America Doesn't vote on Policy...and that is OK.

It might sound ironic coming from a guy who writes a a blog dedicated to thinking about Policy and Politics. This presidential election will change the political landscape in America, it will not however, be about policy.

Why?

Because it never is. Ever since the dawn of media machines owned by political campaigns voters have learned to judge politicians not by the promises they make, the vast majority of which end up being false, but by the sense they get for leadership style.

There are real policy differences between senators Obama and McCain. But by the time it comes to voting people are going to be making judgments based largely on feel and who they identify with more. Americans understand that a campaign platform does not mean every policy will get enacted, more that this platform represents the kinds of changes a particular candidate would like to see made.

Mind you, I don't think this is a bad thing. This comes from a legitimate, if unspoken understanding of the constitution. Americans understand that while a president may drive the agenda, they cannot by themselves radically alter the nation. Our founders put in place a series of checks and balances so precise and so demanding that any president no matter how charismatic, must work the political levers to enact legislation. Ultimately, that kind of leadership prowess is what is being judged.

Gases Prices are Going Up...and that's a good thing

I've blogged on this before. Gas is getting more expensive, there isn't a damn thing the government can do about it, and it's a good thing. Nothing more expediently creates change than rising prices. Last summer Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was exalted as the kind of national call to action we finally needed. It won an Oscar and a Nobel prize for its merits. While we are still seeing its effects on our culture, what is really motivating people to change their behavior are prices at the pump. High gas prices are forcing Americans to change their behavior in ways that Al Gore cannot. Don't believe me? Check out this article in Time about families cutting back their vacation plans and getting more local this summer. The article describes the beginning of a shift in lifestyle choice by average Americans.

But we need action on the federal level. As global demand for energy increases we need local governments to begin funding mass transit initiatives. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Boston went through a mass transit renaissances long ago. We need to foster the same in cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami, and yes Los Angles.

The Ballad of John Edwards

Funny that Marc should post a hit on John Edwards today. In thinking about how the campaign between Clinton and Obama shook out over the months since Iowa, I see John Edwards more and more as as tragic figure in the 2008 election cycle.

John Edwards' message all year heading into Iowa and New Hampshire was that he was the fighter. He was going to fight poverty, and fight corporations for a better life for the rest of America. Yet for whatever reason he could never make his message stick with voters and John Edwards' was forced to suspend his campaign after the early contests.

I for one think his exit was too early. Edwards wouldn't have won the nomination if he had stayed in but think of how his message and indeed in many ways his brand have been co-opted by Hillary Clinton. Hillary entered the primary season as the the "experience" candidate in a change year. The change versus experience argument played strongly into Obama's hands, and left Edwards with no real position to be in. Yet as the race wore on and Clinton began losing constests after Feb. 5th she began to pivot away from being "ready on day one" to being the candidate that's going to fight for the little guy. In fact, her coalition of voters were the very folks that Edwards claimed. Yet for whatever reason Edwards never passed the smell test with the electorate, and never got a chance to do the distance. Now he is left pseudo-endorsing neither candidate, waiting to see what his next gig might be.

Do I Smell an Endorsement?

Is it me, or did it just sound like Senator John Edwards said he supports Hillary? If you listened to Face the Nation on Sunday morning, Edwards said that Clinton was gaining steam and would be a stronger candidate in the fall. Maybe it's me, but I can take this one of two ways. Either Edwards has little chance of becoming the VP under Obama, or there's more than meets the eye to this race. Is it me or is it strange that pundits keep saying that it would take a shocking revelation to knock out Obama? Why do they keep saying that? It's almost like they're trying to cushion the blow when Hillary overtakes Obama because of some nasty scandal or political secret. Edwards words reminded me why I hate politicians more than any other profession, because they can never say plainly how they feel. They have to dress us their words and encode them, almost as if they think we are incapable of handling the truth. I think this story is far from over, so stay posted.

He's Winning in Every Column Folks!

Quick hit before I got to bed. Obama picked up another four Super Delegates today vaulting him ahead of Clinton in yet another category. While none of these are set in stone, it definitely marks a shift in momentum and may display a trend that will emerge in the next three weeks. I'm predicting a small trickle of delegates (as we are seeing now) rather than one mass exodus from one candidate to another, whereby they save face and don't alienate Hillary supporters. Regardless, time is running out as Obama now leads in the popular vote, delegates won, and pledged Super Delegates. Tick Tock Hillary. 

A New Blog to check out

I have many favorable characteristics as a human. But I also have some unfavorable ones, one of them is taking credit for things that have nothing to do with me, but never the less creating some tortured logic to instill my own greatness into something that had little to do with me.

In this case, I am applying my tortured logic to The V List a new blog started by fellow policythought contributor Marc Valentine. I take credit for providing the inspiration for Marc's venture.

In all seriousness, Marc's sense of humor and irony keep policythought the varied, enjoyable read we all hope it is, and we all support his newest online venture. So check out the v-list and keep it on your blogroll, right there next to Policythought.

Nine more pick Barack but Hillary takes another shot

The earth is officially crumbling underneath Hillary's feet. Another nine Super Delegates have now joined the Obama camp swinging even more momentum his way. I understand Hillary's desire to exit gracefully, but all these charades are just delaying the inevitable, not to mention they are running up quite a bill for the Clinton campaign. At this point, as I have said in numerous blogs, I think it's time for the heavy hitters to step up to the plate and make an endorsement. That means John Edwards and Al Gore need to stop playing politics andhave to start to think about the big prize, November. A prolonged race could have lasting negative effects. 

 

Hillary might be eliminated, but that hasn't stopped her from using racially divisive language in trying to smear Obama. Recently in a phone interview, Hillary reiterated that Obama will not win in the fall because white voters and blue collar workers don't identify with him. All these shenanigans might actually hurt her standing in the party and should Obama lose, especially if his loss is attributed to all her attacks. The Dems are hungry and if they are denied the White House after an eight year drought because of Hillary she can say goodbye to any chances of running in 2012. I know that Mike said in his earlier post we need to step back and appreciate exactly what Hillary is trying to accomplish, but I have to disagree with him on one major point. I was hoping that the first female candidate would conduct herself with a little more dignity and grace instead of running (in my opinion) one of the most divisive primary campaigns in modern history. I understand that top Super Delegates don't want to feel as if they are "forcing" Hillary out, but the time for subtlety is over.  Hillary take a hike!

Less talk of Green, more talk of Green Backs

I believe man-made global warming and climate change are real. Why? Because I believe in science. However, my beliefs are not shared by all Americans and never will be. Many Americans don't believe in Global Warming and think Al Gore is crazy. I think that PR action for climate change is all mixed up.

Even if you don't believe in big bad global warming, all Americans should want to end our dependence on foreign oil. If I were running an anti-carbon organization, it wouldn't be targeted at a disaster some where in the future. It would be targeted at the already-present energy we have that will only get worse if we remain dependent on carbon. So here are a few bullet points that I think we can all agreed on, that should be the forefront on the anti-oil campaign.

1. We don't have enough of it. Worldwide demand for energy is growing exponentially. China and India are going through a revolution. In China alone 200 million will shift from poverty to a middle-class lifestyle in the next decade. I say good for them, but if they emulate the American standard of living that means they'll want at least one car, and one house that burns energy. This will increase the demand for oil and again raise global prices as the commodity becomes more scarce. That's not environmentalism talking, that's the free market talking. Middle class Americans will not be able to afford a gallon of gas, or to heat their homes, unless we change our ways.

2. Oil is a security threat. When we buy gasoline, or home heating oil, we are indirectly funding regimes, and individuals who hate America. Their oil revenues fund all Middle Eastern life. We are actually funding our enemies every time we go to the pump. Forget surging prices, what happens if production is halted by surprise? A terrorist attack or an earthquake hits? We could see unfathomable economic harm. We need a diverse energy portfolio so our grid can keep working and powering our vehicles not matter what.

3. Strategic assets. Whenever you hear a politician talk about Middle Eastern strategic assets they are talking about Oil. John McCain even said in reference to our oil dependency that getting off foreign oil would ensure "we never have to send our young men and women into harm's way in the middle east again."

4. Economic diversity. We always hear about diversifying out portfolio. We need to do so in energy as well. It's just senseless to rely on one source of fuel. Solar, wind, hydro-electric, biofuels, nuclear power, all should be in the mix to keep each supply in competition with the others and relatively cheap.

So those are the bullet points, but I think you get my point. Independent of the environment or global warming there are very cogent reasons for us to get off oil. Perhaps these inconvenient truths will push people to action.

