Whatever Dude! Vote for McCain's energy policy!

an interesting point of View - I'd like to hear him answer that question as well.

Also, in spite of your title, I appreciate your apparent willingness to hear him out when and if he answers your question.

"don't want to be disappointed because I believed in his message of "change" only to get more of the same pro-industry, wink and nod energy plans that fool the public with fancy language but zero impact."

This concerns a lot of us, I think... But the other front-runner candidates were already so clearly in bed with the industry, that it seemed safer to take a chance on an unknown.

Well the bill brought subsidies for ethanol as a honeypot for Dems, so its not hard to see why he voted for it, (and since Arizona and New York don't grow corn, its not hard to see why McCain and Clinton didn't). Obama is definitely treading a fine line here criticizing the bill despite having voted for it.

You can put out the argument that the bill was far from perfect but it was a first step towards an amiable goal (bio-diesel and energy independence), but its definitely a hard sell. Might just have to chalk this one up to everyday pork barrel politics. Obama is a Washington politican after all

Or vote Green! (And, no, that's not intended as snark.)

crumbrye: "But I can't reconcile him 1) voting for the 2005 Energy Bill, 2) bragging about his vote in a press release and 3) releasing a video on his campaign site attacking Cheney for the Bill."

1) I've heard him say it was an example of a bill that was very difficult to evaluate because of its pros and cons.

2) After he decided to vote for it, it follows that he would give himself credit for voting for it.

3) That didn't mean he thought it was a good bill -- obviously he didn't -- so he went on to criticise it.

I see no contradictions in the above.

That said, I share your concern. I think Obama can be counted on in a number or areas. In a number of others, I'm counting on him little or not at all. His presidency is going to be defined, perhaps more than any other president in history, by "we the people." And I have concerns about that as well.

Thanks for all the positive and interesting comments. One thing I see happening a lot lately is an acceptance of mediocre solutions to some extremely pressing problems because of the impression that, "Its just how Washington works."

I live in Washington. I certainly understand how it works. However, Obama has long said that our politics are smaller than our challenges. I believe that. If we want to confront our environmental challenges, we are going to have to hold our elected representatives to a higher standard so that our politics can finally meet the size of our challenges.

When the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, one of the priorities they promised was an Energy Bill that put in place fuel efficiency standards that would greatly reduce our reliance on oil. After all the games were played with the special interests and the industries, the end result was a compromise bill that left SUV's and trucks out of the fuel efficiency equation and created enough loop holes for auto manufacturers that the long term impact was negligible.

An electorate worn down by the frustrating and disappointing Washington process would say, "At least its something." But an electorate that believes solutions should actually solve a problem, not dance around it, would pressure their leaders to go back and try again.

I'm not looking for negligible impacts. I understand some legislating requires accepting both good and bad items in a bill. What I don't understand is accepting legislation that was essentially written by the oil, gas and coal industries in private with Dick Cheney that misplaces our energy priorities in the old, dirty sources of the last century.

His presidency is going to be defined, perhaps more than any other president in history, by "we the people." And I have concerns about that as well.
Free Bubba

I agree, except for the last part. If WE THE PEOPLE do this right, and stand up for a what we believe, we can make this country grand again.

Kennedy, Leahy, Jeffords, Kerry and all but 12 Senators also voted for the 2005 legislation, it was supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a long standing environmental group, and McCain and clinton voted nay. If you look it up on Wikipedia it looks like decent policy.

Interesting segment from The News Hour on PBS about venture capitalists going to green technologies in Silicon Valley. Particularly a company called Solazyme that derives oil from fast growing algae that is almost carbon neutral. One of the backers of another start up thermal solar company, Ausra, is Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems. Here is the link from May 29th-

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june08/green_05-29.html

Your post misses the biggest reason for not voting for Obama: Anyone who says "we are the ones we've been looking for", either is an asshole, or thinks you're an asshole.