GoodGuide scanner makes healthy food shopping point and click 1 Posted 1 day, 15 hours ago
On “climategate” 17 Posted 1 day, 3 hours ago
Climate deniers, hold your fire! 14 Posted 1 day, 14 hours ago
The Grist presidential forum on climate and energy went off without a hitch and was a huge success. I'll have much more to say about it tomorrow, but for now I just want to thank, again, all the groups that worked to bring it together, the wonder-working production crew at the venue, and the candidates who participated.
As for me, the adrenaline from the event has worn off, but the subsequent alcohol intake has not, so I believe I'll go to bed. More later.
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Gourmet’s conscience, Gopnik on cookbooks, and other tasty morsels
Lester Brown and I, diavlogging
Chip Giller keeps it real
Comments
View as Flat
LotteTrouble Posted 9:00 pm
17 Nov 2007
Thank you Grist, NDRC and all sponsors, and panelists! I will attend again when/if you can get the other candidates. I'm impressed by all the democratic candidates in one way or another, and think we have some great leadership on the way. I trust they will put egos aside when the time comes and serve in whatever capacity our country needs them. What a great team of leaders American and the Globe have coming up!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:27 am
18 Nov 2007
Permalink
Marky48 Posted 1:32 am
18 Nov 2007
It was a good time! Nice work up there. Where is the webcast? Has it gone to pod?
Marky48
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 2:04 am
18 Nov 2007
Just to start, candidate Kent Mesplay is eminently qualified to respond. He holds a Ph.D. in the sciences (wouldn't that be original) and works with the Air Quality Control Board in San Diego.
In the discussion of "centrist" positions that you had with Andrew Revkin, there was an concern over inside the beltway, policy wonk thinking. Was that the reason why the choices were exclusionary, that the only people invited were those that the major parities deemed to be worth?
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
Greta Posted 3:35 am
18 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
Greta Posted 3:46 am
18 Nov 2007
I'm a veg*n! Eating my vegetables is what I love!
Otherwise, you did a fine job. Especially chastizing the rude audience members. (And so builds the intrigue for those who did not see the forum.)
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
Benny Posted 5:49 am
18 Nov 2007
Dennis Kucinich is very easy to like, but I agree with another commenter that he didn't have many specifics to offer.
As to Barack Obama being invited and turning down the offer, some Grist readers may not know that he has declined to come to special forums and made that clear in August. I doubt he would want to answer questions from this group about his supporting liquid coal technology or that he supports nukes. There's a good reason for that at the moment: he's from Illinois a state that has more nukes for power and also one that uses coal for power plants as well. What I am not clear about is if he will evolve on the issue of Global Warming, just as John Edwards did.
Hillary Clinton gives a lot of lip service. It's too bad no one on the panel asked her about the burning of tires for energy at International Paper in upstate NY in 2005 and why she did nothing to stop it, and hundreds of employees got very sick. I think I know the answer, but still, that doesn't represent my progressive views about Global Warming. Moreover, I don't quite understand why Clinton couldn't commit to a position about the Lieberman-Warner bill. She tapped danced around that one.
The one candidate that could have also benefited from speaking at this forum is Bill Richardson.
Overall, it appeared to me John Edwards understood the complexity of the issue and how it ties in with poverty, infrastructure, national security, food insecurity, etc. He was the first to offer a plan about Global Warming.
BTW, Edwards drives an American hybrid: the Ford Escape.
Permalink
Tim Hurst Posted 5:57 am
18 Nov 2007
Dave, I couldn't notice that your shoes were old and I wasn't questioning your exercise regimen. However, I did notice that you presented eloquent and thoughtful questions. I honestly think that some of your questions were so sharp, and 'on it', that the candidates did not always answer them -- I think because they are all so used to stumping that they kept slipping into off-topic soliloquies.
Finally, Barack Obama did not help his cause here in the Western states where enviro/energy issues are very salient. I agree with Greta that Sen. Clinton did offer some substantive specifics, but they were partially obscured by her pandering to the Hollywood environmental elite.
Timothy B. Hurst
ecopolitology.blogspot.com
Permalink
linkunlovr Posted 6:41 am
18 Nov 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:19 am
18 Nov 2007
Permalink
jdk Posted 8:24 am
18 Nov 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:46 pm
18 Nov 2007
As a New Yorker who voted for Hillary in 2000 (I voted for the Green Party candidate for Senate, Howie Hawkins, in 2006, since Hillary was a shoo-in), I of course will support her if she is our nominee. But not enthusiastically. Sure, she is very intelligent, and industrious, which is terrific. But I find her off-putting, and will certainly vote for someone else on the first Super Tuesday, in early February.
That said, I would certainly not heckle her, as apparently somebody did at your Grist debate. Tsk tsk! On the other hand, I might very well have smacked anybody in that claque of hers in Las Vegas, who booed John Edwards and Barack Obama.
In defense of Dennis Kucinich, the reality is that his campaign is limited by very small resources, so it is unfair to expect him to come up with detailed policy statements on a number of topics, as the better-funded candidates have done. After all, those other candidates did not think up their policies all by themselves, did they. They had advisers, often people with great talent and broad experience, to educate them, to help them articulate their basic values, and to write up the details. Poor Dennis simply cannot find such high-quality contacts. Nominate him this Spring, and that will change at once, and he will be as good, or rather better, than anyone else.
And by the same token, the candidates cannot really be expected to have committed themselves to every detail of their policy statements. What we need to learn from them at this point is, what do they consider to be really important, and why, and what kinds of directions do they think it would be wisest to follow to get there.
On Obama: Too bad he did not come, but not surprising. He seems more and more obviously to be aiming for a vice-presidential slot. And that would make perfect sense for him, given his age and relative inexperience.
And I think an Edwards/Obama ticket also would make very good sense.
While Obama himself does not elicit any strong emotion in me, Roger Cohen's recent op-ed in the New York Times, titled "Obama in Orbit," made a very interesting suggestion: that for most observers around the world, our electing Obama as our first black president -- but really multi-ethnic, with interesting extra-American connexions -- would be far more stirring and exciting than our electing Clinton as our first woman president.
It is hard to see Edwards accepting the vice-presidential slot on anyone's ticket, after his having been there in 2004, and after what has transpired in this campaign.
And it is very very hard to see Clinton asking either Edwards or Obama to join her ticket. But she might very well ask Biden, Dodd or Richardson. And any of them might be very disposed to accept.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:25 pm
18 Nov 2007
Sorry I missed the debate (busy working in a place where I had no net access!). It sounds great. Obama is making a mistake by refusing to participate. The only publicity he gets from this decision is negative. He is getting bad advice.
The ticket (baring any major screw ups on her part, and none so far) is likely to be Clinton Strickland. You heard it here first.
Popular Democratic Governor of a key swing state (he delivers Ohio).
And they're in.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink