The plan to completely eliminate fossil fuels, hopefully with NO expansion (and ideally with the rapid elimination) of nuclear energy, is a sound one. It is quite a feat to discuss the future of electric utilities while sidestepping the 800 pound gorilla of nuclear energy and its many mainstream as well as rightwing peddlers.

Also, we have to keep in perspective the relative hazards of natural gas and of oil and of coal in terms of 'carbon footprint' per unit of energy produced. If anyone has specific and reliable relative figures for emissions (pre-sequestration) especially of natural gas first in relation to oil (worse than natural gas but not nearly so bad as coal) and coal itself, I would really like to see it posted here, with a link. It is my impression that the difference per unit of electricity generated by state-of-the-art technology in CO2 emissions between gas and oil is at least an order of magnitude (worse for oil), and that the difference between oil and coal is yet again another order of magnitude (worse for coal). Thus for every unit shifted from coal to natural gas in electricity generation, CO2 emissions are cut by something over 90%, possibly well over that number. It isn't perfect, but as an interim step it should be kept in mind (transitionally).

Further, I note that the discussion of the great shift in electric production makes no mention of conservation. But "flat rates" (proposed in MA unsuccessfully over 30 years ago by ballot measure), if instituted nationally , with offsetting tax breaks on the basis of production or better yet, of employment by the affected industries, could radically encourage energy conservation to a degree that sources I've seen over the years say could, in a relatively few years, easily equal the existing production of electricity from 'nucular' power.

Also, we ignore transportation in the short run at our peril. It seems to me that the issue is first and foremost -- rather than talk of "junking' 300 million existing vehicles -- insuring that there is a rapid increase in the mileage efficiency per gallon for new manufactured vehicles; further, the rapid development and encouragement of such uses as metallic hydrides, which have been feasible both as an energy medium and as an auto technology (though the MSM insists otherwise) with off-the-shelf technology even 30 years ago, which can only have improved over time. (In particular, the key technological problem, cheap mass production of hydrogen as an energy source medium has recently undergone massive advances). There was an article back in 1981 which the NATION has made it hard to access, but which could well be reprinted here, called "Somebody doesn't like hy-fuel". It details how easily hydrogen could be used to run easily converted automobiles even then.

One way to rapidly increase the mileage of gasoline, as well as simultaneously encouraging alternative technologies, is a massive tax-and-subsidy scheme. I have discussed this for years at TPM Cafe and elsewhere:

First, every new car, whether imported or domestically produced, is assigned a credit of say $3000. Then, for every mile per gallon (mpg) equivalent (eg ratings for hybrids and hydrogen based upon fossil fuel and other nonrenewable usage) less than, say, 60 mpgs, that subsidy would be reduced by say $150. In this example, at 40 mpg, the effect would be neutral -- neither tax nor subsidy. But for passenger vehicles (not commercial trucks) getting LESS than 40 mpgs, especially for new SUVs, the tax would rise rapidly, with even IMPROVED SUVs paying taxes in the thousands of dollars for their gas guzzling. Consumers would be driven to the more efficient vehicles, while the rigidity of regulation (which should supplement this tax scheme) would not have to be relied upon in toto.

After the initial scheme is fully in force, it could be cranked up after 5-6 years to starting at say 70mpgs, an even higher universal subsidy (say $6000) and with an even HIGHER per gallon reduction for each mpg (maybe $300). Now, new cars getting less than 50 mpgs, some ten years from the first legislation being put into effect would pay a very steep tax -- indeed a full $3000 tax for a new car getting 40 mpgs, which today is considered highly efficient. (The time frame and figures might vary based on actual results and concrete analysis of technology -- but I am suspicious of ALL claims that this is somehow unfeasible, as that has ALWAYS been claimed in the past, and NEVER turned out to be true, while the "experts" also promised the feasibility of nuclear energy, which even now cannot be insured and for which no solution to the waste problem (let alone terrorism!) is even likely in the foreseeable future, after 30 years of protestations from the proponents of nukes.

Bottom line, as with the Commission that tried to palm of Persian Gulf War Syndrome as psychosomatic (and we don't even need to mention the intelligence estimates' manipulation in the current Iraq War), "expert" opinion seems mainly to merely be a credentialling of elite, typically invidious, agenda.

Posted at July 21, 2008 12:39 AM in response to Gore's Move

Being easy on much-ballyhooed dubious Democrat Wes Clark is hardly proof of principle. And although I have supported Obama on his decision not to be McCain's sucker on campaign finance, I do NOT think that criticizing the most RW Supreme Court since the legacy of the 20s, and maybe moreso, for being too NARROW on the death penalty, or his weakness (admittedly his ass is covered by the changes in the bill) on FISA, or his odd willingness to compromise on money to religious organizations (NOT an issue beneficial to fudge on) are good moves STRATEGICALLY OR IN PRINCIPLE.

