Hillary Clinton is Taking Democrats Backward on Climate Change

When Barack Obama announced his Presidential campaign in Springfield, Illinois he spoke of climate change.

Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil. We can harness homegrown, alternative fuels like ethanol and spur the production of more fuel-efficient cars. We can set up a system for capping greenhouse gases. We can turn this crisis of global warming into a moment of opportunity for innovation, and job creation, and an incentive for businesses that will serve as a model for the world. Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here.

Obama was the first major party nominee for President who made climate change a central theme included in every major campaign speech. He even showed politicians how to make it sound poetic. It helped elect him twice. Climate change or clean energy policy was a significant portion of every State of the Union address. That's something environmentalists should celebrate for what it says about the electoral appeal of the issue.

Nearly seven weeks after she announced her campaign for President, Hillary Clinton has yet to make a noticeable statement on climate change. At her first campaign speech in South Carolina Wednesday she didn't mention it all, despite the threat of more hurricanes hitting the state.

The best gesture for the climate movement so far is a tweet from an adviser. It's a disappointing step backward from having climate take center stage.

It's a risky move since Clinton already has a credibility problem on climate. Her most significant actions to date are promoting fracking as Secretary of State and allowing oil industry influence to corrupt the state department process on Keystone XL pipeline. The climate crisis requires bold, aggressive action against entrenched corporate special interests, which isn't a style of politics Clinton is known for.

Clinton will probably have an easy time getting endorsements from beltway green groups hoping to gain influence. But as Pat Quinn learned in Illinois, and Mark Udall learned in Colorado, promoting regulated fracking is a tough sell to environmental voters no matter what endorsements a candidate can brag about. Without a major change to her campaign, primary voters will be forced to look elsewhere for a climate champion.

After making a joke in South Carolina about coloring her hair, Clinton claimed, "you're not going to see me shrink from a fight." But so far, she's ducking the most urgent fight of our time.

Fracking subsidies cut in budget deal

I read at Think Progress how the federal budget deal isn't great news for clean energy, but it does eliminate funding for a fossil fuel subsidy program, the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Research Program. None of the articles I read provided details so I did a little googling.

It turns out that a focus of this program, created by the Bush administration, is to promote fracking. It sought to advance extraction with new methods in new areas, including gas shales, and coalbed methane.  For examples, check here, here and here. It pays for research projects which allow the industry to increase their profits at taxpayer expense.

Woohoo! This won't stop fracking, but it's worth celebrating that the budget agreement would end a program that uses tax dollars to promote a highly destructive, controversial process.

Obama has repeatedly called for ending much bigger oil industry subsidies but it doesn't seem to get much press coverage in between all the ads for oil companies, cars, and gas stations. Go figure.

John Shimkus, Rodney Davis team up to show hypocrisy on energy prices

Congressman Rodney Davis usually does a good job of sounding vaguely moderate, even when he's pursuing extremely conservative policies, so I'm a little surprised to see him co-author an energy editorial in a Champaign newspaper with his mentor, former boss, and national punchline for anti-science extremism, John Shimkus.

Shimkus and Davis joined forces for an editorial to let you know they oppose new carbon regulation proposed by Obama's EPA because it may result in rate increases. They neglect to mention their record of supporting large rate increases, as long as the money is going to the coal industry.

Shimkus enthusiastically supports the new Prairie State coal plant that resulted in rate increases of 30% or more for municipalities and co-ops that invested in the Peabody project. He continued to brag about his support for Prairie State, claiming it provides "affordable power" and was a "smart investment" even after the hidden costs hit consumers. Wind power would have been a safer investment to keep rates low. Rate increases for a coal plant earned praise from Shimkus despite his opposition to the supposed "job-killing" rate increases that might be caused by EPA protecting human health.

Shimkus and Davis both lobbied extensively for Tenaska's coal plant proposed in Taylorville, Illinois. They requested federal support from the same energy loan program they attacked when it financed Solyndra. The loan program is good for coal, bad for solar, according to Davis and Shimkus.

Tenaska admitted their coal plant would raise electric rates, which is why their bill to mandate hikes was opposed by the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. An Illinois Commerce Commission study found that the plant's energy prices would be significantly above the market rate for both wind and nuclear power. Davis and Shimkus continued their support of the plant, despite knowing it would raise rates.

Davis and Shimkus remain perfectly consistent. Rate increases and taxpayer subsidies are good for coal, and bad for clean energy.

It's also interesting to note that Davis continued his dance of questioning (but not explicitly denying) the scientific consensus that man-made pollutants are driving the climate crisis. The Davis/Shimkus line that "temperatures rise and fall over time" is an obvious reference to the natural cycles argument used by climate change deniers. They don't acknowledge that the coal industry is the top source of man-made pollutants leading to climate change impacts on the regional economy, such as interrupting river barge traffic and deterioration of Illinois cropland.

A major goal of climate change denier groups is to spread just enough doubt about man-made pollutants causing the problem that the public will hesitate to support policies that could lead to rate increases. Davis' strategy of focusing on potential rate increases while treating the science as an unsettled question is copy and pasted from the Exxon/Koch Brothers playbook.

Davis objected last month when the League of Conservation Voters ran an ad calling out his pattern of refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus. His spokesperson complained that Davis was taken out of context when he repeated the claim made in a discredited article that climate change stopped 16 years ago. But, he still didn't say Davis disagreed with the misleading statement he chose to bring up, and now he's back to spreading natural cycles nonsense. Clearly, the LCV ad accurately reflects Davis' position as a denier, despite his spokesperson's attempt to nitpick inconsequential details of how it was worded.

