Comments JaphetE has made

  • Well...

    ...at least SOMEONE is covering this stuff ids! When was the last time anyone actually tracked an environmental bill like this?

    Yes, the coverage needs some "oomph" and substance but its a good start.

    Hillary is for nuclear. Obama is for coal. Edwards is for neither. Need we say more?

    On America's Climate Security Act passes out of subcommittee posted 2 years ago 5 Responses

  • As much as I love...

    ...the attention that the media and Grist is giving Obama and Hillary, I have to say that Obama's plan is not "out in front of the Democratic agenda" since John Edwards included the exact same 25-by-25 line in his energy plan almost 5 months ago.

    Also, his "political bravery" on saying no to coal, is actually a complete mirage. For one, Edwards said "no new coal plants" over 4 months ago and was labeled a "political suicide" for doing so. I'm no so sure Obama's is any more "brave" for doing it after a major candidate has already done it!

    The more I rooted around I more I found out that Edwards has had better plans for a long time and only now are Hillary and Obama starting to fall in line behind his lead. I love Obama...but I want someone who isn't afraid to take a stand on some of these issues.

    Hillary is for nuclear. Obama is for coal. Edwards is for neither. Need we say more?

    On Barack Obama reveals details of energy plan in speech today posted 2 years ago 1 Response

  • Hold the phone...

    This is great stuff! However I have to point out that John Edwards actually has a plan that cuts oil imports by more than half. Right now we're importing about 10.1 million barrels of oil per day. John Edwards' plan cuts that by 7.5 million per day to a paltry 2.6 million per day, which is much more of a cut than Hillary has proposed.

    Then again...we're just straining at gnats here. On Me Too, Me Too! posted 2 years ago 1 Response

  • Great points...

    we should be pushing these candidates to embrace the environment...not just energy.

    Hillary is for nuclear. Obama is for coal. Edwards is for neither. Need we say more?

    On The full text of Clinton's plan posted 2 years ago 18 Responses

  • This is great but....

    ...i'm obviousy biased here since I support John Edwards, but really, this is dramatically different than what she's been doing in the Senate (supporting nuclear for one) over the past years and even what she's been saying on the campaign trail (two debates ago she came out FOR nuclear once again).  

    Is anyone else concerned that she's just putting out pleasing enviro rhetoric for the sake of drawing last minute support? personally, its too late for this massive transformation into the "green candidate."  I'm not sure I totally trust everything she's coming out with now...seems like there are too many political motivations driving them.

    Also, I have to say that in the end it comes down to who of these candidates are the most viable in a general election. More than 55% of the electorate said they would vote AGAINST Hillary if she was the candidate for the Dems in '08. So, I have to say if we want Giuliani or Romney in the WH, we should be careful who we nominate. I don't want to lose....again.

    Hillary is for nuclear. Obama is for coal. Edwards is for neither. Need we say more?

    On The full text of Clinton's plan posted 2 years ago 18 Responses