Getting our nation off fossil fuels and into the other types (yes, all other types) will only help us out as a nation. Being held hostage to Big Oil, Big Coal not only drains out pocket books and national treasury but also dirties our air & water.

I agree with this. But I think every time we try to come up with something, special interests try to cake it up.

First, we cannot expect to get off of oil tomorrow. Or even in the next 5 years. Or 10. A good start would be to reduce dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. We can tap resources like Natural Gas to replace dependence on the countries at say..2% per year.

But every time we try common sense measures at alternative energy sources we get pushback.

- We can't do nuclear because "remember what happened in Russia?" (Coal mining accidents haven't halted coal too much though).

- Although the technology is still very expensive, we can't do wind because the NIMBY folks don't want those "unsightly" wind turbines obstructing their views.

- We've tried the government-subsidized ethanol experiment and now corn-based products have gone up pretty significantly.

- Solar is still taking time...

I think all options of alternatives should be on the table--solar, wind, nuclear, clean(er) coal, and yes..oil and natural gas. i haven't been on the earth that long, but I've been hearing the technology-is-5-to-10-years-away argument for some time now. Until that time comes, I think all options should be considered.

I've never tried to block any IPs and I doubt anyone else here did also, though we'll see if Brendan knows anything about it. That is weird... Does anyone have any suggestions as to what to try in such a situation? Deleting the cookie for SC?

why does the congressman bother to post this on dkos??? How stupid can you be to post it there without checking what kind of a reaction it's going to get. Dumbass.

They Kosites and other liberal blogger types do have this odd notion that they matter. So long as they are unwilling to vote for someone with anything but a D next to their name, they will continue to not matter.

Anyone who has taken any classes with coursework in game theory can tell that the Democratic Party v. Democratic activists is a classic game of chicken . The only problem is that in this game of chicken the activists have said in advance that they're going to swerve.

If a party can take your vote for granted, you have no power to affect their platform. All votes are equally cast and counted regardless of the intent of their maker. If I were to get drunk and randomly cast a vote for Barack Obama (indeed, one may need to be suitably medicated to vote for him), my vote counts just as much as if I made a careful and thoughtful decision to vote for him.

Obama can safely ignore the politics of anyone casting "holding my nose" votes because these people will always vote for him no matter how bad he gets. Somehow by refusing to donate to a candidate or writing sternly worded letters (the favorite pastime of their representatives) they think they're making an impact; well, they aren't. The low-information voter, the swing voter, and the fringe who are willing to defect to a Nader et al. are the ones that will get Obama's attention. There'll be a lot less defectors to Nader and others in the foreseeable future due to the nuclear-level "crash" that happened in the 2000 game of chicken.