I strongly disagree. If Obama is going to pander and lie to voters, there is no point in and no reason for his candidacy. The old school politicians can do all the pandering on their own, no one needs Obama for that.

If American voters prefer useless short term non-solutions, they need President Clinton or President McCain. They need someone who will dig a deeper hole instead of starting to solve long-term problems. Because some people need to make all the mistakes before they can (maybe) learn from them.

If Obama wants to win he has to do what winners do. That's not telling the voters things they don't want to hear.

That's weird, because his willingness to tell voters what they don't want to hear, but know they NEED to hear, is one of the top reasons I'm a solid supporter of Barack Obama.

If everyone wants politics as usual, they don't need an Obama. The reason he's raised more money than EVER and gotten so many new voters involved is because we're TIRED of politics as usual.

PS to Lalo--nothing is that simple. We would have to look at where the gas tax of Illinois goes, since it would clearly be a state tax and not a Federal tax and thus wouldn't be needed for the same things for which a Federal gas tax is needed. Do that research and get back to us.

Not a good idea at all. Obama has been doing well with pushing the truth, for the most part. He does not have to sink that low to win.

Let's face it, he will win the nomination so why stoop to being a liar? In any event, the people deserve better... they deserve the truth, win or lose.

If the people want to be duped and prefer to have untruths, they will vote for one of the other candidates, just like they voted for GWB in his second term... but there is a rotten price to pay. As we are seeing now!

A tax break on gasoline isn't meant to contain oil prices. It merely provides a discount on gasoline purchased by the consumer. Whether you pay 4.50 a gallon or 6.00 a gallon, the tax break remains at .184 cents per gallon, so the savings to the consumer will be steady.

For those who claim that road maintenance and construction will come to a screeching halt, that is simply not true. The monies provided for this year's road work was already budgeted and allotted (and in some cases for projects that will be years in construction) in the federal budget passed for this year, last year. If as Clinton claims, the money for road infrastructure for next year's budget can be made up by a windfall profits tax on the oil companies' profits for this year, while possible, I don't think is probable, without a clear democratic majority in the senate and a republican oil man in the White House.

What's really happening is that the American consumers are gradually losing the volume discount that we always had because we bought more gasoline than the rest of the world. It's the same principle that prices a gallon of milk cheaper than a quart of milk - you pay less per quart because you're buying more. Oil companies don't have to extend a volume discount to consumers (Americans) because other consumers (e.g. China, India) are making up the difference
in sales. (This is not the sole reason, but a major one as to why Americans are paying more for gas.)

Then of course, we have the accounting practice of oil companies - LIFO vs. FIFO. This practice should be discontinued in my opinion, because it gives a misleading profits picture for tax purposes and allows for consumer gouging. While it may provide a higher valuation of inventories for tax purposes, it also hides the true cost of inventories for sales purposes. The gasoline you're purchasing at the pumps today was probably purchased by the oil companies at the wellhead at a contract price far lower than what they would have to pay at today's prices. Since many of the oil companies own the wellheads, own the refineries, own the distribution system and own the retail outlets for the gas, they're making more money every step of the way.