Rodney Davis knows that a majority of the 13th Congressional district won't support an anti-science zealot like his mentor, John Shimkus. He also knows the Republican base demands the Tea Party position of denying climate change. I'm curious to see how long Davis can continue walking this tightrope without giving a plain answer on where he stands.

Congressman Bill Enyart doesn't want help from environmentalists or Obama supporters

I received another fundraising email today from freshman Democratic Congressman Bill Enyart. As it turns out, he doesn't want my money after all. He made that very clear in his public statement promising to fight Obama's climate change agenda.

“As co-chairman of the Congressional Coal Caucus, I will work tirelessly against any proposed new federal mandates that will increase our energy costs, and decimate our Southern Illinois coal industry in the process. 

Do you know what actually caused a large electric rate increase in his district? The new Prairie State coal plant. New coal costs more than wind power. What's hurting the economy in his district lately? Record drought, extreme flooding, and not being able to move barge traffic along the Mississippi.

I understand the politics of Enyart's district in southern Illinois coal country. I also know that, despite the coal industry's dominance over local press and politicians, there are many voters who understand why relying on a coal economy keeps southern Illinois poor, just like West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. No region is going to prosper by waiting for the mines to re-open. Southern Illinois deserves a Congressman with the courage to help build a new energy economy instead of selling the empty promise of coal.

Clearly, Enyart believes the coal industry is more important to his re-election effort than environmentalists and Obama supporters. He doesn't need our donations or volunteer efforts. I'm going to reply to his fundraising email by letting him know that he should direct it to coal industry executives and hope they pull through for him.

If someone isn't willing to tackle a problem that threatens the homes, jobs and lives of millions of people then I don't understand why they're in public office. Organizing for America has been targeting Republicans who won't take action on climate change. But, it was fossil fuel Democrats who stopped the cap-and-trade bill from getting a vote in the Senate. This problem will be solved when Democrats are forced to accept that they can oppose action on climate change or they can get re-elected. But they can't do both.

Clinton Presidential library provides contrast to Obama's transformative Presidency

Last month, I visited the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock. It was my second visit since its opening in 2004 so it was nice to see it again, this time with completed grounds and the nearby Heifer International headquarters. It's worth a visit if you haven't been.

While walking through the exhibits, I thought back to Obama's comments during the '08 primary about the need for a more transformative presidency. He argued the Democratic party needs a President like Reagan, who changed the trajectory of American politics, as opposed to someone like Bill Clinton, who did not.

Some liberal blogs and Hillary Clinton's campaign tried to gin up outrage by accusing Obama of praising Reagan's conservative agenda. But, when touring the Clinton Library, it's easy to see what Obama really meant.

Most of the accomplishments Bill Clinton brags about were undone within a year of George W. Bush taking office.

The Clinton budget surplus became Bush's record deficits. Responsible fiscal and tax policies that were more fair to the middle-class were scrapped for Paris Hilton tax cuts and government run on credit card debt. Strong job growth gave way to the Bush recession. His reduction in the crime rate ended as soon as the next recession hit. A time of relative peace and good relations with most of the world was squandered by Bush's war of aggression that made the United States more hated than it has ever been.

In contrast, the damaging aspects of the Clinton Presidency are more enduring. Trade agreements destroyed the American manufacturing sector. Clinton's lending and financial deregulation, done near the end of his Presidency, contributed to the housing mortgage collapse. Deregulation left the media in the hands of a few mega-corporations, limiting the diversity of viewpoints in news and homogenizing American culture. All of these were touted as accomplishments in the Clinton Library.

Plus, one can't ignore Clinton's adoption of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, his failure to take meaningful action on climate change, and his lack of effort in pushing for universal health care after the '93 failure. The truth is that Obama isn't just cleaning up Bush's mess. He's also fixing the damage done by Clinton.

If Obama's first-term accomplishments are defended against future efforts to dismantle them, they will profoundly change America. Consider:

• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
• Obamacare
• Reducing dependence on oil 
• Saved the US auto industry from collapse and pushed them to modernize their gas-guzzling fleet
• Most significant re-regulation of Wall Street, lending, and credit cards since the New Deal
• Largest investment in clean energy and efficiency projects in American history 
• Ended a war, began deescalation of another, and reduced the world's nuclear weapons stockpile
• Taking student loans back from the banks
• Half a dozen EPA rule changes that will reduce pollution from coal

These are accomplishments progressives spent years fighting for; that previous Presidents have attempted and failed to achieve. The impact of these actions will be felt decades from now. If Obama deals with climate change, he can easily be listed among the most effective Presidents in American history.

The difference can also be seen in how Obama advocates for progressive ideals. Obama often pushes progressive proposals in language that appeals to moderates. The fact that he's still advancing progressive ideals is sometimes lost on the netroots, who would rather be pandered to with fiery Kucinich-style speeches.

In contrast, Clinton sold conservative agenda items like welfare reform, financial deregulation, and free trade in language that appeals to Democrats. Obama introduces agenda items that challenge Congress to move left. Clinton split the difference between the two parties while pulling Congressional Democrats rightward.

Clinton's approach enabled conservatives to build momentum and boosted Green Party membership. Much as Reagan did for conservatism, Obama's approach is laying the foundation for a generation of progressive change.

Political junkies are already talking about who Democrats will run for President in 2016. Many feel that beating Republicans is the most important priority, even if it means electing someone similar to Bill Clinton whose primary appeal is being an electable alternative to the Republican candidate.

