With respect to offshore drilling

Offshore leasing can't begin until 2012 because of existing moratoriums. And, even once leasing begins, there will be a significant period of start-up before drilling can begin. According to the Department of Energy drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic and Eastern Gulf would have little impact on fuel production until 2030. Given this time line, offshore drilling is basically irrelevant now.

If Obama is willing to accept what is basically a McCain/Republican gimmick (even McCain concedes that there will be no real immediate benefit only a "psychological" one) and "allow" offshore drilling that is fine with me.

Obama has a very detailed energy plan (you can learn more on his website). Obama's energy plan will wean us from foreign oil and reduce the harm fossil fuels cause to the environment by aggressively developing alternative fuel sources and green technology and making them commercially viable. The goal here: have these new fuel sources and technologies in place as soon as feasible. By the time offshore drilling can begin (10-15-20 years?) fossil fuels will be a marginal source of energy and the need to pursue offshore drilling disappears. Obama gives away nothing here to get a lot.

Of course, implementing the plan will be an uphill battle. The oil companies and their political friends do not want alternative fuels or green technology. Moreoever, they have no desire to help wean us from foreign oil - reliance on foreign oil benefits them. They will never give it up - gas prices, national security be damned.

Compromise is NOT a naughty word

One of the reasons I support Obama is that I have high hopes that he can bring back the political art of compromise. Only through compromise is progress possible. The alternative is to keep fighting each other until our country ends up looking like the final scene in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus.

The art of compromise involves a mutually respectful and dispassionate discussion between two parties in which both sides are willing to make concessions. A skilled compromiser often walks away from the table having gotten more than he/she gave.

Compromise is good. It is the only way to move forward. We are stuck in a stagnant, putrid swamp. Stay there if you wish. But, I for one, want a better future for me and my children.

This is the change I have been waiting for.

This a great post so read it all. But its essence boils down to this: "Its the economy, stupid."

Pick-And-Choose Traditions

Those folks who want to go back to "traditional" marriages where Mom stays home and cares for a pack of kids, loves/honors/obeys etc. have to want and push for the rest of the package too.

In order for that sort of "traditional" thing to happen again, there need to be millions of good-paying stable 9-5 jobs with excellent benefits that the Average American Dad can get and keep so that Mom can stay home and do the "traditional" thing without working outside the home.

There need to be millions of quality, affordable homes in safe, supportive communties for those Average American families to live and grow in.

There needs to be a high quality health care system that the Average American family can afford on what Dad alone earns.

There needs to be an affordable-on-what-Dad-makes preschool-through-Ph.D. educational system that adequately trains all the kids of the next generation for the good-paying stable 9-5 jobs with excellent benefits that will be there for them.

There needs to be an affordable-on-what-Dad-makes high-quality old-age system so that people are not sandwiched between trying to care for their elders and children at the same time.

There needs to be a tax system that is fair and reflects the reality of what things cost today, not the fantasy of decades past.

Put all those things in place *first* and then we'll talk about "traditional" marriages. Not just for the few but for the many.

Conservatives have long talked about "family values" but then don't say how the Average American is supposed to afford them after all the traditional support of those values is removed by their own actions.

It's not a new trick; I recall a story where the workers were told they had to make bricks without straw.

-- JugSouthgate

You make a very good point: in order to evaluate poll results you need to know the polling methodology. How are poll subjects selected? From where? How many? When was the poll taken? And, the most important, what questions were asked?

All too often journalists fall to explain polling methodology. This puts readers at a distinct disadvantage. What reader has time to get this information from the polling company? Shouldn't this be part of the journalists job when he/she writes a story about poll results?

You also say that you've seen many Obama yard signs in Republican areas around Pittsburgh. And, from what I see and hear, this is true in other areas. However, pollsters dismiss this as "anecdotal evidence" but then they are not in the business of gathering anecdotal evidence. Journalists, however, should be in the business of gathering all the evidence related to a particular story. A good journalist would not only report poll results (along with polling methodology) but would also gather anecdotal evidence to paint a full picture of what is actually happening in the real world.