Olbermann Versus Hannity: Death Match

Policythought was largely founded as departure from the echo-chamber, and a way to stimulate debate and maybe hear something you don't agree with every so often. However, as a blogger on policy and politics I think it is my duty to things that my reading public doesn't want to. One of those things is filling my head with the ranting and raving of pundits and talk show hosts from around the country.

I listen to everything from PBS to CSPAN to ABC and FOX news and let me tell you two shows that I would like to see disappear from the public sphere.

The first-Sean Hannity's show. I can't stand Sean Hannity. Why? Not because he's conservative. Because "interviews" are nothing more than having people on his show that are like-minded so they can bash the other side. Take for example, Hannity's recent interview with Rudy Giuliani. They took their time to bash Senator Obama because of his personal relationships. Giuliani at one point expounded, "You know I've hired a lot of people....his resume looks thin." I find it ironic that Giuliani first of all found it smart to talk about his hiring practices and secondly to talk about personal relationships given that the Bernard Kerik incident kind of lampoons both in one fell swoop. But he knew he could on Sean Hannity's show because there is no such thing as a hard-hitting interview there, its just a place to rub elbows and bash the other side. But what's worse, is that there is "another side." Sean Hannity, a disciple of Rush Limbaugh has made a career out of polarizing people and not being able to see the other side of create compromise. His show never really discusses policy or brings up debate, in fact debate is almost totally shunned. He assumes his audience is stupid, then proceeds to prove his assumption.

Not to be out done-the well-dressed, well-worded, well-worn out Keith Olbermann, is newer to the pundit scene than Sean Hannity, but he is taking his place upon the throne that Air America could not build. His nightly news and opinion show Countdown With...(heavy on the opinion, light on the news), has become a liberal staple. Olbermann spouts his leftward opinions as forcefully as Hannity on the right, and with the same lame-o interviews. When Keith's laid down the law on some opinion, most recently tarring John McCain with the idea that we went into Iraq purely for oil, he has on "experts" to discuss. His experts tend to always be from Air America radio and in what is a shock to no one the "expert" and Olbermann tend to agree 100% of the time, thus he has expounded "the truth."

Hannity strokes conservative listeners by appealing to their sense of tradition and values. Olbermann strokes liberals by appealing to their intellect, and by stringing together long sentences with large words. Both are false idols not to worshipped. I leave you now with a clip that sums up these morons, in the hope that one day one network will be brave enough to get them to share a desk together and actually debate each other.

We've Forgotten How Important Hillary Is

Barack Obama's status as the first African-American front-runner for a party nomination for President has in many ways overshadowed an equally momentous event. Just as no one wants to talk about race, it seems fewer want to discuss gender - and the truly colossal achievement of Senator Clinton as the first female front-runner for a nomination. She has broken through the glass ceiling with two fists and a knockout right hook. So, why my sudden epiphany? Take a look at this Goodyear tire advertisement from the 1970s that I saw today, and think about what it's taken for women to earn the respect they rightly deserve. According to this ad, how could a woman ever be president if she can't be trusted to drive a car? Oh, right. She'll have Air Force One, a presidential motorcade and an entire nation at her disposal. Nomination or no, whatever her tactics, Senator Clinton is to be applauded for her success and for earning a place in history that isn't tied to the infamous affairs of her spouse.

When will it End? How about May 20? No? May 31?

Politico reports this morning that the Obama camp plans to declare victory on May 20. They expect after the intervening contests to have a majority of pledged delegates, and therefore every concievable path to the nomination locked up. However, the Clinton camp has already begin spinning the need to count Michigan and Florida as voted, the only way the mathematics come back to her favor, and only then...barely.

It is time for the super delegates to make their decision and end this thing. The last thing the party needs is to fight this out till June.

I don't suck, but together WE suck

I haven't really taken my crack at the WE campaign yet. Mike skewered Al Gore's latest project a few weeks go. I took my time, thinking that perhaps the media moguls behind this expensive project are just taking their time to build the brand, and perhaps they still are. The WE campaign isn't all that old to be tossed aside like a piece of unrecyclable styrofoam. However, the WE campaign is already falling short for me in a few ways.