The Clinton/Obama contrast highlights what Americans lose by electing a Democratic President who's merely less damaging than a Republican. We squander 4-8 years that could be spent accomplishing much more. The negative consequences of electing a place holder are felt for years, while the benefits are short lived.

Five Favorite Lincoln Books

With all the attention on Lincoln following the movie release, I decided to update and repost my five favorite Lincoln books.

Like many Springfield residents, I make a hobby of studying Abraham Lincoln. I blame my mother, who gave tours at Lincoln historic sites and dragged me to Civil War battlefields for family vacations. I got in the habit of recommending biographies during the summer I worked in the Lincoln Home historic site bookstore. Some friends think I’m a freakishly knowledgeable expert on Lincoln but Springfield is full of enthusiasts who know far more. Of the Lincoln books I've read, these are the top five I like to recommend.

1) Lincoln by David Herbert Donald
While working at the Lincoln Home bookstore many people asked me to recommend a good general book on his life. Each one has its pluses and minuses but I recommend this as the best modern one-volume biography by a preeminent Lincoln scholar. It’s easy to read, comprehensive, and well researched. It has fairly been called the authoritative Lincoln biography of this generation.


2) Lincoln’s Preparation for Greatness by Paul Simon
Endless books have been written about Lincoln’s life and Presidency, but like Barack Obama, the majority of his time in elected office was spent in the Illinois State Legislature. Former Illinois Senator, Congressman, and State Representative Paul Simon examines Lincoln’s state legislative career in exhaustive detail. So much so that some chapters are best read to cure sleepless nights.

But those who finish it will be rewarded with unique insights. It covers Lincoln’s role in moving the state Capital to Springfield, his strong support for the disastrous program of internal improvements, his relationship with abolitionists like the Lovejoy’s, his performance as a legislative leader, why he jumped out the window during one session, and his career-long rivalry with Stephen Douglas. In the process you’ll learn much about Illinois’ early political history that shaped what Lincoln and the state would eventually become.

Other biographies don't mention that the Sangamon County Sheriff confiscated Lincoln's horse saddle for payment of a debt the day he was to depart for a legislative session. His letter about the justness of a property tax that targets the wealthy adds insight into his later advocacy for a progressive income tax. Incidentally, Lincoln introduced a resolution to ban smoking in the chambers during session. It’s a wonder that no one invoked his name during the indoor smoking ban debate.

If Lincoln ran for President today his state legislative career would be examined as closely as journalists have studied Obama’s record in the same body. Instead, we had to wait for Paul Simon to give that period of Lincoln’s life the treatment it deserves. This book is essential for anyone who wants a more comprehensive understanding of Lincoln's political views, character and career than what you'll get from studying his Presidential years. It also makes a great gift for incoming members of the Illinois General Assembly.



3) A. Lincoln: The Crucible of Congress by Paul Findley
Much like Lincoln’s Preparation for Greatness, I enjoyed this book because it shines a spotlight on a period of Lincoln’s career that is often glossed over. Written by a former Illinois Congressman, it focuses on Abe’s single term in Congress.

I sometimes wonder if his Congressional term is so frequently overlooked, despite it being Lincoln’s only experience in federal politics prior to being President, because his most notable act was his outspoken opposition to the Mexican-American War. There are times in American history when it’s politically inconvenient to remember that our most popular President was strongly against foreign wars of aggression and gave multiple speeches haranguing President Polk for misleading Congress about his justifications for war. The Lincoln Presidential Museum, built during the Bush years, is conspicuously silent on Lincoln's term in Congress.

Besides the war issue, Findley covers Lincoln’s relationships with his contemporaries, how he was viewed by others, his admiration for Henry Clay, the interesting way he secured the Congressional nomination for himself after years of effort, the role religion played in his campaign against a fiery Methodist preacher, and the friendships he formed in Washington that would help him as President. As a bonus, it’s full of pictures of Lincoln’s contemporaries, political cartoons, documents and more. Even seasoned Lincoln and Illinois history fans will find provocative new perspectives. You can't fully understand what he did as President without understanding what he learned before he became President.

I provided the link above to purchase the book online, but your best bet for finding a more affordable copy is at the Lincoln Home Historic Site bookstore. They have a secret stash if you know to ask.


4) Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin
When focusing on such an iconic figure it's easy to lose sight of the broader political context in which Lincoln operated. Team of Rivals provides a fresh perspective on Lincoln’s Presidency by focusing on his relationship with the people who served in his cabinet, including Presidential rivals. Goodwin helped me better understand Lincoln's leadership style and how his actions were influenced by the political scene of his time. It won the Pulitzer Prize, along with mountains of other praise, and a section of it served as the inspiration for the new Spielberg film. It lives up to the hype.

President Obama is known to be a student of Lincoln's life so it's fun for history and political nerds to speculate on how that influences Obama's leadership style. The most obvious parallel is between William Seward and Hillary Clinton. Both were New York Senators, better known party leaders, and primary campaign rivals once considered front-runners for the Presidential nomination. Both were asked to serve as Secretary of State. Seward felt he was better qualified and more deserving to be President than the inexperienced rube from Illinois, but grew to greatly admire Lincoln. One can only speculate if Clinton felt the same.