Obama's area of greatest weakness in polls against McCain are in the area of "strong and decisive" leader. I am of the view that, including with a really personally popular progressive political figure who voted NO on the Iraq War Resolution back then (Barbara Boxer, but if not then someone else who NEVER supported IWR)
Obama wins if the election is about Republican v Democrat. If it is about whether or not a negative image of Obama as shrewd (or even not-so-shrewd) political opportunist and flipflopper, then Obama could surely lose. Obama has personal appeal that will shine through in an ideological election no less than a personal one. But McCain's direction for the US is NOT the one people want. Personally, many find McCain likeable, and the press has peddled his persona with great success and will no doubt continue to do so, unless McCain does something AMAZINGLY stupid (and even then, the press covered for W Bush, eg when he didn't even know who the head of state of India was). It is VERY telling when even the Pataki/Hillary Clinton/Bloomberg endorsing NY Times editorial board takes Obama to task for too much triangulating!

Posted at July 5, 2008 10:35 AM in response to Obama's Refusal to Guillotine--Where's the "Rush to the Middle"?

There are a number of things I don't "jive" with, but there is one thing that I've seen a lot of among Democrats who ought to know better: OVERCONFIDENCE.

Democrats are simply unused to the experience of having a nonincumbent nominee actually leading, even if modestly, in the polls. But the last time that happened was the Dukakis 88 election, which I remember vividly, living at that time in a swing state (CA, then a swing state) which in the end Dukakis failed to carry.

Dukakis for much of the May-August period was leading AND MORE HEAVILY THAN OBAMA NOW, in the polls, inspiring the VILLAGE VOICE to run a memorable cover story (about Dukakis) during the Democratic Convention: "Will he blow it?" which indeed he did. The GOP are NOT giving up this election and neither should we. A lead of 4-6 % in the national polls is hardly insurmountable, and just wait until the cries of "liberal" and "elitism" start to fly fast and thick, the Willie Horton-to-Swiftboating tradition both on and off the political radar, and of course, not that W Bush (as someone above suggested) was "elected" twice, but that he at least came CLOSE ENOUGH to being elected to steal the elections successfully.

We need to consider every possible way that Obama could lose, and more importantly, EVERY possible way, other than donating, as well as, for those in a position to, volunteering, that we, eg on the web, can help increase Obama's chances of winning in every way possible.

I remember there was, a number of years ago but since the 04 election, a "Democracy Corps" at DU -- and it was effective but for some reason abandoned. It is a model for at least ONE way that we can be effective on the web

Posted at June 17, 2008 12:48 PM in response to Since it's inevitible Obama is going to win.......

Actually, speaking as a longtime Obama supporter, I think Hillary's campaign ran very strongly, starting March 4, and at least passably up through Super Tuesday. Obama was a formidably skilled politician who never lost his cool in the face of a lot of baiting, while Hillary is not the most charismatic of candidates, and has long had the opposition not merely of the RW, but many NON-RWers (such as myself) for a variety of reasons.

This was, in the end, one of the closest primary competitions ever, as usually the person who is clearly unlikely to make it fades, sometimes to be replaced by another protest candidate, like Tsongas by Jerry Brown.

I think that, for example, Hillary Clinton would NOT be a good choice for VP, not only for the crucial reason that she was among those who supported the Iraq War Resolution, and turned against the war publicly only when it became unpopular, at least with Democrats. She also has so many negatives and such high baggage, she would pose a problem for the Obama campaign, and not just Penn.

I personally favor Barbara Boxer for the VP -- LOW negatives, LOTS of REAL experience, including in particular in foreign policy, voted NO on IWR, very broadly appealing and w/o any serious baggage AFAIK, and strong on the Greenhouse Effect, relative to most other Democrats AND Republicans. I think that she would also appeal to a variety of swing demographics, even though her home state (CA) is hardly a swing state in this election.

Posted at June 5, 2008 7:50 PM in response to Hillary's Road to Second Place (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate Mark Penn)

As you know, I have both privately and publicly argued for CA Sen Barbara Boxer. I don't know if she's being considered by Obama, but I think she'd make an excellent pick.

I definitely think there is a terrible shortage of women who have been profiled (Hillary plus two others) in a year when it seems to me (but what do I know) a no-brainer that Obama should run with a woman on the ticket. Surely Boxer and Stabenow are possibles. If carrying Florida is important (which I think Boxer could help in), then perhaps the strongest other candidate in that area, who has also been BOTH a Gov and a Sen, is Bob Graham.

