Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue

(Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

On Monday, Barack Obama delivered a well-received speech on energy policy in Lansing, Michigan - a speech that was so ambitious and on-point that it could singlehandedly put Michigan in the Obama column in November, in the opinion of this Michigander.  

Yet for the most part, people aren't hearing about this speech.  They're hearing about tire gauges and whether Obama flip-flopped on this or that, but they're not hearing about his 21st-century Manhattan Project to invest in the energy sector and solve the current crisis while strengthening our economy at the same time.

That needs to change.  Let's talk about it.

The Speech

The core of the speech itself was a trio of strong and effective proposals for federal government intervention in the energy issue.

First, we will help states like Michigan build the fuel-efficient cars we need, and we will get one million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years....

With technology we have on the shelf today, we will raise our fuel mileage standards four percent every year. We'll invest more in the research and development of those plug-in hybrids, specifically focusing on the battery technology. We'll leverage private sector funding to bring these cars directly to American consumers, and we'll give consumers a $7,000 tax credit to buy these vehicles. But most importantly, I'll provide $4 billion in loans and tax credits to American auto plants and manufacturers so that they can re-tool their factories and build these cars. That's how we'll not only protect our auto industry and our auto workers, but help them thrive in a 21st century economy.

The second step I'll take is to require that 10% of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term - more than double what we have now. To meet these goals, we will invest more in the clean technology research and development that's occurring in labs and research facilities all across the country and right here at MSU, where you're working with farm owners to develop this state's wind potential and developing nanotechnology that will make solar cells cheaper.

I'll also extend the Production Tax Credit for five years to encourage the production of renewable energy like wind power, solar power, and geothermal energy...

We'll also invest federal resources, including tax incentives and government contracts, into developing next generation biofuels...

In addition, we'll find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste. And we'll invest in the technology that will allow us to use more coal, America's most abundant energy source, with the goal of creating five "first-of-a-kind" coal-fired demonstration plants with carbon capture and sequestration...

As we develop new sources of energy and electricity, we will also need to modernize our national utility grid so that it's accommodating to new sources of power, more efficient, and more reliable. That's an investment that will also create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and one that I will make as President.

Finally, the third step I will take is to call on businesses, government, and the American people to meet the goal of reducing our demand for electricity 15% by the end of the next decade. This is by far the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to reduce our energy consumption - and it will save us $130 billion on our energy bills...

We will set a goal of making our new buildings 50% more efficient over the next four years. And we'll follow the lead of California and change the way utilities make money so that their profits aren't tied to how much energy we use, but how much energy we save.

In just ten years, these steps will produce enough renewable energy to replace all the oil we import from the Middle East. Along with the cap-and-trade program I've proposed, we will reduce our dangerous carbon emissions 80% by 2050 and slow the warming of our planet. And we will create five million new jobs in the process.

Why It Matters

This is a strong, visionary energy plan that addresses the pressing issue of the day and shows us the way to the future.  And it squarely rebuts the GOP talking point that making efforts to reform the energy sector and address climate change will destroy our economy.  In fact, with the right investments in the alternative energy sector, we can create new jobs and grow the economy by leaps and bounds.

Energy is a winning issue for progressives because people already understand that this is a problem which will require large-scale government intervention.  There are some issues where the GOP will be able to persuade people to just step back and let the free market sort it out.  That approach is not going to work with the energy problem, and as long as we're proposing positive, proactive solutions, the GOP is going to be left unable to make a competing set of proposals unless they're prepared to propose major government intervention of their own.

Not everything Obama has proposed on energy will be noncontroversial among progressives.  Attention has already been focused on his decision to remain open to a limited increase in offshore drilling and his proposal to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for short-term relief.  And nuclear power and "clean coal," of course, have long been subjects of debate among progressives.

But I would urge everyone to keep their eyes on the big picture.  If Obama's plan is 90% good and 10% bad, from your perspective, it is counterproductive to spend all your time trying to fix the bad 10% when you could be focusing on publicizing a plan that is 90% good and electing the candidate who will make it happen.  And from a political standpoint, some of the concessions - like supporting a limited role for nuclear power - help to keep wedge issues off the table and deprive the GOP of their standard arguments that distract voters from the real issues.