After reading Goodwin’s book I read The Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield by Kenneth Ackerman. It provided an interesting sequel because some of the young up and comers during Lincoln’s Presidency, who Goodwin mentions in her book, became national leaders during the post-reconstruction era politics covered in Ackerman’s book. Much in the same way Goodwin focuses on those Lincoln interacted with, Dark Horse focuses on the political leaders and rivalries that led to Garfield’s upset election and contributed to the environment that resulted in his assassination. It was interesting to read how Lincoln and the Civil War still dominated politics 20 years later and how an assassination made a generation of leaders reevaluate how they played the ugly game of politics.



5) Herndon’s Life of Lincoln by William Herndon
This biography by Lincoln’s law partner was required reading for John Y. Simon’s Illinois History class at SIUC. As a Lincoln contemporary, Herndon had his own biases that can be called into question, such as his dislike for Mary Todd, but it remains the early work by which all later Lincoln biographies are judged.

Obama has no second term climate change agenda

Well, that was a bit of a surprise. First, I was surprised when a journalist asked President Obama about climate change during the press conference today. It would have been nice to hear those questions during the campaign, but better late than never.

I was surprised again by Obama's answer, which was basically that he hasn't yet developed a plan to deal with climate change in his second term. He said he would speak to scientists, members of Congress and others to develop one.

Obama bragged about his first term accomplishments, which he has a right to do. He did a great deal with little support from Congress. He's the best clean energy President in American history X10. But, as Obama acknowledges, there's a lot more work to do.

Obama's campaign focused on his record. He said very little about what more he would do on most issues, including climate change. I didn't expect that meant he had no plan though.

The optimistic way of looking at this is that he's listening, and he's going to spend some time listening to the right people. That means it's a good idea for everyone to make some noise.

The pessimistic view is that he repeated the framing of polluting industries that we may have to choose between slowing climate change and creating jobs. There's no merit to that point anymore. Green jobs were the most successful part of the stimulus bill. Building new sources of clean energy, new mass transit, and improving efficiency creates more jobs than keeping old coal plants running. That tired old argument shouldn't be something we're still struggling with.

I missed the beginning, but my impression is that Obama was confident and aggressive on every question during the press conference, until he was asked about climate change. It seemed like he really doesn't know what to do. I hope there's some follow up from the White House because that was disconcerting.

Help me, EPA, you're my only hope!

I was disappointed during the election when many environmental writers downplayed the role of Environmental Protection Agency regulation on coal. It was a timid response to the "war on coal" hype.

Sure, there's not exactly a war on coal. There's a war to save modern civilization as we know it from climate change disasters. The coal industry just happens to be on the pro-ending-modern-civilization side.

The argument downplaying EPA action bothered me. First, because I think it was somewhat disingenuous. You can't honestly go from bragging one week about how many proposed coal plants activists have stopped, often by using EPA regulation as a tool, and the next week pretending the movement doesn't exist. It's the kind of defensive, weak-kneed messaging that gives tree-huggers and liberals a bad reputation. The low price of natural gas may be the bigger factor in determining the future of coal, but compliance with regulation is an important part of the cost/benefit analysis companies do when making decisions about building or retiring coal plants.

That rhetorical retreat was troubling because EPA may be our last best hope of dealing with carbon pollution during the next 2-4 years. The climate change movement will be forced to rediscover their conviction to cheer EPA action as a positive.

It's not hard to see why. The House is still controlled by a Republican majority in the pockets of oil and coal. Even though most of them campaigned on being bipartisan, they made similar promises in 2008. We saw how that turned out.

The Senate has a small Democratic majority, but the Democratic caucus still includes fossil fuel Senators like Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin. Plus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems uninterested in exposing oil and coal Democrats to controversial votes. He refused to bring cap-and-trade to the floor two years ago because it didn't have 60 votes to pass, but then allowed three failed votes on stripping EPA authority to limit carbon emissions.

So, a big legislative solution like cap-and-trade is about as realistic as "clean coal." I've seen suggestions about a carbon tax. As much as Congressional Republicans hate the idea of any tax increase, I can only imagine the category 5 hissy fit they would throw over a tax increase to deal with a problem they won't even admit exists. I'd be happy to see someone try, but I won't hold my breath.

What I'll hold out small hope for in Congress is another jobs bill focused on energy efficiency, improving the grid, and promoting renewables. That was the best part of the stimulus bill, and we need another big round of green jobs spending in term II. Preferably, they should target spending in coal regions to offset job losses.



That leaves us with the authority a previous, more functional Congress already granted EPA to limit air pollutants. Obama moved forward with expanded EPA protections after Congress failed to act during his first two years in office. Some regulations have been stalled, like CSAPR. That needs to be completed along with better rules on mountaintop removal, coal ash, and air emissions like carbon.

My number one hope for Obama's second term is that he moves forward much more aggressively with EPA limits on deadly coal pollution.

Combine that with Obama's campaign comments and this is what a second term energy policy could look like:

• Renewed effort to cut oil subsidies.
• More spending on energy efficiency.
• Extending clean energy production tax credit.
• More mass transit spending through transportation budget.
• Renewed call for a clean energy portfolio standard.
• Hopefully combine that with more aggressive air regulation and a green jobs bill to speed up the transition to new energy sources.

That plan may be better than a cap-and-trade bill filled with special deals for oil and coal lobbyists.

Of course, even that won't be easy because major pieces would still require Congressional action. During the next four years, environmentalists and progressives will have to work out whether they can play a role in promoting positive action by Obama and EPA, or whether they will limit themselves to nursing every disappointment, as so many pundits and bloggers did during his first term.

Debate Moderator Fail: Does anyone worry about gas prices when their home is destroyed by disaster?

