Barack Obama, he that is now consistently being called the presumptive nominee, in the past has been less than consistent on his stance in regards to coal energy, according to a Washington Post article.  The article, posted yesterday in the blog section of the Post, notes that Obama has always walked a fine line between environmentalism and the powerful coal lobby in his home state of Illinois (which I hear will become 25% more awesome come August 1), and in this election his campaign has attempted to show Obama as a champion of clean coal.

Over the past two weeks, Obama’s campaign has run an ad in Kentucky depicting Obama as a strong friend of the coal industry, recounting his efforts on behalf of coal miners in southern Illinois and touting his success in securing $200 million in the federal budget last year for “clean coal” technologies.

Obama “helped lead the fight for clean coal to protect our environment and save good-paying American jobs,” the ad’s narrator said, in language similar to a mailing that the campaign sent out in the state.

The article points out that Obama has gone back and forth in his senate career (let’s try and not use the deadly “F” word that sunk the last candidate) on whether or not coal plants can be reconciled with clean air.   He voted against Bush’s “Clear Skies” proposal which would create anything but, yet initially pushed for huge subsidies for liquefied coal development in 2006.  He later reversed that opinion.   Nowadays,

On the presidential campaign trail, Obama has made clear his support for serious limits on carbon emissions, while here and there mentioning, as Clinton does, that he would continue to pursue research into capturing and storing emissions from coal-fired plants, so that the country can continue to use its abundant supply of the fuel, which now provides about half the country’s electricity.

His campaign Web site states bluntly that he will “use whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities” to deploy low carbon coal technology and that his “stringent cap on carbon will also make it uneconomic to site traditional coal facilities and discourage the use of existing inefficient coal facilities.”

and read the rest of the article, and also for a comparison of Clinton and Obama’s energy policies.     at this site for a good dissection of McCain’s energy policies.   You know, Obama may be the presumptive nominee, but Clinton’s still in this thing.   And remember, when you presume, you make a pre out of you and me.

I think I got that wrong.