The green Democrat's choice

Obama or Clinton: who's greener?

Posted by David Roberts at 4:16 AM on 05 Feb 2008

Read more about: politics | elections | presidential race 08 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton by Roger Goun, Barack Obama by Will Merydith via Flickr

The following post was first published on Passing Through, The Nation's guest blog, where I will be posting all month.

If you're a political junkie like me, all you can think about is the primary and the general election beyond. Can you remember a primary season so dynamic and volatile, so dramatic, so filled with hope and trepidation and the stirrings of something historic? I can't decide if I love it or I'm going to have an ulcer by November. Or both.

Today I want to take a look at the Dem candidates. Do green issues offer a way to differentiate them? A way to help wavering primary voters decide which way to go?

Sorry, but not really.

In terms of climate/energy policy proposals, there's not a whole lot of distance between Obama and Clinton. On this issue as on so many others, they both followed Edwards' early lead and ended up with strong, ambitious plans. Both would substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions and boost clean energy; both pitch sustainability as an issue of shared sacrifice and economic opportunity; both have an impressive grasp of the policy details. Some resources:

My analysis of Clinton's plan is here, of Obama's here.
A more thorough factsheet on Clinton's green record is here; Obama's here.
An interview with Clinton on green subjects is here; Obama here.

I'll look at the merits of some of their proposals in subsequent posts; for now I want to focus on what differentiates them.

Thing is, there isn't much. There are episodes in their respective pasts that give pause. Clinton burned all those tires (long story). As a Democratic power broker and high-powered lawyer of long standing, she's been cozy with some fairly unsavory corporate players, from Alcoa to Wal-Mart.

Obama, on the other hand, is an Illinois pol. That means he is, by necessity, a little friendlier with coal, ethanol, and nuclear interests than greens might like. Those allegiances led him to vote for the monstrosity that was the Energy Act of 2005, a porkfest that funneled subsidies to all three interest groups (Clinton voted against it). Early last year, he pushed legislation boosting liquid coal. (When greens threw a fit he backed off somewhat, making clear that liquid coal is kosher only if it meets low-carbon fuel standards.) As the NYT exhaustively documents, he gets big campaign contributions from Exelon, a nuke outfit based in Illinois; his campaign adviser David Axelrod once consulted for the company.

There is, however, no smoking gun of quid pro quo in either's career, and both are well-regarded by greens. Various commentators have blown past transgressions up to make the case that Clinton is secretly an earth-hating corporate sellout, or that Obama is, or that both are. Call me cynical, but all the above seems like relatively run-of-the-mill parochial politics to me. You'd be hard-pressed to find a politician that doesn't have compromises like this in his or her past. If you wanted pure green positions -- no new coal plants, no corn ethanol, no nukes under any circumstances -- I'm afraid your hopes died with the Edwards campaign (or the Kucinich campaign ... is that one dead yet?). Between the two remaining Dems, neither their histories nor their campaign proposals yield an obvious green favorite.

It comes down to these questions:

Who will be more effective at getting a green agenda past the many obstacles it faces?
Who will do more to help downticket races and usher more Democrats into Congress?

There's been a lot of chatter about "theories of change" this election, but if you ask me, personal style matters a hell of a lot less than the number of reliable votes in Congress. So who'll get more downticket Dems elected? I think, as his recent endorsement by a string of red-state Dems attests, Obama will. He's got broader appeal with the Independents and wavering Republicans that will make the difference in close Congressional races.

So in the end, if I was forced at gunpoint to pick the greener Dem this election, it would be Obama, but only based on second-order effects, and only barely. By far the larger story this season is that both Democratic choices are advancing a green agenda substantially more ambitious than what was proposed by Kerry, Gore, or Clinton. It's hard for green Democrats to go wrong this year.

For story: The green Democrat's choice
46 Comments | Post a Comment

Let's Not Forget Executive Order

There's another arena in which we need to evaluate their green creds, tho' there may not be sufficient data available - yet. We should press the candidates for it -- to release a 100 day climate action plan that can be enacted through Executive Order, EPA, Clean Air Act. Especially after Mass v. EPA, the President now has great authority to unilaterally regulate CO2 and send a nationwide signal -- that would go far in making a difference as Congress dickers over an economy wide signal. The President can be a game-changer. We forget that. Wonder why.

David Sassoon, www.solveclimate.com

by David Sassoon at 6:35 AM on 05 Feb 2008

18 Posts for Super Tuesday

I love Grist's information on the candidates and their environmental policy. I have used this information in my own blog. In addition, I have lots of stuff on both the rhetoric and records of the different candidates including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I condensed all the different posts in honor of Super Tuesday

http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/super-tuesday- ...

by crumbrye at 7:58 AM on 05 Feb 2008

EPA action

Yes-- The new president -- i.e. EPA -- could act on climate and start putting together a carbon program, presumably cap-and-trade, under the Clean Air Act.

That would work, but new authorizing legislation from Congress would make it a lot less vulnerable to legal challenge.

Probably what will happen is that EPA will start doing something, and so will Congress, and we'll just have to see how the politics play out -- whatever would pass in Congress would supersede Clean Air Act rules -- but the groundwork for a program will have moved forward within EPA in the meantime.

Anyway that's my hope.

by GreenMom at 8:28 AM on 05 Feb 2008

Given in to lobbyists

Barack has given in to lobbyist positions on nuclear, clean coal, and ethanol. Hillary hasn't.

The same on healthcare, though not an environmental issue it clearly indicates barack's bias. He does not have the experience to over ride lobbyists. Hillary does.

Give Barack a couple terms as VP to get up to speed. Our very best green ticket is hillary/Barack. They will bring the most green congress and senate seats with them..together.

Be fair Barack supporters, he has less government experience than duuhbya, don't you think Rove's wrecking crew will swiftboat around that? Imagine the media barage before the general election, funded by corporate cash.

Remember what they did to Kerry. McCain the war hero versus Barack, with one year in the senate and no military service. Experience counts, many of the youngsters flocking to Barack don't even remember the '04 campaign.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:00 AM on 05 Feb 2008

Well,

I do have to admit, the senator from Illinois has more of a vested interest in Coal/Corn (And now Sequestration), than the senator from New York.

by GreyFlcn at 9:59 AM on 05 Feb 2008

Hmmm

I agree amazingdrx and GreyFlcn, it seems like Obama has only recently (to borrow his phrasing) found religion on climate change. I like that his Super Bowl ad mentioned saving the planet, but while Obama has tiptoed around "clean" coal, CCS, corn ethanol, and promised continued support for FutureGen, Clinton has talked up solar and wind.

David is right that either of them will be a quantum leap over Dubya, but I wonder if Obama's star is blinding him a bit on this one.

Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

by TheGreenMiles at 10:18 AM on 05 Feb 2008

And nuclear

And Clinton does show a bit less support for Nuclear than Obama.

http://greyfalcon.net/electionchart.png

by GreyFlcn at 11:11 AM on 05 Feb 2008

Obama

After pondering this way too long, I went out and voted Obama after I read this post. I intend to blame you for any future consequences of my actions today.

by Sir Oolius at 11:20 AM on 05 Feb 2008

Funding research

Well, as the grist comparisons showed me, Obama plans to put 3x as much into a strategic technology fund as Clinton ($50 to $150 B)

Also, lets remember that that while we need 80% by 2050 - to get there we need 2% per year. So if either candidate can just focus on ramping up what we are already doing, we'll be well on our way.

I'm an independent california voter, voting for Obama.

by danielbell at 11:36 AM on 05 Feb 2008

Heh

Well the thing I care more about is getting a Democrat in the White House.

So the more important question to ask, which group would have more potential to sway the general election.

RightWing/Independant Women
RightWing/Independant Minorities

by GreyFlcn at 11:57 AM on 05 Feb 2008

Independents

I haven't heard of too many independents (in fact, I haven't personally heard of any) who will ever vote for Hillary. I have, however, heard of plenty of Independents and even more than a few Republicans, who are voting today for Obama.

Who ever wins in November will need every Independent and cross-over vote they can get...

-k

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

by Kristina & Jason Makansi at 12:22 PM on 05 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

an endorsement?

This feature was looking all unbiased and journalistic for awhile there, and truthfully pointing out that when it comes to green issues, there's not much difference at all between the two dem frontrunners. So you go and... throw in some speculation about who might do best getting downticket dems elected (pretty secure with that 501c3 status, aren't ya?) then end the piece with.. is that an endorsement? Sure smells like one. And on super tuesday, no less.

by GabrielleG at 12:28 PM on 05 Feb 2008

Energy is NOT the ONLY environmental issue

Even here, even Grist's election coverage, can't make space to discuss even ONE other environmental issue besides energy. Yes, global warming is the most popular (and among the most important) problem of our time. But there are many other VERY IMPORTANT environmental issues that are being completely ignored this election cycle. Can we PLEASE have at least SOME comparison of candidates on at least a FEW other very important environmental issues? Here are some for starters:

Loss of biodiversity (land-rights vs. endangered spp., naval sonar testing, will Dept. of Interior define critical habitat protection for endangered spp.? Also, remember when dam removal for endangered salmon was a big campaign issue? The anti-dam-remover won, the dams are still there, why aren't we talking about them?
Loss of old growth forests / other wilderness. Roadless area protection? Klamath, ANWR, southern Utah, many other pristine areas are under the gun, the federal government is pulling the trigger.
Global environment: international trade accords? import restrictions? Pushing for protection of rainforests, migratory species, marine mammals, etc.
Toxins (Chinese imports do get discussed. What about US manufacturing? Electronics, etc.? Support for organic farming?)
Solid waste (national bottle-bill, initiatives to support USE of recycled materials, etc., what ABOUT that floating mass of garbage twice the size of Texas?)

Even worse than ignoring all of these other important issues, some global warming solutions carry substantial environmental side-effects. Nuclear power's caveats are unmistakable, but what about deforestation/conversion of our last prairie's to grow biofuels, massive bird kills by windmills, toxic batteries and solar panels, etc.? Where are the initiatives or at least intention to address these?

Can we PLEASE broaden the discussion?

by frw at 12:30 PM on 05 Feb 2008

It's so close...

I was leaning (oh-so-slightly) towards Obama, but after listening to Hilary's Town Hall meeting last night, and trolling through Barack's website, I went out and voted this morning for Clinton.

A girlfriend of mine, who two days ago was scoffing at my praise of Obama's ability to effect change, went out and voted this morning.. for Obama.

Let's hope Dr. X is right and we get the Clinton-Obama ticket... although would not a Clinton-Edwards ticket be just as nice?

Kaela

by kmp at 12:30 PM on 05 Feb 2008

difficult choice

I was really excited by Obama's candidacy in the beginning, but his stances on things like ethanol, coal, nuclear, and, yes, health care, make me uneasy. I didn't especially like Hillary and agree that she lacks charisma BUT I think I'm tired of the notion that charisma somehow equals capability.

So, I've decided to go with Hillary. She's smart and determined, I can only hope that she realizes green is our only future.

by katwin24 at 12:39 PM on 05 Feb 2008

Think of your daughters

Vote for Hillary.

(This really kind of borders on unfair politicking I'll admit it. The problem is that it really is based in fact. Girls do deserve a break this time around.)

But Barack can be VP. It's our best ticket Kaela, better than Edwards, despite his excellent stance on the issues.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 1:05 PM on 05 Feb 2008

look at the whole situation

I agree with you 100%. - I wish more people including environmentalist would view the whole picture. I know that its hard, to take everything into consideration. But we to improve on all levels, not just one.

I live in Northern Utah, near Wasatch Mountains base. despite the fact that many homes on the market are not sold, there is so many new houses and roads being built! All th land is being taken away from the nearby wildlife.

by javaearth at 1:12 PM on 05 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Obama's coal connections

Here's another little tidbit on the Obama camp's connections to coal. Did you know Obama's top energy and environment advisor, Bob Sussman, spent the bulk of his career as a lobbyist and lawyer with Latham & Watkins? L&W is, of course, the firm that represented coal and other energy interests at the time that they were influencing the Bush admin's mercury rule, NSR decisions and other items. (L&W basically ghost wrote the mercury rule, you'll recall, though Mr Sussman says his role in those issues was "peripheral.")

I learned about Mr Sussman's career when the Obama campaign sent Mr Sussman my way to talk about the Obama plan on climate change for a story on the fine public radio program (shameless plug) PRI's Living on Earth.
The campaign identified him as a "former EPA official under Pres. Clinton," which is true. Sussman was a Deputy Administrator at EPA for 2 years before Carol Browner apparently showed him the door. After leaving EPA he returned to L&W. He recently retired and is now a fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Here's the pertinent section from the piece on LOE this week:

> SUSSMAN: Well I don't think there's much of a connection there to worry about.
>
> YOUNG: Sussman himself, aside from working at the EPA, spent much of his career
> as a lobbyist and lawyer for the firm Latham and Watkins. The firm represented
> coal power companies in their attempts to influence Bush administration rules
> on mercury emissions and changes to the clean air act.
>
> SUSSMAN: That's true. I did work for different folks in the energy industry,
> and I don't consider that to be a bad thing, but it's not a factor at all in
> anything that I'm doing for Senator Obama now. Senator Obama's been very clear
> that he doesn't want lobbyists involved in his campaign. That's an excellent
> line to draw, but people who have worked for industry understand how industry
> works, and have expertise on these issues, have an awful lot to contribute and
> they should have a seat at the table along with everybody else.

The story's at PRI's Living on Earth:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P13-00 ...

cheers,
Jeff

comfort the afflicted; afflict the comfortable

by jyoungster at 2:24 PM on 05 Feb 2008

I'll say this about that...

Well, Latham and Watkins is bad bad bad. If we were talking about one or two others from L&W who served EPA under Bush, I'd be more upset...

The best I can say about Sussman (whom I do not know) is that these guys are chameleons -- they change their tunes to fit their masters. At least we know he's old enough that he's not going BACK to represent the industry -- that frees him from sucking up to his former buddies and pushing their point of view to Obama.

That's my positive spin. I fear we're seeing way too much kumbaya with the forces of darkness from Obama, but I'm willing to hope for the best.

by GreenMom at 3:06 PM on 05 Feb 2008

About Voting Machines...

The Good News (Really) About Voting Machines

by Adam Cohen, The New York Times
January 10th, 2007

Read the full Article at http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=64 ...

by brands at 4:13 PM on 05 Feb 2008

On the flipside

One would imagine that Obama would play much better for foreign policy.

Since it wouldn't be Bush Clinton Bush Bush Clinton.

And frankly, a lot of the peoples of the nations we're having trouble working with aren't light skinned.

And ultimately, Global Warming is going to require global cooperation.

by GreyFlcn at 4:27 PM on 05 Feb 2008

No argument there...

...GreyFlcn.

On balance I'd vote for Obama, based purely on electability in November, which is really what matters most. (Please please please let's not let Dem snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Honestly that would doom the planet.)

Both Obama and Clinton have their warts, but they'd both be vastly superior presidents to any of the Republicans. So let's go with the guy who's going to turn out the voters. Did you notice that in absolute numbers Democratic turnout has been bigger than Republican turnout in most states tonight (looks lik 11 or 12 of 14)? That's including several "red" states.