I always felt Candy Crowley focused on the frivolous, like most of CNN, so she exceeded my expectations moderating the Presidential debate. She mostly did an acceptable job, but her decision to focus the energy discussion on gas prices rather than climate change was a massive failure.

Crowley chose the question on gas prices and asked two follow up questions to keep the focus there. It's a way of framing the energy debate that ignores a far more important issue. If a persons' home or workplace is destroyed by a catastrophic flood, hurricane, or wildfire; or if their crop is destroyed by drought, then suddenly gas prices aren't the most important problem. I can only guess about whether Crowley's misguided focus is due to a lack of understanding the enormity of the problem or because of CNN's reliance on massive advertising revenue from the fossil fuel industry. The press is still part of the problem.

It's disappointing that Obama didn't raise climate change himself, but keeping the focus on gas prices is a way to put politicians who want to deal with climate change on the defensive. Obama did the right thing by investing heavily in clean energy and efficiency. But, the smaller stimulus investments in clean coal have largely been a failure and pandering to coal is gaining Obama nothing politically. The coal industry will continue spending millions to fight him, no matter how much he increases coal mining production or throws subsidies at them.

The American energy infrastructure needs to be rebuilt. It's the best large-scale jobs plan anyone has come up with. It's time to stop kidding people about bringing back coal jobs (new mining methods employ half as many people anyway) and make sure more of the new energy economy jobs are created in poor coal mining regions. The alternative is to let our economy be destroyed by climate change disasters. Obama may not be aggressive enough, but Romney's energy policy is simply suicidal.

Added update: Last night, I didn't see Crowley's quote after the debate that's making enviros moan this morning.

"I had that question for all of you climate change people. We just, you know, again, we knew that the economy was still the main thing so you knew you kind of wanted to go with the economy."

So, she thinks climate change is an interest group, not a problem that will impact all of humanity. And, she doesn't think more frequent floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts are an economic issue. Now I remember why I stopped watching CNN.

Howard Zinn, Iraq and the war on Big Bird

I learned something while watching the news the night America invaded Iraq for the second time. As I flipped through the channels, everyone was cheerleading the war. Of course, everyone supports the troops and will stand with their country during war. But, the reaction on TV news was a little more than that. The press had failed to challenge George W. Bush since 9/11. The media watchdog was taking a nap while a President lied the country into war. Almost nothing had been questioned and it was questioned even less once the war began.

With one exception. PBS had a news panel of three war cheerleaders who were outmatched by Howard Zinn expressing disappointment at the war of aggression. He was the one and only person on any network on any program who expressed the slightest bit of doubt that evening about whether we were doing the right thing.

When that happened I thought, "Oh no. Now the Republicans will start attacking PBS again." They did and they never let up.

I doubt that the core issue is the tiny slice of the budget used by public broadcasting. It's about the conservative ideological war against any source of education and information that doesn't mimic Fox News propaganda. It's the same reason why complaints about "liberal media bias" will never stop so long as any press outlet reports factual information that challenges the beliefs of talk-radio conservatives.

Anyway, the new Obama campaign ad about Big Bird is the funniest Presidential campaign commercial I've ever seen. It would be stronger if Obama had prosecuted a few more bankers who contributed to the financial collapse but it still makes a good point effectively.

Local debate watch party news coverage. Romney's lies catching up.

The State Journal-Register sent a reporter to the Liberty Brew & View debate watch party at the Capital City Bar & Grill movie room. They got a few good quotes from the crowd.

Nick Whitfield of Springfield said he believed Romney flip-flopped during the debate about his tax break plan for the wealthiest Americans. “How do you debate a guy that doesn’t stay on the same spot?” he said.

Nich hits on one of the two things Obama did best at the debate. First he hammered away at Romney as a flip-flopper. That's a powerful, ugly label independent voters will remember long after they forget the specific issues discussed.

Second, he let Romney lie. By not responding to each lie, he escaped the "he said, she said" cop-out stories. It will be more difficult for the press to cover Romney's lies as countering claims made by competing candidates. They'll be forced to fact check Romney and plainly admit themselves that he lied frequently.

Climate Progress has a good post on Romney's biggest lie of the night: his whopper that half the companies getting clean energy stimulus funds failed. The fact that he believed anything remotely close to that shows he's out of touch with reality on energy.

Ok, one last thing. Jim Lehrer is getting a lot of criticism but I liked the debate format. Even hosts of talking head soundbite shows complain that debates consist of nothing but pre-packaged soundbites. Lehrer let candidates get into details and talk at length about specific issues. So...isn't that what people who complain about soundbites wanted to see? I like it a heck of a lot better than the 30-second answers in the overcrowded primary debates.

Talking heads focus on debate style over substance. Romney wants to flood your house.

I was pretty shocked after the debate when MSNBC hosts started crying about how badly they think Obama did. After a while I realized that their entire critique is about the performance style of each candidate rather than what either one actually said.

I'm used to Obama's style so I wasn't surprised by how he spoke tonight. He acts as though he has respect for the intelligence of the American public, which is obviously pretty risky. I like his calm, rational approach as a contrast to the foaming at the mouth conservatism that has been popular the last few years.

The national pundits disagree. Chris Matthews was the worst, bemoaning that there was no Robert Kennedy backstage. I'm surprised he could stop daydreaming about the Kennedys long enough to watch the debate. I muted the TV about the time that Matthews was screaming that Obama should watch MSNBC to get debate pointers.

