Who will be the climate change candidate in 2016?

Will the climate movement have a serious contender for President in 2016? Now's the time to find someone strong on the most urgent crisis of our time and serious about winning the White House.

Should that candidate be Hillary Clinton?  She says the right things. But the most significant actions of her career are promoting fracking as Secretary of State and letting the oil industry influence environmental impact studies for the Keystone XL pipeline. 

With a record like that, it's hard to imagine what Clinton can say to convince skeptical primary voters that a politician notorious for having her finger to the wind will suddenly became a stalwart champion against powerful fossil fuel interests. This is the same person who backed off from her signature issue, universal healthcare, for roughly ten years after the '93 setback and retreated to safer talking points about prescription drugs for seniors.

Is it reasonable to believe someone who has played it safe for her entire career will suddenly become obstinate against the most powerful interests in Washington? The cost of taking only small, politically easy steps in classic Clintonian fashion will be many more lives lost in climate change disasters. The future of civilization as we know it depends on electing a President who will take the kind of bold, courageous action that neither Hillary nor her husband (the Neville Chamberlain of the climate crisis) have demonstrated during their careers.

Clinton's approval numbers have nosedived to under 50% since she left the Obama administration and stepped back into the spotlight. Despite the inevitability narrative around Clinton, it's realistic to believe a candidate can challenge her in Iowa and other early primary states. That fear is why her supporters are so determined to discourage anyone else from running.

The dream candidate for the environmental movement who could start with enough money, name recognition, and experience to seriously challenge Clinton is Al Gore. I would love to re-elect Gore, but he hasn't expressed interest in running. Yet.

Bernie Sanders speaks boldly about climate change but it doesn't sound like he's serious about winning the election. Most primary voters and donors aren't interested in wasting time on a campaign that's only trying to raise issues. If we're discussing dream candidates, I'd be excited to see Obama's former Labor Secretar, Hilda Solis bring her focus on environmental justice to the election. 

Among those talking about running, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has the most impressive record of acting on climate. Stroll through the Climate Change Maryland website to see how other states should do it.

It's not mere window dressing. Maryland passed a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act in 2009, released a plan in 2013, and has set the goal of reducing emissions 25% by 2020. 

O'Malley's big test is how he acts on fracking. Some Democratic leaders and big green funders are a little slow to acknowledge that natural gas isn't a realistic solution to climate change. Even if you don't account for methane leaks, switching from coal to another fossil fuel simply can't produce the kind of greenhouse gas reductions required to address the crisis.

Most of the environmental grassroots have a more reality-based position. The movement against fracking is passionate and growing rapidly. If O'Malley supports fracking his previous actions won't help him in the Democratic primary. He'll be just another lackluster candidate with a mixed environmental record.

Among those already running, Martin O'Malley looks like the most likely candidate for the climate change movement to unite behind but he'll have to take a strong stand against fracking.

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!