Pangloss

This is good news, even if it doesn't play in Peoria. They're going to need that money.

I agree, and yes, that speech is a perfect example. It also underscores the problem, in that he hasn't talked that way in several months now. It's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, because he was asked to be less "inspirational" and more specific about policy, but when he did that look what happened. But as you say, he's learning from his mistakes, which is inspirational for a whole different reason. I grow increasingly embarrassed about my 2004 John Kerry vote. (chuckle) Though I still think it was still the better of the two options at the time. Oh well. I agree with this. They had a complete lock on political direction in this country, and they squandered it in the mistaken belief that the 80% of this country that is Christian equated to a mandate for them to become ultra-conservative in policy. We had a "conversation" with them about it, you might say. I think they got the message.

Well first off Obama needs to be more careful about what he starts. If McCain is playing from the bottom of the deck (and I agree with you on this), then Obama is all too often handing him the cards. That needs to stop, and I'm sure the Obama campaign is well aware of this and regards that particular line as a mistake (which as I pointed out earlier is why it didn't show up when the speech was posted to the donations page on their web site). But in answer to your (very good, IMO) question, that's what his aides are for. They can get down in the mud while the candidates stays safely above the fray. He already does this, just as all politicians do; I'm just suggesting putting the high water mark at a slightly different place. If what you say is true that McCain is undermining himself with these attacks, then -- let him. If Obama steps down to his level he actually elevates that mud to a higher plane (under the basic premise that if it wasn't important then both candidates wouldn't be talking about it). Wouldn't Obama obviously do that (ignore him) if McCain were to, say, let slip the N word? Of course he would -- he wouldn't directly respond to that, nor should he. We don't need to have a national conversation about the use of the N word, we need to have one about race. So instead of berating the Republican attack machine over its stealthy racism, which many undeclared voters will not see as racism but instead see as "a good question", he should instead take the opportunity to talk about race relations in America. That's how it's done. That's how you elevate the debate. That's how politicians do it, when they're playing it smart. (Mind you, I don't personally think he should be leading a discussion on race relations either, because I personally don't feel a need to be lectured about race relations by politicians, who are, as a group, largely responsible for the problem int he first place. But I'm not a typical voter, and that IS how you win people over.) But listen, just to add a humble caveat, if I knew better than Obama's political advisers then perhaps I'd be in D.C. right now telling him what to do. So hey, I could well be wrong, and he's playing it exactly right. We'll find out eventually. line[/hr] BTW, let McCain do stuff like this: That won't convince a single moderate voter, that's just eye candy for right-wing partisans. Granted it will bring in some cash, but that's it. Most people who matter know better. The ones who might vote for Obama, but haven't made up their minds yet? The ones who will actually DECIDE this election? They won't fall for that. They just will not.

An interesting point, and well put.

Well I certainly agree with your criticism of McCain, 100%. The problem with Obama talking about that is that Obama himself has an iron in that fire. Therefore, whether he is sincere or not, many people will immediately question his objectivity on that subject. We are not a society that is trusting of its politicians right now, and for good reason. You proceed from a position of already believing that Obama is not only the better candidate, but is also sincere in his intentions and in his beliefs. But if there is one thing that is absolutely certain right now -- absolutely, 100% certain, according to every poll on record -- it's that not everyone who will ultimately vote for Obama this fall has yet made up their mind. And those people need to be lead to a positive solution about change in America, not berated about the Republican attack machine that they may well have voted for only four years ago. Many on the far left just assume that anyone who doesn't support Obama right now has been unduly influenced by that Republican attack machine. But there's no "magic date" by which you're "with us or against us". These things take time. Perfectly intelligent people reach conclusions in different time frames and in very different ways. That has to be respected, even if the conclusion they arrive at is ultimately not the one we wish. Another reason why he shouldn't be talking about it is the same one that you gave about McCain. It drags him down to McCain's campaign's level. It's like when you yell at me and I yell at you (or vice-versa) and everyone else here rolls their eyes and looks for another thread. We do much better when we avoid that sort of thing, and so do they. That having been said, though, I respect where you're coming from with it -- you're absolutely right in saying that we should be having a dialogue in this country about political attack machines just as we should be having a dialogue about race relations. I guess we just disagree about who should be leading that dialogue at this particular moment in time. line[/hr] You mean "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"? I haven't read it, but the title's a bit of a giveaway, don't you think? Well yes, and if Joseph Stalin were in charge we wouldn't have any gridlock at all. We have two parties for a reason, bascule. They wouldn't have any gridlock right now if they were passing laws that both sides of the aisle agreed upon. If your party of preference had that 2/3rds majority in the Senate right now its solution to the energy crisis would be releasing small amounts of oil on a regular basis from the national reserve. Yessir, that's a major leap forward alright. Cannot wait.

