NOT GOING ANYWHERE

The fundamental right of anyone ensnared in the clutches of the US government - i.e., imprisoned - is to have a court determine whether the imprisonment is justified. The Supreme Court just ruled that that right belongs to Guantanamo prisoners, too.

The left is delirious over the decision. They shouldn't be. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts - who I suspect have no respect for any rights but property rights - voted against this fundamental proposition. All human rights are jeopardized with these four on the court. And they are not going anywhere soon.

BUSH IS RATIONAL?

Coming back to Kevin Phillips' Bad Money:

There will be four sources of power in the coming age: oil, cash, military strength and productive intelligence.

While in the US the movement at the highest echelons of business is toward transnationalism, in the rest of the world nationalism seems to be revivifying. Those countries with large oil reserves are primarily controlling them through state entities and using them to build the power of the state (or at least the regime). Similarly, those countries with large cash reserves are using them, through sovereign wealth funds, again to serve the purposes of the state. Only US business - and maybe India's, since there is no strong central control there - seem to be looking beyond nationalism toward a globally unified world. The rest, particularly in Asia, South America and to some extent in Africa, are looking at globalization as a tool to strengthen the state.

Since the US is strong neither in oil or cash (taking US debt into consideration), you have to wonder whether the hopes for a global community are realistic. In a strange sort of way, it could be that Bush's intense nationalism is a rational response to what's happening out there. Since, for example, countries with lots of cash and little oil (like China) are securing their positions with oil producers by selling or giving them hi-tech weaponry, maybe Bush's proposed US and EU missile shield isn't irrelevant after all.

One thing seems certain: a number of rising countries (let's say the less sophisticated of them, excluding places like Singapore which exist for globalized trade) are likely to follow the pattern the US followed - that is, being aggressive militarily and otherwise - until they reach the level the US has reached, where corporations are allowed to dissociate from the nation and form their own global community. And if we are at or near peak oil, the world could become quite dangerous. The truth is that while a few years ago the great fear was of non-national actors (like al Qaeda), that trend seems to be ebbing now, and we are moving toward an era much like the decades which immediately preceded, and precipitated, World War I.

The US cannot compete in cash or oil. Its saving graces - if it preserves them - are its military and its minds. While the military staves off the threats of upcoming nations, the minds can work at freeing us from dependence on oil - which means we do not have to compete for that energy source, and we do not threaten anyone because of our need for oil. The US turns into Switzerland and lives a happy, productive life - as long as our minds keep coming up with ideas we can sell. If we have any chance of remaining competitive - let alone of remaining dominant - it's brain power that provides that chance. Of course, if we don't keep making good brains, we can forget all that. We can wait until our wages drop so low that we're in the position in which China has recently been, and we can start to build ourselves up all over again. And that will likely take a hundred years.

NBC VS. MSNBC - WHOSE SPIN IS RIGHT?

If you watched NBC Nightly News and then Olbermann last night, you got a thrilling lesson in how the same poll data - from a new poll by MSNBC and the Wall Street Journal - can be spun in diametrically opposite ways.

On NBC, looking at data showing Obama ahead of McCain by 47-41%, Mitchell called it "a very tight race." This despite the fact that a 6% lead had been considered pretty substantial during the various primaries. Neither Mitchell nor Olbermann commented on the change in these numbers since the last polling - which I thought was odd - but if I remember right, before last week the numbers were considerably closer. In fact, I think McCain was ahead of Obama - at least that's what Hillary's camp was saying then.

Mitchell went on to say Obama has problems with two key groups - white men (no figures given) and suburban women (again no numbers). The commentary was to the effect that Obama needed Clinton on the ticket. Numbers were shown which were said to indicate that an Obama/Clinton ticket would defeat McCain/Romney by 51-42. Interestingly, compared to the other number Mitchell cited above, it indicated that Clinton would add 4% to Obama (remember, Mitchell has just said 6% is not significant) and would add 1% to McCain's numbers. Think Mitchell had an agenda? Sure, but whose?

Olbermann, on the other hand, showed deeper numbers than Mitchell did, arguing that all of these numbers showed Obama moving comfortably ahead. Among independent voters, he led 41-36%; among blue collar workers (presumably the same people Mitchell was saying, without putting up any numbers, were going heavily for McCain) Obama leads 47-42%. Among Catholics (more white men included?), his lead was 47-40%; among all women, 52-33%; among Latinos, 62-28%. As to whether Clinton would help the ticket, 22% thought she would, 21% thought she would hurt the ticket, and 55% thought she would make no difference at all.

