So what else is new? This one from Factcheck clearly catches him again. <link>

how Republicans have framed their comments, like "Clear Skies Initiative". Finally, I believe the American people are getting wise to this Bushit.

They sliiped in their strategy. It used to be implying but McCain's so stupid the's easily caught with video and file tape. Sure says a lot about failing memory.

"I have not ruled out nuclear . . . , but only so far as it is clean and safe".

Obama is from Illinois - the state most dependent on nuclear power, with 13 operating plants. What he is really saying is that during the current political campaign, he is unwilling to risk annoying those environmental groups within his party that are still opposed to nuclear power. But instead of being HONEST about his position, he has used political "double speak" to say NO.

Ron

but here in IN, not far from Obama's Chicago, we have a failed nuclear plant constructed near the lakeshore. It was a plant that was not operational because of shoddy construction and the fact it's unsafe. NIPSCO (our untility) tried to soak the customers for the cost of that debacle and thank God, we have a strong regulatory commission that laughed them out of the meeting. It isn't political speech. There's such as thing as safe rather than sorry.

RCH1:

"I have not ruled out nuclear . . . , but only so far as it is clean and safe".

Obama is from Illinois - the state most dependent on nuclear power, with 13 operating plants. What he is really saying is that during the current political campaign, he is unwilling to risk annoying those environmental groups within his party that are still opposed to nuclear power. But instead of being HONEST about his position, he has used political "double speak" to say NO.

Ron

Your claim is baseless and obviously biased. Obama has been very clear in his concerns; not about nuclear energy, but in nuclear waste. It is not quite as simple as you would pretend.

<link>

The United States currently has at least 108 sites it currently designates as areas that are contaminated and unusable, sometimes many thousands of acres. The DOE wishes to try and clean or mitigate many or all by 2025, however the task can be difficult and it acknowledges that some will never be completely remediated, and just in one of these 108 larger designations,

Nuclear reactors produce High level waste, the effects of which will linger for 10,000 to 1,000,000 years.

The amount of HLW worldwide is currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year, which is the equival to about 100 double-decker busses or a two-story structure built on top of a basketball court.

Believe it or not, there are alternatives to our current storage methods which need to be explored, such as transmutation reuse of waste space disposal.

<link>

Hardly due to "shoddy construction" - Bailly Nuclear One was abandoned in 1981 after a mere $191 million had been spent with only one percent of the construction being completed. The facility was beseiged by lengthy court delays due to "environmental opposition" and though NIPSCO finally "won" their court case in the Indiana state supreme court, the cost increases due to the lenghty delays caused NIPSCO to abandon their plans to complete the project.

Ron

I live not too far from Bailey and there were any number of articles in our local paper about faults found in the construction. It's still sitting out there and no one has figured out what to do about it.

I don't find safety concerns in shipping nuclear waste politcal dodging but a real conern to people in this area. It isn't known as the crossroads of America for no reason.

Strange, isn't it, that France is able to operate 59 nuclear power plants, producing 99.8% of France's power production while effectively dealing with the "problem" of nuclear waste. Not only are they able to produce enough power for the entire country, they are able to "export" 18% of their total production.

Ron