It's been nearly forgotten amid all the hype, glitter and publicity surrounding the just-concluded Democratic convention, but the Aug. 16 nationally televised conversations that Barack Obama and John McCain had with Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback mega-church in California were a breath of fresh air.

Instead of the standard back-and-forth debate between candidates featuring scripted zingers and charges of flip-flopping, the calm and relfective conversations with Warren were enlightening — and civil.

The format at Saddleback might have had something to do with the outcome. Warren sat and asked each candidate the same questions, but the candidates spoke to Warren alone and at different times. Obama went first, and when he was done, McCain sat and talked with Warren.

Both candidates came across well, with McCain appearing to be sharp and decisive. Obama, not surprisingly, came across as very thoughtful, sometimes even philosophical. It did appear that he had to tip-toe around some delicate issues, such as abortion, as a Democrat sitting among evangelicals. Still, he did well.

While Warren did ask questions about faith, abortion, the beginning of life and other "conservative" issues, he also probed secular issues like poverty, economics, education (including merit pay for teachers), the Supreme Court and terrorism.

Warren's questions were different and more thoughtful than some of the unhelpful queries tossed at the presidential candidates by various TV pundits and YouTube video clips during the primary season.

Some observers criticized Warren's event — both before and after it was broadcast — because of the religious venue and background of the questioner. But the event was so refreshing and so helpful to voters in terms of judging the two men, that another session with Warren would be a valuable addition to the national dialogue leading up to the November election.

It's not that often that Americans see a common sense solution gaining bipartisan support in Washington, D.C. That's been especially true when the issue is energy and U.S. dependence on foreign oil.Lately though, there is evidence that high gasoline prices are building public support for opening up more offshore areas along the coastal United States for drilling for oil and natural gas.While traditional party lines have typically separated anti-drilling Democrats from pro-drilling Republicans, there are signs that those divisions are breaking down.Earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-4th, was among a group of six House Democrats to introduce legislation calling for allowing more drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf. Among other things, the bill also would add federal support for research and development of alternative and renewable fuels.The House bill (HR 6817) is similar to a Senate bill introduced at the same time and would use revenues from new offshore drilling to provide $40 billion to fund alternative energy work, including plug-in electric cars, smart-meter technology, wind and solar energy as well as broad efforts to boost energy efficiencies for industry and transportation.Altmire, while visiting the Butler Eagle recently, stressed that he prefers this comprehensive approach to the energy crisis. He added that he is, however, willing to let the offshore drilling segment stand alone for a vote — to take it off the table as a political club to be used by Republicans in the coming elections.Partisan politics are playing too great a role in developing a comprehensive energy policy, which is the only real solution to the nation's energy woes. As famed Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who is now a high-profile proponent of wind power, has said, we can't drill our way out of this problem.High gasoline prices have begun to change people's behavior and thinking about energy. Americans expect Congress to put together a realistic plan to move the United States away from its dependence on foreign oil, and in ways that are good for the environment as well as the economy.When Congress takes up energy legislation this fall, Americans will be watching — and a common sense, comprehenive approach is what will be expected.

Thursday's front page of the Butler Eagle featured a story about a big drug company that is believable and unbelievable at the same time.The Associated Press reported that drug giant Genentech is ignoring the potential of a $60 drug it manufactures to treat a leading cause of blindness in the elderly because the company is already selling a $2,000 treatment that does the same thing.Medicare analysts estimate that if the cheaper drug were proven to be effective at treating a form of macular degeneration, the savings would be huge. The current drug, Lucentis, costs Medicare about $1.2 billion a year to treat an estimated 50,000 cases. If the same patients were treated with Avastin, the cheaper drug, the cost to Medicare would drop to $60 million.That's a $1.14 billion savings to Medicare, and taxpayers. But it also would be a huge drop in profits for Genentech.According to the AP, the company is not seeking federal approval for the cheaper drug to be used treating the disease. The company is also refusing to help fund a study by the National Eye Institute comparing the effectiveness of the two drugs.Genentech claims that it believes the more expensive drug is the most effective. But at this point, the company's motives appear to be purely profit, not the health of patients.This looks like more of the same from an industry that is one of the greatest contributors to soaring health care costs.