On Saturday, presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton gathered in L.A. to discuss climate and energy at a forum co-sponsored by Grist and PRI's Living on Earth. The forum was moderated by Steve Curwood of LoE, with Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board and me providing questions.
Despite a delay getting started -- Clinton was late arriving -- things went off without a hitch.
Well, mostly without a hitch. When Clinton came on stage, there was persistent, boorish booing from one part of the crowd. Said boo-er, in the middle of Clinton's remarks, stood up and started shouting about something or other. He was quickly dragged out by the police. Turns out he was a member of the activist group Code Pink, which is trying to end the Iraq war by showing up at events, yelling and screaming and annoying the bejesus out of everyone, discrediting the anti-war movement and progressive activism, and generally engaging in futile acts of moral onanism.
Aside from that, the evening was filled with good conversation. Some impressions and reactions below.
Dennis Kucinich knew he was in front of a sympathetic crowd. He started by pointing out that he walks the walk -- lives in a 1,600-square-foot home (a not-so-subtle dig at Edwards' 28,000-square-foot compound), drives a small Ford Focus, and eats a compassionate vegan diet. The audience ate it up. He got several whoops and hollers, running through his usual new-agey stump speech and tossing red meat (green meat?) to the L.A. greens in attendance. No more nukes, no more coal, shut down all mines, make all electricity, water, and transportation infrastructure publicly owned, stimulate the economy by spending tons of public money on renewable tech and green jobs, etc. etc.
The big question about all this, of course, is how a President Kucinich could get such a radical agenda past Congress. His only answer was that he would talk over their heads, directly to the people, and get them so riled that they would, I guess, drag Congress along. I'm not sure where he sees the evidence for this enormous untapped vein of radical progressivism among the American populace, but he seems convinced.
He was asked what he would tell all the people he'd put out of work. He promised -- seriously -- to offer them all a publicly paid income commensurate with what they were making before. Indeed, he promised everyone in America a guaranteed minimum income. When in doubt, spend public money!
I asked Kucinich about global equity -- how the rich world could shield the world's poor from the effects of climate. He didn't have much of an answer. In general, I found Kucinich relatively light on specifics. I'm not sure we learned anything from him we couldn't have gotten from his public remarks thus far in the campaign.
Whatever you might think about Hillary Clinton, she has gravitas. I've seen her in person twice now and I've felt the same vibe in the room both times, a sense that a person of historical significance has entered. She seemed somewhat muted Saturday evening, perhaps because she was slightly under the weather (I heard her people had requested tissues). Intentionally or not, her serious demeanor worked -- it played off the activist energy in the crowd and came off as hard-bitten, realistic, even, dare I say, presidential.
One of the sobering messages she delivered is that when she mentions energy independence, crowds go nuts. When she mentions global warming, there's silence. "The public isn't there yet." This means, for one thing, that greens need to do a lot more to carry the message out. For another, they need to be realistic about what can be accomplished in the current political environment. Effectively, she was saying, "I'm with you; I understand the problem. But you need to give me some room to work -- attacking those of us on your side for insufficient purity isn't helpful."
Clinton was by far the most responsive to specific questions. She argued in some detail for why she is uniquely able to accomplish something on this issue. And when I asked her about the Lieberman-Warner climate bill in the Senate, she didn't say whether she'd vote for it, but she did speak at length about its strengths and weaknesses, and indicate that she's be following Barbara Boxer's lead on it. (Hiding behind Boxer, before a California audience, is quite politically astute.)
My impression -- and this was confirmed multiple times by various audience members I spoke to later -- is that Clinton had the best grasp of the political and policy details. She was the most comfortable speaking off the top of her head. As one political operative put it to me later, "She's always the smartest one in the room."
John Edwards had a lot to say, and consequently talked quite fast. It was a bit of a blur for me, but he basically covered the highlights of his well-known (to Grist readers) climate and energy plan. He returned again and again to familiar themes: the federal government has been corrupted by special interests; it's time to be bold.
My sense during the Q&A is that while Edwards' top-line proposals are immensely appealing -- efficiency, green jobs, fighting poverty, etc. -- he's either unwilling or unable to go much deeper. In response to specific questions, he would always go lateral, covering broad swathes of ground while staying light on specifics. It was as though he were merely accessing parts of his stump speech. I don't know whether he knows this stuff in a deeper-than-surface way; maybe he just stays at the top level because he thinks it works better rhetorically. This was a crowd that was hankering for something beyond what's on the record, though, so I think he missed an opportunity.
In the end, all the candidates were gracious, informed, and aware of how central climate and energy issues are to America's future. They're ready to move. As Al Gore keeps saying, it's up to citizens now to create the political space in which they can act. It comes back to us.
Addenda:
- There will be video of the entire event up soon, I think, perhaps by Monday morning.
- After the event, I was interviewed briefly by Bill Schneider of CNN. I have no idea whether it has aired or not, or whether it will, but if any of you watch CNN keep an eye out for it. [UPDATE: The CNN video is here.]
- A huge shout out to the production crew, which put together an incredibly professional set -- sound, lighting, props -- in the space of a single day, and insured that the show went smoothly. I have a whole new respect for the folks who work in the background on events like this.
- A second huge shout out to the folks at the groups who partnered to bring this about -- LCV, CLCV, NRDC, PFRE, and CAP. Props.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Comments
View as Threaded
caniscandida Posted 11:44 pm
18 Nov 2007
It is not surprising that Hillary should come across as "the smartest person in the room." Indeed she usually is -- and that is one of the few things that I admire her for, as my Senator. But by the same token, if she applied herself in just as disciplined a way before the war authorization vote in the Fall of 2002, then how do we account for her hawkish attitude? She remains a hard circle to square.
If Bill Clinton and Al Gore were famous for being "policy wonks," Hillary certainly can keep up with them. And if now she seems more fluent than, say, John Edwards on the politics and economics behind talk of GW mitigation policy, that no doubt is the kind of experience that she has, especially from her White House years I guess, that we should acknowledge is of great value.
That said, I think John Edwards especially, of the other candidates, could quickly be brought up to speed. Probably he and his campaign will be well advised to think of this debate as a good and valuable learning experience.
Too bad about Dennis Kucinich. We should not blame him (or anyone else running at the back of the pack for that matter, e.g. the unspeakable Tom Tancredo in the other party) for using his candidacy to give voice to a particular set of values that he feels would not be presented otherwise. But really, for an event such as yours, he should have done a bit more homework.
For that is Hillary's crowning virtue: She likes to do her homework.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:04 am
19 Nov 2007
I think Dave was right-on to point out Hillary's comment about energy independence getting a cheer when she speaks the mention of global warming getting nothing -- assuming she's really mentioning global warming, it's a good sign that she still mentions it because she is famously attentive to what does and does not work. But I fear the attention to energy independence may be caused mostly by high gas prices, which may lead to some bad policy.
I was glad Kucinich mentioned mass transit, and I was a little disappointed that the other questioners (not Dave) seemed completely obsessed with how the candidates would get something done with a recalcitrant Congress. I know that's important, but this was an opportunity to hear the candidates go into detail about their vision for a sustainable future; the candidates generally did a good job of that.
Hope there are more forums like this one!
Permalink
Greta Posted 1:18 am
19 Nov 2007
Hillary Clinton's checklist of specifics was impressive and refreshing. Her proposals seem progressive. (But would she allow them to be dilluted by opposition; willing to settle for "something".) The best thing that I heard her say is that one minute after being sworn into office, she would sign an executive order requiring every federal facility (department?) to be carbon neutral. That a was bold, specific, and decisive commitment.
I have not been a big fan of hers, but I thought that her performance was very good. (That being said, she's too conservative for me on other issues.)
I thought that Edwards did a good job, too. He stayed on point for the most part, and returned to point when he strayed onto "another aside". He did not offer as many specifics -- no cohesive plan -- but at least offered some specifics. He certainly appears to be a more straight-shooter, but he is a lawyer. Being a good debater is as much about what you do not say. Dramatically make the arguments that you can win and avoid the rest.
I've wondered about a Clinton-Edwards ticket -- could be a good balance. (IMO, Clinton would never take 2nd billing. But, I think that Edwards would -- willing to wait his turn.) It always seem crazy to me that presidential candidates wouldn't consider other candidates as running mates, given the huge amount of exposure and support that've already garnered.
At this point, I would not even consider Obama, because he didn't even bother to show up. Tells me that he does not prioritize environmental issues, as do I.
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 2:25 am
19 Nov 2007
Whoever is our next president, s/he will inherit an absolute shitstorm. Bush's legacy is apparent: a useless war that is draining our budget; underfunded, understaffed federal agencies; a deeply divided, even mutually suspicious citizenry; international discredit ... the list goes on, and that's just what we know about. Whoever picks up this hot potato is in for a long fight against the tide of bad governance that Bush has brought upon us. Hillary appears to be one who can deliver on this.
It's weird, I never thought I'd like her, but I think she might be the only person who can deal with this. She has absolutely dealt with every personal insult lobbed at her from the right, and it drives them nuts that she rises above it every time.
All that aside, I like both Kucinich and Edwards. I think that Clinton would be great as President, and I think that she could have the support of people like them (and others) to run the government. How about a Minister of the Environment?
Permalink
cosmoss Posted 2:41 am
19 Nov 2007
I asked Kucinich about global equity -- how the rich world could shield the world's poor from the effects of climate. He didn't have much of an answer. In general, I found Kucinich relatively light on specifics. I'm not sure we learned anything from him we couldn't have gotten from his public remarks thus far in the campaign.
