7 Days: Green Jobs, Caroline Kennedy and Rick Warren

Does Caroline Kennedy have the right DNA and experience to replace Hillary? Is Obama's choice of Rick Warren another example of the president-elect giving conservatives the visual while later giving progressives the policy?

Interview with Bracken Hendricks of Center for American Progress, Dec. 20, 2008.

GREEN: You and your co-author Van Jones argue that pushing for green jobs can help resolve both the economic and energy crises. How can a "Green Deal" do that?.

BRACKEN HENDRICKS: Well, just as the problem of global warming is staggering, the solution is equally as profound. To solve global warming means a very, very substantial program of investment. It means rebuilding the fabric of our cities, transportation infrastructure, making homes and buildings healthier and more efficient, cheaper places to run and operate, and better places to live. So, there's a whole set of very productive and fundamental investments in the economy, in communities, that can be made today that will help put us on the path to a low-carbon economy. And that interestingly can create a very substantial numbers of jobs. These "green jobs" that we talk about in the chapter of your book Change for America, and most recently in the economic stimulus program, are more labor intensive, the content is more domestic, and they're concentrated in construction and manufacturing.

GREEN: While this is an opportune time to invest more because of a stagnant economy, might it also be a problem if consumers think they may have to spend more on energy just when they have declining incomes?

HENDRICKS: This is a really important question. A lot of times people confuse climate solutions with driving up energy prices and driving up costs to consumers. That's not necessarily the case. When we talk about investing through a stimulus package and creating "green jobs" in a transition to a low-carbon economy, we're actually talking about driving down the costs of that transition. Like investing in a smart electrical grid. It's important public infrastructure, it's job creating. But it also enables consumers to realize very significant savings and it allows utility companies to avoid the construction of new power plants that would just be fueling waste. If we can dramatic ally increase energy efficiency, we can help reduce costs for consumers. Also, as we bring new renewable energy online, we're talking about a much more diverse market for energy sources and more ability to swap between systems. And we're sinking capital costs into energy systems that then, over their useful life, are very stable. So we're talking about reducing demand for coal, natural gas, and oil, so that there are fewer price spikes, less demand pressure and those costs will rise more slowly over time. And we're talking about more consumer choice. I guess one last point that's really important to remember is the price of energy is not what we care about. It's actually the bill that we pay. In California, consumers there pay some of the highest price per kilowatt for electricity in the country. But the average bill of the California family is exactly at the average of the country. Why? Because they use energy so much more efficiently because they've got smart building codes, and they've had a decade of policies that have been systematically improving the energy efficiency of buildings.

GREEN: But wouldn't so-called Cap and Trade, if correctly imposed, increase price?

HENDRICKS: It's something we have to be very careful of with a cap and trade program. Putting a price on carbon is very important in terms of the fundamental economics. We have a system right now where we have a depleteable public resource - the atmosphere - that is getting used up. We're filling it with carbon, and we can't afford to do so. The economics facing our entire economy encourage companies just to send out more pollution because it's free. We need to create better incentives to conserve and to bring new energy online. As we do this, though, any impact on energy prices will impact low-income people first, and it will effect the economy overall. So, we need to manage that impact. According to our proposal, half of the $50 billion to $350 billion revenue generated annually would go to lower income families possibly affected by Cap and Trade.

Interview audio can be found at airamerica.com

Panel discussion with Bob Shrum, Joe Conason & Mark Green

GREEN: How has Caroline Kennedy suddenly gone from the most private Kennedy of her generation to the possibly most public?

JOE CONASON: It does seem sudden, Mark in part because it doesn't seem very well-prepared. At least, in the past week, she's gone forth to meet with people upstate and ended up running away from reporters, in a way that I don't think would've happened if this had been planned a little more in advance. On the other hand, I do think that this has been orchestrated behind the scenes by some very experience political operatives, including her uncle Ted, who I believe has talked to a number of people in the Senate about this.

GREEN: Let me interrupt -- how do you know Senator Kennedy has spoken to people?

CONASON: I don't know, I'm saying it looks to me that it looks orchestrated by on high by a number of important people, presumably including her uncle, I should say. He's known to be very much in favor of this. Mayor Bloomberg, who's top operative Kevin Sheeke, has been identified as somebody who's been helping to orchestrate Caroline Kennedy's foray into this Senatorial "initiative".

