Obama and Clinton pushing coal to get votes!

Knowing Obama's stance on nuclear and now coal, I really am beginning to wonder if i can push the button next to his name on a ballot. This to me proves that their so called "change" is nothing more than saying what they need to say to get elected or get a certain endorsement. How can we now be sure they will really institute any real changes environmentally if they can't even stand up on the campaign trail and say that there should be a moratorium on coal fired power plants in this country? That liquid coal is a dirty source of energy that is not green? Again, WHY should I trust them on the environment? Especially when they vote for bills that show the opposite of their words? Please STOP PANDERING to the coal and nuclear industries and get some guts! Enough status quo politics. I miss John Edwards. At least he had the guts to say no more coal and nuclear!

Another reason why change has to come from within. We as individuals must do what we can to install truly clean energy resources and conserve. Every opportunity we have we must share our experiences and thoughts with politicians to make it clear that nuclear and "clean" (cough) coal technologies are not the way to go.

I would have preferred to have a candidate that would stand solely for renewable resources, however it won't prevent me from voting for Obama in November!

To waste a vote on someone else would be to concede a portion of the popular vote to the Republicans. The nations voice has to be loud, clear and as large as possible, we want change! And yes we can!

It's disappointing that the candidates have to run this way. In the end though, Obama or Clinton will be better for a more progressive energy policy than McCain. Once in office, WE must keep the pressure on all elected officials to give us the policy we demand. I agree aburk72, we can do that. This kind of politics, while unfortunate, wouldn't stop me from casting my vote for the Democratic candidate.

No, they don't "have to" run this way if they are truly 'change' candidates. "Change" isn't just about policy in Washington Dc. It is about the way you live your own life and inspire others. It is also about telling truth. How can people reach a higher consciousness about this crisis if candidates won't help them get there? I am very disappointed with them both regarding their stances on this. How will they be different from McCain on this? How many votes will they hand to him because of it? I am even beginning to wonder if they only mention it now to have Al Gore's favor.

I would hope they are mentioning it because they care, but then they have both been in Congress long enough to call for that change. However, Obama even voted for the Bush /Cheney energy bill that gave more subsidies to nuclear, oil, and ethanol. And he absolutely "had to" do that? He couldn't stand up for principles and at the very least vote no and say we need more? For environmentalists like myself, I was looking for someone who I at least thought was sincere about this. I guess that just isn't going to happen. It is obvious this crisis cannot be solved effectively from inside that beltway. It is going to have to be us in concert with business, environmental organizations, and states.

And that is what makes me angry.... because there are no other choices ( and we allowed the real fighters to be pushed out) so I will be forced to place my vote next to someone who I emphatically disagree with regarding an issue I hold dear to my heart and which is the crux of our sustainability on this planet.

I say, shame on them for their playing along with this system and pandering to it and for not bringing the real change we need to see which again is not just about achieving your political aspirations. This planet is more important than their egos and endorsements or pandering to the same status quo lobbies that got us into this mess to begin with. It makes me wonder just how impervious to corporate pressure they really will be in the WH based on their track records.

And just as an addendum: This is the reason for my frustration: McCain was picked to be the Republican nominee for a reason: he was the only Republican candidate even mentioning climate change. The Republicans in Congress and this regime though they either think it a myth or that it is not important on the whole still see that the debate will focus on this for the general election and they want votes too ... so why do you think McCain is in this besides his war talk? And really, McCain touts wanting to address climate change and yet continues to support an environmentally devastating war? Where is the logic and reason in that? Will that distinction however even be made?

This is the one issue where we should be making the difference because there is a difference, and they all basically have the same policy. So what will voters have to vote on regarding the environment? True, they all claim they will work to provide renewable energy... but how long will we have to wait while they continue to appease the same lobbies that will try to thwart the transition?

So for those of us who live this, who think about this with almost every waking breath because we so love this planet and want a better one for our children... WHERE is the choice? I have also tried to find something I could even agree with Obama about regarding policy, and I simply can't. And his support of liquid coal and nuclear and his backing down to the nuclear lobby in Illinois does bother me...So regardless of what Democrat gets in this time should that happen, they will not get a free ride regarding solving this crisis now. And frankly with what is at stake, they shouldn't.

I agree with you and if this is the only issue you are voting on, you do have some difficult decisions to make. But I hope you would agree that coming in 2nd place in the contest to be president isn’t going to do the environment any good. I’m sure Gore would agree. As much as he has done outside of government, imagine how much he could have done as president.

You say shame on us for allowing the other candidates to be pushed out…but maybe, just maybe, they were able to take a more politically risky positions because they didn’t have a real chance of being elected. Or maybe they didn’t make it because of some of those positions.

There are a lot of people in the country who don’t see things the same way you do. That might be unfortunate (in some cases) but it is a fact. Telling these people they are stupid or forcing a bunch of changes down their throats, while appealing, is not a tenable position for a candidate to take. You can take that tact, but you’re not running for president.

You clearly don’t have any faith in Obama. That’s your right. As it’s your right to post comments to that effect. But those of us who do aren’t stupid or gullible, we just see things differently than you.

Well since I never called anyone stupid or gullible I don't understand why you make that accusation. And who is forcing changes down peoples' throats? It is obvious politicians on the whole cannot see the urgency of the crisis we face and the changes we must make in how we do business. No one is forcing changes down anyone's throats, they are warning them of the catastrophe that awaits us as a species if we don't get our act together now. However, if you are of the crowd that would rather see them forced because you fail to see that urgency for whatever reason and think it OK for polticians to continue putting their own aspirations and interests above the importance of it then so be it. And if politicians don't make those changes in enough time, it will not be because people were stupid and gullible as much as because they were grossly selfish and irresponsible. across the political spectrum.

I'm afraid there are too many ignorant voters that can't wrap their heads around new ideas. These politicians know it, and unfortunately realize that they need to get elected if they are to implement change. We do need to continue to pressure these candidates to enact tough legislation when they are elected. The US should build no new coal plants. Ever.

Yesterday Hillary Clinton speaking about new green jobs she wants to create listed clean coal as an alternative.

It's more than just politicians who don't see the urgency. It's a lot of the people who live in this country (people who pay taxes and cast votes). I'm not one of them, but I'm not so blind as to not see that educating these people is going to take time and more than a condescending attitude. What's more, it's going to involve compromise. It's going to be imperfect. And if we wait until we've got the perfect candidate who is right on every issue (as one person defines it) to start this process, then I suggest we're never going to make any progress at all. I do however think it's going to take a very gifted person to inspire these people into getting on board to help solve this issue.

The only condescending attitude is the one from those running in this race who tell us one thing and then do another because they think the people on the whole are too ignorant to see it.

How can those running in this race say one thing and then "do another" when they haven't been in office yet to do another? That statement would apply to the Bush administration without a doubt which is where most of our distrust of anything political stems from.

We should definitely pay very close attention to what all of them say and do but I would hope that the Bush administration is the first and the last hypocritical presidency in American history. None of these candidates are perfect but if we assume all of them are clones of George Bush and his administration we're doomed because it will only unite us with a common attitude of distrust. We need to unite for positive change that motivates us to be a part of that change whether it be for the environment or for the people getting their voices heard in our government so our will, not corporate will rules the day.

They ARE in office. They are in Congress. None of them have upheld the oaths they took and therefore, I am not obliged to have faith in any of them to do so now. They will both have a lot to prove before that happens.

Yes, the candidates running are in office, in the Senate actually, however, the point is that the power connected with a senator vs. the President of the United States is a huge difference and it's yet to be seen what they will do once in office.