What Needs To Be Done

Barack Obama is fortunate to have a grassroots army that is ready and willing to get the word out.  But there are two things that need to be done at the campaign level to make it possible, and here's hoping they will be done.

The first thing is to make the plan accessible.  I don't mean go-to-his-website accessible, I mean that it needs to be reduced to a SOUNDBITE or ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY that, through repetition, will become shorthand for "Barack Obama's awesome energy plan."  

When some guy at the office says, "I hear Obama thinks we can fix the energy problem by inflating our tires," you should be able to say, "Actually, he proposes that we ____."  When Democrats in local races want to show voters that they have real solutions to gas prices and the energy problem, they should be able to say "I support Barack Obama's plan to ____."  Maybe the message gurus will come up with something like "invest in the alternative energy sector and create millions of new jobs" or perhaps they'll come up with something considerably wittier.  That one's not on me.  But we can't all go door-to-door passing out copies of Obama's full speech, so they need to distill the essence of this message into a soundbite pronto.

The second thing the campaign has to do is keep talking about this.  In stump speeches, interviews, everywhere until there is not a shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama has a comprehensive, serious plan to address the energy crisis.  This is not the typical election where you give a "big speech on energy," and then the next week you've moved on to giving a big speech on education or foreign policy or whatever.  Energy is clearly the #1 issue on people's minds for this election and it cannot be left by the wayside as "last week's issue."  People want to hear real solutions and this plan provides them.

No one should underestimate the potential for millions of voters to show up on election day because they trust Barack Obama to solve the energy crisis.  I think the planet would kinda like that outcome, too.


Poll
Are you energized?
Fired up, ready to go!
Actually, I fell asleep halfway through
I'd rather just say "change" a lot

Votes: 21
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Tips, flames, and all that (2.00 / 14)

Maybe I'm just a silly Clinton supporter who gets off on hearing policy speeches.  But I think people want to hear this stuff.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:44:43 AM EST

Re: Tips, flames, and all that (2.00 / 5)

Really enjoyed your Diary. I hope you write more
often. Love the speech. Rec
by Politicalslave on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:01:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips, flames, and all that (2.00 / 5)

Good diary, although I fear the media will keep repeating that Obama hasn't proposed any specifics despite the fact that he has far more detailed policy positions than McCain.  They don't like it when he talks about policy, therefore they will ignore it when he does.  


by HSTruman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:30:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips, flames, and all that (2.00 / 4)

That is why you can't count on the media to do your work for you!

We went through this routine in 2004.  "How can they keep saying that John Kerry doesn't have a plan for Iraq???"  Well, this being politics, it's no one's job but the candidate to keep people from being fooled.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:40:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips, flames, and all that (2.00 / 3)

Agreed.  But it would be nice if they didn't flat out lie quite so often.  :)


by HSTruman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:43:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't worry, Steve... (2.00 / 1)

There are many more people like us out there. There are many more out there who like good policy.

Great diary! :-)


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips, flames, and all that (2.00 / 1)

I do too, part of the problem is Obama's taken a lot of time to 'refine' his position, and I think the process got bored along the way. He'll need to get it out there more often and more public. Talking about tire-pressure gauges doesn't do it.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:58:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The only thing that needs to be added (2.00 / 2)

Is energy has the potential even more than health care to become the next signature Democratic issue. The cost of energy effects every thing. If Democrats can resolve this issue, a successor to the New Deal Coalition will have been forged and it will become easier to pass other progressive legislation, including health care.

2 points: Democrats made energy more accessible to everyone during the New Deal with hydro electricity projects so we have a record of success. 2nd, health care has demonized as socialism since Harry Truman was president. Energy programs have not.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only thing that needs to be added (2.00 / 1)

That's a very good point.  There are definitely parallels between FDR's rural electrification project and Obama's plan to create jobs by modernizing the energy grid.

One of the nicer features of Obama's plan is that it lets him travel around the country explaining exactly how his plan will create jobs right here in State X.  I assume he intends to keep on doing exactly that.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only thing that needs to be added (none / 0)

We can only hope.

