Good for Hillary, for picking up on that.  Her husband had said something along those lines, in criticizing W. for missing his opportunity to rebuild New Orleans as a model green city.  And Al Gore struck that theme in his statement on hearing he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

But frankly, this is kind of wonky.  If any of these guys wins, everything they may be saying now about energy will be negotiable and tweakable in 2009.

The ABC News site tells us juicier stuff, like how Edwards and Obama played like a tag-team beating up Hillary -- interesting tactic for Edwards; it may work.

Then there was this weak moment for her:

<<
On the issue of likability, the debate verged on melodramatic. When asked how she responded to those who question her likability compared with Obama's, Clinton played the injured damsel: "Well, that hurts my feelings, but I'll try to go on."

And she praised Obama, "He's very likable. I agree on that. I don't think that I'm that bad."

To which Obama quipped: "You're likable enough.'

>>

Ouch!

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

it will be just as effective as Dingell's carbon tax

at killing all hope of any significant regulation coming out of Congress

focus on the practical means necessary to aggressively promote efficiency

and the practical means to encourage mass transit, high-density-low-crime cities, solar, geothermal, wave and wind

I never see any step by step analysis here; no lobby; no proposed legislation; no plans for anything effective

only an obsession on the holy and impractical 100% auction

stay sanctimonious and roast the world

I don't get. The Grist Donkey Mill is endorsing the pea under the walnut shell that is cap-and-trade. So, is the Romm-dom.

The rationale is that a carbon tax is politically infeasible. An interesting measure to use, makes one wonder about the basis for such infeasibility and the corresponding "realistic assessment by the front runners."

Sounds like feedstock from the donkeys for the gasifier.

Good job all of them for having more of a handle on the issue than any of the Republican front-runners, by far.

I'm pleased that Obama cited the fact that we need to use income generated by cap and trade to protect low-income people, although he should mention that government-subsidized adaptation and efficiency programs are a great start.

I'd like to know what Edwards said as well, if he managed to answer the questions.

I had the opposite impression.  I thought that was a strong moment for Clinton.

First, I liked that she made a joke. Second, I liked the sarcasm of the joke and what it implied: "It is not important for me to be liked only to be effective." ...Strongly agree!  Any leader who is afraid of being disliked (looking at you B.O.) will sell out right and left.

[Unlike the political pundits, my impression of Obama's reply was one of sarcastic underexaggeration.  I think that he greatly admires Hillary Clinton, and she knows that, which is what made his comeback funny.]

And, third, during the debate, I liked that she got "feisty" in defense of something Edwards said.  I have heard the pundits say that she "lost it".  On the contrary, I was relieved finally to see that kind of spirit (passion) from her.  She showed that she will most definitely put her foot down, and there will be no mistake that she has.

I saw her in a new light, this debate, and she gained more of my respect.  (Also, on how she answered the "change" mantra.  She needs to continue to reinforce that message.)

www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

I was pleased to hear a republican (if only one) -- John McCain -- at least bring up climate change. Not that it makes any difference; the other candidates statements on said topic on entirely rhetoric.

www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

I don't understand why it's stupid for Obama to say that Americans will have to sacrifice to reduce carbon emissions. Heck, I thought it was courageous, given what happened to the last president who asked America to conserve energy.  Bill Maher forcefully asked this question of a co-sponsor of an global warming bill, Bernie Sanders, saying, in effect, if this is the greatest challenge to face mankind, shouldn't it demand a real sacrifice? Take a look:

Mid-century, the entire U.S. economy mobilized to prepare for WWII. There was, in a sense, plenty of sacrifice -- people had to ration, they had to drop the jobs they were doing to work in factories, development of domestic products and services was suspended in order to focus on weapon making, etc. etc.

But the result was a juggernaut, a wave of prosperity and innovation that carried this country for 50 years.

There's every reason to think that a comprehensive, full-scale retooling of the economy along sustainable lines would create the same wave of prosperity.

