Obviously, it would be a false portrait, but that's never stopped them before. Probably the Dems believe they are well positioned for November, and don't want to take any chances in that regard.

Sometimes you have to do what's right, because it's right.

Most of the serious dissatisfaction I see with the Democrats as a whole (and not just the blogosphere) is that they don't stand for anything, that they're weak, that they cave in to the Repubs at every turn. It's hard to argue differently when they back away from serious disagreements out of fear.

This should be framed the way it truly has evolved. Retired generals and officers were used by the Bush administration to push propoganda and if they failed to do so, would not be allowed access to "briefings" and would lose their jobs with the networks for not having any info and possibly having defense companies they work for lose contracts.

Even shooter's not defending this, just changing the subject.

If this was a no big deal issue, typical behavoir of retired generals and the news media the story could have been reported on and twisted into attacks on patriotism. It isn't, which means the MSM is embarassed.

Another reason oil prices (and gold) are rising so fast, is the decline in the value of the dollar, not because of "speculation".

I've got to agree with Krugman on this, when I see hoarding going on, that's when we're reaching bubble status. So far, that's not happening, people aren't filling up gas jugs to use at a later day, etc.

One more thing, even if we in the US start to restrict trading and try to punish "speculators", we aren't the only game in town. It's a world wide market, the big guys can still play.

It is interesting that peak oil is becoming more mainstream, let alone that the WSJ is acknowledging it.

Disclaimer: white, straight, atheist woman posting

Well, for me, I can say that I'm glad I'm a woman today and not 100 years ago. Things aren't perfect, but to say that things would be similar is not accurate. My husband could legally beat me, in many places property that I owned prior to marriage could not be listed in my name if I was married, rape was deserved for a certain kind of woman, etc.

Hell, I wouldn't change places with women in the 60's either, whether she was a professional or not. My college experiences are not the same as young women today face either, they wouldn't be questioned about their "unconventional" choice of study.

Not being gay, black or other minority (though some of my grandparents weren't regarded highly in their day as Irish Catholic immigrants) I can't speak for them.

But GT, are you really saying that that being black in Selma in 1930 is no different than today? I can say honestly that I wouldn't want to change places with a black man or woman from that time period either, though I agree that things could certainly be improved on today.

I have to agree that much of the appeal of Southwest is because of the 2nd tier airports they utilize.

I am so much happier flying out of ONT than LAX, and that translates to a better experience overall, even though Southwest is not the reason that parking, traffic, security, etc. is easier there than LAX. I start out in a much better frame of mind.

Southwest also has a big presence in places where the weather doesn't mess up their flight schedules as much. Flights out of Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, etc. while subject to some weather delays, are not subject to the same kind of delays you get in places like Chicago, NY and Boston. Weather delays piss customers off, even if it's out of the airlines control, and that drives other airlines approval ratings down.

I see it as a fact.

Any Democrat that votes for McCain (or sits it out) because either Hillary or Obama doesn't get the top spot on the ticket is insane.

Besides the right to choose (which used to be a top priority for me, but it has fallen further down the list because of other pressing issues), how about escalation of the war?

How about a preemptive war with Iran?

How about gutting social security and medicaid in the name of fiscal responsibility, while at the same time continuing to give out no bid contracts worth billions to multinational firms?

And that's just off the top of my head.

Hmm, just cost me $55 to fill up my lil' ol' Jeep. In 2006 it cost may $25

Where do you live? I live in CA, and gas prices are very high, but in 2006 they weren't low.

The prices have gone up from around $3 a gallon to around $4 a gallon. Nothing like the more than double you are talking about.

As far as oil prices go, maybe the fact that we are chest thumping about going to war with Iran and our economic threats to Venezuela might play a factor in the volatility.

Oil prices (and gas prices) were much lower prior to the Iraq war they have shot up ever since. To place the blame on Pelosi, who came to power in the middle of the rise is disingenuous at best.

About gas prices, the 3 dollars a gallon was at Memorial Day, that was before the Dem's took over...the prices rose quite a bit more than that before the November elections.

So tell me where were you filling up for less than 50% of gas prices today in late 2006, let alone after the Dems took control?