Obama Elections Disadvantage-Shared Version: Negative

CHKP 7Wk. JRs. UM 08 MNDI Elections- Shared.
Obama Elections Disadvantage- Shared Version

NEGATIVE:
Obama Elections Disadvantage- Shared Version.........................................................................................................1

Obama Elections DA INC............................................................................................................................................3
Obama Elections DA INC CONTINUED....................................................................................................................4
Obama Elections DA INC CONTINUED....................................................................................................................5
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Obama will Win..........................................................................................................6
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Obama will Win- A2 Hillary Supporters....................................................................9
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Obama winning on Energy Issue..............................................................................11
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Obama ahead with Independents...............................................................................12
Obama Elections Uniqueness- A2 Uniqueness O/W Link.........................................................................................13
Obama Elections Uniqueness- A2 Uniqueness O/W Link.........................................................................................14
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Link Uniqueness- No Energy legislation Coming....................................................15
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Link Uniqueness- No Energy legislation Coming....................................................16
Obama Elections Links- Popular Bush Initiative key to McCain Victory.................................................................17
Obama Elections Links- McCain tied to Bush Initiatives..........................................................................................18
Obama Elections Links- McCain tied to Bush Initiatives..........................................................................................19
Obama Elections Links- Renewable/Alternative Energy Popular with Public..........................................................20
Obama Elections Links- RPS Legislation Popular with Public..................................................................................24
Obama Elections Links- Solar Energy Popular with Public.......................................................................................25
Obama Elections Links- Solar Energy Popular with Public.......................................................................................26
Obama Elections Links- Wind Energy Popular with Public......................................................................................27
Obama Elections Links- Nuclear Energy Popular with Public..................................................................................28
Obama Elections Links- Nuclear Energy Popular with Public..................................................................................29
Obama Elections Links- Addressing Global Warming popular with Public..............................................................30
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the
environment now or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest
New York Times/CBS News poll finds. Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent
of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects
on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were
needed. Several recent international reports have concluded with near certainty that human activities are the main
cause of global warming since 1950. The poll found that 84 percent of Americans see human activity as at least
contributing to warming. The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to
be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce
reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal. ....................................................................................................................30
Obama Elections Links- Net Metering popular with Public......................................................................................31
Obama Elections Links- Climate/Environment key 2008 Election Issue..................................................................32
Obama Elections Links- Energy key 2008 Election Issue..........................................................................................33
Obama Elections Links- Gas Prices key 2008 Election Issue....................................................................................34
Obama Elections Impacts- Obama victory key to US Soft Power.............................................................................35
Obama Elections Impacts- Obama victory key to US Soft Power.............................................................................36
Obama Elections Impacts- Soft Power key to US Hegemony...................................................................................37
Obama Elections Impacts- Soft Power key to US Hegemony...................................................................................38
Obama Elections Impacts- US Hegemony Good Impacts..........................................................................................39
1
Obama Elections Impacts- Iran Strike Bad 2NC Impact Scenario.............................................................................40
Obama Elections Impacts- Obama key to resolving Iran issue Peacefully................................................................41
Obama Elections Impacts- McCain would attack Iran...............................................................................................42
Obama Elections Impacts- Iran Strike Bad Impacts...................................................................................................43
Obama Elections DA- Uniqueness- Obama will Lose...............................................................................................45
Obama Elections DA- Uniqueness- Obama will Lose...............................................................................................47
Obama Elections DA- Uniqueness- Obama tied with McCain..................................................................................49
Obama Elections DA- Links- Popular Bush Initiative doesn’t cause McCain Victory.............................................50
Obama Elections DA- Links- Aff. Plan wouldn’t be a Win for Bush/McCain..........................................................51
Obama Elections DA- Links- Aff. Plan wouldn’t be a Win for Bush/McCain..........................................................52
Obama Elections DA- Links- Energy/Environment not key Election Issues.............................................................53
Obama Elections DA- Links- Environment/Climate not key Election Issues............................................................54
Obama Elections DA- Links- Environment/Climate not key Election Issues............................................................56
Obama Elections DA- Links- RPS Unpopular...........................................................................................................57
Obama Elections DA- Links- Carbon Tax Unpopular...............................................................................................59
Obama Elections DA- Links- Ethanol Unpopular......................................................................................................60
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- Obama win won’t increase US Soft Power.............................................................61
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- McCain win would increase US Soft Power...........................................................62
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- VISA Procedures A/C to US Soft Power................................................................63
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- Death Penalty A/C to US Soft Power.....................................................................64
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- US Hegemony Bad Impacts....................................................................................65
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- US won’t strike Iran................................................................................................66
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- Obama Victory causes US strike against Iran.........................................................68
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- Obama Victory causes Israeil strike against Iran....................................................69
2
Obama Elections DA INC
A. Uniqueness
Obama will win an extremely close election, as he currently is projected to win 284 electoral votes
Birmingham Weekly, June 26, 2008, p. http://www.bhamweekly.com/article.php?article_id=00854
• Currently, Obama enjoys “strong” leads in six states, accounting for a total 45 electoral votes, is the
“probable” winner in eight states with 133 total electoral votes, and has five states with 57 total votes
“leaning” his way; of the 11 tossup states, Obama leads in four, with the 49 electoral votes in those states
bringing his current total to 284 and making him, at this point, the next President of the United States.
• McCain’s current total of 254 electoral votes comes from seven “strong” states with 47 total votes, 10
“probable” states with 90 votes, four “leaners” with 38 votes and seven “tossups” with 76 votes. • A final
note: This is likely to be an extremely close election, as evidenced in part by the relatively few states that can
be considered a sure bet for either candidate. At this point, Obama can count on winning only the District of
Columbia, Hawaii, his home state of Illinois, and Vermont, which together account for just 31 of the 270 electoral
votes needed to win. McCain fares slightly better, with leads that appear to be insurmountable in Alabama,
Kentucky, Tennessee and Utah, giving him a starting base of 33 electoral votes. The rest, as we shall see, remain
largely up for grabs.
B. Links
1. American public universally supports development of alternative energy sources

New York Times, “Public Says Warming Is a Problem, but Remains Split on Response”, Lexis-Nexis, April 27,
2007
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth's atmosphere is having serious effects on the
environment now or will soon and think that it is
Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles
with ethanol, which is now made largely from corn, is a good idea, the survey found. They also are nearly evenly
split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. When asked whether they
would accept a nuclear plan in their community, they said no, 59 percent to 36 percent. The nationwide telephone
poll was conducted Friday to Tuesday with 1,052 adults. The margin-of-sampling error is plus or minus three
percentage points. Nearly four of five of those polled said they believed that the condition of the air, water, land
and wildlife around the world was fair or poor. One percent rated global environmental quality as excellent, and 19
percent called it good. But 56 percent said the environmental condition in their communities was excellent or good.
Despite general optimism about their children's future found in other surveys, respondents in this poll said by 57
percent to 11 percent that the condition of the environment would be worse for the next generation. Fifty-two
percent said that generally speaking they would support protecting the environment over stimulating the economy.
Thirty-six percent chose the economy. But respondents also said, 62 percent to 21 percent, that developing new
energy sources was more important than protecting the environment. Yet they also expressed the belief that the
government should encourage conservation over increasing development of additional energy sources. By a substantial margin, Americans continue to oppose drilling for
oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as they have for the last six years. Although respondents split almost evenly on whether Washington
can effectively address global warming, they almost unanimously (92 percent to 6 percent) supported requiring automobile manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient cars.
There is more opposition to using fossil fuels among Democrats than Republicans. Fifty-four percent of Democrats consider using coal to generate electricity to be a bad
idea, compared with 39 percent of Republicans. Sixty-one percent of Republicans favor using natural gas to generate power, while Democrats divided, with 42 percent
saying it is a good idea and 45 percent opposing it. Americans almost universally support developing alternative energy sources like wind or solar power and biofuels, with
87 percent expressing approval. But fewer than 10 percent of those polled said they used any alternative energy source at home.
3
Obama Elections DA INC CONTINUED
2. A popular policy initiative like the Affirmative plan would allow Bush to secure enough voters for
McCain to win the election
Jonah Goldberg, Editor at large of National Review Online and syndicated columnist and a member of USA
TODAY's board of contributors, USA TODAY, September 4, 2007, p. Lexis
At home, Bush's options are far more constrained. But again, Clinton might be the model. The Democratic
Congress is -- astonishingly -- even more unpopular than President Bush. If Bush can pick some well-chosen
fights with Congress, ideally over spending, he might at least bring back disheartened members of his own political
base. Bush might also borrow from Clinton's post-1994 playbook of proposing a lot of small, very popular (and
mostly insipid) programs and initiatives. Clinton had his school uniforms and V-chips. Surely the authors of
compassionate conservatism could conjure similar treacle. Ideally, such proposals would unite a majority of
Americans but divide moderate Democrats from the party's left-wing base (spare me the rending of clothes and
gnashing of teeth over the cruelty of "wedge issues"). A goal: Just change the climate For example, paying inner-
city students to get good grades -- a proposal backed by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former U.S.
House speaker Newt Gingrich alike -- might be a good idea with the added benefit of possibly annoying teacher's
unions. Such ideas are hard to come up with, never mind sell, particularly given Bush's liabilities and the media
climate generally. But the president needn't get such ideas passed, he need only get them discussed in order to
recalibrate the political climate more in his favor. It wouldn't be easy, but he still has the biggest megaphone in the
country. He also holds the veto pen. Bush seemed to have lost it in the Oval Office couch cushions for much of his
presidency, but the Democratic takeover inspired him to find it. Given the Democrats' need to placate their own
base in order to prove all that effort in '06 was worth it, Bush could have some fat opportunities to rally the
majority of Americans, or at least his own base, to the GOP side.
3. Energy and gas prices key to the 2008 presidential election- not foreign policy
The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room June 17, "Hutchison: Biggest Election Issues are Energy, Gas Prices, Food
Costs." The Hill's Blog Briefing Room 17 June 2008. 28 June 2008
<http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06/17/hutchison-biggest-election-issues-are-energy-gas-prices-food-costs/>.
For anyone still thinking that foreign policy will dominate this year's election cycle, a Senate Republican press
conference Tuesday will serve as a wake-up call. "I think the biggest issues that this election will be decided on
this year is energy, the cost of gasoline at the pump, the cost of food in the food stores," said Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchison (R-Texas). Her statements come on the same afternoon that John McCain plans to give a speech calling
for domestic oil drilling to help decrease the United States' dependence on foreign oil. Hutchison went on to tout
McCain's plan to increase the domestic energy supply and criticize Democrats for failing to match it with one of
their own. "All of these things are a package that Americans will be able to see would give us energy independence
by the year 2025," Hutchison said of McCain's proposals. "That is something Americans can grasp as a goal. And
John McCain is putting that forward."
4
Obama Elections DA INC CONTINUED
C. Impacts
1. Obama victory will restore America’s soft power as a nation
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and Sultan of Oman Professor of
International Relations, June 12, 2008, p. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-obama-and-
soft-pow_b_106717.html
Unfortunately, a President Obama will inherit a number of policy problems such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Iran and North Korea where hard power plays a large role. If he drops the ball on any of these issues, they will
devour his political capital. At the same time, he will have to be careful not to let this inherited legacy of problems
define his presidency. Some time between November 4 and January 20, he will need to indicate a new tone in
foreign policy which shows that we will once again export hope rather than fear. This could take several forms:
announcement of an intent to close Guantanamo; dropping the term "global war on terror;" creation of a special
bipartisan group to formulate a new policy on climate change; a "listening trip" to Asia, and so forth. Electing
Obama will greatly help restore America's soft power as a nation that can recreate itself, but the election alone will
not be sufficient. It is not too soon to start thinking about symbols and policies for the days immediately after the
election.
2. US soft power prevents 30 regional conflicts from going nuclear

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and Sultan of Oman Professor of International
Relations, Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1996, p. InfoTrac
While generally less threatening to U.S. interests than global or regional balance of power conflicts, communal conflicts are the most likely kind of post-cold war conflict
and have thus far proved the most frequent. Less than 10 percent of the 170 states in today's world are ethnically homogenous. Only half have one ethnic group that accounts
for as much as 75 percent of their population. Africa, in particular, is a continent of a thousand ethnic and linguistic groups squeezed into some 50-odd states, many of them
with borders determined by colonial powers in the last century with little regard to traditional ethnic boundaries. The former Yugoslavia was a country with five
nationalities, four languages, three religions, and two alphabets. As a result of such disjunctions between
borders and peoples, there have been some 30 communal conflicts since the end of the Cold War, many of
them still ongoing.
Communal conflicts, particularly those involving wars of secession, are very difficult to manage through the UN and other institutions built to address interstate conflicts.
The UN, regional organizations, alliances, and individual states cannot provide a universal answer to the dilemma of self-determination versus the inviolability of
established borders, particularly when so many states face potential communal conflicts of their own. In a world of identity crises on many levels of analysis, it is not clear
which selves deserve sovereignty: nationalities, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, or religious groups. Similarly, uses of force for deterrence, compellence, and reassurance
are much harder to carry out when both those using force and those on the receiving end are disparate coalitions of international organizations, states, and subnational
groups.
Moreover, although few communal conflicts by themselves threaten security beyond their regions, some impose risks of "horizontal" escalation, or the spread to other states
within their respective regions. This can happen through the involvement of affiliated ethnic groups that spread across borders, the sudden flood of refugees into
neighboring states, or the use of neighboring territories to ship weapons to combatants. The use of ethnic
propaganda also raises the risk of "vertical" escalation to more intense violence, more sophisticated and
destructive weapons, and harsher attacks on civilian populations as well as military personnel. There is also
the danger that communal conflicts could become more numerous if the UN and regional security
organizations lose the credibility, willingness, and capabilities necessary to deal with such conflicts.
Preventing and Addressing Conflicts: The Pivotal U.S. Role
Leadership by the United States, as the world's leading economy, its most powerful military force, and a leading democracy, is a key factor in
limiting the frequency and destructiveness of great power, regional, and communal conflicts. The paradox of the post-cold war role of the United
States is that it is the most powerful state in terms of both "hard" power resources (its economy and military forces) and "soft" ones (the appeal of its
political system and culture), yet it is not so powerful that it can achieve all its international goals by acting alone. The United States lacks both the
international and domestic prerequisites to resolve every conflict, and in each case its role must be proportionate to its interests at stake and the costs of
pursuing them. Yet the United States can continue to enable and mobilize international coalitions to pursue shared security interests, whether or
not the United States itself supplies large military forces.
The U.S. role will thus not be that of a lone global policeman; rather, the United States can frequently serve as the sheriff of the posse, leading
shifting coalitions of friends and allies to address shared security concerns within the legitimizing framework of international organizations. This
requires sustained attention to the infrastructure and institutional mechanisms that make U.S. leadership effective and joint action possible: forward
stationing and preventive deployments of U.S. and allied forces, prepositioning of U.S. and allied equipment, advance planning and joint training to
ensure interoperability with allied forces, and steady improvement in the conflict resolution abilities of an interlocking set of bilateral alliances, regional
security organizations and alliances, and global institutions.
5
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Obama will Win
Obama holds a narrow lead over McCain because he is ahead in numerous swing sates, but national polls
show the race is very close
Washington Post, June 26, 2008, p. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062601307.html?hpid=topnews
Democrat Barack Obama holds narrow leads over GOP rival John McCain in Colorado and Michigan, two
of the most competitive states in two of the most competitive regions of the country heading into the general-
election campaign, according to surveys conducted by Quinnipiac University for washingtonpost.com and the
Wall Street Journal. In two other states that were closely contested in the 2004 presidential election --
Wisconsin and Minnesota -- Obama holds double-digit edges among likely voters, an indication that these
states may not be in the swing category this election. The Democratic Party's presidential nominee carried both
Wisconsin and Minnesota in each of the last four elections, although Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) won each by slim
margins in 2004. The four surveys are the kickoff of a four-month effort to measure voter sentiment in key
battleground states. They echo several recent national polls -- including surveys conducted for Newsweek
and the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg -- showing Obama with a double-digit lead over McCain, the GOP
candidate. However, other national surveys -- including the Gallup daily tracking poll -- show the race to be
much closer.
Obama’s in the lead – weak economy and Iraq war

Jim Malone, “New Polls Show Obama's Lead Surging Over McCain,” 25 June 2008
<http://voanews.com/english/2008-06-25-voa43.cfm>
One survey by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News found Obama leading McCain by a margin of 49 to 37 percent. Another
poll earlier this week by Newsweek magazine put Obama's lead at 15 points. Other recent surveys show McCain trailing by
anywhere from three to six points. Political experts say Obama's lead is likely due to increasing voter concerns about the
weakening U.S. economy, especially the rising cost of fuel. "High gas prices and job losses, the economic recession, but more
generally, the economic insecurity associated with globalization, the stagnant wages of most ordinary American households," said
Thomas Mann, a political scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "I think all of that bodes well for Democrats in the
campaign." Given the Democrat's advantage on the economy, political strategists predict Senator McCain will focus on his experience
in foreign policy and national security. McCain sharply disagrees with Obama's plan to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq shortly after
taking office. "I believe that we will withdraw over time," McCain said. "I believe that it will be set by facts on the ground, not by an
artificial timetable. And I believe we will come home with victory and honor, and not with defeat." Public opinion polls have long showed
most Americans do not believe the Iraq war was worth the cost. But the polls also indicate they are divided over whether to withdraw U.S.
troops before Iraq is stabilized. Obama says he favors a measured approach to pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.
Obama has a sizeable popular vote lead over McCain

Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2008, p. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-
2008jun25,0,5763707.story
WASHINGTON -- Buoyed by enthusiasm among Democrats and public concern over the economy, Sen.
Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has captured a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the opening of the general
election campaign for president, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found. In a two-man race between
the major party candidates, registered voters chose Obama over McCain by 49% to 37% in the national poll
conducted last weekend. On a four-man ballot including independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob
Barr, voters chose Obama over McCain by an even larger margin, 48% to 33%.
6
Smart money on Obama to win- he will have a huge money and advertising advantage
Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Host, , “Obama's Advantage: Money,” June 26, 2008, p.
http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle
Right now, the smart money is betting the next president of the United States will be named Obama, and
dollars are the primary reason why. As you may have heard, the senator has flip-flopped on public campaign
financing and now says he will not accept it, even though he once thought it was a swell idea. The government set
taxpayer-based funding for presidential candidates at $85 million because, the wisdom went, it would prevent fat
cats in the private sector from donating big dollars to influence a potential POTUS. But, like the military, it's
voluntary — and Obama is no longer interested in signing up, even though John McCain says he will. That's
because, in his defeat of Hillary Clinton, Obama raised about $300 million, and his campaign believes he can
raise another $300 million before the vote next November. Of course, that is an astounding amount of cash
and it puts Obama light years ahead of McCain's paltry $85 million. Money might not be able to buy true
love, but it can certainly buy TV and radio airtime, an army of mercenary consultants and legions of staff
members in every state. Add in the fact that the media generally love Barack Obama, generously giving
him positive news coverage, and you can see some dark clouds on the horizon for McCain.
Only Obama has the resources to sustain and win an election strategy
IHT 6/22 [International Herald Tribune, Obama plans national push on ads and turnout,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/22/america/22obama.php]
But, members of both parties said, Obama had his real advantage in his own group of 1.5 million donors, many of whom have
given small amounts and could be readily tapped again. Even with the fund-raising dip in May, aides to Obama expect to have
something McCain likely will not: enough resources to eliminate the hard choices that campaigns have traditionally faced when
balancing the competing needs of their various state efforts. "These resources allow you to not make decisions based on financial
limitations," Plouffe said in an interview. Referring to a state that has long leaned Republican, he added, "If we want to go play in a
state like Georgia" in the fullest way, "we'll be able to do that." By the end of the month, the Obama campaign will have a director
and staff members in all 50 states. While some states will have only a few workers assigned to them, the biggest battlegrounds will have
scores, many of whom will arrive by the Fourth of July. The campaign is in many ways building on a strategy championed by Howard Dean, the party chairman who has
been pressing Democrats to establish a presence in all states rather than focus primarily on battlegrounds. But Obama is putting his own stamp on the plan by moving much
of the party's operations from Washington to his headquarters in Chicago and installing Paul Tewes, one of his top organizers, to oversee it. Party leaders in Republican-
leaning states like Georgia and Montana are already reporting an influx of paid Obama staffers and volunteers who were sent there to begin registering potential
Obama voters. Obama's team is also sending resources to Virginia, which no Democratic presidential candidate has won since 1964. Abbi Easter, treasurer of the state's
Democratic Party, said Obama had dispatched five paid staff members to the state to begin organizing a voter registration drive. "I've been doing Democratic politics in the
state for 25 years," Easter said, "and this is such a novelty I feel like a kid at their first Christmas." She said she was also expecting help from as many as 100 of the 3,600
"Obama Organizing Fellows," a group of full-time volunteers fanning out across the country to oversee local registration efforts. The mobilization is being helped along by
Obama's robust Internet operation specializing in reaching out to the younger voters who use social networking sites like Facebook. But Plouffe said the volunteer program
was modeled after the one that Bush's aides devised in 2004, which sent supporters door to door to spread the word about the president in their own neighborhoods — a
personal touch informed by detailed lists of neighbors' occupations, voting histories, pet causes and hobbies. Four years ago, Democrats and their liberal allies scrambled to
match the vast lists of personal voter information gathered by the Republicans through public records and consumer data banks. The Democratic National Committee has
since greatly improved its voter information file, which is now at Obama's disposal. But his aides were also considering buying another huge list with information on tens of
millions of Americans. The list is owned by Catalist, a private concern co-founded by a longtime Democratic operative, Harold M. Ickes. In an interview, Ickes said
Obama's campaign aides were particularly interested in new information his company had gathered about cable television viewing habits. Obama campaign officials said
that was because they were considering a tailored commercial campaign on niche cable channels that could give Obama special access to groups that his campaign deemed
crucial for victory, like the young audience for MTV and the African-American viewership for BET. "It's a great opportunity to get people information that may be
particularly germane to them," David Axelrod, the campaign's chief strategist, said of the specialty cable commercials, perfected by Bush in 2004. Yet Obama's team has
looked into advertising in as many as 25 states and has made clear its openness to running commercials on the broadcast television networks. All of
this, of course, is going to take more than the $43.1 million that Obama had in the bank as of last month. Officials said they
expected that Clinton's fund-raisers could bring in a total of $75 million in the coming weeks.
7
All political trends point to an Obama victory
Bloomberg 6/24 [News station, Obama Leads McCain by 15 Points as Voters Reject Republicans,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080624/pl_bloomberg/agctbsdj83rc_1]
June 25 (Bloomberg) -- Democrat Barack Obama has opened a 15-point lead in the presidential race, and most
of the political trends -- voter enthusiasm, views of President George W. Bush, the Republicans, the
economy and the direction of the country -- point to even greater trouble for rival John McCain. Illinois
Senator Obama, winning support from once skeptical women and Democrats, beats McCain 48 percent to 33
percent in a four-way race, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows. Independent candidates Bob Barr and
Ralph Nader get 7 percent combined, with the remainder undecided. Obama's margin and most of the poll's
findings in other areas give the Democrats a commanding advantage more than four months before the
November election, says Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times polling director. ``The Obama voters are much
more energized and motivated to come out to vote than the McCain voters; McCain is still struggling to win
over some of his core groups,'' she says. ``The good news for Obama is also that he seems to be doing better
on the issue that is uppermost in voters' minds, and that is the economy.''
Obama will win- enjoying bump after winning Democratic primary campaign
Honolulu Advertiser 6/26 [Hawaiian Newspaper, Obama, McCain draft strategies,
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/NEWS05/806260362]
"John McCain is not able to play a lot of offense in our view in the Kerry states," said Obama campaign
manager David Plouffe in an hourlong briefing at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in
Washington. Of the states Kerry won in 2004, Plouffe said the closest this year may be Pennsylvania, Michigan
and New Hampshire. McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis, in a telephone interview, countered that "winning
the Kerry states can be problematic for them. States like Pennsylvania, that's a toss-up right now." Davis
recalled Obama's struggle against primary rival Hillary Clinton to win blue-collar voters in Rust Belt states. Polls
showing Obama doing better there now merely reflect that Obama's enjoying a short-term bump after
winning the Democratic primary campaign, he said. However, Davis conceded: "The downside for us as a
party is we have fewer Republicans today than we did four years ago."
8
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Obama will Win- A2 Hillary Supporters
Hillary will make Obama win – Supporters and critical fundraising
CBS, “Clinton Brings What Obama Needs: Money,” June 22, 2008<
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/22/eveningnews/main4201159.shtml?source=mostpop_story>
(CBS) Two weeks after pledging her full-hearted support to democratic nominee Barack Obama in her concession speech, and following
some time off, Sen. Hillary Clinton is ready to actively rally her troops to his side, CBS News correspondent Thalia Assuras
reports. "Her involvement in the campaign is welcome news and we're very excited about it," said Tom Daschle, national co-chair
of the Obama campaign. On Thursday, she will introduce Obama to her key fundraisers. On Friday, they campaign side-by-side
for the first time. Democrats are practically salivating over the potential positives Clinton brings with her. "I think Sen. Clinton
has a tremendous role if she wants to take it, in the campaign," Daschle said. "She has an extraordinary following all across the
country -- among women, among minority groups, among working people." Clinton's help in soothing the bad blood between the
campaigns is critical -- history has shown how important that can be: When Senator Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter for the
nomination in 1980, the battle became bitter -- and the fallout was fatal. "They never made up in a convincing way and it was one of the
reasons why President Carter lost," said Mike Allen, Politico's chief political correspondent. But the biggest plus Clinton offers is cash.
Obama, who just a few days ago broke his pledge to rely on public financing, needs those checks. "The campaign could not afford for all
these supporters to take the summer off and lick their wounds," Allen said. "They want them to be in there raising money, giving money
right away." Obama's May fundraising report reveals a slowdown: $23 million in contributions, more than $7 million less than a month
earlier. Rival Sen. John McCain was close behind. But analysts predict Clinton's supporters could produce a surge of up to $75
million. "Money is important in a presidential campaign," said public opinion analyst Mark Mellman. "Most of Barack Obama's
money is coming from small contributions. But every dollar matters and being able to get those Clinton fundraisers is very
important for his campaign moving forward."
Obama’s winning Clinton’s supporters

