The question is incredibly stupid, but Edwards
apparently thought it plausible. Dumb-de-dumb-dumb. "Terrorism is nothing more than a bumper sticker." Dumb-de-dumb-dumb. And people wonder why he's not a serious factor in a campaign of lightweights. Al Gore his hero? Even Al Gore's son doesn't think Al Gore is a hero.

 . . . unless Al Gore decides to run. I can't stand the thought of Hillary being president even though I'm a woman. In my opinion, she should have divorced Bill when he did that stupid Monica trip - out of self-respect. There is just something not really sincere about her. I like some things about Obama but I don't think he's the one on the environment. He's too much the politician. Edwards, of course, is a politician to the max but he is coming from the right place, right now, for the most part. I would rather see Kucinich president but I'm not sure he would get elected. I think Edwards is electable and would probably be the best candidate.

I was surprised to read Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards both drive a Ford Escape.  I hope that was only for hype (supporting US car manufacturers) as the Ford Escape is No. 4 on the list of the 20 most dangerous cars for stability and crash resistance.

Guess if Edwards gets in a wreck and survives he will sue Ford.

In general, I am impressed with Edwards' articulated positions on the environment, but I'm not sure where he got this idea that Africa will become the world's biofuels breadbasket, thus magically lifting it out of poverty (would they not be better served by consuming the food IF they had the adequate water and fertilizers to grow the crops in the first place?). More likely, rainforests in Central Africa, Brazil, and Southeast Asia will be razed to plant palm and soybean for biodiesel. Maybe I missed something, but Edward's ethanol-from-Africa scheme--which he's talked about more than once now---seems pretty far-fetched.

Edwards said "On top of that, if you look at the consequences of America moving to develop biofuels, which are clearly crucial going forward, we have the landmass to support that here in America. But the Europeans probably do not, so they are either going to need to buy from us or develop their own capacity. And there is a very good chance that they will do that in Africa, in which case you help billions of people in Africa who have no means of helping themselves out of poverty. Which means the positive consequences of America leading on climate change are almost endless."

He's not the only one talking like this, and the WOrld Bank is funding this stuff.

I fear for the future of our wild places.

Whiskerfish (in Africa, as usual)

On a second, slower reading of the Edwards debate it's clear he hides the fact that a chief driver of the biofuels malarkey in Africa is the high oil price. Bringing down the price of oil means killing the biofuels biz, and killing any profit those poor African farmers might generate.

Also, most poor African farmers only have a few hectares to plough. Even with raised feedstock crop prices thanks to biofuels, maize etc. are not viable as cash crops on such a tiny scale (they are often viable as subsistence crops, though). I.e. the only people that are likely to make money off biofuel crops are very big landowners with tractors and combine harvesters etc. - who are pretty rich already.

Edwards' uses a buch of crudely articulated cliches to perpetuate the boondoggle. He does not deserve anyone's support.

Whiskerfish

I usually have strong views on candidates, but this time around I don't know. Edwards talks the enviro talk, but can he walk the walk? I'm glad that he understands that coal = bad, even when liquified, but the corn thing still bothers me.

And why won't anyone address big agribiz in the same way as big oil? They amount to about the same and have similarly destructive tendencies.

Also, how will Africa grow crops for biofuels when much of it is gasping for enough water to keep its populace alive, much less prospering? Desertification is another issue that needs to be addressed. How about a freeze on building new golf courses and fountains in desert areas and Flordia until wetlands to refill the aquifers can be restored?

Oh, and to theBike45: I really don't think Al Gore's son is the best judge of character right now.

It's pretty stereotypical (and lame) that he said Al Gore is his environmental hero.  I get the impression that the 3 main guys (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) are only "caring" about the environment because they feel it will draw some votes.

Even though I like Kucinich more, the fact that he is a vegan tips the scale even more.  Wait for the interview with Kucinich before you make your decision on who to vote for :)

I really like what he's trying to do, but at the same time...corn ethanol? That's going to put a tremendous pressure on our farmers that already have a tremendous pressure making corn for a whole nation that underpays them and for an industry that bases itself in corn production already. I want to see how he's going to put money back into THAT aspect of our lives, and then tell me that corn ethanol is the best route for us to go in. And that crap, my hero is Al Gore?! heh. I just laughed.

Terrorism is certainly more than a bumper sticker, but the "patriotism" of so many "Support-the-Troops" chicken-hawks is limited to bumper stickers, while the troops get blown up due to lack of body armor or languish in rat-infested Walter Reid. But finally the rest of the country has caught on. A great leader might be nice, but a great follower -- one who can listen to what the people of New Orleans are crying out for, what the scientists have been warning about, one who can feel the concerns of those struggling to provide health care for their families -- would be even better.

First to sukumar:  Edwards didn't say "terrorism" was a bumper sticker.  He said Bush's "war on terror" phrase and appeal was a bumper sticker.  That's a big difference.  Indeed Bush has plied this phrase as a glib emotional appeal to fear and of the kind that Bush predicts will be neverending, thus 'entitling' him to extraordinary (and civil-liberties-abandoning) powers.  

Second, to Maywa and others:  I don't hear Edwards making any prognoses or predictions about Africa becoming a biofuel 'hotspot'.  What he's saying is that if the US takes the lead on generating crops for alternate fuels that Europe will feel the need to do so as well and that they would plausibly find in that the impetus to contribute technology to Africa as a remaining land for new crop development -- which, he hopes (and there's the rub), would also benefit Africans by bringing vast new improvements to their capacity to produce and withstand the effects of drought, etc.  I don't think there's a basis for calling this a "scheme" of Edwards.  It's his projection of a possible offshoot resulting from US leadership on cleaner energy and notably biofuel production.