Ugggggghhh … It’s really a shame, because Obama is plainly very charismatic and bright, but I really can’t consider him seriously for the nomination at this point. He’s just whiffing so badly and unseriously on the two issues I take most seriously: Global warming and health care.
Look, if you’re saying the words “CO2 reduction” and “coal” in the same sentence … well, you better have a reaaaallly good story to tell. But read this post from the enviro-website Grist, Get a load of what Obama’s peddling: More government support and subsidies for Coal-To-Liquid technology that provides hardly any less CO2 emission than gasoline. Great, huh?
This is from the LA Times article to which Grist refers — I love a nicely pointed juxtaposition of facts, don’t you?
Obama, who is sponsoring separate legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions, said his support for coal fuel depended on finding a way to remove the greenhouse gases emitted in production.
“If it is used simply to compound the problem of greenhouse gases, then it’s not going to be a credible strategy,” he said.
The bill does not require that the fuel be produced without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, though it does offer tax incentives to encourage the use of technology that captures carbon dioxide.
So, he’s not going to mandate that the fuel be made without greenhouse emissions, but he’ll provide incentives. And that’s good enough for him? I’m sorry, Barack, but that’s pathetic. You really just don’t seem to get it.
Now, regarding health care, it’s nice that Obama promises “universal health care by the end of his first term”. Sounds nice, and it’s great that we’ve come so far in the acceptable rhetoric, even since 2004. But what’s he got?
In his book, The Audacity of Hope, and in a series of speeches and public events Barack Obama has outlined specific principles for providing affordable and comprehensive coverage and for improving quality of care and reducing of costs for everyone. These include tackling medical inflation and spiraling health care costs, developing new mechanisms to extend portable, affordable coverage, and reforming health care delivery so that it emphasizes prevention and efficiency.
However, every election year, people offer comprehensive health care plans, and they never go anywhere. They die in Washington. So one of the things Barack Obama wants to do in this campaign is not only roll out policy plans, but also build a real movement for change.
As a first step, Barack Obama wants to hear from you. He is hosting a series of community discussions around the country … [zzzzzzzzz]
A better sleep aid is not available without prescription, folks. He’s going to “build a movement for change” … by not saying anything substantive. Somehow he’s going to get universal health care without making anyone mad.
[Obama] has no plan, but he is going to be conducting roundtables! A new kind of campaign, with a new kind of table. Roundtable is his answer to just about everything.
A Swampland correspondent paraphrases one exchange:
Karen Tumulty: Will you need to raise taxes?
Obama: Did you not hear me? THESE TABLES ARE ROUND.
Yeah, he’s a smart, charismatic guy, which is better than dumb and off-putting … but what else? Is this leadership? Or does it sound like garden-variety pandering and obfuscation?
Barack — time to fix it. (Please, tell me I’m being too harsh.)
Barack’s a grown-up, he can take it.
<
p>
As it stands now, Obama’s campaign has not impressed me with detailed policy proposals. I recall Deval’s campaign had lots of detailed wonky stuff on its website by February or March. This is a pity, because it’s clear that Obama’s campaign has been adopting many characteristics of Deval’s, but they dropped the ball on this.
<
p>
I think one important success for Deval was having his proposals online early, before Reilly, to help win over high-information voters who would doubtlessly have already been familiar with the more famous Reilly. I don’t think high information voters were THE factor in his win, but if one is an underdog, it won’t pay to ignore them.
Patrick had his stuff on the website by the fall of ’05. And yes, it definitely made him more credible.
And I suppose tipping your “plan” too early just opens you up to attack, especially on health care.
<
p>
I’m not a Obama cheerleader by any stretch, and I’m really frustrated with his coal policies. Not surprised given his Illinois roots (see Schweitzer et al in Montana), but it’s still irksome.
<
p>
Still, I’m not so worried about it. Any Democrat will be so much better for environmental and energy policy than any Republican that I’m more worried about winning the POTUS with a Dem than who that Dem is w.r.t. environmental issues.