At the risk of rubbing salt in the wounds of some.

This is the sort of thing, I could see Bill Clinton doing during his presidency had he faced  4.00/gal gas


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 3)

McCain has a catchy name for his plan. Does Obama have a catchy name for his plan?


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:30:28 AM EST

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 8)

That's exactly the thing.  Obama's plan is far superior, but if the guy on the street only knows "gee, McCain's all of the above plan kinda makes sense, we really need to try everything," then we lose.

There's a certain species of liberal who disdains soundbites and catchy slogans because they feel like they somehow cheapen the substantive policies that lie underneath.  Sometimes I feel like those liberals are the only ones who end up running Democratic campaigns.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (2.00 / 1)

We need to stop letting those folks lose elections for us! It's about time we start framing our better arguments in a better way.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:22:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0)

We need to stop letting those folks lose elections for us! It's about time we start framing our better arguments in a better way.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:22:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (none / 0)

Got it!  It's "Green Jobs".  Emphasizes the key elements, and the major contrasts to McCain's plan.  The Obama is NOT all of the above - only the parts that are green and create jobs.  Non-green parts, like drilling, only accepted as a compromise.


by swaminathan on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lots of good details (2.00 / 5)

I think he is catching up after his intense whirlwind tour abroad.

Hillary also has a great piece about Crises Exploitation in the WSJ. (Shades of Naomi Kline Batman) It talks about tax shelters and holding folks accountable. The money lost could do an awful lot to restore and rebuild America.

It's great to see our good strong democrats coming out and firing on all cylinders (so to speak)!


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:47:55 AM EST

Halperin made a note (1.00 / 1)

that she didn't mention Obama's name once in the article; WHY is that relevant?  It's almost as if Halperin and these media hacks expect every Hillary sentence that comes out of Hillary's mouth to include a noun, verb, and Obama.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 4)

Check this out..
Obama smack-down in Las Vegas..

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_ Explodes_Mischaracterizations_About_Ener gy_Policy


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:10:00 AM EST

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 1)

Excellent video. Barak really smacked him down but good. WooHoo.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive." -Thomas Jefferson
by Nag on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:30:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 1)

I happened to catch most of this speech and I was cheering out loud by the end. It's a wonderful plan full of particulars. Nothing could contrast more with McCain's weak energy policy...if 'more of the same' could be considered an actual policy. That's why McCain has been attacking Barak's remark about tire pressure. He's trying to define Barak as weak on policy, which is far from the truth.

After the speech I checked in here, looking for a diary on this very exciting speech and there was nothing. Oh, there's been the usual 150 useless diaries a day about meta navel gazing and site administration. (YAWN) Nothing, that is, until this excellent diary. Thanks, Steve.

In my opinion, Barak hit it out of the park on this one, and it's being largely ignored by the media. Anyone who listened to or read that speech knows the truth: Obama has his energy priorities exactly right and a plan to bring it to fruition.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive." -Thomas Jefferson
by Nag on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:21:39 AM EST

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 3)

hey, I had a fp post on it!

But I agree, I looked around the 'sphere and saw maybe just a couple of others even had written about it.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 1)

I apologize, Jerome. I totally missed your fp piece. I just read it and agree with your assessments. Obama will have to keep pounding on this and pushing back on McCain's 'drill now!' mantra and expose McCain's "plan" as the empty box that it is.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive." -Thomas Jefferson
by Nag on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 1)

Superb diary, Steve. Another example of why I'm just too chicken to write diaries myself. So many gifted writers here.

One thing about Barack's policy speech did raise a question in my mind.

Point One, the worthwhile goal of putting one million plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years. But plug-ins need electricity.

Point Three, we will move to reduce electricity use by 15% within that same decade.

Seems a conundrum is in that policy.

My understanding is that hybrids like the Toyota Prius don't need to be plugged in. They generate their own electric recharge for the battery pack simply by braking the vehicle.

If we are going to promote hybrids, which I think we should, we need to rightfully call them just hybrids. Golf carts and Segways are plug-ins.

