<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Barack Obama chats with <em>Grist</em> about energy independence and ethanol]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by David Roberts</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:08:07 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Obama in NYT<p>For those who missed it, the New York Times ran a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19kornblut.html?ex=1300424400&amp;en=94be5efae4402318&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss" rel="nofollow">front-page story on Obama yesterday. And for a much longer and more in-depth look at the senator, check out <a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&amp;name=ViewPrint&amp;articleId=10828" rel="nofollow">this older American Prospect piece.</a></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Obama in NYT<p>For those who missed it, the New York Times ran a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19kornblut.html?ex=1300424400&amp;en=94be5efae4402318&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss" rel="nofollow">front-page story on Obama yesterday. And for a much longer and more in-depth look at the senator, check out <a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&amp;name=ViewPrint&amp;articleId=10828" rel="nofollow">this older American Prospect piece.</a></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by hedgerowteacher</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:21:37 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Barack the Hypocrite</strong></p><p>I used to have a great deal of respect for Barack Obama, but no longer do. He voted for the egregious Bankruptcy Bill and Dick Cheney's hideous Energy Bill -- neither are even remotely progressive pieces of legislation. </p><p>
Everyone is getting on the biofuels band wagon, which is more than a bit self-serving for the junior Senator from Illinois. One wonders if he is innumerate, like most of the rest of our population. Do the math, Barack, we do not have enough land mass to grow biofuel and food, regardless of the alleged (and highly dubious) positive energy yield biofuel proponents profess, we'd need something on the order of three additional continents, each the size of the US, to seriously produce the amount of fuel we consume today, not to mention what we are likely to consume next year. At best, biofuels might have a limited utility as a boutique fuel, produced on farms to power farm machinery. I can only conclude that Senator Obama is either an innumerate fool or just another self-serving politician, perhaps both. Don't be deceived by his smile and posturing. And next time you interview him, ask him how he could vote for the Bankruptcy bill and still style himself a progressive. </p><p>
Most sincerely,<br>
Alec Johnson</br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Barack the Hypocrite</strong></p><p>I used to have a great deal of respect for Barack Obama, but no longer do. He voted for the egregious Bankruptcy Bill and Dick Cheney's hideous Energy Bill -- neither are even remotely progressive pieces of legislation. </p><p>
Everyone is getting on the biofuels band wagon, which is more than a bit self-serving for the junior Senator from Illinois. One wonders if he is innumerate, like most of the rest of our population. Do the math, Barack, we do not have enough land mass to grow biofuel and food, regardless of the alleged (and highly dubious) positive energy yield biofuel proponents profess, we'd need something on the order of three additional continents, each the size of the US, to seriously produce the amount of fuel we consume today, not to mention what we are likely to consume next year. At best, biofuels might have a limited utility as a boutique fuel, produced on farms to power farm machinery. I can only conclude that Senator Obama is either an innumerate fool or just another self-serving politician, perhaps both. Don't be deceived by his smile and posturing. And next time you interview him, ask him how he could vote for the Bankruptcy bill and still style himself a progressive. </p><p>
Most sincerely,<br>
Alec Johnson</br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by odograph</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:17:00 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Cutting CAFE?<p>Sen. Obama says:<p>
I support significant increases in CAFE standards. But we've brought that to the floor again and again and again, and we can't get it passed in its current iteration. I was one of the cosponsors of the amendment to the energy bill last year -- we just couldn't get enough votes. Including, unfortunately, two of our Democratic senators from Michigan, because they're concerned about the auto industry. No matter how much you want to talk about the big picture, people still think very locally.<p>
But it strikes me now, as I think about ethanol and the associated CAFE loophole (<a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/7/112747/5158" rel="nofollow">Disucssed previously on Gristmill) that his proposal is actually, effectively, cutting CAFE.<p>
E85 cars get a CAFE credit, more E85 cars (all cars made E85 compliant?) will reduce the effective CAFE requirement for all manufacturers, yes?</p></a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Cutting CAFE?<p>Sen. Obama says:<p>
I support significant increases in CAFE standards. But we've brought that to the floor again and again and again, and we can't get it passed in its current iteration. I was one of the cosponsors of the amendment to the energy bill last year -- we just couldn't get enough votes. Including, unfortunately, two of our Democratic senators from Michigan, because they're concerned about the auto industry. No matter how much you want to talk about the big picture, people still think very locally.<p>
