A lot of good points, especially about the health care system.  You could also ask why, if a single payer health care system is so terrible, we use that system for the military and the VA.  

I went to Edwards' website to read about his health care plan.  Doesn't seem to be a single payer system.  How is his different than Clinton's?

This is probably the most dangerous trap in the general election. The republican machine would simply have to dust off their old attack ads (527's would do it)with the mommy and daddy explaining to their children that they have to say goodby to their favorite family doctor because the government made them change doctors.

Now that's what the HMO's that will fund the ads do (make you switch doctors) but a whole lot of people did not get that point last go around.  None of the democratic candidates should emphasize a single payer for openers.  

I happened to see this graphic on another blog.
http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1387

It illustrates the power of incrementalism where health care is concerned.

so I will support Edwards on Feb 12th!

and I plan to see if I can get a weekend free to go work in South Carolina :) Only a few hours from Blacksburg!

Edwards gets it: it is the economy that matters.

The middle class and lower middle class have been in a recession since 2001. Real inflation, the one that takes into account the price of gas, food, health care, and housing, has been very, very high since Bush took office. And salaries have been stagnant.

We have no savings because Americans have been using up their savings for the last 7 rainy years because their earnings don't haven't kept up with inflation.

The credit crisis is about to hurt a great amount of people even more.

The traditional way for social advancement, education, is increasingly becoming a luxury that most poor and middle class people can't afford when starting salaries for people with BAs cannot cover the loan payments for that degree.

Now, Edwards understands that this state didn't happen naturally, but it is the direct result of pro-rich policies.  

Today's credit crisis is the direct result of changing usury laws and poorly enforcing those laws that still exist.

The rise in health care cost is also the result of poor regulations and our leader's strong reluctance to make the free-enterprise compete with a well funded government alternative.

Higher education is expensive because our "small-government" has consistently underfunded education because we were told that the Paris Hilton's of America need more tax cuts.

A nice side effect of this is that the college loan industry, fueled by tax subsidies, got to benefit greatly by overburdening our youth with crippling debt.

If we are going to have real hope, we need real, concrete solutions. Otherwise we just have unfounded, pollyanna-like faith that everything is going to work out when every single  sense that we have tells us otherwise.

Because Edwards offers concrete solutions for these issues, this makes Edwards a great choice as a president.

John Edwards is not elaborate enough in what he says. John's health care plan is almost just like Clinton's. If he's going to do anything he needs to tell a lot more about what he wants.

Edwards hhad a health care plan on the streets right after he announced his presidential run in January 2007.

Hillary and Obama were slow in getting their's published.

So I would say that both Hillary and Obama plans were influenced by Johns.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

More from Moore on the other candidates:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/wo...

I agree that we need a president who will fight for the American people.  The question is: Which of the candidate's approach is most likely to achieve results that benefit the American people over the long-term?

First, I agree that health care is THE big domestic issue right now (although the economy as a whole could be an even bigger issue in twelve months).  My concern though, is that it's going to be hard to deal with big issues like health care -- and get a bill that offers coverage for ordinary Americans -- without first making the government more transparent, and accountable.  

One of the big reasons that I am backing Obama for president is because he has a long track record on ethics issues going back to his days in the Illinois legislature (a paper trail that goes back a decade).  He helped fix a political system that was viewed at the time as the most corrupt state government in the country, and helped to build a coalition behind a bill which is considered one of the best models in the country for ethics reform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://thinkonthesethings.word...

http://www.barackobama.com/iss...

That's the first thing I'm looking at.  

The second part of the equation is foreign policy judgment.   When all is said and done we will have spent close to $2 trillion dollars in Iraq (including out year medical costs for wounded veterans, costs connected to replacing equipment, training new soldiers, and covering the costs of the ongoing operations in the Middle East).  A large chunk of that borrowed money is coming from China -- it's money that we are going to be paying interest on for at least a generation.

Why does foreign policy judgment matter in terms of issues like health care?  

The easy answer is that foreign policy mistakes take money away from investments at home.  The return on investment in Iraq in a best case, is that in 10 to 15 years we might have a government which is corrupt, an unreliable U.S. ally, and just as likely to erupt into civil war as it is today.  

We need leadership that has a grasp on these issues, so that we don't stumble into another situation along the lines of the Iraq War without fully considering the consequences first (in a place like Iran for example).  Wars are necessary, but they must be an absolute last resort.

I think there's a pretty good chance that Edwards and Obama will take a sensible approach here, I am not as confident in Clinton's track record (including her signing of the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution this past year -- a measure that Jim Webb strongly opposed).  On balance though, I have a greater degree of Obama's judgment on these issues, because of the foresight that he demonstrated in 2002 in advance of the Iraq invasion.  His called this one on the money at a time when a lot of folks were saying the war would be a "cakewalk" (Adelman) and that the reconstruction would be "self-financing" (Paul Wolfowitz).  

Obama cited the prospects of an early military victory, but he also raised questions about the consequences of a long-term occupation in the country -- the big issue right now.  He also highlighted an issue in 2002, which I see as vital to America's long-term security -- fixing the issue of oil dependence.  This one speech actually went a long way towards showing me that this candidate has an ability to prioritize threats and anticipate likely outcomes.  His judgment here was first-rate:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

Another side of this equation, which ties into what we can do domestically, is once again, the question of foreign oil.  I see this as an issue that we need to fix, because it will improve U.S. security and safeguard economy from shocks from international oil markets.  Fixing the oil problem will put money into people's pockets and also decrease the strategic importance of the Middle East, which right now is looking like one big money pit.  I see this as the one national security area that is completely within our control -- we must do something about it.

When Obama was elected to the Senate he demonstrated a commitment to this issue working on a bipartisan bill with Richard Lugar from Indiana -- the American Fuels Act.  The bill will not pass with the current Congress, or under a president who owes so much to the oil industry.  But I at least want a president who has a demonstrated commitment in this area.  If Obama was talking about this issue in 2002, and continued working on it while in the Senate, this tells me that he's committed to getting the issue fixed, he's was ahead of the curve, and he will make it a commitment to getting this issue fixed if he's elected president.

In terms of Obama not using enough fighting words -- this doesn't worry me.  I've looked at his track record and see a guy who has principle, who sees the big picture, and is committed to getting things done.  I put the highest priority on the candidates track record.  Is what he says consistent with what he is actually done?  In Obama's case, I see him as a man of his word.

He also has a track record of building coalitions on other issues (e.g. nuclear non-proliferation -- an issue that he and Lugar worked on for two years to get a bill signed by congress) -- and if we are going to fix these problems long-term you have to work with the congress you have, not necessarily the one that you would ideally want.  You also need a president who can rally support behind programs and get the public involved -- to pressure legislators if necessary.  The large political network that Obama has been able to build in this election cycle tells me that he is going to have public support on these issues if he is elected -- and will have an ability to leverage recalcitrant politicians in the Senate and House.

I think we all worry about what the future holds right now.   Whoever inherits the White House in 2009 is going to have a much more challenging job than the person who inherited the job in 2001.  If the nominee ends up being John Edwards, I will support him without reservation.  My choice in the primary is Obama though for the reasons stated above.

Thanks for sharing this, JPTERP. :) I am still with Edwards, but this is good to know.  

You know along with the Americas Fuel Act, I found another bill where Obama reached across the aisle.  In fact, it was introduced in the same year with Senator Obama cosponsoring it with many Republican luminaries like Senator George Allen, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Conrad Burns, and Senator Lugar (again).  What was that bill you ask?  Well, it was called the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006.  This is from Senator Obama's press release on the bill:

Obama said, "The people I meet in town hall meetings back home would rather fill their cars with fuel made from coal reserves in Southern Illinois than with fuel made from crude reserves in Saudi Arabia. We already have the technology to do this in a way that's both clean and efficient. What we've been lacking is the political will. This common sense, bipartisan legislation will greatly increase investment in coal-to-liquid fuel technology, which will create jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Illinois Basin Coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Instead of enriching the Saudis, we can use these reserves to bring a renaissance for Illinois coal."