First of all, its not yet viral. Nothing about it is. It has a distinctly, Rock the Vote feel to it. Like its something we should all take a look at, but its slightly too establishment to be cool. My fellow blogger Marc made a great point yesterday that Barack Obama's candidacy caught fire among young voters not because he begged them to come out and vote, but initially because he convinced young people, partially with his rhetoric and partially just by the nature of who he is, that change was possible.

The WE campaign, has nothing like that going for it. No spark. I am a card-carrying member of the WE (its even odd to say) and as a blogger, Al and Co, asked me to pass this along to you all.




Now maybe they or WE simply haven't hit their or is it our stride. I WANT to be interested in this campaign, but truth be told I'm just not. Speaking of truth, it amazes me that everyone has seemed to miss the golden quality of An Inconvenient Truth, it was a giant, constant call to action. I need to do more that add my email address to a petition. I want to get called into service. We Can Solve Climate Change. You bet we can.

But maybe we need better inspiration.

Has the General Election Begun?

On Monday I wrote my prediction piece on the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. While dead-on (if I do say so myself) about the results of the tallies last night, we're all waiting to see if the predicate of my prediction will also hold up, but given the tone of the Clinton camp this morning, I suspect that it will.

The math is against her, but that's not new, what is new is that despite the emergence and reemergence of Rev. Wright, the most politically damaging personal relationship of the cycle, Senator Obama held his lead in NC and drew her to the narrowest of margins in Indiana. Her continuing argument to the super delegates has grown much, much weaker. I doubt, however, that she will concede of her own accord.

Never having worked on a national campaign, but having worked on lots of non-profit theatrical productions (the parallels are often striking) I always look to the donors. Clinton made a public plea for more cash last night. But she'll need another flood of cash to keep this thing going. Her ability to solicit it might have a lot to do with whether or not she continues.

Taken from this morning's NY Times:

Clinton advisers acknowledged that the results of the primaries were far less than they had hoped, and said they were likely to face new pleas even from some of their own supporters for her to quit the race. They said they expected fund-raising to become even harder; one adviser said the campaign was essentially broke, and several others refused to say whether Mrs. Clinton had lent the campaign money from her personal account to keep it afloat.

What Obama Should Have Said

I know my generally effusive gushing over Senator Obama's oratorical skills trend to the realm of guy-love. But there is something I wish Senator Obama would have said, something I wish he would have risked. Obama has allowed himself to be painted as an elitist. I have so many issues with the nation and the media perceiving being "elite" as bad. I for one want our elite running the country, not our average, but then maybe that's me. 

That aside. Obama refused in all of the bitter-gate controversy to give the kind of speech on economic diversity in this country as he did on racism in this country. He never took a moment like the one in Philadelphia and told the country that he was raised by a single mother, that at one point collected food stamps, that he and his wife only recently finished paying off his student loans. That he grew up playing basketball, being called Barry by his friends. In other words that his rise to relative stardom here in America is the embodiment of the American Dream. Moreover, he didn't say the one thing I missed most. I longed for a moment over the course of Pennsylvania and North Carolina and Indiana, for him to say just once. 

"Don't call me elitist because I refuse to talk to you all as if you are stupid. Don't let the other side paint me as something I'm not because I speak to truths we'd rather not acknowledge." 

But then he couldn't do that. What does it say about this leader, that he was too cautious to tell Americans what they really didn't want to hear?

Obama Wins North Carolina

His victory in NC looks decisive. Indiana at the moment is trending toward Senator Clinton. It remains my contention that simply making the margin very slight in Indiana will uncork a flood of super delegates eager to get this thing over with. We'll see over the corse of the night if my prediction holds up. 

Hillary: The Choice of the Last Generation!

Analysis of the polls will tell you that young people don't favor Hillary. Maybe it's her mullet, or the fact that she represents everything wrong with the world of politics; double talk, skeletons in her closet, and the ability to pawn pure bullshit on an unsuspecting and uneducated voting public. Let me not mince words, because now my narrative is taking a turn for the worst. After tonight's primaries it is abundantly clear that she cannot win. In baseball this would be where a team's magic number is zero, but oddly enough Hillary is still playing for the postseason. Why? Pure vanity and megalomania have consumed the person that once claimed she was in the race for the ordinary voter. Oh, please Hillary! 