NEDRA PICKLER, “Poll: Most Clinton supporters back Obama,” June 26, 2008
< http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j78dZlM2ISnIcrA1vd-_Y8Ajpw6AD91HT6AG0>
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama has won over more than half of Hillary Rodham Clinton's former supporters,
according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll that finds party loyalty trumping hard feelings less than three
weeks after their bruising Democratic presidential contest ended. The poll suggests time is beginning to heal some rifts
from the primary campaign and that the New York senator's endorsement of Obama carried weight. The poll was
taken in the days after Clinton suspended her campaign and said she was supporting her rival. Obama's progress with
Clinton supporters is marked, yet far from complete. More than one in five who had backed the New York senator now plan
to support Republican John McCain in the fall, a boost for McCain if those opinions hold. "We still have work to do," Obama
campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters in a strategy briefing. "Democrats are consolidating behind the nominee
as the choice in the election is more clear and as the contest fades. Time is our friend here." Obama's outreach to
Clinton supporters picks up this week. Clinton planned to introduce Obama to her financial backers Thursday night
in Washington, and the two will campaign together for the first time Friday in New Hampshire. "I want her campaigning as
much as she can," Obama told reporters Wednesday. "She was a terrific campaigner. She, I think, inspired millions of people, and so she can be an extraordinarily effective
surrogate for me and the values and ideals we share as Democrats." The Obama campaign also has encouraged supporters to host "United for Change" house meetings with
supporters of Clinton and other candidates on Saturday. The campaign says over 3,000 are being planned across all 50 states. The AP-Yahoo News poll, conducted by
Knowledge Networks, is part of an ongoing study that tracks the attitudes and opinions of a scientifically selected group of more than 2,000 Americans to see how their
political views evolve over the course of the campaign. The poll found 53 percent of the Democrats who favored Clinton for the nomination two months ago now back
Obama for president. That's an improvement from April, when only 40 percent of Clinton supporters said they would back Obama over McCain. "It wasn't a difficult
decision — I was a lifelong Democrat," said 55-year-old Susan Gates of Massachusetts, a former Clinton backer now firmly in Obama's camp.
Obama and Clinton moving to rectify Democratic unity

AP 6/27 [Obama, Clinton Move to Unify Democrats, http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-clinton-move-
to-unify-democrats/20080626165709990001]
MANCHESTER, N.H. (June 27) — When Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton step onstage in their first joint campaign appearance in New Hampshire,
it will be the first public display of a rapprochement between former rivals hoping to set aside differences and unify the party while helping each other. Following a
private fundraiser with Clinton's top donors in Washington on Thursday, the two were to fly together Friday aboard Obama's campaign plane to a rally in Unity,
N.H., population 1,700 — a carefully chosen venue in a key general election battleground state. Aside from the symbolism of its name, Unity awarded exactly 107 votes to
each candidate in New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary in January. Clinton narrowly won the state's contest, setting in motion an epic coast-to-coast war of attrition
between the two candidates that ended June 3, when Obama clinched the nomination. Clinton suspended her campaign four days later. The Unity gathering was the latest
and most visible event in a series of gestures the two senators have made in the past two days in hopes of settling the hard feelings of the long primary season.
Clinton also praised Obama before two major interest groups Thursday — the American Nurses Association, which endorsed her during the primaries, and NALEO, the
National Association of Latino Elected Officials.
9
10
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Obama winning on Energy Issue
Obama currently leads McCain on energy issue, which is one of top two voter concerns
Gallup, June 24, 2008, p. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans see Barack Obama as better able than John McCain to handle energy issues
and the economy, the two most important election issues in the public's eyes, according to a recent Gallup
survey. Six other issues were tested in the poll, with the two candidates positioned roughly evenly on Iraq, moral
values, and illegal immigration, while Obama has an edge on healthcare and taxes. McCain's only advantage is on
terrorism.
Obama leading McCain on energy issue in status quo
Obama has a clear advantage over McCain on both of these top two issues. Americans give Obama a 19-
point edge over McCain as best able to deal with energy, with 47% choosing Obama and 28% McCain. On
the economy, Obama has a 16-point margin over McCain, 48% to 32%.
Surveys show that the public is critical of Bush’s energy policies
New York Times, April 27, 2007“Public Says Warming Is a Problem, but Remains Split on Response”, p. Lexis
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has been critical of the administration's responses and has advocated
building nuclear plants to provide electricity. The issue arises frequently in public forums, and it is likely that
along with the Iraq war and health care, it will be among the chief topics in the 2008 campaign. When it comes
to specific steps to foster conservation or produce more energy, the public is deeply torn, the poll found. Respondents said they would support higher gasoline prices to
reduce dependence on foreign oil but would oppose higher prices to combat global warming. By large margins, respondents opposed an increase in pump prices of $2 a
gallon, or even $1, to deal with environmental and energy-supply concerns. Three-quarters said they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable
sources like solar or wind energy. The negative view of new gasoline taxes may reflect the wide expectation that pump prices will continue to increase regardless of
government action. More than 80 percent foresee higher prices in coming months, with many citing the Iraq war as a primary cause. Most respondents said they did not
expect that any withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would cause prices to fall. Nearly half of those polled also said they did not believe that their fellow Americans
most scientists say contribute to the
would be willing to change driving habits to save gasoline or reduce the production of heat-trapping gases, which
warming. Respondents expressed little confidence in President Bush's handling of environmental or energy
issues, and a majority of those polled, including many Republicans, said Democrats were more likely than
Republicans to protect the environment and foster energy independence. One-third approved Mr. Bush's
handling of the environment and 27 percent approved his approach to energy questions. Democrats have
criticized Mr. Bush's policies on energy and the environment almost from the day he took office. Those
policies have also cost him some Republican support, the poll showed. ''I think the Republicans have slashed
the funds for cleanup of the environment, and if it comes down to whether or not it will cost big business,
forget about the cleanup,'' said Ron Gellerman, 65, a respondent from Maple Grove, Minn., who said he was a
Republican.
11
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Obama ahead with Independents
Obama running ahead of McCain among independents
Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2008, p. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-
2008jun25,0,5763707.story
"Meanwhile, Obama is doing well among a broad range of voters," she said. "He's running ahead among
women, black voters and other minorities. He's running roughly even among white voters and
independents."
Obama is capitalizing on independent voters and is winning over swing states
LA Times 6/24 [Los Angeles Times, Obama's map keys on boost in black vote,
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008013977_blackvote24.html?syndication=rss]
WASHINGTON — As they ponder a political map that has spelled defeat for Democrats in the past two
presidential elections, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign strategists are quietly laying plans to draw blacks to the
polls in unprecedented numbers by capitalizing on the excitement over the prospect of electing the nation's first
black president.
Obama strategists believe they have identified a gold mine of new and potentially decisive Democratic voters in at
least five battleground states. In Florida alone, more than half a million black registered voters stayed home in
2004. Hundreds of thousands more blacks are eligible to vote but are not registered. And campaign analysts have
identified similar potential in North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri and Ohio. These five states were critical to the
GOP's success in 2000 and 2004, but President Bush's victory margins were slim enough to suggest a major
expansion of black turnout could help lead to Democratic gains this year. John Bellows, a database expert in the
Obama campaign, said he has identified "big pockets of potential voters" in key states. "There are pretty big
numbers lying around to turn out," he said.
12
Obama Elections Uniqueness- A2 Uniqueness O/W Link
Obama is winning now but polls could still change – empirically proven with Bush and Dukakis
Times of India, “Barack bounces ahead with 15% lead,” 22 Jun 2008
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Barack_bounces_ahead_with_15_lead/articleshow/3152705.cms>
Overall, voters see Obama as the preferred agent of "change" by a margin of 51% to 27% Younger voters are more
likely to see Obama that way: those 18 to 39 favor the Illinois senator by 66 percent to 27percent. The two
candidates are statistically tied among older voters. Fears that Hillary supporters will defect to McCain following
her loss also appears to have been overblown. In the new poll, registered Democrats and Democratic leaners who
supported Clinton during the primaries now favor Obama over McCain by 69%to 18%. In last month's survey,
Clinton supporters backed the Illinois senator by a significantly smaller margin, 53 percent to 34 percent.
Registered independents have also moved toward Obama, backing him by a 48 percent to 36 percent margin after
splitting about evenly in last month's poll. However, pollsters and pundit caution that Obama is far from a
shoo-in in the election still more than four months away. They point to the 1988 election when Democrat
Michael Dukakis enjoyed a 54 percent to 38 percent lead over George Bush sr when the primaries ended in
May, but ended up being trounced in November. Obama himself is taking nothing for granted, and has
begun expressing apprehension that Republicans will resort to scare-mongering to win the elections. "It is
going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding
foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going
to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.
Obama has narrow leads in polls
WP 6/26 [Washington Post, Polls: Obama Leads In Four Key States, June 26,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/politics/washingtonpost/main4212037.shtml]
Democrat Barack Obama holds narrow leads over GOP rival John McCain in Colorado and Michigan, two
of the most competitive states in two of the most competitive regions of the country heading into the general-
election campaign, according to surveys conducted by Quinnipiac University for washingtonpost.com and the
Wall Street Journal. In two other states that were closely contested in the 2004 presidential election -- Wisconsin
and Minnesota -- Obama holds double-digit edges among likely voters, an indication that these states may not
be in the swing category this election. The Democratic Party's presidential nominee carried both Wisconsin and
Minnesota in each of the last four elections, although Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) won each by slim margins in 2004.
The four surveys are the kickoff of a four-month effort to measure voter sentiment in key battleground
states. They echo several recent national polls -- including surveys conducted for Newsweek and the Los Angeles
Times/Bloomberg -- showing Obama with a double-digit lead over McCain, the GOP candidate. However, other
national surveys -- including the Gallup daily tracking poll -- show the race to be much closer.
Double-digit leads in polls over-represent Democrats – Obama only has a small single digit lead
Andrew Satter, “The Wild Differences in Polls, Explained,” June 27, 2008
<http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002907401&parm1=1&cpage=1>
All unlikely, says Richard Morin, a senior editor at the Pew Research Center. In an interview with CQ Politics, he said the discrepancy is
probably a result of the Newsweek and L.A. Times/Bloomberg polls over-representing Democrats. “When I look at those results, I
know something is going on,” said Morin. “The first place that I look when I see these discrepancies, I look for the percentage of
Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the sample. We know that the best predictor of how someone is going to vote is their
party ID. “Both the L.A. Times/Bloomberg and the Newsweek polls have (too) large percentage of Democrats and a (too) small
percentage of Republicans.” While there are indeed more people who identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans in the country,
Morin says the other polls, including Gallup, are more in line with the actual disparity than the Bloomberg or Newsweek polls.
“Interestingly enough,” Morin said, “if you do the math and apply the proper percentages to the L.A. Times/Bloomberg and the
Newsweek findings, you find that their results change dramatically.” In fact, Morin says, if the two polls that show Obama winning
by a large margin were to modify their findings using the same percentage of Democrats and Republicans as other polls, Obama’s
lead would come down to somewhere between a toss-up and a small, single digit lead for Obama.
13
Obama Elections Uniqueness- A2 Uniqueness O/W Link
LA Times/Bloomberg poll showing a 15 point Obama lead was methodologically flawed
Politico.com, June 25, 2008, p.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0608/McCain_camp_pushes_back_on_LATBloomberg_poll.html
Recognizing the danger of a perception hardening, the McCain camp has sent out a memo from their pollsters
shooting down the LA Times/Bloomberg poll released yesterday (and sitting on Drudge) that shows Obama up
15. I've posted the whole thing after the jump, but the short argument is that the survey's party id sample was
flawed. "If the L.A. Times survey is recalculated to a more normalized range for party identification,
McCain would be down in the mid-single digits, which is what we are seeing in most other polls," write Bill
McInturff, Liz Harrington and David Kanevsky. But, of course, the memo is about much more than just one outlier
(or, if you include Newsweek last weekend, two). The McCain camp, putting on their psychology hat, is trying to
ease anxities and calm fears among party elites and activists that Obama is developing a lead so significant that it
can't be overcome. Hence this: "It is important that both the campaign, as well as reporters covering the
campaign, not over-react to every single survey that is released."
Newsweek and LA Times polls are outliers- presidential race is very close
Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2008, p. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121452433272409083.html?
mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Some Democrats claim new polls by Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times showing Sen. McCain trailing by
15 points in each seal the deal on an Obama presidency. But both polls appear to be outliers. Other polls
show the race to be close. Both surveys polled registered, not likely, voters. Normally, only two-thirds of
those end up casting ballots, and nonvoters lean Democratic. Second, Democrats had a 14-point advantage in
Newsweek's sample, and a 17-point advantage in the Times poll, with Republicans making up only 22% of
respondents. That's an unusually low number. Most other polls have the party ID gap with a significantly
smaller Democratic edge.
14
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Link Uniqueness- No Energy legislation Coming
Congress unlikely to pass major energy and environmental legislation in 2008
Global Power Report, January 10, 2008, p. Lexis
With a new energy law on the books and a national election around the corner, Congress appears unlikely to
pass major energy and environmental laws in 2008, even with oil prices flirting at or near $100/barrel,
Washington analysts say.
Congress won’t pass new energy laws this year
Kevin Book, Analyst with the investment firm Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, Global Power Report, January 10,
2008, p. Lexis
Recent history shows how difficult it is for Congress to pass energy laws, even when there are supply
interruptions and a single party controls Capitol Hill and the White House, Book said. "This year, the odds
are even worse," he said. "Democrats command a narrow margin in Congress; a wide-open presidential race
could ignite a partisan brawl as soon as mid-February, if clear front-runners emerge from early state
primary elections and Democrats appear determined to continue 'pay-as-you-go' fiscal strictures, pitting
Big Oil against clean and green power in a battle for subsidy dollars."
No major climate change/cap-and-trade legislation will emerge from Congress this year
Global Power Report, January 10, 2008, p. Lexis
"I'm thinking it's going to be very bare bones," he said. "I don't think anything new is going to come unless
they're responding to some sort of crisis." Still, some analysts say Congress likely will at least enact bills
extending production tax credits for renewable energy production, which are scheduled to expire at the end of
2008, and the Senate and the House may give more attention to climate change legislation, although
probably will not pass such bills. Book said a mandatory cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse gases, which the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed in December, was unlikely to come up for a Senate or
House floor vote. Such a vote, he said, would put the Democratic nominee for president in a "check-mate"
situation ? if he or she supported the bill, it could turn off Democrat-leaning union members, who might see it as a
threat to automobile or other manufacturing industry jobs, Book said.
15
Obama Elections Uniqueness- Link Uniqueness- No Energy legislation Coming
Domestic climate legislation in 2008 unlikely
Jeff Sterba, Chairman of the Edison Electric Institute and Chief executive of PNM Resources, Greenwire, May
20, 2008, p. Lexis
But Jeff Sterba, chief executive of PNM Resources, called final domestic legislation this year unlikely. He said
this view is shared by many other CEOs participating in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of
businesses and environmental groups that is calling for a mandatory cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
"I would say that most of us feel that the likelihood of anything happening this year is pretty remote, and I
would have to say that is unfortunate," said Sterba. "We need to have this happen sooner rather than later." He
predicted that a domestic plan is more likely to be completed about a year into the new administration, in
perhaps late 2009 or early 2010.
Climate change unlikely to be high on the presidential election agenda
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, January 2,
2008, p. http://www.iema.net/news?startnum=201&aid=17933
The US administration's position on climate change was in the spotlight last weekend as its delegation was booed
in the closing hours of the marathon United Nations meeting in Bali. Nevertheless, the issue is unlikely to be
high on the presidential election agenda. Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, said in Bali: "It won't have
much effect and I'm probably overstating it. It won't be [on the agenda] at the next election but it will be on
the political agenda as we go forward. Every other place I've been in the last two years is talking about it in
a more advanced way. It's not really discussed by the presidential candidates." Mr Bloomberg went on:
"Governments go through cycles and I believe that the issue of climate change will be taken on as more
people understand [it]." He pointed out that the issue was having an effect on local politics, with hundreds of city
mayors around the US having now taken a strong position on climate change. "The problem is more in
Congress, that's what I think. At the moment they're unwilling to face any issue that has cause to alienate
any group of voters."
16
Obama Elections Links- Popular Bush Initiative key to McCain Victory
Bush’s job approval rating must be in the mid-40s for McCain to have a chance at winning the election
Jonah Goldberg, Editor at large of National Review Online and syndicated columnist and a member of USA
TODAY's board of contributors, USA TODAY, September 4, 2007, p. Lexis
President Reagan's historical standing was put on the glide path to greatness in part because his anointed successor
won the presidency. If Al Gore had won in 2000, Bill Clinton's legacy would certainly be higher (and it will also
improve if Hillary Clinton is elected). The problem for Bush and the GOP is that it seems very unlikely a
Republican candidate will have any chance of winning in 2008 so long as Bush's approval ratings are in the
freezing range. As my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru argues, Bush's approval ratings need to be at least in the
mid-40s for the Republican nominee to have a fighting chance. But how to get those numbers up so late in his
administration?
Bush’s job approval rating much reach at least 45 percent to make a McCain victory likely
Oxford Analytica, May 22, 2007, p. http://thehill.com/op-eds/despite-gops-pessimism-party-may-yet-field-a-
winner-in-08-white-house-race-2007-05-22.html
•Unpopular president. The president’s approval ratings have been unusually poor for almost two years. Since
mid-2005, they have moved within a comparatively narrow 29-36 percent band in mainstream surveys.
There are few parallels for such an abysmal rating during a second presidential term, when (with the obvious
exception of former President Richard Nixon) the occupant of the White House tends to become more personally
popular at the same time that he becomes less politically effective. Furthermore, even Bush’s personal pollsters
seem to expect that his ratings will remain at this low ebb for the rest of the year and into 2008. If he cannot
achieve at least a 45 percent approval rating by next year, then the president will remain a liability for his
party’s electoral prospects.
17
Obama Elections Links- McCain tied to Bush Initiatives
McCain can’t break ties with Bush – their messages overlap
LA Times 6-20-08 [Maeve Reston and Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers; “McCain struggles to break
free of Bush”; 6-20-2008; http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccain20-2008jun20,0,2497288.story]
The candidate wants to distance himself from the president, but their messages keep overlapping. In the months ahead, John
McCain will have to repeatedly beat back claims by Barack Obama's campaign that he is running to win a third term for the
Bush administration. But events this week have illustrated just how difficult that could be. In this crucial opening phase of the
general election campaign -- when McCain is trying to establish his independence from the unpopular president -- his message has
repeatedly been eclipsed by that of the White House. On Thursday morning, McCain dropped in to flood-ravaged southeastern Iowa,
where he toured half-submerged buildings and offered comfort to displaced residents by telling them they had done a "magnificent job."
But the images of the Arizona senator flashed side by side on television with those of President Bush, who was briefed on the damage in
Cedar Rapids, less than 30 miles away. The campaign's message was similarly upstaged by the White House earlier this week after the
airing of an ad that portrayed McCain as an adversary of the president on climate change. On Monday, McCain called for lifting a federal
ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, a reversal of his long-held opposition. The next day the news leaked that Bush planned to second that
call, and he did so -- giving Democratic operatives fodder to fire off e-mails criticizing the "Bush-McCain energy plan." Even Cindy
McCain appeared to be on the same wavelength as the White House this week. During a visit to Vietnam, she echoed Laura Bush's
criticism of Myanmar's military junta, one of the few issues the first lady has addressed publicly.
Bush’s endorsement ties him to McCain

