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
What happened to my original post?
This report doesn't do John Edwards' presentation justice.
John Edwards brought the house down in the Q&A section, and the crowd jumped up on its feet to applaud him when he was finished speaking.
Looked like he left the audience feeling good about what's possible. I'm sure he won some people over in the audience.
Grist showed you tonight how a real forum is supposed to be. All candidates were invited.
probably planted by the absent ali-bama--he was busy with his 18% backing!!!
Again, Kucinich makes the most sense in that he demands an everlasting or ongoing process to permeate the entire government as well as society in dealing with green concepts. He gets ignored by the MSM and by the Democrats because he backs up what he believes. It's time the Democratic voters to stop complaining about their spineless Senators/C
I don' give a rat's ass about hillary. It does not matter to me what she says. I am a traditional Democrat; I have made up my mind the day Obama announced that he would run for president to support him and nothing she says can change that. Guess what? There are more Democrats out there that feel the same as I do. She has nothing to offer.
Obama 08!
It only takes driving the speed limit for one week and we would have ample gasoline supply.
But as you can see, if you do 60mph you would save 20%, do 55 mph and you save 25%.
But the people with no money push the pedal to the floor though they don't where the next fill up is coming from without having to hock something.
This report doesn't do John Edwards' presentation justice.
He brought the house down. He came out to tepid applause, and when he finished the crowd jumped up on its feet and applauded as he left.
If there were any undecided people in the audience, he probably won them over, he was that good tonight, during his Q&A segment.
"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.
....Where'
The Clintons didn't do anything about the crisis during the first eight years. It is too late to give them another eight years and the chance to nothing again.
Pesky people, wanting to end the war.
Nice to see Hillary taking a page out of Bush's book by having anyone who disagrees with her arrested. Nice fascist touch!
KEEP IT UP KEEP TRYING TO BRING DOWN CLINTON WHO IS A MODERATE DEMOCRAT,BUT IS A DEMOCRAT AND YOU AS WELL AS THE HUFFPOST WILL GET A REPUBLICAN FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT.
It's true that was is anti-environmental but on the other hand with Republicans we get war and pollution and the epa might as well not exist except that it is one more way to funnel money to Texas. It would be nice Republicans they got the same protests.
Do you really believe her when she says she is going to stick it to the oil companies? She gets most of her campaign MONEY from corporate lobbyists. She is not trustworthy because____
Hillary and the DLC backed Lieberman,
Until she felt the heat and wielded out of all out support.
She voted for the War and continued funding of it.
She voted for the Patriot Act. TWICE
She voted a NV for the Credit Card and Banking Bill which Equaled a Yes in a Republican Congress.
She voted for the REAL ID ACT.
She would renew NAFTA.
She is a Corporatist.
She is not a Democrat.
She is part of the problem.
NO MORE CLINTONS
NO MORE CLINTONS
NO MORE CLINTONS
Hillary ought to ignore extremists like those she confronted in this case, because they deserve little more than to be spat on.
I am tired of voting for people I do not trust and people who look down their nose at me.!!! IF OBAMA DOES NOT GET THE NOMINATION. I WILL PENCIL HIS NAME IN AND VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY. "IT IS BETTER TO DIE LIKE FREE SPARTAN THAN LIVE FOREVER AS A PERSIAN DOG!!!!!" - UNKNOWN GREEK WARRIOR. OBAMA IN 08" THE REST OF YOU CAN GO HONOR YOUR LIBERTY, FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS AS YOU SEE FIT!!! THE DEMOCRATS NEED ME I DO NOT NEED THEM!!!
I respect Edwards for using the "sacrifice" word. I'm tired of hearing only of plans that are so timid that we could do them tomorrow, instead of phasing them in over ten years, because their goals are basically pretty modest.
It's also true that energy conservation serves to enhance national security, and maybe is even more important for this reason than for it's abundant environmental benefits. I think any person willing to be honest would admit that we could, on a whole society basis, use 10% less personal transportation fuel without doing any more than reducing the level of waste. Here's a proposal. Let's calculate what that 10% number translates into in real world terms, and simply issue enough ration coupons to each person so that we maintain that goal. Maintain for a year or two, that is, and then steadly cut back from there. Allow a secondary market for coupons, and the problem should largely sort itself out without noticeable consequence unless we don't really have that much waste in our daily lives. Anyone care to argue that we don't?
Reducing energy usage would be a clear plus from this, but it would be the opening salvo in a battle against OPEC, and OPEC would perceive it as such. So would the rest of the world and the price of oil would go into freefall so quickly and so steeply that we would probably even have to step in and help prop it up at some appropraite point.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