This isn't about the voters, it isn't about the Democratic party, it isn't even about who is the best suited candidate against John McCain. What is left of your pathetic and desperate run for the White House is all about one thing, your ego. Perhaps you cannot fathom how you, the inevitable heir to the White House, were beaten by this upstart that captured the hearts and minds of voters the Democratic party has been unable to mobilize despite "Rocking" the vote for the past eight years. Not even a pop laden MTV campaign could accomplish what the Obama campaign has done in a few short months. How could this happen? It's because the young voters don't want a band aid to fix the bullet wound that has injured American government. People with college educations, (who mainly vote for Obama if one should analyze the statistics) can see right through your crappy gas tax idea, which will leave most of the middle class with a little less than seventy dollars. I would rather set fire to that seventy dollars than to see your unoriginal ideas, which mirror those of McCain, become policy in the upcoming months. 

Despite the media's (and Republican talk radio's) clear attempts to turn this election into a debate on everything except the economy, the war, and other pressing issues, you are still not winning. So go on and cry about how if you count Florida and Michigan, you are winning the popular vote. Continue to say that you won the battleground states where the old Democratic guard has been so well received (despite losing twice to the unelectable George W. Bush). Continue to play the race card and continue to tie Obama to his preacher, who I might mention IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! Continue to duck sniper fire and hold on to your connections in the inner circle of the Democratic party. The more you do, the more you will demonstrate how bitter and "unlikeable" you really are. It's no surprise that you are basically winning every Republican county, because you are the choice of the last generation, and if the Democrats want change in the White House, your scowl will not deliver it. 

Repost From Ben Smith's Blog

I realize that we already link to politico's Ben Smith though our widget but I ran across this post and I think it's important. Even while running for President, Senator Obama is brokering a cease fire. This isn't a joke, you can find the Reuters Article here.

For Clinton Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

George W Bush is everyone's favorite punching bag. And at slightly below 30% approval I say why not. Senators Clinton and Obama have taken shots early and often at the beleaguered POTUS. But it if imitation is the highest form of flattery then Senator Clinton is praising W to the heavens. Over the course of the last week, we've heard her say things like, "I'm not going to cast my lot with economists." when challenged to name one credible expert who thought the gas-tax holiday was a good idea. Essentially putting herself above and beyond things like fact and logic, not unlike a certain someone we've come to know and love.

Then of course there's everyone's favorite middle eastern straw man. Iran. Despite our own country's National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran was not presently developing nuclear arms, Senator Clinton decided to threaten to "totally obliterate" Iran if she attacked Israel with nuclear arms. A credible presidential candidate might have pointed out facts, instead direct threat of force was he stand of this presidential candidate. Given the chance to back off the comment she simply restated her threat. Ah yes decisive cock-sure leadership, the kind Americans crave. The kind President Bush has provided.

Am I trying to equate Clinton with Bush on policy, no. But when it comes to leadership style, I was struck by a certain feeling that I had seen this movie before...

Brooks: The difference between...

Today Brooks at the NY Times gives us a clear understanding of the leadership difference Clinton and Obama provide and why that is the real choice this year between candidates.

Follow Up-I've still got gas

One of our readers took minor umbrage with my post on gas-tax holidays and why I thought they were a bad (very bad) idea.

I think she was with me until my last paragraph, which I have included here to save you the scrolling:

I am extremely disappointed in Senators McCain and Clinton for supporting such a measure, when what is required is raising taxes on oil-based energy products to drive consumers to green alternatives. Bumper-sticker policies like this one are election year gimmicks, and I thought these two senators were better than that.

My point here was simply this. The government largely influences behavior through the tax code. The most blatant example would the be the cigarette tax. The states and the federal government have been raising taxes per pack to raise government revenue and steer people away from smoking with prohibitive pricing.

It's my contention that a similar method could be used to steer drivers away from less efficient vehicles. Essentially, create a sliding tax scale, the higher the fuel efficiency of the vehicle bought or leased, the less the driver will pay in taxes. It would force Detroit to compete and and level the playing field between costlier hybrids and electric vehicles and their gas-guzzling brethren. These currently alternative vehicles could then achieve scale, and begin to drive down their own costs.

Instead, our candidates are offering drivers a $28 tax break, which won't end up actually happening because the fuel companies will simply raise their prices.