I myself have often thought that we simply do not have enough subsidies to the coal industry in America.  And afterall, we have a 500 year supply of the stuff.  Why not use clean (cough! cough!) coal to power our vehicles and get those gosh-darned Saudis off our backs?  Oh wait! Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the U.S.  Correction, why not get those gosh-darned Canadians off our back?

As far as the Americas Fuels Act, please lets give more subsidies to cellulosic biomass ethanol.  I know we can never give enough subsidies to ADM, supermarket to the world.  And you know I have always felt we pay too little for food staples.  Do Mexicans really need to make corn tortillas after we have driven world corn prices up phenomenally?

Senator Obama sees the big picture and it's coal!  That and driving food prices up to feed our insatiable transportation sector.  Ahead of the curve?  Sees the big picture?  Above corporate influence and pandering to influential industries?  A game changer you all say?

are what it takes to get us on the path to energy independence than so be it.

The way that legislation works on bills like this is that you need to build coalitions.  You build coalitions by bringing legislators on board by appealing to their self-interest (and the interests of their constituents).

Of course, we could simply mentally envision some abstract Ideal bill, which is perfect in theory but, which will never get passed in reality.  The problems go unsolved -- that's wonderful!

The Constitution itself was a compromise bill.  No one got exactly what they wanted, and a few people found that they got absolutely nothing out of the deal.  But the realists brokered a compromise which kept the nation together for the next 70 years.  After the Civil War, the Constitution maintained a framework which allowed the country to recover from a major internal rupture.  The Founding Fathers brokered deals and got the job done.  They made hard choices based on political realities.    

I don't think Senator Obama sees coal or ethanol as the magic solution.  I think he realizes that between peak oil, global warming, and the national security costs that go into keeping oil pumping from dictatorial regimes around the world into our country -- that there are some serious tradeoffs and vulnerabilities at work.  If you have to throw a bone to the ethanol industry or to the coal lobby, I can see grounds for doing this -- so long as the overriding purpose of the bill is not compromised (substantially decreases our independence on foreign oil; find ways to reduce CO2 emissions; create an energy policy that is sustainable over the long-term and helps bolster market innovation).  

I would much rather have a leader who gets things done, than to have a leader make promises that are awfully hard to square with political realities and the way that our government is structured.  A supreme dictator would have no problem getting a "perfect" energy bill that entails no compromises put into law, but I see some other even bigger trade-offs here in just having a supreme dictator with absolute power.  I think the lessons of history are clear enough on this one as well.

that coal was combustion was a way to reduce our Carbon Dioxide emissions (after you liquefy it, you still need to combust it to release the energy).  If Senator Obama thinks it is, then I think we have problem.  

Ethanol subsidies and requirements have driven up commodity prices.  And Senator Obama should be all too familiar with that as the largest agricultural commodity exchange is in Chicago.  I don't think it it wise to trade reasonable food prices for transportation personally.  

Of course, I wasn't really talking about compromise or minimizing its value.  But I think it is important to point out that what you are proposing is a false choice.  That giving into coal liquefaction and ethanol is the only feasible choice to reducing our dependence on oil.  That this is the best that can be done.  That simply isn't true.  We can reduce our need through conservation, efficiency, urban planning, and renewable sources.  There are a lot of imaginative options that are feasible that do not include coal.  And I don't think doing any of those things requires that we be ruled by a benevolent dictator.  Are you really proposing that the only way to eliminate our dependence upon oil requires coal liquefaction?

I would also note there is no indication of him cosponsoring these measures as a compromise.  It sounds more like pandering to home state lobbies to me.  From his quote, it sounds as though he is wholeheartedly behind coal liquefaction (a topic that is strangely missed from his energy plan on his presidential campaign site).  If this was a compromise, a demonstration of his ability to work across the aisle, why doesn't he mention it more often?  Why has the reference to coal liquefaction been removed from his presidential website?  And if this was truly about realism and getting things done, then why did both bills die in committee?  That doesn't seem to demonstrate getting anything done on energy independence or climate change.  If it compromise was truly what it was about, why didn't any legislation get passed?

I gather that you are now proposing Senator Obama as the realist willing to compromise with the Coal lobby.  Isn't the expectation, at least from what I have seen, that he is this ideal that will change the way Washington works?  That he is principled and above politics?  That he is free of corporate influence?  Now you are telling me that Senator Obama is a politician after all and a realist at that!  Something, I might add, that people damn Senator Clinton for.

In reference to liquid coal . . .

http://outside.away.com/outsid...

You've received a lot of criticism from enviros of your support for coal-to-liquids technology. You recently shifted your position somewhat, but haven't retracted it. Why?
I was always firm that if the life-cycle carbon emissions of coal-to-liquid were higher than gasoline, we couldn't do it, because it would contradict my position on reducing greenhouse gases. But I also believe that, because of the abundance of coal in the U.S., coal-based fuels could be a substitute for some of the oil we import from the Middle East, as long as we can reduce the resulting CO2 emissions to 20 percent below current levels from petroleum-based fuels.

How much should we be willing to pay in taxpayer money to make liquid coal that clean?

Our original bill on coal-to-liquids-which generated a lot of heat in the environmental community, no pun intended-proposed $200 million for demonstration projects, to see where this technology might take us.
If the technology exists for us to use coal in a clean fashion, then that is something all of us should welcome, particularly because China and India are building coal-fired power plants at a rapid rate, and they likely have lifespans of several decades. Coal is a cheaper resource, and they're going to be figuring out a way to exploit it, so we should help to find technologies that will ensure that if it is used, it is used cleanly. The U.S. is recognized as the global leader in understanding better coal and geologic sequestration technologies. If we abandon that leadership, we risk leaving the rest of the planet wide open to investing billions in polluting infrastructure.

But I stress again that my position has been consistent throughout: If we are using coal in the absence of these clean technologies, then we are going to be worsening the trend of global warming, and that is something that we can't do.

Do you support a freeze in the U.S. on new coal development until these clean-coal technologies are commercially available?

I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market, coupled with a strong carbon cap, is the best way to reduce carbon emissions, rather than an arbitrary freeze on development.

As president, would you oppose subsidizing any technology that increases global warming-even if it reduces our dependence on foreign oil?

As a general principle I would agree with that. I would not make huge investments or try to take technologies to scale that worsen the climate-change situation. But it may be appropriate for the federal government to make small investments in pilot projects to see if we can make dirty fuels cleaner.

I think that with nuclear power, we have got to see if there are ways for us to store the radioactive material in a safe, environmentally sound way, and if we can do that and deal with some of the safety and security issues, [nuclear power] is something that we should look at.

My general view is that we should experiment with all sorts of potential energy sources-don't prejudge what works and what doesn't, but insist that we have very strict standards in terms of where we want to end up, and enforce those standards vigorously.

The entire interview is worth reading in its entirety.

Plaudits from across the partisan divide . . .

http://www.californiaprogressr...

Governor Schwarzenegger issued the following statement today regarding legislation introduced by Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) to establish a national version of California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard:

"I applaud Senator Obama for introducing legislation to establish a national version of California's groundbreaking Low Carbon Fuel Standard. By adopting our approach of employing enforceable standards and market competition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Senator Obama's legislation, like the bi-partisan legislation proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein, can dramatically increase investment in low carbon fuels at the same time it effectively fights climate change, expands consumer choice and rewards innovation.

"Climate protection, energy security and economic well-being are not partisan issues, and I hope members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will support and help pass this important legislation." ...

Today Senator Obama (D-Illinois) introduced legislation proposing that California's plan be enacted nationally. According to Senator Obama's office, a national low carbon fuel standard modeled on California's targets would reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by over 250 million tons in 2020, the equivalent of taking about 32 million cars off the road.

Some solutions that's he's arrived at by thinking outside the box . . .

http://www.frankmckinnon.com/i...

Making a Deal With Detroit: Health for Hybrids

Senator Obama introduced legislation encouraging automakers to make fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles by helping the companies shoulder the health care costs of their retirees. Domestic automakers would get health care assistance in exchange for their investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

"(Healthcare for Hybrids') stroke of genius is in connecting the dots - decreasing oil consumption is clearly a top national priority but it will not happen without a national investment."

-Walter McManus, director of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute's Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation

"Obama has come up with an audacious proposal that has won the backing of enviros and the United Auto Workers (UAW), and should win the support of both the cash-strapped auto industry and motorists suffering from sticker shock. . . . Obama's proposal may be characteristic of his work, finding support across class (and other) lines."

-The American Prospect, June, 2006

More background . . .

http://www.ontheissues.org/200...

Another view from an NY Times editorial from last year . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01...

But there's a way Congress can get moving. Senator Barack Obama plans to reintroduce a bill that would set a 4 percent annual increase in efficiency as a target, just what Mr. Bush says he wants. The bill would also give both the Transportation Department and the manufacturers considerable flexibility. But the department could not deviate from the target unless it could demonstrate that the costs outweighed the benefits.

Even that is too much wiggle room for lawmakers like Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Edward Markey. While allowing for administrative flexibility, they would require a firm fleetwide standard of 35 m.p.g. with no escape hatches. But given the long Congressional stalemate, the Obama bill could be an important first step. It commands some bipartisan support, and unlike Mr. Bush's approach, it promises real as opposed to hypothetical results.

The bottom line is that Obama has a demonstrated track record in trying to fix our oil dependence problem, as well as tackling global warming.  As far as the caricature goes that he is basically just in it to provide a sop for some special interest groups and not really serious about the issue, because there are components of his bills that would benefit special interest lobbies, I think this is a misreading of what his intentions actually are.  You can look at his reasoning, look at his voting record, view the bills in their full context, and get an understanding of where he is actually coming at from these issues.  

When he says:

3-way win: economy, environment, & stop funding terror
Progressives are the folks who believe in energy independence for America. We believe that we can harness homegrown alternative fuels and spur the production of fuel-efficient hybrid cars, and break our dependence on the world's most dangerous regions. We understand that we get a three-for: We can save our economy, our environment, and stop funding both sides of the war on terror if we actually get serious about doing something about energy. We understand that.
Source: Annual 2006 Take Back America Conference Jun 14, 2006

http://www.ontheissues.org/200...

I think there's ample evidence to suggest he's serious about actually solving the problem of dependence on oil and global warming -- he has considered views on these issues, and a long track record of working on bipartisan measures to get the job done.  

I accept that Senator Obama has since clarified his position and that shows that he listens and responds to his constituency.  I appreciate that.  But you can read Senate Bill S.3325, there is no requirement that the technology provide 20% lower emissions than gasoline.  On top of that, I would still note that you cannot sequester CO2 pumped from an internal combustion engine.  It would certainly be interesting to see if he wasn't elected from Illinois and still favored ethanol and coal.

We use so much oil in a day; it is hard to see how either the American Fuel Act or Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act would put a sizable dent in that.  And we can never replace all of our demand for gasoline with ethanol.  There is not enough arable land in the U.S. to do this.  Given that those represent a drop in the bucket (the 21 million barrels a day bucket), it seems highly likely to me that being from a state that is home to both coal and corn had an instrumental impact on the Senator (the same reason that Senator Landrieu supports offshore drilling).  All I'm saying is that the Senator is human and a politician.  I don't fault him for that.  I don't think we should expect that he is perfection.  

You may continue to make the case that he is always consistent, free from the influence of industry, and the post-partisan candidate.  But I think we will have to respectfully disagree on those points.  And we'll have to disagree on what we think his intention was behind his support for coal liquefaction ($200 million to me is a big bone to throw at industry).

$200 million isn't even enough to build an entire 275 mega-watt power plant . . .

http://www.worldchanging.com/a...

So when he says that you invest in a prototypes to see what can done, before "scaling up" the technology (e.g. hundreds of billions for new plants and retrofitting) -- it is easy to square his statement with the $200 million bill.

I am not saying that Obama is a saint.  I am saying that he is being pragmatic here.  He is not ignoring realities (e.g. India and China are already scaling up their own dirty coal plants, because coal is relatively cheap.  Odds are that neither of those countries will invest in R&D to see what can be done -- if they do, then the U.S. risks losing out on the innovation end.  More than likely nothing gets done and C02 emissions continue to skyrocket).  

His approach makes sense to me -- you invest a bit in technologies to see what can be done, you scale up those technologies if they make sense.  As stated -- if it turns out that the $200 million was connected to the plant built in Mattoon -- the $200 million covers one-ninth of the overall cost of building the plant.

At some point too you have to invest in technologies to see exactly what can be done.  I don't think it's dumb or cynical to invest in technologies to see what can be done for cleaning up fossil fuel emissions for a fossil fuel that is cheap, abundant, and domestically available.

In other words, it is possible for a reasonable person to square his actions and statements with the idea that "here is a politician who is approaching issues pragmatically, and who is serious about doing things that benefit the greatest possible number of Americans".

Of course part of the reason that I'm able to square his statements is because of his background.  Two parents with Harvard J.D.'s typically aren't living with their two kids in a two bedroom condo and finishing paying off their student loans up until six years ago -- unless they've opted in their professional careers to make some serious trade-offs other than just maximizing their earning potential.  

I love that you are still going on this.  If you want to prove to me that Coal Liquefaction is a way to reduce greenhouse gasses, I'm all ears.  I don't think you have made a case that S.3325 has anything to do with Climate Change or ameliorating our emissions or how the Fischer-Tropsch process could be used to reduce China's and India's emissions.  And the intention there was not to reduce emissions or make coal technology cleaner, but to replace some of our gasoline consumption with liquefied coal.  The requirement that it should be cleaner is something he clarified after cosponsoring the bill.  And the bill language makes no mention of that requirement.  You say that this bill was intended to improve coal fired generation facilities, but I don't see that demonstrated anywhere.  

As to $200 million, it is not my position that you have to give out the equivalent of the capital cost of a power plant to equal more than a pittance (not that the $200 mill was all that was in the bill).  On top of that, the Coal Industry is not strapped for cash.  Why they need a hand out to do R&D is beyond me (not to mention coal liquefaction is an already developed process used in South Africa today).  If the investment produces money, there is plenty of incentive and enough capital on their end to achieve that all by themselves.  There are other areas though that do not sit on a pile of money where these sorts of R&D investments would be helpful.

I know that Senator Obama has tried to reconcile his support for this with his commitment to the environment.  I know he can't come out and say: "Look, I was helping out home state interests."  That's okay by me.  But it is inconsistent.  And whether or not coal liquefaction is necessary to reduce our dependence on oil imports does not necessitate a government hand-out to an already well financed industry.

If this was really pragmatism, then why doesn't he mention it anymore?  Why is coal liquefaction not in his plan for energy independence?  I mean if this is the way we need to be going, why not bring it up?  As far as the environment goes, I think you can tell that I think ethanol and coal liquefaction are boondoggles.  We need to find some other solution besides coal and hydrocarbon if we (inclusive of India and China) are going to prevent a catastrophe.