<
p>
Besides, a more environmentally friendly Congress will do far more good methinks. Environmental regulation hasn’t been ratcheted up much in the past 25 years, and Congress can have lots of teeth there.
who needed a website to lay out their great healthcare plan, rather than needing a healthcare plan to put on their cool website.
<
p>
(minor kudos to edwards, however)
His site is detailed.
His site outlines all the nice things that a plan might address, if he had a plan.
I dont see this as any different than Hillary’s “conversation with America” and her lack of specifics on the issues, also at this stage in the game its good not to have specifics, better yet I feel he can retain a series of general goals through the general election, remember when Bill Clinton outlined his entire health care plan in the primary? It gave Congress and the lobbyists plenty of time to come up with a way to kill it and it died. I think it is far safer, especially because we don’t know for certain what Congress the next President will have, to say I will get this done but the specifics will be worked out in the legislative process.
<
p>
Edwards plan is very specific, too specific in fact since he acknowledges raising taxes which as President Mondale can tell you is a brilliant electoral strategy (oh wait he didnt win!) and if any one of those specific goals fails than it looks like he broke a promise.
<
p>
Obama represents new, flexible, truly bipartisan leadership, Bush got nothing done not because he is a conservative but because he was a stubborn leader, hell he is the only one still really believing in Iraqs success, and frankly I feel Hillary or Edwards could be a Democratic Bush, and we don’t need another partisan divider we need a real leader.
<
p>
On coal I believe Obama and Schwietzer both support this to make America energy independent so it would work at doing that, but the refining process is even more polluting than a conventional oil refining process, clean coal is a myth and I definitely think its a bad call, especially because as a Presidential candidate he doesn’t need to brag about pork to his state.
Let me start by saying that I have no idea who I am going to support in the Democratic primary race. I would like to like Obama, but I just can’t seem to come around. Jconway, you talk about Obama as a new, flexible bipartisan leader (and I have heard many other Obama supporters use similar language). My question is, where are you getting that from (besides Obama saying it)? It actually sounds a lot like Bush in 2000 (where he touted his work with Democrats in Texas as Governor) and we know how that turned out. Where is Obama’s major bipartisan legislative achievement that he can point to? Where are the examples of his new, flexible leadership? I want to like the guy, but there seems to be not much there beyond slogans and one good speech back in ’04. I worry that the hype is more than the substance can sustain and if he’s the party’s candidate, that will catch up to him and we’ll be screwed in ’08. Maybe I am missing something (and if I am, I would love to know what), but I just don’t get this whole Obama thing.
Obama worked with Senator Dick Lugar on securing an actual threat to American security by going on an inspection tour of Russian and former Soviet nuclear facilities to see firsthand how inadequate some of the facilities were and how untrained the workers were. After that trip he and Lugar drafted and co sponsored a bill that gave money to assist the Russians in securing their own nuclear forces and instructing the International Atomic Energy Commission to inspect the facilities. It won broad bi-partisan support and will do far more to secure America than typical anti-terror legislation.
<
p>
Obama has consistently voted the right way on judges, on civil liberties, on Iraq in fact he has authored an Iraq withdrawl bill that is far more comprehensive than the official Democratic bill and a lot more passable than that version as well.
<
p>
As a State Senator he helped get landmark environmental legislation and worked with Republicans to pass stricter public health regulations. He has far more experience in foreign policy than Howard Dean did so I find the blogospheres attacks on Obama’s experience a bit hypocritical, similarly he has an equivalent amount of time in the Senate as John Edwards did when he ran for President (around four years with no prior political experience) so again this is also hypocritical.
<
p>
Lastly he has solid bi partisan credentials, those are just a few of the examples cited in his book I am sure there are far more others out there, and unlike Edwards is not running a populist campaign that will fracture the party and unlike Hillary is not a divisive polarizing candidate (with scant achievements)
<
p>
And honestly if you still refuse to support Obama on issues of experience than at least support Richardson who outweighs all the other candidates in that regard, but I am sick and tired of Edwards and Hillary supporters who quite frankly have far less experience than Obama.
Hold on there JConway. I thought it was pretty clear that I said I hadn’t chosen anyone to support yet, so don’t go jumping down my throat. Also, your answer focused a lot more on why I shouldn’t vote for other candidates rather than what makes Obama so great. Your answer relied a lot on Obama’s book too. Not exactly the most unbiased source of information.
<
p>
The one tidbit you did provide that at least somewhat answers my question is the Russia nuclear facility bill. However, while interesting (and important), it really is one of those slam-dunk bills that everyone agrees with. When most people talk about getting things done in a bipartisan way, I think they generally are typically referring to harder topics to tackle (erasing the defecit, combatting global warming, ending the war in Iraq, etc). I think it’s a stretch to cite one example, and a weak one at that, and then claim he has “solid bipartisan credentials.”
<
p>
Nothing in your post shows how he is different, why he is this great new hope. I would like to believe in the hype, but just can’t find a reason to yet.
Obama worked with Senator Dick Lugar on securing an actual threat to American security by going on an inspection tour of Russian and former Soviet nuclear facilities to see firsthand how inadequate some of the facilities were and how untrained the workers were. After that trip he and Lugar drafted and co sponsored a bill that gave money to assist the Russians in securing their own nuclear forces and instructing the International Atomic Energy Commission to inspect the facilities.
<
p>
…The USSR imploded in 1991. Obama wasn’t elected to the US Congress until (when was it?) 2004 or 2006. Are you seriously suggesting that the Russians and other former Soviet republics were unable to keep their nuclear facilities (by which I presume you mean nuclear weapons facilities; the fuel used for the nuclear power power plants–including expended rods–is largely irrelevant) for over a decade, but the material still apparently largely didn’t make it onto the open market in the intervening time period?
<
p>
The IAEA is an organ of the UN (as far as I know) and seems to be perfectly capable of conducting its business on the UN members’ dues. Provided, of course, that the US pays its dues, which, for a number of years, it didn’t–thanks largely to Jesse Helms. What would Lugar and Obama have needed to propose supplemental funding for?
<
p>
BTW, I find this dubious…
<
p>
As a State Senator he helped get landmark environmental legislation…
<
p>
given his support for coal liquefaction.
<
p>
I’m open to Obama’s candidacy, but if I were to vote today, in both the primary and the general election, it would probably be for Richardson, based on his resume alone.
Charley, you might want to read this profile of Obama from a recent issue of The New Yorker. It makes the point that he often underplays his understanding of an issue so as not to alienate his listeners.
<
p>
I must also disagree with you and others that Deval was some kind of a wonk because he put issues up on his website early on. Sure, that was a good way for people who didn’t know him to get a flavor for his views, but that’s about it.
<
p>
Don’t you remember the horrendous jabs he got from the press for not being “specific” enough about his policies? It must have been very frustrating to them because they had nothing to feed on.
<
p>
Deval appealed to voters just because he did not get overly bogged down in policy details, but instead articulated a vision of how government should be run, and how politics should be changed. “Government is US!” he cried, and people loved it. Healthcare? He was wishy-washy at best. Environment? Lots of platitudes (albeit the right ones).
<
p>
Remember, we were still close to that stinging experience in which we saw an idiot Warp Resident articulate values while our junior Senator intoned “John Edwards and I have a plan…” Spare us! Voters don’t vote for plans, they vote for values.
<
p>
I’m not committed to any candidate yet, but I do like the way Obama talks about values. Your criticism almost makes me feel better about his candidacy.
<
p>
Deval Patrick was unequivocally for Cape Wind, at a time when it (a) wasn’t popular on the Cape, and (b) wasn’t popular amongst Massachusetts politicians.
<
p>
By doing so, he sent a clear message that he was willing to take serious political flak for good environmental policy, something that only a handful of politicians have done in the past 20 years.
To claim platitudes on Deval Patrick’s environmental platform is simply to ignore his very clear, courageous, and correct he took on Cape Wind in the very beginning of his campaign.
<
p>
Is it the way he talks about values, or the values themselves, that you like?
<
p>
And if it’s the values themselves, then do you like them because they mesh with your own moral and intellectual worldview or because you think they make him more electable among voters who focus on values over policies?
First off, I’m surprised to hear from an Obama supporter that he actually knows a lot about stuff, he just doesn’t talk about it because he doesn’t want to “alienate” his listeners. I always hoped that playing it dumb so voters like you more was a Republican trick. I’m sorry he feels the need to abase himself and insult his listeners like that.
<
p>
As for his values, I’ll let the Obama himself speak…
<
p>
<
p>
(Most of the rest of the column was imploring Democrats to similarly inject God into their approach. Heck, it was a main subject of the 2004 pseech at the DNC that launched his presidential bid.)
<
p>
The above was from a 2006 column in USA Today. It meshes well with passages from his books. Despite the requisite caveats about the wonderfulness of church-state separation, it’s hard to avoid the impression that Obama wants it to be known that his values are God’s values.
<
p>
Above and beyond any other policy stumbles, it is this mealy-mouthed submission to the “God is GREAT” plank of the Republican message that makes him radioactive in my book.
Voters don’t vote for plans, they vote for values.
<
p>
…when you’re talking about president, voters don’t vote for values. They vote for personality. Or perceived personality. Reagan won in 1980 not just because of the Iran hostage crisis, but primarily because of his outburst at the first Republican debate, where the stage manager Breen (sp?) threatened to cut off Reagan’s microphone, and Reagan forcefully retorted something to the effect that “Mr. Green (there was a spelling disconnect there), I’m paying for this microphone.” That is probably the primary reason that he was elected in 1980.
<
p>
And he was re-elected, despite his administration’s insane incursion into Beirut in 1982, in which 241 US Marines were killed in one bombing, and despite his administration’s disastrous fiscal policy. Why? Morning in America. His folksy personality. It had nothing to do with values. It had everything to do with personality.
<
p>
Why was Clinton elected in 1992? It was because of his folksy personality. He was a snake oil salesman, which I figured out early on–and that’s why I never voted for him. (There are third parties.) BTW, his wife is also trying to be a snake oil salesman, but since she’s not from the South, she’s not pulling it off as well.
<
p>
Why was Bush II elected in 2000? It was personality. Gore was–and still is–somewhat stiff. Bush is a huckster of the good-ol’-boy type, despite his multiple failures. He stayed in power in party by scaring the American public, but in large part because Kerry was–stiff.
<
p>
People nowadays don’t vote for president because of plans or values. They vote for president largely because of personality.
Personality, and running against an opponent who exuded ineptness and weakness from every pore didn’t hurt.
<
p>
In 1992, Bush creating a rebellion on his right didn’t hurt either.
Personality, and running against an opponent who exuded ineptness and weakness from every pore didn’t hurt.
<
p>
That’s part of personality. But regarding Carter, Carter may have been portrayed in the media as exuding ineptnesss and weakness, but did you know that he signed the Executive Order ordering the US government to give assistance to the mujahadin in Afghanistan in their struggle against the USSR? I’m sure that you didn’t.
<
p>
Carter was stuck between a rock and a very hard place. Stagflation left to him by Nixon and Ford (exacerbated by Johnson, of course). And an Iran embassy hostage crisis that, quite frankly, can be traced back to Eisenhower’s overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, and the installation of the Shah Pahlavi, who was every bit as vicious as the Pinochet government in Chile, among other governments. When the other side has hostages, what do you do? Attack and provoke them to kill the hostages, which the hostage takers might do because they figure that they will be killed, anyway, in the attack.
…missed a “close italics” at the end of the first paragraph.
Thanks for the charmingly snide reminder though. Next time try throwing in a German non sequitur.
<
p>
Policy isn’t enough in politics. It doesn’t matter if Carter’s policies were good. Implementaion requires a sense of theater, and Carter failed miserably. Pathetically.
<
p>
In reponse to Soviet aggression, Carter (very quietly) began support of the mujahedin and (even more quietly) commenced what would later be called the Reagan military build up. In addition, he publicly smooched Breshnev, expressed open-mouth shock at the invasion, initiated a useless grain embargo (thus crippling the American farm belt for a decade or more), and told the young athletes (all of whom had realized the dream of a liftime) that we were going to punish those mean Soviets by boycotting the olympic games. In other words, he chose to project weakness.
<
p>
In response to hideous inflation and the then-worst economic conditions since the 30’s, he told the people that it was their own fault for being insufficiently austere.
<
p>
On Iran, you have a nice ability to blame every crisis on a long-dead Republican, which is a neat bit of partisan BS. Iran was (and is) strategically important, the Shah was facing revolution, and asked for help. Carter had two choices: (i) express support, and then provide it, so that the Shah could crush the revolution, or (ii) cut him loose. Carter chose (c)some of the above by expressing support, and then didn’t provide it, and then cut the guy loose. Because of the expressed support, the revolutionaries seized the embassy. Because the support didn’t come, they were able to seize the embassy.
<
p>
The seizure of the embassy was, not to put too fine a point on it, an act of war against the United States, and required a respone other than lloking worried in the Rose Garden.
<
p>
Carter is the worst (20th century) post-war President.
More government support and subsidies for Coal-To-Liquid technology that provides hardly any less CO2 emission than gasoline…
<
p>
…coal liquefaction and gasification would result in higher levels CO_2 emission than use of oil.
<
p>
Several points.
<
p>
One. One has to consider not only the CO_2 emissions from the use of the fuel, but also the CO_2 emissions from the production of the fuel, and there are indications that the total is fairly higher for gasoline obtained by coal liquefaction than from gasoline. It is difficult to believe that gasoline obtained from coal liquefaction would, when used as fuel, produce any less CO_2 emission than fuel obtained from oil, but it requires more energy (resulting in more CO_2 emissions) to liquify the coal, and then obtain the fuel, than it takes to merely refine the oil into fuel.
<
p>
I presume that proponents of coal liquefaction might defend the technology on the basis that the CO_2 produced during the liquefaction process might be sequestered, but the sequestration technology is not “there” yet. Moreover, if sequestration technology were available, presumably it could also be used for the CO_2 generated during the oil refining process, and that would probably require only a relatively minor retro-fitting of existing oil refineries.
<
p>
Two. Coal liquefaction has been used to produce transportation fuels. In Germany during the two wars, and in South Africa. Both were the result of the fact that they did not have access to oil. Germany had no oil reserves and was substantially embargoed during the wars, but it had plenty of coal. And South Africa because of the trade embargo due to sanctions regarding Apartheid.
<
p>
The US currently has access to oil, so coal liquefaction seems to be unnecessary, at least from a CO_2 aspect. From a cost standpoint, maybe.
<
p>
Three. The fact is that the US has lots of coal (so does China) that could be used in liquefaction. The problem is, digging it out of the ground. In the US, it seems to be progressively the fact that digging it out of the ground involves strip mining, even in West Virginia, with its attendant environmental devastation. This was documented in an article in Vanity Fair a few months ago, and it has been reported elsewhere. Strip mining is well known in the west, but that was the first that I read of strip mining in W VA.
<
p>
Regarding China, there was a report a couple of weeks ago in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung’s environmental series (the SZ is Munich’s newspaper of record) that more than a few miners have been killed in mine disasters in the last couple of years, which have never made it to the American press.
<
p>
Coal liquefaction is hardly a panacea, and I’m astounded that Obama would endorse it.
