Good on you Joan, you got it read into the record, not that it had anything whatsoever to do with the ostensible subject of this post (and not that it is anything more than a politically motivated, dishonest, record-distorting screed- that it is too much so for the Clintons to dare go there sure says something. In fact, given your track record in this area, I for one am surprised you didn't commission it).

In any case, as I've said before, when this is said and done, and despite numerous instances where I've objected strenuously to their underhanded tactics, I will feel sorry Hillary Clinton and her supporters if she does not gain the nomination. There will be but few exceptions for that, notably for those whose advocacy hurled them and their publications overboard to deception.

It should be borne in mind that while oil prices are completely beyond the control of the US federal government to control (except in negative ways or by orders removed), the same is not true of gasoline prices. This is because gasoline prices are 'managed' by the oil majors to the tune of eye watering profit. A few oil companies control the vast majority of refining and distribution capacity in these United States, and their well disciplined oligopic clout ensures hefty margins for refined product in this country. Witness the alleged efforts by the oil majors to put the kibosh on Pat Robertson's plan to restart a major mothballed refinery in California, including by pressuring would-be financiers (the poster child of getting screwed by Energy Companies well before Enron). Witness the lack of any investment in pipeline or refining capacity, despite overtures by entrepreneurs toward energy groups. Witness the manipulation of reserve items on their balance sheet, indicating they are neither above shenanigans nor unawares as to the dynamics of their income statement, etc. etc.

If Democrats had the intelligence and skill to launch investigations into the length and breadth of the value added supply chain from well-head to pump, rather than continuing their singular quixotic focus on the end points where the monopolists are well prepared to play defense, they would be able to bust those trusts and reduce prices for the American consumer.

...her campaign did leak that photo, notwithstanding their limp-wristed 'to the best of our knowledge' denials. Obama has said he believes Hillary that she didn't know about the leak, implausible as that is, not that he believes the Clinton campaigns non-denial denials. These are different things.

It bears pointing out that neither any member of the Clinton campaign nor the Senator herself have ever categorically stated that no person in the campaign leaked the photo to the Drudge Report (in fact, the campaign manager even went so far as to defend the tactic, 'photos in traditional garb are not devisive'). After all, as they say, 'it's a 700 some odd person organization so we can't say for sure', blah blah. So you'd have to question his intelligence if he didn't believe it was her campaign, which he clearly does believe. Not that she knew anything about it *wink* *wink*

To say I find your segmentation of the electorate into red necks who would never vote for Obama and non-red necks who would never be influenced by a photo of him dressed like a Muslim a simplification is probably something of an understatement. An understatement on the order of saying that Napoleon's invasion of Russia was a tactical blunder.

However, I'm more interested in your apparent belief that the Clinton campaign wasn't behind the leak. Do you not think it odd that the campaign has not denied the leak, merely knowledge of the leak? Do you think it odd that the initial response from Hillary's campaign, from her newly minted hard nosed campaign manager, was to decry Obama's accusation that the photo was divisive- not to deny that they had leaked it? Curious, no?

Would've could've should've. If we place the burden of proof on campaign tactics at criminal rather than civil levels, then of course no one can say anything about anything. For example, we can't say anything about the Bush Administration Justice Department's proclivity of investigating Democrats around election time. After all, despite the revealing corroborating evidence, we don't really know for sure, do we? It's the beauty of plausible deniability- it doesn't need to be all that plausible.

Who wins when the burden of proof is that high? The falsely accused despite being very unlikely innocent and of course those who excel at dirty tricks of the kind that play on our worst instincts. Little wonder then that the Clinton supporters advocate such a hurdle before they shrug. Indeed, glad we've cleared all that up now.

Thanks Geri for striking a blow for the white women! Have the courage to speak the truth and don't apologize. We know who society victimizes the most- rich white women. Meanwhile those black people get all the breaks. All the attention from the shop keepers and the police- all of the quotas. Really, life's been a parade for blacks in America from slave ship, to plantation through to the civil rights movement. When's it going to be the rich white ladies turn to get some of that privilege????