Reuters ‘8 [Editor: Cynthia Osterman; “McCain wins Bush Endorsement for Presidency”; 3-5-2008;
“http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSWAT00907320080305?
pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=10112]
The endorsement will likely help McCain rally disenchanted conservatives behind his candidacy, and with Bush helping him raise
much-needed campaign cash, it will give him a significant boost headed into the campaign for the November election. But the
endorsement also gave Democrats ammunition to use against McCain, since Bush is unpopular among many Americans because of
the Iraq war and the ailing U.S. economy. Experts doubt the two men will appear together often. The Democratic National Committee
said McCain "offers a third term of George W. Bush" and put up on the democrats.org Web site a video of the entire Bush-McCain
ceremony, saying "we couldn't say it better ourselves." McCain, an Arizona senator who at 71 would be the oldest person ever elected to
a first U.S. presidential term, said he has "great admiration, respect and affection" for Bush and wants him to campaign for him as
much as possible. "I hope that the president will find time from his busy schedule to be out on the campaign trail with me," he said. He
also said he will now begin the process of picking a vice-presidential running mate, a choice analysts said was of critical importance given
McCain's advanced age. 'MCSAME'? A liberal group called the Campaign to Defend America greeted the endorsement with a television
advertisement that equated McCain with Bush, saying he was "McSame as Bush," particularly on the Iraq war. "A trillion dollars in Iraq
over the next 10 years. McSame as Bush," the ad's narrator says as Bush's head is digitally removed from his body in the ad and replaced
with McCain's. Bush laughed off a question as to whether his endorsement could hurt McCain more than it helps him, and he made clear
he would not overshadow McCain, saying, "I've had my time in the Oval Office." "Look, if my showing up and endorsing him helps him,
or if I'm against him and it helps him -- either way, I want him to win," he said. At a time when change is the buzzword in presidential
politics, Bush said it was his experience that the American people expect change, but that the fight against Islamic extremists will require
steadfast resolve. "And the good news about our candidate there will be a new president, a man of character and courage, but he's not
going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy. He understands this is a dangerous world," he said. Republican pollster Whit
Ayres said Bush's endorsement means the Republican Party is now united behind McCain.
18
Obama Elections Links- McCain tied to Bush Initiatives
Bush’s endorsement inextricably ties his politics with McCain
Froomkin ‘8 [Dan, Washington Post Columnist; “Bush’s Mixed Blessing”; 3-5-2008;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/03/05/BL2008030501742.html?hpid=topnews]
So for McCain, today's embrace with Bush is the classic double-edged sword. On the one hand, there is
something undeniably compelling about the symbolism of one Republican standard-bearer handing the
torch to another, surrounded by the pomp and power of the White House. It will also help McCain with
Bush's core supporters. But on the other hand, Bush is damaged goods, deeply unpopular not just with
Democrats but also independents, and the walking embodiment of what Americans evidently are eager to put
behind them. Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin write in The Washington Post that today's endorsement is
"intended to cement the senator as the political heir of his former rival." But Mark Silva blogs for Tribune that
"the public embrace of a president whose public approval has hovered at an average of 33 percent for the past year
in the Gallup Poll will readily be taken by his Democratic opponent as a symbol that a vote for McCain is a vote
for a continuation of the Bush White House." David Gregory reports for NBC News: "A source close to Bush says
McCain has to be careful with a Bush embrace. "'Better to do it now rather than later,' this source says, 'Get it out
of the way.'
McCain is Bush’s third term
Eichel '8 [Larry, Senior Staff Writer at the Inquirer; "McCain's Big Balancing Act is a Tough One"; Philadelphia
Inquirer; June 22, 2008; LEXIS]
The other side is repeatedly making the argument that McCain is running for "George Bush's third term." Last
week, Obama said that "it's my impression that John McCain has adopted not only George Bush's policies
but George Bush's playbook." U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) said that "John McCain has fully embraced the
failed, tragic [foreign] policy of the Bush administration over the last 71/2 years." McCain's aides and allies
counter that Obama has done far less than their man in terms of bucking party orthodoxy and seeking consensus in the Senate. The McCain bipartisan resume includes work
on such subjects as campaign-finance and immigration reform. Reclaiming the banner of reform, which he owned during his 2000 presidential run, is critical for him.
Witness his campaign slogan: Reform. Prosperity. Peace. In that regard, being the one candidate to agree to federal spending limits for the general election may help. But to
be seen as a maverick, analysts say, he'll have to act the part more than he has to date. "He's trying to turn the page from where Bush is, and it's a very heavy page," said
James Thurber, a political scientist at American University in Washington. "With everything working against him, it's incredible that he's even competitive. But he is."
19
Obama Elections Links- Renewable/Alternative Energy Popular with Public
Voters across the political spectrum supports government policies on alternative energy
Agriculture Online, March 6, 2006, “Survey shows public support for renewable energy”, p.
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1141846987064.xml&catref=ag1001
A new national public opinion survey demonstrates overwhelming public support for government policies
and investments that will support development of renewable energy sources like solar, wind and ethanol.
"This survey underscores a major shift in public opinion," says Read Smith, co-chair of the 25 x '25 Work
Group, an organization that would like to see the US to get 25% of all energy from renewable resources by the
year 2025. "Americans want to invest in renewable energy right here at home so that we are less dependent
on countries in unfriendly and unstable parts of the world." Survey results were released today at the 25x'25
Agriculture and Forestry Renewable Energy Summit. Among the findings: Ninety-eight percent of voters see a
national goal of having 25% of our domestic energy needs met by renewable resources by the year 2025 as
important for the country, and 74% feel that it is "very important." Ninety percent of voters believe this goal is
achievable. Similar majorities support government action to encourage greater use of renewable energy: 88% favor
financial incentives, and 92% support minimum government standards for the use of renewable energy by the
private sector. Nearly all voters (98%) say the costs, such as the cost of research and development and the cost of
building new renewable energy production facilities, would be worth it to move us toward the 25x'25 goal. Voters
consider energy to be an important issue facing the country, rating it similarly with health care, terrorism and
national security, and education, and ahead of taxes and the war in Iraq. Half (50%) of voters believe America is
headed for an energy crisis in the future, and 35% believe the country already is facing a crisis. Voters see many
convincing arguments for a shift to renewable energy -- the need to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil,
protection of the environment for future generations, the readiness of these technologies to contribute today,
and the opportunities they present to create new jobs, especially in rural communities.
Polls indicate that the public across political leanings support alternative energy policies
David DeFusco, Director of Communications at Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, “Yale poll
reveals overwhelming public desire for new energy policy direction “, EurekAlert.com,
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/yu-ypr060905.php, June 9, 2005
Yale poll reveals overwhelming public desire for new energy policy direction New Haven, Conn. - A new Yale
University research survey of 1,000 adults nationwide reveals that while Americans are deeply divided on many
issues, they overwhelmingly believe that the United States is too dependent on imported oil. The survey
shows a vast majority of the public also wants to see government action to develop new "clean" energy
sources, including solar and wind power as well as hydrogen cars. 92% of Americans say that they are worried
about dependence on foreign oil 93% of Americans want government to develop new energy technologies and
require auto industry to make cars and trucks that get better gas mileage The results underscore Americans' deep
concerns about the country's current energy policies, particularly the nation's dependence on imported oil. Fully 92
percent say this dependence is a serious problem, while 68 percent say it is a "very serious" problem. Across all
regions of the country and every demographic group, there is broad support for a new emphasis on finding
alternative energy sources. Building more solar power facilities is considered a "good idea" by 90 percent of
the public; 87 percent support expanded wind farms; and 86 percent want increased funding for renewable
energy research. According to Gus Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, "This
poll underscores the fact that Americans want not only energy independence but also to find ways to break the
linkage between energy use and environmental harm, from local air pollution to global warming." Results of
the poll indicate that 93 percent of Americans say requiring the auto industry to make cars that get better gas
mileage is a good idea. Just 6 percent say it is a bad idea. This sentiment varies little by political leaning, with
96 percent of Democrats and Independents and 86 percent of Republicans supporting the call for more fuel-
efficient vehicles.
20
Major percentage of public opinion now in favor of alternative energy
Space Daily, “Climate Change Will Spur Seven Trillion Dollars In New Investment By 2030”, Lexis-Nexis, February 6, 2008
The result of this rising public and private momentum is an increase in worldwide clean energy investment
that could surpass $7US trillion by 2030 in cumulative real 2007 dollars, according to the CERA report Crossing
the Divide: The Future of Clean Energy. "We are seeing a major shift in public opinion, reinforced by the
expectation that carbon policies could fundamentally change the competitive landscape of the global energy
business," said Daniel Yergin, CERA Chairman and IHS Executive Vice President. "This is providing a vital
impetus that is moving clean technology across the great divide of cost, proven results, scale and maturity
that has separated it from markets served by mainstream technologies and processes." "The rapidly
advancing new paradigms of climate change, energy security, and policy implementation and cooperation among
the United States, the European Union, China and others will produce a broad range of opportunities, risks and
pitfalls as the modern energy industry increasingly moves to adopt clean technologies that will be part of the
alternative, low-carbon pathway to the energy future," said Robert LaCount, head of CERA's Climate Change and
Clean Energy Group. "All participants in the global energy business, from traditional incumbents such as electrical
power companies and major oil and gas companies to new entrants such as venture capital firms," he added, "will
play a role in shaping this alternative energy future. CERA's Crossing the Divide analysis offers a number of key
insights about potentially significant clean energy opportunities for almost every energy sector participant: - There
is already a "bubbling" of clean energy clusters - Some places are becoming concentrations of political, technical,
institutional and financial clean energy specialization and experience. Examples include Brazil in biofuels,
Germany in photovoltaic (PV) technology, Spain in wind technologies. - Renewable power technologies are poised
for substantial growth - Wind will make the largest gains, followed by solar power and biomass - despite near-term
bottlenecks in wind turbine manufacturing, supply shortages in silicon, and competitive pressures from escalating
component costs. - Government policy remains a key driver for clean energy advancement - Putting a price on
CO2 emissions, setting mandates, and providing subsidies all work to kick-start clean energy technologies by
overcoming the economic advantage of conventional technologies. The challenge in the years ahead is to
provide subsidies in a way that ensures that these technologies get off the drawing board and are able to
wean themselves from support
The American public wants the gov’t to implement alternative energy policies and it’s becoming a major
issue in the 2008 election
New York Times, “Public Says Warming Is a Problem, but Remains Split on Response”, Lexis-Nexis, April 27, 2007
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth's atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now
or will soon and think that it is necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll
finds. Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb
the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1
percent said no steps were needed. Recent international reports have said with near certainty that human activities are the main cause of
global warming since 1950. The poll found that 84 percent of Americans see human activity as at least contributing to warming. The poll
also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental
problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal. The presidential candidates
have recognized the desire for swifter action on energy and the environment than the Bush administration has pursued and have offered
plans with varying degrees of specificity. Among the leading Democrats, John Edwards and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New
York have offered fairly detailed plans for national and international programs to reduce heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide and
encouraging alternative energy sources. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has been critical of the administration's responses
and has advocated building nuclear plants to provide electricity. The issue arises frequently in public forums, and it is likely that
along with the Iraq war and health care, it will be among the chief topics in the 2008 campaign.
21
Americans want energy independence and distancing from fossil fuels – polls prove
Podesta et al ‘7 [John, Daniel Weiss, Laura Nichols, President of Center for American Progress, Senior Fellow
and Director of Climate Strategy, Senior Fellow; “Americans Urgently Want Action on Energy Independence and
Global Warming”; 4-17-2007; http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/environment_poll.html]
After a year when public education and media coverage saturated classrooms, theaters, and television screens and energy alternative advocacy permeated the Web, there is
new evidence that points us not only to support for solutions but also toward new signs of the expediency with which Americans want their leaders in Congress to
take this issue on. From Al Gore and Davis Guggenheim’s Oscar win for “An Inconvenient Truth” to the thousands who participated in “Step It Up” events last week in
advocacy of carbon emissions reductions and the “Live Earth” global warming concerts planned for July 7th on every continent, activists have been joined now by other
Americans who, as evidenced by a new poll, clearly believe that the issue of energy independence and global warming is one of the biggest priorities for our nation’s
leaders. A poll for the Center for American Progress conducted by GreenbergQuinlanRosner Research found that a majority of Americans look to Washington for
meaningful and timely action. Among the most important findings: Americans want freedom and self sufficiency from our energy policies; Americans, in the
tradition of our “can-do” spirit, believe we should be leading the world in clean, alternative energy. If the political will exists, they believe we can do anything;
Americans want accountability. They want their leaders to show they will do the right thing, put money to good use and act accordingly themselves; They see
clean energy as a path to economic growth and new jobs; Democrats, Independents, and Republicans believe the evidence of global warming is now clear and only
strengthens the case for immediate action on energy independence; and, Americans overwhelmingly support vigorous standards for clean alternative energy
technologies and better mileage. They also support a cap and reduction on global warming pollution. This public urgency is consistent with the scientific urgency
illustrated by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that determined that human activity causes global warming and that climate change
will put humans and our planet at real risk if left unchecked. In January, the House made a down payment on clean energy alternatives such as wind and solar energy by
redirecting federal tax breaks and subsidies for big oil companies to investments in clean energy. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have laid the
groundwork for what should be a bipartisan approach to addressing the public and scientific urgency – meeting the challenge they have set for Congress is critical. The
House is on a fast track to adopt solutions to these pressing problems and plans to consider additional pieces of the solution in July and this fall. The Senate has now laid
plans to debate clean alternative energy proposals in May. This new poll demonstrates that legislators can support clean alternative energy and limits on global
warming pollution with the confidence that the American people will enthusiastically applaud such efforts. Conversely, the public will disapprove of inaction or
efforts that expand our reliance on conventional fuels or create more global warming pollution. As we approach Earth Day this Sunday, we urge you to enunciate
support and swift, meaningful action to make America become self-sufficient in its energy use and create new jobs in the process. We should demand that our leaders show
global leadership on this crucial issue, and we must hold them accountable for making it happen. Scientists aren’t the only ones urging our leaders to take action on
global warming—the American public demands it, too.
Americans massively support federal incentives and loan guarantees for many forms of carbon-free energy tech
Newswire 08, "Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Spur Growth of Carbon-Free Energy
Technology." PR Newswire 25 Apr. 2008. LexisNexis Academic. 27 June 2008.
Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help promote development of carbon-free energy
technologies, including new nuclear power plants, according to a new national survey of 1,000 adults. The survey shows that 79 percent
of Americans approve of providing tax credits "as an incentive to companies to build solar, wind and advanced-design nuclear power
plants." Only 20 percent do not approve. The number of Americans "strongly approving" of tax credits exceeded the number of
Americans "strongly disapproving" by the same four-to-one margin (37 percent vs. 9 percent). Support was nearly identical when
Americans were asked about providing federal loan guarantees to companies that build solar, wind, advanced-design nuclear power plants
"or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities." Seventy-seven
percent of those surveyed approve, while only 22 percent do not approve. The new telephone survey was conducted April 10-13 by
Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK NOP, and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Eighty-four percent of
Americans agree that the nation should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources, including nuclear, hydro and renewable energy,
to produce electricity while limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Sixty-seven percent associate nuclear energy "a lot" or "a little" as a climate
change solution. Eighty-two percent believe that nuclear energy will be "very" or "somewhat" important in meeting the nation's electricity needs in the years ahead. A
majority of Americans now rank economic growth as a top concern, ahead of the threat of climate change and the need for energy security, the survey found. Asked to
choose which of four issues seem "most important," 57 percent of Americans named economic growth among the top two concerns, while 47 percent named global warming
as a first or second choice and 46 percent named energy security first or second. Air pollution was ranked first or second by 43 percent of respondents. This is a sharp
change from the results of a Bisconti Research survey in October 2007, when Americans ranked the threat of climate change and air pollution as the top energy-related
concerns. Economic growth ranked at the bottom of the four choices. "These numbers do not mean that the public is less worried about global climate change than they were
last year; economic growth is simply a greater concern at this time," said Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti. "There is still a clear public mandate for climate change
solutions, including government assistance for carbon-free energy technologies." The survey found that public support for preparing for and building new nuclear power
plants remains strong. Seventy-eight percent of Americans agree that electric companies should prepare now so that new nuclear plants
could be built if needed within the next decade. In the survey conducted last October, 75 percent agreed.
22
Public support partially responsible for past wind and solar tech
Burger 08, Burger, Mark: Principal at Kestrel Development Company, a firm providing consulting services on
renewable energy policy and market development.27 June 2008 <http://www.glgroup.com/News/Hope-Brightens-
for-US-Solar-and-Wind-Incentives-23442.html>.
In spite of the American attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (certainly not because of it), the US is now the
number two wind power globally and has increased solar installations by 50% in 2007. This is due to the moderate
federal incentives in effect since 2005 (but only good for three years), and a growing bulwark patchwork of state
incentives and public support. Other factors include rapidly rising energy prices and growing import dependency
of natural gas in addition to petroleum, the dawning realization that we are not going to drill our way to lower
energy prices, and that new coal and nuclear power plants, if they are built, will cost far more and their electricity
will be far more expensive than our parents' generators. Last, but not least, the high probability of climate change
having a bit of an impact on us.
Overwhelming majority of Americans want USFG to support renewable energy
American Wind Energy Association, January 22, 2008, p.
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/poll_renewable_energy_012208.html
Washington, DC (January 22, 2008) – By a 7-1 margin, Americans agree that the federal government should
extend incentives that encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies, according to a national poll
released today by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2007 was a record-breaking year for
renewable electricity generation in the United States, with almost 6,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable
energy coming on line, infusing some $20 billion in new investment into the economy. But the federal production
tax credit (PTC) and tax incentives for other renewable energy sources are now in danger of lapsing at the end of
this year. The survey research firm Zogby International surveyed Americans on existing federal incentives for
renewable energy, in a poll commissioned by AWEA. The survey found that 85% of Americans agree with the
statement, “The federal government should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of
renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power.” Just 12% disagree. “The results confirm that
Americans, by an overwhelming majority, want their government to support renewable energy,” said
AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. “In 2007, tax incentives for renewable energy created tens of
thousands of jobs for Americans. We call upon Congress to help sustain this remarkable growth by extending these
incentives.”
23
Obama Elections Links- RPS Legislation Popular with Public
Public support for renewable energy mandate stronger than ever
Joshua Fershee, Assistant Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law, May 17, 2008, p.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1390130/changing_resources_changing_market/
Public opinion polls, growing support from utilities, and continually increasing state RPS legislation
indicate that support for a renewable energy mandate is stronger than ever. However, opposition remains
strong. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of Americans appear ready to take a calculated risk to find out if
renewable energy can fulfill its promise. The question remains: Is Congress?
Considerable bipartisan voter support for a national RPS
Facilities Net 07, "Poll Shows Bipartisan Support for National Renewable Electricity Standard." Facilities Net. 15
Nov. 2007. 28 June 2008 <http://www.facilitiesnet.com/news/article.asp?id=7875>.
A recent poll of potential 2008 voters found that Americans across the political spectrum support a new national
standard for renewable electricity like those already in place in more than 20 states. The poll, commissioned by the
American Wind Energy Association, documents growing support for renewable energy and growing concern about
energy independence as top domestic priorities for potential 2008 voters. Highlights of the survey include: - 93
percent of conservatives agreed that energy independence “should be the government’s top priority” - 77 percent
of Republicans, 86 percent of Southerners, 83 percent of those in military families, 77 percent of self-identified
conservatives, 81 percent of rural voters, 85 percent of independent voters and 92 percent of Democrats agreed that
the Federal government should follow the lead of a number of states that now require at least some of their
electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar
RPS has proven popular with the American public
Barry Rabe, Professor in the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, June 8, 2007, p.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/70819.html
Despite failure of similar legislation in the past, the prospects for approval look good this year, said Barry Rabe,
professor in the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. "These policies have proven
popular in a number of states," he said. "The majority of American citizens already live in Congressional
districts with an RPS." And it looks like more states will join their ranks this year, namely Michigan, North
Carolina and Illinois, where legislators are considering making the current voluntary standard mandatory.
24
Obama Elections Links- Solar Energy Popular with Public
Overwhelming popularity for solar energy expansion
Browning ‘7 [Adam, co-founder of VSI; “Polls and Renewable Energy: People Want it”; 3-28-2007;
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/28/17117/2960]
There has been an absolute sea-change in the popularity of renewable energy in this country. We recently
polled voter attitudes towards solar in Tex. and Fla. -- and the results were nearly 20 points higher than a
similar poll in Calif. in 2005. Politicians need to better understand this. When they do, good things happen. To
wit, Tampa Tribune's recent article "A Changing Political Climate": State Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte
Springs, is pushing for more solar investment in Florida. He says a recent Mason-Dixon poll found that 90 percent
of Floridians think the Florida Legislature should encourage investment in solar energy, and 78 percent say
they would be willing to pay up to $1 a month on their utility bills to pay for it.
Several public opinion surveys say that the public prefers solar energy
Cooler Planet, “The Public Supports Solar Power”, http://blog.coolerplanet.com/2008/03/20/the-public-supports-
solar-power/, March 20, 2008
A public opinion survey published last week in Florida indicates that residents overwhelmingly support State-
backed initiatives to invest in solar energy, even if it increases their monthly utility bills. Over 81 percent of
the survey’s 625 respondents said that they are willing to pay a dollar more on their monthly utility bills to support
the investment in solar energy. The survey, commissioned by the state, was conducted after high consumer
demand depleted the state’s solar rebate program fund six months earlier than anticipated. Floridians are not alone
in their enthusiasm for solar power. According to the 2008 March/April edition of Solar Today, a publication from
the American Solar Energy Society, public opinion polls regarding alternative energy often rank solar energy
at the top of the list as the most viable alternative energy source. As a precursor to California’s aggressive
“Million Solar Roofs” initiative, the state polled voters in 2004. Survey results indicated that respondents
favored developing more renewable energy sources over building more power plants by a two to one
margin. And an article published last July in the New York Times reported that a survey conducted by a trade
association from the nuclear power industry found that its respondents preferred — solar. According to the Times
article, the nationwide survey asked respondents to predict what source of energy would be used to generate
the most electricity in 15 years. The sun won, gaining 27 percent of respondents’ votes over other energy
sources such as nuclear, natural gas, and coal. So perhaps solar energy will soon draw singular attention in
Congress? The public certainly has become more aware of energy tradeoffs
25
Obama Elections Links- Solar Energy Popular with Public
Solar energy enjoys public support
DoE ‘8 [U.S. Department of Energy – SunEdison; “City Leadership in Going Solar”; First Conference; April 15,
2008; http://www.solaramericacities.org/PDFs/2008_Annual_Meeting/DOE%20Solar%20Cities%20SunEdison.pdf]
Solar enjoys more public support than any other renewable resource - Approval ratings over 90% since the late
1990’s » Florida: 59% of residents willing to pay 25 cents or more extra per month » Ohio: 89% of residents
willing to pay 50 cents or more extra per month - Nuclear poll: 27% said “SOLAR” would be most used for
electricity in 15 years
Solar energy consistently ranks at the top of alternative energy surveys – Americans recognize the potential
of solar power
Business Wire, “Growing Number of Americans Think That Solar Electricity Should Be Offered on All New
Homes”, Lexis-Nexis, May 30, 2007
The trade association for the nuclear power industry recently asked 1,000 Americans what energy source they
thought would be used most for generating electricity in 15 years. The top choice? Not nuclear plants, or coal or
natural gas. The winner was the sun, cited by 27 percent of those polled. It is no wonder solar power has
captured the public imagination. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around
the world — from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers’ fields, to Wall Street,
where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger’s “Million Solar Roofs” initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and
fighting global warming. According to a recent Roper survey commissioned by Sharp Electronics Corporation,
nearly 90 percent of Americans think that solar electricity should be an option for all new home
construction, up significantly from one year ago (79 percent). Three-quarters of survey respondents
perceive solar power to be more important than ever, evidence that Americans recognize the value of solar as
a clean, renewable form of energy. The survey was conducted in May of this year among 1,004 adults to measure
their perceptions of solar power. "More and more, consumers are interested in solar energy, as the results of
this survey clearly show. The message from consumers to homebuilders is clear - builders can differentiate
themselves while satisfying customer needs by offering solar electricity on any home they build," said Ron Kenedi,
vice president, Solar Energy Solutions Group, Sharp Electronics Corporation.
26
Obama Elections Links- Wind Energy Popular with Public
Wind energy is farming public support
EEC ‘7 [Endless Energy Corporation; “General Wind Farm Public Support”; Last updated Spring 2007; Accessed
June 24, 2008; http://www.endlessenergy.com/general_public_support.shtml]
Public approval for wind projects usually starts high (before the project is started) and support consistently
increases after the wind farm is constructed. Once the wind farm is built, many who were opposed to wind
energy change their opinion and decide to support the wind farm. In Searsburg, Vermont, the wind farm
project had a 66% approval / neutral rating before construction and 83% afterwards. Other projects have had
similar results.
Wind farming popular with the public
DoE ‘5 [U.S. Department of Energy; “Wind Energy Benefits”; National Renewable Energy Laboratory; April
2005; http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37602.pdf]
The people want wind energy. Because of all the reasons listed above, along with concern over debilitating
illnesses associated with air pollutants, wind has overwhelming public support. Many people express their
support by purchasing blocks of wind energy to power their homes or businesses. Xcel Energy’s Windsource, the
largest customer-driven wind energy program in the nation (more than 30,000 participants), experienced 30%
annual growth from 1998 to 2003. Deliberative public polling in Texas7 and Nebraska8 demonstrated
overwhelming support of wind energy as an element of the generation portfolio. Because customers want
wind as a portion of their electricity portfolio, more than 300 utilities currently offer green pricing
programs that include wind energy.
Public support for wind energy – public opinion increases after implementation
AWEA ‘7 [America Wind Energy Association; “Wind Energy Policy Issues”; Last updated 2007;
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_policy.html#What%20is%20net%20metering%20(net%20billing)%20and
%20how%20does%20it%20work]
Wind energy is one of the most popular energy technologies. Opinion surveys regularly show that just over
eight out of 10 people (80%) are in favor of wind energy, and less than one in ten (around 5%) are against it.
The rest are undecided. Public opinion in support of wind power tends to become even more strongly in favor
once the wind turbines are installed and operating, a finding from several surveys carried out in the UK and in
Spain. Some people who live near proposed wind projects may be apprehensive about them. But when accurate
information and knowledge is made available, experience shows that initial concerns are reduced and
support for wind farms increases.
27
Obama Elections Links- Nuclear Energy Popular with Public
Public support for nuclear energy will continually grow
CSI ‘6 [Matthew Nisbet, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry; “Going Nuclear: Frames and Public Opinion about
Atomic Energy”; The Skeptical Inquirer; 6-1-2006; http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/nuclear/]
Nuclear energy is likely to remain a “third rail” of environmental politics, with many environmental groups willing
to devote heavy resources to opposing any new plant construction. Nuclear energy is also likely to remain an
ambivalent issue for the generation of Americans who lived through Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, with the
images and frames of a runaway technology easily evoked by carefully designed message strategies. However, the
more time passes with no new focusing events related to the dangers of nuclear energy, and as the perceived
urgency of energy independence and global warming increases, public support in the aggregate is also likely
to increase, as recent poll trends suggest. Framing will be the central device by which both advocates and
opponents of nuclear energy manage public opinion at the national level. However, if and when the decision is
made to build a new nuclear power plant in a specific area, mobilized minorities of local citizens will prove
decisive. Who shows up to protest, vote, or speak out at the local level will have a stronger impact on the future of
nuclear energy in the U.S. than the current struggle to shape national opinion.
Polls prove nuclear technology is popular with the majority of American public
Taylor ‘6 [James E., Environment and Climate News; “Public Favors Nuclear Power; Poll”; The Heartland
Institute; 10-1-2006; http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19723]
Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and
the Los Angeles Times. In a telephone poll of nearly 1,500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August
1, 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected
global warming, while only 30 percent opposed it. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support
for nuclear power as a clean, economical, and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears
have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll
results, published August 4, are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial
departments. Shortly after the poll results were released, the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published
house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.
Nuclear technology popularity growing now – recent energy policies prove
Taylor ‘6 [James E., Environment and Climate News; “Public Favors Nuclear Power; Poll”; The Heartland
Institute; 10-1-2006; http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19723]
The growing public support for nuclear power is already having positive effects on future construction
plans. The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 removed some of the obstacles to new plant construction. As a
result, 16 companies have formally notified federal authorities they are considering building new nuclear power
plants, according to testimony by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils Diaz in May 2006 before the
Senate Energy Committee. Energy producer Entergy has taken the lead on new plant construction and is likely to
receive a site permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2007 allowing a proposed new plant in
Mississippi. Entergy plans to add a second new nuclear power plant in Louisiana, and it is likely to receive an
NRC site permit for that plant in 2008. "There are several factors working in favor of development and
expansion of nuclear power plants in the near future," said Nuclear Energy Institute spokesperson Trish
Conrad. "Expanded baseload production will be needed to meet growing demand [for electricity]. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 has made the regulatory process less difficult. And public support is really lining
up behind nuclear power, and for good reason."
28
Obama Elections Links- Nuclear Energy Popular with Public
Two-thirds of Americans support the use of nuclear energy
NMC ‘2 [Nuclear Management Company publishing Bisconti Research; “Survey of U.S. public opinion”;
November 2002;
Survey of U.S. Public Opinion October 4-6, 2002 Two-thirds of Americans Support Use of Nuclear Energy;
Those Who “Strongly Support” at Record Levels. A new national public opinion poll shows that two-thirds of
Americans favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States,
including record high levels of those who “strongly support” the use of nuclear energy. The most recent
national poll of 1,000 adults was conducted October 4-6. Bisconti Research with RoperASW has tracked public
opinion about nuclear energy and related issues several times a year during this period of intense discussion of
both energy security and the security of important elements of the nation’s infrastructure like nuclear power plants.
Support for nuclear energy surged in early 2001 during development of a National Energy Plan and has
remained at or near record high levels except for a small decline in June of this year. Two-Thirds of the
Public Favors Nuclear Energy; Strongly Favorable Increases to 35% In the October survey, two-thirds of the
public (65 percent) favor the use of nuclear energy. And 35 percent strongly favor the use of nuclear energy
compared with 15 percent who are strongly opposed.
NEI surveys, the best polls on public sentiment, find that 86 percent of Americans like nuclear power
Matthew Nisbet, Assistant Professor at American University, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry,
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/nuclear/, June 1, 2006
As is common in policy debates, advocates on both sides claim that the public backs their preferred policy options. Take for example
Christine Todd Whitman and Patrick Moore. In a May Boston Globe op-ed, they write: “A recent nationwide poll by Bisconti Research
found that 86 percent of Americans see nuclear energy as an important part of meeting future electricity needs and 77 percent
agree that utilities should prepare now to build new nuclear plants in the next decade.” But is this an accurate characterization of
public opinion? The Bisconti polling was commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a pro-industry think tank. As a general rule,
polls commissioned by advocacy groups often paint things in rosier terms than polls conducted by news organizations or independent
outfits like Gallup or the Pew Center for the People and the Press. The polling on nuclear energy is no exception. The problem, however,
is that the NEI surveys are by far the best historical record of public sentiment, with items asked consistently every year since the
early 1980s. Other surveys have been administered only intermittently. Figure 1 plots the results of one of the standard items asked
nearly every year by NEI since the early 1980s. Notice the variations in public support over time, particularly the drop in support after
Chernobyl in 1986. The dip again in 1995 and 1996 is not as easily explained, though it could be attributable to negative news attention
brought about by the ten year anniversary of Chernobyl. The trend in rising public support appears to recover in 1998, peaks in 2001
during that year’s energy debate, declines in 2002 and 2003 with the threat of terrorist attacks on power plants, and then climbs to historic
highs in 2004-2006. Today, according to the NEI polls, roughly 70% of the public say that they favor the use of nuclear energy as
one of the ways to provide electricity in the U.S.
67% of Americans support domestic nuclear power

