You're so right about MoveOn and the debt the Clintons, both of them, owe this group.

As for the 527 beef with MoveOn, it's just not a 527. It doesn't work to elect primarily one person. The ALP is just a front for the Clinton campaign and everyone knows it. I like that the Obama camp is filing a big complaint with the FEC. Let everyone, especially bitter (yes, bitter) Dems from 2004, soak in the connection between the hated Swiftboaters and ALP.

that Clinton would support something so obviously ineffective and dumb. Economists and conservationists everywhere are all tripping over themselves to point out the deep flaws in both her idea and McCain's. Neither will work to save money for consumers. That's the bottom line.

On another high note, Al Qaida is apparently reconstituting itself in the regions of Pakistan. What's there to be optimistic about anyway? Perhaps our outgoing president...

I'm waiting to see if this important issue regarding our soldiers who have risked their lives can elevate the conversatdion on the campaign trail. So far, no. Hopefully the Democrats will go after McCain for his stance, which frankly, seems cheap and grudging toward our troops.

Easy credit also was a factor in the crash of '29.

That's an interesting perspective of war time service. However, I don't agree that anyone should have to wait in line to get their benefits or choose between VA benefits and education benefits. Our country's dereliction in meeting the needs of returning vets is a disgrace. I'll grant you that but it's not an either/or proposition. Our economic structure has changed greatly since the Vietnam War and having a college degree can make a significant difference in opportunity. That's not too much too grant to those who serve in war zones.

You make it sound like one issue has to do with or is connected to the other. The fact that we have been failing and continue to fail to meet the needs of returning vets is unacceptable. However, haven't we had multiple hearings on this issue as well? Do you really think the reason we haven't gotten far on this issue is because of the GI Bill? We have a do-nothing admin that never anticipated the real costs of war. No surprise then that we have an infrastructure totally incapable of meeting needs.

A total disgrace. Your funding arrangement sounds almost like a scam. No student should have to fork over that amount of money when in college. It almost would seem to dissuade enrollment. JMO but we need to make sure our service men and women can access the same opportunities as those who don't serve.

To be fair, some Clinton supporters are calling her on this ridiculous and counterproductive proposal although not nearly enough based on previous participation. However, there is already one Clinton supporter here who is trying to divert the thread to "Obama did it too several years ago!." Please don't fall for this nonsense. Remind the poster that it is year 2008. It's a presidential election. One candidate alone has the guts to stand up and tell people they need to reduce gas consumption. McCain doesn't understand the issue most likely.

Hillary has no such excuse. It's a very telling response on her part. I think that's why so many Clinton supporters are relatively silent after savaging Obama over Wright for so long. This is nothing more and nothing less than the worst kind of political posturing. It actually runs contrary to most of Clinton's own energy policy platforms. To see her stoop to this level even makes me disappointed and Clinton lost me several months ago.

You bring up another possibility. The oil compainies, in retaliation, might just ease up on supply a bit. Anyone here old enough to remember the gas lines under the Carter admin? I was just a kid but I remember the bitterness well even if I wasn't the one waiting in the lines.

There's no break. Not for low-income, or middle-class or anyone else. The only people who will make out under his plan are the shareholders and boards of oil companies. That's about it and they'll make out very well indeed.

Personally, I don't think McCain understands the issue. I know Hillary does and it bothers me that she would go to such lengths as a publicity op to underscore her duplicity.

Please forward this nugget of information to the respective campaigns of John McCain and Hillary Clinton. They fail to grasp a basic understanding: Oil production will eventually (perhaps now) reach a point where it can no longer increase. Demand is only going to increase as industrialization spreads in countries like India and China. The only feasible options then are fuel alternatives and conservation.

First, cythera, you have clumsily dodged the point of this entire thread. Hillary's plan is bogus, harmful and stupid. Everyone knows it. The only questions are these: Do you know it and why don't you care that your candidate would sell her own energy policy down the river for a few quick votes? My guess is that you've accepted that she's a liar.

As for Obama's Ad, the last portion of the ad about $1,000 tax cut was not in the sound bite from the speech he was giving. I believe the ad was constructed from his public speaking.

I'm pretty sure that Andrews was referring to the James Carville-Richardson spectacle. "Judas" was I believe the exact reference Carville made. The Clintons clearly have a strategy of trashing those who abandon them.