Maybe Olbermann needs to include Mitchell on his Worst Person segment. Which brings me to point two:

After Olbermann included a rather mild attack on Katie Couric as Worst Person for calling the media sexist in its handling of Hillary (and in particular attacking one NBC reporter), the Huffington Post reported a "backlash." Rachel Sklar condemned him for refusing to admit media sexism was involved in Hillary's defeat (it seems that feminine blockheadedness extents into the media, too). The story went on to report that there is a growing backlash against Olbermann in general for "The leer, the smug histrionics, the relentless needling, the shameless self-puffery, the accusatory rants excoriating Bushies and other Republicans as well as cable competitor Fox and its temperamental bully, Bill O'Reilly." All of this criticism was clearly sparked by Olbermann calling it on Hillary as he saw it. She does have some loyal and potentially vicious fans.

Apparently, the viewers agreed with Olbermann, because in the HuffPo's own poll on whether Olbermann deserved the opprobrium, the vote was 57-39& "no."

Just in case you ever wondered what it would have been like if Hillary had won the nomination and the presidency, I would assume the tone we are seeing from her supporters would define the nature of her administration. They haven't come up with it all by themselves.

VAMPIRES

Saudi Information and Culture Minister Iyad Madani said Monday: "There is no justification for the current rise in prices." He's right. There's no justification. But there is a reason.

Since 1998, the U.S. economy has floated from bubble to bubble - first the dot coms, then housing - and now oil. And this is the most vicious bubble - because participation in the others was voluntary. This one is not.

These bubbles were engineered, or assisted, or at least not resisted, by the Federal Reserve and its sequence of chiefs. They were intended to enrich the U.S. financial industry - at the possible expense of everyone else. And that is what they have obviously accomplished.

Some of the current pricing of oil and gasoline is due to increased world demand, some to diminished production. But a hefty chunk of it is due to speculation in oil, in futures and short trading, etc. Again, the finance industry is making out great - and again we hear nothing from our government to oppose it. This is what you get when finance is America's primary occupation, and when it owns the government.

Like all bubbles, this one will burst. But, as we have seen from the metastasizing which followed the housing bubble, this one's effects will run far beyond simply the financial industry. It has the potential to be the most devastating, and destabilizing, of all.

What will be the next bubbling asset? Food? The oil price rise is making that a pretty good long-term bet. But I think it will be human blood. As Bush slakes the vampires.

PART OF THE ARISTOCRACY

European truckers are blockading the French border to protest the high price of diesel fuel. What this has to do with the border, I don't know - but at least they're doing something.

Over here, though, truckers are all part of the aristocracy, so they're not gonna protest the status quo.

Glad they're happy.

IS MCCAIN THAT STUPID?

Iran is strongly protesting the US plan to develop permanent basing in Iraq. And why wouldn't they, when every couple of weeks we let it be known we'd like to attack them? The Cuban missile crisis was precipitated when Russia put ICBMs right next door to us. Why would we assume Iran would react to a similar threat any differently than we did?

The Iraqi parliament says that it will not approve a basing plan which does not accomodate Iran's needs and fears. Have fun, Condi, you idiot.

Just how dumb is our government? The L A Times reports that according to the GAO the US has missed a great opportunity by failing to forge alliances with tribal leaders on the Pakistan-Afghan border. About 140 of them have been killed by Taliban and al-Qaeda, so there aren't many left to forge alliances with. Reversing the damage will require many years of aggressive counter-insurgency. So that's how dumb our government is.

Is McCain that stupid? Do we want to find out?

DR. JOSEPH BIEDERMAN: WORSE THAN HALLIBURTON

According to the New York Times, Dr. Joseph Biederman, "a world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medication in children" earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drugmakers in seven years and did not report much of it to university officials, contrary to rules established to police conflicts of interest. Three of his cohorts are similarly accused.

This guy is the Dick Cheney of psychiatry. No less a crook than Halliburton - and probably worse, because giving anti-psychotics to kids is a horrible idea; he's not only damaged the kids but damaged the culture by pushing this ridiculous concept.