Carey 8, John E. Carey, Peace and Freedom ’08, “Congress Well Behind Public Opinion on Energy,
Environment,” http://johnibiii.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/congress-well-behind-public-opinion-on-energy-
environment/
A May 2008 public opinion survey by Zogby International shows 67% of Americans support the construction of
nuclear powered electric generating plants in the U.S.A recent Gallup poll showed 57% of Americans now favor
further exploration off the U.S. coasts at sea and in the wilds of places like the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve
(ANWR).Yet Congress has not enacted any legeslation to move ahead on nuclear power or new drilling.Nuclear
power does not create carbon emissions during the generating process.
29
Obama Elections Links- Addressing Global Warming popular with Public
Massive public support for policies to combat global warming
WPO ‘6 [World Public Opinion; “World Publics Willing to Bear Costs of Combating Climate Change”; 10-11-
2006; http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/255.php?lb=bte&pnt=255&nid=&id=]
Concern about global warming has increased sharply in the United States. Nearly half of the American
public sees climate change as a critical threat to vital U.S. interests. The U.S. public is not alone. A
multinational poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs finds that global warming is a big concern among the
Chinese and the Indian publics and is viewed especially urgently by South Koreans and Australians. Only small
minorities in the United States and the other countries surveyed think that evidence for global warming is too weak
to justify measures that might entail economic costs. Many Americans, Australians and the Chinese agree that
action needs to be taken now, even if it involves significant expenditures. Indians prefer a more gradual
approach. More Americans See Global Warming as Threat American concern about global warming has
surged nine points since 2004, when only 37 percent believed global warning put U.S. vital interests at risk.
The Chicago Council’s 2006 survey shows that 46 percent of Americans now consider climate change menacing, raising it to the upper half of international threats. Asked
to choose the argument that comes closest to their opinion about global warming, only 17 percent of Americans agree that “until we are sure that global warming is really a
problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs.” Thirty-seven percent think that the problem of global warming should be addressed but that “its
effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually.” The highest percentage (43%) says global warming is “a serious and pressing problem. We should begin
taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.” This percentage is up 9 points from the 34 percent willing to pay significant costs in a Program on International
Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll taken in June 2005.
American public demands anti-global warming policies now

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research ‘7 [Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research; “New Urgency for Action on
Energy Independence, Global Warming”; 4- 17-07;
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/environment_poll.html]
A new survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the Center for American Progress shows a heightened
demand among Americans for immediate action to tackle global warming and achieve energy independence.
Most telling, Americans are demanding clean, alternative energy and they want their leadership to act now
to change our energy policies to put the country on the right path. The public wants major change that
quickly moves the country toward energy independence. Americans believe this will be a boon for the
economy, will create jobs, and that America should lead the way. As this survey demonstrates, the public debate
over whether global warming is here and whether it is caused by humans is settled. Americans now want
immediate action. Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the current energy policies and now believe
America has fallen behind the rest of the world on energy. Concern about energy and global warming now
rivals health care as the top domestic issue that requires immediate action. Americans believe reducing
dependence on oil and coal to stop global warming is one of the most important challenges our country faces
(29 percent) on par with bringing down rising health care costs (32 percent) and well ahead of other issues.
Case closed: global warming evident and caused primarily by human actions. More than three-quarters (76 percent) of people believe the effects of global warming are
apparent now, including 50 percent who strongly believe this[1]—a 7-point increase since November 2005[2]. Sixty-one percent believe that global warming is caused more
by human actions than by naturally occurring forces, while just 34 percent believe global warming is caused more by nature. Forty-five percent strongly agree that human
actions are primarily responsible for global warming[3], which represents an 8-point increase in the past 16 months.
Polls finds that curbing global warming is an important bipartisan issue

NYT 07, Broder, John M., and Marjorie Connelly. "Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming." The New
York Times 26 Apr. 2007. 26 June 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/washington/27pollcnd.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=solar%20power
%20poll&st=cse&scp=5>.
Americans in large bipartisan numbers say the heating of the earth’s atmosphere is having serious effects on the environment now or will soon and think that it is
necessary to take immediate steps to reduce its effects, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds. Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of
independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the
global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were needed. Several recent international reports have
concluded with near certainty that human activities are the main cause of global warming since 1950. The poll found that 84 percent of Americans see
human activity as at least contributing to warming. The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global
leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal.
30
Obama Elections Links- Net Metering popular with Public

Popularity for net metering is growing now
AWEA ‘7 [America Wind Energy Association; “Wind Energy Policy Issues”; Last updated 2007;
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_policy.html#What%20is%20net%20metering%20(net%20billing)%20and%20how
%20does%20it%20work]
Net metering can improve the economics of a residential wind turbine by allowing the turbine's owner to use her
excess electricity to offset utility-supplied power at the full retail rate, rather than having to sell the power to the
utility at the price the utility pays for the wholesale electricity it buys or generates itself. Many utilities have argued
against net metering laws, saying that they are being required, in effect, to buy power from wind turbine owners at
full retail rates, and are therefore being deprived of a profit on part of their electricity sales. However, wind energy
advocates have successfully argued that what is going on is a power swap, and that it is standard practice in
the utility industry for utilities to trade power among themselves without accounting for differences in the
cost of generating the various kilowatt-hours involved. Today, net metering's popularity is growing. Thirty-
four states have enacted it in some form, and others are considering it.
Empirical support for net metering – Iowa proves
NREL ’98 [National Renewable Energy Laboratory; “Current Experience with Net Metering Programs”; Yih-Huei
Wan, H. James Green; May 1998; http://www.aocwind.ca/pdfs/netmetering.pdf]
Utilities in several states have challenged net metering orders or petitioned the PUCs to terminate the net
metering requirements. So far none has succeeded in overturning an existing net metering order.6 Utility
challenges have been based on the premise that net metering orders violate PURPA and often cite the FERC
decision on Connecticut Light and Power, No. EL-93-55-000, which states that PURPA bars the states from
requiring utilities to pay QFs the retail rate. PUCs of Maine7 and Minnesota8 did rule on the PURPA issue related
to net metering in 1997, and both upheld their net metering requirements. PUCs of both states found that net
metering requirements do not violate PURPA because utilities are not required to purchase electricity from
customers at a rate higher than utility avoided cost. They also ruled that the Connecticut Light and Power decision,
which involves wholesale transactions, does not apply to retail metering and billing. Both PUCs maintain that the
state has the right to establish alternative billing and metering practices for retail transactions and these rights are
not preempted by PURPA. In March 1998, the Iowa Utilities Board withdrew a proposal to eliminate Iowa’s
existing net metering rule following a significant display of public support. However, the legal issues arising
from net metering orders are not completely resolved, and utilities may continue their challenges at the state
level. Another uncertainty is utility restructuring and retail competition. It is not clear at present what impact
this will have on net metering programs.
Americans want more net metering
Kevin A. Cahill, New York State Assembly member, “Cahill Energized Over Public Service Commission Net
Metering Decision”, http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=101&sh=story&story=24468, October 18, 2007
"Every public opinion poll done on solar energy confirms consumers want more solar. The PSC decision to
raise the net metering limit for Central Hudson from its current 1.8 MW to the new 10 MW is very, very
exciting news – far beyond what we expected. The PSC is sending an important signal that New York State is
open for business – solar energy business – and utilities need to do their part to help consumers benefit from this
clean renewable energy source,” said Christine Donovan, Executive Vice President of the New York Solar Energy
Industries Association. “The solar economy is thriving in the Hudson Valley and the imminent arrival of the
Solar Energy Consortium promises to turn the region into a hot spot for the industry’s expansion,” said Mr.
Cahill. “The expansion of net metering will have an enormous long term economic benefit in terms of promoting
the Hudson Valley as a hub for solar innovation and development.”
31
Obama Elections Links- Climate/Environment key 2008 Election Issue
Climate change now a front-burner election issue
National Public Radio 08, "Elections 2008." National Public Radio. 30 Jan. 2008. 28 June 2008
<http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/issues/climate.html>.
Historically, environmental issues have taken a back seat in national elections. But that appears to be changing.
Climate change is moving to the front burner for many of the candidates vying for the Democratic and Republican
nominations in 2008. The new awareness results from several factors: A growing consensus among Americans on
the left and right that global warming issues must be addressed; concern over imported oil from the Middle East;
and the newfound muscle of California's eco-voters, thanks to their state's early primary this year.
Protecting the environment is one of the top three campaign issues
South Bend Tribune (Indiana), May 4, 2008, p. Lexis
Ross said the top three campaign issues in his mind are the county's financial crisis, maintaining the
county's infrastructure and protecting the environment. All three are key to whether the county can
encourage and attract future growth, he said. But the questions all are tied to money, Ross said, which goes
back to the so-called Circuit Breaker legislation.
Climate issue has potential to transform 2008 presidential election
Bruce Lieberman, Reported on science issues from 2002-2007 for the San Diego Union-Tribune, Yale Climate
Media Forum, January 4, 2008, p. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0108_debates.htm
What happens between now and election day to elevate or sink the climate change issue in the minds of the
electorate is anyone's guess. Scientists know that the most credible signals of a warming climate reside in the
evolving patterns of weather over the long-term. But another summer of punishing heat waves or a cataclysmic
season of Atlantic hurricanes could play into the public's - and the media's - compulsion to put a face on
global warming. And that could certainly change the dynamics of the campaign's final months. "One hell of
a Katrina next September would totally transform what happens on November 4th," Corell said.
Energy and climate will be a front-burner issue in the 2008 presidential election
Daniel Kammen, Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy
at UC Berkeley, San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 2008, p. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/c/a/2008/05/18/IN3R10MGSK.DTL
The Democratic presidential candidates have each committed to a national energy portfolio of at least 25 percent of
electricity from clean energy sources by 2025, and all three candidates are in favor of cap-and-trade systems to
build greenhouse gas markets. It is vital, but politically challenging, to make sure that all emissions credits are
auctioned, not given away to large polluters. We are now in a moment - perhaps a first - where a growing view
exists that energy and climate could be front-burner issues for candidates and voters. The time is right to
focus on the energy system we want, not on the one we had, and sadly, still have.
32
Obama Elections Links- Energy key 2008 Election Issue
Alternative technologies and US energy policy will be a major electoral issue- large majorities of
independent voters want USFG action
The New York Times, April 25, 2007, p. Lexis
A group of environmental entrepreneurs, including Andrew Shapiro of GreenOrder and Jesse Fink of Marshall
Street Management, just created a Website, GreenPrimary.org, to host online forums where, after the Green
Debate, voters can study the different candidates' policy positions and even vote for the one they think is most
serious. ''The 2008 presidential campaign will present the first opportunity for a national candidate to make
sustainability a breakthrough electoral issue,'' Mr. Shapiro argues. A new survey released last week by the
Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, conducted for the Center for American Progress,
underscores that large majorities of independents (59 percent) and Democrats (76 percent) support action
now to stop global warming and make the U.S. energy-independent, along with a significant bloc of
Republicans (41 percent). ''Only 27 percent of people feel that our energy policy is headed in the right
direction, while 65 percent say our energy policy is seriously off on the wrong track,'' the Greenberg firm said.
''Moreover, a majority of Americans (52 percent) believes the U.S. is either falling or has fallen far behind
other countries in developing clean, alternative energy. Only 14 percent of people believe we lead the world
in developing these technologies.''
Energy issues will figure prominently in 2008 presidential election
David Victor, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations,
March 3, 2008, p. http://www.cfr.org/publication/15661/energy_trap.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios
%2F3131%2Fdavid_g_victor
Democrats voting in Ohio and Texas may well decide the shape of the U.S. presidential election. Regardless of
who they choose to run against Sen. John McCain, the all but certain Republican candidate, it is likely that energy
issues will figure more prominently in the election than at any time in the last generation. High prices are
sapping economic growth, the No. 1 concern across most of the country. Gasoline is now approaching $4 a
gallon; natural gas and electricity are also more costly than a few years ago. Global warming has become a
bipartisan worry, and solving that problem will require radical new energy technologies as well. All this is
good news in the rest of the world, which is hoping that a new regime in Washington will put the United States on
a more sustainable energy path.
Energy issues will have unprecedented prominence in 2008 presidential election
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 25, 2007, p. Lexis
Oil prices flirting with $100 a barrel, warnings of climate change and holiday road trips fueled by gas
topping $3 a gallon are combining to give energy issues unprecedented prominence in the presidential
campaign. "The bottom line for us, we're happy everybody is talking about it," said David Willett, national
press secretary for the Sierra Club. "Even in '04, while there was a clear difference between the candidates, it
wasn't really a campaign issue."
Energy has spiked in its importance to voters in recent months

Two issues top the list, based on the percentage rating each as extremely important in choosing between
candidates: energy/gas prices and the economy. (Energy has spiked in its importance to voters in recent months as
gas prices have risen to the $4-per-gallon level.)
33
Obama Elections Links- Gas Prices key 2008 Election Issue
Gas prices are the biggest issue this election
Associated Press June 25, Raum, Tom. "Gas At $4 Brings Promises, Pandering." Associated Press. 24 June 2008.
25 June 2008 <http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isJU4OyzZglXxAWlzkvmnslNP3-wD91FTJSG9>.
Oil and gas prices that have doubled in the past year have squeezed aside the war in Iraq as the No. 1 issue this election year
and both parties are blaming each other for the price spike — and for apparent congressional paralysis. Obama and McCain
have made high gas prices a top issue in their campaigns and have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their
positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on Capitol Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would
chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the nation's addiction to foreign oil.
This debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches. In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released Monday, nine
in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in
November, tying it with the economy as the top issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy
issues by 19 percentage points. Yet energy experts and economists — and even some of the candidates' own advisers — say
none of their signature proposals will have any impact on $4 gasoline or $130 a barrel oil in the near term, or even the
intermediate term. Is it open season for pandering? "I think it is. This is a real pressure point for people every day, everytime
they fill their tanks. Therefore, politicians can't leave it alone," said Fred Greenstein, professor emeritus of politics at
Princeton University.
Gas prices will be a dominant election issue

Texas Observer June 27, "Pandering At the Pump." The Texas Observer 27 June 2008. 28 June 2008
<http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2791>.
Gas prices are so high the rural unemployed cannot afford to leave their houses to look for work. Filling a 20—
gallon tank now costs more than $80. Working families are feeling the pinch—some choose between money for
gas and basic needs like food, medicine, and rent. (Elevated fuel costs have contributed to skyrocketing food prices
as well.) Americans won’t be taking to the highways for summer vacation as they have in the past. The Department
of Transportation reports that Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer highway miles in April 2008 than they did in
April 2007. Fuel prices likely will be a dominant election issue this fall. By the end of the year, some analysts say
gas could hit $6 a gallon.
Gas prices are the single biggest election issue
Washington Times June 19, “Energy Solutions Vs. Energy Politics." The Washington Times 19 June 2008.
LexisNexis Academic.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4056392213&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=101&resultsUrlKe
y=29_T4056392216&cisb=22_T4056392215&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8176&docNo=. 28 June 2008.
With the average at $4.08 a gallon for regular unleaded, gasoline prices are now the single biggest issue for voters in the 2008
presidential election. American voters are close to being ready to tap sources of oil in unused federal park lands like the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more than ready to drill beneath the oceans and in the outer continental shelf. A Fox
5/The Washington Times/Rasmussen poll released Monday showed that 53 percent of voters were ready to open up federal
parks like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling, 33 percent said they are not and another 14 percent
said they are not sure. Also, a Rasmussen phone poll taken Tuesday showed a much larger percentage, 67 percent, of voters
supporting offshore drilling and 64 percent said they think it would lower prices at the pump. John McCain, reflecting the
polls, called for more ocean exploration Tuesday: "We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United
States. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use." He is
still not ready to drill in ANWR: "When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a 'refuge' for a
reason."
Oil prices and economic issues top concern for American voters in presidential election
Chinadaily.com.cn, May 13, 2008, p. Lexis
Oil prices keep climbing to record highs, threatening to push the US economy into recession, and economic issues are a top concern for American voters
during this presidential election year when they will choose a successor to Bush.
34
Obama Elections Impacts- Obama victory key to US Soft Power

Obama is the best bet for increasing US soft power- that’s key to heg
Goldenberg 08 [Ilan, policy director @ National Secuirty Network, The American Prospect, It's Time to Stop
Talking About Soft Power, May 29, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?
article=its_time_to_stop_talking_about_soft_power]
It's possible to build a compelling national security message by tying traditional progressive themes into the ideas
of Soft Power: promoting a foreign policy that reflects our values and traditions; reestablishing our moral authority
in the world; using all of our tools to tackle complex problems. All of these messages reflect the thinking behind
Soft Power but do not connote weakness.
Even more important than the specific wording is the manner in which the message is delivered. Poll after poll has
found that when Democrats respond aggressively to claims that they are not equipped to defend America they are able to offset Republican advantages. In the run up to the
2006 mid-term elections when Republicans began accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism because of their opposition to warrantless wiretapping, a Democracy Corps
study found that the best response was to take the argument head on. What mattered was less the substance of the argument than the fact that Democrats were unafraid to
defend their ideas. Similarly, when Democrats stood up to the president in March 2007 and passed legislation to end the Iraq War, their poll numbers on security improved
-- not because they were taking the traditionally "hard" position but because they were asserting themselves.
Perhaps the best lesson that Democrats can draw is from Barack Obama's forceful response to President Bush's
claim that having a dialogue with Iran is the equivalent of appeasement. Obama did not try to prove his toughness
with hawkish saber rattling about war. Instead, he couched his progressive, smart argument that there is a value to
communicating with those we have strong disagreements with in the most assertive terms possible: "If George
Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America that is a debate I am
happy to have any time, any place."
Obama will increase US soft power- multiple reasons

Sullivan 07 [Andrew, editor of Te Atlantic Newspaper, The Re-Branding of America, Apr 24,
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/the_rebranding_.html]
The simple existence of Obama as a new president in a new century would in itself enhance America’s soft
power immeasurably, just as a clear decision to leave Iraq would provide much greater leverage for diplomacy
and military force in a whole variety of new ways. Obama would mean the rebranding of America, after a
disastrous eight years. His international heritage, his racial journey, his middle name: these are assets for
this country, not liabilities.
Obama will at the very least keep the US image from falling- but will most likely increase soft power
Wall Street Journal 08 [May 21, Obama: The Value Of Soft Power, Watch out for that pedestal!,
http://www.civildiscourse.com/index.php?showtopic=1348]
"The question is whether the virtues that Mr. Obama would bring to the Oval Office as a symbol will translate into effectiveness
as a president. The strong argument that they will rests on Harvard professor Joseph Nye's notion of "soft power": The idea that
America's real strength rests not so much on its ability to impose -- as it can and often does through the military and economic
tools of hard power -- but on its ability to attract. In this reading, Mr. Obama offers a double dollop of global promise, both
because of who he is and because of what he says he will do: Talk to Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; shut down
Guantanamo; reduce carbon emissions and so on.
Maybe all that will come to pass, and maybe all will be well. Clearly an Obama victory will mean that the U.S. will be better liked (or
less disliked) in places like Britain and Germany, where the Illinois senator is often billed as a new Jack Kennedy or even
Abraham Lincoln.
Obama will stress soft power