What kind of answer were you expecting? It seems like Kucinich addresses that issue already: reducing personal carbon footprint, taxing rich and reinvesting in green technology, phasing out coal, building public transportation infrastructure. signing on to international treaties that impose limits on CO2 emissions, etc...
Personally, I think the best way to deal with this problem would be to police carbon footprints the same way we police other things. Why is it that a person can smoke a little marijuana and get put in the slammer, but burning loads of polluting fossil fuels is culturally permitted. It is totally backwards. I say put the recklessly consuming ignorant rich in the slammer (that includes Edwards). No passes for the politicians. Let's put them in the slammer, give them composting toilets, let them grow their veggies in the recreation yard using their composted shit, send them on monitored dumpster-diving expeditions via bicycle to local stores for all their other necessities, only allow daylight lighting, sweaters and exercise to keep warm. Maybe, allow a little natural gas for cooking and canning. We wouldn't allow any electronics, but would make available a full library of books on permaculture and spiritual development.
After doing their time (5 years minimum), the probation period would include mandatory community service where ex-cons would have to speak publicly about their experience in the slammer, and specifically address the issue of climate change, sustainability, and global equity.
i'mm dead serious...
Permalink
Greta Posted 3:49 am
19 Nov 2007
Now pass that joint!
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
askantik Posted 4:21 am
19 Nov 2007
Which one of the 3 candidates at the forum is the doesn't take funding from corporations, lobbyists, etc? It ain't Hillary, and it ain't John.
Permalink
askantik Posted 4:21 am
19 Nov 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:51 am
19 Nov 2007
Would that include you? If not, why not?
Permalink
malfunctiongirl Posted 5:35 am
19 Nov 2007
All of Kucinich's ideas would work towards global equity, and to repeat them would be redundant. I would also like a few more specifics to chew on, but he, unlike any other candidate, has given me hope for change and fired me up to become more politically active - so I do see what Kucinich sees: an American public that can become progressive when their view of politics is no longer stuck in the stale beliefs that our leaders are all playing the same old game.
That's why I've never warmed up to Hillary. Yes, she can spout policy and politics like few, but that shows where she's cemented. This current presidency has pushed us so far off the track that I don't think we can continue with a professional compromiser.
Kucinich may seem very radical, but I think we need someone as positive as him with such "crazy futuristic" ideas to put us back on track. Together with his wife, he represents, to me, a leader that is actively respectful towards all types of American citizens (and, globally, people in need) and is trying to make us into a country that sets the standards. The fact that he walks the talk makes him the most modern candidate as well.
Finally, I don't think it's democratic for the media (as unfortunately demonstrated in Grist's home page banner for this article) to disrespectfully diminish or cut out Kucinich. He actually showed up to this event - please have the courtesy to name him.
I look forward to any video of this event!
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 5:45 am
19 Nov 2007
"Said boo-er, in the middle of Clinton's remarks, stood up and started shouting about something or other. He was quickly dragged out by the police. Turns out he was a member of the activist group Code Pink, which is trying to end the Iraq war by showing up at events, yelling and screaming and annoying the bejesus out of everyone, discrediting the anti-war movement and progressive activism, and generally engaging in futile acts of moral onanism."
-- when you could just say "dirty hippie"? Everyone knows the code, I think.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:52 am
19 Nov 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:04 am
19 Nov 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:14 am
19 Nov 2007
Name: Tyghe Berry.
Permalink
User Posted 6:33 am
19 Nov 2007
none
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:29 am
19 Nov 2007
The Quagmire in Iraq is also killing people, it is an absolute waste of lives.
It would be great if the candidates for U.S. President were willing to participate in an open forum to discuss the cause and results of the Quagmire in Iraq, a forum that permits Americans to publically ask questions and demand straight answers, but it does not appear to be on the agenda.
Until there is such an open forum, I have to admire those who are willing to risk arrest and imprisonment to confront the politicians responsible whenever there is an opportunity. It is not, as DR states, moral masturbation. The folks who speak up are sincerely concerned about the lies, hypocrisy, and total disregard for human life that lead to the Quagmire in Iraq. The folks who speak up are saying what the majority of Americans would like to say, but do not have the courage to do so.
DR does a great diservice by belittling such progressive activists. He could have discussed why the Quagmire in Iraq is an environmental problem and perhaps express some concern about the apparently, to him, desperate actions to end the war. I guess it is more fun to ridicule people who compete for attention, even when their message is equally or even more important.
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
daymen Posted 7:58 am
19 Nov 2007
That being said, I was disspointed in the speakers. All of them talked about government programs, and emissions, and corporate responsibility. All of them blamed lobbyists, Republicans, oil, gas, and power companies or whoever and none of them asked more of all of us.
Kucinich talked about giving Americans something to be patriotic about besides war, but I wasn't sure if he was appealing to patriotism to conserve less energy. Clinton talked about how Bush missed a historic moment to ask more of us, then didn't ask more herself. Edwards at least was honest that we'll all have to sacrifice and spend money (presumably for more expensive fuel and newer, energy efficient cars/appliances) but didn't get specific as to what that cost (monetary or sacrificial) was.