Posted at May 31, 2008 9:15 PM in response to Vice Presidential Profile: Mark Warner (Fmr. Gov-VA)

...if Obama wants to place a woman on his ticket, he'd be making a grave error to make it anyone other than Hillary Clinton. Of the prominent female candidates profiled so far, it doesn't seem to me that any of them would bring more to the ticket than a Clinton candidacy would. Any other female vice-presidential candidate is probably going to come across as pandering and do little to salve the current breach within the party.

I completely disagree with this statement -- VERY strongly. I think the very NOTION that Obama
"MUST" place Hillary on the ticket, or "MUST" do so if he runs with a woman VP is what the British and the Buckleys call balderdash. First off, especially given her high negatives, lots of baggage (much of which IS her fault even though much of it isn't), and the way she and her campaign have conducted themselves this year, there are probably at least as many people who would argue that it must NOT be Hillary as that it MUST or that it MUST if it is a woman. I am one of those who argue NOT.

Since not all the prospective women have been even evaluated yet (and I think Sebelius is a stronger pick than you suggested -- and I don't think that the polls are very meaningful in a country where only a small proportion would have ever HEARD of her), it seems that it is jumping both the gun and the shark suggest that they don't bring anything to the ticket that HRC cannot bring -- when only ONE other woman has been profiled so far.

First of all, plenty of qualified women bring one IMPORTANT thing to the ticket that Hillary does not -- her high negatives and her baggage and her truly powerful inspiration to Republican and RW voters. But her UNpopularity with the right does not also mean that she is especially popular with the non-Right. Though a variety of polls, some of whom show her running more strongly against McCain than Obama, suggest she would run strongly, she has been in the spotlight, and has not been facing the kind of campaign that the GOP would surely deploy against her -- rather than Obama getting a free ride, Hillary certainly has from the most egregious Swiftboating that would likely come.

At any rate, I would be interested in a candidate bringing some OTHER things to the ticket in addition to what was mentioned above. First, Sebelius, Stabenow (who should be evaluated, in my arrogant opinion) and CA SEN BARBARA BOXER (who I favor) all bring to the ticket that they opposed the Iraq War Resolution all along -- and this is something Obama has at least pointed to as important in the primary campaign. Perhaps, being jaded and "realistic", one could say that this will not matter much to many voters, especially swing voters. But this doesn't capture the uncomfortable media dynamic of this issue being thrown in the face of the Democratic ticket -- all the MORESO due to Obama's highlighting of it in the primaries, in a way that would indeed undermine support for Obama, albeit perhaps not in ways current polls would obviously and fully show. (I also consider a point of principle AS WELL AS realpolitik).

Another thing that Hillary doesn't bring to the ticket is a particularly long resume -- and for that matter, experience running things, as governors have. Barbara Boxer doesn't have the background of an executive, but she has a VERY long and strong resume on foreign policy, with years and years of background on it in the Senate, something Obama is likely to make into an issue, and would have NO trouble using against Hillary Clinton as well as Obama. With Boxer, these pseudo-nonideological arguments are weaker, and McCain would be forced back to the position of arguing that his foreign policy approach (staying in Iraq until we win, is better). With Hillary this would also not be the case.

Barbara Boxer also brings strength on the environment (for a pol), moreso than Hillary Clinton's track record I believe, and she is charismatic. (Indeed, environment was NOT one of the strong suits of the Clinton Administration).

Stabenow in a way might be very charismatic for precisely the reasons that talking heads and wisemen might not think so -- she has a kind of appeal to the working class that Hillary Clinton (who after all is very similar to Barack Obama Obama, both graduates of Northeastern Ivy League colleges AND LAW SCHOOLS) doesn't have.

Boxer is very bright and knowledgeable and capable, so on that score Hillary Clinton does no better than she. Barbara Boxer, although like Hillary Clinton and Sebelius and Napolitano does NOT hail from a swing state, might be significantly MORE helpful in carrying Florida than would Hillary Clinton. The gestalt of the lift she would bring to the ticket, the enthusiasm among women disappointed that Hillary isn't the nominee, and her overall presence rather than lack of charisma, as well as lack of any serious baggage AFAIK should merit attention.

Some may claim she is too liberal, but voters might prefer an overall vision from the candidacy, one that will be tagged as liberal by the Repukes no matter what, with Obama at the top.

Further, the notion that running with a woman running mate would be considered pandering (no doubt RW columnists of the Krauthammer ilk will surely say so) is I think too cynical by half. Those inclined to be cynical ABOUT the Democratic ticket -- sure. But a female candidate who generates real mass enthusiasm, perhaps from different sectors of the population (possibly suburban middle class swing voters for Boxer v. working class urban and suburban for Stabenow -- as a guesstimate) will quickly put that argument into the category of "boomerang". Similarly, the notion that a black AND a woman are 'too many barriers' in one election is really stale coming right out of the oven.