BOB SHRUM: First I should say that I happen to know that Senator Kennedy is not making calls, and the New York Times had a story to that effect, and then had to run a retraction the next day. Look, I think this a more gradual process than people have understood. She spoke to the Democratic convention in 2000, her children have gotten older, and this year she campaigned across the country for Obama. I think that a lot of attention was focused this week on the episode Joe talked about, I guess it was in Syracuse when she didn't talk to reporters. Less attention was paid to the fact that two hours later in Rochester she took questions and handled them just fine, and I think people will see more and more of that. I know her, you know her, she's very smart. The one thing I disagree with Joe about is I think she actually decided this year that she really likes politics, that she really enjoyed what she did for Obama. We may lose sight of something here, which is she felt very strongly that Obama should be the Democratic nominee and the president because I think she felt very strongly about changing the country, and I think she wants to be part of it.

GREEN: Hillary Clinton had a lot of experience as the wife of the Arkansas governor and President, where she was roughed up and toughened up in public life -- and then she had a year and a half to slowly immerse herself into the political waters and seek the Senate. Caroline Kennedy has had none of that. She's at the disadvantage of never having to run that gauntlet and now she's in effect having to go from zero to 60 in five seconds.

SHRUM: But there's not a lot to criticize her for. Least that I'm aware of, and I know her very, very well. People may criticize her positions -- and she does have some very developed views on these issues with her advocacy for national health reform, which if she's a senator, I expect she'll take a lead on. Peter King says he's eager to take her on. I think he'll be collecting his congressional pension after the race.

GREEN: How would either of you characterize Obama's cabinet in terms of philosophy, quality, and range?

CONASON: Well, I would say, in those terms, it's probably the most diverse cabinet that has been assembled. I mean, even more than Clinton had and his were pretty diverse. You know, the appointment of the labor secretary Hilda Solis, who is the daughter of Central-American immigrants, who were manual laborers and union members, is a huge step forward in this country. But there's a wide, wide variety of people; Everybody from Bob Gates and the former deputy CIA director, to Ron Kirk, the former mayor of Dallas, an African-American. I mean, it is a hugely diverse group, and I think very much chosen by Obama to represent his promise to govern the whole country.

SHRUM: My view is that it's immensely talented. It's a team of rivals in terms of him bringing in people who ran for the nomination as he did. The diversity seems to have been achieved without a lot of attention being paid to it. It just sort of happened. And as we went along, people were saying "Oh yeah. That probably is the best person for that job". I hope that this cabinet, which is very broad in terms of its reach and its appeal, is a foundation that he'll use to move to big, progressive change. My own sense is that is the direction that he's moving in. I mean, when you're starting to talk about a stimulus package that could reach $800 billion or more, you're talking about really big change.

GREEN: What did get a lot of attention was Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren for the invocation at the Presidential Inauguration. Was this a shrewd reaching out to evangelicals or a political mistake by infuriating the gay community?

CONASON: I think that if you're going to do something that outrages a portion of your base, but you have your own good reasons for doing it, the very beginning is a good time to do it. Because it gives plenty of time for it to be forgotten and to be compensated by action that I believe he will take that will be pleasing to the gay community.

SHRUM: Politically this may work out in the long term. Especially if Joe turns out to be right and the new president goes on and does some of the things that he's promised to do in terms of equality. It was insensitive to do it in this way, if he was going to do it at all. I think, at least, he should've talked several people in the first place and told them it was going to happen. He didn't have to say "can I have your permission?" But telling them it was going to happen would've been a good idea, I think.

Comments

[SonofLiberty1]

It's really funny how many folks think that after a campaign is over with that "That's that".
Each victory, can and does, seed the next campaign.

Politics, like life, is a unbroken fabric.

I know how Republicans will get back in power...just look around at how all these Progressives are
"Gay Talking"....

[meko]

We don't need Caroline Kennedy to act as Ted Kennedy's surrogate. New York has a progressive legislator in Carolyn Maloney who has been carrying on the fight. http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_issues&Itemid=44

She has always been in favor of marriage rights for gays and introduced legislation so that they too were covered under FMLA. She's worked tirelessly for women's rights and reproductive choice (which is why NOW endorsed her for this seat). She's concerned herself with issues that are local to New Yorkers, which I don't really think it would be reasonable to expect a senator from Massachusetts to do.