How many people in the audience drive to work everyday? How many drove to the event? The reality is, that as long as we have a culture where car is king and we continue to spend billions of dollars widening roads (you listening, Governor?) then we're never going to achieve our greenhouse goals, until we're all driving emission-less vehicles.
Permalink
splashy Posted 8:18 am
19 Nov 2007
Permalink
cosmoss Posted 9:12 am
19 Nov 2007
huhh? I'm vegan, have spent that last 7 years living/working in/on ecovillages/organic farms, use my folding bicycle as much as possible, don't own a car, used composting toilets for 5 out of last 7 years.
yeah, i'm a hippie of sorts but also have a college degree in business adminstration from 10 years past. i don't smoke pot...i'm just making a point that burning a harmless weed can put you in jail, but burning tons and tons of fossil fuels which can potentially lead to the extinction of all planetary species is culturally acceptable. It is so TWISTED.
For whatever reason DR asked Dennis Kucinich about how he would address global equity issues. Give me a break. The guy lives in a 1600 square foot house and he's a vegan. Why do you need to even ask him? The guy is already walking the talk more than any other politician. Edwards is the one I would go after. That guy has black and white pinstripes written all over him.
DR and the rest.... I really respect your work at Grist.org and would give you a big hug if I had the opportunity. But I like to heckle.
By the way, did you know DR also stands for Dancing Rabbit, that groovy ecovillage in NE Missouri?
Permalink
Philip S Wenz Posted 9:53 am
19 Nov 2007
First, why are Edwards and Clinton shown in all their glory on the home page and Kucinich given a little 125 x 125 pixel head shot in the story? (Literally, the second-tier page in web-design parlance.) Maybe Grist has learned that attractive, top-tier people grab the reader's attention, increase the clicks and, untimately please the advertisers or the people that count in the funding organizations?
Only three candidates bothered to show up for your conference -- why not give them all equal billing?
Second, there is the dissing of Kucinich's program and ideas. Somone described Hillary as a transactional politician, in contrast to a transformative politician. Hillary knows how to make deals and get some of what she wants. But a leader, with verve and vision, can move the entire populace in a new and positive direction. (Witness both Roosevelts and JFK.) Hillary won't do that. She'll be pragmatic.
Kucinich, and, to a lesser extent, Edwards, has a truly transformative vision for America. I should think if Mr. Roberts and Grist want real change, and not just more carbon credit swapping (also known as enrichment of the powers-that-be), they would put their weight behind his ideas. The growing environmental crisis is a big deal, and it will take big, transformative ideas to deal with it, not tweaking and deal making with corporations that already have way too much power.
Finally, your comments on the Code Pink woman were a real disgrace. Sorry she embarrassed your high-falutin guest. She wasn't at all polite -- but, then again, neither is war.
(Hillary's response was, "Were you asked to speak here today?" Translation, "I'm somebody, and you're annoying opposition to the war makes you nobody, so sit down and shut up. Better, let's have the police drag you out."
The heckler wanted to know how Ms. Clinton could justify supporting the war -- through 2013, mind you -- and still call herself an environmentalist. Good question, and obviously not one that was going to be asked by any of the panelists. It makes one wonder why there was even a live audience at the event. To provide applause?
While Grist is making the big time -- hobnobbing with the New York Times, Hillary Clinton, the Foundations and the organic Merlot drinkers -- I guess it will be up to the visionary dreamers and noisy onanists to try to make the connection between ending the war and saving the environment.
Philip S. Wenz, Editor, Ecotecture.com
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:26 am
19 Nov 2007
I did not "diss" Kucinich's policy proposals. I barely discussed them at all. I merely pointed out that he was light on specifics at the forum.
It matters not a whit what "Grist" wants, or what I want, or what you want. What matters is what can happen in reality. The reality is that Kucinich isn't going to be president. Pretending he is counts, yes, as moral onanism.
As for the protestor: Clinton was invited to speak about climate and energy. That's what everybody in the theater wanted to hear her speak about. I'm sure most of the people in the theater agree that the Iraq war is bad, but nobody wanted to hear some a**hole scream about it and waste their time. The badness of the war does not justify being a jerk. It doesn't give you a free ticket to disregard basic human respect, not only for Clinton but for everybody else at the event. Yes, he had the right to be there and the right to speak out. This is America: we all have the right to be inconsiderate pricks. Doesn't mean we should.
grist.org
Permalink
cosmoss Posted 12:28 pm
19 Nov 2007
It matters not a whit what "Grist" wants, or what I want, or what you want. What matters is what can happen in reality. The reality is that Kucinich isn't going to be president. Pretending he is counts, yes, as moral onanism.
At this point, the planet cannot afford anything but a radical agenda. What matters is what the earth wants and all it non-human inhabitants want. It doesn't matter what the populace wants.
Hillary would only enable the perpetuation of the elitist game which she is a part of as she is beholden to all the corporate interests which have funded her campaign.
Game over.
Permalink
cosmoss Posted 1:23 pm
19 Nov 2007
In order for a presidential candidate to be invited to participate in the Grist forum, is there actually a cut-off for the amount of square footage allowed for one's personal home?
If, for example, John Edwards owned a 50,000 square foot compound, would that be permissable?
Or maybe the cut-off is at 100,000 square feet?
Permalink
zengrrl Posted 1:35 pm
19 Nov 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:16 pm
19 Nov 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Philip S Wenz Posted 2:18 pm
19 Nov 2007
You know as well as I do that said corporations control the media -- to a great extent ARE the media -- and they decided that Kucinich wasn't going to be President some time ago. Look at the way CNN and the other networks have handled the so called Presidential debates. The top-tier candidates get most of the questions and air time, and when one of the not-so-top people starts to make an important point they are cut off. (Mike Grovel, for example, answered a question about the price of oil by talking about the true price of oil, which includes defending supply lines to the Middle East, and TIME UP! before he got though his first sentence.) Hillary, on the other hand, has been on the front cover of Fortune. She's the Great Corporate Hope. Cozy.
The night before Grist's event, I read that it would be different than CNN's silliness. It was -- it was far more in depth and better. However, seeing only the annointed on your home page immediately got my hackels up.
My point is that Kucinich won't be President because the powers that be decided he won't be President. On a level playing field, his ideas are at least as valid as the other candidates', and he probably would stand as good a chance as anyone of being President.
The issue for you personally, Grist and the movement in general is whether they (we) are going to continue to be "realistic," in hopes of getting a few crumbs from corporate schill politicians or go with their true hearts, minds and souls in the hopes of moving society in the direction it needs to go (transactional vs. transformational politics). If we allow the corporations to continue to pick the Bushes and Clintons (remember SHAFTA?) who are beholden to them, the non-change in our country's direction is pretty well assured.
So I think Kucinich counts, but only if we stand up and count him.
I wasn't there to measure the relative as*holiness of the Code Pink person, but I'll take your word for it. And a good point about her disturbing the audience.
But again, who from Grist's selected panel asked any of the candidates how they saw the war connecting to the environment, or pointed out that we can't begin to address our environmental problems until we get out of Iraq -- in 2013 according to Hillary and the other realistic, top-tier candidates.
Contadictions, alas, have a way of resolving themselves. Gimme Shelter.
Philip S. Wenz, Editor, Ecotecture.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:54 am
20 Nov 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Squiji Posted 1:21 am
20 Nov 2007
This sort of thing happens all the time. Those of us in this "green" fight (to use a simple shorthand term) feel convicted that nothing less than radical changes will do. Some of us feel that such radical policies will never be acceptable, so in order not to be totally defeated we go for something that will "at least" bring us a step closer to our goal, and then hope to continue moving the level of public "acceptability" closer to our vision. Sometimes I even agree with this approach. It does get discouraging.
In our state, we have lots and lots of coal. Our governor has some pretty progressive ideas, but he does want to develop our coal. I say the basic problem is that people still think coal is something that has value. Until we realize that coal no longer has value, people will still want to dig it up. The people who have the mineral rights to this stuff feel they have something here that will make them rich. And as long as we remain hung up on coal, we will never make the kind of effort needed to change to a sustainable society.
My point is that we need vision to have the courage to make the kind of radical changes that need to be made. Someone like Kucinich apparently has such a vision. Someone like Clinton seems like a person who can get things done, because she is pragmatic and political. But as someone pointed out, Kucinich was marginalized by the corporations before we ever heard what he had to say, and Clinton seems to be destined to be the Democratic nominee. It is all very discouraging.
I haven't got any answer for this. I know "radicalism" turns people off, but I don't think making compromises always serves our needs the best. We are limited because we are all human beings. We just do the best we can.
Firelady
Permalink
emigre Posted 1:37 am
20 Nov 2007
Congratulations. You've got the corporate media's line in wishfully self-fulfilling prophecies down to a T.
The corporate media (and Grist) label Kucinich, who's in 4th place in nation polls (first in this one: http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results), as an "unelectable" candidate because the corporate media (and, apparently, Grist) obviously have the heebie jeebies over the idea that someone who actually stands up to power should ever get into the White House.
Better an independent and honest candidate with some wacky ideas than any number of corporate-funded candidates with minor variations on the same extremely sinister ideas.
Excuse me while I go and masturbate over the dream of having a President with real moral stature. Not that that could ever happen, or at least not if you believe what self-important journalists have to say.
Oh, and this is where I unsubscribe from Grist.
Permalink
Squiji Posted 1:49 am
20 Nov 2007
Firelady
Permalink
Marky48 Posted 2:07 am
20 Nov 2007
Marky48
Permalink
Greta Posted 2:34 am
20 Nov 2007
Putting on the home page a photo related to the forum that included only 2 of the 3 candidates was a disappointing decision. It really does seem to negate Kucinich. Certainly a photo of all 3 together exists somewhere. In fact, there should have been a publicity still taken by the forum organizers.
Shame on you, Grist.
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
emigre Posted 2:44 am
20 Nov 2007
Oh, all right, they can stick Clinton in there, too. That's my final offer.
(By the way, I'll bet that's Kucinich's shoulder you can just see on the right of the frame. If so, it's a blatant crop-out.)
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:34 am
20 Nov 2007
http://grist.org/
I hope we don't get in trouble with "the corporations"!
grist.org
Permalink
emigre Posted 3:46 am
20 Nov 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:49 am
20 Nov 2007
By the way, I stongly dislike Kucinich's interest in banning incandescent bulbs. Leave it to consumers to decide what sort of light they prefer in their homes. Why can't I be left to decide whether I'm willing to pay extra for the light I prefer? The spectrums of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs are very different... and LEDs are still too expensive.
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:14 am
20 Nov 2007
Permalink
Greta Posted 4:42 am
20 Nov 2007
Yeah, my presidential vote might not have counted in 2000, but dammit, my Grist vote counts! Booyah!
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
JustSayHELP Posted 5:39 am
20 Nov 2007
There seems to be enough support here anyway to make Dennis the menace of the election. I mean why can't he be our next president? Folks here seem to support him. I support him. Have "they" all given in to the corporations and rolled over and doing what they say to do??
I mean come on... if you think Dennis Kucinich has the best policies then vote for him.
If we all think Dennis has the best ideas then let's push on.
I can't hear the fat lady singing...
...'cause we gotta do something!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:05 am
20 Nov 2007
And as though to illustrate what a thoughtless, meaningless joke this gesture is, W told us that the pair of names given to the turkeys, out of many recommendations (by whom?), are May and Flower -- chosen over the vice-president's recommendation, Lunch and Dinner.
Imagine, if Dennis Kucinich were president! Like a prince, he would stride through a stinking poultry barn, filled floor to ceiling with the cages of countless miserable turkeys, and liberate them all. Then he would visit a slaughterhouse, with all the mainstream media and their cameras in attendance, and show us all the horrific story of where our meat comes from.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:32 am
20 Nov 2007
Because millions of Americans -- the large majority -- do not share your priorities or Grist's priorities and will not vote for him.
It seems too obvious to point out, but it honestly seems like sometimes people forget. There is no magic pony that's going to ride to the rescue and transform the country. Changing the country is a long, painstaking process that involves talking to (and listening to) people who aren't like you at all and don't care about the same things you care about.
A candidate with Kucinich's views will win when a majority of Americans wants one. Right now people with his views represent a small minority.
grist.org
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:45 am
20 Nov 2007
"Changing the country is a long, painstaking process that involves talking to (and listening to) people who aren't like you at all and don't care about the same things you care about."
So, how's that going, Dave... the listening to people who aren't like you?
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:59 am
20 Nov 2007
"A candidate with Kucinich's views will win when a majority of Americans wants one. Right now people with his views represent a small minority."
Americans might not support Kucinich, but polls covering various issues show that the majority of Americans do have similar views. They just don't realize he's the candidate who would truly represent them.
How does someone like Kucinich overcome this barrier? It would be great if people were talking WITH and listein TO people who are not like them. But we have an even larger problem. People refuse to talk with and listen to people who ARE like them and would behave accordingly as President or Congressman. We seem to prefer wealthy liars and hypocrites.
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
Philip S Wenz Posted 7:00 am
20 Nov 2007
I 'bout cracked up when I came to the site just now and there was Kucinich on the home page, big and smilin'.
But, really, Gristers, what about the other candidates? I mean, three candidates graced your conference -- why not give Clinton and Edwards fair billing with a photo on the home page?
Are you guys just caving in to that tiny minority of unrealistic anti-corporate nut cases that take a few minutes to hassle you? For Shame!
Philip S. Wenz, Editor, Ecotecture.com
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:06 am
20 Nov 2007
"The big question about all this, of course, is how a President Kucinich could get such a radical agenda past Congress. His only answer was that he would talk over their heads, directly to the people, and get them so riled that they would, I guess, drag Congress along. I'm not sure where he sees the evidence for this enormous untapped vein of radical progressivism among the American populace, but he seems convinced."
It is clear that George W. Bush has mastered the art of getting people so riled up that they drag Congress along, even to the point of doing things that actually harm the average person.
It would be great to see a progressive Democrat in the White House who is willing to speak directly to the people -- with passion and a clear plan -- and motivate Congress to invest in America's future instead of building a bridge to the 19th century.
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:12 am
20 Nov 2007
"He was asked what he would tell all the people he'd put out of work. He promised -- seriously -- to offer them all a publicly paid income commensurate with what they were making before."