Remember: the more mentally ill people there are, the more mental health workers earn. And the easiest way to higher earnings is to redefine mental illness to include more and more people. If they had their way, in the end we'd all be sick - which sort of begs the question of what "normal" or "not sick" is.

WHAT WAS SHE ALL ABOUT?

This has to make you wonder why these people were supporting Hillary. Obviously it was not for her policy positions, since they differ little from Obama's and much from McCain's. One has to conclude that they were voting for a person they liked, or a female, or a white person. Or they're still terrified of terrorism and voted for "strong defense." Or they're anti-Muslim and believe Obama is one.

Any Democrat who votes for McCain, with the stakes this election will present, has not matured beyond the fifth grade or never was a Democrat. Reagan Democrats were not Democrats. And if their perception was that Hillary was another Reagan, one has to wonder how that came about and to what extent - if any - Hillary contributed to it.

ISRAEL WILL ATTACK IRAN

Shaul Mofaz, a member of Ehud Olmert's cabinet, said today that if Iran continued with its plan to develop nuclear weapons, Israel will attack it. With Olhmert in trouble on corruption charges, Mofaz could be the next prime minister of Israel. So he has to be taken seriously.

Not only did he say that he would attack Iran, he also said that economic sanctions have not worked and would not keep the Iranians from building nuclear weapons and the only solution he sees is to attack Iran and destroy their facilities, which he said Israel would do before Iran has a chance to complete their work. Mofaz also stated that the US would support any Israeli action against Iran. That, however, assumes a Bush presidency, which suggests the possible timing for this attack.

Here are the problems with Mofaz' position: 1) the CIA recently said there was no active program in Iran for building nuclear weapons, and 2) consider what the Israelis would do if the shoe was on the other foot. It would certainly not be acquiescence in the destruction of their nuclear facilities. It would likely be all-out war.

So why is Mofaz taking this position? It could have to do with the fact that he was born in Teheran. It could be because he has spent his entire life in the military. It could be that he comes from Likud. It could be because he is responsible for tactics against Palestinians which have been condemned elsewhere in the world, and that the Israeli left have called for his prosecution for war crimes. It could be because he recommended the US invasion of Iraq. It could be because he regards Muslim regimes as enemies in the same way Bush has. Read this for more possibilities. It could because he has ordered expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

What I have not found is his religious affiliation - and that's what I really want to know.

JUST A THOUGHT

Bob Dylan has endorsed Obama.

Now what we need is a new Dylan.

If Obama is going to be transformational, there needs to be a movement to bring the transformation out of Washington and onto the streets. You can't have that kind of movement without a Dylan. I don't recommend Obama be part of the movement - if he is, he'll scare a whole new generation of incipient Nixonites and probably get himself killed. But there needs to be a movement, and it occurs to me ...

If for evangelicals the message of Jesus is what is important - the eternally repeated "What would Jesus do?" - it would be nice if the supposedly growing socially conscious born-again contingent could join in a movement. They're naturals for it. And the message they'd put out is not the one we're hearing from evangelicals now. See this.

Just a thought.

SCREWED THE POOCH

Hillary now says she's not seeking the vice presidency. Whether that means she's decided she doesn't want the post or she's saying what she has to to get Obama to consider her, I don't know. But I think she's already screwed the pooch on this one. Allowing Terry McAuliffe to introduce her as the next president of the United States after Obama clinched the nomination would sort of do that.

More interesting is that John Edwards has announced that he won't take the post. Again, this may be sincere or the same sort of posturing that Hillary's doing. In his case, I don't think it's the latter - although what he thinks his political future is if he closes this door, I can't imagine. In an Obama administration, he could have a lot to do. But I think he's screwed the pooch, too, by waiting so long to endorse Obama. His political clout and carry is down to about zero now.

Jim Webb looks like No. 1 right now.

WHAT'S RELEVANT NOW

The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it perfectly clear in its recent report that the Bush Administration lied us into war with Iraq. But that's not all.

What's implicit in the report and the circumstances surrounding its development is that Republicans in Congress at a minimum collaborated after the fact in hiding the obvious from the American public.

And that is what is relevant now. Bush isn't running again. They are.

TODAY'S HOMEWORK

Very big stuff

ENOUGH ALREADY

Just when you think you're as sick of religious leaders as you can get, you get sicker.

A Catholic priest has denied communion to a parishioner who intends to vote for Obama.