No, Chris, no one should watch MSNBC to get pointers because most of what the cable networks do is crap. This may be news to the talking heads, but many people think that someone who constantly interrupts and talks over others like Romney did tonight (and like you do to your guests) is a rude jackass. Romney's rude behavior and smug smile did not impress me.

Personally, if someone is shoveling a lot of bullshit, I don't care if they do it with a smile. I can still smell bullshit. Not so with the cable news talking heads. They don't talk about substance and facts anymore because dealing in reality means opening yourself up to accusations of liberal bias. And so, they talk about which candidate gave the best "performance" in terms of style while avoiding discussion of any actual issue.

This is why cable news is a waste of time, including most of MSNBC. They rarely deal with substance. They know nothing but style, spin, and people screaming over each other. Rachel Maddow is the only MSNBC host I can handle in daily doses.

Speaking of substance, there was a clear distinction on energy issues. Romney loves coal, unlike his days as Governor when he said he wouldn't support jobs that kill people. He hates clean energy, and he lied about half of the businesses getting green stimulus funds failing. Once again, it's OK with the cable news talking heads if Romney makes things up, as long as he does it aggressively.

Mitt Romney apparently thinks that catastrophic flooding, hurricanes, droughts, and other climate change disasters will be good for the economy. Wow.

Creating green jobs through the stimulus package is the biggest success of Obama's first term. It needs to happen again on a bigger scale in his second term. Creating tons of jobs by rebuilding America's energy infrastructure is the best plan anyone has to revive the economy. I hope Obama will go on the offensive about climate change instead of letting Romney turn green jobs into something negative.

Anyway, the debate watch party I hosted was a good time. I liked watching with friends and meeting some new ones. A reporter showed up so there may be a State Journal-Register article. People are enthusiastic about local campaigns, including David Gill's congressional campaign.

Reactions to the debate were mixed. Some agree with the talking heads that Obama didn't do well, and others thought Romney was terrible. Everyone is looking forward to Joe Biden in the Vice-Presidential debate!

Need sum wood?

I'm in the camp who think the Presidential debates won't have a big impact on the outcome of the election. A good debate got people more excited about Kerry in '04, but Democrats already know Obama. Obama will probably get Democrats fired up. It's an opportunity for Romney, except that it's Mitt Romney. He looks out of place anywhere outside the JC Penny catalog.

Mostly, it's hard to believe a debate can hurt an incumbent too much after the trainwreck performances of George W. Bush. Remember, "need some wood?"

So, I'm mostly watching tonight for the entertainment value. Also, to hang out with a fun crowd at the Liberty Brew & View watch party. I'll most likely tweet during the debate because that's what good political blogger nerds do these days.

A hidden Obama success story: weatherization and energy efficiency

I sometimes hear people say they wish Barack Obama had created more New Deal style programs to create jobs like the WPA or CCC. It would be even better if he did it to build clean energy projects and deal with climate change.

I often think, that's a great idea! I liked it even better the first time when it was called the federal stimulus bill! Then I try to remember not to be such a sarcastic jerk and politely point out that Obama funded a lot of projects like that when he decided to make energy the main focus of the stimulus bill. Many forget or never knew.

Part of the trouble is that Obama didn't advertise stimulus jobs with catchy acronyms like CCC or WPA. Sure, there were signs at some public works projects but it wasn't mandatory. The vast majority of jobs saved or created by stimulus funding didn't arrive with a sign to let people know where the money came from.

For example, energy efficiency and weatherization funding. I learned at Climate Progress that, after getting $5 billion in the stimulus bill, the Weatherization Assistance Program has weatherized 1 million homes as of September 27, 2012. Woohoo!

The program is a triple win. It creates jobs, helps deal with climate change by lowering energy use, and lowers monthly utility bills. The post at Climate Progress points out that "state governments have been using a network of over 1,000 local agencies and more than 4,000 private contractors while employing an average of more than 12,000 workers per quarter to perform weatherization services across the country."

The Weatherization Assistance Program not only created jobs desperately needed in the construction industry, it also provided a boost for American manufacturing and small businesses. More than 89 percent of the materials used in home retrofits are made right here in America. In all cases, except refrigerators (which are 62.3 percent domestically produced), retrofitting homes exceeded the national average for domestic share of all manufactured products used in the United States of 76.5 percent. Recovery Act funding went through these channels to stimulate local economies, employ thousands, and create demand for American-made supplies. 

I'm sure workers in some of the factories making those materials know they won new orders because of the weatherization program. But, I wonder how many people are aware that a factory in their town was able to stay open or hire new employees because of orders generated by the program. Not many, I bet.

Consider how it was implemented in my community as a typical example. Federal money was given to the states and passed down to agencies with weatherization programs. It allowed Sangamon County to dramatically expand their program during a time of major budget cuts. I'll be cynical and assume that the heavily Republican Sangamon county government probably operated by their usual buddy system and hired contractors they knew.

Neither Republican county leaders nor the friends they hire to do the work will go out of their way to credit Obama. In fact, many of them are the sort of people who nod their head when a politician says "government doesn't create jobs," even if they've spent most of their lives working for the government.

One might read in the newspaper or on the county website that the program was expanded thanks to stimulus funds, but there's nothing obvious to point that out when the work is being done. No one from the federal CCC or WPA came to work on their house. A contractor sent by the county did. It's likely that many program participants are unaware or quickly forget about the connection to federal stimulus funding.

The $25 Billion of energy efficiency spending in the stimulus bill included much more than weatherization. Using another local example, Springfield's public utility did very well applying for stimulus funds, getting awards for a number of popular new and expanded programs.

