Why can't they say "Bring those energy costs down" instead of bring those gas prices down? Renewables may keep energy prices stable if implemented widely enough. It's like a verbal tic that everyone has to talk about gas prices instead of energy prices. Then both Andrew and Barack would be right.

If Obama follows the advice of his economic counsel, his policies will not find appeal with the HTWW populist crowd. Austan Goolsbee, Jeff Liebman and David Cutler have more moderate, sensible views. Take Mr. Goolsbee's word on his pro-NAFTA commentary. My advice, ignore what candidates say on the stump. Research their advisors.

is that if we run our cars on an alternative, demand for gasoline will drop, and with it, gas prices.

Now McCain might not be much of an economist, and to someone taking this at face value, this $400 billion seems quite reckless. Let's not be foolish, we are not going to pay any of this back - my grandchildren's generation is going to have bigger problems to worry about in a post peak-oil world than paying off old IOUs.

I'm not sure how you equate "moderate" with sensible when Obama's going to have about 30 years worth of catching up to do on energy independence and about 12 years worth on trade relations. By populist, I think you probably mean progressive. There is a difference. And as far as I can tell from his voting record and public statements Obama is a center progressive. Someone who thiks government should regulate the economy to a certain extent but keep out of peoples private lives. A populist is someone who thinks that both personal choice and the economy should be regulated by government.

Take a look at www.ontheissues.org/Barak_Obama.htm

I tend to think that if we manage to shake our massive oil-lust, fuel prices will drop simply because the need for it has decreased. It would seem to be a fairly simple result of the old "supply and demand" classic. After all, Obama isn't looking for or promising lower prices tomorrow, but sometime in the future. And maybe by then it just won't matter.

That Obama is ignoring Clinton, as he should. She is history she just hasn't admitted it yet. Obama is a leader, has vision, Clinton is (a good) politician, looks at polls, that's why she voted for the war, not cause it was right or made sense.

and off topic, sorry.

In a way, I hope Hillary keeps at it, kind of, and that Obama mostly doesn't address her. This not to any love or hate of either - either beats McCain for me 11 times out of 10.

One of my problems with Kerry, and to a far lesser extent Gore, was how it seemed to the masses like they gave up quickly. Sticktoit-itiveness is something people seem to desire, even if wrongheaded, and regardless of the legal correctness of these two fellows' actions the gen pop took it as wimpiness. I almost think if it were a switch in parties, the republicans would still be fighting either now, *AND* they'd be applauded for it as more American.

I see a potential double win with what's going on now. Both Hillary and Obama come out as people who just won't stop fighting until it really, really is a done deal. Without commenting on the veracity of this statement, Obama is campaigning on the idea that you can be an adult (fewer rocks & less mud slung) and still run for president.

I don't know if it will work. It could easily implode. It's too early to make these kinds of predictions. An October surprise is hardly the only possible wrench in the works.

We'll see, I suppose.

. . . yes, the dialogue has moved on, even among posters to this site. How refreshing to be seeing this sort of discussion about an actual issue. Finally.

Advocating higher gas prices "to save the planet" misses on several points.

First, higher gas prices adversely impact lower-income people to a greater degree. These people have fewer options available because of their economic status, and can't afford to simply run out and buy a Prius to feel better about themselves.

Second, while we may harbor the illusion that higher prices by themselves will do great things, what we really need is not higher prices, we need a replacement for transportation technologies that rely on gasoline. (See the above reason for one example of why...)

And, we also need to do a lot more than reduce gasoline consumption. Ending a combustion-based energy infrastructure overall would be a good start.

Finally, our greatest need - leadership with the vision to develop real solutions based on the above reasons.

And once and for all, the planet will be just fine with or without us. The biosphere, maybe not so much. Terms do have meaning...

Etrigone, your idea that Gore and Kerry gave up too easily is right-the-heck-on. Why in the world did Al Gore quit the fight when he quit? Did W. have naked Gore photos? Did Gore go along with the silly pompous idea that "America needs a President-Elect - The provicial dopuses will revolt if we have no President-Elect?"

Fight on, Hillary! Fight on, rational humans!

Andrew Leonard needs to learn a little bit more about subjects he is covering before he deems himself fit to cover them.

As Senator Obama rightly stated, green energy jobs are the way we are going to "save the planet". By developing a profitable renewable energy economy we will be able to not only meet future demands for energy without being subject to the ups and downs of market demand, but we will create a stable sector of our own economy to weather oil induced recessionary blips.

The idea of raising gas prices to get people to use less gas is not only archaic, but also based on a theory that you can shape public demand through government policy instead of government policy being shaped by public demand.

Hello, we live in a democracy - things aren't supposed to work that way and if you really think that works, I got three words for you - "War. On. Drugs".

How's that going?

Sure we have an insatiable need for energy in the U.S., but we also have a serious streak of green that runs through even the average American. Combining the two into a new business sector not only makes sense because of the potential synergy and foreign policy benefits, but because it speaks deeply to the inner capitalist in all of us.

But anyway, continue to cling on to the same old tired "plan" that groups like the Sierra Club have been pushing for years despite mounting failures after failures. The rest of us who finally get it will harness capitalism and market forces to save our environment while you and your friends finger wag and "tut tut" us along the way.

Even as I write this down, I am still undecided as to if Andrew Leonard actually knew all this and just decided to take a cheap shot at Sen. Obama for personal reasons, or if he actually really is an intellectual throwback from 1992.

I find it startlingly scary that someone who ostensibly covers politics for an established media outlet wouldn't know exactly the direction that energy policy in the USA is heading and the (well founded) reasons why.