“Future generations will look back and wonder, what were we thinking? How could we possibly be so irresponsible?”
So begins a remarkable campaign commercial that may go down in significance with some of the memorable campaign themes of the past. In rolling this out, the Clinton campaign is declaring a “Moon Shot” effort to “make America the world’s Clean Energy Super Power.”
Goals for an ambitious program include:
– A half billion solar panels installed by the end of her first term.
– Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America within 10 years.
This does not have the flavor of a throwaway campaign slogan. The Campaign is placing a pretty big bet that this theme will resonate – and I think if it continues to be messaged like this, there’s a chance it will be.
Nothing here about a price on carbon, so if that’s part of what is promised to be an extensive discussion, it will be interesting to see how they roll it out.
UPDATE: Press coverage begins
The Clinton package is incomplete, however. Unlike her rivals in the Democratic presidential contest, Clinton has yet to take a position on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oil from the Canadian tar sands to Gulf Coast ports. She also has yet to weigh in on a campaign to ban hydraulic fracturing nationwide, or to take a firm position on offshore oil drilling.
The proposal Clinton released Sunday for boosting solar installations by 700% is vague on details about how it would be funded.
Clinton continues to enjoy a commanding lead among Democratic primary voters. She seems unconcerned by the more detailed and aggressive proposals offered by challengers within her party.
Clinton’s plan, which campaign officials said is just the first part of a larger platform that will be rolled out gradually, appeared to be aimed squarely at distinguishing her from Republicans.
In a campaign video detailing her plan, Clinton said, “It’s hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who would rather remind us they’re not scientists than listen to those who are.”
As Clinton speaks in the video, quotes from GOP candidates expressing skepticism that global warming is a real threat appear on the screen. Climate change has proved a challenging issue for Republican politicians, many of whom are critical of energy policies aimed at curbing it.
Polls show that most voters believe climate change is a real threat and they want action taken. But voters also rarely cite it as their top concern.
Inspiring speech – Republicans take note . . .
“A January poll found that 48 percent of Republicans were more likely to vote for a candidate who supports acting on climate change and the same percentage would be less likely to vote for a candidate that thought climate change was a hoax.”
The Most (And Least) Extreme Republican Presidential Candidates On Climate Change
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/26/3683808/gop-field-climate-energy-ranked/
I didn’t hear the words “Carbon tax” anywhere …
Hmm..
Of course you didn’t. Clinton’s strategists are earning their pay by advising her to get everyone’s attention and get them rolling in her direction before she asks them to swallow a “bitter pill”.
Or more correctly, to deny the right wing the opportunity to try to make it into a bitter pill by screaming “She wants to destroy the economy and send jobs overseas and put millions out of work”, as they usually do at any mention of a carbon TAX.
If and when the discussion reaches the “OK, AGW is a really big problem, WHAT DO WE DO now?” stage, the obvious (and correct) solution of a carbon tax will be rolled out.
Yet Clinton continues to take money from fossil fuel companies, be intimately tied to banks and agribusiness and shows no sign of interest or ability to do what’s necessary to solve the larger ecological crisis. Building clean renewable infrastructure is great, and is a major part of the solution. But it won’t do us much good if we don’t simultaneously shut down the fossil fuel industry, and that may be impossible without pissing off exactly the people Clinton apparently will depend on to win. We must dramatically reduce energy use using all levels of reduction—replacement, efficiency, WWII-style conservation and wiser, more ecological lives in addition to increased political and economic equality. People need to be told the truth about the deep changes we need to actually survive this multifaceted emergency.
Clinton’s plan on helping the working man is to give multinational corporations tax breaks in exchange for not sending jobs to China (at a time when tax rates are already very low for those guys). She’s also a war hawk and probably has plans to spend a few more trillion blowing up junk overseas. Washington leaks have already clued us in that they plan on sticking around in the ME for at least another decade or two. How is she going to pay for this new program?
Sanders in the primary.
Andrew,
I like Sanders (and Elizabeth Warren) a lot, and sent money to both of their earlier campaigns (even though Bernie didn’t really need it, considering his victory margins). I sign their petitions and send emails with regularity to support their various initiatives.
I also have had an “I’m ready for Hillary” sticker on the back of the van for several months, and have both sent $$$ to her campaign AND tried to influence her away from some of her positions that are more Repugnant and less Sanders-Warrenish—-one small voice among many, I hope.
IMO, Sanders is useful in that he will keep the heat on Clinton and perhaps pull her and the Democratic programs a little more off center and away from those things that worry you.
You may not be quite old enough to remember what Ross Perot did in 1992, but you surely remember what Nader did in 2000. Be careful what you wish for. If Bernie were to run as an independent of some sort and draw enough votes away from Hillary, we could end up with a Repugnant in the White House.