Zunes 08 [Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at
the University of San Francisco., Behind Obama and Clinton, Feb 4, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940]
Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted,
members of Obama’s foreign policy team are “more likely to stress ’soft power’ issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed
states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”
And new approaches are definitely needed.
35
Obama Elections Impacts- Obama victory key to US Soft Power
Barack Obama victory would immediately ratchet up America’s soft power a logarithm
Andrew Sullivan, Atlantic Magazine senior Editor, The Atlantic Magazine, December, 2007, p.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the
United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all,
is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen
its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated
and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template
that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this.
Which is where his face comes in.
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is
the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man
whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy.
If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close.
It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
Obama is the next soft power president- is color, race, and foreign policy all make him able- soft power is
comparatively better than hard and key to heg
Schaller 08 [Thomas F. Schaller teaches political science at UMBC. His column appears regularly in The Sun.,
Baltimore Sun, May 21, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-
op.schaller21may21,0,5752532.column]
Is Sen. Barack Obama the future "soft power" president of the United States?
My current trip to Brazil and one a few months ago to Saudi Arabia - two countries that could hardly be more different - have convinced me that he would have a chance for
a transformative global impact.
"Soft" may sound weak or pejorative, but it's not. Unlike American "hard" power, which is exercised through our military and economic clout, soft power relies on our
moral, notional and cultural exports. It derives from our ability to persuade the planet with our values, products and identity.
To use the shorthand of acronyms, ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) are hard power; KFCs (Colonel Sanders' global fast-food chain) are soft power. Consider that
the Marriott hotel on Rio de Janeiro's Copacabana Beach, from which I write, has The Simpsons on its cable package and a McDonald's a few blocks away.
So what makes Mr. Obama potentially America's first soft power president? To begin, there's his color and his name.
Saudis I met were both fascinated by the prospect that America could elect a black man with the middle name Hussein, and
generally convinced it could never happen. In Brazil, a country whose elites are European in descent and mindset but that also
features a huge population of Afro-Brazilians, there is a similar feeling of cautious optimism.
Then, more significantly, there is Mr. Obama's potentially pathbreaking foreign policy doctrine, explained by Spencer Ackerman in
a recent cover piece for The American Prospect. Mr. Obama and his foreign policy team emphasize "dignity promotion" over
"democracy expansion."
If that notion itself sounds a wee bit soft, think again. What Mr. Obama believes is that in societies paralyzed by dehumanizing poverty,
ethnic and tribal violence, or lacking safe or abundant food and water supplies, not only is there little hope of democracies emerging,
there's a much greater chance to germinate terrorist ideas. A refugee with an empty belly is not much interested in discourse on
constitutional theories of checks and balances.
Meanwhile, back home, the Bush administration fertilizes rising anti-American radicalism with its reckless bad-neighbor policies. In his speech last week endorsing Mr.
Obama, former Sen. John Edwards talked about the walls that divide us here in America - but then argued there's also a wall distorting our global image. "The America as
the beacon of hope is behind that wall," said Mr. Edwards. "And all the world sees now is a bully. They see Iraq, Guantanamo, secret prisons and government that argues
that waterboarding is not torture."
A 2007 British Broadcasting Corp. survey in which people around the world were asked to rate 12 major countries in terms of their positive and negative influence revealed
that America's negative rating (51 percent) was third worst, between "axis of evil" members Iran and North Korea.
As to those who say they don't care what foreigners think - or worse, who seem to wear anti-Americanism, whether deriving from Paris or Karachi or Addis Ababa, as some
sort of badge of honor - this is a myopic and dangerous way to look at the world.
The fact is, the U.S. must thaw the chilling effect of the Bush years. Our security depends on it; our markets do, too.
Because reputations are easy to destroy but difficult to rehabilitate, an Obama victory this November will not be a panacea. But it may
provide the United States a chance for a fresh start - a reason for nations that not long ago respected America because it set an
example for the world to renew their beliefs in the world's lone remaining superpower.
For citizens of the world who are familiar with the sight of our Golden Arches or the sound Windows XP makes when they boot
their Dell laptops, Mr. Obama is an emerging global icon. And, with apologies for commodifying him, he may yet prove to be
America's next great export.
36
Obama Elections Impacts- Soft Power key to US Hegemony
Soft Power key to sustaining US leadership – assumes the 21st century
NYE 02 former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government (Joseph,
“The Paradox of American Power”)
PEERING INTO THE FUTURE The September 2001 wake-up call means that Americans are unlikely to slip
back into the complacency that marked the first decade after the Cold War. If we respond effectively, it is highly
unlikely that terrorists could destroy American power, but the campaign against terrorism will require a long and
sustained effort. At the same time, the United States is unlikely to face a challenge to its preeminence unless it acts
so arrogantly that it helps other states to overcome their built- in limitations. The one entity with the capacity to
challenge the United States in the near future is the European Union if it were to become a tight federation with
major military capabilities and if the relations across the Atlantic were allowed to sour. Such an outcome is
possible but would require major changes in Europe and considerable ineptitude in American policy to bring it
about. Nonetheless, even short of such a challenge, the diminished fungibility of military power in a global
information age means that Europe is already well placed to balance the United States on the economic and
transnational chessboards. Even short of a military balance of power, other countries may be driven to work
together to take actions to complicate American objectives. Or, as the French critic Dominique Moisi puts it, “The
global age has not changed the fact that nothing in the world can be done without the United States. And the
multiplicity of new actors means that there is very little the United States can achieve alone.”73
The United States can learn useful lessons about a strategy of providing public goods from the history of Pax
Britannica. An Australian analyst may be right in her view that if the United States plays its cards well and acts not
as a soloist but as the leader of a concert of nations, “the Pax Americana, in terms of its duration, might. . . become
more like the Pax Romana than the Pax Britannica:’74 If so, our soft power will play a major role. As Henry
Kissinger has argued, the test of history for the United States will be whether we can turn our current predominant
power into international consensus and our own principles into widely accepted international norms. That was the
greatness achieved by Rome and Britain in their times.75
United States leadership is solely dependent on Soft power

FRASER 03 doctorate in political science from Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, former Editor-in-Chief of
National Post (Matthew, , p. 18, “Weapons of Mass Distraction: Soft Power and American Empire”).
Let's begin with soft power. The term has been championed by Joseph S. Nye, a Harvard professor who served as
Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton. Nye has defined soft power as "the ability to achieve
desired outcomes in international affairs through attraction rather than coercion." Nye argues, more specifically,
that America's global influence cannot depend solely on its economic strength, military muscle, and coercive
capacities. Yes, hard power is needed as an implied threat, and should be used when necessary—as was
demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq. But American leadership in the world must depend on the assertion of
soft power—namely, the global appeal of American lifestyles, culture, forms of distraction, norms, and
values. In short, American leadership is more effective when it is morally based. Soft power has the advantage
of being much less violent than brute force. It can claim, moreover, the not inconsequential virtue of being much
less costly. Why keep the peace with ground troops, aircraft carriers, and inter-continental missiles when Big
Macs, Coca-Cola, and Hollywood blockbusters can help achieve the same long-term goals? Soft power also
includes artistic expression and institutional arrangements—such as travelling exhibitions and scholarly exchange
programs—that help export American models. When foreign students undertake studies in the United States, they
return to their home countries immersed in American values, attitudes, and modes of thinking.
37
Obama Elections Impacts- Soft Power key to US Hegemony
Softpower can sustain US leadership
FRASER 03 doctorate in political science from Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, former Editor-in-Chief of
National Post
(Matthew, , p. 32, “Weapons of Mass Distraction: Soft Power and American Empire”).
First, while American soft power was deployed throughout the 20th century to promote the national interests of the United States, the
global extension of American soft power was never strictly a trade issue, as economic interests were invariably linked with an ideological
mission to disseminate American values in the face of geopolitical threats, especially Communism. In the post-Cold War era, however,
soft power has become a key strategic resource for the American Empire. America has emerged as an undisputed imperial power whose
soft-power umbrella overarches the entire world. Its legitimacy is acknowledged in liberal democracies that share cultural values and
strategic interests with America, and meets resistance in regions where those values are not shared. Second, American soft power is
historically unprecedented due to the scope, velocity, and intensity of cultural globalization. The global transmission of American soft
power is virtually simultaneous thanks to communications technologies such as satellites and the Internet. Foreign cultures are no longer
protected by the ramparts of time, space, and barriers such as high tariffs and distribution costs. The precise effects of American soft
power, and reactions it provokes, can he debated, but the reach of American soft power is indisputably global. Few corners of the world
have not been touched by its influence. The global ubiquity of American soft power has made it more difficult to resist in regions where
elites are hostile to liberal democracy and free-market capitalism.
Soft Power key to Hard Power & Coalitions

Nye 2004 (Joseph, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy
School of Government, “Soft Power, The Means to Success in World Politics,”)
In the global information age, the attractiveness of the United States will be crucial to our ability to achieve the outcomes we want. Rather
than having to put together pickup coalitions of the willing for each new game, we will benefit if we are able to attract others into
institutional alliances and eschew weakening those we have already created. NATO, for example, not only aggregates the capabilities of
advanced nations, but its interminable committees, procedures, and exercises also allow them to train together and quickly become
interoperable when a crisis occurs. As for alliances, if the United States is an attractive source of security and reassurance, other countries
will set their expectations in directions that are conducive to our interests. For example, initially the U.S.-Japan security treaty, signed in
was not very popular in Japan, but over the decades, polls show that it became more attractive to the Japanese public. Once that happened,
Japanese politicians began to build it into their approaches to foreign policy. The United States benefits when it is regarded as a constant
and trusted source of attraction, so that other countries are not obliged continually to reexamine their options in an atmosphere of
uncertain coalitions. In the Japan case, broad acceptance of the U.S. by the Japanese public “contributed to the maintenance of US
hegemony” and “served as political constraints compelling the ruling elites to continue cooperation with the United States.”17 Popularity
can contribute to stability. Finally, as the RAND Corporation’s John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt argue, power in the global information
age will come not just from strong defenses, but from strong sharing. A traditional realpolitik mind-set makes it difficult to share with
others. But in the information age, such sharing not only enhances the ability of others to cooperate with us but also increases their
inclination to do so.18 As we share intelligence and capabilities with others, we develop common outlooks and approaches that improve
our ability to deal with the new challenges. Power flows from that attraction. Dismissing the importance of attraction as merely ephemeral
popularity ignores key insights from new theories of leadership as well as the new realities of the information age. We cannot afford that.
Soft power key to hard power

ZWIEBEL 06 Director of Range Infrastructure and Investments, US Army Developmental Test Command
[Michael J. Zwiebel, “Why We Need to Reestablish the USIA,” Military Review,
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec06/Zwiebel.pdf]
Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, an associate professor of communication at DePaul University, has addressed the ways soft power
enhances other instruments of national power. “As a nation,” she argues, “we may have the mightiest military and the
most sophisticated technology, but such strengths ultimately will not matter if we fail to capture the minds and hearts
of people around the world with the enduring story of freedom and democracy.”36 Fitzpatrick points out that we must first
educate ourselves about other countries before we attempt to change their views. She too recognizes that for public
diplomacy to be effective, it must be considered when developing foreign policy. She also warns against the dangers of “diplomatic
chaos”—the confusion experienced by foreign citizens when U.S. policies and goals shift each time a new president is elected. Says Fitzpatrick: “[It’s] no wonder foreign
citizens get confused about what this country really stands for.”37
38
Obama Elections Impacts- US Hegemony Good Impacts

Leadership prevents global nuclear exchange
Khalilzad 95, Defense Analyst at RAND
(Zalmay, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War" The Washington Quarterly,
RETHINKING GRAND STRATEGY; Vol. 18, No. 2; Pg. 84)
<Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a
return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is
desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous
advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,
and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems,
such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership
would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold
or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive
to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.>
Decline in hegemony will cause great power wars and nuclear exchange
Lieber 05, Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University
(Robert J., The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century, p. 53-54)
Withdrawal from foreign commitments might seem to be a means of evading hostility toward the United States, but the
consequences would almost certainly be harmful both to regional stability and to U.S. national interests. Although Europe would
almost certainly not see the return to competitive balancing among regional powers (i.e., competition and even military rivalry between
France and Germany) of the kind that some realist scholars of international relations have predicted, 21 elsewhere the dangers could
increase. In Asia, Japan, 'louth Korea, and Taiwan would have strong motivation to acquire nuclear weapons - which they have
the technological capacity to do quite quickly. Instability and regional competition could also escalate, not only between India and
Pakistan, but also in Southeast Asia involving Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and possibly the Philippines. Risks in the Middle
East would be likely to increase, with regional competition among the major countries of the Gulf region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and
Iraq) as well as Egypt, Syria, and Israel. Major regional wars, eventually involving the use of weapons of mass destruction plus
human suffering on a vast scale, floods of refugees, economic disruption, and risk to oil supplies are all readily conceivable.
Based on past experience, the United States would almost certainly be drawn back into these areas, whether to defend friendly states, to cope with a humanitarian
catastrophe, or to prevent a hostile power from dominating an entire region. Steven Peter Rosen has thus fittingly observed, "If the logic of American empire is
unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive." Similarly, Niall Ferguson has added that those who dislike American predominance
ought to bear in mind that the alternative may not be a world of competing great powers, but one with no hegemon at all. Ferguson's warning may be hyperbolic,
but it hints at the perils that the absence of a dominant power, "apolarity," could bring "an anarchic new Dark Age of wailing empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic
plunder and pillage in the world’s forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves."''
Loss of U.S. hegemony would lead to political chaos and nuclear war
Brzezinski 04, former national security adviser, professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's
School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
( Zbigniew, THE CHOICE: GLOBAL DOMINATION OR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP, , p. 17)
The notion of total national security is now a myth. Total security and total defense in the age of globalization are not attainable. The real issue
is: with how much insecurity can America live while promoting its interests in an increasingly interactive, interdependent world? Insecurity,
while uncomfortable, has been the fate of many other nations for centuries. For America there is no longer a choice: if socially disagreeable, its
insecurity has to be politically manageable.
In reflecting on the security implications of this new reality, it is important to bear in mind the points made earlier. America is the world-
transforming society, even revolutionary in its subversive impact sovereignty-based international politics. At the same time, America traditional
power, unilaterally protective of its own security while sustaining international stability not only for its own benefit, but for that of- the
international community as a whole. The latter task compels U.S. policymakers to concentrate on the more traditional U.S. role as the linchpin of
global stability. Despite the new realities of global interdependence and the mounting preoccupation of the international community with
such new global issues as ecology, global , warming, AIDS, and poverty, the argument that American power is uniquely central to world
peace is supported by a simple hypothetical test: What would happen if the U.S. Congress were to mandate the prompt retraction of U.S.
military power from its three crucial foreign deployments—Europe, the Far East, and the Persian Gulf?
Any such U.S. withdrawal would without doubt plunge the world almost immediately into a politically chaotic crisis. In Europe, there would be a
pell-mell rush by some to rearm but also to reach a special arrangement with Russia. In the Far East, war would probably break out on the Korean
Peninsula while Japan would undertake a crash program of rearmament, including nuclear weapons. In the Persian Gulf area, Iran would become
dominant and would intimidate the adjoining Arab states.
39
Obama Elections Impacts- Iran Strike Bad 2NC Impact Scenario

McCain victory would result in Iran strike, while Obama wouldn’t approve it
Shabtai Shavit, Mossad chief from 1989 to 1996, Israeli Insider, June 29, 2008, p.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/12945.htm
Shavit added that a victory by Democratic nominee Barack Obama in the November presidential election
would significantly lower the chances that the U.S. would approve of military action against Iran. "If
[Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it," Shavit
told the paper. "If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the
White House."
Iran strike causes extinction

HIRSCH 05 [Jorge, Physics Professor at UC San Diego, “Can A Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Averted,” Anti-War,
11-21, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8089]
In a worst-case scenario, the attack will cause a violent reaction from Iran. Millions of "human wave"
Iranian militias will storm into Iraq, and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical weapons, the U.S. will
stop them with nuclear weapons, resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of casualties. The Middle
East will explode, and popular uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with pro-Western
governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and a nuclear
conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons. In a best-case scenario,
the U.S. will destroy all nuclear, chemical, and missile facilities in Iran with conventional and low-yield nuclear
weapons in a lightning surprise attack, and Iran will be paralyzed and decide not to retaliate for fear of a vastly
more devastating nuclear attack. In the short term, the U.S. will succeed, leaving no Iranian nuclear program,
civilian or otherwise. Iran will no longer threaten Israel, a regime change will ensue, and a pro-Western
government will emerge. However, even in the best-case scenario, the long-term consequences are dire. The
nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Many
more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With no taboo against the use of
nuclear weapons, they will certainly be used again. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20
years, and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed. Let us remember that the destructive power of
existing nuclear arsenals is approximately one million times that of the Hiroshima bomb, enough to erase
Earth's population many times over.
40
Obama Elections Impacts- Obama key to resolving Iran issue Peacefully
Only Obama's diplomacy can convince Iran to stop its nuclear program and save a Middle Eastern war
Wall Street Journal 07 [Obama Is Right on Iran, Nov 26, http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?
id=110010909]
After a recent Democratic presidential debate, Barack Obama proclaimed that were he to become president, he would talk directly even to America's worst
enemies. One could imagine President Obama as a kind of superhero taking off in Air Force One for Tehran, there to be greeted on the tarmac by the villainous Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad.
Was this a serious foreign policy proposal or simply a campaign counterpunch? Hillary Clinton had already held up this idea as evidence of Mr. Obama's naiveté. Wasn't he
just pushing back, displaying his commitment to "diplomacy"--now the most glamorous word in the Democratic "antiwar" lexicon?
Whatever Mr. Obama's intent, history has given his idea a rather bad reputation. Neville Chamberlain springs to mind as a man who was famously seduced into the wishful
thinking that seems central to the idea of talking to one's enemies. Today few Americans--left or right--would be comfortable with direct talks between our president and a
character like Mr. Ahmadinejad. Wouldn't such talk only puff up extremist leaders and make America into a supplicant?
On its face, Mr. Obama's idea seems little more than a far-left fantasy. But perhaps it looks this way because we are viewing it through too narrow a conception of warfare.
We tend to think of our wars as miniature versions of World War II, a war of national survival. But since then we have fought wars in which our national survival was not
immediately, or even remotely, at stake. We have fought wars in distant lands for rather abstract reasons, and there has been the feeling that these were essentially wars of
choice: We could win or lose without jeopardizing our nation's survival.
Mr. Obama's idea clearly makes no sense in a context of national survival. It would have been absurd for President Roosevelt to fly to Berlin and talk to Hitler. But Mr.
Obama's idea does make sense in the buildup to wars where survival is not at risk--wars that are more a matter of urgent choice than of absolute necessity.
I think of such wars as essentially wars of discipline. Their purpose is to preserve a favorable balance of power that is already in place in the world. We fight these wars not
to survive but--once a menace has arisen--to discipline the world back into a balance of power that best ensures peace. We fight as enforcers rather than as rebels or as
patriots fighting for survival. Wars of discipline are pre-emptive by definition. They pre-empt menace to the peaceful world order. We don't sacrifice blood and treasure for
change; we sacrifice for constancy.
Conversely, in wars of survival, like World War II, we fight to achieve a favorable balance of power--one in which a peace is established that guarantees our sovereignty
and survival. We fight unapologetically for dominance, and we determine to defeat our enemy by any means necessary. We do not harry ourselves much over the style of
warfare--whether the locals like us, where the line between interrogation and torture might lie, whether or not we are solicitous of our captive's religious beliefs or dietary
strictures. There is no feeling in society that we can afford to lose these wars. And so we never have.
If Mr. Obama's idea was born of mushy idealism, it could work far better as a hard-nosed moral brinkmanship. Were an American president (or a secretary of state for the
less daring) to land in Tehran, the risk to American prestige would be enormous. The mullahs would make us characters in a tale of their own grandeur. Yet moral authority
would redound to us precisely for making ourselves vulnerable to this kind of exploitation. The world would witness not the stereotype of American bullying, but the reality
of American selflessness, courage and moral confidence.
If we were snubbed, if all our entreaties to peace were flouted, if war became inevitable, then we would have the moral authority to fight as if for survival. Either our high-
risk diplomacy works or we have the license to fight to win. In the meantime, we give our allies around the world every reason to respect us.
This is not an argument for Mr. Obama's candidacy, only for his idea. It is a good one because it allows America the advantage of its own great character.
Obama would normalize relations with Iran and offer them a grand bargain
Patrick Seale, Leading British writer on the Middle East, Agence Global, March 21, 2008, p.
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/4419
It remains to be seen whether the conservative victories in both Washington and Tehran can endure or whether they will soon be
overturned. George W. Bush is a discredited, lame-duck president, struggling to retain some measure of authority in his last months in
office. If Barack Obama were to win the Democratic nomination -- and then the Presidency -- U.S. relations with Iran could well
be transformed, on lines that Admiral Fallon might approve. Relations might at least be normalized, a dialogue started and
ambassadors exchanged, even if the improvement does not go so far as the "grand bargain," which some commentators have
hoped for.
Obama will try to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and reach out to Syria and Iran
Leon Hadar, Former United Nations bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post and is currently the Washington
correspondent for the Singapore Business Times, March 14, 2008, p. http://www.antiwar.com/hadar/?
articleid=12518
The views of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) seem to correspond to a sub-genre of the diplomatic, internationalist Wilsonian perspective that is more
dovish than the hawkish Wilsonian approach promoted by the neoconservatives. What would this sort of Wilsonian at the helm spell for U.S.
policy? Not unlike former President Jimmy Carter, Obama seems primed to use U.S. diplomatic and economic power to expand cooperation among
members of the international community through the influence of interdependency and the force of globalization. A Wilsonian like Obama might use
limited military power to prevent genocide, for example, but not to promote broad strategic and economic U.S. interests. In the context of the Middle
East, a Carter/Obama type of Wilsonian approach would probably predispose one to embracing and implementing the recommendations of the
Iraq Study Group, which in addition to bringing Syria, Iran, and other regional players into the negotiations on the future of Iraq, could lead to
a new emphasis on resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. An Obama-style Wilsonian would be likely to reach out to Iran through international
venues to resolve the nuclear situation.
41
Obama Elections Impacts- McCain would attack Iran
McCain likely to strike Iran and trigger a fresh war in the Middle East
The Observer, June 22, 2008, p. Lexis
Such a group of warlike counsellors has raised fears that McCain may strike Iran to stop its suspected quest
for a nuclear weapon, triggering a fresh war in the Middle East. The Republican candidate has openly joked
about bombing Tehran. It was just over a year ago, in the tiny borough of Murrells Inlet in South Carolina, and
McCain faced a small crowd in one of his characteristic town hall meetings. As McCain stood on the stage, one
man asked him about the 'real problem' in the Middle East. 'When are we going to send an airmail message to
Tehran?' the man pleaded. McCain laughed and - to the tune of the Beach Boys' classic 'Barbara Ann' - began to
sing: 'Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. ' But some think McCain's joke may well become policy. 'I think a
McCain presidency would be very likely to strike Iran, ' says Cliff Schecter, author of a new book, The Real
McCain
Obama will not strike Iran and McCain will

The Nation 08 [Israel Endorses McCain Campaign, June 20, http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/331437]
But the most important message is to the American political system. McCain has made a point of his willigness,
even eagerness, to escalate the crisis with Iran. And while Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he won't
take the threat of military action off the table, he's challenged McCain over the Arizonan's refusal to talk to
Iran.
McCain will strike Iran- even his aides want it
MSNBC 08 [April 10, MCCAIN: PREEMPTIVE STRIKE?,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/10/873987.aspx]
During a town hall in Connecticut yesterday, McCain would not rule out a pre-emptive military strike against
a potential threat like Iran, the Chicago Tribune writes. "The presumptive Republican nominee was asked at one
of his signature ‘town-hall' styled campaign appearances in Westport, Conn., if he, as president, would reject ‘the
Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.’” McCain: “‘I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-
emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces,’ the senator from
Arizona told his audience at Bridgewater Associates, a global investment firm.”
“He did say that the U.S. must stand ready to defend against a hostile nation's attack: ‘If someone is about to
launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act
immediately in defense of this nation's national security interests,' said McCain, noting that he would consult more
closely and carefully with Congress -- ‘not with every member of Congress, but certainly the leaders of Congress.’
The New York Times: "But now one component of the fractious Republican Party foreign policy
establishment -- the so-called pragmatists, some of whom have come to view the Iraq war or its execution as
a mistake -- is expressing concern that Mr. McCain might be coming under increased influence from a
competing camp, the neoconservatives, whose thinking dominated President Bush’s first term and played a
pivotal role in building the case for war." More: "The concerns have emerged in the weeks since Mr.
McCain became his party’s presumptive nominee and began more formally assembling a list of foreign
policy advisers. Among those on the list are several prominent neoconservatives, including Robert Kagan,
an author who helped write much of the foreign policy speech that Mr. McCain delivered in Los Angeles on
March 26, in which he described himself as “a realistic idealist.” Others include the security analyst Max
Boot and a former United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton.”
42
Obama Elections Impacts- Iran Strike Bad Impacts
Middle East conflict will trigger a global nuclear war
John Steinbach, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), March 3, 2002, p.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious
implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour
Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles
against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be
a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining
momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long
been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan
Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to
U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy
secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control
negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously
destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words
of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is
not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world
conflagration." (44)
IRAN STRIKES WOULD RESULT IN A NUCLEAR WORLD WAR III, THE US COULDN’T CONTAIN
THE FALLOUT
Stanton in 2006
[John - Virginia-based writer specializing in political and national security matters – April 24, “Strike Iran,
Watch Pakistan and Turkey Fall,” http://www.counterpunch.org/stanton04242006.html]
<That attitude is indicative of an intellectually bankrupt society. Does anyone in the USA think anymore? An
attack on Iran would result in thousands of casualties for both US and Iranian military personnel, most of whom
are youngsters. Civilian casualties would be in the many thousands. The ripple effect from such an action would
cause a chain reaction of events that would spiral out of control. With no country, or group of countries, capable of
de-escalating such a conflict--save for Russia and China--a world war could ensue. Certainly, the US government
is no position to cope with the fallout, particularly if it deploys and uses tactical nuclear weapons. For some sane
commentary on the matter, one has to rely on the lucid commentary of Martin Van Crevald over in Israel. His
piece in Forward titled, Knowing Why Not to Bomb Iran is Half the Battle (forward.com) should be force-fed to
supporters of an Iranian invasion.>
Attack on Iran risk Nuclear war with Russia and China