A Call for Submissions

The Collection of Policy Thinkers (ie our normal blogging roster) finds itself swamped with the jobs that you know...pay us money. And so we are asking you, our reading public send us your rants, takes, and arguments on the policies and politics of the day we promise to read them all, and post the best as reader submissions here on the blog. Send yours to policythought@gmail.com

Myanmar Tornadoes

We would be remiss at policythought if we didn't mention the devestation happening in Myanmar. The NY Times is reporting today that the death toll from the tornadoes that occurred are skyrocketing. 

In this changing world it is important to begin to think more globally. While we are worried about rising gas prices and should be, lets remember that as many as 100,000 people might have been lost, in an instant.  

The Dems Latest Round

Here's a quick primer for those whose attention span for Democratic Primaries has completely been tapped out. 

Senators Clinton and Obama continue to battle. Tomorrow Indiana an North Carolina get their crack at deciding this thing. Obama came into this week with a lead in North Carolina (around 10 points depending on the poll you read) and still maintains a lead. He is expected to win the state, as always the question will be by how much. Senator Clinton will look to close the gap and continue her fighting on theme. 

Indiana by the accounts of all those watching this even more closely than I, is said to be a toss up. Obama polls slightly ahead but usually well within the margin of error. Here's what I think is going to happen. 

The win is going to be by the slimmest of margins in Indiana, whoever gets it. In either scenario Senator Clinton will not quit. However, look for a flood of super delegates (which to this point has only been a consistent trickle) to move toward Obama after the primaries. If he essentially nets a delegate and popular vote win out of the two states the mathematical logic of a Clinton win is much harder to come by. The only way Hillary stops the flood is if she runs the table and wins both Indiana an North Carolina. 

Darfur: Discuss

There's so much I could say, but I'm going to refrain and open this to discussion/debate. I'll weigh in later. Without further ado, discuss...

Can you say Christmas?!?

My fellow bloggers and I have each taken a turn bashing Washington's economic stimulus package.  Strolling home this afternoon, I was thunderstruck by a brilliant idea to stimulate the economy. We've all heard of Christmas in July, right-the made-up holiday where everyone celebrates a mid-summer Christmas? Well I say we make it an official national holiday with all of the obligatory present buying, and capitalist mayhem. Imagine if retailers could look forward to Americans emptying the bank accounts twice a year instead of just once? Why give people money to spend when you can guilt them into spending money they already have? Forget the gas-tax holiday, Santa suit up you're getting called in for mid-year cheer!

Guam Wit Yo Bad Self!

CNN is reporting that Sen. Barack Obama won Guam's Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday by just seven votes, according to a Guam election official. With all 21 precincts reporting, Obama finished with 2,264 votes, or 50.1 percent. Sen. Hillary Clinton got 2,257 votes, or 49.9 percent. With the race as close as it is, these additional delegates could be crucial to Senator Obama.

What a minute!!! Guam??? Guam gets a vote???

Here's a scary thought for you, too. What if we end up maintaining a presence in the Middle East as we have in the Pacific after WWII? Could there someday be a primary in Tikrit? I know...that's just crazy talk. But on a day when I read that Guam is making an impact in the election, I s'pose anything's possible.

I've got Gas

Policythought is not the first blog to jump all over the gas-tax holiday fiasco. Senator McCain came up with this terrible idea, then Hillary Clinton supported it. I must say it has tremendous bumper-sticker appeal. Unfortunately, it won't provide any relief from high gas prices this summer. 

I am no economist (I use that phrase nearly every post), but I understand supply and demand. Gasoline prices are rising because world-wide demand for oil-based energy is rising. Prices rise because there is but a limited supply of oil/gas in the world, so as more people want/need it the commodity becomes more expensive. Eliminating the tax is a simplistic way of removing about 14 cents of cost from each gallon bought at the pump. But take that one step further and what happens is as gas gets cheaper demand goes up. As demand goes up the oil companies raise the prices for the commodity again, effectively wiping out any cost savings of the gas-tax holiday. By the way, if you don't believe me check this out. 

I am extremely disappointed in Senators McCain and Clinton for supporting such a measure, when what is required is raising taxes on oil-based energy products to drive consumers to green alternatives. Bumper-sticker policies like this one are election year gimmicks, and I thought these two senators were better than that. 

Bouncing a Baby Takes On a Whole New Meaning

An international story I couldn't help but share. Discuss.

Do We have a "Green" candidate?

Thomas Friedman, who's editorial style usually irks me , wrote an interesting piece in this week's NY Times, covering his usual topic, our energy policy, or in this case the distinct lack thereof.

