http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7611960.stm

Kai, I’d argue with you that while Al Gore didn’t put climate change on the national (or international) agenda while he was VP as much as any of us would have liked, if we instead take the example of Cheney as a VP, he’s done a whole lot more damage than if he had indeed been powerless. As the National Energy Task Force itself, in the early days of the Bush Administration, indicated, Cheney did have control over numerous decisions on energy, and he chose to engage fossil fuel industries rather than youth or innovators. http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/taskforce/tfinx.asp
I clearly don’t think Bush would have signed the Kyoto Protocol if Gore had been the VP instead of Cheney, but I do think that having a VP so closely tied to oil and fossil fuels has indeed slowed down our nation’s renewable energy transition and pushed us in an even worse direction.
The Washington Post did an excellent series on his power and his role in many decisions of which we - the public - were not aware. In it, they say, “In roles that have gone largely undetected, Cheney has served as gatekeeper for Supreme Court nominees, referee of Cabinet turf disputes, arbiter of budget appeals, editor of tax proposals and regulator in chief of water flows in his native West.” Read the whole article at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/

And Nick, what we can do is share the message — that Sarah Palin is NOT a replacement for Hillary Clinton and should not swing the votes of those who were so vehemently supporting Ms. Clinton. While I want a woman in the White House just as much as the next feminist, I want a woman who will show the doubting America that a great female leader can take our nation in an incredible direction. I’m not saying that Hillary was this, necessarily, but simply saying that a woman who is pro-life, prodrilling in ANWR and doesn’t believe in anthroporgenic climate change or in teaching evolution should not be President regardless of her sex. Furthermore, I think we can spread the message that while Sarah Palin is unknown, her stance on energy policy should not be.

Gordon, I think the country needs a lot more than a woman with a clear head, and needs leaders who see the potential of an America with a clean economy and see the drain that climate change and energy dependence are having and will have on our country. I think we need visionary leaders for change.

Also, for better or worse, I’m just adding a few thoughts on why McCain clearly didnt’ screen his VP choice quite as much as Republicans would have liked. Or, perhaps, why he just believe that opposites complement (if not attract). Why else would he have picked a candidate with a pregnant single teenage daughter (that’s no problem to me, but a problem to a whole lot of conservative Americans, who have seen Juno or no), who disagreed fundamentally with his stance on energy policy, and who has historically supported bills with federal earmarks, something that McCain is campaigning strongly against. In a great article - http://newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/31/sarah-palin-supported-ketchikan-bridge-nowhere-dur/ - Dermot Cole writes “McCain has promised to veto any bill sent to him by Congress with any earmarks. In July, the Associated Press reported that McCain wants to cut all earmarks and billions more to ‘punish lawmakers for past earmarks’.” Yet in 2005, Sarah Palin supported the move to push for $400 million in earmarks for the construction of the infamous Ketchikan bridge.

I’m terrified to say I may agree with Mr. Williams… McCain and Palin may be more electable than I hope, but I am also incredibly optimistic that America is ready for change and ready to be lead to a strong, clean, and independent economy — with Barack Obama.

Why does nothing ever change in this country?