This is the difficulty I have with the belief that "we need to have a Kennedy in the senate." The Democratic Party has a lot of progressive talent. A lot of it is female too. And yet symbolic and famous candidates are supported in back-room deals so that the people who do the work on behalf of their constituents are shut out if they don't have the right family name.

[ponderingmuch]

If Caroline Maloney can find a way to get more people to know about her and her commitment to progressive issues, that would be great.

It is only in the absence of such info that I promote Kennedy.

I keep seeing posts about Maloney, but yours is the first that even has a link,.

List her accomplishments, list her positions, promote her using details on HuffPo.

We make stars of the villains by itemizing their positions (Warren), but we do not do the same for people we support.

Go for it! Ask her to do a HuffPo post, too.

[ponderingmuch]

Although I understand the visceral resentment toward Caroline Kennedy stepping in effortlessly... she will carry on fighting for Ted Kennedy's positions.

The senate needs an ongoing voice for those positions.

Caroline does not carry the baggage on, which is fantastic, but she will carry on the fight.

Ted Kennedy's positions:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Kennedy.htm

[meko]

I find the refrain, "Let Caroline have it, it's not that difficult, she can manage it" offensive.

There are legislators who've demonstrated their abilities to serve the people in office. Why are they asked to accept Caroline's left-overs?

Because she has "the right pedigree" and "deserves it for what her family's done for this country." But this isn't an aristocracy, and the senate isn't the House of Lords.

[meko]

DNA? DNA?

Another editorial about how actively the plutocracy undermines democracy.

Only some who is wealthy can be trusted with power. Anyone who works for a living must be corrupt. Gillibrand, Moloney, Slaughter, Lowey, Velazquez - why do they deserve to be called theives? Because they didn't have the sense to choose the right parents.

Obama inspired millions of people who had never participated in a campaign to join into the democratic process. Caroline Kennedy is just another example of the cronyism and backroom deals that are designed to force middle and working class people out of power.

DNA. Maybe one of these days suggesting that commoners have no place in the senate won't be considered romantic or classy.

[gemcando06]

A Senator's requirements, ideally, should be:

A sense of ethics
A good listening ear
Available to stand and debate current policy

That's a good start.

[rich misty]

That eliminates the GOP as unqualified in three easy steps

[LaFilleEnRose]

Why is she having to run a gauntlet at all. I just was watching one of American's most iconic movies -- Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Jimmy Stewart was a political appointment -- a naive, unsure guy who ends up taking on all the elected corrupt officials. This is the very fabric of our civic consciousness. I say leave Caroline alone. When she runs later...then set up a gauntlet. But now it's just an appointment and I bet she'll be a whole lot more effective than Mr. Smith when she goes to Washington.

[meko]

The Mr. Smith comparison is hilarious. She was born an insider. Possessed of wealth, connections and fame, she's being pushed ahead of hard working people who've earned their place in line.

If her name weren't Kennedy, she'd never be considered. Appointing her would be cronyism. Mr. Smith was a movie about democracy and the common man. Not about an aristocrat benefiting from a family dynasty.

[TotoToo]

Obama should not breed intolerance by encouraging the likes of Rick Warren.

Rick Warren, who believes being Gay is a lifestyle choice that can be changed at will, is not tolerant. Jerry Falwell Lite is nothing more than a dictator. Dictators don't compromise.

[HesDanTheMan]

I wouldn't even call him "Jerry Falwell lite"...he's proving himself to be more and more like Jerry Falwell as each day goes by.

What's the difference between Jerry Falwell and Rick Warren???

LIPSTICK!

Oh wait, that's the wrong punch line....

Hawaiian Shirt! Yeah that's the correct punch line!

[apoyo]

Caroline Kennedy has politics and public service in her DNA. It's ludicrous to question her qualifications.

[larry278]

A pannel member who says I know that because the NYT said so must be classed as being among those who are sadly misinformed. Just because the NYT says that Teddy Kennedy didn't make calls in support of his niece, Carolin Kennedy, taking her Hillaryship's Senate seat is less than an ex cathedra statement.

[Benevolus]

I couldn't agree more. The NYT is wrong quite a bit these days.