Wokusch in ‘06
(Heather, “WWIII OR Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran”, February 20,
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Wokusch20.htm)
Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which
the US finds itself shut out by Russia, [and] China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has
managed to piss off during his period in office. Just last month, Russia snubbed Washington by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700 million contract to arm Iran with
surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard Iran's nuclear facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority invalidated Hussein-era oil deals, China has
China will not sit idly by and

snapped up strategic energy contracts across the world, including in Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be assumed that
watch Tehran fall to the Americans. Russia and China have developed strong ties recently,
both with each other and with Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more
43
threatening to the US, each holds large reserves of US dollars which can be dumped in
favor of euros. Bush crosses them at his nation's peril.
44
Obama Elections DA- Uniqueness- Obama will Lose
Obama will lose the election even tough he’s going to win the popular vote
POLITICO 6/18 [Gored: Obama could win vote, lose election,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080619/pl_politico/11182_8]
Until 2000, it hadn’t happened in more than 100 years, but plugged-in observers from both parties see a distinct possibility of
Barack Obama winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College — and with it the presidency — to John McCain.
Here’s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal
states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South.
Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush’s in 2004
and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as
a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11. One possible result: Even as the
national mood moves left, the 2004 map largely holds. Obama’s 32 new electoral votes from Nevada, New Mexico,
Colorado and Virginia are offset by 21 new electoral votes for McCain in Michigan and New Hampshire — and despite a 2-
or 3-point popular vote victory for Obama, America wakes up on Jan. 20 to a President McCain.
Obama may be ahead now, but McCain has the key states under his belt- our evidence is
predictive
The Hill 6/24 [Obama in the driver’s seat but McCain reads the map, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-in-the-
drivers-seat-but-mccain-reads-the-map-2008-06-24.html]
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) holds important advantages in the states that decided recent presidential elections, despite the
strong headwind Republicans face this November. Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire show
promise for Republicans hoping to hold the White House amid a housing crisis, record gas prices and the Iraq war.
Only McCain has the support of his base- Obama doesn’t, and that’s key to the election
Dayton Daily News 6/19 [Candidates have work to do for Ohio vote,
http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/06/19/ddn061908poll.html]
Secure the Hillary Clinton vote. Duffy said that McCain has just about wrapped up securing the conservative base that he
needs to win the election. But the Democratic primary, she said, is still raw. "Obama has a little more work to do," she said.
Any polls are outliers- the race is close and should tip towards McCain- he will beat Obama on
core issues
Wall Street Journal 6/27 [No, McCain Isn't 'Doomed', http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121452433272409083.html?
mod=googlenews_wsj]
Some Democrats claim new polls by Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times showing Sen. McCain trailing by 15 points in
each seal the deal on an Obama presidency. But both polls appear to be outliers. Other polls show the race to be close.
Both surveys polled registered, not likely, voters. Normally, only two-thirds of those end up casting ballots, and nonvoters
lean Democratic. Second, Democrats had a 14-point advantage in Newsweek's sample, and a 17-point advantage in the
Times poll, with Republicans making up only 22% of respondents. That's an unusually low number. Most other polls have
the party ID gap with a significantly smaller Democratic edge. Republicans shouldn't panic, but they should be worried. The
McCain campaign reflects the candidate's impulsive nature and hasn't articulated a consistent reform agenda. President Bush's job rating
has collapsed. One recent survey found only 53% of Republicans now approve of his performance. Sen. Obama will have so much money
to spend he can microtarget millions of his supporters early and deliver absentee ballots – which are prone to abuse – to them. This
election reminds some of the 1980 race, when voters were clearly looking for a reason to vote the incumbent party out of the White
House. Even so, Jimmy Carter kept even with Ronald Reagan well into October by painting him as risky and out of the mainstream. Then,
in the home stretch, Reagan finally convinced voters he was sensible and trustworthy, and wound up winning by double digits. Barack
Obama is roughly in the same position as Reagan was back then. He is untested in foreign policy. His record in office clearly
leans left, with the nonpartisan National Journal rating him the most liberal U.S. senator. When asked this month by ABC News when
he had ever broken with liberal orthodoxy and taken risks with his base – as Bill Clinton did on trade, culture and welfare – Mr.
Obama had little to say. At a meeting of Obama voters I attended this week, some bemoaned the fact that many of their
friends backed him solely because of his cool "name brand" and vague message of change. The McCain campaign can't
expect to win the election on the strength of their man's personal appeal or character. He is most likely to win by engaging Mr. Obama
on the issues, and forcing debates over competing visions of foreign policy, and the size and scope of government. Tackling concerns
about energy and food costs are key. Here Mr. McCain has an opening. On many core issues, the country still leans right of
center. In last week's Washington Post poll, 50% of voters favored a smaller government with fewer services while 45%
wanted a bigger government with more services – the same percentage breakdown as in June 2004. In the Democratic
primaries, Mr. Obama's ideas were rarely challenged. In the fall, they will be. "This election is remarkably fluid with two
nonincumbents running," says pollster Scott Rasmussen. "Some 30% of voters say they could easily change their minds, and a third of
independent voters aren't paying much attention yet." There is evidence that fall campaigns, which tend to focus voters on big-
picture issues, usually help Republicans. In 1976, Gerald Ford was seen as a goner during the summer but rallied to finish only two
points behind Jimmy Carter. A dozen years later, Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush in June and July. He lost by eight points in the
fall. In 1992, Bill Clinton had a 10-point lead around Labor Day. He won by only five and a half points. Even Bob Dole closed a 12-point
Labor Day gap to only eight points by November 1996. If that history is a guide, a focused McCain campaign that clearly contrasts
conservative and liberal approaches to the issues should have a good chance of winning. After all, it isn't easy for Democrats to win
45
in a two-person race for president. Since FDR's last victory in 1944, only one Democrat – Lyndon Johnson in 1964 – has
won 50.1% or more of the popular vote. Both of Bill Clinton's victories were aided by Ross Perot's presence on the ballot.
46
Obama Elections DA- Uniqueness- Obama will Lose

Blue-Collar voters are going to tilt the election for McCain in swing states
S.A. Miller, “GOP courting blue-collar vote,” June 23, 2008
<http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/23/gop-courting-blue-collar-vote/>
The Obama campaign, which declined repeated requests for comment on the Republican strategy, often turned off white working-
class voters during the grueling primary against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat. Mrs. Clinton this week is
expected to campaign alongside Mr. Obama for the first time in support of his candidacy, working to help him with key blocs that mostly
backed Mrs. Clinton in the drawn-out primary battle. But Mr. Obama got in hot water with blue-collar America by complaining at
a private April fund-raiser in San Francisco that small-town voters were not supporting him because they are "bitter" and
"cling" to guns, religion and nativism. His credibility with working-class voters also was strained in February by reports that
a top aide secretly told Canadian officials to ignore Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric threatening to scuttle the North
American Free Trade Agreement - a promise aimed at Rust Belt voters convinced the trade deal killed jobs. The issue came up
again over the weekend in an interview with Fortune magazine, in which he toned down his anti-NAFTA comments, saying that
"sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified" and that rather than opt out of NAFTA, he would "open up a
dialogue" with Canada and Mexico. Mr. McCain blasted Mr. Obama's NAFTA stance Friday in Ottawa, saying it was "nothing more than
retreating behind protectionist walls." Mr. Donatelli predicted blue-collar voters would tilt the election to Mr. McCain in the
battlegrounds of Ohio and Pennsylvania and in states such as Kentucky and West Virginia - all places where Mr. Obama
lost primaries to Mrs. Clinton, the latter two by lopsided margins, largely a result of his failure to connect with working-
class whites. The outreach to blue-collar voters and other traditionally Democratic groups will not come at the expense of energizing
the party base, which must turn out in large numbers to win in what is expected to be a very close election, Mr. Donatelli said. It is
devoting substantial recourses to ensure evangelical and conservative groups are "engaged and comfortable with our campaign
strategy," he said. "That is a staple of our campaign from the very beginning," he said. "We are a conservative party, and we want to
make sure our strongest supporters are going to be there."
McCain is winning Jewish support – Jewish voters are key to swing states
The Jerusalem Post, “Obama rises among Israeli Jews, but McCain still stronger,” Jun 26, 2008
<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214492517553&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull>
US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama's polling numbers are going up among Jewish voters... at least in Israel. That is the
key finding of a survey that appears Friday in Makor Rishon and was carried out by the Mutagim polling group. According to the poll,
some 36 percent of Israelis favor Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, while 27% support Obama. Asked whom they
"prefer to be elected as president" of the US, some 37% of the respondents said they either had no preference or did not know. In a
Keevoon Research, Strategy & Communications poll published in The Jerusalem Post on May 28, McCain was favored in Israel over
Obama by 43% to 20%. That poll, however, was taken before Hillary Clinton bowed out of the race. The 9% lead for McCain among
Israeli Jews stands in sharp contrast to a May Gallup poll of American Jewish preferences in which Obama enjoyed a whopping 29% lead
among Jewish voters. That survey was also taken before Clinton dropped out of the race. Even in that poll, McCain garnered 32% of
the Jewish support, which is significantly better than what Republican presidential candidates traditionally get among US
Jews. Among American Jewish voters for whom Israel is an important election issue, there is a great deal of interest these days in
whom Israelis want to win the election. And since the country's top political and security officials are careful not to wade into
domestic US politics, polls such as these could have significance. Jewish voters are likely to be critical in the campaign,
especially in key battleground states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada.
Money isn’t an issue for McCain – He has as much as Obama

Jonathan D. Salant and Kristin Jensen, “McCain, Helped by Republican Party, Has More Money
Than Obama,” June 21, 2008 <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601087&sid=askDEx2Ryy8I&refer=home>
June 21 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain, who was outraised by a 2-1 margin by Barack Obama during the presidential primaries, entered
June with almost as much money as the presumptive Democratic nominee. When combined with the Republican National
Committee's bank balance, McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, had more money to spend than Obama during the
three months leading up to the national party conventions. McCain, an Arizona senator, had $31.6 million as of May 31,
compared with $33.3 million for Obama, Federal Election Commission records show. The RNC had $53.5 million to just
under $4 million for the Democrats. The party committees act as shadow campaigns, concentrating their efforts on backing the
presidential candidates. Obama, 46, and Democratic fundraisers have turned their attention to filling the DNC's coffers now that the
Illinois senator has secured the party's nomination. A fundraiser at Ethel Kennedy's Hickory Hill estate in Virginia earlier this week netted
close to $6 million, and a May 31 event in New York City headlined by former Vice President Al Gore brought in around $1 million more.
Polls are inaccurate – empirically proven with Bush and over-surveyed with Democrats
US NEWS, “Obama Bounce In Polls May Not Herald Easy Win,” June 26, 2008
The CBS Evening News reported that while Barack Obama has gotten "quite a bounce" in the polls following his primary win, it
is no guarantee of success in November. CBS, noting Obama leads of varying sizes in a number of recent surveys, looks at the
47
historical record and says, "Back in July of 1988, Democrat Michael Dukakis was 17 points ahead of Vice President George H. W.
Bush. Bush won comfortably. And in mid-June of 1992, Bill Clinton trailed both President Bush and independent candidate Ross Perot.
Clinton recovered." On another front, the Washington Post reports that a memo from GOP pollsters yesterday took issue with
the LA Times/Bloomberg poll showing Obama topping John McCain 49%-37%, saying it over-surveyed Democrats (they
were 39% of those polled, compared to 22% of Republicans.) The LAT defended their polling on their "Top of the Ticket " political blog
yesterday. McCain, Obama Now Tied In Gallup Tracking The newest Gallup daily presidential tracking poll shows the presidential
race now tied, with both Obama and McCain polling 45%. The poll surveyed 2,600 registered voter from June 22-24. Obama had been
holding a 2-4 point lead for the previous week.
48
Obama Elections DA- Uniqueness- Obama tied with McCain
Obama and McCain are tied – no major change
Gallup, “Obama, McCain Still Tied at 44%,” June 27, 2008
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/108433/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Still-Tied-44.aspx>
PRINCETON, NJ -- For the third straight day, Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows Barack Obama and John McCain tied in national
registered voter preferences for the fall election, each now with 44% of the vote. Today's report is based on the average of
the latest three nights of interviewing, June 24-26, and is unchanged from yesterday. Gallup's June 22-24 average, released on
Wednesday, also showed a tie, but with each candidate receiving 45% of the vote. From a broader perspective, there has been
little major change in the race for the entire month, with Obama either tying McCain or leading the race by a slim margin
throughout June. This relative stability is not unexpected in the summer months when no actual voting is taking place, and when
voters' attention may be diverted elsewhere unless and until a major news event occurs with the potential to disrupt the structure of the
race. (To view the complete trend since March 7, click here.) - Frank Newport
McCain and Obama are tied – there’s only a tiny point gap between candidates
Andrew Satter, “The Wild Differences in Polls, Explained,” June 27, 2008
<http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002907401&parm1=1&cpage=1>
If you’ve been watching Presidential preference polls over the past week, you might feel a bit whipsawed. For the second straight day,
Gallup’s daily tracking poll Thursday has John McCain and Barack Obama tied. Both candidates dropped a point from
yesterday’s tracking poll, down to 44 percent. The margin of error is +/- 2 percentage points. The Rasmussen daily tracking poll in the
same period of time has shown a 3-7 point gap between the two candidates. Neither of the daily tracking polls square with two
polls from that show Barack Obama holding a stunning double-digit lead. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll showed
Obama with a 12 point lead over McCain, and a Newsweek poll had Obama leading by 15 points, if Ralph Nader and Bob Barr
were included in the mix. Why the difference? Were the Newsweek and L.A. Times biased in favor of Obama? Do the Rasmussen and
Gallup pollsters favor McCain? Or maybe the public is wildly changing its views, daily.
49
Obama Elections DA- Links- Popular Bush Initiative doesn’t cause McCain Victory
McCain can’t win presidential election on Bush’s coattails
Mark Preston, CNN Political Editor, CNN, May 27, 2008, p. Lexis
While the event was initially planned to be open to cameras at the Phoenix Convention Center, it's been moved to a private residence
and is now closed to the media. So there will only be brief pictures of McCain and the president on the media. So there will
only be brief pictures of McCain and the president on airport tarmac. MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: If John
McCain is to win in November, it's not going to be on a Bush coattail. HENRY: Democrats already used chummy photos
for ads charging a McCain victory will amount to a third Bush term.
McCain distancing himself from Bush on numerous important issues

New York Times, June 17, 2008, p. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?
pagewanted=1&
On balance, the McCain campaign has sought to emphasize the differences between Mr. McCain and the unpopular Mr.
Bush rather than the similarities. “In the last 10 years, he’s been an independent voice for what he thinks is in his
country’s best interest,” said Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers. “Sometimes it’s brought him into conflict with
members of his party and with the president. The Democrats know that.”
McCain distancing himself from Bush over environmental issues

New York Times, June 17, 2008, p. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?
pagewanted=1&
Mr. McCain, who has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate — he has missed votes on toughening fuel economy
standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy — has nonetheless tried to highlight what
he considers his stark environmental divide with Mr. Bush. “There is a longstanding, significant, deep, strong difference
on this issue between myself and the administration,” Mr. McCain said last month.
McCain distancing himself from Bush’s environmental policies

The New York Times, May 14, 2008, p. Lexis
Senator John McCain intensified his criticism of President Bush and the administration's environmental polices on Tuesday,
taking a walk in the cold, rain-drenched foothills of the Cascade Mountains and asserting that in the effort to stem climate change,
''America can lead and not obstruct.'' At an outdoor news conference in the Cedar River Watershed east of Seattle, Mr. McCain, the
presumptive Republican presidential nominee, declared that ''the president and I have disagreed on this issue for many years --
it isn't a recent disagreement.'' He added, ''There is a longstanding, significant, deep, strong difference on this issue
between myself and the administration.'' Mr. McCain was on his second day of a trip to the Pacific Northwest, a potential swing
region in the November election, to promote his plan to slow global warming and appeal to the region's many independent
voters who view the environment as an election issue of critical concern. Mr. Bush, who questioned the scientific basis for
global warming in his first term, is deeply unpopular, and Mr. McCain, whom the president endorsed at the White House
in March, has been sprinting away from him this week.
McCain actively trying to separate his environmental stance from Bush’s in status quo
New York Times June 17, Bumiller, Elizabeth, and Jeff Zeleny. "McCain Seeks to Break with Bush on Environment." The New
York Times 17 June 2008. 25 June 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17cnd-mccain.html?
_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print>.
Senator John McCain sought to straddle the divide between environmentalists and the energy industry on Tuesday as he
called for conservation along with more refineries, more nuclear power plants and lifting a ban on oil exploration off the
nation’s coasts. But Mr. McCain’s central message, derided by Senator Barack Obama in a day of political attacks and
counterattacks by the two campaigns, was that he was not President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, and that he would not
pursue the environmental policies of his two fellow Republicans in the unpopular administration. “John McCain stood up to
the president and sounded the alarm on global warming five years ago,” said the narrator in a television commercial released on
Tuesday by Mr. McCain’s campaign. “Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions.” In a speech to oil industry
executives and business and community leaders in Houston, Mr. McCain implicitly criticized Mr. Cheney, who dismissed conservation as a
“personal virtue” in 2001. Instead, Mr. McCain said the next president would have to break with the policies of the current
and past administrations to free the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. “In the face of climate change and other
serious challenges, energy conservation is no longer just a moral luxury or a personal virtue,” Mr. McCain said. “Conservation serves a
critical national goal.” Throughout the day, in a sign of how $4-a-gallon gas has made energy a central issue in the 2008
campaign, Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee relentlessly mocked Mr. McCain for what they called his
flip-flopping and capitulation to the oil industry. Mr. Obama swiftly pointed out that Mr. McCain had supported the ban on
offshore oil exploration during his first run for the presidency in 2000.
50
Obama Elections DA- Links- Aff. Plan wouldn’t be a Win for Bush/McCain
Bush won’t get credit – he threatened to veto energy bills before
Cathy Cash, “Energy and climate bills still in tough stages of House, Senate diplomacy; dates unknown,”
October 1, 2007, lexis
On the energy bill front, the separate House and Senate bills include provisions that large numbers in the other chamber would not be
expected to support: the Senate rejected a renewable portfolio standard for electric utilities but tacked on corporate average fuel
economy standard of 35 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles in 2020. The House did not include CAFE standards but managed to
insert an RPS for electric utilities of 15% by 2020 and a $16 billion package of tax credits. The Senate's $28 billion tax package was
sidelined. Both would shift billions in tax breaks from the oil industry to alternative and renewable energy development ?
a tactic that attracted a veto threat from the Bush administration.
Bush is being isolated – he’s the only one left that doesn’t approve of alternative energy
Suzanne Goldenberg, “Climate change: US politics: Bush is left isolated as America turns green,” January 27, 2007, lexis
For years, the most powerful voice in the US Senate on the environment was a conservative Republican from Oklahoma, James Inhofe,
who famously declared "global warming is a hoax", and compared warnings about climate change to Nazi propaganda. This month, he
was replaced by Barbara Boxer, a Democratic senator from California who considers global warming "a potential crisis of a magnitude we
have never seen". George Bush may have two years to run on his presidency, and remains personally opposed to mandatory
caps on carbon gases, but the change in the Senate illustrates how the rest of America has moved on. Congress, big
business, state governments such as California, and mayors have embarked on a course that could bring America into step with the
international community on climate change. In Congress, Democrats and Republicans have introduced five new bills on climate change
so far this month, which would seek to reduce emissions by 60-80% below 1990 levels by the middle of the century. Other legislation
that would set a higher standard for fuel efficiency in cars is also in the works. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said she wants to
see new laws on climate change by July 4 and, with Democrats now in control of both chambers, environmental campaigners believe that
is likely. "The president really has to move or this issue will have moved right past him," Ed Markey, the new Democratic chair of the
House energy committee, told the Boston Globe recently. "I doubt that the president is going to suddenly embrace a set of
policies he rejected for six years. But he has to deal with the reality that the Congress is making this one of the highest
priorities for this country."
Bush wouldn’t get credit - He vetoes to protects the oil company instead of the environment
Automotive News, “Energy chief: Bush would veto Senate's bill,” July 2, 2007, lexis
It appears President Bush has his little-used veto pen aimed at the Senate's recently passed energy bill and its auto fuel
economy provisions.
Until this year, Bush has used the veto just once - the fewest of any president since the brief administration of the assassinated James
Garfield 126 years ago. But with Democrats in control of Congress for the first time in his presidency, Bush this year has killed two more
measures and is angling to shoot down some others. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman put the Senate energy bill on the list last week.
Asked by Automotive News for his reaction to the bill, Bodman, not too subtly, said he's ``hopeful'' Congress will produce an energy
package the president can sign. The House has yet to act. The administration dislikes Senate-passed provisions to penalize oil companies
for price gouging and to take antitrust action against the international oil cartel. And while automakers have surrendered the
position that regulators, not Congress, should set fuel economy standards, the administration is holding on to that belief.
Bodman said the bill also is flawed because it would require cars and trucks to average 35 mpg by 2020 instead of letting
executive branch ``experts'' set numbers.
Bush’s history prevents the public from crediting him

The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, November 2, 2007 Friday, GUARDIAN INTERNATIONAL PAGES; Pg. 26, 455 words, Suzanne
Goldenberg, Washington, lexis
The proposed legislation would set a target of a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, compared with the 20% reduction
that is the goal in the EU. It calls for capping emissions at 2005 levels by 2012 and provides for a market-based system for trading
emissions permits. The bill is expected to move swiftly through the legislative process. It enjoys broad support from Republicans and
Democrats, and support for measures to tackle global warming is growing among large US corporations. The legislation was introduced
by a Republican, John Warner of Virginia, and Joe Lieberman, an independent senator from Connecticut. It was backed by senators from
coal-producing states in what campaigners saw as growing public support for action against global warming. The bill is expected to be
put to a vote of the full committee this month. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, who chairs the committee, has said she wants
to shepherd the bill through committee before the start of the Bali conference on climate change in early December. It remains unclear
how George Bush would react to any legislation emerging from the Democratically controlled Congress that imposes
mandatory controls on emissions. The administration has softened its language in recent months. It acknowledges that
climate change is a problem, a reversal of its earlier insistence that the science was inconclusive. But as recently as last
week evidence emerged of White House officials tampering with reports from government scientists that do not toe the
administration's line on climate change. "The most likely scenario is that the president would veto the bill given his
record but given the rapid shift in public opinion on this issue, I think there is a glimmer of hope," said Angela Anderson,
the director of climate change for NET.
51
Obama Elections DA- Links- Aff. Plan wouldn’t be a Win for Bush/McCain
Bush wouldn’t get the credit – He protects the oil company too much
The Washington Post, August 5, 2007 Sunday, A-SECTION; Pg. A09, 732 words, Sholnn Freeman; Washington Post Staff Writer, lexis
The House yesterday passed a far-reaching package of energy legislation that would promote conservation and the use of renewable
resources at the expense of the country's oil and gas interests. The bill, which passed 241 to 172, would require more energy efficiency
in appliances, buildings and power grids, which proponents of the bill say would reduce carbon dioxide emissions and electricity use. It
calls for more energy efficiency measures in the Capitol building. It also would provide grants for studies to promote ethanol pipelines,
installation of pumps for 85 percent ethanol fuel at gas stations and production of cellulosic ethanol. The Democrats also won passage of
a provision that would require that 15 percent of electricity from private utilities come from solar, wind or other renewable energy
sources. It would be the first such requirement to apply to all the states. The House last night also passed, 221 to 189, a
companion tax package, totaling nearly $16 billion, that targets the oil and gas industry. In a letter to Congress,
however, the Bush administration said Friday that the two House measures would result in less domestic oil and gas
production. The letter said President Bush's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bills.
Bush isn’t perceived as environmentally friendly, he’s the protector of the oil companies
Waste News, March 17, 2008, NEWS; Pg. 05, 368 Wörter, Elizabeth McGowan, lexis
Bush also has threatened to veto legislation the House passed in February to extend and expand tax incentives for
renewable electricity, energy and fuel, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings and
appliances. The administration's main gripe is that most of the funding for the $18 billion measure comes from
eliminating a tax break for five mega oil companies. Senators could broach the bill this month if they can find a 60th vote to avoid
a filibuster.
Bush prioritizes economy over environment – he’ll never get credit from an environmentalist plan
Daily Deal/The Deal, August 7, 2007 Tuesday, LAWANDREG, 858 words, by Donna Block in Washington, lexis
As the bill neared a vote, the White House warned in a policy statement Friday that President Bush would veto the measure
if approved, because it would, along with a broad energy package passed earlier by the House, "lead to less domestic oil
and gas production, higher energy costs, and higher and higher taxes." The statement also said that repealing the
manufacturing tax deduction for only the oil and gas industry, "is a targeted tax increase that puts U.S. industries at a
disadvantage to their foreign competitors." The bill, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer
Protection Act, and the related tax title would result in new federal incentives for wind, solar and geothermal power and away from
producing energy from oil, natural gas and coal.
52
Obama Elections DA- Links- Energy/Environment not key Election Issues
Voters less supportive of policies that cause them to change their lifestyles
Renewable Energy World 08, Lacey, Stephen. "Renewable Energy as a Mainstream Product Choice." Renewable Energy World.
24 Feb. 2008. 25 June 2008 <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=51201>.
A growing body of opinion research shows that Americans are concerned about how consumption of dirty fossil energies is
impacting the environment, threatening national security and hindering long-term economic growth. But when the time comes for
action, renewable energy and climate change are not yet true priorities for the everyday consumer. That may point to one of
the keys for marketing renewable energy to the general public: while efficiency and conservation are very important in the entire
energy picture, many consumers care more about what the product can give them, not take away. That's because many
consumers see renewable energy as a major change in lifestyle, not an ordinary product choice, say analysts. Until the
industry better addresses concerns about cost, reliability and ease of use, it will simply be easier for Americans not to buy clean energy.
"People will say that they support the environment, that they support clean energy...but when it comes down to real
action it has to be easily accessible, and so people don't want to make complete tradeoffs," says Ron Pernick, co-founder
and principal of Clean Edge, a clean tech research and publishing firm.
Americans rank climate change and renewable energy as comparatively unimportant priorities
Renewable Energy World 08, Lacey, Stephen. "Renewable Energy as a Mainstream Product Choice." Renewable Energy World.
24 Feb. 2008. 25 June 2008 <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=51201>.
In a 2007 analysis of 21 opinion polls on American attitudes toward climate change and renewable energy, American
Environics found that there is "widespread agreement that global warming is occurring and that the government should
take action to address the problem." However, when asked specifically about their priorities for Congress and the
President, global warming ranked far below issues such as the Iraq War, heath care, education and immigration. Another
poll from the Pew Research Center reported climate change ranking 20th out of 23 choices .
Energy and environment issues not yet major presidential campaign issues
Environment & Energy Daily, April 15, 2008, p. http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/775
As the three remaining presidential candidates head into the home stretch of primary season, energy and environment
issues have yet to make a splash in stump speeches and debates, despite the fact that each candidate has vowed to
make climate and energy top priorities. During today's E&ETV Event Coverage, the candidates' energy and environment advisers
give their positions on the expansion of coal and nuclear, implementation and funding of alternative energy, and climate policy. Panelists
include, Jason Grumet, environmental adviser for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Todd Stern, adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.),
and James Woolsey, environmental adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Energy and environmental issues not being discussed in presidential election

