Clinton outlines $150 billion energy plan
Cutting reliance on oil imports helps climate, economy, security, she says

By THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

November 6, 2007

Cedar Rapids, Ia. – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Monday laid out a sweeping plan that she says would move the U.S. economy from petroleum-based to renewable energy, and turn back global warming in the process.

The 10-year, $150 billion proposal includes a long list of specific goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent and raising automobile fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2050.

It would require sacrifice on the part of the energy and auto industries and all Americans, akin to overcoming the Great Depression and winning World War II, the New York senator said at a plant where wind-energy turbines are manufactured.

“The task before us commands the same urgency and demands the same resolve. Tackling the energy crisis is the calling of our time. And when I’m president, it will be the calling of our nation. And it will involve all of us,” Clinton told an audience of about 350 at Clipper Windpower, including area Democrats and Clipper employees.

In rolling out the majorpolicy plan, Clinton tied the need to reduce U.S. reliance on imported petroleum and carbon-based fuel in general as beneficial to the climate, economy and national security.

Among her plan’s other goals are to cut U.S. oil imports by two-thirds by 2030, increase the energy coming from renewable sources to 25 percent by 2025 and spur the development of 5 million clean-energy jobs within 10 years.

It would also offer U.S. automakers a trade-off of $20 billion in bonds for updating plants to accelerate hybrid vehicle production, in return for the sharp increases in fuel economy standards. Likewise, Clinton proposed tax credits to consumers who purchase hybrid electric vehicles of up to $10,000.

“I believe that America should do what we do best, lead the innovation race,” she said, likening her proposal to President Kennedy’s call in 1960 for a round-trip, manned lunar mission.

Some energy policy experts described Clinton’s proposal as ambitious and within reach, but not necessarily an easy sell in Congress.

“Is she going to roll this up into one bill and drop it on Jan. 21, 2009? I think not,” said Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress, a Democrat-leaning policy group. “A lot of this is politically doable, but not instantly.”

Other Democratic presidential candidates to offer comprehensive energy proposals are Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Weiss said two things distinguish Clinton’s plan from the others. One is the level of detail in how it would be implemented, he said. The other is the provision to create a strategic energy fund, a $50 billion federal account made up of fees assessed to oil and gas companies and discontinued tax breaks to those industries.

This fund would help prime the renewable energy industry through government investment in energy efficiency, clean-coal technology, ethanol and other renewable fuels.

The remaining costs of the proposal would be financed through dedicating savings from closing loopholes for oil and gas producers and dedicating a portion of revenue from a cap-and-trade program.

The cap-and-trade provision involves allowing companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions to sell the credits they are granted for producing such pollutants. The proceeds from the system would be used in part to finance a program to help low-income Americans heat and cool their homes more efficiently.

Dodd, who has proposed taxing companies based on their greenhouse gas emissions, criticized Clinton’s plan as not going far enough to require industry to rein in its contribution to global warming.

“I don’t know how it would do in a public poll, but leading experts agree that a corporate carbon tax targeted at polluters is needed to reverse the effects of global warming,” Dodd campaign communication director Hari Sevugan said.

Another key element of Clinton’s plan is the establishment of a national energy council, led by a Cabinet-level national energy adviser, as a top adviser to the president.

I am afraid in the end with all these pile ons, we might end up with a candidate who has never been tested with adversity and a ton of negative coverage from the press. On her best day, Hillary gets the same amount of positive coverage that BO gets on his worst day.

You need to look at the video of howard fineman interview with Obama on the front page of Newsweek. It looks like Sean Hannity interviewing dick cheney. Throwing softballs to go and take a swipe at the Clintons. Fineman, Alter, Matthews all cut from the same cloth. Dishonest journalism at its best.

Colbert, the host of Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report,” saw his hopes to be placed on the primary ballot ended last week when the South Carolina Democratic Party executive council voted 13-3 to block his bid, with the majority of voters saying he was not a viable enough candidate to be included in the primary.

At least one member of the executive council, who requested anonymity, told CNN he felt “pressured” by former State Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum to oppose Colbert from being placed on the ballot.

Tenenbaum is a high-profile supporter of Obama. Her endorsement of Obama in April was touted by the campaign, and she has appeared at several Obama campaign events, including the opening of one of their campaign headquarters this summer. Obama campaigned for Tenenbaum in South Carolina when she ran for Senate in 2004.

“She said it wouldn’t be fair to the other candidates. That he [Colbert] wouldn’t be sincere. That he was only running in one state,” said the executive council official.