A church which had any sympathy for democracy (small "d") would de-frock this guy and send him to Zimbabwe for missionary work.

Just when you think you're as sick of Hillary as you can get, you get sicker.

This woman would not concede defeat even though she is absolutely defeated. She has the grace of a Shoney's. Now she's saying she'll do something on Saturday - I don't believe she has used the word "concede" - and then only because her own supporters in Congress called her and threatened her unless she gave it up. She can't say something now? She has to wait until Saturday? This woman is all "me me me" and I hope she and her husband move to Costa Rica where they don't care what kind of person she is. She will not be the VP for many good reasons, among them her behavior in the last few days.

Just when you think you're as sick of the finance industry people who run this country as you can get, you get sicker.

Since 1998 we have had a succession of bubbles - fed by the bubbleheads at the Fed - because these people get rich on bubbles. (A bubble is a Ponzi scheme. Those who get in first and get out first make out. But someone's always stuck. The problem is that the disaster expands to people who never played the game.) Tech stocks collapsed and we got the housing bubble, created by Greenspan's knocking down the interest rate. The housing bubble collapsed, and what took its place? Speculation in oil futures has created the next bubble, according to testimony before the Senate, where witnesses included George Soros. We all have infinite capacity to be deplorable. Too many of us choose to use it to the max.

We are either an aristocracy or a democracy. If we're a democracy, we don't need aristocrats - religious, political or financial. I'd advocate a knock on their doors in the middle of the night followed by a flight on a Gulfstream to any place of their choice, as long as it is not inside the United States. And they'd have to stay there. Enough already. Enough.

THINK TWICE

The moronic TV tabloid show Extra reports that Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones have put together a website discussing Bill's sex life.

Think twice whether you want to go there, Senator Obama.

IF I COULD SEE THIS, I COULD DIE HAPPY (NOT RIGHT AWAY)

From Robert Creamer on the Huffington Post:

Mass movements are different that simple campaign organizations. Most campaigns rely on highly-coordinated systematic voter contact that is all initiated and controlled by the campaign itself. Make no mistake, we definitely need that kind highly-disciplined, leave-no-stone-unturned organization to win.

But we also need mass mobilization that relies on "chain reaction contact" -- where campaign activity explodes virally -- geometrically -- to involve millions and millions of self-initiating campaign activists. We need a campaign where millions of Americans wear an Obama buttons, where people self-report to walk precincts and use online voter contact tools in droves.

Obama's primary campaign provides a model, but now that model needs to explode into a social movement that defines the identity of its participants in the way the civil rights and anti-war movements did for an earlier generation. When they consider their role in this campaign, activists need to think about their participation the way volunteers in the civil rights movement thought about their roles at Selma -- that they will proudly tell their kids and grandkids that they were there -- that they played a part -- in the transformational 2008 presidential election.

Obama has an inspirational message, and his campaign has a culture that could actually seed that kind of movement. And it is that kind of movement that could change the electorate so fundamentally that it makes states that are unthinkably Red into Blue states this fall.

I was at King's speech on the mall in Washington. I heard Dylan sing there. I want to go to something like that once more. And Obama can do it.

NOTHING

Is there any greater proof that Bush is unfit for the presidency than that airlines are going down, food, gas and electrical prices are skyrocketing and his administration has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it? Not even a word of reassurance, no attempt at negotiation, NOTHING.

Of course, when you elect a government which doesn't believe in government, that's what you get. According to their philosophy, each of us has to negotiate his or her own way forward.

Absurd!

LOST THE KNACK

Ahmedinijad reminds me of Allen Dershowitz.

Neither of them is crazy. Both take their positions on historical facts and events (which, in normal circumstances, can be debated) and project them through a religious lens. Because religion is involved, that projection is a one way process. It can send, but it cannot receive. The positions of both are identical: we are right and entitled, and you should not exist.

The difference between them is that Dershowitz, being a Bushite on this issue, doesn't want anyone to talk to Ahmedinijad. Ahmedinijad will talk to anyone.

I see Ahmedinijad as a typical Semite: loves to argue and provoke, takes extreme positions, says insulting things, all within the context that this is the way Semites (even of the same tribe) have dealt with each other for eons. It is not a polite process. But then no one has ever accused the Israelis of being polite, either. That's just how they do it in those cultures.