Well at least part of the reason that they're "not doing anything about the criminals in the White House" is the difficulty of making a legal case on that basis. You can't even meet the burden of proof here at SFN, what makes you think you could meet it in front of an impartial judge? Besides, partisan brinksmanship (e.g. impeachment) isn't the answer to ending political gridlock. It just perpetuates it. One of the few things I agree with Nancy Pelosi on, and kudos to her for sticking by her guns on that issue.

Personally I like his ability to rethink issues and listen to what people tell him. But that sort of thing should come at the behest of experts and scientists, not political operatives. This is a political choice because it's a populist, illogical move, and he will hardly be able to complain when it has political consequences. I don't see how releasing oil from the reserve will have any impact anywho, but I do realize that much of what happens is due to speculation on the trading market, and THAT can be impacted by releasing oil from the reserve. So I guess there's SOME logic there, if deeply flawed.

Oh god, not Obama too. Yeesh. Just yesterday -- YESTERDAY! -- he was talking about how we can't drill our way out of the problem, and there are no quick fixes. I don't think he realizes how badly he's being hit amongst uncommitted, moderate-conservative voters on the "flip-flopper" issue.

Well I think this fall you're certainly going to see the biggest demonstration in favor of more than two parties that this country has ever seen. It'll be called "Election 2008". Never before has Congressional approval been so low, and the fact that people aren't flocking to vote for the opposition party either, just goes to show how disenchanted people are with both parties. Democrats will pick up seats in both the House and Senate, they'll call it a "mandate", and then they'll watch their approval rating fall even further (no doubt wondering how that's even possible). Unless, of course, they change their tune. Democrats have shown some signs of waking up to reality recently, talking about how gas prices aren't going to come down just because we drill more, for example. But then they go right back to cheesy populist tricks like trying to get gas released from the reserve. Two steps forward, one step back. I'll take it, though.

Making a false accusation isn't "talking about it". BTW, I think you might have misunderstood me -- I don't think it's beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate to talk about race, I think it's beneath them to talk about the opposition's cheesy attack methods.

The tabs are kinda cool (cuil?) as well. I miss the image searching too, though. In fact it's really missing a LOT of stuff that Google has. And I wouldn't be surprised if Google adds a column-based search results layout soon.

Oh I see, you meant output (in that line I quoted); I thought you meant consumption. That number should have caught me -- consumption is something like 20 million bpd, not 8. Just didn't do the reality check before posting. Sorry about that.

Well, in terms of what I hope it ultimately means, my hope for Iraq is that they become a firmly-entrenched example of democracy in the region, showing backwards, religiously-repressed people what a bright future they have if they shuck off the bonds of their repression. I also hope they may ultimately teach US a thing or two about democracy and its value. It's a foregone conclusion that the next couple generations of Iraqis will know the price of freedom better than most Americans do. Beyond that, I hope that my children or grandchildren will be able to explore the ruins of ancient Babylon and Mesopotamia, the very cradle of civilization, alongside their Muslim friends, without fear of attack. What a powerful thing that would be.