The official added: “The Obama people, they just didn’t want him at all.”

Tenenbaum disagreed with the characterization that she lobbied to keep Colbert off the ballot for political reasons.

“I think lobbying was too strong a word,” she said in an interview with CNN. “I called them to see what they were thinking, and if they had made up their mind. I am a volunteer in that campaign, and so I am not a staffer. And I thought it could have taken votes away from a lot of people.”

Another Obama endorser who regularly appears at campaign events, state Rep. Bakari Sellers, also made phone calls to members of the party’s executive council about Colbert, according to Sellers.

“I placed the calls as a concerned Democrat, realizing that we are a country in despair,” Sellers told CNN. “It is not a time for games or to make a mockery of the process.”

Given the lopsided vote of the executive council against Colbert, it’s unclear if the calls had significant bearing on Colbert’s fate as a bona fide presidential candidate.

But the calls raise questions about the Obama supporters’ motives, given their close ties to the campaign and the fact that Colbert and Obama both draw support from a similar demographic.

“A lot of Obama’s support is among younger, college-educated folks, and a lot of Colbert’s watchers are younger, college-educated folks,” said Scott Huffmon, a political scientist at Winthrop University.

“I understand that Obama might potentially lose some voters,” said Huffmon, who also noted that having Colbert on the ballot would likely bring in new primary voters rather than take them from other candidates. “But in a race where every vote counts it’s a valid concern.”

The Obama campaign denied any connection to the phone calls.

“Democrats in South Carolina, including supporters of ours, had strong feelings on both sides of the ballot issue and ultimately it was South Carolina Democrats who made this decision,” said Obama’s South Carolina communications director Kevin Griffis.

According to members of the executive council, Tenenbaum also called council member Jim Lander, the former South Carolina Comptroller General, as well as another member of the executive council who refused to be identified but said he was confident Tenenbaum was not calling on behalf of Obama’s campaign.

The party officials called by Sellers did not return calls from CNN.

Tenenbaum said her quarrel with having Colbert’s name on the ballot was pragmatic rather than political. In deciding which candidates to allow in the primary, the state Democratic Party also had to consider that for every name on the ballot, they would have to pay $20,000 to the state election commission.

“The whole thing is just the money,” said Tenenbaum, who said she is currently fundraising for the party. “He did not meet the criteria … It’s all in fun and let’s just leave it at that.”

According to state party rules, for a candidate to be placed on the ballot, he or she must demonstrate national viability as well as spend time campaigning in the state.

The three members of the executive council who voted in favor of putting Colbert on the ballot were state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg; Charles Hamby, former chairman of the Oconee County Democratic Party; and Lumus Byrd of Laurens County.

The Columbia-based lawyer who represented Colbert in his bid to be placed on the ballot, Dwight Drake, is a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Drake has told CNN in the past he was initially contacted directly by Colbert’s surrogates to assist in the comedian’s bid.

As for Colbert, he issued a statement late Monday declaring that his campaign is officially over.

“I am shocked and saddened by the South Carolina Democratic Executive Council’s 13-to-3 vote to keep me off their presidential primary ballot,” Colbert said. “Although I lost by the slimmest margin in presidential election history–only ten votes–I have chosen not to put the country through another agonizing Supreme Court battle. It is time for this nation to heal.

“I want say to my supporters, this is not over. While I may accept the decision of the Council, the fight goes on! The dream endures! … And I am going off the air until I can talk about this without weeping.”

– CNN South Carolina Producer Peter Hamby

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/06/obama-supporters-pressed-democratic-party-officials-to-keep-colbert-off-ballot/#comments

.

He’s getting beat-up over this. It’s always the little things that kill.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/06/obama-supporters-pressed-democratic-party-officials-to-keep-colbert-off-ballot/

Hmm, perhaps Barack Obama’s campaign isn’t above doing a few underhanded tricks. CNN reports that key Obama supporters in South Carolina lobbied the state Democratic Executive Council to keep the one true American in the race, Stephen T. Colbert, off the ballot.

“The Obama people, they just didn’t want him at all,” said one anonymous council member, who claimed to have been lobbied by former state Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum, who has endorsed Obama.

“I think lobbying was too strong a word,” Tenenbaum told CNN. “I called them to see what they were thinking, and if they had made up their mind. I am a volunteer in that campaign, and so I am not a staffer. And I thought it could have taken votes away from a lot of people.”

Had Colbert made it to the ballot, he may have attracted the votes of college students who would otherwise have gone for Obama.

It’s playing the race card par excellance.