Errata

A few last bits of musing from Grist's presidential forum on climate

Posted by David Roberts at 5:14 PM on 19 Nov 2007

A few final notes from Grist's presidential climate forum, before (?) you get sick of me talking about it.

Most memorable bits:

Dennis Kucinich mentioning, at the very top of his speech, that he's a vegan. I heard the sound of thousands (or at least a dozen extremely vocal) Grist readers swooning.
Kucinich offering every American a guaranteed minimum income, and coal miners in particular a not-mining wage equal to what they were making in the mines. Who mentions a nationwide guaranteed income as an aside?
Hillary Clinton unambiguously pledging that emissions at the end of her term would be lower than at the beginning.
Clinton hiding behind Barbara Boxer on the subject of the Lieberman-Warner bill.
Clinton blasting through a protestor like Schwarzenegger in The Terminator -- the first one, before he became a wuss.
Clinton and Edwards both making a sobering point: the public is not yet nearly as exercised about climate change as greens are.

Observations:

Dennis Kucinich's wife Elizabeth is, if anything, more strikingly gorgeous in person than she is in pictures. Incidentally, Kucinich himself is more impressive in person as well -- hale, healthy, vigorous. It's that vegan diet!
I knew that allowing the candidates to speak at length rather than quibble in soundbites would result in lower ratings and some bored pundits, but I think it was worth it.
Don't believe people who say you have to wear a tie. You don't.
I considered it one of my top goals to introduce the question of international climate equity into the race. I guess the need exists, because it was a bit of a flop. My impression is that nobody watching understood or cared about the question, and the candidates didn't have good answers to it.
Sure would be nice to do another one of these with a different set of three candidates. I think three was a good number.
Right now, Dem presidential candidates are out ahead of the public and the media on the subject of climate. That's a politically vulnerable position. It is up to greens to provide that position with fortification, not to kvetch about their caution.

Regrets:

If I had it to do again, I would tweak the format of the Q&A. I'd put a hard time limit on answers -- say, two minutes. On the panel of questioners, we had planned to start with fairly open-ended questions and drill down to specifics, but what ended up happening is that the candidates filibustered the questions they liked and ended up restricting the number of questions to three or four. (I had about 12 on my list.) We should have predicted that and headed it off. So many things I wish I could have asked ...
I'd limit the panel of questioners to two people, or even one person -- a person versed on the issues and capable of following up questions. As it is, we had to try to coordinate three questioners with different styles; none of us felt totally comfortable jumping in with a follow-up. It seemed greedy. As a result, the candidates didn't get pushed very hard. One or two people could have pushed more effectively. In particular, I'm irritated I didn't/couldn't push Clinton harder on Lieberman-Warner.

For story: Errata
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Huzzah

Great work, David and Grist.

This is the frontier of journalism.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 5:26 PM on 19 Nov 2007

orifices, jerks, and hippies... oh my

Suppose there is an issue someone considers very important -- for a variety of reasons, including preservation of our natural environmental -- but feels it is neglected by the media...

For example...

Suppose someone believes that our government, including the average voter, will not effectively address environmental problems until the United States extracts itself from the Quagmire in Iraq and makes a sincere effort to diffuse various international conflicts by peaceful means.

Suppose this is not discussed during various debates and candidate forums, even those focused on the environment.

Suppose even progressive journalists are not willing to ask the hard questions and get candidates to talk about the issue.

Suppose letter to editors designed to bring this issue to their attention are never printed in newpapers or discussed on television.

What can they do to persuade people to at least try to discuss it? It appears that in this country, unless you control the media and/or are extremely wealthy, your only option is to show up at a public event and create a disturbance. It is sad that an intelligent person like Mr. Roberts -- an otherwise very respectable person -- frowns on such activity.

We should be grateful that we live in a country where citizens are allowed to speak up without disappearing. It is bad enough that protesters are removed from areas before King George's motorcade arrives. I hope we do not go down the path of insulating all politicians from protestors trying to make a statement. If the left adopts the same behavior as the right, stifling dissent, we are totally screwed.

What was the Code pink activists supposed to do? How was he supposed to get his message out? Call Hillary Clinton's office and politely discuss the matter with her? The day we invite police to remove the orifices, jerks, and hippies that attempt to point out that the Emporer -- or someone wishing to be Emporer -- is not wearing clothing, is the day democracy dies.

I wish I had half the courage of the Code Pink activist.

by wiscidea at 7:02 AM on 20 Nov 2007

P.S.

Were it not for environmental activists employing the same strategy as the Code Pink activist decades ago, there would be not environmental movement.

Ditto for numerous progressive causes.

by wiscidea at 7:06 AM on 20 Nov 2007

do it again!; tweaking Clinton

It will be hard to schedule another debate like this one in December or early January, unless you can find a good location at, say, a hospitable university, in Iowa or New Hampshire.

And after that, who knows? Given that none of the candidates really knows how to play the game in this completely new primary schedule, they may find a debate on a politically low-tier topic to be stupidly distracting, and want nothing to do with it. On the other hand, they may like having an offer of free exposure. So go for it.

As for the format, it is important that you the questioners get to ask the questions that you want to ask, and that means the candidates should not be allowed to hog the time. And you should probably get to ask follow-ups immediately, instead of reserving them for later, just so that everyone remains focused. But then, afterwards, time permitting, the candidates could be invited to continue their answers to particular questions. And if that is when they get to do what they might feel is their serious campaigning, well, that is OK; they will have warmed up by then, and that is their chance to say something memorable.

On another matter, there seems always to be some tension between the front-running candidates (e.g. Clinton) and debate hosts, over whether less-well-supported candidates (e.g. Kucinich) should be invited to participate at all. The compromise that is often informally struck, apparently, is that the front-runners are asked more questions, or are subtly allowed more time to speak.

So did you observe any impatience on the part of Hillary Clinton? She is said to be frosty and unfriendly with Obama and Edwards, somewhat more civil with the others, but generally disdainful of a process that puts her on the same stage with Dennis Kucinich, as though they are equals.

Reading between the lines, I cannot help feeling that her emphasizing that greens are inevitably going to be disappointed and let down by energy legislation is another example of her imperious impatience. It is as though she is saying: Look, you all are going to end up voting for the Democratic nominee, i.e. me, so you are not worth all that much of my time and attention, and meanwhile don't you dare try to do anything to embarrass me.

And by the way, while I dislike the style of the Code Pink heckler, I agree with WiscIdea, and the other commenters on the other threads, that Hillary's hawkishness is a big issue in her candidacy, and she should be confronted as often as possible by people who disapprove of her words and actions.

On Kucinich and veganism: I have known he is vegan for a long time, and would not have swooned when he announced it, if I had been listening live. But it is a good thing that he had a chance to say that, in an appropriate context. So far as I know, your debate was the first time that he got to do that.

And of course I would have encouraged him to say more on the subject, by asking him about the connexion between raising animals for food and GHG emissions.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 10:33 AM on 20 Nov 2007

"international climate equity"?

Could you elaborate on what it is, DR, why you think it is important, and why the candidates avoided it?

Is it what Tom Athanasiou and company talk about at EcoEquity.org?

Hillary reminded us of the great popularity right now of the concept "energy independence" -- which is not really an environmental concept at all. Given such an atmosphere, we can well imagine that it is not politically prudent to want to commit the US to negotiations and compromises, costly up-front, for the sake of cooperating with other rich and developed countries, and with the developing and undeveloped countries.

But that is where leadership comes in.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:03 PM on 21 Nov 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

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.