As a matter of public policy telegraphing your intentions to manipulate the oil market will only invite the middle men to step in front of the consumer with price increases; truckers, freight lines, just about everybody. The effect to the economy might actually be a net negative for consumers.

That's an important point about thin markets in commodities, which set the price, but cannot make delivery. That's fundamentally flawed, but it happens increasingly in global markets where off market trading between countries occurs, changes in the benchmark currency, and other political matters make these markets less representative.

The war on terror/drugs/political enemies, is often fought in the computer databases that conduct international banking transactions. Freezing and confiscating accounts is one way the US destroys confidence in global markets. Another is through a weak dollar policy.

At the bottom, according to Bob Prechter, it only takes one buyer and one seller to destroy the value in any market, housing or oil. The official government policy is to see that that one transaction always takes place at what is considered a fair price. (In the final outcome they can control housing if they prevent lower income housing from trading, even if only one McMansion trades, that becomes the benchmark.

Of course it all gets ridiculous after a point, and buyers and sellers know the real score, which is why oil is still going up despite the rally in the dollar.

Bush has said that he believes the US should expand the SPR, while the emerging economies just begin to embrace the concept. The purpose of an SPR goes beyond its stated purpose of providing oil in an emergency, it also allows the nations buying oil on the open market to smooth out the supply/demand equation, and yes, manipulate prices for their own benefit. The worldwide expansion of SPRS globally could account for 100k bbls a day in a few years.

Ask yourself this question, why would Bush, CEO of an oil company once, keep filling the SPR at these prices? The advantage of having a large crude oil inventory outweigh the disadvantage of paying the current price.

Like Prescott Bush, or his own father George Bush, who has close to ties to the house of Faud. Junior arranged a safe exit for his Saudi friends right after 9.11.

Gavin Newsom was losing to Green candidate Matt Gonzalez in 2003, when the Democratic Party gave him Newsom their full support. Same sex marriage was a Green Party idea.

To followup on Sanders, he is probably going to lose his seat as Mayor in San Diego, to businessman steve Francis, who has leveled a media blitz against Sanders. Since Comcast does not own the cable franchise in that city, the ads are being put on the air, (unlike Shirley Golub's Rubber Chicken Ads, she is running against Pelosi in her district). Sanders faces a host of financial woes, but sympathetic Jerry revealed his real spots during the La Jolla Landslide, as he tried to finagle out of responsibility. Acerbic City Attorney, Mike Aguirre suggested the City may have some liablility, and would help the residents of that neighborhood, whose homes were sliding down the hill.

So evidently crying real tears on a few select issues doesn't change the leopards spots, anymore than watching Bush cry real tears at a Medal of Honor ceremony makes anyone change their mind about his Presidency.

Candidates have to walk the walk. If you cherry pick a few issues, like abortion and same sex marriage, you don't fool your opponents, and you seldom convince your constituents. The important side of the equation is the constituents, who tend to perform their due diligence.

The Democrats haven't used the bully pulpit, to drive the cobwebs out of the American electoral mindset, where things like racism, and homophobia have been allowed to take root. This is where Obama needs a reverend Wright on his side. There is no single issue that will turn the tide, not even the appeasement issue.

What is this thing you speak of? Free Markets? Where are these things you mention?

China is a one trick pony, no culture, no freedom, just lots of money for the leaders in Bejing. A more interesting question is how did China go from Communist dictatorship, to Capitalist dictatorship, (really inquiring minds want to know, REALLY, inquiring Wall Street Republican minds want to know how you lock the door on terrorism, dissent, and human rights, and, make the stock market go up indefinitely)

and the worker bees never complain.

sweet....