Hopefully Bernie steps down if he doesn’t get the nomination, but maybe Trump will go third party if he gets primaried. Or maybe I should vote for Trump in the primary to secure a Democratic win!
I still have hope that Americans are now mad enough at the establishment (the same college degree I got for $6,000 in the mid 90’s now costs $250,000 out here in CA at USC or USF; lack of wage growth; bankster bailouts w/o homeowner bailouts; one-payer health plan shunned for Obamacare; &c.) that Bernie will give Hillary a good fight.
“Or maybe I should vote for Trump in the primary to secure a Democratic win!”
If it comes to a choice between voting for Bernie in the Democratic primary or voting for Trump in the Republican, you will face a dilemma. If you “waste” a vote on Bernie and Hillary wins big in the primary, what have you accomplished? If, on the other hand, you cross over and vote for Trump and he wins (or gets enough votes to weaken the eventual Repug nominee in the eyes of the voters), you can help keep a Repug out of the White House. (If Trump manages to get elected president, I’m heading to NZ to move into redskylite’s basement). I crossed over once long ago in the VA primary, and I did so specifically to vote for a weak Repug candidate and undermine the stronger candidate—-the VA Democratic party asked us to do it, and the Repugs screamed bloody murder, but it was legal and almost worked.
Americans should now be mad enough at the establishment that they will push Hillary closer to Bernie without the need for a “good” fight. My education back in the late 50’s to late 60’s didn’t cost me $6000 for a Bachelor’s and Master’s and enough additional post-grad work to add up to more than a second Master’s. College costs have risen way faster than inflation, and it’s unconscionable—-could it be a plot by the plutocracy to keep all but their own children from being able to afford a higher education?
Play with this—-houses and cars have not gone the way of college costs:
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
“Yet Clinton continues to….” (refuse to put on the hair shirt and flagellate herself at the very beginning of the campaign in order to satisfy the juvenile lefties that think sitting around bonfires on the beach with bongo drums and chanting meditation mantras is the solution).
Clinton is a politician, jeffy, in case you hadn’t noticed, and all too many of them in both parties are guilty of “…tak(ing) money from fossil fuel companies, (being) intimately tied to banks and agribusiness and show(ing) no sign of interest or ability to do what’s necessary to solve the larger ecological crisis” (although Clinton’s stance on climate change here gives us hope on that last one). The real “crisis” in this country is the need for campaign finance reform. Until we take back the country from the dirty money folks who have hijacked the democratic process, we will NEVER make much progress. What are YOU doing to overturn Citizens United?
I am glad that you got that little rant off your chest and were able to finish your comment more strongly, with an acceptance of the need to get elected before you can hope to accomplish anything much, and some closing sentences that “speak truth” (even if they sound like a juvenile version of William Jennings Bryan’s Cross of Gold speech).
wolf-pac.com
As I said on the related thread, this is powerful stuff, and the nay-sayers who are saying “but-but” need to get behind the program.
IMO, The most significant parts of this post are these:
“Future generations will look back and wonder, what were we thinking? How could we possibly be so irresponsible?…a remarkable campaign commercial that may go down in significance with some of the memorable campaign themes of the past…This does not have the flavor of a throwaway campaign slogan. The Campaign is placing a pretty big bet that this theme will resonate – and I think if it continues to be messaged like this, there’s a chance it will be”.
“Clinton’s plan, which campaign officials said is just the FIRST PART of a LARGER PLATFORM THAT WILL BE ROLLED OUT GRADUALLY, appeared to be aimed squarely at distinguishing her from Republicans”.
“In a campaign video detailing her plan, Clinton said, “It’s hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who would rather remind us they’re not scientists than listen to those who are.”
We should get behind the candidate who has the best chance of beating the Repugnant, and not be sounding like the opposition with “but-buts”, at least not in public where the right wing will seize on it and try to make something of it. Dissension in the ranks should be encouraged on the Repugnant side, and it WILL be interesting if Clinton’s strong position on climate change causes some of them to “listen to the scientists” and they go for each other’s throats in their “debates”.
PS Forgot to say that the screen shot of the quotes from the mindless Repug candidates is priceless and could be a single panel in a Doonesbury strip. I smile every time I see it.
It’s about a million times better than anything the Republicans are saying, but it reminds me of a sort of “chicken in every pot” campaign promise.
Her actual policies that she has outlined (so far) are pretty timid. I don’t see how they will get us to a 33% renewable mix by 2027 on their own. The outlined policies I’ve found are: extend renewable incentives, keep President Obama’s executive orders in place, allow renewables on public land, and offer rewards for R&D advances. It’s all pretty half-arsed stuff as yet with absolutely no tangible indication it won’t be just a continuation of the “all of the above” approach.
She’s giving a speech later today. Maybe there will be some meat in there with the campaign promises.