So I take what Ahmedinijad says with a grain of salt. It's not that I don't think he means what he says, or believes what he says he believes. It's not that I don't think he's dangerous. But until the guns come out, it's a lot of posturing. And if he is engaged in talk, he isn't thinking guns - unless someone says something that so offends his "honor" that he stops thinking altogether.

My hope with Ahmedinijad is that if the US engages him reasonably, at least some Iranians will see that he has to go if they are ever to attain some relief from their high state of tension. As I said, it's a hope.

Dershowitz, on the other hand, has been generally reasonable except with regard to Israel. He should know better. If he doesn't want to talk (to Iran - otherwise he yaks all the time), it's because he likes the status quo and is willing to concede nothing. He used to be a lawyer. He seems to have lost the knack.

A BIZARRE NIGHT

Well! What a bizarre night!

The only thing I can say for certain is that Obama's speech was the only one which was not about "me."

I'll have to read McCain's speech to see what I think of it. I do think the idea of doing that speech tonight was a good one, politically. But there were three obvious things wrong with the speech: 1) the setting was lackluster, 2) McCain is no orator (and keeps smiling in the wrong places); and 3) something about the headliner goes on after the opening act.

As for Hillary, she started out with a very temperate tone - I mean her voice, not what she was saying - something I haven't seen much in her. But then she both declared victory and declared war on Obama. Essentially it was a blackmail note. Asking her supporters to let her know online what they want her to do? No better way to stir them up to their usual juvenile intensity. And then she can tell Obama I can't let them down - as long as they tell her to keep pushing, which I'm sure they will.

It's only going to get more interesting.

TONIGHT'S TV

McCain's delivering a televised address - on this nite of all nites. That should piss Obama off.

I was watching NBC News, and they did a piece on a car that does 300 mpg. And I thought: My God, maybe we really are ready for change. Down here the news is followed by the tabloid entertainment shows, which did pieces on rumors of new Bill Clinton sexual escapades. Apparently not everyone is ready to change.

What is Obama supposed to do with that? Do we need those stories dragging him down? Even if he took Hillary aside and insisted, if she's to be the VP, that Bill is never to speak to the press - or anyone else, apparently - and never to show his face in the White House, she couldn't make that happen.

It's old, it's tired. Move on.

THE REALLY INTERESTING PART

Now that Hillary has indicated she's interested in the VP spot, things get very interesting.

Whatever Obama does, Hillary dominates the news at least until the issue is resolved. If he says no now, her angry supporters make the noise. If he says yes now, she's the focus at least until the press gets tired of the story - a situation she can easily manipulate. And then the story becomes: how is Obama going to handle Bill and Hillary in his administration?

If he postpones the choice, the story remains: does she get the spot or not?

What Obama has to do immediately is take command - of the party, the news and the voters. He has got to be bigger news than she is. I don't know how he's going to do that, but judging from the way things have gone til now, his advisers will figure it out.

Whether or not she is ultimately the choice is going to depend, I think, on whether Obama does take command. If he does, and ingratiates himself with her supporters, he can do whatever he wants. If he doesn't, she'll be on the ticket. I don't know how long Obama is going to give himself to get himself in that position. That's going to be the really interesting part.

TO PASS AN HOUR

This morning I sat in a doctor's office for an hour. Why anyone has to do this is beyond me. Doctors - and really hot restaurants - are the only businesses which think it's acceptable to keep people waiting.

While I was sitting there, at least ten drug reps came in. Looks to me like a lot of pretty girls are working for pharmaceuticals. Since the job is not a large step up from working a counter at Neiman Marcus, I don't see this as great progress for women. But it does help to pass an hour.

WHY HILLARY LOST

The reason Hillary didn't win is: she didn't play by the rules. I don't mean that in the negative sense. I mean she didn't work the system right. (See this excellent explanation.)

After 1968, when the "will of the people" was "thwarted" by Democratic party "bosses" (I put those all in quotes because the "will of the people" elected Nixon, and apparently was not what 1968 Democratic activists said it was), the party revised its rules to take the power away from the party establishment.

The party first refocused delegate selection to primaries, the ultimate democratic selection process. Unfortunately, primary voters chose unelectable candidates. So the decision was made to put some of the process back in the hands of "the experts." Primary delegates were to be awarded proportionally, eliminating the possibility of a runaway by any candidate either electable or unelectable unless there was no serious competition.

