The fact that Obama framed the question not around what is possible politically, nor around some sort of new rhetorical approach, is indeed encouraging. "Drastic" is not a word politicians often utter, even when warranted.

then the next president will have the most troubling and complex task ever faced by any president.  Climate change envelopes all.  Let us hope that if becomes president his "serious conversation" cuts to the chase most clearly, persuasively, wisely and powerfully.  With 5 seconds on the clock, I'm ready to give it to the guy calling for the ball.  

Obama has been a strong environmental supporter for a long time. He gets it.

Obama also said he won't support CTL until it can be shown to reduce CO2 emissions, which it can't.

The amount of funding he supported for research was much less than the $1 billion in research subsidies Edwards is proposing for the coal industry that no one seems to care about. I have to wonder about the agenda of those who unfairly blew Obama's "support" for CTL out of proportion while ignoring the much larger amount of money Edwards wants to give away for so-called clean coal research.

coal, CTL, sequestration, etc. would be part of the serious discussion.  Obama did make some early misteps on CTL but back pedaled upon realizing how bad the CO2 emissions are from the process.  

is to prepare to match and exceed any initiatives they make if and when they get into office, by initiatives at the grass roots level.

My great fear is that the Dems get in, and everyone decides to sit back and let them save us. Ain't gonna happen. Often your so called "friends" can be as much trouble as your foes. Only grass roots activism will keep them honest, and keep their eyes on the prize.

Remember, Kennedy and Johnson had to have the pressure kept on their behinds by the civil rights movement. Boots on the ground activism.

Don't leave home without it.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

I know it is a calculated action for political advantage.  It was the same with Hastert, only they have different constituencies.  Take away the election cycle and see what they do.

If we wait for Washington to act, we will be swimming to Miami.  The real action has to be in our communities, with out city councils, with our planning commissions, to shape the buildings of the future for low energy use.  

Once we lead the way, politics will follow.. just like they did with civil rights.  

Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US

If you like talk, vote for Oprah or Obama.

Before his current office, in Coalbama's one term as an Illinois state senator, his mentor was Senate President Emil Jones.  This year, after the Governor's corrupt Illinois Commerce Commission voted to allow the electrical power industry to set their price in an auction that gouged consumers, the Senate unbelievably voted to reverse the auction and freeze rates.  Emil Jones, nukes best friend, used a once on a lifetime maneuver as President to effectively kill the freeze.  Point is, BO is a product of a very corrupt and nuke and coal friendly upbringing.  When he TALKS global warming, the focus is on transportation.

He and Jones are like Cook County President Todd Stroger, whose only veto as President was on a pollution tax (soot) on the biggest polluters in his county (um, 2 coal plants).  The black politicians in Obama's neighborhood are firmly in the grasp of the dirty power paradigm.  

For some reason, everybody seemed frantic, crazy and incoherent -- except for Obama, most of the time.  And one might have expected that their having been given the three general subjects beforehand, viz. Iraq/Iran/security, China, and immigration, would have made them more concentrated.  Was it precisely that format which rattled them?  Or, are they poorly represented by the transcripts, which tend to make even intelligent people seem like Neanderthals?

Anyway, Clinton, Biden and Dodd came across as pompous, Kucinich and Gravel came across as shrill.  And Edwards, whom I have been generally most supporting, had a very bad night indeed: in spite of some good answers on immigration, he most uncharacteristically came across as hardput to find the right words -- not like him usually at all.

But Obama seemed more focused and collected than anyone.  I especially like what I thought he was suggesting, in the wonky China section, on our having a responsibility to be concerned for the well-being of people everywhere.  This looks significant, in the context of his own international relationships and experiences, which have been the matter of some discussion.

His final answer, on climate change, was similarly well-put and focused.  Whether it automatically puts him at the front of the pack, I cannot say.  Still, his performance in this debate has made me feel better about him than anything else so far.  I am certainly not about to abandon Edwards, whom I admire, and whose unimpressive performance here I ascribe to bad luck and/or exhaustion.  But I am glad to have acquired a positive feeling for Obama.

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

What I said then:  "I wish I could have more hope, but I think a lot of policy, no matter who the candidate is, will be limited by the rigid mechanics of keeping the gears meshed and turning in this technocratic beast."

Still applies.  We will be voting for the "Technocrat in Chief".  When the vision is limited by the view from in the box the best we can hope for may not be good enough.  But you at least have to keep the ball out of your opponents' hands.

ids, why don't you list some some things Obama did as a state Senator that were bad for the environment instead of writing about people he knows?  Is it because Obama has an excellent record and was named an environmental champion by LCV when he ran for US Senate?  The guilt by association game is lame.

I know, do not stand between an Ill enviro and a Dem candidate.  Ill enviro's think putting up windmills next to new coal power plants reduces CO2, as in Springfield, and corn ethanol is good for farming, coalmunities are next to godliness, C&S is the next big thing.  If you can not see how corrupt your state is then you should not be voting, imo, and if you don't think that rubs off on Coalbama, you might be blinded by a favorite sun.