The election is 15+ months away and we’re already knocking down the little old lady so we can get up front and shout “Where’s the beef?” in her place?.
I’d like to concentrate on the “It’s about a million times better than anything the Republicans are saying”. Everyone needs to get involved in sending messages to the Dems about how they need to “get more tangible”. Start by sending $$$ to the Clinton campaign, the DNC, DSSC, DCCC, and the various environmental PACS—Sierra Club, LCV, UCS, EDF, Greenpeace, et al—-they will then ask your opinions and perhaps listen to them (especially if you send more money and do it often). When you get a survey, list “combating AGW” as your top priority.
Talking only to others like ourselves on Crock won’t get it done.
DOG – every campaign cycle we get fed a load of BS from every candidate, and every time we eat it like it’s candy. We never learn. All I’m asking for is substance behind the promise. If she does that, I’ll support her then. I already support those that have earned my trust.
And if she doesn’t come up with enough “substance” to satisfy people and earn their full “trust”, will they “show her” by voting for Sanders as an Independent (if he formally runs) or write-in (if he doesn’t). He will perhaps have “earned trust” because he has said certain things, but those things may make him unelectable in the greater picture.
You and I have been in strong agreement in the past about the fact that humans seem to “never learn” about many things. My point was simply that shooting off one’s toes by allowing a Repugnant to sneak into the presidency (as Bush did because of Nader) is not smart. Even if Clinton doesn’t move far enough fast enough, I would rather have her (and her assistant president Bill) in the White House than any of the Repugnants.
Obama was a bit of a Trojan Horse for business and hope and change were slow in coming, but I’m still glad I voted for him both times. Can you imagine what would have happened if McCain keeled over and Palin took over? Or how much more the plutocracy and corporatocracy would own the country if Romney had won? Lesser of two evils, etc, and I have hopes that “good” Hillary will win out over her “evil” more-right-leaning sister.
Yes, we are in disagreement here, and we won’t see eye to eye on this issue.
I’m a strong believer in “one person, one vote” democracy. Included in that, as you also strongly believe, is that we have to eradicate the money issue in campaigns. But beyond this, the principle also applies to voting for the ONE candidate that most accurately represents that person’s political values. Any one person is NOT in charge of deciding who wins, or who doesn’t win. Their job is to vote for the candidate that represents them.
We have a myth in America that reinforces the two-party system. If I had two wishes for democracy in America: the first would be real campaign finance reform, and the second would be to blow the two-party system to pieces. It’s NOT serving us – it’s only working to send us deeper and deeper into the hole.
The myth exists, though, and we continue to insist that it’s the only choice we have. in a self-reinforcing feedback loop.
Okay, secondly, we’ll never have a period in the U.S. where one party ALWAYS wins the general election. We’re far, far too stupid a people to see that, and we’ve never seen it in the past except for one brief exception with FDR and Truman (a rather remarkable period in history).
Having said that, there ARE benefits to having the other party win. It’s a very reliable pattern that the incumbent President loses the Congress within 2-4 years. If Hillary wins, I don’t see how the Democrats gain back Congress at all, as all the blame in the nation will continue to be piled on the party on top by a dull-witted populace. Additionally, the party in power eventually gets swept aside by this blame. If the incumbent did a horrible job, as Bush II did, we get a brief period of full control by the opposing party. Call it a consolation prize, sure, but it’s the bigger picture of American politics.
I know from a prior comment that you only voted for Obama the first time because of Palin. And I rather seem to think the forces of plutocracy haven’t lost ground in the Obama administration.
I would never vote for a Republican, or ever support one, unless they suddenly switched course and reflected my own political values – which is highly unlikely. I support those that have earned my support, and promises without substance, especially from a candidate who has a very long track record of questionable political values, won’t cut it.
Now, I won’t decide who wins the DNC nomination. I don’t see how Clinton doesn’t win it, though. But, say I lived in a swing state (I don’t), and say it was Hillary Clinton vs. Ted Cruz, but a third party best represented my political values. Then, and only then, would I vote for the “lesser of two evils”.
I don’t accept that we are in all THAT much disagreement here—-I can’;t really dispute anything you’ve said very strongly. IMO, we are just looking at it through slightly different perceptual screens and filtering each others comments through them as well. We’ve gotten into semantics and navel-gazing a bit too much.
I would paraphrase a bit and say that it has unfortunately in many cases come down to voting AGAINST the ONE candidate “that most opposes that person’s political values” as much as it is voting FOR anyone, since. as you say, they are all flawed. The job of the intelligent voter who is in touch with the reality of 2015 American politics is, yes, to vote first for the candidate that represents them, but also to vote against the one who doesn’t—-IF that is the winning strategy.