The utility isn't shy about saying they received funding from the awkwardly named American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But, there's no particular reason to mention ARRA to every single person when work is being done and rebates are being distributed.

From a governing standpoint, it may have been more effective to distribute funding through existing agencies and non-profits rather than creating a new federal bureaucracy.

From a political standpoint, it was a huge failure not to brand the stimulus with a catchy name that would be mentioned every time a job is saved or created. That allows Republicans to call the stimulus a failure and continue repeating the delusion that government doesn't create jobs. It also allows Green Party cynics to make their own delusional claim that Obama is no better than Bush on energy issues.

This is more important than Democrats taking credit for a hugely successful program that every single Republican in Congress voted against. Obama just made the largest investment in clean energy and efficiency projects in American history, by far. But, every expert I've read believes we must do much, much more.

There's no path to dealing with climate change that doesn't include dramatically reducing the amount of energy we waste. It's important to brag about the success of these programs because they need to happen again in Obama's second term.

Tea Party leader endorses Obama corporate tax plan

It's a breakthrough! A Tea Party leader endorsed the same plan for corporate taxes that Obama proposed in his last State of the Union address.

Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of the Tea-Party-creating FreedomWorks, argued on Real Time with Bill Maher that there are too many loopholes for special interests in the tax code. He thinks the loopholes should be eliminated and the corporate tax rate lowered.

Obama made the same argument in his 2011 State of the Union speech.

"Over the years a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change."

Obama called on Congress to close the loopholes and lower the corporate tax rate, which would still increase revenue. He pushed for the same thing during debt ceiling negotiations but the idea was rejected by House Republicans.

Another guest on the show, Elliot Spitzer, pointed out to Kibbe that he was arguing for something Obama has already proposed. Kibbe seemed unaware and/or in denial.

Of course, the Tea Party and FreedomWorks claim to be non-partisan, so I'm sure they won't have any trouble supporting Obama's proposal now that Kibbe was informed that they're on the same page. They should send out the word to Tea Party groups across the country to call their Congressman in support of President Obama's plan to close special interest loopholes and cut corporate taxes. They'll demand that Tea Party members of Congress stand up to Speaker Boehner and get behind Obama's tax plan!

That's the only logical thing for them to do. Right? What else would they do since they're non-partisan issue activists? I'm sure they'll get to it any day now.

Finally, a pundit with a clue explains Obama to progressives

Many progressive pundits seem to be stuck in the past. They expect Obama to be another Bill Clinton. Even before the inauguration he was accused of being the next DLC conservative Democratic sell-out after every hint of compromise or attempt at consensus building.

They don't get it. They don't understand Obama's approach because they're expecting a repeat of something more familiar.

Finally, I saw an article by someone who does get it. James Warren, writing for the Atlantic, explains Obama in context of his background in the Illinois State Senate and as a "deal-making community organizer." I've always viewed Obama through the same lens and I suspect that's why I'm very rarely surprised by anything he does.

And, as you watch him, be reminded of his informative pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago. Recall how they inspired both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin to openly mock the term "community organizer" at the 2008 Republican National Convention, with the former New York mayor unable to contain derisive giggling as he openly wondered what the term stood for.

Well, it stands for giving power to the powerless. But, for Obama, it also meant a strategic set of notions about finding mutual agreement among people with the most divergent of motivations, according to Obama mentors whom I know from back then and David Maraniss, the journalist-author now working on an Obama biography.

He describes Obama as taking a pragmatic, non-ideological approach to making progress, which incidentally, is how Saul Alinsky describes his own approach in the community organizing favorite, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals."

The column gives several examples of Obama's work as an Illinois State Senator. The Illinois Senate drives me up the wall. The pace of progress always feels slow. And anything positive is often lumped in with something negative to appease lobbyists from the other side. But, over time they've done some impressive things like ending the death penalty, passing same sex civil unions, and creating a renewable energy portfolio standard. So, it doesn't surprise me when I see Obama attempt a similar approach at the national level.

He comes from a background which assumes that taking what you can get and fighting for more next year isn't considered a failure. Neither is getting people together for a solution that most can be happy with as long as progress is being made.

Let's look at health care as an example. Many bloggers choose to ignore that the U.S. Senate rejected the public option and that a single-payer system had even less support in Congress. It's less complicated to simply blame Obama for caving.

Yes, he compromised to get less than he wanted, but a bill was passed. The bill included a provision that will allow states to set up a single payer system. The first state which does so will serve as a model and pave the way for a national single payer system down the road. Obama compromised in a way that provides a foundation for continued progress.

Compare that to Bill Clinton, who adopted Republican agenda items (like welfare reform and telecom consolidation) and pushed House Democrats to the right. Obama has continued to make strong arguments for progressive principles and keeps pushing for more even after being forced to compromise with Congress. That's the difference between Clinton's third-way politics and Obama's pragmatic progressivism.

Clinton stopped pushing for universal health care after his '93 defeat. The Democratic Party spent the next decade talking about limited goals like prescription drugs for seniors. In contrast, Obama kept pushing to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy after being forced to compromise last year.

In another example, the Senate refused to vote on a cap-and-trade bill and Obama may share part of the blame for not pushing them harder. But, he didn't abandon the issue. This year he came back with a plan to divert oil industry subsidies to clean energy investments, while EPA simultaneously moves forward with new regulation on coal and CO2. He continues to push for the priorities he campaigned on even after faced with setbacks.

