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
As crunch time approaches and we have to pick the a candidate to represent the Democratic Party(if you are going to vote that way), maybe a simple acid test will help. We don't seem to get much help from the major media or often even from the candidates themselves.
From time to time I see Bill Richardson mentioned as a vice presidential candidate and therefore would like to invite posters to say among all the Democratic presidential candidates, including their own choice, who they would pick for Vice President and why.
There is I believe, a correct answer to this question. That is, they should be the same. If your candidate does not have the qualifications and background and appeal of your choice for Vice President, then you have made the wrong choice for President. Plain and simple.
Somehow it looks like people can more clearly pick who they want for second in command than they can for first in command. All the non essential agenda items get wiped away and they finally ask themselves, who would they want to be President because they think they are the best person for the job and will be accepted by the majority of voters.
While many of these general comments about candidates are instructive, I'd like to talk about the actual debate. I watched every bit of it live and suggest that you take time to see it, if you're seriously interested in the issues involved.
Essentially, I agree with the Kos review cited by laurenc (at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/17/195115/69) -- stating that Kucinich was predictably impassioned; Clinton predictably professional; Edwards best informed and most specific; and the format fabulous. It was a great relief to hear thoughtful questions posed by people earnestly seeking information, as opposed to "news professionals" trying to make themselves look clever or lay traps. It was also illuminating to see what candidates would do with equal time -- and a shame that so few of them availed themselves of this opportunity.
The biggest difference among the opening presentations -- each 10 minutes, followed by a conversation with the three questioners -- was that Kucinich and Clinton spoke extempore (or from memory) and mainly in generalities, whereas Edwards came out with a sheaf of notes to make sure of addressing every point he meant to cover. As he was last to speak, this departure from form seemed at first a bit clumsy, but ultimately conveyed a seriousness about preparing for that particular event which wasn't seen in the others -- especially as his mastery of the material was so evident during the conversational segment.
Connections.com.com - The Dating Service For Bush & Hillary Clinton Supporters!!!
George W. Bush appealed to all the male knuckle-draggers'; Hillary Clinton appeals to all the female knuckle-draggers. Together, the Bush & Hillary supporters make, ONE BIG HAPPY NEOCON FAMILY!
Bill Maher - Connections.com.com - The Dating Service For Bush & Hillary Clinton Supporters!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSZrLls0zQ8
Tell a Hilary supporter what she really represents and they'll call you a liar and a mud-slinger. Hint: if a truthful statement about where a candidate gets her money and how she has voted makes her supporters balk and sputter and screech in denial, they are definitely supporting the wrong candidate.
Hilary's an economic conservative more focused on cutting taxes and raising pork than pushing diplomacy. There, I said it. By the way, if you attack Hilary for being a lobbyist-juggling shill for Big Business (she is, you can go ahead and look up where she gets her money on the front page of this very website if you don't believe me!!! I mean, she gets more money from News Corp. than ANY Republican candidate!) those aren't Republican talking points, they're Democratic talking points.
'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."'
That'll be a little hard to do as long as Washington is funded by the obscenely high oilco profits. Talk is cheap and money wins every time. All at the expense of the citizens.
Some of you commenters on here f-in disgust me. It is immature to be calling Hillary Clinton names like "Shillary".
Any Democrat that does not realize how great the Clinton/Gore administration was in the face of a garbage right wing republican house and congress is no Democrat at all. When the Clintons were in office we were in peace and saw amazing growth as a nation economically and in education. The Clintons set up afterschool programs for children to attempt to break the cycle of poverty. The first thing Bush did was eliminate these programs so he could funnel the money somewhere other than to help the common people. The Republicans either directly or indirecly want to turn our country back to Feudalism where the top 3% control everything.
We as Democrats need to stop bickering over who the fu*k has a weird laugh or who seems more genuine. They're all disgenuine to a degree. They are politicians. They lie because if they tell you the truth about how the world is not black and white you wouldnt vote for them. None of these issues are simple. I will vote for the candidate that will bring the best and brightest staffers into the white house. That will undoubtedly be Hillary Clinton. By bringing Bill alone she has more intelligence and clout in her cabinet than the entire fuc*in Bush administration.
As future Pres. Edwards has pointed out hillary sides and votes with the bush administration. for one example... the kyl/lieberman resolulion. Everytime her mouth opens to chide against the "bush". she contradicts .. Thus proving herself a hypocrite. I don't find any credibility in this. As soon as she is called on her crap, she yells foul. Oh sorry, I mean Mudd...Yea.. Mudd from the republican play handbook. What's wrong hillary, can't handle the truth? You can't tell it either.!
Well Edwards DOES tell the truth.
I vote for the EDWARDS/BIDEN Ticket
Together they have what it takes to turn this nightmare back into the dream of country it once was
Read Obama's full statement before casting judgement. Be unlike Hillary casting a vote with out reading the document. A least he is not a flip-flopper or a lier for that matter. She did this on stage in front of the whole country. At least Obama stands by his word. He voted this way during his time as state senator concerning safety. Have you ever got hit then the other person; one did not have a license, two do not have insurance or no training in how to drive except cut grass on people lawn that make above 100,000 a year. So with 12 million people already here what are you going to do send them all back today. Be honest that it is not going to happen. You have to do something as a Governor to protect the people of your state. The job of the Senator and Congressman and President is to control our borders. Now, Hillary change her answer 6 times. If she were taking an exam, she would have gotten a grade below 0 a possible -6. Please stick to the facts. Listen what is a said.
Dont ask Hillary important questions!!
She'll have you arrested!
Richard Elder" "The nuclear “industry” is basically a scheme to extract subsidies from the Federal Government. At this point they have already been successful in that endeavor to the tune of 175 billion dollars. Electricity produced from nuclear plants is several times more costly than from other sources, and even the hint that more plants may be built has sent uranium prices skyrocketing."
"'Clean Coal' is a public relations slogan, not a reality. The industry has successfully avoided installing even basic scrubber technology on the vast majority of it’s power plants. It is wildly unrealistic to expect that they will be willing to adopt an unproven technology for carbon capture and sequestration that would make coal fired generation of electricity more expensive than wind or solar in the future." Richard Elder
Anyone going to ask Hillary about the 10 billion for 'clean coal' she supports.
Nuclear power is also asking for billions in subsidies.
"Were you invited to speak here this afternoon?"
damn, that's awefully bush/rove/rummy like.
Bill Clinton said allowing the Chinese into the WTO would reduce our trade deficit with China and create hundreds of thousands of jobs here to supply building businesses in China. Is it time to re-evaluate this situation after Hillary gets into office? Perhaps we can wait until there is another Chinese uprising. Bush got a C in econ 101, but apparently Clinton only took a course in oral hygene.
Its all very well cheering or booing the candidates, but you might like to see how your views match the candidates policies.
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
Seems like I favor Kucinich, but I already knew that.
So Edwards voted for the War and Hillary vote for the war. I think they both did not read the legislation that was place on the table!!! Honesty is going to win this race. I must admit. I am not going to agree with every candidate, but I will not vote for a lier!!!! We already have one in the White House last time I check.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