You are being a bit dramatic when you say “…(if) it was Hillary Clinton vs. Ted Cruz, but a third party best represented my political values. Then, and ONLY then, would I vote for the “lesser of two evils”.
If it was Hillary versus Slimeball Ted, even I would perhaps vote for a third party candidate, since there is NO chance Cruz could win against her. Unless too many of us voted third party a la 1992 or 2000, or is that a circular argument?.
We need one of the morons like Omno to chip in here so that we can really go in circles. LOL
PS It is true that I did support McCain early on, and Palin totally ruined any chance I would vote for him, but I DID start to like Obama on his merits as the campaign progressed (and DID think that Hillary was a DINO in many ways so didn’t vote for her in the primary). I am pretty much a straight Democratic ticket voter, and it would have been a real hard switch to vote for him even if McCain had come up with a real VEEP candidate rather than Caribou Barby.
The cleverest politicians will say a lot of good-sounding stuff that can mean almost opposite things to different people.
Those are the ones that get elected.
Putting extreme specifics onto relatively controversial policies will reduce the number of people willing to support them. So you might get some more meat, but you can expect a lot more fluff to go with it, because that’s politics.
dog
you support the Sanders campaign, but you say we should all send money to Clinton?? What if she loses and decides to run as an Independent? That would elect a Rethuglican, right? [see what I did there?]
Here in Vermont, we have the pleasant experience of watching Bernie win lots and lots of elections. Maybe you should have a little more faith, stop impugning the man ( he can’t win; he’s going to lose and then run as an Independent) and get behind a candidate with the better policies and a record of doing exactly as he says?!? The guy drawing 10,000+ people to speeches.
A candidate, by the fucking way, with large appeal to Republican voters as well as Democrats and Progressives – unlike Hillary, who almost everyone actually dislikes. I’d bet Sanders” positives among Republicans area significant share of Hillary’s negatives among them (which is about 100%?). If Sanders wins the primary, he will win the general election in a landslide.
Can’t you at least support they guy until the primary? Sheesh!
I said “We need one of the morons like Omno to chip in here so that we can really go in circles”. We didn’t get a “moron like Omno”, though—-we instead got the ever-opinionated philosopher king-drummer-photographer Gingerbaker. Since he sounds as if he has been into the maple syrup vodka a little, we CAN “go in circles” a bit longer.
[see what I did there?], he says? Yep, a bit of an overreach, but part of the circularity of this whole discussion. If Hillary loses the primaries and and Bernie is the Democratic candidate in November of 2016, logic requires that I and everyone else who has a brain and cares for the future of the country should vote for him with great enthusiasm—–so that the Repugnant candidate (whoever it may be) can be defeated.
I’m really glad you and the other Vermonters have such fun turning out for Bernie—-and you have MOOSE up there to entertain you also! Don’t assume that the rest of the country will follow—there’s an awful lot of red and purple out there. IMO, at the present time, Hillary can take my state of VA in 2016, but Bernie would not—that may change. I’ll assume it’s the fermented and distilled maple syrup talking when you talk about Bernie’s “…large appeal to Republican voters as well as Democrats and Progressives – unlike Hillary, who ALMOST EVERYONE actually dislikes…” and “…If Sanders wins the primary, he will win the general election in a landslide”. A bit of overheated OPINION and hyperbole there (unless you can come up with some citations to support it).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/reason-1-to-vote-bernie-sanders_b_7863524.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/245937-the-bernie-sanders-phenomenon
WOW! Wind GB up and watch him go! (Be sure to lube with 100% pure Vermont maple syrup vodka). A veritable Gish Gallop of what GB WANTS to believe rather than objective truth. A quote from one of his two “citations”
“Most everything that is written or said at this point in the campaign needs to be taken as hyperbole, since it is really early and the time when inaugural events of the season receive the enthusiasm of base support that overstates broad acceptance”.
Got that, GB—-it’s HYPERBOLE—-sound familiar? And the proof of the pudding is the fact that TRUMP is leading all other Repugnants by a 2 to 1 margin.
The other citation is a HuffPost article about the recent Quinippiac poll, and you need to read what Daily KOS had to say about that.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/22/1404606/-Yeah-about-that-Quinnipiac-poll
The media is in a frenzy, and they are doing the dirty work for the Repugnants by emphasizing Hillary’s negatives. And GB is sucking it up at this early stage. Too bad. He does Bernie, Hillary, and the country no favors.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/03/1390254/-POLL-finds-80-of-Republicans-AGREE-with-BERNIE-SANDERS
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/28/gop-should-run-scared-as-bernie-sanders-appeal-expands-toward-traditional-gop-voters/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395700/-Republicans-for-Bernie-Sanders
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3e0gh0/why_sanders_appeals_to_republican_voters/
Sanders’ negatives half (or less) than Clintons:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx
To be fair tho – half of voters still have never heard of him