<
p>
On a related note, when we were in Munich, there was a TV program relating to photovoltaic panels. It seems that there is a rather active market in stolen panels. Each panel costs on the order of Euro800 (panel appears to be a meter by 2/3 meter). There were panel arrays in open fields, and even on roof-tops. More than a few of them were stolen. Even from house rooftops. I believe that photovoltaics is the way to go (nuclear, too, but that’s another subject for another day, and wind may contribute), but there needs to be a technology to protect panels against theft.
<
p>
There are tons of technologies that do this, everything from a thin metal backing panel locked with padlock to “one way” screw heads. I’d bet 1,000 times more value is stolen in bicycles than solar panels in Germany every year. Stolen solar panels is a distraction.
I’d bet 1,000 times more value is stolen in bicycles than solar panels in Germany every year.
<
p>
I have a bicycle in Germany and can attest that a good one costs almost as much as one solar panel. (Mine cost about US$600, but that was bought a number of years ago, when Germany still had the Deutsche Mark.) I have yet to hear of a bike being stolen in our little Dorf outside of Munich, but I’m sure some are.
<
p>
The German TV program I was referring to mentioned the theft problem of photovoltaic panels. They also mentioned various that several strategies exist to try to deter theft, such as you mentioned, but that none of them were particularly effective. It was somewhat odd to see ground based arrays that were missing numerous panels–the supports showed where the panels should have been. And it brought a chuckle to hear that people would actually kletter up onto the rooftop of a two story house merely to steal a solar panel. Without being noticed. NB: those two story houses are quite high and the pitch of the tile roofs is quite steep.
If only the “pandering and obfuscation” were limited to policy. Obama has long been letting people believe that he represents a different kind of politics – one that’s not cynical or combative or “small” (whatever that means).
<
p>
Maybe it’s just because I’m in Chicago – where the press has written about his deeds (his connections with indicted money man Tony Rezko, his endorsements of criminally corrupt municipal candidates like Mayor Daley and Alderman Dorothy Tillman, and his habit for voting “present” in the Illinois Senate on matters of controversy), and not just his character and values and charisma (enough already!) – that I have a sense of what a bullshit artist he is. But it’s not as if everyone from Bangor to Honolulu can’t visit chicagotribune.com or suntimes.com. Or, best of all, the Beachwood Reporter’s Obamathon.
<
p>
In an op-ed in this morning’s Tribune he touts his refusal to take “contributions from registered lobbyists.” I almost have a weird respect for Obama’s having the stones to mention this even after it’s been reported here and here that this “refusal” is actually a game in which federal lobbyists unregister themselves in order to give Obama money. State lobbyists can continue to give freely, without having to worry about wordplay.
First, Barack has been terrible on talking about the environment. Coal liquification is not a solution, and I’d never heard him really address climate change until the BU rally last month. It’s gaping hole and I have no idea why it’s there and have no excuses on this.
<
p>
That said, the criticism on health care and other issues where the meme of “not giving details” is the same as what Patrick got stuck with and it’s just as unfounded and irritating. Patrick did have an advantage: he had more time to prepare for this point by this point in the campaign (this is the major problem with a draft campaign, even with 2 years leading up to it), and was running on a smaller scale were there are specific processes going on that everyone knows of to build around. He has laid out broad ideas, and deals with issues in a professorial way, to build smart solutions to get things done. It’s about leadership and vision.
Charley,
<
p>
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, Barack’s interest in coal to liquid has little if anything to do with the environment, it’s all about serving his home state,
<
p>
“The U.S. Department of Energy has issued a feasibility study for a commercial 50,000-barrel-a-day coal-to-liquids facility in the Illinois coal basin.”
<
p>
http://www.redorbit….
<
p>
Just another pork project for his constituents.
<
p>
Kevin
PunditReview.com
Thanks for the link.
<
p>
Needless to say, that’s really, really pathetic — no less so for being so commonplace.