What I saw at Saturday's Los Angeles presidential forum on the environment was a strong and competent Hillary Clinton taking the most far-reaching positions on global warming and climate change Americans have ever heard from a front-running candidate. Eight years after an election stolen from Al Gore, the hunger to catch up with the world was palpable in the audience of 1500 Democrats and activists. The Clinton platform included:
Reducing carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; raising fuel emissions standards to 55 mpg by 2030; a national energy council like the council of economic advisers; and a hint that Al Gore will find his voice in the next Clinton Administration. She projected the front-runner status she holds nationally, and her environmental positions were too strong to be dismissed by Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, the other two candidates present, as merely warmed-over Beltway centrism.
Bu there is a very serious four-letter word threatening Clinton's impressive campaign.
Iowa.
The coming caucuses in this otherwise quiet state are the vortex of the Democratic Party's grass-roots left-of-center insurgency against Democrats who supported the Iraq War and NAFTA. That would be Hillary Clinton and her husband. It's not Anbar province, but it's the hottest center of anti-war resistance that can make an early difference in 2008.
There is little defense industry in Iowa, so few military jobs are at stake among Democrats who vote in the caucuses. AIPAC has little clout. Economic stagnation leaves bitterness towards NAFTA-style trade agreements. It's easy to see why most Iowa Democrats would be cautious about sending the Clintons back to the White House.
How else to explain Hillary Clinton's anemic 25 percent showing among Iowa Democrats after 25 trips to the state and her expenditure of $1.9 million to air 3,191 television commercials? [data from NY Times, Nov. 18] That means that three-quarters of Iowa's Democrats must have uneasy feelings about Clinton and her husband's legacy.
By comparison, second-place John Edwards stands at 23 percent, with a favorability advantage of 73-59 over Clinton. Edwards has only spent $600,000 on 627 tv spots, which means Edwards would be leading if his finances were on a par with Clinton's.
Barack Obama has a healthy 22 percent with a favorability rating equal to Edwards, but has spent by far the greatest amount on television: $3.1 million on 5,640 spots.
Clinton still leads, definitely can grind out a victory, and can perhaps even pull far in front of her competitors, by doubling her Iowa spending, sending in thousands more volunteers to knock on 50,000 doors, and scheduling herself and her husband, the former president, to endless tiny meetings begging for votes in Iowa kitchens. From Iowa she should be able to win New Hampshire and, whatever happens in South Carolina and Nevada, amass a substantial lead via television spending in the 20 state primaries February 5. Even if she loses Iowa, she still has the resources to gain the nomination in such a front-loaded primary season.
Or maybe not. If Obama or Edwards voters shift to the anti-Clinton candidate they perceive as most electable, that candidate might win in Iowa. If several of the lesser candidates threw their support to Edwards, he might prevail in Iowa. More specifically, if supporters of any candidates getting less than 15 percent in the caucuses switch to Obama or Edwards as their second choice, one of them might win. Richardson, Biden, Dodd or Kucinich could impact the outcome by endorsing Edwards or Obama.
At this point, Edwards seems to have the greatest chance to slow Clinton down and at least extend the primaries' competition, especially with an infusion of money. He has spent the most time in Iowa of any candidate. He smartly apologized for his 2002 Iraq vote, moved to the left on NAFTA, health care, labor and poverty issues, and describes both parties as corrupted by corporate influences. Listening to Edwards is like hearing someone from the Campaign for Economic Democracy in its California heyday in the 1970s. His positions may be to the left of the electorate generally, but they resonate now with the experience of enough Iowans to win one-third of the caucus vote. Some of those voters may calculate that a vote for Edwards in January will stop or at least slow down a premature nomination of Clinton before more Democrats nationally have the chance to make their own evaluations.
Obama is not to be discounted in Iowa, partly because he has sufficient funding to "introduce" himself by way of house meetings, radio and television. But while Edwards' differences with Clinton over Iraq, Iran and trade are sharply defined, Obama's quarrel is becoming a more subtle one over style.
Kucinich appeared at the LA environmental event dressed in earth-tones, and began his remarks by extolling the modest size of his Cleveland home, his fuel-efficient car, and his vegan diet. He has gained a grudging respect in many quarters for his early opposition to the war and NAFTA and for his proposals for a Department of Peace and a Works Green Administration, but the Kucinich campaign proves once again that electoral politics is about more than issues. The danger for Kucinich and his followers is that they could become more righteous, even cult-like, in the face of the vast tide of rejection that seems to be rolling their way. The tragic missed opportunity of the two Kucinich campaigns is the failure to invest the millions of dollars available in federal matching funds into a lasting infrastructure for grass-roots progressive Democrats in the future. Jesse Jackson, for example, was able to build the Rainbow Coalition into an effective force for many years, not just an instrument for himself, and Kucinich could have done the same. But Kucinich folded his feisty 2004 campaign at the Democratic convention, refusing to wage a floor flight or speak out against the party's meaningless Iraq platform. In exchange, he was permitted to speak to the convention. But his followers were forced to build the Progressive Democrats of America, a nationwide progressive network, on their own, without his involvement or resources.
