But sadly, that is not how democracy works.

At least, it seems to be true that all the presidential candidates, both those still in and those who have dropped out, are aware of global warming as an issue.  And those who are still in, passingly acknowledge that the issue is serious.  

But their job right now is attracting voters; and if not many voters are majorly interested in global warming, biodiversity, and other environmental and animal-related issues, then of course even intelligent and thoughtful people such as Bill Richardson (whom I supported, second to John Edwards) will prefer to spend their time talking about something else.

JMG is no doubt right, that Richardson "mentioned" that he expects Obama to "work on" renewable energy, etc.  But it does not seem at all to be the case that Mr. Energy Expert endorsed Obama, and not Hillary, for that reason.  Certainly the pundits have not interpreted the endorsement as in any way reflecting on Obama's positions on global warming, energy or the environment.

If the point is to become big actors in a very big democracy, we need to evolve into an environmentalist version of the National Rifle Association: we need to be deadly serious about a narrow range of issues; we need to express those issues in terms of both patriotism and personal dignity; we need to vote on those issues solely; and we need to use our funds to command media attention, thus killing the candidacies of unfriendly politicians.

I passionately hate the NRA.  But they sure do have a magnificently successful organization, which one cannot help but admire.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

For sure he will rally the latino vote.  

We can't take victory for granted because McCain is a doddering old fool, look at the shaved ape Rove beat us with twice.

Hillary needs to call off her Rove-clone, incompetent campaign staff now.  Jobs are no doubt waiting for them at foxnews.  McCauliff, Wolfson go work with Dick Morris, show your true colors.

You did your work, killing off the chance for the first woman president by ignoring the caucus states.  Good job boys, Rupert will welcome you to the fold now.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Richardson is certainly going to have some good things to say about electric transportation.

-David Ahlport

1. Bill Richardson has probably not felt this much political love in a long time. There was a several minute standing ovation before he could even start his speech. The crowd was wildly enthusiastic for Richardson. How significant the endorsement turns out to be in the long run is anyone's guess, but it was a huge boost to the Obama campaign as far as the crowd was concerned. This was so not because Governor Richardson and Senator Obama have policies and priorities in common but because, as Richardson put it, Barack Obama has once in a generation leadership qualities. For an ex-Clinton administration cabinet member to state this so forcefully is the takeaway from the event to me.

2. Senator Obama's speech touched on many (all?) of his campaign themes. Based on crowd response this election is about the economy, health care, and about bringing back trust and pride in government by pulling back from the abyss of the Bush adminstration's disasterous response to terrorism (the Iraq War, extraordinary renditions, Guantanomo, warrantless wiretaps, etc.). Obama and Richardson both mentioned increasing CAFE standards, renewable energy and other environmental initiatives. However, even in Portland this clearly received a less enthusiastic response than his remarks on the war, health care, the economy, and the follies of the Bush administration.

3. Senator Obama and Governor Richardson both appear to be ahead of the electorate on climate change. This is actually heartening to me because, again based on crowd response to both speeches, most of the electorate is caught up in day to day struggles--making ends meet--and not thinking long term thoughts about the environment. To bring the public along, we need effective and focused leadership that is committed to building new political majorities in new and positive ways. The politics of personal destruction and focus group incrementalism aren't going to cut it anymore.

4. Woe to us if we don't change course in our approach to politics. Senator Obama is the only candidate left who can steer us in the right direction.

It would be a lovely irony, or bit of poetic justice, if after eight years of Bush's VP being put in charge of energy policy and stifling it, President Obama's VP too would become Energy Tsar, with much much happier results.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

 God help us. A vote for Obama is a vote for the end of the U.S.A. and a vote for the N.A.U.
 If you want a Socialist government/society then Obama is your man.
 Obama like many a politician will tell anyone what they want to hear and act like they know what they are talking about. Just to get support.
 Obama is nothing more than another version of a preacher. Great speaker, I'll give him that.
 He consistently has ignored anything the American people, especially those in Illinois, have had to say about just about any subject. Especially the immigration issue. He has his mind set on giving up our country. Change? Yep there will be change allright.  
 Remember the President is not there to direct us.
 The President is there to work for the people.
 The President is there to represent the People.
 Bush of course has failed miserably.
 Obama will lead us into a socialist society.
 Obama will proudly help finish off the U.S.A. and make way for the North American Union.
 Sorry but that is not for me.

And if you're gonna tout how the issue of immigration or NAFTA is linked to the environment, then please at least do some reasearch instead of just forming vague statements/personal rants without sources or backup.

What does the boogeyman of "socialism" even mean to these people?

Frankly, deficit spending is just as much a tax as conventional taxes, if not more so.

As such one doesn't see Republicans lowering spending, or lowering taxes.

It really seems like "socialism", is merely a euphemism for organized labor, and support of social welfare programs.

Organized Limit Liability Business, and Corporate Welfare though, thats somehow is okay.

_

I'm really having a hard time translating what they actually mean by socialism.

I ask, because frankly I'd love to be able to translate it back, within their value structure, why they are wrong.

Simply calling them "stupid trolls" isn't going to get us anywhere.

-David Ahlport