Hillary Heckled At Enviro Forum As Dems Vow A Greener America
LOS ANGELES - Hillary Clinton was peppered by anti-war hecklers at a presidential forum on climate change and energy policy, leading to the forceful expulsion of one protester from the audience.
"How can you say you're for the environment when you are always voting for war?" local activist Tyghe Berry shouted out as he stood up from his seat in the audience and interrupted the front-running Democratic candidate as she vowed to make America green if elected President.
"Were you invited to speak here this afternoon?" responded a visibly perturbed Senator Clinton. Berry was then immediately grabbed by security agents and rushed to a waiting police car by a phalanx of LAPD and federal officers. When Senator Clinton was introduced earlier to the forum she was met with both loud cheers and scattered boos from the predominantly Democratic and liberal audience of approximately 1,000.
The momentary disruption was the emotional high point of an otherwise sedate Saturday afternoon forum that lacked any of the drama or vigor that marked the Democratic debate two nights ago in Las Vegas.
Only candidates Clinton, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich appeared at the forum on Global Warming & America's Energy future organized by Grist magazine and Public Radio International's Living on Earth and endorsed by a coalition of environmental organizations.
All three participating candidates offered similar promises to push green policies, move America away from reliance on foreign oil, and to reduce greenhouse gases. But the format of the debate allowed no interaction or exchanges between the candidates nor any questions from the public. The panel of three selected questioners asked no challenging questions, allowing the candidates a relatively unobstructed opportunity to promote their respective environmental campaigns.
All presidential contenders of both parties were invited to participate in the debate. No Republicans accepted. Clinton, Edwards and Kucinich were the only declared Democratic candidates that participated in the forum, staged at the Wadsworth Theater on the grounds of the Veterans Administration in West Los Angeles.
Before she was interrupted by the heckling, Clinton, referring to the latest U.N. report on the threat of global warming told the crowd that "we can't afford to fiddle as the world warms." She denounced President George W. Bush as having led an administration that has "dodged, denied and dissembled on the most important global issue."
Relying on what has now become standard Democratic campaign boilerplate, Clinton vowed to take away tax subsidies from oil companies, raise fuel efficiency standards, and promised to "put 5 million Americans to work making America green."
Clinton stressed her three major environmental goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, cutting foreign oil imports by two-thirds by 2030 and by accelerating a shift away from a carbon-based economy. Prior to today's forum, the Clinton campaign released a painstakingly detailed, statistic-laden twelve-page paper outlining her climate change and energy policy.
But a plan is "just words on the page" and requires strong leadership to implement, Clinton said, repeating a theme of her own touted experience she first floated earlier this year during a Democratic debate on health care. "If you're ready for change, I'm ready to lead," she said.
"What's the magic you bring?" debate moderator and public radio host Steve Curwood asked Clinton, referring to earlier and unfilled presidential promises to better the environment, including those of her husband.
Clinton responded by saying the population's heightened interest in the issue will now make fulfilling those promises much easier. Increasing global cooperation, Clinton said, should also raise optimism.
Edwards, who has recently escalated his criticism of Clinton, didn't use his time on stage today to directly confront his opponent but, nevertheless, made several less-than-subtle suggestions that his approach sharply differed from that of hers. Edwards made several references to a lobbyist-ridden and "corrupt" government, echoing earlier campaign themes that Clinton was too complicit with such special interests. He also suggested that Clinton and others in the Democratic field were pandering to sympathetic constituencies by not admitting the real level of sacrifice that a transition to a greener economy would demand.
"The American people are ready for a president who calls them to sacrifice and asks them to be patriotic about something other than war," Edwards. "'The big change we need is not going to be easy... and will take the efforts of a generation to achieve." Edwards also denounced the war in Iraq, vowed to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and said it was embarrassing that America was now debating whether or not torture should be official U.S. policy.
When asked by The Huffington Post after the forum what most distinguishes his environmental policies from those of Senator Clinton, Edwards said "we're more emphatic in the need to reduce the corrupting powers in Washington that keep these things from getting done."
Today's debate couldn't be more timely, coming exactly one day after the U.N.'s Nobel Prize-winning panel on climate change released its fourth and final report on global warming, warning that even the most strenuous efforts at reducing greenhouse gas levels would be coming too late and that the world now has little choice but to prepare for and accept "abrupt and irreversible" climate changes.
