Visionary?  no.  Just more talking points.  The need for alternatives is seen by all, and the point going for Obama is his honesty in admitting what is needed - at least partially.  And that is higher oil prices.  As long as Oil stays cheap (relatively), no alternatives will compete.  Period.  The reason we are not running the planet on WHale blubber is that about 150 years ago, man found a "cheaper" alternative - oil.  Once the price of oil rises to make something else cheaper, then OIl will go the way of Whale blubber.  And it will not be algore jetting around the world that makes it so.

Obama gets a point for his truthfulness about energy, but then loses one for his talking points about alternatives.  he will do nothing for alternatives unless he does something for Oil - as in keeping the price high.  McCain?  You are right, no vision there.  Just politics of the pocketbook.

Obama must have a magic wand to make the things he wants to happen happen. I live in reality not fantasyland.   

Where will the electricity for these million cars come from? Not nuclear power (see above). And not anywhere else, if Obama means this: "I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming -- an 80 percent reduction by 2050."

No he won't. Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute notes that in 2050 there will be 420 million Americans -- 40 million more households. So Obama's cap would require reducing per capita carbon emissions to levels probably below even those "in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obamas_economic_fairytale.html

Please elaborate on what investments fill your tank and heat your home today? Just curious so I can get myself some. Are they cheap, or will I need to take an oil companies windfall profit to get it? Obama's only vision are those of grandure...proof...how many Prius's does he drive?

Written by a conservative(Sarcasticaly) "this must be history and completely 100% accurate just like a non-partison report."

Not necessarily. There are two ways of ending the oil dependance, and you focused primarily on one - a high oil price (which inevitably makes alternatives more attractive, and you end up with a point where the oil price is higher than the alternatives, and hence the alternatives are used). However I think when Obama is talking about investing in it today he's also looking at bringing down the price of those alternatives. This could be done in several ways - you could subsidise the alternatives, and/or you could subsidise investment into the alternatives which would be likely to help lower their cost (e.g. research into a more efficient wind turbine, etc.)

My own view is that both candidates could learn a bit from the others policies - make it easier (/remove bans) for offshore drilling (and drilling for oil in general), but then include a tax on oil to reflect the environmental damage it does, and provide subsidies for environmentally friendly+renewable alternatives.

True, the law of supply and demand is the law of SUPPLY and DEMAND. SO there are always 2 sides.  However, as has been demonstrated in the past, subsidies do not work.  FOr 2 reasons - one is they never go away, and 2 is that they do not follow the smart money (there is no incentive to).  Investment is just what the word means.  People are looking for a return, so they do not invest in icebergs to india.  Government has no such incentive, so they do.  The money is wasted and nothing to show for it.  There have been subsidies for ethanol for the last 30 years.  And all we have to show for it is a dead end (we are trading food for fuel - a no win situation).