It's conventional wisdom that Clinton and Obama are fairly close on policy, so the choice between them will come down to "character" and theories of change. While I think that's broadly accurate, there are some differences in their voting records, and recently Elana Schorr took a close look at them to find where the candidates had made different decisions.
One of the few matters of real consequence (other than the war) was the 2005 energy bill, a legendary porkfest -- Clinton voted against it; Obama voted for it. I've had a few people write me and request details, asking, basically, "is this a big deal?"
The answer is, that's a bit of a gut call. Personally, I don't think so.
First, some background:
- Here's an article by Amanda that describes Harry Reid's failure to maintain party unity, which led to about half the Democratic caucus voting for the bill.
- Here's a post I did at the time that looks a little more closely at why some high-profile Dems voted for the bill -- including Obama.
- Here's a press release from Obama on the bill.
The headline of the press release makes it crystal clear why Obama (and fellow Ill. Sen. Dick Durbin) voted the way they did -- ethanol subsidies and "clean coal" research money (recall that as of Dec., the feds' $1.8b FutureGen boondoggle will sited in Ill.).
So, is this a strike against Obama? In some sense, yes, obviously it was the wrong vote on a horrible bill and he bears responsibility. But this kind of provincial vote -- for the financial interests of a legislator's home state, against the broader national interest -- is not exactly rare. Any Senator that runs for president is going to have some of these votes in their record. The question is, what do they propose to do as president, and what are the chances they'll actually do it?
On that campaign trail, Obama's been a mixed bag; there have been some green gaffes. Early last year, he pushed legislation boosting liquid coal. When greens threw a fit he backed off somewhat, making clear that liquid coal is kosher only if it meets low-carbon fuel standards, but it was a less-than full-throated renunciation. In November, he pandered to the mining industry in Nevada by coming out against a crucial reform bill in the House that would have updated the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He hasn't backtracked a bit on his support for ethanol, and even used it as a cudgel against Hillary in the Iowa primary.
That said, recent panders aside, he entered the race with solid green cred and a good overall green record. The climate/energy plan he released during the campaign is top-notch. I interviewed him briefly in 2006, before he was running for president, and he struck me as having a good grasp of the long game on energy. There are signs that he really gets the huge divide between what's possible on climate change and what's needed.
But of course, all these impressions are through a glass darkly. We cannot know what's in Obama's heart, or what he would do as president. On climate change, as on so many things, he's given us both hope and reason to pause.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Threaded
Green Granny Posted 9:35 am
24 Jan 2008
Hillary, with her ties to her husband's not-entirely-trustworthy presidency, huge corporations and lobbyists, her Washington insider status, and votes on things like the war make me less inclined to "trust" her to be honest about her motives or responsive to her constituents (except the big business ones). And the blatant twisting of truth coming from her campaign lately really turns me off. I want change. I want a new way of thinking.
Obama gets my vote in the Ohio primaries.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:23 pm
24 Jan 2008
2007 bill = first step
? When are we going to get past all the first steps?
And this positive vote by Obama ranks no where in magitude to the positive vote by Clinton for the war in Iraq. Given the opportunity costs of this one vote for war, there is no way I can believe in Clinton. (By the way, my other home state senator, Durbin, voted against the war resolution). Obama is still my candidate, by default, if not by conviction. I still have to have some hope that there is something left to believe in here.
Permalink
foreverhopeful Posted 1:28 am
25 Jan 2008
"I would enact a bold energy policy because I think that we could save so much money, engineer such a resurgence in our economy and solve climate change all at one time. And it would improve our national security posture. So you get a three-fer. It helps our environment, our economy and our national security and it would free up resources over time to deal with what I think is the most important domestic issue which is health care, and I think it would help us strategically on the international stage."
Pretty spectacular.
Permalink
lorna salzman Posted 5:54 am
25 Jan 2008
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:11 pm
27 Jan 2008
No matter who the candidate is, if they can't say in during a campaign, they are unlikely to do it once in office.
It is always tempting to believe that "they just need to say this to get elected" and that "once in office, they will show their true beliefs".
But it doesn't work that way for Obama, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Romney or anyone else.
Once they are in office, their first order of business is putting their own people in place. The second is preparing for re-election.
Which means that generally, what you see during a campaign, is what you get.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:39 pm
27 Jan 2008
The only option left to activists is to refine possible avenues of mitigation, educate whoever will listen and wait for a crisis. It's going to take a hell of a bump to get Congress and the corporate powers that be to move off their nice, comfy GHG emitting seats of power and take real action.
Lets hope they get bumped before it's too late for all of us.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:40 pm
27 Jan 2008
This article has a little bit on that, without, oddly, mentioning Al Gore's recent expression of support for same-sex marriage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28gay.html? ...
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
jbgrif Posted 11:55 pm
28 Jan 2008
Hillary has limited appeal to me, & Bill's unwarranted comments during the campaign have made her even less appealing. Obama has always been my 2nd choice, & I think he'd do a much better job than "Billary" would. Regardless, any of them would be a vast improvement on what we have in the White House now! I'd vote for a goat over any of the Republicans who are currently running.
Permalink