"Good.  Well I think it is an excellent question and let me tell you that I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal and so I am not a nuclear energy proponent.  It is true that Illinois has the most nuclear power plants of any state in the country and that makes me that much more concerned about safety issues since I have a nine year old and a six year old daughter who live in that state.  So the only nuclear legislation that I've passed has been to make sure that the nuclear industry has to disclose whatever they admit anything that might be considered radioactive and share that with local and state communities. I just did that last year.

He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

So the only nuclear legislation that I've passed has been to make sure that the nuclear industry has to disclose whatever they admit anything that might be considered radioactive and share that with local and state communities. I just did that last year.

I don't see how Gore can endorse him now (the Cheney Energy Bill vote would have enough) and I think the same with Edwards and the Harry and Louise flyer.

As an IL resident, I've been less than impressed with Mr. Obama's centrism, yet have a different take  on the article than Jerilyn.  I don't mind the consensus building that this bill seems to point out; I'm more interested in the fact that he told Iowa voters that he actually passed the legislation when the exact opposite is true. I'm sure Obama had the best intentions in his compromise, yet cannot respect blatant falsehoods from a public offical.  

Additionally, as a former Edwards supporter, Obama's performance here is not what I want from a candidate. In my opinion the corporate control of our legislation is THE issue that lies behind all issues, from health care, to alternative energy sources, to our bloated military budget, involvement in Iraq, immigration reform, marijuana decriminalization, and a host of other issues.  

Obama's willingess to compromise with Republicans makes me nervous.

Obama was in the minority party at the time, and the committee chair was the anti-environmental Jim Inhofe.  The alternative to compromise was no bill at all.

1. Campaign donations:  another reason the Exelon donations can't be used as a strict index of nuclear industry support for Obama is obvious.  I have friends at Sandia National Labs who donated to Kerry, but that doesn't mean that he was supported by the defense-industrial complex.  They just wanted a good president.  In other words, Obama has lots of fans at Exelon (including the CEO).  Whatever.


2. However, the following IS somewhat shady:

   In addition, Mr. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod's company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

   That clearly goes beyond simply donations.

And people say Hillary is "beholden to corporate interests".

If Barack wins the nomination, the big money behind the powersick will go with a full court press - He may be moderate, but he's a Democrat.  Uplifting rhetoric will not win the day.  

The dreamers of Kennedy, like the dreamers of Reagan, replay a very selective history for us.  I say, green is green and new is new. On what would I base my suspension of disbelief that the brc will leave scorched earth behind?  

As Frank Herbert noted "Anyone who thinks the Democrats are a lock to win in November has somehow forgotten about Karl Rove, the right-wing radio network, the hanging chads of 2000, the Swift boat debacle, the intimidation of black voters in Florida, the long lines of Democratic voters standing forlornly in the rain in Ohio, and on and on"

I can't envision, nor would I want, a productive post partisan dialog until the this 21st century gilded age has ended.

Hillary articulates needed plans, as well as a reasoned left leaning vision. I'm really eager to see her in action with an increased majority of legistators. Of these two candidates, Hillary is the best choice now for the USA.  

For Hillary to win in spite of the attack machine, would put a proper smackdown onto the foes of democracy. The hate mongers are not her fault, and should reexamine their own motivation.