More Gas on Oil

Are Hillary and Barack credible in their fight against the evils of big oil? No, says Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson, since they're both living well off of big oil's bucks:

When Exxon Mobil last week posted its second-highest quarterly profits ever, $10.9 billion, Clinton said, "This is truly Dick Cheney's wonderland. But on Main Street, middle class families are facing devastating choices every day between buying groceries and filling up their gas tanks . . . We need to set a new course for our long-term energy strategy and move away from oil."

Two days before Exxon's profits were announced, Obama said oil companies "are making billions and it's time we made them give back . . . what we're talking about now is a Washington con game, and I think the American people are smarter than Washington and will see right through it."

Unfortunately, it is easy to see through the posturing of Clinton and Obama. They need to do some gas rationing of their own.

Trouble is, Jackson says, Barack and Hillary are under the influence of big oil as they keep accepting big money from the big companies:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain is still the overall leader in money from the oil and gas industry at $515,486. But Clinton and Obama are on their own slippery oil slopes, at $353,723 and, $266,097, respectively.

Why does this matter if all of Washington is taking this sort of money?

....the symbolism of Clinton replacing Pombo at the top of the Chevron food chain, Obama replacing the Alaska congressional delegation at the top of BP's charts and Obama being number two in current Exxon cash is ominous. How far would Clinton really go with energy "solutions," and how much would Obama actually "change" the oil-to-policy pipeline in Washington?

Is this what Obama means when he's talking about a Shell game?