"We need the magnitude of the political response to match the magnitude of the problem," said activist Laurie David, one of the organizers of the debate.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who introduced the forum, took the opportunity to denounce the policies of the Bush Administration, which he accused of downplaying the threat of global warming.
"It's about time we had someone in the White House who actually believes in science," he said to a cheering crowd.
Back-of-the-pack candidate Dennis Kucinich led off his onstage remarks linking the environmental issue to his trademark anti-war policy. "The U.S. must lead the way in abolishing all nuclear weapons," Kucinich said. And he called the current Pentagon refitting of B-2 bombers allegedly ready to bomb suspected nuclear facilities in Iran as a "war-crime in motion," said the veteran Ohio congressman.
Kucinich offered few details of an environmental program but instead proposed a "Green Works" administration that would demand that all of its agencies and departments be dedicated to a sustainable environment.
"It's time to make government an engine of sustainability," he said.
Kucinich boasted of his outsider status, asking how it would be to "imagine a President of the United States not tied to any of these interest groups," he said referring to politically powerful energy, utility and extraction lobbies.
The Democratic candidates differ less on environmental issues than on most any other major policy area. But there are some notable exceptions. Among the top tier candidates, only Edwards has ruled out further development and extension of nuclear power while Obama and Clinton have said they would support more nuclear plants but only attached to a series of broader environmental incentives. The pro-environmental Friends of the Earth recently endorsed Edwards because of his anti-nuke position.
Taking place literally next door to the campus of UCLA, the debate attracted very few students as the middle-aged and elderly seemed to dominate the audience.
Among the many organizations con-sponsoring the forum was the League of Conservation voters, whose endorsement is usually considered a prized catch for any presidential campaign.
The Saturday morning debate lacked nearly all of the pyrotechnics that marked the televised confrontation Thursday among the Democratic candidates who converged on Las Vegas for a CNN-sponsored forum. More than 4 million viewers watched a virtual slugfest in which Hillary Clinton responded to criticism from rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards by accusing them of "throwing mud...right out of the Republican playbook."
Today's environmental forum, however, generated little media attention and went mostly un-noticed by the general public. Several reporters covering the presidential race seemed unaware of the event until the last moment and later criticized its organizers for poor outreach and promotion. The debate started almost an hour behind schedule.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Vice President Al Gore are meanwhile trying to organize their own bipartisan presidential debate on energy and climate change for next month in New Hampshire. Reports say they want the event to take place before the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses scheduled for January 3. With two such high-profiles organizing the December debate in a key battleground states, it's likely that, in contrast to today's event, most if not all the major candidates will agree to attend.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't get Clinton supporters. Whenever, her record of taking money from big business lobbyist and support of big business that point is never countered with proof that she's not. The Clinton supporters usually respond angrily with accusations of personal attacks. Even Hillary doesn't argue that point but instead deflects the blow and changes the argument to make her the victim. The fact of the matter is we don't have to prove it because the facts a matter of public record. If she's not another corporate drone the burden of proof should be on her to prove it. After all she's the one who wants to be president and we have the right to know if she will serve us or her corporate masters if elected.
Also, she voted for the war and still doesn't think it was the wrong thing to do. I still don't see how this isn't a show stopper for every true Democrats. One of the biggest problems I have with the current administration is the war!
Also, being married to someone does not make you qualified to perform their job. Would you let the wife of a surgeon operate on you just because he used to be a terrific surgeon? Hillary is not Bill no matter how much you may want her to be. Would she even be considered a serious candidate if it were not for Bill.
The media would like you to believe that Hillary is a done deal. However, don't forget the media being big corporations have vested interest in who becomes president as well. After the pile of crap they sold us in the run up to the Iraq war you should aways look to the media with skepticism at best.
You should be casting your vote for the person you thing can lead this country in the new direction that we not only long for bug deserve after 7 years of hell. Hillary has too much baggage, owes too many favors and serves too many masters to be a catalyst for change.
I dislike Hillary and her campaign. They are smear mungers. Something is wrong with America if we put these clowns back in the White House (Hillary & Bill).
I think all these Hillary haters are repugs in liberal clothing. She is far from a megalomaniac, her power is not delusional. There is no evidence she will completely bow to corporations but they are a fact of life and she has to work with them. Edwards stance would be an economic mistake because you can't suddenly change the whole ball game, and Americans work for corporations. The mere fact of a democratic congress will curtail corporate excesses. I think she will be a better and more principled president than her husband and I wonder weather her influence made Bill as good as he was. Just think of how much Bush was liked in 2000 and how he said he'd be a uniter. Seems like the bashers have been watching too much Fox Noise. PS the word "uniter" is not even in the dictionary! Anyone who can weather the constant slime hurled at her has the mettle to be President.
