attack.

</sarcasm>

Many people in the South probably still support segregation.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of them supported slavery. In the days when slavery was allowed, the states that allowed it could easily show that it was supported by the majority of their voters. That didn't make it right.

... why the U.S. government is acting so surprised. Oil is a critical resource. One would think that the government would monitor the market and try to avoid situations like this, or at least be better prepared when they happen, but nooooo. Instead, they get caught completely by surprise and now we're in a world of hurt.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened. The subprime fiasco could probably have been prevented if the government had been paying attention.

What exactly has our government been doing all this time? If they answer "protecting us from terrorists", I'll respond that their negligence has allowed far more harm to this country that any terrorist attack could have produced.

I think Obama could pound McCain into the ground by simply asking repeatedly for a list of Republican accomplishments.

The Republicans had six years with majorities in both houses and a president who signed everything they sent him. What have the Republicans done that has produced tangible benefits for our country?

If I'm on the board of the Brookings Institute, or the PNAC, and I see a moron like Wolfowitz who can't buy a pack of gum without dropping the ball come begging me for a job, I don't say, "Sure Paul, come on in. We've got a corner office all set up." Instead, I pull the fire alarm and get everyone out of the building, just as a precaution, cause Lord knows the guy will somehow light the building on fire.

That wouldn't work. The rightwing nutjobs all seem to be like Wolfy, so you'd have nobody to fill your positions.

If Obama offers Hillary the veep spot, will Obama's detractors tout it as evidence that he is willing to give up too much when negotiating with enemies?

But given the 40 percent run up in the price of oil over the past three months, the much-ballyhooed plan may do little more than help Americans tread water.

Given our financial industry's ethical standards, I would not be surprised if the runup in oil prices was deliberately contrived to suck up the "stimulus package" money.

The administration is the branch of government that has the power to collect the data that would be needed to help formulate good policy. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush's administration has demonstrated willingness to ignore, distort, or even fabricate information for political reasons.

I don't think there are many people who really know what the true state of our economy is, and I don't think this is likely to change until Bush is out of office. In the meantime, making hard statements about economic policy would be pretty foolish.

Grow up. Kennedy WAS assassinated, and it WAS tragic.

Right. And Hillary's choice of that event to illustrate her point was prone to misinterpretation. It wasn't the best thing she could have said. You might even call it inappropriate.

Which is exactly what Obama's campaign spokesman called it. So what's the problem?

The worst part is that Obama's campaign has jumped right in to fan the flames.

The quotes that I have seen of the statement read:

"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign"

This does not seem to be a particularly inflammatory statement. Politicians say this kind of stuff about each other all the time.

I think your real problem is the media, who have been squawking about this like a bunch of hysterical geese. One must be careful not to give them opportunities like this; the results are very predictable. This reminds me a lot of the noise we heard about Obama's "bitter" remarks.

Trying to blame Obama's campaign for the results of Hillary's gaffe is just plain silly.

You forgot the other side of the argument:

Obama is mean.
so if he says something that *seems* mean
- it really is mean
if you repeat that meanness
- you are just pointing essential facts that voters should know

It's kinda funny how the rules change depending on what side one is on.

I've been thinking about what might have happened if this has been Obama's gaffe, rather than Hillary's.

I've been trying to imagine Hillary's campaign just quietly letting it slide, but it hasn't been working out. My imagination just isn't up to the challenge.

Right-wing think tanks are always complaining that taking meaningful action to address climate change will choke off economic growth.

AFAICT, economic growth is the only aspect of the situation that right-wing think tanks care about. They seem to think that growth can continue forever, without regard to realities such as finite resources.

GM and Toyota both (rightfully) see China and (to a lesser extent) India as the next cash cow market, with literally millions of people now in a position to desire/afford cars as transport - as well as larger, more comfortable homes (which brings on the issue of more fossil fuel usage for heating, electricity, etc.)

Yes, but will the Chinese government let their country get into the same predicament that the U.S. is now suffering? I don't think so.