I think we have fundamentally different views here.  It is not clear to me that coal liquefication technology will NEVER offer an alternative to oil.  I see every reason to invest in the technology to see what can be done.  

The bottom line is that coal isn't going anywhere.  Not in the U.S., and not globally.  So the question is what can we do to make the production of the fossil fuel cleaner?  (If it is possible).  If the South African advances are in fact the cutting edge, and technology cannot improve things further, I would love to see some evidence to suggest as much.

You say "we need to find some other solution besides coal and hydrocarbons" period, but I'm not so sure what those solutions are at the present time.  Perhaps you have an answer to the type of solutions that could be rolled out immediately without stifling economic growth in the U.S., India, China, and around the globe (and that is one of the balances that you have to look at with this issue).  Please enlighten me.

There is not a choice that will not mean sacrifice.  We cannot treat ourselves or the Chinese or the Indians with kid gloves about this.  They cannot live as we do, and our lifestyles are unsustainable.  The world cannot sustain 2 billion more internal combustion engines.  We need mandated efficiency immediately and an immediate moratorium on coal fired generation.  We need to tax inefficiency like we tax other sins (i.e. cigarettes and alcohol).  That revenue needs to go into programs to help low and middle income people weatherize their homes and upgrade to higher efficiency appliances.  Also, it need to go into programs that help low and middle income people buy new, more fuel efficient cars.  And we need to help Detroit retool their factories to start pumping those cars out.  We need to help bring China and India along with us, but we need to lead by example.  These are all things that Republicans would balk at as "big government" solutions.  But I don't think we can rely on individual choice here; this is essentially the Tragedy of the Commons on a phenomenally huge scale.  

There is no easy choice here.  The lie is that we can continue on this path of conspicuous consumption consequence free with no personal sacrifice made on our parts.  If we cannot come to terms with that, we are doomed as a species.  That's my belief based on all that I have read from the IPCC reports to what I learned working for an oil company.  I was giving you the magnitude of the problem, 21 million barrels of oil a day, and that is not even all of the magnitude we are talking about.  You can't touch that number without sacrifice.  To me saying you can, is the same lie put forward by President Bush that we would not have to make any sacrifices as individuals for this war in Iraq.  We have, but it is only now perceptible with the credit crisis the banking industry created.  

I really have to say thank you for this wonderful discussion.  I have not complimented you in these posts.  But it has been very enjoyable reading your responses.  And you have made a good case for Senator Obama.  Perhaps, one of the most well thought out ones I have seen.  But don't let that go to your head.  =)

I appreciate that you never settled for the easy answer either, and forced me to think through the issues a little bit more.

I don't have any problem with a carbon tax, but I think it will be hard to compel that behavior unless there is some burden sharing domestically.  

In terms of leveling the boom internationally, we just can't force the Chinese, India, or any other developing nation to cut its pollution levels -- we need to lead by example, but also be able to provide alternatives that are economically viable long-term solutions.   The sad reality is that people don't think in terms of economic costs that they might incur through inaction 10 to 20 or even 30 years down the road -- the tendency seems to be to focus on costs in much smaller time increments.

I agree too that the crisis posed by global warming is real enough -- I think any politician worth his salt cannot avoid the issue (and in many cases, I don't think they will unless they are completely ignorant of the science, or if they are willing to take chances and simply punt the problem to future generations).

Don't know if you noticed, but DailyKos had a diary connected to the topic of each candidate's "green" bona fides, with Obama chalking in at a 96% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (Clinton also does very well).    Worth taking a look if you have the time.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

JPTERP, I agree that your post was excellent.  I hadn't seen Obama's 2002 speech before, and I have to admit it showed very impressive foresight.

I tried to find Sen. Edwards' speech about Iraq from 2002, and couldn't.  Maybe somebody else can, and post a link.