I think Barack needs to fine tune his message just a bit.

Am I wrong here?


by RickWn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 1)

One thing that Barak noted was that the yearly 15 billion will partly go to put more solar collectors on home roofs and wind turbines in backyards. That way, a plug-in hybrid would cost even less when plugged into such a household. I like the idea that it will take many approaches simultaneously working together to reach our ultimate goals of energy independence and reducing carbon emissions.

This little tidbit is easily buried in the larger message. It's something that should be talked about and discussed as much as possible by the Obama camp... until some of these finer points are tuned to crystal clarity.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive." -Thomas Jefferson
by Nag on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 1)

Without going into too many details...

The plug-in cars do use electricity.

The Prius generates electricity by running a gas engine. It recovers some of the power by converting forward energy back into electricity while braking, but that's not nearly enough to keep the battery charged - that gas motor still has to run periodically. Plug-in electrics also charge their batteries while braking.

The utility companies generate electricity far more efficiently than the little gas engine in the Prius. All-electric cars get the equivalent of about 150mpg compared to about 50mpg for the electric/gas hybrids.

Not to take anything away from Obama's speech, but a goal of a million hybrids is a pretty sucky goal. Sure it sounds like a whole lot of cars, but  in 2006 (the year I found data for quickly), over 250,000 hybrids were sold in the US out of over 16.5 million cars. So, sorry, a million plug-ins? That's a pretty weak goal.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/ sales_of_hybrid.html

How about demanding, today, from his seat in the Senate, that all cars produced in the US get a minimum of 50mpg starting in two years? That is a 100% attainable goal, and would obviate the 'need' for drilling before the first drop of oil was produced.
 


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:49:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 1)

The utilities have a huge incentive to foster plug in hybrids.  Currently, they maintain an excess capacity that only goes online when "peak demand" hits (midday, during a hot summer month...when all the ACs are humming).  During nighttimes, and during the winter, these plants go idling.

Thus, they could be put to effective use if plug in hybrids were being charged at night... something that the utilities are working on collaboratively with the automakers


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good stuff (2.00 / 1)

Tipped and rec'd.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:12:07 PM EST

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 1)

I don't mean go-to-his-website accessible, I mean that it needs to be reduced to a SOUNDBITE or ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY that, through repetition, will become shorthand for "Barack Obama's awesome energy plan."  

definitely. we have to make the message simple yet reflective of the overall plan. it has to be simple enough to withstand the constant repetition by the media and the public;

great job Steve!

[rec'd]


by alyssa chaos on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:53:59 PM EST

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (none / 0)

off topic but I thought this factoid about the "affirmative action candidate"  needed to be high lighted & it doesn't merit a diary.

It is from today's Mo Dowd column (one of her too infrequent good ones)

"McCain knows he's the affirmative action scion of admirals who might not have gotten through Annapolis without being a legacy. Obama didn't even tell Harvard Law School that he was black on his application."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/opinio n/06dowd.html?ref=opinion


by wrb on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:07:33 PM EST

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (none / 0)

She's kidding right?   Obama's father, Barack Obama, went to Harvard.   It is one box you check to indicate 'legacy', and maybe a text field to write in the name.   He didn't need to say he was black.  And of course he's not black, there's that too.


by miker2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he was applying to HLS (none / 0)

not the university.  Please do some basic research before you type more of this embarrassing nonsense.


by JJE on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he was applying to HLS (none / 0)

No doubt you're an expert on embarassing nonsense, but are you an expert on legacy admissions?

I know for a fact that at Stanford my grad degree constitutes 'legacy' for my daughter as an undergrad.   Legacy is more about contributions to the alumnae fund than qualifications.  They want to encourage brand loyalty.  

So prove to me it doesn't work the other way around.   While you're at it, prove that no one in admissions noticed the name and inferred anything interesting about it.  


by miker2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's nice (none / 0)

But your experience at Stanford w/r/t to Undergraduate/Graduate has little bearing on Obama's.  Did Obama Sr. even donate to the alumni fund?   Sadly, the burden remains on you to demonstrate that Jr. got into HLS based on his legacy.  

