I've been taking a gas tax holiday all year. If you don't like the tax (or the pollution or the extinction or the wars) , don't buy the product.

I live in a small city (130,000) with no mass transit and a very hostile attitude towards cyclists/pedestrians. If my family can give up our fossil-fool powered wheelchair, I would imagine most able-bodied folks could reduce their driving by at least the percentage that gasoline costs have risen. Let's stop whining and start living the future.

Right on Human Power, people like you are leaders.  Instead of making lame excuses for why you "can't" stop destroying the Earth, you just stopped.  While it's harder to travel the long distances required in modern industrial society without a private motor vehicle, you show that it can be done.  Furthermore, no one is forced to live anywhere or to have any particular lifestyle, so people should organize their lives in order to be near work, shopping, and school.

Re Barak Obama, he's on the right side on the gas tax holiday issue, seemingly for the wrong reasons, he supports coal and nuclear power and is a big supporter of the military industrial complex and U.S. imperialism, albeit a softer version of the latter.  He's less offensive than Clinton or McCain, but he's not worthy of support of any real environmentalists or progressives.

...that as an organization devoted to multiple eco-issues, they should endorse a presidental hopeful just over his stance on the issue of a gas tax holiday.

'Specially when most analysts agree that it won't pass even if all the candidates endorsed it.

you do not include one in the story.

Surely any non profit cannot endorse pres candidates or they lose their nonprofit status, in any case.

"Obama earned a 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters during his first two years in the Senate."

If a Senator who supports the coal and nuclear industries can earn a 96% rating, that means that the LCV rating is to be used only for a floor, not a ceiling.  In other words, anyone who doesn't have a high rating is a major anti-environmentalist, but a high rating is no guarantee of being a good environmentalist.  Keep in mind that LCV is a very conservative environmental group, well to the right of Sierra Club.

...both recieved high scores.  Hillary got above 90% lifetime score as well.

Support of the nuclear and coal industries is not a minor issue to any environmentalist, including me.  Instead of just parroting Obama's voting record, which only reflects his "yes" or "no" position on specific legislation before him, give us some examples of his "strong ... environmental record."  I'm not aware of any.

Has he supported greatly increasing the size and number of wilderness areas and increasing their protection against all human disturbances?  Has he supported removing cattle from public lands in the West due to the immense ecological damage they've caused and are still causing, or in order to save the Yellowstone bison from being killed at the behest of ranchers?  Has he supported prohibitions on logging in the West in order to protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats?  Has he supported a ban on longline and commercial gillnet fishing in order to protect our oceans?  Has he supported moving people from cars to other, less harmful modes of transportation?  Has he supported lowering the birth rate in order to reduce human population to an ecologically harmless level?  Has he supported lowering consumption of non-necessary goods in order to lessen the harms done by their consumption?

This list is both long and incomplete.  Its point is that these are positions that a "good" environmentalist candidate would take.  I don't see Obama or any major candidate taking them.  What you're talking about is supporting a lesser of evils, something I never do and which has been toxic to the political process in the U.S., because it has been part of the cause of the major shift away from environmental concerns and to the right.  Not only is Obama not perfect, he's not even good.