Okay... not a good idea. He should have said that he would replace current jobs with better jobs. Most of what the U.S. must do to clean up our environment will create good jobs here in the U.S., job that corporations will not be able to export.
And...
"Indeed, he promised everyone in America a guaranteed minimum income. When in doubt, spend public money!"
Uh... this is not to be accomplished by spending public money. It is to be accomplished by requiring employers to pay people a living wage. Feel free to disagree with whether employers should pay a living wage, but don't follow the Republican example of assuming every liberal who wants to look out for folks currenly living below the poverty-line -- which, incidentally is set obscenely low -- intends to solve the problem by spending more federal or state money. Shame on you, DR!
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:36 am
20 Nov 2007
(1) Aggressive Progressive. The Democratic candidate has to be willing to destroy her Republican opponent.
(2) Clear plans. Not just vague ideas about what would be nice and no idea how to achieve their goals.
(3) Pragmatism. No more Presidents who are not willing to negotiate with the opposition. No more stubborn leaders not willing to take into consideration those affected by new policies.
(4) Connections. The Democratic candidate has to know where the buttons and levers are so she can motivate Congress to act and act swiftly. What's wrong with Washington politicians, as long as they are our politicians?
(5) People. Who's going to be able to draw on the best and brightest to fill cabinet and other staff positions? Who will know which people can facilitate progress -- as in working with the opposition?
(6) Marketing. Progressive ideas have to be properly packaged for the average voter. They don't like "health food". Bragging about being a vegan is not going to get a lot of votes.
Unless the Democratic candidate has the skills to push their agenda through Congress, their brilliant, progressive, socially and environmentally responsible ideas are just dreams and not going to go anywhere.
Hillary Clinton 2008!!!!!!
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
trock Posted 7:39 am
20 Nov 2007
Permalink
Philip S Wenz Posted 7:59 am
20 Nov 2007
I agree with your first three points in your post above, but not your last two. What makes Hillary's people "the best and the brightest?' Are they that way because they are part of the traditional Democratic machinery?
But more importantly, you wrote: " Progressive ideas have to be properly packaged for the average voter."
What makes you think any of Hillary's ideas are progressive? She wants to keep the war going until at least 2013, her health insurance programs do nothing to change the fact that the insurance companies are ripping off the American public, or change the fact their underlying agenda is not health, but profit, she gave Bush and Co. leeway to invade Iran, she's all for the expansion of "free trade," and the list goes on. As I said in an earlier post, she's a good transactional politician -- she can get her agenda through.
What's so great about that?
Philip S. Wenz, Editor, Ecotecture.com
Permalink
mauryh Posted 8:21 am
20 Nov 2007
If D. Roberts really believes that Global Warming is an imminent threat to humanity and much of life on earth, he would understand that the U.S. need a leader who genuinely cares about the issues and not just someone who is, as he says "...quite politically astute...". To quote Albert Einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
If D.R. really cares about the issues, he would talk about the issues--not waste our time with garbage about how he believes his candidate of choice has a "...presidential...vibe..." Robert's candidate, H. Clinton, may be a lot of things, but "...the smartest person in the room...", she is not. This is the same woman who got fooled by George W. about the need for the Iraq War, voted for the Patriot Act, and most recently--voted to support the war in Iran.
To D.R.--You just don't get it, do you? Or maybe you do. Maybe you don't want to talk about how Global Warming is related to Global WAR ring because you think Global Warring is just fine. After all, despite your use of esoteric biblical language to disguise it, you think people who are passionately against the war in Iraq are just "jacking off" to their love of humanity.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:41 am
20 Nov 2007
Why wasn't he in Washington trying to persuade fellow Democrats to not vote in favor of the bill? Why didn't Obama want to go on record opposing GW? Keep in mind, he also said he would use the military to track down Bin Laden in Pakistan, even if the Pakistani government opposed the idea, and Obama has said he would not rule out military force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
cosmoss Posted 8:53 am
20 Nov 2007
Why does Grist.org actually think endorsing Hillary makes any difference at all? If the majority of Grist readers and environmental activists don't agree with Hillary's politics, then the result is that Grist ends up looking silly and loses credibility. And Hillary doesn't benefit from a Grist endorsement. It's a lose lose proposition.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:07 am
20 Nov 2007
And cosmoss, who "endorsed" Clinton?
grist.org
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:11 am
20 Nov 2007
"Grist is a federally recognized 501(c)(3) public charity; therefore, your contribution may be tax-deductible. Please check with your tax adviser to find out more."
Should Grist be leaning toward ANY particular candidate?! I've been wondering about this ever since I saw DR's remark about Grist's priorities.
The non-profit I occasionally help is not allowed to advocate for or against political candidates or legislation. Is this just a Wisconsin law or a Federal law? Maybe it is self-imposed, but I don't think so.