You should quit before people get the impression that Stanford will admit any idiot who comes down the pike.


by JJE on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:36:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's nice (none / 0)

Ok, touche.  That was actually LOL funny.   They may well have made a mistake in my case.    Haven't donated a penny.  


by miker2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he was applying to HLS (none / 0)

Sure the name might have made them think he'd add interest to the class.

I got seriously pursued by eastern schools, especially Princeton, because I was a rural westerner.  Went to Stanford anyway for the weather & the music that was happening in the Bay Area at the time.

However if he identify himself as black he didn't benefit from a racial quota.


by wrb on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he was applying to HLS (none / 0)

Actually I've no doubt whatever that Obama got in on his own merits, or could have even if he did check the legacy box.  

But it's a stupid cudgel to beat McCain with.  Has McCain said or suggested that Obama got anywhere due to racial preferences?   For that matter, has ANYONE with an ounce of credibility suggested that?  


by miker2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he was applying to HLS (none / 0)

it was a refrain among the more extreme Hillary supporters during the primaries & still is with the PUMA loonies

"the affirmative action candidate"


by wrb on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:21:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he was applying to HLS (none / 0)

I do not have the faintest idea how we got way off on this tangent in my diary.

But just so we're all clear, yes, it's true, I only wrote this diary about Barack Obama because he's black.  Y'all found me out.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (none / 0)

I think you misread it.

She's saying that McCain, a terrible student, got into and through Annapolis due in part to a father and grandfather who were admirals.

She's saying that Barack did not identify himself as black when applying to HLS- contrary to the assumptions of many-- and got in anyway


by wrb on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:06:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (none / 0)

"She's saying that Barack did not identify himself as black when applying to HLS- contrary to the assumptions of many-- and got in anyway."

No I get that.   But there are several problems with that claim, only one of which I mentioned originally.  I'll mention all of them now:

1.  Legacy admissions occurs when a parent was a student at the university.   That's the "affirmative action" she was referring to in McCain's case.   I simply pointed out that the exact same situation obtained for Obama so he's not on a higher plane there.

2.  Graduate level admissions always requires letters of recommendations from undergrad professors.  Any one of them could have -- and probably did -- mention his race.   Most admissions require a photo.  That would have indicated his race as well.   Chances are 99% the HLS knew his race before admitting him.

3.  How does Maureen Dowd know what was on his application unless the info came from the person who completed the application?   That person being, of course, the same person who benefits from this laudatory tale.  


by miker2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (none / 0)

Yeah, but it is pretty obvious nepotism worked in McCain's favor as he was a terrible student and a trouble maker at the Academy.  Obama was head of Law Review and continued to pursue academia, becoming a Con Law Professor for years at U of Chicago.

I think it is pretty who the real affirmative action candidate is.  Aren't you sick of politicians of marginal intelligence who owe all of their success to nepotism as opposed to any real work, continue to become the worst presidents in our nations history?

I know I am, our average president just got outed for ordering the forgery of a document to link Saddam with 9/11 - And McCain is the guy who said he would've still gone into Iraq even knowing what we know now (no WMDs, that is).  


by KLRinLA on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:26:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (2.00 / 2)

I think the Dems could win on this issue if they played it right, because the public already believes four things: the GOP is in the pocket of oil companies; the federal government should do something to lower energy prices; the US relies too much on fossil fuels; global warming is probably a real problem.

What is the policy which would connect all of these things together?  Government should take the lead so the US will develop alternate technologies.  Eg., electric cars, solar and wind power, etc.

And here's the thing.  Bush basically said the same sorts of things in his State of the Union address in '96.  The US, he said, was "addicted to oil".  His goal, remember, was for the US to cut its dependence upon foreign oil by 75% during the next 20 years.  Since then, to the best of my knowledge, the Republicans have done nothing.

That sets up the winning path, because all Obama has to do is tie John McCain to Bush and say that the GOP will promise the world but in the end do nothing.

"John McCain won't act.  I will".  That's the sound bite.

Eg., "George Bush proclaimed that the US is addicted to oil, and now John McCain's solution to the energy crisis is to make sure that your children can get more of what's been causing us so many problems in the first place.  That's not a solution, that's a fix.  John McCain won't lead the country on this path towards use of alternate technologies.  I will."

