Actually, for everyone hoping I'm a troll, I was actually impressed that effort may have went into a diary.  It's possible that, once in a while, the issue isn't what candidate you support but what standard you have for fundamental discourse.  I'm glad someone's bothering to put in some time.

Don't worry. You will soon get so sick of the trolls enough that you will remember for next time.

EXCELLENT DIARY!

That smart little girl was so cute.

"Obama"

Very good job.

It's a shame the trolls will probably ruin the comment thread with lame attacks.

Oh well, I guess those who can, do; and those who can't, take cheap shots at those who do.

I know you are the Obama policy guru so I look forward to your in depth breakdowns.

At least no one is DEAD as a result.

I addressed this same area on another thread so I'll repost it here.  The confusion, if there is one, on his position comes more from people expecting the same old politics where they expect if a politician comes out and talks positively about the needs of the Coal Industry and Coal workers that he will cave in to anything the Coal Industry wants.  But this perception is due to how other politicians have acted in the past more than how Obama has.  Here's what I wrote before:

Coal accounts for 50% of our nation's electricity.  It employs thousands of workers, it is a major source of energy for China and India.  The confusion about Obama's position comes looking at him through our normal political prism where being willing to talk about an issue really means championing it, where seeking to find consensus and creative solutions really means to capitulate.  But that's not how he works.  He stays true to his principals while exploring all avenues to accomplish his goals.  

The Bush administration found this out in this very area of coal.  I found an interesting detail of this from the recent Washington Post article "Coal Fuels A Debate Over Obama":  

On 2004 campaign visits to the region (Southern Illinois), Obama stuck up for the coal industry by criticizing pollution rules proposed by President Bush that Obama said unfairly favored Western coal and rallying behind workers who had lost their health benefits in mine bankruptcies.
After his election, Obama's commitment to the region was quickly tested. On the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he found himself the deciding vote on Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative to replace rules for coal-fired power plants with a system of pollution credits, which environmentalists attacked as a risky loosening of limits.

The Bush administration targeted Obama, banking on his rhetoric about thinking outside party lines and his concern for Downstate Illinois. But in the end, he held firm in opposition, saying the bill would worsen pollution while not helping the Illinois coal industry as much as claimed. The bill died in committee on a tie vote. Reaction was swift.

"All of [his] dialogue and rhetoric during the campaign had been pro-coal, and we saw this as a pro-coal initiative," Carbondale Mayor Brad Cole (R) said.

Three months later, Obama saw an opportunity to win back goodwill. He attached a provision to the 2005 energy bill for $85 million over five years to test using Illinois coal to produce transportation fuel.

What Bush and the Carbondale Mayor did not get was Obama stays consistent to his positions.  He is a solid environmentalist and is not going to sacrifice his commitment to improving our environment.  He is also committed to the people of the region and sympathetic to what the Coal Industry represents in terms of jobs in the area.  But instead of sacrificing one for the other or playing them off  against each other, he looks to satisfy both without compromising his ideals.  He stayed firm to his environmental stance while at the same time delivered to the Industry, and thus to the people, helping to save their jobs while at the same time pushing the Industry toward research which could be pro-environment.

Now the same people are crying once more, that in doing this they thought he was really pro-Coal and now he's slipping away again by demanding that CTL technology have 20% lower CO2 emissions than petroleum-based fuels.  If he was going to cave environmentally, he would have passed Bush's dirty Clear Skies Initiative in the first place.  He's not pro-Coal, in fact he's pro-Renewables, but he is pro-Coal worker and if there's a way to be that and lower our CO2 emissions, and reduce our dependance on foreign oil, then that is what he's going to do.  

I agree, but in some of the schools in Chicago, they need it.  Teachers are in the old mode of doing things, alot don't care or give a damn.  I agree, they should have a rate increase, because they are critical in forming young minds, but go to some impoverished areas with 20 yr old books dated, no computers, etc.  It is pathetic.  Drop out rates are climbing at a higher rate.  This is a double edge sword, and with the supreme court ruling, poor kids, or just that one bright kid who would benefit going to a "white" school that is more academically accelerated, will now never get a chance.

Screw the teachers union. I care about the children (our future!).

Merit pay in teaching is long overdue.

Yeah, they do a daily one.  Why?  I just do a weekly one, and believe me, I need a stiff 'tini, when through.

However that boy is long.  I just started reading the first two pages and man is it an amazing article.

I do not have time today but when I get off work tomorrow, assuming nobody else has done one, I will take up the task.

Thanks for the link.  Great read.

That is an amazing article and one that naysayers who are bent on demonizing Barack Obama do not want to read. I wonder what bebe thinks of this article. I would really be interested , but she might not read it. It's five whole pages worth of Barack Obama , himself, debunking what she and others , thinks is going through his mind. Totally excellent article though. I absolutely loved it.