-----------

     "Hillary Clinton had no credible opposition. She could have said anything in her commercials, and what did she do? She came out against child molestors.

If you're going to spend $29 million to get re-elected against nobody, why not raise an issue that needs to be raised? She could easily have talked about energy and global warming, and probably won by an even bigger margin."

------------

Maybe Hillary aware of but is very ignorant of the Energy problem - so she decided it's better to keep her mouth shut rather than open it and remove all doubt?

I'm assuming that you have written or talked to your congressional representatives and others about this problem. I'd be interested in hearing  your views about Schweickert and Tester, for that matter.  My respresentatives still seem clueless about how just mouthing their support of alternative fuels is not going to get the job done.  

Schewickert of Montana seems more knowledgeable that most, but I fear he is a bit too glib about the promise of coal to diesel with respect to its co2 sequstrations potential and its impact on Montana water supply.

Boxer will be conducting hearings on global warming. I hope this will yield some light on the fact that we have to quit harping on so called alternative energy as a magic bullet.  

The basic problem, however, is that people perceive conservation and efficiency as sacrifice.  We still operate under the Bushian paradigm that the American way of life is non negotiable. This means that any move to conservation is considered unacceptable.

It would be great is you or someone like you could testify when these issues come up.  Or maybe your company wouldn't be particularly wild about that.