And go down the line.  McCain is offering nothing innovative.  Even his suggestion that the US should embrace nuclear power just involves our copying what the French did forty years ago.


by IncognitoErgoSum on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (none / 0)

Best danged reply yet. You must have gone to City College.

(No offense meant, IES. Your excellent reply just happens to be right there after the "preppie hijack".)


by RickWn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (none / 0)

"In addition, we'll find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste."

Wow, I thought Obama was against the use of nuclear power.  Now he's for it?    That plus his sudden flipflop on offshore drilling makes McKinney look better and better.  

Or, what about:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536 a6d


by miker2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:51:43 PM EST

you are aware (2.00 / 1)

that we do currently use nuclear power and generate nuclear waste?  That's what he's talking about.


by JJE on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How does BO explain this... (2.00 / 1)

when it comes up?

Senator Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, written in secret by Vice President Cheney and the energy lobby. Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as "the sum of all lobbies." U.S. PIRG noted that the bill's "heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC."

The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a "piñata of perks for energy industries." Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry.


by Shazone on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:53:59 PM EST

Perfect is the not the enemy (2.00 / 1)

of the good is his explanation; Obama claims that the bill invested a lot in alternative energy and that he tried to strip the benefits to oil companies in a subsequent bill.  I don't agree with the "I'll vote for a bill if it has some bad things but some good things as well" but that seems to Obama's approach much of the time for better or worse.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:08:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How does BO explain this... (2.00 / 1)

I think there is no good explanation for Obama's vote on the energy bill.  In this speech, he criticized McCain for voting against it, saying that the bill was "far from perfect" but "represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country."

I think that's pretty obvious BS, to be frank, but I don't have a better suggestion for him.  That vote is the one and only card McCain has to play against Obama on the energy issue.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:54:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gas station movement (none / 0)

Apparently, Obama is sending his volunteer army to gas stations across the nation this weekend to distribute details about his energy plan.

What I am more interested in at the moment is whether McCain supports the Gang of 10 bill.  Does anybody know or is McCain trying his best to play it both ways as usual.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:06:50 PM EST

I like the part (2.00 / 1)

about changing the profit/loss structure of the utilities.  That is, in my opinion, the single biggest and easiest thing that the government can d!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:10:03 PM EST

A short soundbite name (2.00 / 1)

Do you think characterizing it as a "sustainable solutions for the people" policy would work?  The idea is to emphasize sustainability of the solution, as opposed to drilling; for the people, as opposed to for Big Oil, including job creation and revival of automotive; and a faint echo of sustaining the people through the transition, hence the short-term solutions (strategic oil reserve, ethanol).  Would have like to put the word "change" in front (change to sustainable solutions) to emphasize the transitioning, but doesn't seem to work well.

What do you think?


by swaminathan on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:19:18 PM EST

Re: Obama's Energy Speech: A Winning Issue (none / 0)

Okay, did some Googling and indeed there are plug-in hybrids, so the terminology can't be attacked and I'm now a wee bit more informed about those nifty little cars than at my first post.

Still, the conundrum remains. How do we square the plank of policy that increases our demand for electricity with the other plank of the policy that requires a reduction in demand?

Every other goal and plan of Barack's energy policy, including and especially the first, is workable, achievable and visionary.

But urging us all to go out and buy electric cars while simultaneously calling for us to reduce our electricity use by 15% just doesn't make sense.


by RickWn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:22:18 PM EST

Stop talking about oil. (none / 0)

Start talking about oil copanies.  The difference between oil and oil companies is stark in the minds of most people, I think.  "Oil company" falls under the category of "Who the Republicans are in the pocket of."  

Any sentence that includes the word oil can be changed to use the phrase "oil companies" instead.  

Instead of "We have to stop our dependence on foreign oil," you can say, "We have to stop America's dependence on the whims of the oil companies."

Instead of "We need to build cars with better mileage," we can say, "We need to make cars that serve us instead of serving the oil companies profits."

And so on.  


by Dumbo on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:09:46 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.