touting "clean coal," even though there's no such thing.

The president is just one person. The only way to oppose the carbon-auto lobby is with a mass movement. To the extent we do that, our "leaders" can seek real solutions. The difference between Obama and Clinton is that Obama is at least trying to motivate people to get involved, while Clinton is relying totally on corporate support and cynicism.

Unfortunately Barack has exhibited as much delusion in this area as the standard DC inhabitants.

But he is more likely to listen to reason than the others.  That's the real "hope".

As we see from DR's excellent interview with Barack's energy advisor, he is not getting well informed opinion on energy at the present time.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Barack Obama...

The Candidate for change.

The Candidate not backed by corporate interests.

The Candidate willing to tell Americans the truth rather than pander.

The Candidate willing to protect our environment, even if it means people won't vote for Him.

Hah!

Looks like business as usual. He believes coal has a future. He's interested in convincing corporations that He's not a threat to their bottom line. He's prepared to perpetuate the fairy tale suggesting we don't have to conserve energy or change our driving habits... plenty of coal under those mountain tops. He's not going to bother making the hard decisions that will create a better environment and better jobs in the long run.

Maybe He should have mentioned His support for coal before other key primaries... oh... might not have won in the liberal states then. What else is He omitting from His campaign speeches? What else is He stretching the truth about? What's next? Will He switch gears and decide we have to attack Iran just to show He's more of a hawk than McCain? What does Obama really stand for? Guess we won't know for sure until He's actually President.

It is sad that there is not a single honest candidate for President of the United States.

Hard to see where bush-lite (mccain, bomb bom bomb iran) or mccain-lite (Hill, nuke nuke nuke iran) would ever listen to reason.  Barack just might!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

It is sad that there is not a single honest candidate for President of the United States.
 I wonder if there has ever been an honest candidate of president of this country.
 I will probably have to vote for Oboma,only because he is the lesser of two evils.Strike that,the lesser of three evils.McCain is exactly the same as bush.Clinton is a long time crook from as far back as "Whitewater" and is a true lieing politician,Obama is a neophite political liar.He is telling the people in Kentucky what they want to hear to get the votes.This is what politicians do.
 I would just as soon have Mike Gravel,look it up,than any of the politicians running currently.

Why not ask why!?

For those of us who think people like Obama are merely not as despicable as those like Clinton or McCain, we can always vote Green or for another "third party" candidate.  I haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since George McGovern, nor will I again until and unless the Democrats start nominating people like Dennis Kucinich.

The decision one needs to make is this:  Would you rather continue business as usual with a Democratic president who's merely not as bad as the Republican candidate, or would you rather make some sacrifices now in order to build a movement and whatever else is needed in order to have a realistic chance of electing someone like Kucinich or Nader who would make significant changes for the better?  As they say, ya gotta break eggs to make an omelet, and without abandoning the Democratic Party for something much better, significant, meaningful changes will never take place.

The way to build a third party is up from the grassroots.  Field some candidates for local elections and get the Green Party known that way.  Build an organization. Spread it throughout your state.

Don't vote third party for president.  You're not party-building.  You're just flushing your vote down the toilet. Worse, you're siphoning your vote away from the Democrat and thus helping the Republican.

I am personally an Obama fan, thus quite puzzled by this mailer.  It would appear to me that the residents of Kentucky would prefer a candidate who does not believe in coal rather than one who does.  Nonetheless, I do seriously believe that Obama is the only candidate who may bring about change but we won't know until he becomes president.  Nader is great but in my opinion voting for him would be like taking votes from Obama (if he is the democratic nominee).  Counterproductive to say the least!

I have been living abroad for nearly 8 years now, in Italy, and can assure everyone that the status of our Country in the world opinion has drastically changed over the Bush era.  Obama has a huge following abroad and is seen as hope for the future not only by Americans but also by Europeans.

But I repeat the only way we will know whether or not he can walk the walk will be by voting for him now and hopefully in November!!

Ciao

For those of us who think people like Obama are merely not as despicable as those like Clinton or McCain, we can always vote Green or for another "third party" candidate.

Not if you admit results are more important than principle.

The others certainly will not do anything other than what industry lobbyists tell them to do.

With Barack there really is "hope" for a better energy/agriculture policy.  

The others?  Completely hopeless.

Nader, whitewater?  Even mentioning mass delusional buzzwords like that shows zero understanding of the harsh reality of GHG disaster and economic decline from soaring energy prices.

Barack is running very successfully on becoming the change he wants to see in the world, no diversion, just solutions to our many serious problems.  He will be able to see through the nonsense being pushed by lobbyists for clean coal, nuclear power, and agribizz gas guzzling.

At least we can all "hope"?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I'm a newcomer to this site, couldn't help commenting.

There is another choice, Ron Paul, who isn't pandering to anyone. Maybe that's why the press seems to be so unfriendly to him.

He isn't pandering,unless one considers working to restore our republic pandering.

 Leanna

...got a 15% approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

That less than half of McCain's rating and almost a sixth (1/6) of the rating that Clinton and Obama have.

Ron Paul doesn't pander alright...he doesn't pander to Earth and he also doesn't pander to the theory of global warming.

Be glad he isn't in the race, he'd be just 'bout as bad as Huckabee, if not worse.

One of Barack's closet advisors is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, Denis McDonough.

Might as well get behind Barack.  Heal the party and hope for better GHG policy from an Obama administration.

It will be vital to minimize the effect of old energy economy lobbyists from the process of crafting energy policy.  Can that be done?

That is probably the best course for environmentalists now.  Expose the lobbyist scamming during the bushco regime to try and marginalize corporate lobbyists.  And get our lobbyists to stop touting clean coal, nukes, and fuel farming.  As many enviro groups like NRDC still do.  Did they dump nuclear power yet?  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

He seems likeable, as does Huckleberry, but check his stance on the rights of corporate citizens.

He would contract everything government is supposed to do out to corporations.  We see how that worked out with the bushco regime.  Exxonmob rules the world.  They name a tanker after duuhbya's Condi.  

Your social security funds would be spent on contracting.  Turned into a private investment deal that could go bankrupt, complete with golden parachutes for CEOs.  Not very secure.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog