You should embed the videos.

I'm glad you've demonstrated zero understanding about "clean coal" or the energy needs and sources our nation uses in this slam on Obama. But a suggestion for the future- a little research goes a long way towards not looking foolish.

Although given the amount of coal we use and the fact that these days, it's about the only thing we're a net exporter of, it had better be done more cleanly.

so he's aiming at coal miners and jobs, and indirectly the coal industry of course...are there other issues in KY?  The $$ for clean coal is really for illinois, not KY.  I noticed he left out his vote for the Cheney energy plan.

No mine safety, no health stuff, no environmental issues covered.  No role of the federal government in regulation of mine safety.  No facts on contribution to global warming.

I think this ad should be played in Oregon for the environmenatl community especially, so they understand, and in Nevada, the site of a recent coal mining disaster. I think South Dakota and Montana Tribes would like to see this.

I share some concern about this emphasis, but how much of this is tied to necessity?  Some reflection on coal mining, clean coal, and alternative sources would be good for a diary like this.

Let's be substantive here - there's a quote on the youtube page for your second link about a quote I remember Clinton making just a few months back.

"I sure would like people who could be objective understanding both the economic necessities and the environmental damage." "maybe there is away to recover those mountain tops once they have been stripped of coal." "I just think we have to look at this from a practical perspective." 3/20/08 wvpr - Clinton direct verbatum quote

This really is a tricky issue.  Do any major candidates have good energy policy when it comes to dealing with coal?

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/0 4/28/velshi-coal-solution/

I don't agree with more fossil fuel use. But I'll bet this pander of Obama's goes over a lot better for him that Hillary's gas tax pander did for her.

But it is consistent with what has Obama has been saying about coal all along (a position I've disagreed with), so it doesn't even rank as opportunistic.

In all seriousness, Obama's "pro-clean coal" position is one that people have criticized even before he ran for President.

Take it or leave it.  It's a complicated issue, but you can't accuse him of pandering to West Virginia for advertising on a position he's always held.

Obama's always had this position, and has said he'd require certain environmental standards to be met before supporting coal.

Those standards aren't currently met, obviously, and I doubt they will be, but I'm ok with the idea that IF (BIIIIIIIIG "IF") we can seriously reduce harmful emissions, it's worth looking into.

I'm not optimistic about this happening, but I see no reason to take it off the table as a potential energy source so long as its use is tied to technology to make it cleaner.

To bad Hillary has a similiar position.  Good luck trying to win coal swing states like Virginia and Colorado, running with Al Goresque environmental policies.  

Promoting the use of coal makes any environmentalist's skin crawl, but unless we build a bunch of nuclear power plants (itself a dubious proposition for other reasons), we'll be using alot of coal for the next 50 years at least.

In 21 debates, was there ever a question about electricity generation, the environment, and climate change?

Every candidate has to come out in support of coal mining, out of necessity.  I would prefer expansion of nuclear power in the short term, but then, I realize that I'm in the minority there as well.

"Far to the right on health and the economy"-Haha...where do you come up with this