Secondly, caucus processes were set up in many states. These were controllable by those who worked the system.

Thirdly, where there was a close race, superdelegates would be called on to make the decision for the best interests of the party.

So this, in toto, was the system Clinton was faced with. She completely misplayed it.

If primaries were still winner-take-all, Clinton would have the nomination. Being that they are not, the only explanation for Clinton's approach has to be an assumption that she would have no competition. That was an ignorant, arrogant decision which cost her the nomination. As many people have said, it was no doubt motivated by her sense of entitlement. But it had to have been confirmed by the people around her - which means she had failed to include in that circle anyone who could have told her something different.

That she made no effort in the caucus states confirms my opinion. Having missed that, and finally realized she was in trouble, she began to count on the superdelegates. And it might have worked, except for two things: Obama ran a populist campaign, which did not produce enough votes in the big states but produced enough supporters nationally that the superdelegates were restrained from handing the nomination to Clnton; and Clinton's behavior turned superdelegates off.

And there you have it.

What the current system has done is not democratize the selection of the nominee, but made it possible for a new machine to replace an old one simply by learning to manipulate the system more effectively. That is what Obama's people did.

You may think that means we may have ended up with an unelectable candidate. But I think it means that we have avoided selecting a candidate who is not innovative and does not think things through clearly. Assuming Obama's people don't succomb to sudden senility, I see no reason why they can't do in the general what they did in the nomination fight - particularly against a far weaker candidate than Clinton.

But if anyone thinks Obama's nomination means the end of the heyday of political consultants, they're wrong. It's the end of the heyday of stupid consultants. And may foreshadow the end of the heyday of stupid politicians, stupid politics and stupid governance. That depends on what kind of people Obama's people are. As to that, we'll have to wait and see.

FIFTY YEARS EN RETARD

Referring to McCain's recent speech at AIPAC, Jim Hutchins, Christian Zionist head of The Jerusalem Connection International, reportedly stated that 80 percent of Palestinians would be willing to leave Gaza and the West Bank if other Arab nations would be willing to accommodate them.

Wow! This guy must have some heavy pollsters. Because that's exactly what Palestinians say they will not do. It's like exit polling, huh? They tell you one thing but they really think something else. I guess the real reason they're lobbing rockets into Israel is that they're pissed that Jordan won't take them in. (Jordan once did take them in, but threw them out when they threatened to destabilize the country and overthrow the monarchy.)

His organization - led by the leader of a right-wing Israeli religious party - proposes that all Palestinians move to Jordan and Israel takes sovereignty over the West Bank. Then we give Jordan lots of money to help the Palestinians out. This proposal, if I remember right, puts the Israeli "position" back fifty years. But I'm sure Jim and his buddies will get 'er done.

By the way, you can tell this is a right-wing religious group because they call the West Bank Judea and Samaria, the names of the ancient Jewish kingdoms - and the purpose of all of this is to get them back so the Messiah can come. I wonder what percentage of Americans would be horrified to know that Israeli policy is messianic - and what percentage would be thrilled.

It seems we have gone back three or four thousand years to the days when "prophets" stood outside the city walls and railed at Israel for being faithless to God. Only now they're inside the walls, running the government. I don't know enough about Jewish history to know whether that has ever happened before - maybe someone can help me out on that. But it is clear that in all those years of prophecies, damn little (if any) of it has come to pass. They will always come up with an excuse, but the fact is the messiah hasn't come - well, Jesus, but that's another argument ... These people were as crazy then as they are now.

I never thought I would spend my old age in the thrall of religious maniacs. Obviously I am not happy about it.

TODAY'S HOMEWORK

Kevin Phillips on the Huffington Post
Seth Colter Walls

APROPOS OF NOTHING

Who were the great white male blues singers of the 60s? Here's my list, in no particular order - with some surprises:

Mitch Ryder of the Detroit Wheels
Joe Cocker
Paul Jones of Manfred Mann
John Fogarty of Creedence Clearwater
John Finley of Rhinoceros
Steven Stills in Buffalo Springfield
John Kaye of Steppenwolf
Delaney Bramlett of Delaney & Bonnie
Delbert McClinton
Leon Russell
Lowell George of Little Feat
Gregg Allman of the Allman Brothers
James Taylor

Honorable mention:

Mick Jagger
Dr. John
Leslie West of Mountain

Did I forget anyone?