In fairness to Edwards, and to Clinton, they might have been getting scary false or inaccurate intelligence reports and briefings that Obama didn't have access to back in 2002.

One gets the sense of that from this passage in Clinton's 2002 war resolution speech:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

http://clinton.senate.gov/news...

Clinton said in her speech that it was the most difficult decision she had ever made, so I think it is fair to go back and read it more than 5 years later.

but apparently not important enough for her to spend 60 to 90 minutes reading the 96 page National Intelligence Estimate report at the time.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...

True, only 6 Senators took the time to go to wherever the NIE was locked up, sign in and look at it, as far as I've read.  McCain and Clinton didn't do that, Edwards did. Spokesmen for McCain and Clinton said later that they had been briefed multiple times on what the NIE said.  All three voted in favor of the Iraq resolution.  I'm trying to figure out what this means, if anything.  

In the end, the Iraq War was a huge blunder and is an ongoing economic disaster for this country.  There has to be accountability for it, much as in the Navy the commanding officer and bridge officers are held accountable for running a ship aground.  Should Clinton and Edwards be held accountable?  Or do they get a pass because they were junior Senators in the minority who were being fed bad intelligence reports?

and a big litmus test, but I am also willing to give candidates some leeway if they recognized the challenges in Iraq early on, and adjusted accordingly.  Edwards was pretty quick to recognize problems.  I don't think Clinton did until 2006 when her internal polling data must have essentially told her "listen you can't make a serious run for president and continue to stubbornly stay the course with your position; you have to readjust a little".

In one of the June debates Clinton was even still saying that the world is safer now than it was in 2001.  I mean come on.  That's a Bush-like inability to square reality with the ground facts.  

but I'll take that Edwards/Webb spirit any day.

I am sticking with Edwards, and if he doesn't become nominee, then I am back to being bored and un-excited...

Bored and unexcited?  Really!?  Whoever wins the Democratic nomination, it will be a new day in America!  Eight years of Republican mismanagement and corruption will finally be at an end.  We will finally see the end to the 1994 Republican Revolution.  Whomever we nominate will represent a sea change from the current administration.  It will be a triumph for America!  And we will have either a woman or an African-American, either is a monumental achievement!

How could you not be excited?  How could you be bored?  This election will redefine America!

It is just that I REALLY would like to see Edwards as the Democratic nominee.  I am just not excited by Sen. Clinton, and only moderately more so by Sen. Obama.  

 Certainly, if either should win the general election I will celebrate on the mountain-tops.  Don't get me wrong.  Still, neither Hillary nor Obama is a sure thing, and neither has as good a chance at winning and fighting for the change I'd like to see in America as Edwards-in my opinion.

Senator Clinton has so far been constrained by running for this office.  I think there is every possibility that free from those constraints and given her track record, she could be truly transformative.

Senator Obama has a gift: inspiring people.  And with that kind of force on his side, he too could truly be transformative as a president.  That inspiration might be transformed into action that makes the here-to-fore improbable, possible.

Either one has just as good a chance as former Senator Edwards does at transformation.  Neither have his angry rhetoric, but I don't think we should misconstrue that to mean they won't be fighting for those most in need.  Both Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's record indicates that this is what they do.  Everyone has faults, but I wouldn't doubt their commitment to the principles of equality and social justice.

I understand your passion for former Senator Edwards.  I voted for him back in the 2004 primaries, and I wanted him to win.  But that did not diminish my commitment to the party I love when he didn't.  And I will be excited no matter who we nominate, and I will be there in whatever capacity I can to help them win.

the ones that don't exclude Edwards.  He consistently does best.

And as for being surprised.  I like to know what I am voting for, not waiting to interpret the tea leaves and the nuances of Clinton in hopes of being surprised.

Edwards says it how it is and still garners more support in Gop match up than any other Dem Candidate.