The rest of the world really liked Bill Clinton, so they'd be happy with Hillary -- but you're right, electing Obama would be a HUGE message to them that we really need to work together. Then all we'd have to do is keep him from giving away the store through too much compromise. :-)

by GreenMom at 9:42 PM on 05 Feb 2008

Supporting factory farming

Clinton lost much of my support when she hired a former pork producer lobby group executive to run her rural states campaign. I was a big fan of Kucinich and Edwards in part because they were both strongly against CAFOs (factory farms). Sorry to see them go.

by amc89 at 11:10 AM on 06 Feb 2008

Obama Supports Cycling, Transit and Smart Growth

Obama is the only candidate to state support for cycling, public transit and smart growth. These are real solutions, not alternative fuel fantasies.

by racc at 12:11 PM on 06 Feb 2008

Mike Gravel

I didn't know there were only two Democrats running! I seem to recall an American hero named Mike Gravel, who singlehandedly ended the draft and released the Pentagon Papers, was still in the race. Oh, well, might as well just forget about him because he's been labeled "unconventional"...

by inkabinkaboo182 at 12:51 PM on 06 Feb 2008

Hillary and Gravel

I know what you mean, AMC. There are a lot of things about Hillary that I like, but her insensitivity to our serious concerns about CAFOs is alienating.

Also, even though she won the NY primary yesterday, a number of progressive Catholics here have been strongly supporting Obama, I am sure in part out of repugnance for Hillary's hawkish history. And it is clear that Obama's promise of being a peacemaker is just about the most attractive element in his image for voters such as us.

In general, though, the NY congressional delegation -- Hillary, Chuck Schumer and, in this part of town, Charley Rangel -- are fairly good on animal issues, and vote correctly on legislation having to do with animal welfare.

Mike Gravel was not on the ballot here yesterday (though Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards were). That is a pity. I wish I knew more about him. As a joke, a few weeks ago I took that poll at ABC News designed to match you up with your ideal candidate, and my first choice -- to my surprise -- turned out to be Mike Gravel, with Kucinich coming in second and Edwards third.

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

by caniscandida at 1:36 PM on 06 Feb 2008

Obama is VERY different from Clinton. (Scary.)

Oh, come on, get real.
Obama supports a frighteningly HUGE increase in nuclear energy use, including adding hundreds of new nuclear facilities to our country- all the while knowing that our CURRENT facilities already suffer from vast security issues, and knowing that there is nowhere to dump the current waste.

He spoke about this at length in one of the many debates (that most haven't even watched)...

This fact should be listed on the "quick view" laundry list comparing the 2 candidates' positions, as its QUITE an important distinction between the 2, don't you think?

Obama also supports coal use, while refusing to sign the bill that would at least force miners to clean up the mess they leave behind after they're done stripping our Earth of what they need.

These facts are VERY important to people who actually care about our environment, and our Earth.
Clinton is very different in this regard, and strongly supports renewable/sustainable energies that COME from our Earth- namely, solar, wind, and water energy.

YOUNG PEOPLE: Please spend some time investigating the facts before rushing out to vote.
Which candidate concerns itself more with the health of our Earth, and- the health of the next 7 generations to come?
Change comes in all forms, and its usually wise to dig beneath the surface a bit for the truth.

by KFK at 6:25 AM on 08 Feb 2008

Barack and ethanol

Barack supports ethanol, that we now know doubles GHG emission over regular oil based gas guzzling. Another lobbyist friendly energy/GHG position. Along with supporting 100s of new nuclear and "clean" coal power plants.

Hillary has dissed all of these alternatives and has mentioned plugin hybrids in a favorable light.

Hillary, mother earth friendly and a green job FDR-like figure. She's no rock star. But that's a good thing.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 6:46 AM on 08 Feb 2008

2% a year will not get 80% by 2050

Hi,

danielbell says that we need 2% cuts in emissions per year to get to 80% cuts by 2050. This is a common misconception. It is 2% of todays emissions that he means. However, year on year, a 3.76% cut in emissions is needed (based on the 'compound interest' formula 100.0*(1 - E^((Log[(100 - 80)100])(2050 - 2008))). you can check by doing (100-3.76)^42.

However, there is mounting evidence that 80% by 2050 is woefully inadequate. If anyone has read the book Heat by George Monbiot (a well known writer on environment and social justice issues in the UK), they will be familiar with 90% by 2030, which is what he reckon's will be needed to avoid 'runaway' climate change. This is a 10% year on year cut. [He now actually reckons that even this will be inadequate, but best not to dwell on that!]

2050 is a too distant target. We need the biggest cuts soonest. Having a target so far in the future is dangerous in terms of people thinking we have plenty of time to deal with the issue. We need the biggest cuts soonest, because it is the total amount emitted that is important, not the eventual reduction in rate of emissions. I suggest 5% year on year maybe achievable politically, even though it may prove to fall short scientifically!

Ultimately, we need to reduce emissions to a level that is below the level that natural 'sinks' can deal with, so that the level of GHGs in the atmosphere actually diminishes (rather than just merely rising more slowly). We may already be beyond the safe limit - some are now touting 400ppm CO2e (we are currently at c. 430ppm CO2e). The problem is also that the sinks may be becoming saturated, so are themselves diminishing. 80% by 2050 is admirable, but unless the bulk of that 80% happens before 2020 or 2030 it won't be enough.

"I find it helpful to think of the three deadly C's. Cars, cattle and chain saws." - James Lovelock

by gcolbourn at 6:08 AM on 12 Feb 2008

Let's not forget...

An important thing to consider is the candidate's position on the issue of "pre-emptive" war, (and we should also ask how much power they are willing to give to the military, the Department of Homeland Security, and other such institutions). War and xenophobia have serious impacts on the environment-we must not forget this.
In this area, Obama looks slightly better than Clinton, but I was hoping for better yet.

Let the jaguars return!

by Storm Dragon at 9:51 AM on 12 Feb 2008

Which of the Dem candidates is greenest?

I definitely choose Obama, because of his consistent stand against invading Iraq. War, particularly modern war, is the surest way to destroy and pollute a country's environment, not to mention its people. Consider how beautiful Iraq was before the US ivaded it, and what a hell it is now. Furthermore, as a woman, I question how true Hillary's purported solidarity with women is, when she was willing to give Bush/Cheney the option to bomb the Iraqi women and their families out of their skulls?

by Roxanne at 12:27 PM on 12 Feb 2008

Ahh, the conspiracy theorists

who actually believe Hillary launched that war. Damn! It was only ONE vote off, and she told Bush to go ahead, and she did it on PURPOSE!!

LMFAO.

For my money, I'm choosing the candidate who has talked about addressing climate change as the next space race, and who has made her campaign carbon neutral.

I preferred Edwards on the environment, but Hillary was second. Obama, well, the Grist should know, he didn't bother to show up at the only forum (er, debate) where climate change was a major subject, since they sponsored it. Guess it's not a priority for him.

As for being closer than I like to nuclear and coal, well, he is. Way too close. One of Illinois's nuclear power providers was a major, and I mean major contributor.

Sorry folks, I'm voting as green as I can.

Go Hillary.

by greeniemeanie at 11:17 PM on 17 Feb 2008

Obama v. Hillary, from a different light

The folks at Daylife say Obama is digital, and Hillary is analog, which is the first thing I thought of when I read: "If you're a political junkie like me, all you can think about is the primary and the general election beyond" in this post.

by matthewmoore2 at 8:09 PM on 18 Feb 2008

Candidate's complicity?

I haven't seen any of the candidates take a position on our National Forests. I think that both parties just don't want to risk going against the new scientific truths regarding our forests today. This indecision isn't a good sign and even the greens don't have a handle on how to save our forests. Going against the scientific giants like Jerry Franklin isn't in the best interests of the Democrats. There's not a single candidate who knows what to do with this issue or is even willing to "go out on a limb".

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 9:54 PM on 18 Feb 2008

Hillary x Obama: Moral Courage, Integrity, Do

Professor Lawrence Lessig put together an extremely objective comparison between Hillary and Obama. Whether you are undecided, Hillary or even already an Obama supporter, it is well worth your 20 minutes. Watch it here

by eddieb at 10:05 PM on 19 Feb 2008

McCain & Obama's Campaigns

Please email Obama and McCain and tell them to make their campaigns carbon neutral. They talk a big game about environmental reform, but it is empty rhetoric if they don't take the lead in their campaigns.

Obama... http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

McCain... http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/

Washington Times Story... http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200 ...

www.greenpieceblog.com

by crumbrye at 8:46 AM on 20 Feb 2008

Hillary is a Guardian

who take public duty as sacred, Obama is an Idealist (no explanation needed), McCain is an Artisan and Promoteraccording to another web site.

http://www.slate.com/id/2184696/pagenum/all/#page_start

Psychobabble is never objective, and we need as little as possible during a campaign.

by greeniemeanie at 8:17 PM on 20 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

to greeniemeanie

greeniemeanie, please watch this video, a lucid comparison between hillary and obama then tell me WHO takes public duty as sacred, not as circumstances dictate.

by eddieb at 8:48 PM on 20 Feb 2008

Pure propaganda eddie

Twice, political spam I call it! Out damn bah-rock (star) spammer!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:56 PM on 20 Feb 2008

propaganda?

lawrence lessig, a harvard Law Professor is propaganda?

"Lessig announced that he will stop focusing his attention on copyright and related matters, and will instead work on corruption in the political system. This new work may be partially facilitated through his wiki -- "Lessig Wiki" -- which he has encouraged the public to use to document cases of corruption."

if that's propaganda then the world is upside down... Fox News is fair and balanced.

by eddieb at 10:42 AM on 21 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Obama on the Environment

This is exactly right. The environmental community needs to get serious about making Senator Obama accountable for his past votes on things like Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy bill that was written behind closed doors by lobbyists and did more damage to environmental progress than any recent piece environmental legislation. He might be a Democrat, but if he doesn't stand-up for the environment when it counts, he might as well be a Republican. Email Obama and tell him that every vote counts when it comes to environmental reform.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7&ur ...

by crumbrye at 7:10 PM on 21 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

eddieb

psychobabble is babble wrapped up in pshyological language.

yeah, Obama gives good speech. I am looking at issues.

by greeniemeanie at 9:26 AM on 22 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

amzingdrz

no, I did not refer to propaganda.

I referred to psychobabble.

Over the years, there have been plenty of eminent respected political scientists have used the way politicians have been potty trained to how they will govern. This is just another version.

A major grain of salt is required.

by greeniemeanie at 9:29 AM on 22 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Environmental Records of the Candidates

yes, let's get objective

Clinton gets a 73% (2007) 89% (2005-2006)
Obama 67% (2007), 96% (2005-2006)
McCain 0% (2007), 41% (2005-2006)

http://lcv.org/scorecard/

does this make clinton better on the environment than obama?

by eddieb at 2:48 PM on 25 Feb 2008

Why did no one vote for Kucinich?!

I wish Kucinich could have been president! He was the only canidate with real morals and real solutions for all our problems and he was a real environmentalist and animal rights advocate, not to mention a vegan. He's the only politician I trust. That being said, I voted for Clinton instead of Obama because, let's face it. Men have never done a good job as president. I would love to see a women president. By the way, the Ohio primary was my first vote ever! I'm only 17 but I can vote because I'll be 18 before November.

Stephanie GoVeg.com

by VeganCutie at 9:12 PM on 26 Apr 2008

Good for you vegan!

I voted for Hillary too. But I've given up on her now with all this negativity on her part.

Kucinich is great, he reminds me of a Hobbit. And as you remember from Tolkien, the Hobbits were chosen to destroy the ring of power because of their incorruptable nature. Absolute power would not corrupt them and take them over.

I think Kucinich will be a senator someday, he is just too great not to be. Incorruptability is a rare quality in politicians. Does barack have it?

Unfortunately I think Hillary has proven corruptable. But don't despair of a woman becoming president, I think we may see it happen sometime soon.

If you enter politics now at the grassroots you can run in 18 years. Power to the (young) people!!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:17 PM on 26 Apr 2008

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.