It led to a simple question from this blogger...do we have a "green" candidate? So in an effort to bring you our reading public the answer I did what anyone ducking work at his 9-5 does, I trolled the internet for answers....

Hillary Clinton's campaign website lays out her plan here. It's an interesting plan, the near-term center piece is a cap and trade system of carbon credits. It is the main bullet point, with good reason, it stands the most chance of actually being effective. There are several others but the devil is in the details. For example...

An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;

The key phrase "20 percent from project levels by 2020." So the plan is to reduce electricity consumption by 20 percent of a projection higher than what we use today? That's not a reduction, that's stasis.

One more from Planet Hillary, then we'll move on.

• A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient;
  

Investing in green collar jobs....how? Is the government going to start building offices and homes? Turning on power grids? As long as private industry runs these things, as they well should, the government isn't going to invest in anything.

On to Barack Obama, his plan is also centered on a near-term cap and trade system. Sounds good. He's got lots of of bullet points too, but those pesky details seem to be getting in the way...

Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.

I LOVE this bullet point. As bullet points go its the best bullet point I've read so far. Unfortunately, it has no basis in reality. Exactly where is congress going to get $150 billion dollars? Perhaps raising taxes will solve the problem...congress just loves to raise taxes. While I applaud the idea, it's far from politically tenable.

So in review on the Democratic side, I see lots of bullet points, they all sound great, but I have no idea how they will actually get implemented. Details, details, details. Let's hop over to the Republican side of the ledger...

John McCain offers us his plan here. Well "plan" is generous, John McCain offers us his sense that "common sense stewardship" is important.

As John McCain said, "Americans solve problems. We don't run from them." He believes that ignoring the problem reflects a "liberal live for today" attitude unworthy of our great country, and poses a serious and unacceptable threat to our environment, our economy, and U.S. national security. He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.

That's It! No bullet points! I LOVE bullet points! John McCain's website offers no policy meat. Just the idea that he will help us along. "The problem" unnamed and undefined was apparently caused by liberals, and by extension is threat to our national security. Forget details, give me something here Senator.

Sadly, it seems none of our candidates have an actionable plan for the environment. Why? Because the real answers to the climate crisis are not politically tenable. It's going to take bold (politically damaging) leadership to actually make a change.

An Election for the Ages

For the sake of full disclosure, let me say I've already written on this topic. It's just that no one has read it. I sat down last week and attempted to explain why I thought the current election was so important, why it was historical already, and what it is saying about the state of American society.

The blog post turned into an essay, an essay when I stopped typing that was already 5 pages long. No one sitting in their office cube can take that kind of time to read my blattherings, so instead, I offer the "nutshell" version on my thoughts.

-The nation is showing signs of a political realignment, this election cycle will either bring that shift to its apex, or grind it to a halt. My only proof for this shift are sadly opinion polls. The majority of Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake, the majority want universal healthcare, the majority want action taken on global warming. Those platform positions were once left of center, they are now center.

-The nation is being forced to deal with two of its oldest and most difficult stereotypes. A black (bi-racial) man and a woman are running for the democratic party's nomination. This has forced the nation to deal with racial and gender stereotypes in a way it never has before. It is also informing us of the nation's embedded racial and gender biases. 8% of poll respondents say they would never vote for a black candidate. Hillary Clinton has endured vitriol unlike any other candidate in modern history because she is a Clinton? Or because she is a woman?

-These two candidates are "change" candidates in a change year. While voters seem to be making their decisions in reaction to leadership style, as candidates their policy platforms are inches apart. One of them will survive to battle Senator McCain. A man that embodies sacrifice of self for country, and what it classically means to "be American."

There are dozens of other points I could raise:
-The power of the Internet to raise money, organize and promote campaign messages
-Jeremiah Wright
-Clinton's tears in New Hampshire
-The power of demographic voting blocs
-The primary calendar
-The super tuesday myth
-The effect a bad president has on an election cycle
-The central reasons we are looking at these three candidates.

But as I said, this kind of essay would be longer than a blog can support and will likely be the subject of dozens of books over the next decade. Just take this point away...in 10,20,30, years this is the election you'll be telling your children and grandchildren about. The way our parents talk about Kennedy and Nixon, or the Reagan revolution. This is an election for the ages.