But it strikes me now, as I think about ethanol and the associated CAFE loophole (<a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/7/112747/5158" rel="nofollow">Disucssed previously on Gristmill) that his proposal is actually, effectively, cutting CAFE.<p>
E85 cars get a CAFE credit, more E85 cars (all cars made E85 compliant?) will reduce the effective CAFE requirement for all manufacturers, yes?</p></a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by howardgw</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 04:54:24 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>same old same old</strong></p><p>I wonder if Obama knows that when Brazil diverted its sugar crop to ethanol, the price of sugar went up 48%? You can't just jump on one facet of a problem and expect meaningful relief. The resource ramifications of our car-hungry society go far beyond fuel. Try checking out what goes into making a car, and how many of those resources are reaching their limits. &nbsp;</p><p>
Our transportation energy problem cannot be solved by seeking substitute fuels that will allow us to go on doing what we are doing. Our only salvation is to radically reduce our demand for gasoline.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>same old same old</strong></p><p>I wonder if Obama knows that when Brazil diverted its sugar crop to ethanol, the price of sugar went up 48%? You can't just jump on one facet of a problem and expect meaningful relief. The resource ramifications of our car-hungry society go far beyond fuel. Try checking out what goes into making a car, and how many of those resources are reaching their limits. &nbsp;</p><p>
Our transportation energy problem cannot be solved by seeking substitute fuels that will allow us to go on doing what we are doing. Our only salvation is to radically reduce our demand for gasoline.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by theseca</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:14:35 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>bankruptcy bill<p>According to the <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&amp;session=1&amp;vote=00044" rel="nofollow">Senate Roll Call, Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill. &nbsp;Good for him.</a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>bankruptcy bill<p>According to the <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&amp;session=1&amp;vote=00044" rel="nofollow">Senate Roll Call, Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill. &nbsp;Good for him.</a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by homeboy</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:37:16 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>reflections of the past year<p>It's been quite a while since this post and it's nice to take a minute to look back and see how things have evolved, and even see if things are still on track and uncorrupted by the pressures of trying to be popular in the political system. Obama has not only stayed on track with what he said here over a year ago, but has maintained a strong stance with this same type of style in all areas of his campaign. I applaud his efforts and think it's worth noting that this is a man who isn't giving in to "the easy way" and is keeping his morals. <a href="http://www.barackobamaismyhomeboy.com" rel="nofollow">Barack Obama will continue to be my homeboy as long as he's running for office, and on through his candidacy in 2008. A year from now, I should be able to come back and say the exact same thing. Obama 08!</a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>reflections of the past year<p>It's been quite a while since this post and it's nice to take a minute to look back and see how things have evolved, and even see if things are still on track and uncorrupted by the pressures of trying to be popular in the political system. Obama has not only stayed on track with what he said here over a year ago, but has maintained a strong stance with this same type of style in all areas of his campaign. I applaud his efforts and think it's worth noting that this is a man who isn't giving in to "the easy way" and is keeping his morals. <a href="http://www.barackobamaismyhomeboy.com" rel="nofollow">Barack Obama will continue to be my homeboy as long as he's running for office, and on through his candidacy in 2008. A year from now, I should be able to come back and say the exact same thing. Obama 08!</a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #7 by Peter in Rochester</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:19:08 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/roberts10/7</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Barack's votes on 2005 bankruptcy bill<p>Barack Obama most definitely voted against the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, Senate Bill S-256, 109th Congress Senate vote #44, dated March 10, 2005. &nbsp;He also voted against closure, that is, closing off debate on the bill (Senate vote #29, March 8, 2005.) &nbsp;He also made a floor statement in opposition to the bill Feb. 28, 2005 <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050228-floor_statement/" rel="nofollow">http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050228-floor_statement/</a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Barack's votes on 2005 bankruptcy bill<p>Barack Obama most definitely voted against the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, Senate Bill S-256, 109th Congress Senate vote #44, dated March 10, 2005. &nbsp;He also voted against closure, that is, closing off debate on the bill (Senate vote #29, March 8, 2005.) &nbsp;He also made a floor statement in opposition to the bill Feb. 28, 2005 <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050228-floor_statement/" rel="nofollow">http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050228-floor_statement/</a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>