Obama's approach isn't evidence that he's a center-right or conservative President as I've seen him described by left pundits and bloggers. It's a difference of tactics, not ideology.

Undoubtedly, Obama needs to be pushed to do better. But, the comparisons to Clintonian third-way politics and broad-brushed denunciations don't add to the pressure or contribute to an understanding of what's really going on.

I'm afraid that too many on the left have been beaten down by decades of little or no progress. Losing has become part of their ideological identity to the extent that compromise is interpreted as failure . Progressives must learn to define success in ways other than losing righteously. There's a rising generation of progressives who aren't overburdened with cynicism and they're determined to get something done.

Keep on Rockin in the Free World

Buffalo Springfield's Bonnaroo performance of Keep on Rockin in the Free World is in my head this Independence Day.

The videos I found of that show were all pretty poor so here's Neil doing it with Pearl Jam.





It brings to mind Obama's speech in Cairo delivered about seven months before Egypt's democratic rebellion. I remember pundits asking when Obama would have his Reagan-esque "tear down this wall" moment. If cable news networks covered actual news they might have realized that he already did in this speech.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.
So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

It feels good to have a President who advocates for real democracy around the world, rather than supporting cold war dictators. The free world is getting bigger.

80 percent

That's the magic number from President Obama's State of the Union address and I was glad to hear it. 80% clean energy by 2035 and 80% of Americans with high speed rail access. Both will be vitally important steps in reducing carbon emissions.

I noticed several news outlets speculating that Obama would drop the climate change issue almost as if they were campaigning for him to do so. Thankfully, that turned out to be the usual bullshit punditry.

Obama cheapened it by mentioning clean coal, but overall it's a good goal. I only hope we don't waste too much on carbon capture pipe dreams on our way to real clean energy solutions.

Soon, even more cities will be eager to have high speed rail stations in their downtown to spur economic development of the city center. The manufactured hysteria that it will "destroy downtown" is a Springfield oddity.

"The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves."

Once in a while I hear this statement made by someone attempting to diminish the role Lincoln played in ending slavery. It's partially true.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed very few slaves on the day it was issued. It only freed those in areas still rebelling against the Union. Of course, Lincoln had no actual power to free those slaves in areas under Confederate control. At least not when it was issued.

It also allowed states to maintain legal slavery if they rejoined the union. It permitted people to keep their slaves in border states under Union control, like Kentucky.

These facts are often pointed out to make the Proclamation seem like an insignificant act on Lincoln's part. There were people in his time who felt the same way. It angered abolitionists who wanted more decisive action to end slavery immediately. It angered the other side, who believed the war was about saving the Union, not slavery. And it didn't entice any states to rejoin the Union, as Lincoln hoped it might. In the short term, it was an unpopular, failed attempt at compromise.



But that's not the whole story. The Emancipation Proclamation did free slaves as Union armies advanced into Confederate territory. That became official policy for the remainder of the war as Sherman marched into the Deep South. After it was issued, many of those Northern regiments would be made up of African-American soldiers. It established beyond doubt that they were waging a war to end slavery.

Additionally, it set the stage for the introduction of a constitutional amendment ending slavery, which Lincoln wrote. Although it didn't seem like much right away, the Proclamation did lead to the end of slavery.

Why bring this up? Obama idolizes Lincoln and has long studied him.

What does Obama mean when he talks about taking a long-term view? What does he mean when he talks about things that may seem insignificant but will create structural change for the future? What does he mean by saying that he'll do things which aren't popular now but need to be done for long-term benefit?

This is what means. There are people who don't believe that much of significance has happened for the past two years, just as there were people in Lincoln's time who thought the Emancipation Proclamation was a useless attempt at compromising with the South. Despite the compromises he's forced to make, Obama will keep working methodically to move the ball forward.

Over time, the results will become plainer to see, even if Obama gets little credit for laying the groundwork. Sometimes it will happen in undramatic ways, such as EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses or the Federal Reserve's role in completing details of the new financial reform law.

Progress in America has always come step-by-step, through struggle and disappointment. This period of progress will be no different.

Cross-posting note: I try to keep my blog focused on environmental politics at the state and local level. This post was written for a new blog and discussion forum with a national focus called Democrats for Progress that I'll be contributing to on occasion.

Barack Obama in Quincy pictures: Freedom is on the march

My friend Rob managed to get a ticket to see Barack Obama speak in Quincy, Illinois Wednesday. He sent me a few pictures for the blog.



(You can click on this one to enlarge)


My friend noticed that there were Tea Party protesters across the street from the event. They were in view of the Presidential motorcade as Obama arrived. They were yelling something about the Constitution and "wanting their country back." I'm not sure who they want their country back from. Maybe they're all Native Americans.





I'm glad to hear that people are allowed to protest in view of a President again. I had the pleasure of attending at least half a dozen counter-demonstrations in response to visits by George Bush or Dick Cheney during their Presidency. As a matter of policy, we were penned up in "free speech zones" several blocks away from the actual event. Protesters were always far out of view of the President, anyone attending the official event, and any route taken by the motorcade.

At one demonstration I saw someone intentionally get arrested by going outside the designated holding area. She calmly sat and waited to be cuffed while raising a sign that said, "America is a free speech zone!"

Now that Bush is no longer in power, American citizens are once again allowed to exercise their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly in the view of our President. Freedom is on the march. The Tea Party protesters should be happy that Obama honors a Constitutional freedom which they would have been arrested for under George Bush's reign.



(Click it for the bigger version)