I am not keeping up enough with the list, and Doug and others have given good answers. But yeah the very rich people on Cape Cod oppose the wind farms because of their precious views. There are real issues elsewhere with bats, but as with bird the toll from wind generation is far less than tall buildings. Part of this is NIMBYism in its worst form - better than people die in coal mines than Robert Kennedy have to see windmills miles offshore from the Cape Cod Kennedy compound.
This is strengthened by funding from the coal companies.
But all opposition to wind comes from rich bastards. There are two sources to this opposition, one legitimate (though in my opinion misguided) the other based on a misconception. The legitimate opposition comes from the history of some truly awful wind sites, like the Altamont wind farm that kills golden eagles. There are plenty of decent locations for wind in the U.S. That was unneccesary and is still running today. But the wind industry does know how to not repeat this. Of course you have to keep an eye on them, because you do get occasional applications for sites as bad as Altamont and what is more, have to fight to keep them from being approved. But most wind farms locate on sites that don't threaten endangered species and are planned carefully. It is a matter of keeping an eye on them. So I think people who oppose all or most wind farms are making blanket opposition to something that simply has to be done carefully. But at the same time I can see how having someone apply to build a destructive wind farm in your area could sour someone against all windfarms. I would hope people could get beyond this. We live in a capitalist society, so of course the wind industry is a capitalist wind industry, and will cut corners to increase profits if they can get away with it. But that wind can be implemented destructively is no more a reason to oppose all or most wind farms than the fact that vegetables are sometimes grown in very destructive ways is a reason to oppose eating fresh vegetables.
Another less legitimate type of opposition is based on perception. All power generation has social costs. There is kilowatt fairy, no BTU bunny. But I think for renewable energy the social value of the energy far exceeds those costs. At any rate the social costs of wind and solar are far lower than those from coal and oil. (And though it gets an undeserved good rap far lower than natural gas as well). But an important difference is that most of the time the social costs of coal and oil are concentrated and can be diverted mostly into hurting a small minority, mostly of poor people. Even the gulf spill will affect poor and working people far more than the rich and middle classes, though it will affect a lot of rich and middle class people as well. Whereas with wind and sun, the affects are dispersed and they have to be located where the resources are. So even though the social costs are lower they are spread among more people. And while in this society the effects are not anything like equal, they are spread a lot more equally than fossil fuels, with a larger percent of the social costs borne by rich and middle class people, not just the poor and working classes. So if you power your home with coal power from 50 miles away, and suddenly someone wants to put a wind farm five miles from your home, the affect of the wind power plant is a lot more visible to you than the affect of the coal power plant. (Even if the coal power plant may be harming your health, you may not connect the two, but you can see the damn windmills.)
There is another source of opposition to, ideological opposition. Something I would describe as seeking "strength through despair". There various positions across the political spectrum that are based on the premise that we are doomed that there is nothing we can do. And for someone holding that position the idea that we can produce non-polluting electricity is just false hope that distracts from the on-coming doom we need to prepare for. So there has to be something wrong with wind power, and what that is can be filled in later, but there has to be a hidden catch we have either stupidly overlooked or a catch that is obvious but is being diabolically hidden from us. And that always seems strange to me. Because even if you are wedded to doom, it always seems like you can admit that the technology exists to replace existing horrible ways we do things, and still despair based on the political situation if despair is what you seek. But I guess doom is much more satisfying if escaping the oncoming destruction is not only politically, but physically impossible. Instead of when "when the rapture comes, can I have your stuff?" a certain kind of doomer would say "when the rapture comes, we'll be out of stuff". Anyway, a hasty a belated reply.
I'd be curious if all this sparks any thoughts with you. I wish Rob Schaap was still on this list. I suspect he'd have an interesting and insightful take..