Salt Lake Tribune, February 2, 2008, p. Lexis
Tony Massaro, political director for the League of Conservation Voters, a Washington, D.C., group that advocates for pro-environment
policies and candidates, said the fast-paced primary season, coupled with the complexity of the issues, has made it difficult
for candidates to discuss energy and the environment in much depth. "In all likelihood, we are not going to see that level
of specificity the people of the West want and deserve until we have the general election matchup," said Massaro, a longtime
Coloradoan. Frank Maisano, a Washington lobbyist for coal companies, wind-power developers and refineries nationwide, said he is not
surprised that energy and environment has not commanded the kind of attention that Westerners, with their
understandably nuanced view of the subject, might want.
Climate and energy policies receiving little attention in 2008 presidential election
Joseph Davis, Freelance writer specializing on environmental, natural resources and energy issues, Yale
Climate Media Forum, April 17, 2008, p.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0408_not_campaign_issue.htm
The forum performances suggested that, compared to other issues, climate and energy policies don't differentiate the
candidates. If so, that may be at least one reason the candidates are not emphasizing climate and energy in their stump
speeches. It may also help explain why the news media - at least the political reporters - are still giving those issues little
attention so far in the campaign.
53
Obama Elections DA- Links- Environment/Climate not key Election Issues
Environment not a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail
Salt Lake Tribune, February 2, 2008, p. Lexis
To Marshall, the big issues of our time - the economy, health care and energy - all come back to smart environmental policies. She has
made a point of following the presidential primaries this year, but she is not hearing enough about environmental issues, such as
energy and climate change. "I don't think it's being discussed as much as it should be," said the Salt Lake City resident. "And
the answers I have heard have been pretty vague." No, the environment has not been a hot topic in the presidential races up
to this point. That might appear puzzling after a year in which the issue of global warming exploded into the public
consciousness and gasoline prices have made sensible energy policies a pocketbook issue for Americans of all political
stripes.
Presidential election won’t be a referendum on climate change

Greenwire, May 20, 2008, p. Lexis
At the same conference yesterday, the nation's top electricity regulator and a prominent utility official both predicted that U.S. climate
change legislation will not be a reality anytime soon. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Joseph Kelliher said the
presidential election is not shaping up as a referendum on climate change. If that remains the case, he said, the new
president may steer clear of pushing domestic legislation right out of the gate, especially if his or her mandate is about the
economy and other issues.
Global warming currently receiving minimal attention in presidential election race

Al Gore, Former Vice President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize Recipient, Agence France-Presse,
March 2, 2008, p. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=122308
MONTEREY, California--Former US vice president and renowned climate change fighter Al Gore said Saturday that the global warming
crisis is getting short shrift in this year's presidential race. Gore used the stage at a prestigious Technology, Entertainment and
Design conference in Monterey, California, to call for activism to push climate change to the top of the candidates' political
agendas. "As important as it is to change the light bulbs, it is more important to change the laws," Gore told an elite
gathering of scientists, celebrities, entrepreneurs, and Internet superstars. "We have to become incredibly active as citizens in our
democracy. In order to solve the climate crisis we have to solve the democracy crisis, and we have one." Gore took solace in the fact that
leading Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama along with the Republican Party's all-but-certain nominee John McCain
are promising "leadership" regarding climate change. Global warming has been given minimal attention in presidential debates,
which have ironically been sponsored by "something with an Orwellian label" of Clean Coal, Gore observed.
Climate change not a voting priority issue for Americans

CATHY ZOI, CEO, ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION, October 3, 2008, p.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2185688.htm
CATHY ZOI: We have a very high level of awareness in the United States now, largely because of people like Al Gore and
Arnold Schwarzenegger. That awareness, though, hasn't translated into it being a voting priority issue for Americans.
Recent polling over the last month out of 22 public policy issues that Americans were asked about, global warming,
climate change came in 21st, nearly at the bottom.
Americans rank climate change below many other issues in terms of importance
Carolyn Pumphrey, Triangle Institute for Security Studies, May, 2008, p.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf
If the polls can be trusted, the American public is gradually beginning to believe that climate change is not simply the figment of
imagination of overexcited environmentalists. A 2006 Pew study found that about 41 percent of Americans think that global
warming is a very serious threat. However, they rank it well below other issues as a national priority, and they are not willing
to dip into their pockets to find a remedy.23 While some corporations are trying to find ways to be more energy efficient,
many others are dragging their feet.24
Global warming low priority amongst American voters
Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz, Director of the Yale Project on Climate Change and a Research Scientist at the
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, May, 2008, p.
In 2004, in another nationally representative survey, I asked Americans which issues they thought should be the top priority for
Congress and the President. I found—and this is consistent with many other surveys—that global warming was a relatively low
priority, just as the environment as a broader issue is almost always at the bottom of these kinds of priority rankings.
Global warming was well below terrorism, the economy, healthcare, education, the budget deficit, etc. Today we would see
the Iraq War, of course, as a leading national priority as well.
Climate change not a salient issue to most Americans

Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz, Director of the Yale Project on Climate Change and a Research Scientist at the
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, May, 2008, p.
Understanding the American Response to Global Warming. In part, that has to do with the way Americans perceive the risks of global
warming. My research demonstrates that across the board, the public generally perceives climate change as a moderate risk
that will primarily impact people, places, and ecosystems distant in time and space. They believe that global warming is a
54
greater threat to nonhuman nature than to human beings. They believe that water shortages, increased disease rates, and lower living
standards, are only moderately likely. Importantly, they believe that each of these impacts is more likely to occur globally than at the
local level. Americans tend to think of climate change as a distant problem, something that is going to affect other people
far away—small island countries, poor people in the tropics, etc.—not Americans—and distant in time—not for another 50
to 100 years, if ever. Thus it is not a particularly salient issue to most people.
Americans not very concerned about global warming

Bruce Lieberman reported on science issues from 2002-2007 for the San Diego Union-Tribune, Yale Climate
Media Forum, January 31, 2008, p. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/0108_campaigns.htm
In its analysis, Gallup wrote: "On the prominent global warming issue, most Americans take it seriously as a problem. At the
same time, only about 4 in 10 Americans believe that immediate, drastic action is needed to deal with global warming,
and just 28 percent say there will be 'extreme' impact of global warming in 50 years if efforts to address the problem are
not increased." That, in a nutshell, may explain why the climate change issue has not received sustained attention by
reporters and editorial writers covering the
presidential election, or from the candidates themselves. Gallup polls taken close to Earth Day since 1989 have consistently shown that
people concerned about environmental issues are most worried about pollution in rivers, the quality of drinking water, toxic waste in soil,
smog and other environmental insults that directly affect their health, said Loren Cass, a professor of climate and environmental policy at
the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. "Toward the bottom of the list you've got global warming," Cass said.
55
Obama Elections DA- Links- Environment/Climate not key Election Issues
Climate issue won’t become dominant in 2008 presidential campaign
There are other reasons the climate issue has been given a pass by much of the media and the candidates, some political
scientists say. Cass, from the College of the Holy Cross, said the American political system makes it very difficult for single
issues to become dominant in a presidential campaign in America.
Climate not a major election issue because the economy is overshadowing it

Loren Cass, Professor of climate and environmental policy at the College of the Holy Cross, Yale Climate
And it's especially difficult when people are worried about losing their homes or jobs - or both. "The economy is
dominating everything today," said Eric Smith, a political scientist at the University of California at Santa Barbara and an expert on
public opinion on energy and the environment. "The 'Let's lay out a big roadmap to the 21st century' kind of argument ...
sounds good, but it's not something you can talk about in the middle of a potential recession or in the middle of a war
and expect people to respond to it," Smith said. Schneider, from Stanford, said that a big obstacle to covering the climate
issue consistently and well lies within news organizations, with specialist reporters and beats being replaced by general
assignment reporters as newsrooms downsize.
Climate issue falling in terms of importance in 2008 presidential election

So far in the 2008 election season, the climate issue is failing to consistently get the attention that scientists,
environmentalists, and many policy experts say it deserves. "I think what you're seeing in the debates is a direct
reflection of what the public is thinking," said D. James Baker, NOAA administrator under President Clinton and an advisor to the
Presidential Climate Action Project at the University of Colorado. PCAP aims to help the next President forge an agenda to tackle the
climate issue.
Climate change won’t become leading issue in 2008 presidential election

Getting these climate issues and others on the front burner for candidates requires the national media to press the issue
during the campaign, asking tough questions that require the candidates to explain their proposed policies - or why they
don't have any. That's not easy given those reporters' own sense of the priority issues. Corell said he has almost given up
on any hope that the climate issue will become a leading issue in the 2008 campaign. But a warming climate is not about to go
away, and it will likely be a dominant issue still in 2012 and beyond, he said. Becker calls global warming "the perfect problem"
because it's hard to explain clearly, it's such a big challenge, and many of its worst effects are expected to develop over
the next several decades - robbing the issue of urgency and immediacy that voters respond so powerfully to at the polls.
56
Obama Elections DA- Links- RPS Unpopular
RPS taxes on the energy industry are controversial and make it unpopular in the Congress
US News & World Report 7 [“How the Senate Tide Turned Against Wind and Solar, December 10, 2007
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-barrel/2007/12/10/how-the-senate-tide-turned-against-wind-and-
solar.html ]
Fast-forward to the present, and the Senate's defeat of a broad energy bill that handily passed the House. Now, conventional
wisdom is that the RPS is the one energy measure the Senate can't possibly pass. Indeed, the vote counters believe the only
way to revive the bill is to remove the ambition for 15 percent renewable energy nationwide by 2020. Did support for wind and solar
actually erode between the 2005 and 2007 votes on renewable energy? Well, just enough to make a difference. And it
was the loss of Republican votes that probably hurt the most. First of all, the 2005 bill's renewable energy amendment,
sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, and Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican, never had, nor did it need to
gain, the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. It just won straight up, 52 to 48. The League of Conservation Voters' 2005 score card
has the details. That baseline of support should have given RPS a fighting chance after the results of the 2006 election. And indeed, RPS
gained the vote of five key Democrats who defeated a Republican in the 2006 election: Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of
Montana, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, and Jim Webb of Virginia. (The vote of the sixth Democrat who gained a
GOP seat in 2006, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, doesn't count as a gain because his predecessor, Lincoln Chafee, had been a
Republican supporter of RPS in 2005.) Add to those numbers two positive vote switches for RPS, both from states that rank near the top
in wind energy potential: Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Republican John Thune of South Dakota voted to advance this year's
energy bill even though they had voted against RPS in 2005. But this year's energy bill fizzled, 53 to 42, losing six crucial votes of
senators who had supported RPS in 2005: Democrats Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Republicans Charles
Grassley of Iowa, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and John Ensign of Nevada (Ensign was recorded as not
voting on the energy bill last week). For some of them, like Landrieu from a big oil state, the bill's taxes on the energy industry may
have been a bigger deciding factor than renewable energy. But before abandoning RPS, the Senate should look closely at these six votes.
If the goal was scaled back from 15 percent to 10 percent—as it was in the 2005 bill—would that make a difference? It still would be a
huge gain, especially over 13 years, when wind, solar, and geothermal now total less than 3 percent of generation. And since utilities
could meet a portion of their "renewable" percentage with badly needed energy efficiency improvements, would that really be an
unachievable goal—even for the coal-dependent South (which has argued that it lacks resources for wind power)?
Southern states hate the RPS because they have no wind resources
Fox News 7, [Major Garrett, correspondent, “Senate Votes to Increase Fuel Economy Standards in Cars,
SUVs,” June 22, 2007, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285872,00.html ]
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said negotiations on a federal renewable energy standard failed to produce an
agreement in time to incorporate a deal into the final energy bill, a bitter setback for New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman, who
pushed aggressively for the so-called renewable portfolio standard — or RPS. No southern state or state bordering the deep South
has approved an RPS, in large part because of the scarcity of wind power, currently the most available and cost-effective
renewable energy alternative to carbon-based or nuclear-powered electricity generation.Southern Republicans mounted
an aggressive effort to block the federal RPS, fearing it would lead to increases in energy rates in their states as utilities
would be forced to purchase renewable energy sources elsewhere and at marked-up rates.
RPS unpopular – it’s empirically divisive in Congress

RenewableEnergyAccess.com 7 [Sara Parker, staff writer, “National RPS to include Coal & Nuclear?” June
13, 2007, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48921 ]
"Undoubtedly, we will debate amendments that will bring out strong opinions, and we will have some heated
—yet honest—debates," said Senator Bingaman addressing Congress on Monday. "But I am confident that as
long as we keep in mind our shared goal—to work together and produce legislation that makes meaningful
progress on securing America's energy future—the Senate will rise to the occasion. The American people
expect nothing less." Heavy opposition, however, is not coming solely from oil lobbyists as many in the
American public might assume, but the multi-billion dollar utility industry as well. Early last month, an
article published on RenewableEnergyAccess.com reported that the utility Southern Company openly
opposed a National RPS—and was spending huge sums of money lobbying against such
legislation arguing that it would increase costs for it's 4.3 million customers in Alabama, Georgia,
Florida and Mississippi. "It's a bit of moving target," said Rubens, who noted Bingaman's amendment
is expected to be filibustered after being introduced. "The challenge will be overcoming the filibuster."
According to a recent United Press International article, a National RPS has been proposed 17 times
since 1996 by various policymakers—but none of the bills passed into law at the federal level.
However, 23 states have now passed individual RPS legislation indicating that both elected officials and the
American public are recognizing the environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy. In addition,
a new study released yesterday by The Network for New Energy Choices reports that a National RPS would
create a level playing field for states. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard study notes that under the present system, some states enjoy deflated
electricity prices from cheap, dirty sources of energy, which leaves ratepayers in other states with more
stringent environmental safeguards picking up their tab. While the government will be instrumental in
establishing a National RPS, many believe that it should only create the rules and standards and
57
define what technologies qualify for renewable energy credits. From there, said Rubens, it
should let the market establish what technologies will be used to accomplish the goals set by the
RPS.
58
Obama Elections DA- Links- Carbon Tax Unpopular
Carbon tax would raise price of gas – unpopular with two thirds of Americans
Christian Science Moniter 07, "Al Gore's Inconvenient Tax." Christian Science Monitor 5 July 2007. LexisNexis Academic.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4067318680&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4067318684&cisb=22_T
4067318683&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=37&no. 30 June 2008.
This "carbon tax" would, of course, raise the price of gasoline and home heating/cooling. And it would put the burden of
generating the same level of federal revenues on consumers while reducing the tax burden on labor and capital (workers and
employers). Unless the poor get a break on this consumption tax, it will hit them harder than wealthier folks. No wonder then
that Mr. Gore waited until March to really push this extreme makeover of the US tax system aimed at achieving a rapid reduction in oil
and coal use with a fee on greenhouse-gas emissions. No wonder that no presidential candidate endorses it, especially with gas
prices hovering around $3 a gallon. (Polls show that two-thirds of Americans don't want to pay more at the pump, just as
they don't prefer more slowly.)
Voters, suspicious of market outcomes, irrationally distrust carbon tax

International Herald Tribune 07, Kristof, Nicholas D. "Voters Speak: Baaa!" The International Herald Tribune 31 July 2007.
LexisNexis Academic. http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4067318680&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4067318684&cisb=22_T
4067318683&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=37&no. 30 June 2008.
This book, by Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, does a remarkably thorough job of insulting the American
voter. The cover portrays the electorate as a flock of sheep. ''Democracies frequently adopt and maintain policies harmful for most
people,'' Caplan notes. There are various explanations for this - the power of special interests, public ignorance of details, and so on. But
Caplan argues that those accounts fall short. ''This book develops an alternative story of how democracy fails,'' he writes. ''The central
idea is that voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational - and vote accordingly.'' Caplan identifies four areas, all
related to economics, of ''systematic error'' - where voters routinely prefer policies that are contrary to their interests. The
first is a suspicion of market outcomes and a desire to control markets. The most efficient way to address climate change
would be a carbon tax that would build on the market mechanism, but that's barely on the national agenda.
High gas prices make a carbon tax unpopular

Dissent Mag 08, Roberts, Paul. "The Seven Myths of Energy Independence." Dissent Mag 26 Apr. 2008. 30 June 2008
<http://dissentmag.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/the-seven-myths-of-energy-independence/>.
Given America’s tectonic pace toward energy security, the time has come for tough love. Most credible proposals call for some kind of
energy or carbon tax. Such a tax would have two critical effects. It would keep the cost of oil high and thus discourage demand,
as it has in Europe, and it would generate substantial revenues that could be used to fund research into alternatives, for example, or tax
credits and other incentives to invest in the new energy technologies. To be sure, higher fuel taxes, never popular with voters,
would be even less so with gasoline prices already so high.
59
Obama Elections DA- Links- Ethanol Unpopular
The rising price of food has put ethanol under public siege
ICIS Chem Business 08, Robinson, Simon. "Biofuelsbacklash." ICIS Chemical Business 11 Feb. 2008.
LexisNexis Academic. 27 June 2008. Keyword: ethanol, energy, resistance.
Biofuels are under siege, and the pitch-forks from the masses are finding their mark. There is talk of food prices rising because
of the diversion of corn (about 25% of the US crop in 2007) into ethanol production. There is resistance from communities where
water is scarce against ethanol plants being sited in their neighborhoods. Food prices are rising across the world, and in some
countries where food is scarce or incomes are low, this has caused civil disturbances. In the past year, there have been
protests about the price of corn or wheat in Yemen, where one person died and there were riots in Mexico over the price of corn.
The rising price of wheat is also hitting Americans closer to home, with reports that the price of bagels in New York has risen
dramatically because of a shortage of wheat. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Crop Prospects and Food Situation report,
published in October 2007, shows that the world grain supply and demand situation is moving closer into balance and that stockpiles are
dwindling. According to the FAO, the annual average price of corn (US No. 2, US Gulf) has risen by 85%, from $88.38 (?
59.71)/short ton in 2000 to $164.26/ton in 2007. In the same period, the annual average price of wheat has grown by 137%, from
$98.75/ton to $234.76/ton.
The public considers ethanol dangerous, contributing to high food prices, not promoting energy
security, and even producing more greenhouse gases
Environment & Energy Daily, “BIOFUELS: Critics ramp up campaign against ethanol”, Allison Winter,
http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2008/06/11/archive/2?terms=renewable+energy+public+opinion, June 11,
2008
Ethanol's critics are ramping up their efforts to force Congress to revisit U.S. biofuels policy, including a new poll that
says most Americans think lawmakers should eliminate or reduce the corn ethanol mandate. Energy Harvest: Power From
the Farm -- An E&E Special Report The survey of 802 likely voters, released yesterday, found that 76 percent of respondents want
the ethanol law changed and 41 percent would like to see the mandate repealed. Wilson Research Strategies conducted the
survey for the the National Center for Public Policy Research, a nonprofit conservative think tank that receives almost all of its funding
from individual donors. The poll has a margin of error of 3.46 percent. Renewable fuels advocates characterized the survey as a "push
poll." Before asking for a response, surveyors said the renewable fuels standard would cause the ethanol industry to use about one-third
of this year's corn crop -- a debatable point among agriculture experts, depending on how much corn is harvested this year. Pollsters
then told participants that supporters of the mandate say it will promote energy security, provide financial benefits for rural areas and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Pollsters gave a slightly longer description of the position from opponents: that the
mandate contributes to world hunger, does little to promote energy security and produces more greenhouse gas
emissions.
Biofuels are becoming increasingly unpopular due to disastrous effects on the environment
Chemical News & Intelligence, “INSIGHT: US public begins to question biofuels”, Lexis-Nexis, April 10,
2008
WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--Recent US news reports have challenged popular and congressional wisdom about global warming
but the reports were significant more for their venue than content - and they suggest a small but telling shift in public
opinion. Citing various scholars and scientists, the news reports said that biofuels might not be the panacea for US energy and
environmental problems and that emissions caps might damage the US economy without any effect on climate change.
None of this is very new stuff, really, and has been reported here and elsewhere on ICIS news, other focused media and government
studies for considerable time. However, these new challenging reports appeared in recent issues of Time magazine and The New York
Times, two news outlets that are hip-deep in the US mainstream. The fact that those grand dames of US media are questioning basic
tenets of climate change philosophy indicates that a sea change in opinion may be under way. Perhaps most surprising and damning was
the Time magazine story of 27 March titled "The Clean Energy Myth" on the newsstand magazine's cover and [1]"The Clean Energy
Scam" on its Web site. In it, author Michael Grunwald baldly proclaimed: "Biofuels aren't part of the solution [to global warming],
they're part of the problem". "Renewable fuels has become one of those motherhood-and-apple-pie catchphrases, as
unobjectionable as the troops or the middle class," Grunwald wrote. "But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing
exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended," the Time report said. On the contrary, "it is dramatically accelerating global
warming, imperilling the planet in the name of saving it". "Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally
disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switch grass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by
President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline," the story added. Citing a study reported in Science
magazine, Time said that when carbon-storing forests in developing countries such as Brazil were razed to grow biofuel feedstock, "corn
ethanol and soy biodiesel produce about twice the emissions of gasoline". "Sugarcane ethanol is much cleaner and biofuels created from
waste products that don't gobble up land have real potential but even cellulosic ethanol increases overall emissions when its plant
source is grown on good cropland," Time said, concluding: "It turns out that the carbon lost when wilderness is razed overwhelms the
gains from cleaner-burning fuels."
60
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- Obama win won’t increase US Soft Power
Obama is too inexperienced when it comes to foreign policy- that’s key to soft power
Aslan 07 [Reza, Reza Aslan is an assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California at Riverside and the author of "No god but God:
The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam.", He Could Care Less About Obama's Story, p. 2, Dec 30, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122801899_2.html]
Obama may possess all the intuition of a fortuneteller. But as chair of a Senate subcommittee on Europe, he has never
made an official trip to Western Europe (except a one-day stopover in London in August 2005) or held a single policy
hearing. He's never faced off with foreign leaders and has no idea what a delicate sparring match diplomacy in the Middle
East can be. And at a time in which the United States has gone from sole superpower to global pariah in a mere seven
years, these things matter.
Turn- Assassination
A. Obama will be assassinated
Mail Online 08 [Online Newspaper, 'They will kill Obama if he becomes US president': Outcry over Nobel
Prize winner's assassination warning, Feb 11, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513512/They-kill-
Obama-US-president-Outcry-Nobel-Prize-winners-assassination-warning.html]
British Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing caused uproar last night by predicting the assassination of Barack Obama if he becomes the first
black U.S. president.
The 88-year-old novelist's remarks came as the Democratic candidate toasted the most successful day in his White House campaign.
Mr Obama, the 46-year-old son of a black Kenyan man and a white American, dismissed Mrs Lessing's comments.
Miss Lessing said: "He would probably not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would kill him."
B. That kills soft power

