"He has not dissented from party orthodoxy in the way Bill Clinton did on the way to the presidency in 1992."

That's because Bill Clinton triangulated his way to Reaganism Lite, in many areas. Call it realism, or what have you, but Clinton simply didn't have ideas or policies to present as a counterpoise to Reaganism, which therefore continued to warp public discourse: everybody "knew" that Government wasn't the answer to poverty, inequality, etc. etc., so (with the exception of Hillary's botched health care initiative) incremental tweaks were the order of the day even before the GOP takeover of Congress in '94.

Perhaps Obama's emphasis on "tone" isn't just a cover for a lack of substance. Maybe by "tone" Obama and his staff refer to the fact that while Bill Clinton had an opportunity to reformulate post-FDR liberalism for the 21st century, yet failed to do so, Obama will not repeat the same mistake. (How much of the New Deal was "tone"?)

To be sure, the times may have been wrong for a bold statement of progressive policies and values when Clinton took office; but thanks to his lack of vision and boldness, not to mention certain zipper-related malfunctions, we'll never know, and that's the tragedy of the Clinton presidency.

Elwin9, where in Romm's article does he say anything that leads you to suspect that he's *not* factoring in the cost of batteries and inverters when he talks about wind power? See what he says about thermal solar:

"Jigar Shah, chief strategy officer of SunEdison, explained to me that he could guarantee delivery to Florida of more kilowatt-hours of power with solar photovoltaics -- *including energy storage so the power was not intermittent* -- for less money than the nuke plants cost."

Romm's idea, as I see it, is that combining wind and thermal solar will let us ease off on unsustainable sources--and one unsustainable source, if you remove the massive sustained government subsidies, is nuclear as it is presently conceived and built. He may be wrong about other things, but he doesn't promise a magic, Green bullet.

Amity, what about those subsidies? If nuclear was in fact amortizable over a reasonable span of years, why would the utility companies need so much money up front? Wouldn't the magic of the marketplace take care of the costs of building reactors, without any need for cumbersome government funding?

I recall reading a multi-part exposé of the nuclear power industry in the New Yorker back in the '70s that exposed the short-sightedness and corruption of the U.S. utilities industry as it was then--imagine, post-Reagan, post-Clinton, post-Bush, post-Enron, how much less incentive there is for the utilities to be transparent and safety-conscious. Nothing against the engineers and workers on the ground, but it was clear that the executives in charge of the power plants were not to be trusted with a helium Underdog balloon for the Macy's parade, let alone fissible materials. As drdave39 suggests, the American public needs to see that this has changed in a tangible way before it tries again with nuclear energy.

The only way that mainstream American beer is drinkable is if it's really, really, REALLY cold. So maybe the advent of ubiquitous, affordable refrigeration (which is dependent on cheap electricity) paved the way for a culture of equine urine. (As Mr. McClelland mentions, ALL American beers tasted pretty much like Bud by 1960 or so. My parents' brand was Shaefer. Shudder.)

Likewise, in Europe refrigeration has always been more expensive. Hence the possibility of beer that tastes good.

Fare thee well, Budweiser--you are to beer what Twinkies are to dessert.

Jeff. Gannon.

Explain to me how that dude was given White House press credentials, then we'll talk about "liberal" media bias.

(1) Acknowledges that the Germans, not Ronald Reagan, tore down the Berlin Wall, and

(2) Acknowledges that countries besides the U.S. have lived with the threat of domestic terrorism for many years.

does this become a de facto boycott by GOP officeholders who want to keep their seats by distancing themselves from Bush and McCain?

In 2004, the name for someone with a "W" sticker on their SUV was "Republican." In 2008, the name for such a person is "slow learner" or "procrastinator" (as in, "I'll scrape that damn thing off my back window tomorrow, for sure").

Makes me wonder what the meaning of "arrogant" must be, for the first poster. Promising to sell people the same snake oil that we've been choking on for seven years, and assuming that they won't notice, seems slightly arrogant to me. My mistake. Call me bubbleboy.

"...there comes in politics a moment where what was once exhilarating ...becomes predictable and commonplace."

I look forward to being blasé about a president without contempt for the rest of the world, who doesn't filter world affairs through the lens of petro-machismo, who is well read and makes do without poisonous ideological blinders. A president who doesn't have to pretend to be an uneducated boob, who isn't afraid to pronounce "nuclear" correctly. I look forward to yawning at the same old-same old of a president who doesn't take his marching orders from the House of Saud and the shadowy entities behind the National Prayer Breakfast.

Please, please bore me, President Obama!

between such McMansion, Humvee, Disney-friendly Megachurch Evangelicalism and the "Fosterite" church described in Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"? True, the latter featured roulette wheels and an open bar in the Church sanctuary, and Warren's place of business seems to stop short of such things, but otherwise Heinlein's notion of authoritarian, paternalistic fundamentalism with a WalMart smiley face is spot on.

When I examined a few of Pickens's specifics, it became clear that his is a plan for a lot more oil drilling. The incentives for alternative fuel development are added either as window dressing or political cover for the drilling. His continued support of the GOP furnishes proof of his real intentions. He remains an oil man.