Kunstler's Daily Grunt from yesterday seems relevant here:

-----------

     "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 think Hillary is aware of energy issues and GW, but speaking out against child molesters is about as non-controversial as it gets. With energy and GW there are counter-arguments to be made. Not so with child molestation.

We can't be decieved into believing senators aren't aware of energy issues and GW. We really have to make our government leaders more accountable and not just assume that since they aren't talking about these issues they must not be aware of them.

Tom A-B

Also she can get less corporate cash from those companies that oppose those ideas. Its all about the money for her. As a Democrat I will really fight against her being the nomination, right now I'm leaning to Wesley Clark, but I haven't investigated him on energy related issues more deeply. That might be an interesting post at some point, to figure out where all the presidential candidates in both parties are on these issues.