As far as I could see, Kucinich didn't gain a single follower among the 1,500 activists who applauded and agreed with his positions at the Los Angeles event. The consciousness of most Democrats is that the times are too alarming, after eight years of Bush and the prospect of a widening war ahead, for indulging in a campaign with no promise of stopping Bush or even continuing past February.
The question is whether Democrats are ready to unify around Hillary Clinton or let the process play out further. In Iowa and beyond, the legacy of supporting the Iraq war and NAFTA is proving a heavier burden than the party elites ever expected.
Tom hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq. [Akashic, 2007]
Hillary is smart; she plays to her audience. She was in California, and she spoke about how California leads the nation on environmental issues. She invoked the name of Al Gore about 4 times. She knew this crowd - there for a forum on Global Warming, would all be proud of Al Gore's efforts to bring Global Warming to the spotlight.
As a big AlGore fan, and Gore blogger, I doubt seriously that Al Gore would want to play any role in another Clinton presidency. He seems to be quite happy and successful educating the world not just on global warming, but on our need as citizens to take back our government from the wealthy and powerful.
Dennis Kucinich is a very modest intellectual speaker, but he truly lights the room because he makes you dream that one day America can be the land of dreams again.
John Edwards is more pragmatic. John is right on when he takes on Hillary. Hillary did not succeed in getting her universal health care plan through in the past. She did support the war in Iraq, and she does continue to posture towards Iran. She does accept alot of money from big business, and I do not believe that she is not beholden to all of them.
I agree that we need to focus more on the next 8 years than we need to focus on the next 40. Because if we do not change our energy policies now, if we do not become leaders again in education and industry, if we do not win the hearts of our allies, we will not have anything to look forward to in forty years but caos.
The doctrine of the permanent majority invites the guppies to secure the most vulnerable opponant. The moran Rove's incesssant opus exhorting those who are able($) to make a value motel reservation in the closest precincts during ballot-time has obfuscated the electoral results and fleeced america from the citizenry.
Who/what will determine Iowa?
The lap-media and their masters.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/lcv/
It is interesting how Hillary eventually comes around to John Edwards positions (many months later). She is a follower not a leader.
"The Clinton platform included: Reducing carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; raising fuel emissions standards to 55 mpg by 2030 ;..."
So let me get this straight. You favor a candidate who makes you a promise about what will happen 13 and 23 years after she has finished her two terms in office.
If a junior manager told you that the solution would be really, really good after he has left the job, you would ask, as would every other reader in this forum, "That's encouraging. Now, what are you planning to accomplish this month, and this year? What are YOU doing?"
We don't need nice numbers in the distant future. We need evidence of success from hard work within the mandate. How would anyone know what will be affecting our climate (our children's climate) in 2030 and 2050? This is the kind of pie-in-the-sky (how literal is that!) politicking that keeps us boobs in trouble.
The reason you are wrong about Joe Biden is illustrated exactly by this issue. Biden tells us what he can do now -- and what he can't. That's why he will not play your role of front-runner supporter. After Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be a front runner and he will have come by it honestly.
1. Why has it fallen to Kucinich to be the only one to bring impeachment to the Congress?
2. Where have all the 60's leaders who ended the Viet Nam war gone? Why is there no one building a movement to take back our Constitution?
To answer your question: if there are sufficient caucus goers paying attention to the "substantive" issues, then YES. Otherwise, I'm, sadly, anticipating another Clinton Coronation.
Clinton may look good up against Bush in terms of the environment, but so would Attila the Hun. In fact, Clinton has repeatedly asserted that, for her, the bottom line is "fiscal responsibility" and a closer look at her policies reveals that she is primarily motivated by her responsibility to lobbyist and her own very advantaged close associates.
John Edwards, on the other hand, is gaining popularity in Iowa, as I believe he will anywhere people look at the issues. He is a populist candidate and, I believe, the candidate we need now, despite the dismissal of the main stream media and the Huffington Post.
His environmental policy has been winning endorsements from serious environment groups because of the good sense of the policy. Take a serious look at what he is saying and I think he will win your endorsement, too.