I think a woman with low negatives who NEVER supported the IWR is the way to go ...

Posted at May 27, 2008 3:35 PM in response to Vice Presidential Profile: Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO)

Why not two Senators? 'inside the beltway' sounds awfully like an excuse. I have seen different effects of VP candidates on polls, but since most of the VP candidates are much less well-known, that heavily impacts how the ticket would look.

I have a criterion -- Obama should run with someone who NEVER supported (even if they didn't actively oppose) the Iraq War Resolution. Sebelius apparently never supported IWR, but I don't know about Napolitano.

I favor Sen Barbara Boxer, but Sebelius, Napolitano and possibly Sen Stabenow of MI sound interesting. I totally reject the idea of a woman on the ticket as "too much change". It's almost as sexist as the 'we shouldn't nominate a black -- b/c OTHER people are racist' meme. This year, I think a woman NOT HILLARY for VP is a matter of realpolitik as well as principle.

Posted at May 24, 2008 2:05 AM in response to Rules of Thumb for selecting Obama's VP

oops -- I forgot my first choice: Sen Barbara Boxer.

She has LOTS of charisma, is VERY unifying and enthusiasm generating, voted NO on IWR, strong on Greenhouse (for a pol), very knowledgeable and capable, would help carry FL (I know Obama doesn't need any help carrying CA), and little by the way of negatives or baggage that I know of ...

Posted at May 22, 2008 7:19 PM in response to Picking the VP: Choose The Best Debater

I would be interested in who MJ Rosenberg considers the better and worse debaters among many of the most talked of candidates. (I think it goes without saying that any candidate with, however fairly or not, has high negatives and baggage that will pull the ticket down is no good, and that means even if you consider Hillary Clinton the greatest debater since Clarence Darrow, fuggedabout it!

(I strongly think the nominee should be (a) a woman who (b) never supported the Iraq War Resolution (IWR) back when ...)

But how do the following debate?:

Gov Sebelius
Sen Stabenow
Gov Napolitano

Sen Webb
Gov Kaine
ex-Gov Warner
Wes Clark (I still don't want him ...)
Sam Nunn (same as above)
Strickland (ditto)
Gov Schweitzer

does anyone have familiarity with how these people debate one-on-one? We know Edwards is not too hot, and Richardson is pretty good. What about the others. Anyone know WHERE this sort of thing (on the web) has been evaluated?

Posted at May 22, 2008 7:16 PM in response to Picking the VP: Choose The Best Debater

Some other possible profiles for VP:

First, I have no inside knowledge of who is on Obama's short list or long list. I've heard that some of the people around him like Sam Nunn (who I decidedly do NOT favor) as well as other swerves to the DLC type Democrats (in addition to Hillary Clinton), such as Wes Clark. Clark and Nunn, though I don't want either on the ticket, should be profiled (maybe next week : ) ).

Personally, I think Obama should pick (1) a woman (not Hillary) and (2) Someone who at least never SUPPORTED the Iraq War Resolution (IWR). The latter point is key in this election, as Obama himself repeatedly noted, and would help bolster the notion that Obama stands for something (a something that happens to be quite popular right now). My suggestions include Barbara Boxer, who has LOTS of foreign policy background (just about as much as any of those either profiled or who will be profiled. (I DISAGREE with those who would suggest that the background of a general, while related to foreign policy, is really the same as or better than extensive background IN FOREIGN POLICY FORMULATION, which is what the president/commander in chief must do). Boxer opposed the IWR back when, is strong on the Greenhouse (for a pol), is a particularly knowledgeable and capable senator, very popular, very likeable, very unifying. She would boost Obama in particular (in my arrogant opinion) in FL.

Other female contenders include Gov Napolitano (who I haven't been able to determine on IWR back when) and Sen Stabenow, who voted no on IWR back when. As for male contenders, none of them I think would be as good as the top handful of female contenders (both in principle -- it's high time there was a woman not only on a ticket, but on a WINNING ticket, which is possible this year, and politically -- there will be a lot of disappointed women out there with Hillary's defeat, and a female candidate would garner not only their votes, but their active and enthusiastic support). But there's Bill Richardson, arguably the best (and politically most boosting) of Obama's competitors for the nomination. A lot of people are talking about Gov Schweitzer of MT as a political master stroke, and he also opposed IWR back when. Many favor Edwards, but I think that he did NOT boost Kerry all that much, if at all, in 04, especially in the debates. I agree that Mark Warner would be good to profile, and of course, whether we like it or not, considering Hillary Clinton as a VP choice -- both electorally and in terms of the position.

Posted at May 22, 2008 7:59 AM in response to Vice Presidential Profiles: Kathleen Sebelius (Gov-KS)