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:22 am
20 Nov 2007
grist.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:28 am
20 Nov 2007
Permalink
Greta Posted 9:35 am
20 Nov 2007
P.S. - And, geez, get off Dave's butt about his impressions of the forum. That is what I came to this blog to read -- people's impressions. There are plenty of other blog entries herein where Dave and others can discuss the fine points of the issues themselves.
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:58 am
20 Nov 2007
I fear someone like Kucinch will become as stubborn as GW and demand changes voters will not accept. His admistration will go down in flames.
Furthermore, while one might consider Hillary Clinton a bit hawkish, she's not a wacky neocon. I think she is sufficiently interested in miltary strength to win a game of brinksmanship -- if such an occasion should arise -- but not foolish enough to initiate a shooting war.
I fear that Kucinich would be a deer in the headlights the the !@#$ really hit the fan during his term of office. There are times when military force is required. You're not going to persuade me to not vote for Clinton because she believes in a strong military and will not be afraid to use it to protect American security... I doubt it would ever be her preferred option for resolving a conflict.
ffrf.org/day/?day=12&month=5#hepburn
Permalink
Greta Posted 10:12 am
20 Nov 2007
https://civ.moveon.org/donatec4/progressiveads.html?id=11683-1832311-1C4T9s&t=2
The Apple ones are great...particularly the #3 video (first Apple one), IMO.
click on the image to see it in larger window.
(If they air those, I hope that the got clearance from Apple to do so rather than pull a FoxTV and simply rip off the idea.)
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 11:03 am
20 Nov 2007
Nonetheless, the TONE of DR's remarks makes clear that Kucinich is to be ridiculed because he puts forth stark alternatives to the "acceptable" corporate-friendly positions--while Clinton is spoken of with words that evoke almost religious reverence, as well as that sense of inevitability (resistance is futile. There Is No Alternative)used so successfully by Margaret Thatcher and the backers of Bush-Cheney.
We are told by IPCC that severe climate damage is already inevitable and truly cataclysmic change is coming unless WE change fast. Oil may have already peaked. We are engaged in two disastrous wars and the powers that be are gunning for Iran, with Lieberman and Clinton at the head of the pack baying for more blood. So how do we handle these crises? Of course, by voting in the "realistic" candidate who has already sold out so many times you can't read the overlapping logos on her jersey. And pretending the one candidate who advocates the level of change we actually need doesn't exist.
Sure is a disappointment to see this on Grist.
Permalink
greenfreak Posted 5:23 pm
20 Nov 2007
Love Weekly Grist and more if I have time.
Didn't like the Hillary/Edwards/no Dennis Kucinich photo on the page, but did like the Dennis larger video later posted on another page, thanks for correcting the oversight.
Hillary, Obama, Edwards, MOTS. WAY better than the Cheney/Bush admin. but they are ALL STILL players with the players. War and deaths till at least 2013(if there is one) plus Iran or who else? More lives destroyed, more pollution and destruction of the planet, aren't we ready for something more HUMAN? Aren't we yet getting it, the urgency of acting NOW? There are 7 billion lives devouring every resource, we need a quantum leap NOW, you don't wait, you Impeach Now, oops, I mean you make a quantum leap NOW! To new leaders with bold new ideas based in truly helping our country and our only Planet, Earth support for us(humans) may be wavering, eh? Food and water, the new GOLD STANDARD, and most drinking water worldwide is owned by corporations, do you really want your elected official in bed with the people who will have the power to give you a drink of water or not?
I disliked the "personal" comment that Dennis Kucinich isn't electable, and it was echoed a time or two. I'll echo the point that THAT is all we get from the corporate media monopoly, tell 'em who to vote for, I don't need any non-hope opinions from a great organization like Grist about one of the only candidates that will give a us ANY CHANCE of survival! Dennis Kucinich is the difference! No other candidate connects global WARRING and global WARMING. He stands ABOVE the rest with REAL compassion, the Department of Peace. He's never said he's dismantling the military, he's just going to use diplomacy first, like we used to be! He has the Integrity, the Honesty, the Public Servitude, and the GUTS to be a President Of and For the People! The planet is probably extincting us and our puny efforts to stop climate change will have little effect, but Kucinich isn't on the payroll of anyone but US taxpayers, so there is a chance of REAL CHANGE! Please check out Dennis4President.com. He will create new jobs and a whole economy not based on oil and death, but on the best new technology the best minds we've got on the planet can come up with. No more debunkers and corporate criminals poisoning people for profit and worse! No more lies! Land mass changes will be coming we can't imagine in the near future, EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET WILL HAVE TO BE UTILIZED AND WORKING TO IMPLEMENT THE MASSIVE CHANGES WE'LL NEED TO MAKE JUST FOR SURVIVAL, FOOD AND WATER WILL BE THE NEW MONEY. DOLLAR BILLS WILL BE TOILET PAPER.
Permalink
cosmoss Posted 12:48 am
21 Nov 2007
Permalink