Crossed Pond 07 [What if Barack Obama is killed?, American Opinion group with sponsors, June 9,
http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=725]
Lastly, America’s global critics would be immesurably emboldened by the tragedy. They would be far more successful in portraying
America as a violent and racist society. The blow to American soft power would rival that caused by the second Iraq War–just as Obama’s
election might have been seen around the world as a progressive gesture, his assassination would be seen as a massively regressive
one.
61
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- McCain win would increase US Soft Power
McCain’s policy would project both hard and soft power
Investor's Business Daily, May 22, 2008, p. Lexis
Instead of talk, McCain's policy would project both hard and soft power to boost democracy and build the
private sector. He tells the Castros to empty the political prisons, free the media and legalize labor unions
and political parties. He also wants free elections, which Cuba hasn't seen since 1958. And that was just his
carrot.
McCain’s foreign policy has a soft power side as well

New York Times, May 25, 2008, p. Lexis
McCain's democracy talk has a '' soft power'' side as well as a hard-power one. His underlying premise is
that the United States has a deep national-security interest in the growth of democracy abroad. Our strategy
of relying on autocrats to protect our interests in the Middle East and elsewhere has backfired, he said in his March
speech; we should promote democracy abroad because ''it is the democracies of the world that will provide
the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.'' In an effort to change the face of the
Islamic world, he said, ''scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.''
McCain thinks soft power is just important as military power

Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, March 26, 2008, p. Lexis
McCain tied these disparate strands of foreign-policy thinking together by saying that diplomatic " soft
power " is as important as military power in facing the world's challenges, particularly in "winning the
hearts and minds of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a
minority of violent extremists."
"In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs."
McCain appreciates the importance of soft power

University Wire, February 5, 2008, p. Lexis
McCain has centered his campaign on national security. And unlike his GOP rivals, the former POW boasts the
military experience and foreign-policy expertise to back up his hawkish views. Yet McCain appreciates the
importance of soft power - he spoke out passionately against the use of torture in interrogation, arguing
that it would be shortsighted for America to sacrifice the moral high ground.
62
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- VISA Procedures A/C to US Soft Power
Status quo decline in number of foreign students in US weakens America’s global hegemony and soft power
The Edge Malaysia, December 20, 2004, p. Lexis
But while America's hard power dominates the world scene, its soft power declined this year. The US lost
some of its attractiveness for many, and Americans are unpopular in many parts of the world. The decline in
overseas visitors, and notably in the number of foreign students in the US, is the immediate result of
stricter visa laws, but it is an important factor in the weakening of America's global hegemony.
Visa procedures that discourage foreign students from traveling to the US erode America’s soft power
Joseph Nye Jr., Former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and Former Chairman
of the National Intelligence Council and Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration, Soft Power:
The Means to Success in World Politics, 2004, p. 59
American soft power is eroded more by policies like capital punishment or the absence of gun control, where we
are the deviants in opinion among advanced countries. American support for the death penalty, for example, meets
disapproval from two-thirds of the public in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy.92 Similarly, the American
domestic response to terrorism after 9/11 runs some risk of reducing our soft-power resources. Attitudes toward
immigration have hardened, and new visa procedures have discouraged some foreign students. A decline in
religious tolerance toward Muslims hurts the image of the United States in Muslim countries such as
Pakistan and Indonesia as well as in the Arab world.
Policies that discourage students from coming to America undercuts American soft power
Joseph Nye, Former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and Former Chairman of
the National Intelligence Council and Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration, Foreign
Affairs, May/June, 2004, p. Lexis
It is also important to establish more policy coherence among the various dimensions of public diplomacy, and to
relate them to other issues. The Association of International Educators reports that, despite a declining share
of the market for international students, "the U.S. government seems to lack overall strategic sense of why
exchange is important. ... In this strategic vacuum, it is difficult to counter the day-to-day obstacles that
students encounter in trying to come here." There is, for example, little coordination of exchange policies
and visa policies. As the educator Victor Johnson noted, "while greater vigilance is certainly needed, this broad
net is catching all kinds of people who are no danger whatsoever." By needlessly discouraging people from
coming to the United States, such policies undercut American soft power.
63
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- Death Penalty A/C to US Soft Power
America’s use of capital punishment undercuts its soft power
Julia Hanna, freelance writer living in Cambridge, Spring, 2002, p.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/spring2002/features/alone.html
Military power is an essential part of the response, but an equally productive focusing point, Nye continues, would
be the cultivation of what he calls “soft power,” or the ability to advance one’s agenda through attraction rather
than coercion. “Soft power arises from our culture, values, and policies,” he states. Given its proper weight, soft
power can serve as a much-needed balance to our economic and military might, two examples of “hard power” that
can overwhelm and alienate other countries. The thousands of international students who come to study at U.S.
institutions are an example of this country’s soft power. Our government’s democratic values and promotion of
peace and human rights influence how other countries perceive us. For better or worse, so does the latest Bruce
Willis action flick. America’s use of capital punishment and relatively permissive gun control laws undercut its
soft power in European countries. While its intangible quality makes soft power much more difficult to use
and control, observes Nye, that fact does not diminish its importance.
Capital punishment undercuts US soft power

Joseph Nye, Professor of Government at Harvard, Asia-Pacific Review, May, 2002, p. Mirlyn
Government polices at home and abroad can enhance or curtail soft power.
For example, in the 1950s, racial segregation at home undercut American soft power in Africa, and today,
capital punishment and weak gun control laws undercut our soft power in Europe. Similarly, foreign policies
strongly affect US soft power.
Jimmy Carter’s human rights policies are a case in point, but so also are government efforts to promote
democracy in the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Conversely, foreign policies that appear arrogant
and unilateral in the eyes of others diminish American soft power.
Capital punishment undercuts America’s soft power

MAJOR JOHN HYATT, 51st Judge Advocate Officer Graduate Course, The Judge Advocate General's School,
United, States Army, Military Law Review, March, 2003, p. Lexis
After completing his analysis of America's potential competitors and the changing environment the United States
faces, Nye focuses on America itself. In the fourth chapter, "The Home Front," Nye examines a wide range of
issues and indicators that he believes either enhance or undercut America's soft power.
This chapter is particularly well-written and persuasive. Nye does an excellent job quantifying and explaining
notoriously slippery issues such as whetherAmerica suffers from cultural and moral decay, n36 whether
American's are losing confidence in their societal institutions, n37 America's immigration policy, n38
and the fundamental health and attractiveness of the American economy. n39 Nye does indulge in some
partisan sniping; for example, he casts America's approach to gun control, n40 capital punishment,
n41 and "income inequality" n42 in a negative light. But this does not distract much from the thrust of his
message.
64
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- US Hegemony Bad Impacts
Hegemony fails – 3 reasons – and the use of nuclear weapons makes counter-balancing conflicts go nuclear
Gholz, Press and Sapolsky 97 - Gholz and Press are doctoral candidates in the Department of Political Science at MIT,
Sapolsky is Professor of Public Policy and Organization in Political Science at MIT, and Director of MIT defense studies
program (Eugene, Daryl, Harvey, "Come Home America" International Security vol 21, no 4, spring, pg 13-14)
The case for restraint rests on three theoretical foundations. First, the offense defense balance influences both the likelihood of war and the mechanisms
by which wars start. War begins either when status quo powers fail to deter aggressor states (the "deterrence model") or when a status quo state's defense
policies undermine the security of one of its status quo neighbors, precipitating an action-reaction cycle (the "spiral model").13 Second, when faced with
external threats to their security, states tend to balance against the emerging threat, either internally by converting latent military power into deployed
forces, or externally by searching for allies.14 As threats become more intense, governments think more seriously about their security and are more likely
to use "realist" analysis in designing their defense policy.'5 Third, nuclear weapons do not make war obsolete, but they make it impossible to conquer a
nuclear-armed adversary.16 Because nuclear weapons explode with far more destructive force than conventional munitions, a devastating strike can be
delivered with a handful of ballistic missiles or other delivery vehicles not subject to interception. Even the loser of a war-a country that has completely
lost control of its airspace, sea lanes, and strategic, elevated territory-can now fire off a last-ditch punitive strike, devastating the "winner." No conquest
would justify the costs of a large nuclear exchange, so no aggressor can conquer a nuclear-armed great power. Wars may still happen; risk-tolerant
leaders might still engage in limited wars against nuclear powers. 17 But because of the risk of nuclear escalation, even conventional battles between
nuclear powers should be rare." The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that they make the conquest of great powers unthinkable.
Increased hegemony causes a nuclear backlash – US poses a threat

Eland 02 - Director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute (Ivan, “The Empire Strikes Out The "New
Imperialism" and Its Fatal Flaws", Cato policy analysis no 459, nov 26)
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, several commentators have advanced the idea of security through empire. They claim that the best way
to protect the United States in the 21st century is to emulate the British, Roman, and other empires of the past. The logic behind the idea is that if the United States can
consolidate the international system under its enlightened hegemony, America will be both safer and more prosperous. Although the word “empire” is not used, the Bush
administration’s ambitious new National Security Strategy seems to embrace the notion of neoimperialism. The idea, however, ignores the fact that today’s world bears little
resemblance to the one over which Britain or Rome once presided. Two differences are obvious: First, the world is far more interconnected today, which makes the
consequences of sanctimonious, arrogant, or clumsy international behavior riskier politically, diplomatically, and economically. Second, the potential costs associated with
making enemies today are far greater than they were for empires past. Indeed, the British and the Romans were the targets of assassinations, arson, and other forms of anti-
imperial backlash, but that activity was typically small-scale and took place far from the mother country. Forms of backlash today, in contrast, could be large-scale and
directed at America’s homeland. Most of all, the strategy of empire is likely to overstretch and bleed America’s economy and its military and federal budgets, and the
overextension could hasten the decline of the United States as a superpower, as it did the Soviet Union and Great Britain. The strategy could also have the opposite effect
from what its proponents claim it would have; that is, it would alarm other nations and peoples and thus provoke counterbalancing behavior and create incentives for other
nations to acquire weapons of mass destruction as an insurance policy against American military might.
Increased hegemony risks overseas great power wars that go nuclear

Gholz, Press and Sapolsky 97 - Gholz and Press are doctoral candidates in the Department of Political Science at MIT,
Sapolsky is Professor of Public Policy and Organization in Political Science at MIT, and Director of MIT defense studies
program (Eugene, Daryl, Harvey, "Come Home America" International Security vol 21, no 4, spring, pg 31-32)
The prospect for spirals is greater in Europe, but continued U.S. engagement does not reduce that danger; rather, it exacerbates the risk. A West European military union,
controlling more than 21 percent of the world's GDP, may worry Russia. But NATO, with 44 percent of the world's GDP, is far more threatening, especially if it expands
eastward. The more NATO frightens Russia, the more likely it is that Russia will turn dangerously nationalist, redirect its economy toward the military, and try to re-absorb
its old buffer states.72 But if the U.S. military were to withdraw from Europe, even Germany, Europe's strongest advocate for NATO expansion, might become less
enthusiastic, because it would be German rather than American troops standing guard on the new borders. Some advocates of selective engagement point to the past fifty
years as evidence that America's forward military presence reduces the chance of war. The Cold War's great power peace, however, was over determined. Nuclear weapons
brought a powerful restraining influence.73 Furthermore, throughout the Cold War, European and Asian powers had a common foe which encouraged them to cooperate.
After an American withdrawal, the Japanese, Koreans, and Russians would still have to worry about China; the Europeans would still need to keep an eye on Russia. These
threats can be managed without U.S. assistance, and the challenge will encourage European and Asian regional cooperation. In fact, some evidence suggests that America's
overseas presence was not the principal cause of great power peace during the Cold War; nuclear weapons and the presence of a unifying threat played a greater role. The
Sino-Soviet dispute has been one of the bitterest in the world since the 1960s. The Soviets and Chinese have had all the ingredients for a great power war-border disputes,
hostile ideologies, and occasional military clashes along their frontier- yet they managed to keep things from getting out of hand. Maybe the presence of nuclear weapons
damped the conflict; maybe having a common foe (the United States) tempered their hostility toward each other. But it is clear that U.S. engagement was not necessary for
peaceful great power relations during the Cold War. Some analysts agree that the probability of great power wars stemming from American withdrawal is very low, but they
still advocate engagement because they fear low-probability, high-cost events. A war would be a human tragedy, the environment would suffer, and international trade
would be disrupted. But the costs of distant great power wars must be compared to the costs of the strategy intended to prevent them. Advocates of selective engagement
argue that their policy's costs are We disagree with this assessment. Two costs are associated with selective engagement and both are high: the cost of maintaining forces in
Europe and Asia and the risk that, with engagement, the United States will have to fight a war. Maintaining substantial military power in Europe and Asia and the capability
to surge forces to the Persian Gulf will require most of America's current military assets, a two-MRC force. Any savings from force cuts will be marginaL7' The larger long-
term cost of selective engagement is the risk of involvement in faraway great power wars. Great power conflicts will continue to be a rare occurrence, but when they happen,
the United States is much better off staying as far away from the combatants as possible. World War I1 resulted in the deaths of 400,000 Americans, many times that
number wounded, and nearly 40 percent of GDP devoted to defense (compared to 4 percent today).76A new great power conflict, with the possibility of nuclear use, might
exact even higher costs from the participants. World War I1 was fought to prevent the consolidation of Europe and Asia by hostile, fanatical adversaries, but a new great
power war would not raise that specter. The biggest cost of selective engagement is the risk of being drawn into someone else's faraway great power war.
65
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- US won’t strike Iran
US has given up on the possibility of attacking Iran
John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute, Telegraph, June 24, 2006, p.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-'will-attack-Iran'-
before-new-US-president-sworn-in,-John-Bolton-predicts.html
Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he
sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.
"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If
you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."
US military attack against Iran unlikely

The Australian, June 21, 2008, p. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23896672-
7583,00.html
Washington is attempting this grand bargain with Iran, I suspect, for two reasons. One is the weakness and partial
exhaustion of the US's political position in the last days of the Bush administration. The other, much more
important, is a last-ditch effort to dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite Iran's oil reserves and
geo-strategic power, its economy is a mess. It is vulnerable to sanctions and it is undergoing a serious internal
debate about its direction.
Despite the weakness of the US position, it is wrong to write off Bush. His recent trip to Europe has achieved greater
European pressure and financial sanctions against Iran. The US and Iran are simultaneously exploring a grand bargain and
putting pressure on each other.
This does not mean the US definitely will not attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack is unlikely, but if the grand
bargain attempt is seen to fail absolutely, an attack to delay by several years at least Iran's acquisition of nuclear
weapons cannot be ruled out. This is not least because many analysts, in Washington and the Middle East, believe that a
Persian Shi'ite nuclear bomb will surely beget an Arab Sunni nuclear bomb. Saudi Arabia could surely acquire the
technology from Pakistan, if it hasn't already. Separately, Turkey would be unlikely to acquiesce in permanent strategic
superiority for its historic Persian rival.
US military attack on Iran unlikely

James Fallows, National Correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, TheAtlantic.com, June 10, 2008,
p. http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/are_we_going_to_war_with_iran.php
Still, I have thought all along that an attack, while conceivable, is unlikely because it is so obviously self-
destructive. To give the order would be rash and nuts, and at this point in a lame-duck administration rash
ideas encounter more friction that in earlier days.
Re-stating the case against preemptive action is important. I've tried to do so several times. But if anything the case
is stronger if it doesn't rest on assertions the strike is about to occur.*
Meanwhile, it the Congress wanted to be useful, it could go on record denying authorization and funds for
use in a preemptive strike.** It would be a nice way to atone for the Kyl-Lieberman vote.
No impact to Iran retaliating against a military attack

Chuck Freilich, Jerusalem Post, June 26, 2008, p. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?
cid=1214132686901&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
There is little doubt that Iran will respond to a direct attack, or a blockade, but its options, heated rhetoric
notwithstanding, are actually limited. What can it truly do? Attack American ships, block the Gulf? Maybe a
pinprick to make it look good at home, but beyond that, the risks of escalation and the costs to Iran's
economy are too great. Iran is extremist, not irrational. It may very well cause the US greater difficulty in Iraq, and
increased terror can be expected against US and Western targets. It is highly unlikely, however, that Iran would be
willing to go beyond limited actions and risk direct military escalation, not when the US has 150,000
soldiers on its doorstep. Moreover, US preparations can greatly reduce, though not eliminate, the dangers of
Iran's potential responses.
Oil prices will further skyrocket and Iran could add to the crisis by cutting output, but anything beyond temporary
measures would be tantamount to cutting off its nose to spite its face. There will be a strong public reaction in the
66
Moslem world, though Arab regimes will be quietly relieved to be free of a nuclear Iran. If the US plays out the diplomatic
route first, international reaction will be muted.
67
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- Obama Victory causes US strike against Iran
If Obama wins the election, Bush will strike Iran before he leaves office
Bill Kristol, Editor of the Weekly Standard, Fox News Network, June 22, 2008, p. Lexis
And I think, honestly, if the president thought John McCain were going to be the next president, he would think it more
appropriate to let the next president
make that decision than do it on his way out. I do wonder with Senator Obama -- if President Bush thinks Senator Obama
is going to win, does he somehow think that -- does he worry that Obama won't follow through on that policy? Which is
not just a Bush policy, you know. It's a policy of the U.N. Security Council. WALLACE: So are you suggesting that he might,
in fact, if Obama is going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?
KRISTOL: I don't know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can't -- it's hard to make foreign policy based on
guesses about election results.
I think Israel is worried, though. I mean, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional
negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force? And that's one of the ways in which
electing someone like Obama -- and people are free to be for him for a million reasons, but it's just factually true that
electing someone like him, with the policies he's articulated, I think increases the risk of enemies testing him in his first
months in office and allies being worried that he'll be too weak.
And it's not just Israel using nuclear weapons -- using force against Iran. What do Saudi Arabia and Egypt think if they
listen to Obama? Don't they have a temptation to think, "Gee, maybe we could use nuclear weapons if Obama becomes
president?"
If Obama wins the election, Bush will attack Iran

Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum, the Taube/Diller distinguished fellow at the Hoover
Institution, and earned a doctorate in early Islamic history from Harvard in 1978, June 5, 2008, p.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/05/pipes-democrat-iran/
What I suspect will be the case is, should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something.
And should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt, and let McCain decide what to do.
Bush more likely to attack Iran if Obama wins the election

The Raw Story, June 22, 2008, p. http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-might-
attack-iran-if-he-thinks-obama-will-win/
President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he thinks Senator Barack Obama may be elected, Weekly
Standard editor Bill Kristol told FOX News Sunday morning.
Kristol added that if Senator John McCain was going to win the presidency, Bush would “think it more
appropriate” to let him deal with the issue.
Senators McCain and Obama have often sparred about whether military force or diplomacy should be the primary
way of dealing with Iran, according to an article by the Los Angeles Times.
68
Obama Elections DA- Impacts- Obama Victory causes Israeil strike against Iran
Israel will attack Iran if Obama wins the presidential election
Enterprise Institute, June 25, 2008, p.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bolton_israel_iran/2008/06/25/107224.html
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton believes Israel will stage a raid against Iran's
nuclear facilities if Democratic nominee Barack Obama wins the upcoming presidential election in
November.
Bolton, often labeled a resolute neo-conservative, believes the Israeli attack would take place sometime
between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20 of next year.
In an interview with FOX News, Bolton says, "I think if they are to do anything, the most likely period is after
our elections and before the inauguration of the next President."
Bolton reasons Israel wont be able to hold off a strike on Iran any longer than that given the Illinois senator's
intended foreign policy toward the Islamic Republic.
Israel won’t attack Iran if McCain wins the election

Enterprise Institute, June 25, 2008, p.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bolton_israel_iran/2008/06/25/107224.html
Bolton thinks Israel may consider postponing the attack, however, if Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., emerges
as the victor in the presidential race. He says McCain's stance on Iran is far more realistic than that of the
Bush administration.
If Israel strikes Iran, they would likely do it between election and inauguration dates
Enterprise Institute, Telegraph, June 24, 2006, p.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-'will-attack-Iran'-
before-new-US-president-sworn-in,-John-Bolton-predicts.html
Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be
between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.
"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their
nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and
further harden the nuclear installations .
"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything
before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."
Obama victory would cause Israel to attack Iran- this would cause the world economy to collapse
Fox News, June 26, 2008, p. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372102,00.html
According to CBS News, Israel is telling President Bush that if he doesn't do something to stop Iran from
developing nuclear weapons capability, Israel will attack the Iranians.
CBS analyst Michael Oren says that Israel does not want to wait for the new American president to be elected before
action is taken.
Unstated, but certainly implied, is that Israel believes Barack Obama might win and that he might not be as aggressive
toward Iran as the Bush administration is.
Now, this presents a number of problems for America and for the world.
First, the USA cannot attack Iran without alienating much of the planet, including millions of Americans. There is simply no will in this
world — and in much of this country — for an armed confrontation with Iran, no matter what the stakes are.
It is important for all of us to realize how fearful many people are these days. If President Bush were to attack Iran without congressional
approval, which he would not get, he would be vilified and impeached. So America will not use its military to stop Iran's nuclear
aspirations, at least not right now.
That leaves Israel. If that country attacks Iran, a full-fledged war will break out in the Middle East. Hezbollah, Hamas and
possibly Syria will join Iran in striking Israel, and few countries will help the Israelis.
Such a scenario would send oil prices well above $200 a barrel, causing the world economy to collapse. And this is exactly
what the Islamic fascists want: world wide chaos and condemnation of Israel and the USA.
69
70

Obama Elections Disadvantage-Shared Version: Negative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Obama Elections Disadvantage-Shared Version: Negative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHKP 7Wk. JRs. UM 08 MNDI Elections- Shared.

Obama Elections Disadvantage- Shared Version

Obama Elections Disadvantage- Shared Version.........................................................................................................1

1. American public universally supports development of alternative energy sources

2. US soft power prevents 30 regional conflicts from going nuclear

Obama’s in the lead – weak economy and Iraq war

Obama has a sizeable popular vote lead over McCain

Obama’s winning Clinton’s supporters

Obama and Clinton moving to rectify Democratic unity

Bush’s endorsement ties him to McCain

67% of Americans support domestic nuclear power

American public demands anti-global warming policies now

Polls finds that curbing global warming is an important bipartisan issue

Obama Elections Links- Net Metering popular with Public

Energy has spiked in its importance to voters in recent months

Gas prices will be a dominant election issue

Obama Elections Impacts- Obama victory key to US Soft Power

Obama will increase US soft power- multiple reasons

Obama will stress soft power

And new approaches are definitely needed.

United States leadership is solely dependent on Soft power

Soft Power key to Hard Power & Coalitions

Soft power key to hard power

Obama Elections Impacts- US Hegemony Good Impacts

Obama Elections Impacts- Iran Strike Bad 2NC Impact Scenario

Iran strike causes extinction

Obama will not strike Iran and McCain will

Attack on Iran risk Nuclear war with Russia and China

China will not sit idly by and

Obama Elections DA- Uniqueness- Obama will Lose

Money isn’t an issue for McCain – He has as much as Obama

McCain distancing himself from Bush on numerous important issues

McCain distancing himself from Bush over environmental issues

McCain distancing himself from Bush’s environmental policies

Bush’s history prevents the public from crediting him

Energy and environmental issues not being discussed in presidential election

Presidential election won’t be a referendum on climate change

Global warming currently receiving minimal attention in presidential election race

Climate change not a voting priority issue for Americans

Climate change not a salient issue to most Americans

Americans not very concerned about global warming

Climate not a major election issue because the economy is overshadowing it

Climate issue falling in terms of importance in 2008 presidential election

Climate change won’t become leading issue in 2008 presidential election

RPS unpopular – it’s empirically divisive in Congress

Voters, suspicious of market outcomes, irrationally distrust carbon tax

High gas prices make a carbon tax unpopular

B. That kills soft power

McCain’s foreign policy has a soft power side as well

McCain thinks soft power is just important as military power

McCain appreciates the importance of soft power

Capital punishment undercuts US soft power

Capital punishment undercuts America’s soft power

Increased hegemony causes a nuclear backlash – US poses a threat

Increased hegemony risks overseas great power wars that go nuclear

US military attack against Iran unlikely

US military attack on Iran unlikely

No impact to Iran retaliating against a military attack

If Obama wins the election, Bush will attack Iran

Bush more likely to attack Iran if Obama wins the election

Israel won’t attack Iran if McCain wins the election

You might also like