I don't know how you would infer from Obama's statements that he was calling all of his opponents racists. In what other way besides skin color does Obama "not look like those other" presidents and past presidential candidates? He's kinda tall and thin, I suppose. Perhaps that's what he meant. Somebody issue a press release quick.

I'm confused, that sounds like a solution to me. American consumption is dropping in spite of growth. If you predict it will drop that significantly, then additional production works to our benefit. We can sell the oil or cap the wells if the world market also dries up (which seems unlikely in that short time frame). That sounds like progress to me, in every sense except perhaps global warming. And in that arena if the United States is making that kind of progress, then presumably we'll have greater leverage in leading other countries to do the same. That was the whole point of Kyoto, after all.

I just thought it was impressive that you found 12 people in a local area to play Bridge with you.

If you buy RAM with higher frequency it will work, just at the lower frequency. You do, however, run the risk of having your existing memory not be able to work in conjunction with your new memory. For this reason people often replace all the memory in their computer rather than just adding a stick or two. In fact you run this risk even if all the numbers are the same but the memory just comes from a different manufacturer (though you shouldn't -- that's what the numbers are for). It's always a bit of a roll of the dice with memory upgrades. The technology just changes too fast.

If you really want, you can call ExxonMobil "The split-and-rejoined former Standard Oil Corporations of New York and New Jersey" ("TSARFSOCONYANJ"?) if you like -- just don't call it "late for dinner"! I don't really care. I just wanted to point out that it's not "Exxon Mobile", which gets said a lot here (not just by you).

This is exactly why I sent POM a PM (er, there's a pun there somewhere) to drop in on this thread and render an expert opinion on this. I had a suspicion that Pelosi was just blowing smoke, and that seems to confirm it. Politics as usual on BOTH sides of the aisle. (By the way, not to complain, but a number of people seem to have trouble with it, so I want to point out that it's spelled "ExxonMobil"; it's just one word and one company. I mention it merely because we talk about that company a good bit here, and I think it lends credibility to the discussion (especially amongst passers-by, google-bots, etc) if we use the correct terminology. Thanks.)

That's interesting -- I've never heard about Bridge being popular in the armed forces. Thanks for passing that along.

Pelosi talked about that on The Daily Show this week, saying that Republicans shouldn't be asking for more because the oil companies already have access to undeveloped areas. I'd been thinking about asking Peak Oil Man to comment on it, because I'm just not sure I understand the situation.

The news stories I've been seeing have been talking about a 10-20 cent drop at the pump. One story (I'll have to look around for it) said that the national average is down below the $4 mark again. I'm concerned that we may drop below the critical threshold of consumer participation in the downward trend. But the auto market suggests otherwise, and I think we'll have to just wait and see.

Obama changed his position on offshore drilling today, saying that he would support limited offshore drilling. He did this in support of a new bipartisan bill from a group of ten senators intended to increase domestic oil production. The bill would expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of four southeastern states (if they permit it). http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0140632620080802?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112 He's right, IMO. That's exactly the way to do it. Follow the science, listen to all the arguments, and make a decision that makes sense, while recognizing its limitations. That's exactly how political leadership is supposed to work. line[/hr] More on the new Senate bill from the Gang of 10 can be found here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5920512.html One interesting aspect of the bill is that any oil company that participates in the new drilling areas would apparently lose the federal tax exemptions they currently enjoy. These are the tax exemptions that have come under so much fire since oil prices began to soar. It's an interesting twist, and could even work given current high profit margins. ExxonMobil is apparently spending more money than ever before on the search for new domestic oil sources (according to that new quarterly record profit report yesterday). Perhaps they'd be interested. All of this comes after a funny story out of the US House of Representatives this afternoon after the House adjourned for the Summer at 11am (must be nice). Apparently some House Republicans tried to keep the debate going, and Speaker Pelosi had the LIGHTS turned off in the House chamber. (rofl) All of which is very amusing, but I don't think the American people are very tolerant of grandstanding by either side of the aisle at the moment. Not with congressional approval in the single digits.

Sweet, thanks for the tips!