You won't hear me say this too often, but I couldn't agree more with the explanation that Senator McCain offered a few weeks ago. He said, "Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country."

What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those thirty years, he was in Washington for twenty-six of them. And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that - while far from perfect - represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it's important to remember that he's been a part of that failure. Now, after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal he's really promoting is more offshore drilling - a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.

I'll leave aside the attempt to praise the Cheney energy bill as a positive, even though it's a ridiculous argument.  Later he returned to attacking McCain, this time linking him to Bush and Cheney:

Senator McCain would not take the steps or achieve the goals that I outlined today. His plan invests very little in renewable sources of energy and he's opposed helping the auto industry re-tool. Like George Bush and Dick Cheney before him, he sees more drilling as the answer to all of our energy problems, and like them, he's found a receptive audience in the very same oil companies that have blocked our progress for so long. In fact, he raised more than one million dollars from big oil just last month, most of which came after he announced his plan for offshore drilling in a room full of cheering oil executives. His initial reaction to the bipartisan energy compromise was to reject it because it took away tax breaks for oil companies. And even though he doesn't want to spend much on renewable energy, he's actually proposed giving $4 billion more in tax breaks to the biggest oil companies in America - including $1.2 billion to Exxon-Mobil.

I suppose any republican is going to have a number,  or large number, of similar positions on issues--compared to a dem. However, I have thought that McCain is one of the repub senators most unlike Bush--both in terms of positions, personality and style. While McCain has supported a good number of Bush positions, he has also disagreed with Bush on various things and done some bi-partisan things that Bush didn't like.

Obama is the one in the pocket of oil companies, not McCain. Apart from Iraq, nothing is more central to the Bush legacy than those Energy Policies, legislation that was written on in secret and passed with the votes of Obama and Durbin.

Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as "the sum of all lobbies." U.S. PIRG noted that the bill's "heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC."

The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a "piñata of perks for energy industries." Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry.And contrary to the ad, Obama has received more money from oil companies than McCain overall. Obama excludes monies recd last year and double counts monies given to the RNC as money given to McCain.

If you're going to make the argument that McCain has been wrong when it mattered, you have to show how Obama has been right when it mattered.

But, the one thing I'm noticing lately is that the Democrats are looking like a pretty humorless bunch.  

McCain is doing funny ads (like the Moses one).  Rather than laugh, like everyone else is doing, the Democrats are hand-wringing and trying to psychoanalyze the real meaning behind the ad.  

We can't say that McCain has flip-flopped because then we can't say that he is the same as Bush?  Whatever.

The real reason we can't say that McCain has flip-flopped is because our candidate has done a couple of whoppers. FISA, public financing, offshore oil drilling... ring a bell?

From the point of view of someone on the left, the sad fact is that our candidate is short of plusses. And getting shorter each passing day.

"McCain = Bush" themes reinforce Republican base votes.  "Flip-flop" themes remind Republicans why they never felt secure with McCain, and alienate unaligned voters.

As an Independent, Hillary is still my first vote.  Nader is my second.

The only good reason I can find to vote for Obama is that he is black -(I am immune to political correctness as a diversity trainer, so don't even try to turn that into a negative. The goal is not a color blind society, but a color inclusive one.  As a white/first nation lesbian woman, that's how i see it and live it. How we get there is the question.) - purely for the uplifting effect it can have on all people of color in this country.  Breaking the racial ceiling is vital to our future as a whole and healing nation.  He can only be so inept. I think more good than harm can come from it.  Of course, I would have loved to have had Hillary break through the gender ceiling.  But, she is right when she says that we have all put 18 million cracks in it.  If she became VP, there would be little left to support either bias save for class.  They will dwindle away as they are fed less and less of our fears and ignorance.