the whole world has to switch away from hydrocarbons for fuel. few of even the good guys were talking about how that would work. others could be helping us, we could be helping others, but the rhetoric is about continuing to defend the gas and oil infrastructure and the "back end" seems to be talking about agreements like this was nuclear disarmament, not the complete remake of the world economy.

my "back end"

I think the main reason that the Democrats won't take strong positions against environmentally destructive forms of energy is because many of them have vested interests in those industries.  They realize that if the party bashes coal, it will be difficult to impossible to win in areas where many people depend on the coal industry for jobs.  I fully agree that they should take stronger positions, but their priority is getting people elected and keeping them in office, not advocating for the environment.

With respect, DR, I think you are confusing your dream of progress with the mechanics necessary for progress.  By focusing upon your dream as the yardstick, you are ignoring the necessary stuff.  Or so it seems to me.

It seems to me that you imagine a holy crusade, slowly accepted by all Dems, and gathering widespread public support, until a big majority agrees, and then Congress, the President and the agencies are swept up in the crusade, and progress is achieved.

Won't happen like that -- for a bunch of reasons.  Some have to do with electoral politics.  Identity politics.  All things to all people electoral messages.  Etc.  So the avalanche of good intentions into a public relations campaign is not a likely scenario.

Also, your imagination of public outpouring turning magically into policy is not the usual path.

Enviros must organize to the task(s).  Some tasks are legislative.  Some are litigation.  Some are PR.  Etc.

Instead of trainspotting rhetoric, you (and Grist) need to cover the organizing -- being done, or not done.  The tasks targeted.  The activities undertaken.  Etc.

I suggested a pilot approach a while back, but there is no one thing that needs to be done, and no one way.  But the organization must be serious, persistent, and open.

One last thing.  Don't believe all those serious policy Dems that you have been hearing.  Most are getting ready to take you for a ride.

Friends are nice, but you don't find them in DC.

If you want power, get a place in the game, play early, keep track, and be ruthless.

No heroism is necessary, or likely.

This is a good post, DR.  And I look forward to your promised future post on being an "issue" journalist.

Meanwhile: We ought to be able to judge our potential leaders' positions on any new difficult matter, from observing what they say about any particular present one.  So far as health care goes -- which, granted, is neither Grist's nor your area of interest -- , Barack Obama has been talking nice, but his intentions remain a question mark.

Even after John Edwards's downfall, Paul Krugman (and a few others) have courageously remembered his excellent work toward a truly inclusive health care policy.  And Hillary's met Edwards's challenge, and was just as good.

But with Obama, we get the feeling that he understands the problem, and he likes the idea in principle, but all he can promise is "we will see what we can do."

And that is the way he comes across on energy policy and global warming.

These are all humanitarian issues, after all, and they all go together.

(To say nothing of the poor animals, which is a whole other story.  Obama pandered to animal-torturers in southern Illinois, crying, "Don't worry, there are no vegetarians here!," according to Suzanne Malveaux's "Obama Revealed" documentary on CNN.)

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.