Exactly. Obama voted for the Energy Bill because it bore legistlation for the deveopment and use of enthanol as an alternativ fuel. Something like 40% of the corn used to produce ethanol is produced in Illinois. Essentially, he voted in the interest of the state he was elected to represent as a senator.
What goes entirely unheralded around these parts is that Obama proposed a number of amendments to the 2005 Energy Act (along w/ HRC) in an attempt to clean the thing up.
Senators are rarely faced with a morally unambiguous vote. Almost every piece of legislation often has both good and bad in it. On the whole, they are often difficult decisions.
That said, the AUMF should have been a no-brainer. HRC goofed that one BADLY, and has righly suffered the consequences for it.
Ethanol is a pretty bad idea...
Actually, I agree. Enthanol certainly isn't the best idea, but in 2005 it was still largely considered a stop-gap measure worth exploring to reduce reliance on foriegn oil.
