The latest round? After appearing to back off, AP set up a tollbooth for quoting as few as 5 words. At $2.50 per word, no less.

I wonder how that affects me. I'm not a non-profit organization, so I wouldn't qualify for their discount. But I don't have ads, so can't be classified as a commercial activity, either.

Fortunately, there may be some relief coming later this week. As a hobbyist, I can't afford the consequences of quoting the article directly, since it was written by an AP reporter. Instead, I'll quote random words and phrases from numerous other AP articles:

New York - The Associated Press, following criticism from bloggers over an AP assertion of copyright, plans to meet this week with a bloggers' group to help form guidelines under which AP news stories could be quoted online.

If you want to read the article I didn't quote, try here.

I hope that AP comes to it's senses soon - this is hard!

Update: Ace counter-offers.

Fair enough, I see the irony as well.

Meanwhile, over at Huffington Post, Seth Colter Walls is having a moonbattathon based on... his own ignorance of charge cards:

With news of the McCain family's six-figure credit card debt cropping up today, its not too hard to imagine a little light-hearted chuckling among middle class folks getting a look at the spendthrift habits of elites. As The Hill reported this morning, based on disclosure reports released today, Sen. John McCain and his wife Cindy owe at least $100,000 to American Express, with a "dependent child" also holding a card with a balance between $15,000 and $50,000.

So what? I travel frequently on business. I can tell you from personal experience that it's very easy to rack up $20-30 grand in a month from hotels, car rental, airfare, etc., and I don't have an enterage following me 24/7. The McCains are campaigning for the Presidency, while I'm sure the campaign takes care of some expenses directly, the fluid nature of campaigning would make using a charge card (and getting reimbursed later) necessary.

Seth continues:

But not all credit card debts are created equal. In fact, according to a prior disclosure form filed in May that was provided to The Huffington Post, a significant amount of the McCains' credit card debt is being held by American Express at an interest rate of zero percent -- making their debt a lot less like the costly credit card pitfalls facing many Americans and a lot more like the big sweetheart loans that can get national political figures in hot water.

Wow - some scoop you've got there, Seth - you've uncovered what most folks already know. The most common American Express card (indeed, the only up until a few years ago) is interest free. Not just to the rich, but to everyone.

Besides, if the McCains were getting sweetheart deals, what use would they have for a joint card at 25.99%?

This one made me laugh out loud:

Zero-percent credit card interest rates are not exclusively for the rich or well-connected, of course. But the most common offers of that kind are often capped at a few-thousand dollars and shed their zero percent rate after six to nine months

Um, no, Seth. Even a standard Gold card has no limit and no interest unless you pay late - a category which the McCains apparently fall into. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

There's so much low hanging fruit to pick when it comes to criticising McCain - is this really the best they can do?

Forbes has pictures of prototypes and artists' renditions of yet to be built models.

At stake: $100 billion and a chance to make Arnold Schwarzenegger's driveway a little more crowded.

I'd be remiss, especially after pointing out Democrat hyper-partisanship and dishonesty on energy policy, if I didn't also point out that our hope on the right for changing the 30 years of Democrat obstructionism is - well, disappointing. McCain, from this morning:

Although the GOP presidential candidate didn't address the question of raising taxes on oil companies, he said the companies "absolutely" should return some profits to consumers. "And they should be embarking on research and development that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil," he said.

"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits," McCain said.

The issue of oil company profits came up this week in the Senate, where Republicans stopped the Democrats from imposing a tax on windfall profits and taking away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the $4-a-gallon price of gas.

In the past McCain has indicated he would consider such a tax proposal, saying he didn't want to see companies making "obscene profits" that distort the market.

McCain would consider windfall profits taxes? Well, he said economics wasn't his strongest subject. Someone in the McCain camp please educate the Senator on the effects of raising corporate taxes on consumer prices, please. Also, I'm very disturbed by this socialist streak he flaunts when it comes to energy policy - all this "profit-sharing" doesn't belong in a country where freedom is revered.

Also, why do our politicians (and much of the population) expect OIL companies to develop alternative energy? Isn't that kind of like expecting Toro to research grass varieties that don't need mowing?

Added to his continued ANWR = Grand Canyon theme, McCain's ideas on energy are a tragic embarrassment to the Republican Party.

...in budget years 2003 through 2007, Senate restaurants racked up deficits of $4.7 million...

Things are so bad, the Senate is moving to privatize the restaurants:

The Senate last week passed a bill authorizing Senate restaurants, now run by the Architect of the Capitol, to go private, ending months of back-and-forth between Democrats appalled by the operation's money-losing ways and other Democrats worried that restaurant workers would get thrown out like the ham bones.

The measure is expected to win easy approval in the House, where privately run restaurants and food courts run profits and draw good crowds every day of House members and employees, tourists and disaffected Senate staff.

The really sad part is that some Senators tried to block privatization because they feared a responsible business might, you know, act like a responsible business:

But Feinstein's efforts to change the system ran into obstacles from four Democratic senators: Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who questioned whether current workers would face lower wages, reduced benefits and be deprived of union representation.

