My mother occasionally babysits for her neighbor who has two young daughters, ages 7 and 9. The neighbor is one of those New Agey types, you know, the yoga, the incense, the wheatgrass, and tattoos type. She's also incredibly politically active  and is into the whole "grassroots movement." She's a huge Obama supporter and she's been keeping her two daughters engaged in the whole process in terms they can understand.
    So, today the neighbor was out registering voters for the Obama campaign and my mom was watching her two daughters. The girls are playing some sort of board game, they decide to modify some of the rules and they commence playing. About twenty minutes later my mom hears the younger girl indignantly accuse the older girl of cheating.
"No, I wasn't!" the older one yells back. My mother goes to check what's going on and hears the younger one shout,
"You're, you're being Hillary Clinton!"
    My mom watches incredulously for a couple of minutes as the older girl tries to defend herself from the accusation. Then she finally steps in and settles the matter. She called me to share the story that little children are using Hillary Clinton as the prime example of a cheater. I thought I'd share.

    Alright, I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree with the general consensus that Hillary's remarks today were racist. I don't believe that Hillary is a racist, I think she chose her words poorly. First of all, she basically repeated what all the asinine pundits have been saying since Ohio. "Why can't Obama close the deal with blue-collar voters?" They've all been asking if the white, working class voter would vote for Obama. They're cynically wondering whether those who haven't graduated from college are progressive enough to vote for the black man. Hillary and the pundits are guilty of cynicism, no doubt about it, but racism? Come on. Second, her mistake was juxtaposing the words "white" and "hard-working" in the same sentence, thereby implying that anyone who is not white does not work hard. Ok, that's a little hard to defend but I don't believe she meant that non-whites are lazy, good for nothings. Seriously, she would have been run out of the entire western hemisphere if she really believed that. Here's what I think she was trying to do, she was asked what her path to the nomination was, she was trying to prove to super delegates that she can get the support of the Reagan Democrats that have been lost in the Republican wilderness for the past twenty years. What other argument does she have for staying in? Granted, I believe that as soon as she leaves the stage, Obama will then have a chance to build a relationship with these voters and he'll be able to count on them in November. This is a year that is tailor-made for Democrats, the Republican party and John McCain are incredibly weak and misguided. Hillary is staying in because she knows it's a cake walk once the Democratic primaries are over. What she said is incredibly cynical, disappointing and not entirely accurate but it wasn't racist. So, flame away.

This is an article from TIME written on Jan.19, 1976. It makes a fascinating read because thirty-two years later, we're using some of the same language with the same players.

A prime goal of U.S. oil diplomacy over the past two years has been to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The U.S. tried to weld consuming countries into a bloc that would reduce oil imports and accelerate development of alternative sources of energy, with the aim of shrinking OPEC revenues enough to prod some of its 13 member nations to cut prices, thus dissolving the cartel. The strategy seemed justified: OPEC's quintupling of prices since late 1973 has aggravated both inflation and recession in industrialized countries. But the attempt simply did not work, and now the policy is being quietly shelved. The U.S. Government has decided that it cannot beat the cartel and that, as a result, it may just as well learn to live with it—perhaps even gain politically from its existence. Assistant Treasury Secretary Gerald Parsky sums up the new mood: "Breaking up OPEC would be detrimental to the direction in which we want to go."

The softening U.S. attitude is prompted by several factors. Early predictions that a massive transfer of wealth to the oil-producing states would cripple the industrial world's financial and production systems have proved unfounded. Most of the newly rich producers have become big spenders, and are creating lush export markets for U.S., European and Japanese goods.

Much of the rapid rise in oil prices has already been absorbed by consumer countries. According to a recent study by the Brookings Institution, even with higher oil prices the growth of disposable income in the developed world will be slowed by only 3% or so between now and 1980.

Then, too, the Administration has been unable to rally Europeans and the Japanese to its anti-OPEC strategy. They are far more dependent on oil imports than the U.S. and are exceedingly reluctant to annoy the producing states.

France has refused even to join the International Energy Agency, which the U.S. hoped would unite consumer nations in a struggle against OPEC pricing policies. Britain, which is pinning its hopes for recovery on North Sea oil, is banking heavily on continuing high crude prices; Prime Minister Harold Wilson says it is "not entirely misplaced humor" that Britain eventually might actually join OPEC. Non-OPEC producers like Canada and Mexico have also benefited from the towering cost of oil and are not about to press for reductions.

Moreover, OPEC has proved remarkably resilient because its members are well aware that their power to fix prices lies in their ability to maintain a united front. Thus cartel members have been able to hold traditional animosities in check—at least so far. Iran and Iraq managed to settle a long-smoldering border dispute, and radical Algeria fell in line behind Saudi Arabia's moderate pricing policies when the Saudis presented Algeria with a generous loan. Un-gluing OPEC, if it could still be done at all, would require extraordinarily disruptive measures by the U.S.; for example, actively fostering friction between such rivals as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But experts fear that disruptive measures could lead to unpredictable turmoil, especially in the already explosive Middle East. That kind of strategy, says a State Department Middle East specialist, would be "so politically damaging as not to be worth the effort."

Ending Confrontation. Instead of confrontation, the U.S. is now seeking to influence OPEC through accommodation with Saudi Arabia, the cartel's most influential member and biggest producer. The Saudis' avid antiCommunism, their support of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat against more radical Arab leaders and their relatively moderate position on oil pricing make them particularly acceptable to American policymakers. Despite its vast wealth, Saudi Arabia is still essentially a feudal state badly in need of both industrial and agricultural development. In the past year or so, the U.S. has signed agreements to provide the Saudis with military and technical assistance, including electrification projects and agricultural development programs. Says Saudi Information Minister Muhammed Abdo Yamani: "We see signs that make us optimistic about American policy."

The strategy worked last fall, when the Saudis held the latest OPEC price boost to a stated 10%, though some cartel members had wanted much more. Whether OPEC will continue to present even a facade of moderation, however, remains open to question. Iranian Interior Minister Jamshid Amouzegar recently noted that with the expected worldwide economic recovery, new oil price boosts "will become possible again in mid-1976."