Knowing that, and knowing how difficult it will be to get it started, why would we begin by highlighting sacrifice? Won't there be enough of our enemies doing that? Why wouldn't we highlight the extraordinary benefits we'll be creating for our children? It's just politically, strategically daft to accept your enemy's way of framing the issue.

grist.org

uh, the history is a little simplistic

and the attempt to compare this to WWII (like Sen. Sanders) is bogus

A very visible threat like war is going to generate a far different reaction from the public

but I like your point about "sacrifice"

what do people think is going to happen if we do not address the climate disaster?

one way or another, we need to change the way we do things.  staying the same (not sacrificing?) is simply not an option

How we talk about things is important, even essential.  How do we talk about global warming and a change in how we get energy?  We Lie and neglect?

We can talk it about it this way.   Say there will be some sacrifice but there will mostly be opportunity.   And then talk about the opportunity for 5 minutes while you mentioned sacrifice once.

If you don't mention sacrifice, your opponent can ask why doesn't so and so talk about sacrifice, because so and so doesn't want to be honest with you.  If you bring it up you can put it in the reference that it deserves, not the reference your opponent wants it to be.

Check out that at a NH Q&A before the debate, HRC took nuclear energy out of her energy mix and said no new coal w/o CO2 C&S.

Obama's sacrifice frame is a signal to the dirty corp's that they will get their pound of flesh from the consumer before it is all over, not to worry.

What type and how much of a sacrifice are we willing to do and who will be doing the sacrificing?  And what does that mean to solving global warming?

How do we treat owners and workers in coal mines?

Our country had a civil war over 140 years ago, mostly over slavery.  Many people said slavery was wrong, but to many in the south, it was the economic system.  And there was a war over the rights of that system and how that is to be decided.   620 000 died in the fighting with many more injured and much destruction of property.  

As I understand, we were the only country in the world to solve their slavery problem with a war.  Couldn't we have had a buy out system?  Maybe everything was talked about at the time, but it seems to me if our country was the only one that solved it with a war, we didn't try hard enough.  Maybe if it had been a buyout of slaves instead of a war and a walk away, blacks may have been treated better for the hundred years after the war in the south.

Then the question is, what do we do with those people who own coal mines and are to work in coal mines?   Are we to just say, to bad, all the money you invested in coal mines is just lost money?  Are we to buy them out?   Are we going to treat them as earth destroying scum if they try to keep the mines open and then make them enemies or try to make those who give up the mines heroes?   Are we going to buy them out?  And what do we do for utilities that use coal now and have coal plants that are completely paid for, but now have to buy renewable energy.  Are we to make enemies of all those electricity rate payers?

If we aren't willing to talk about the sacrifice of people and the sacrifice of what some people are going to have to do or what it is we are willing or able to do, then we really aren't being serious about the problem.    Because then there are going to be people who will talk about sacrifices and that will be your political opponents to doing anything about global warming.

I asked something like this question before on this website, and was told they just didn't care about the coal mine owner.  So we don't care whether someone is a political enemy, or if something can be done to if not make them political allies at least make them political neutral?  Because this thing is going to be hard enough with the politically neutral, we may want to reduce as many political enemies as possible.

Hilary has been stereotyped.  She may not be the person everyone wants to "have a beer" with, but she's the strongest and smartest person in the room. And she's definitely the politician who's learned from adversity and antagonism.

Plus, if she's elected I know so many middle-aged and old white guys who will foam at the mouth.  It would be so much fun to watch.

Wow, thanks "Baby Boomer" for race baiting here at Grist.  We wouldn't want to keep things too high brow.

This whole notion of asking Americans to sacrifice is curious.  To whom are those remarks directed?  The person consuming their slice (or less) of pie or the person consuming their 3rd slice of pie.

I think that we should teach the meaning of gluttony and reinstate the virtue of NOT being gluttonous. Let's start by asking people to consume only "their reasonable share" (and redefine what that means).

Look at our obese society...food makes for the perfect metaphor.  With an alarming rate of child obesity, it shows that gluttony (/selfishness) is being taught earlier these days.

www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org