Remember this the next time one of these morons starts preaching about fiscal responsibility.

Jim Johnson joins a growing family.

Imagine the turnover rate in an Obama administration. Fast food joints could look stable in comparison.

Starting with this incredible whopper from Nancy Pelosi yesterday in the wake of her failed attempt to raise taxes on oil companies:

Senate Republicans have once again shown themselves to be unwilling to break free of the costly, failed Bush energy policies of the past. They have again adopted President Bushs drill and veto policy that is driving up the price of oil, diesel, and gasoline and leaving us dangerously reliant on Middle East oil.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Senate Republicans have shown no leadership on energy issues for seven years, which is why we face a growing energy crisis. If Republicans will not lead us to a cleaner, more independent energy future for America then they should at least get out of the way.

If there are among you that actually buy this, please sober up and do a little research on why we face a "growing energy crisis". I guarantee it isn't because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Senate Republicans have been drilling, because they haven't - primarily due to Democrat obstructionism.

In the very same press release, Pelosi touts halting deliveries to the Strategic Oil Reserve "to increase oil supply in the market" as being helpful for gas prices. But when applied to Republicans, suddenly the result of drilling for more oil equals "driving up the price of oil, diesel, and gasoline and leaving us dangerously reliant on Middle East oil"?

Which is it, Nancy? Does increasing supply lower prices, or raise them?

Equally dishonest is the second part of the above quote, but only because of the framing. The Republicans have been failures on energy, but only because they couldn't get around Democrat obstruction to increasing domestic oil production. It's Nancy and Democrats in Congress who have refused to get out of the way for thirty years.

It occurs to me that you anti-war Democrats are missing an opportunity. After all, you've been insisting for years that the Iraq war (and any interest in Iran) is all about oil. If you really believe that, then supporting domestic production would eventually result in denying future administrations a reason to start wars in the middle east. And imagine how catchy the bumper stickers would be with messages like "Drill For Oil, Not Blood For Oil", or "Drill For Peace". Just think about it, guys, okay?

Anyway, none of this guarantees an Obama victory in November. Racial division has lost much of its sting, but not all: you can be sure that we’ll be hearing a lot more about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all that. Moreover, despite Hillary Clinton’s gracious, eloquent concession speech, some of her supporters may yet refuse to support the Democratic nominee.

But if Mr. Obama does win, it will symbolize the great change that has taken place in America. Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics — but we’re now a different, and better, country.

If you point out Rev. Wright's hateful words against America, you're a racist. If you were a Hillary supporter who doesn't support Obama, you're a racist. If Obama loses in November, it's because we're all racist.

Paul creatively rewrites a little history in his race-baiting op-ed as well, and gets called out for it by McQ over at RWN.

From an Obama rally in North Carolina:

"At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil," Obama said.

When a tax break, no matter who it benefits, is characterized as government "spending", watch your wallets. This is an arrogant view of government as rightful owner, with whatever you're allowed to keep owing only to government's benevolence.

It's human nature for people to envy others who have more - I wish I was rich, too. But keep in mind that corporations don't actually pay taxes, the simply collect them from you and me as they include the cost of taxes into the prices you pay for their products. The wealthy don't always hide their money in mattresses, they invest it, creating jobs and prosperity in the process.

It may feel good when government takes money away from folks who often appear undeserving of what they have. That's human nature, too. But which would you prefer - good feelings or lower gas prices? And which benefits you more - good feelings or more jobs?

A couple of questions for the changey-hopey folks - Can any of you explain to me why you think raising taxes on Exxon will lower gas prices? Can any of you please explain to me how taking away the resources of those who create jobs will somehow increase job opportunities for you and me?

Joyce Susick is the type of voter who might carry Barack Obama to the White House — or keep him out. A registered Democrat in a highly competitive state, she is eager to replace George W. Bush, whom she ranks among the worst presidents ever.

There's just one problem.

"I don't think our country is ready for a black president," Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania."

Although the author could only find one person out of 40 interviews who wouldn't vote for Obama based on race, the article seems to suggest that any other reason given for non-support is simply a veneer hiding the real reason:

Gauging voter sentiments about race is notoriously difficult. Many voters hide their feelings from pollsters and it is possible that some do not even realize race's influence on their behavior.

In interviews with 40 Pennsylvanians across three counties that Clinton won by big margins, only one person indicated opposition to Obama simply because of his race. But several others said their neighbors might do so. Some offered objections that are familiar, and suspicious, to Obama's aides and supporters.

So if you tell a pollster you're not voting for Obama because you don't like his policy stances, you're lying to hide the fact that you're racist. Or, you're racist and just don't know it, along with your neighbors.

Surely they must have interviewed someone who objects to Obama because of issues? Of course, if you're looking for racism hard enough, you'll find it everywhere, even if you have to be creative:

Rose Iezzi, who lunched recently with two friends at a Greensburg cafe, is one. All three women are middle-aged, work for an accountant and admire Clinton. But only Iezzi took a hard stand against Obama.

"I think he's a snake oil salesman," she said. "He's a little too slick and smooth."

"He just doesn't appeal to me, and not because of race, definitely," she said in an interview in which race had not been mentioned.

Such comments are all too familiar to Richard Akers, who phoned dozens of prospective Pennsylvania voters as an Obama campaign volunteer in April. Democrats often explained their opposition to Obama with "excuses that were not rational or valid, as I saw it," said the retired bank director from Johnstown, another hotbed of Clinton support.

"To me, it was almost a code," Akers said. "'He doesn't wear a flag pin.' It seemed like code for 'He's not one of us.'"

With so much of the coverage this election season centering on race, I find it unsurprising that an interviewee might bring it up without prompting. Even folks who aren't racist don't want to be seen as racist, after all. While I agree that flag pins should not be the reason to vote for or against a candidate, I suggest that Mr. Akers, an Obama supporter, might see any reason to oppose Obama as "not rational or valid", just as many conservatives might scratch their heads and wonder why anyone would support a liberal.

In the long run, the non-stop narrative of "opposition to Obama = racism" isn't going to help the Democrats. Nobody likes being called a racist, and there's a substantial risk of backlash among folks who might otherwise be swayed by Obama's campaign.

The link is from the latest post, but go to the main page and scroll down for more.

Yes, I know these hate-filled blogs at my.barackobama.com aren't from the candidate or even from his staff. It's interesting, however, that he attracts this filth in the first place.

And why doesn't the campaign try to clean their own house without waiting for someone to point it out to them? Hmm?

Drivers are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gasoline for the first time. AAA and the Oil Price Information Service say the national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose to $4.005 overnight from $3.988. But consumers in many parts of the country have already been paying well above that price for some time.

Gas is expected to keep climbing, putting greater pressure on consumers and businesses, because the price of oil is soaring in futures markets. Light, sweet crude shot up nearly $11 a barrel Friday and approached $140 for the first time.

Along with higher fuel costs, consumers are also contending with higher prices for food and other goods because of rising transportation costs.

As a reminder:

• Democrats have obstructed every attempt at expanding domestic oil production for the last 30 years.

• Democrats want to increase taxes on the oil companies, which will be passed directly to the consumer in the form of even higher gas prices.

I hope you Democrats are proud of yourselves.

I'll be watching it and commenting. More later.

Pre-concession thoughts: How much fodder will she provide today for GOP ads? After attacking Obama for months for his inexperience and other traits, she now has to support the Messiah. Her best bet would be to faint as if she were at one of Barack's rallies, nothing quotable left over and the media would approve...

12:24PM: Still waiting, talking heads running out of material.

12:26PM: Fox News says she'll leave her house at 12:30...

Chris Wallace suggests the lateness is intentional, Susan Estrich says no...

12:30 - Motorcade has left, I'm surprised they're not showing live video of their progress - otherwise, this entire event has the look and feel of a state funeral.

12:36 - Motorcade has arrived.

12:46 - Hillary on stage only 46 minutes late - wild applause from supporters - show time!

12:50 - "Well, this isn't exactly the party I planned...."

12:55 - She's looking at her notes way too much - my guess is that the late arrival was due to last minute tweaking of the speech.

She's been thanking all her supporters and has broken a record for victim stories in the process - c'mon, Hill, get on with it!

12:56 - Boos when she says to direct energy to Obama!

"I have served with him in the Senate for four years" - Um, no, you haven't.

She looked angry with the crowd when they booed....

12:58 - Calling for unity - applause not nearly as loud as before, fewer boos.

1:01 - Throwing a bone to Bill - "Weve only won 3 of last ten elections, the man who won two of those is here today"

1:05 - more boos!

1:06 - "Could a woman be CIC? I think we answered that one" Is she forgetting that this a concession speech?

1:10 - Mentioned "18 million" twice so far, equates a woman being elected President with being "blasted into space". How odd.

1:15 - More thanks to family and staff, crowd a lot happier with this part of speech.

Her delivery during the part where she supported Obama seemed wooden, and her irritation with the crowd showed in her expressions. The last few minutes were much more genuine. I'll be posting video when available.

Oddly, there was little mention of McCain, and the endorsement was much shorter than expected. Overall, not a very convincing effort.

Update: Video (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Update 2: The entire speech:

The heart of Mr. Obama's problem is that he risks being defined by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. Most American voters know him only as a fresh face with an Ivy League education, an outstanding credential – editor of the Harvard Law Review – an exciting speaker, and a man who stands for much-desired change. Beyond that he is a political mystery with a thin legislative record. But when voters look at his past for clues to the core of his character, they find religious leaders calling for God to damn America and concluding that America is the greatest sin against God.

To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency – by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit. He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. And he has to challenge his supporters, especially his black base, to be honest about real problems at the heart of today's racial divide – including out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs and a culture that devalues education while glorifying the gangster life.

I sincerely doubt Obama will take Juan's advice, though. That would require the courage to address some of those pesky "distractions" rather than dismiss them.

Frank Schaeffer at Huffington Post