Which cellular service will each candidate endorse?

If it walks like a duck

What’s the closest thing in politics to a religious experience? The ethanol conversion.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) experienced one in May of last year. Long opposed to federal support for the corn-based biofuel, she reversed herself and endorsed even bigger ethanol incentives than she previously voted against. Now running for president, Clinton is promoting a $50 billion strategic energy fund, laden with more ethanol perks.

Political opponents depict Clinton’s about-face as pandering to Iowa Democrats, who will cast the first votes of the 2008 nominating season. …

That’s the most obvious explanation, and the one that came to my mind first. But it doesn’t really matter what reasoning she used. In the best analysis of her switch, she believes that the free market can’t figure out a viable solution to our dependence on oil. If ethanol is so wonderful, it will succeed without government help. If it needs government help to succeed, it isn’t the solution. Senator Clinton’s opinion is irrelevant, other than to broadcast how she would treat the economy as president. If this is any evidence at all, I’ll pass.

Further into the article, the reporter claims that a candidate having an opinion on how to use ethanol is now expected, so it gains little for anyone. Essentially, we now expect our political candidates to inform us which products we should choose. Forgive me for having a brain and an independent streak, but I’m more than qualified to figure out how to choose for myself. I also trust other individuals and businesses to search for opportunities in the marketplace, whether or not that marketplace exists today. Human history is full of examples. That includes energy sources. No politicians necessary.