Audience was mostly "middle aged and elderly."
Hmmm.... Isn't that the primary American voting block? I wonder who they would end up voting for as the "Idea Of Hillary" begins to sink in?
And who are the young and "newbie voters" excited about these days?
I repeat: Hmmm....
Edwards and Obama Supporters should picket CNN to let them know the viewers are aware that the debate was slanted towards Clinton
The hecklers were right. However, the issue should not be isolated and we should not forget that these candidates as well as the audience have been silent in defense of the foreign born. If Clinton and company will not defend human rights, how can we trust them to defend the environment?
I just saw the Late Edition interview with John Edwards and am more convinced than ever, that he should be our next President.
Hillary calls herself a centrist but in reality, she is a corporatist. Voting for her will be voting for more of the same and America needs real change!
Populism is the cure for the cancer of BCBCB corporatism.
A new broom sweeps clean. We need a new broom in Washington. OUT WITH THE CLINTONS, THE BUSHIES, and all the other hard-core Washington insiders. Washington needs a fresh wind to blow through the White House. Hillary Clinton is just more of the same old politicking. Look at how much attention she has managed to garner through the very cooperative mainstream media...in
Not being in Iowa this debate was one of the first times I got to hear these candidates speak uninterrupted for more than 60 seconds without some inane gottcha question. Not every forum requires heat. I very much got a sense of the differences between these candidates. I always tend to agree mostly with Kucinich but felt his presentation was high on passion and short on specifics. Hillary's was filled with good specifics but delivered in a rather perfunctory way. Edwards was excellent combining details with passion in a well delivered presentation. I have to go to Youtube and the candidates websites for more of these types of clips. You get appallingly bad coverage on TV. It's all horse race and who tripped up on two words on a particular "debate". Go to ChrisDodd.
I agree. I was at the forum sitting in the audience. First of all I think the title of this article is misleading. It suggests that many people were heckling Hillary when in fact there was just ONE person who shouted out for a minute during her segment. She did not flip out out or anything but just continued on through most of his shouting before she finally made a comment. The whole thing was over with in 90 seconds.
I personally see no benefit in heaping criticism on any of the three who showed. Give them all credit for showing up and participating (out of over a dozen candidates from both parties). All of their ideas are positive and welcomed. The important thing is that we are all talking about it now as an election issue. It is on the table. That is more than I can say for the Repubs. We should be commending all candidates that view this as critical as it is. I have not decided who I will support yet however I think they all were impressive - including Hillary. It seemed to me that she was the most specific in what steps she would take where Kucinich was pretty vague (but it all sounded good!) and Edwards was somewhere in the middle.
Check your positions out with the Republican candidates. Ask Romney about a position dear to you and he will agree with you until he speaks to the next guy; ask Huckabee and he will consult the Bible on the matter and get back to you; ask McCain and he will say, my friend, you need to follow the course set by the Commander-in-Chief; and ask Guiliani and he will distract you with 9/ll talk, until Kerik comes to knee cap you.
It is useless that you found something negative to report on Hillary Clinton because you do not seem to have realized that it is all over. I am not saying that this is good. I am saying that you should get into reality.
A previous blogger, I see, has described Hillary as "a lobbyist-juggling shill for Big Business", and no doubt somewhere in his or her screed, is the charge, explicit or implicit, that she's a war-mongering capitalist tool, too. That - and oh, the horror! - "she lies." Thank God, then, then Dennis Kucinich is in the race, and the 1% of the population who agree with him, have a candidate. The rest of us, less ideologically pure and far more realistic about what is possible in an evenly divided electorate, need to win in 2008. Hillary will do fine - but expecting any democratic candidate to win as a Swedish Socialist, is just delusive. And don't tell the people in Iraq, or New Orleans, or anyone concerned about the Constitution, that a Clinton in the White House is the same as a Bush...
I think the Democrats are missing a prime opportunity to nominate a true progressive, such as Kucinich or Gravel. I think either of them would win in a landslide, because then there would be a clear difference between the parties, something we rarely get anymore.
I'm no Hillary fan, but I'd vote for her over that weasel Guiliani or that blockhead Romney. I think she will change when she gets in. Let's be hopeful. Can anyone here honestly bear another Republican?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
