Barack Obama secured enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, passing the threshold of 2,118 needed to become the party's candidate.
"Because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another -- a journey that will bring a new and better day to America," Obama said in his victory speech in St. Paul, Minn.
But rival Hillary Clinton says she's not dropping out yet.
"Given how far we've come, and this has been a long campaign, I will be making no decisions tonight," Clinton told fans gathered in New York City. She said she would make a decision in the "best interest" of the party and the nation in the coming days about how to proceed, after consulting with her supporters.
But Obama was ready to claim the nomination, and used his address to express his hope for the future, which included changing the country's direction in environmental policy: "If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth."
Not to let Obama steal the show entirely, John McCain also gave a speech tonight in New Orleans, in which he painted himself as "the right change" and Obama as "the wrong change." He talked up his energy policy as one of the ways he'd bring about that change: "No problem is greater than America's dependence on foreign oil," said McCain. The next president "must be willing to break with previous administrations ... and put us on a course to energy independence," he said, proceeding to criticize Obama's record on energy.
But Obama also had fighting words for John McCain on energy: "Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand that we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators."
Obama continued: "That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future –- an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. That’s the change we need."
Find out more about Obama's environmental stances by checking out Grist's interview with the candidate and fact sheet on his platform and record.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Comments
View as Flat
zach Posted 1:59 pm
03 Jun 2008
+
"But rival Hillary Clinton says she's not dropping out yet."
=
Bushism logic?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:08 pm
03 Jun 2008
Hooray!!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:21 pm
03 Jun 2008
Are not the citizens of the United States the dictators?
Talk of "energy independence," usually a right-wing, Republican battlecry, is especially scary coming from the mouth of the leader of the Democratic Party, inasmuch as it rallies support for tearing up the American earth, and making the American earth unliveable for American wildlife.
American workers do indeed need to drive on American roads to American jobs. But surely, American thinkers can whisper in the ear of the future American president that drilling for oil in caribou-land is not the way to go; nor is mountain-explosion in search of coal.
And all the very enthusiastic friends of Barack Obama might believe that he is disposed to listen to the whispers of those thinkers.
But we shall see.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Wrightsfd Posted 4:00 am
04 Jun 2008
This is not an environmental revolution as we would all like to see, it is an evolution and it takes time. While it may take more time than we would like, it will happen. Be happy for once that there is a viable candidate that we environmentalists can get behind. It is called reality, and we need to live in it.
Kevin Wright
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 4:18 am
04 Jun 2008
We'll have to educate and organize, as the civil rights activists did. Obama seemes willing to "lead" if there's a movement ahead and behind him.
Getting Obama elected (and 60 votes for the environment in the Senate) would be the beginning of a movement towards sound energy and environmental policy. The rest is up to us.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:00 am
04 Jun 2008
No they don't! They need to organize their lives, and we all need to reorganize society, in order to get rid of private motor vehicles. Cars are a huge environmental and ecological problem, and what fuels them is a minor detail. If global warming is your main issue, remember that ALL fuels emit CO2 when burned, so there will be no magic solution to global warming that allows anywhere near as much driving as now takes place.
What American workers -- actually, all workers -- need to do is to live near their jobs so that they can walk, bike, or at most take public transit to work. The private motor vehicle is a curse on the Earth and our goal should be to eliminate it, not to pander to those who cry about giving up driving.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:10 am
04 Jun 2008
While not as bad as some others (he doesn't seem to be a tree-killing fanatic like some and his opposition to the gas tax holiday was refreshing, though I question his reason(s)), Obama strongly supports the hideously destructive coal and nuclear industries, the U.S. military industrial complex, and U.S. imperialism. There's no way he would have been allowed to get anywhere near this far if he represented any real change.
What his election could be is a starting point for some real change. It certainly won't come from him, but his election could open a door to it. Maybe.
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 5:27 am
04 Jun 2008
The telling thing to me is the lack of PAC money behind Barack. He is truly with and for the people on this one, his support is grassroots and net-linked, empowered at the average citizen level. Everyone can help make the future and the change that is needed if we work together. That is how his leadership operates. I look forward to great things and great leadership from this man who takes after Lincoln in many ways.
The greening of a campaign is happening now. See what you can do to help. I facilitated the recycling of paper, cans and bottles at the local office during the primaries. Carbon neutralizing steps would be the next obvious thing to tackle.
Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.
Permalink
roncastle Posted 5:28 am
04 Jun 2008
Cheers.
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 6:19 am
04 Jun 2008
"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide, to dispel the misery of the world." - Shantideva
Permalink
Trakar Posted 12:39 am
05 Jun 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:01 am
05 Jun 2008
Let's get back down to earth.
America is not suddenly going to reduce its energy consumption.... so reasonably cost effective, clean energies need to be developed. By whom? The oil companies and other energy producers, obviously. They are in the energy business. Therefore, that's where the incentives need to be directed. Castigating them as enemies, instead of working hard to get them on board, simply throws the baby out with the bathwater.
The transportation industry is a difficult problem, but the solution isn't "people need to start walking more or riding bikes". It's not going to happen. So making such foolish suggestions that are totally unrealistic are a waste of time. You might as well say "People need to start breathing less to cut CO2 emissions."
As it is, there is a fair chance that peak oil is going to cause a major dislocation of the global economy, killing hundreds of millions of people in the process. The world needs to focus heavily on the development of alternative energy sources while at the same time recognizing and dealing with the CO2 issue.
The reality is that carbon sinks have to be pursued vigorously, because developing countries (or those that aren't even developing) are going to increase, not decrease, their carbon usage. And no amount of talk about the climate is going to deter them. They are dying now. They will worry about effects latter. That's reality - whether anyone here likes it or not.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:32 am
05 Jun 2008
Face it, every other person will be riding a bike or a bus or train, that now drives a gas guzzler. Driving a monster vehicle already gets signifigant negative feedback. You can feel the hatred for oil seething in the public consciousness.
This just in..."Oil rises another 5 bucks, because of the weakening dollar." (MSNBC) A slippery oily spiral exxonmob saudi slope to national bankruptcy and despair, thank you bushco, and thanks most of all to bushco, faithfilled voters.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 1:42 pm
05 Jun 2008
Now, rising fuel prices will cause be to down size their vehicles. They will be looking for efficiencies wherever they can find them. No question there. That will be driven by market forces.
But that's not being done because of a "hatred for oil"?? How can you hate an inanimate object?
My point is, while carbon supplies may cause major adjustments and disruptions in the economy and lifestyles - including such disruptions as death - people are not willing going to start giving up their cars or their homes or their foods of choice, etc. etc.
You think Barbie the Bimbo is going to stop shopping because of environmental concerns? She doesn't even know what the environment looks like outside of a shopping mall.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink